The pre-wrath rapture view

[JonShaff]

Do you really want to go around and around on this again? I have already shown that Ryries admits that dispensation does not a Dispensationalist make, and I can also quote Ice as saying that Darby is the Father of Dispensationalism, both of whom are in your camp, and considered leaders in your camp.

Not sure if it matters or not, but Ice is quoted as saying he is the father of "Modern Dispensationalism," to me that sounds a bit different that what you are prescribing. Just my Opinion

 

[blessedwife318]

Not sure if it matters or not, but Ice is quoted as saying he is the father of "Modern Dispensationalism," to me that sounds a bit different that what you are prescribing. Just my Opinion

I'll be honest and say to me that is a distinction without a difference, especially when coupled with Ryries quote defining what makes a dispensationalist a dispensationalist. Any one in the dispensationalist camp is going to be part of "Modern" Dispensationalism, so for them to deny that Darby is the inventor of it is intellectually dishonest.
Now I agree with DHK that history does not prove a doctrine correct, nor does lack of a long history mean it is incorrect, which means our dispensationalist on this board should spend less time trying to prove that it pre-dates Darby, and more time showing why their hermeneutical framework is the correct one from the Bible.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not sure if it matters or not, but Ice is quoted as saying he is the father of "Modern Dispensationalism," to me that sounds a bit different that what you are prescribing. Just my Opinion

It doesn't matter to them Jon they have to have a boogy man to demonize.

 

[DHK]

Now I agree with DHK that history does not prove a doctrine correct, nor does lack of a long history mean it is incorrect, which means our dispensationalist on this board should spend less time trying to prove that it pre-dates Darby, and more time showing why their hermeneutical framework is the correct one from the Bible.

To discuss the rapture properly one must look at all the related events, such as the Millennial Kingdom, Christ coming for the Jews and their salvation, the time of Jacob’s Trouble, that is the Tribulation, and Daniel’s Seventieth Week.

Dan 9:24-27

(24) Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

(25) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

(26) And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(27) And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In this scripture it is evident that the last week of seven years has not happened yet. It is still future. What has happened is the first 49 weeks or 483 years. The decree went out by the hand of king Artaxerxes (Neh.2:1-8) to go and rebuild Jerusalem. 483 years later Christ was “cut off” or he died. Note that his death was not for himself.

The context of these verses is very important. Daniel is speaking to the Jews, that is the nation of Israel, with promises and prophecies concerning the nation of Israel. This must be kept in mind at all times.

After Christ dies, that is sometime after he dies, it doesn’t say when or gives a specified time—just at some point in the future after the death of Christ, the 70th week will occur. Nowhere is it understood to be immediately after the death of Christ. The death of Christ was 33 A.D. (or as early as 29 A.D. according to some). Pentecost occurred only a few days later. It wasn’t until 70 A.D. that Titus came and destroyed Jerusalem and ransacked the Temple. This hardly suitable for a fulfillment of the prophecy in the 70th week of Daniel. But it does fit “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city…” The destruction of Jerusalem is referred to in partial fulfillment of this prophecy, not by Titus, but by his people. The prince of this people is yet to come. He will be of this people, that is a Gentile.

The city shall be destroyed along with the sanctuary, just as Jesus said it would be.

The sacrifices would cease and the sanctuary would be defiled as Christ referred to.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

--This hasn’t taken place yet. It has been prophesied by both Daniel and now, 600 years later, by Christ. But it didn’t happen in the days of Titus who simply destroyed the Temple. The Temple was destroyed but not defiled in the sense that it is describing here. There was no “abomination of desolation” that took place.

And when it does happen, who will it be applicable to?

Matthew 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

--This is not directed to me. I won’t be there. The rapture takes place first. It is directed toward Israel, the Jewish remnant that will still be alive during the Tribulation, that 70th Week. The Lord is telling them to flee to the mountains. They that are in Judea flee to the mountains. I don’t have any intention of ever being in Judea, and I doubt if most of the world will be in Judea when all of this takes place. The only people it can refer to are the Jews. The following promises are directed to the nation of Israel.

The “prince” shall confirm the covenant with “the Jews” for one week (7 years), “and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…”

--This is the antichrist yet to come. In the midst of the Tribulation he will break his promise and enter into the Temple and offer an unclean sacrifice. It will be the “Abomination of desolation” spoken of by Christ, referred to by Daniel the prophet. It indeed will be!

“and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

--If this had happened already we would have a new earth and a new heaven, but we don’t. The end has not come. “Even unto the consummation.” The consummation has not come. Nothing has been made desolate.

“and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

--There has not been a flood. The end of the war of desolations has not come. But they will. They will come at the end of the 70th week. The flood is not literal in the sense that the world will never again be destroyed by a flood. But the enemy will be destroyed with an army who shall come upon them as a flood. So the end of the world shall come when Christ shall come to make an end of the Antichrist and his enemies. He is the stone cut out of the rock without hands.

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

--He is the chief stone, the head of the corner, a stone of stumbling, a rock of offence.

He is still that rock of offense and will continue to be until all Israel comes to know Christ.

Furthermore, to the Jews these promises are applicable:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The entire 70 weeks are determined upon “THY” people, that is the Jews. The 70th week has not yet come. Some of the 483 were applicable to the Gentiles.

These 490 years are determined upon the nation of Israel and upon Jerusalem to finish the transgression, that is the transgression of Israel. Their transgression is not yet finished, and will not be finished until they accept the Messiah as their Messiah.

This entire 70 week period is determined on the Jews that this nation’s sins may be atoned for or to make an end of their sins, which has not yet happened and cannot happen until they have accepted Christ as their Messiah, which has not yet happened.

 

[DHK]

The Messiah has made reconciliation possible but Israel has not yet been reconciled because of the hardness of their hearts. That reconciliation will come in the future when Christ comes again for them. But first “Jacob’s Trouble” must take place.

Then, after the end of Jacob’s Trouble,” Everlasting Righteousness will be brought in, that is, the Millennial Kingdom. It is a literal thousand year reign on this earth by Christ himself.

--“to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

This refers to the coronation of Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords; his coronation.


During Jacob’s Trouble, the Tribulation, which precedes this Millennial Kingdom, the “Church” will not be there. She will be raptured, and will come again with Christ as is described in Revelation 19. God has not appointed his children to wrath. They will be caught up in the air just before God pours out his wrath on this present world.


1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

--The word “caught up” is the same word “rapture” in the Latin translation, “rapier,” or ruptus.

It is a biblical word. You simply must read the proper translation. Believers are raptured into the air to meet Christ there. He doesn’t come to the earth but in the clouds where the believers meet him.


This is an entirely different event than that which is described in 2Thes.1:7-9,

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

--At this even he is coming in the glory of his power taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord. The two events are not the same and cannot be reconciled with each other. One is before the Tribulation and the latter at the end of the Tribulation when He comes to defeat the enemies of the Jews and rescue and restore the Jews. His children are not appointed to wrath.


The last prayer of the Bible: “Even so come Lord Jesus,” Amen. He hasn’t come yet. God has not broken His Word. He won’t. He never fails. Christ is still coming. The rapture will yet take place. He is coming for His own.

 

[JonShaff]

Romans 11:5, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16, 23, 25 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


If you have ears to hear, let them hear...

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Internet Theologian]

Now I agree with DHK that history does not prove a doctrine correct, nor does lack of a long history mean it is incorrect, which means our dispensationalist on this board should spend less time trying to prove that it pre-dates Darby, and more time showing why their hermeneutical framework is the correct one from the Bible.

I agree with your assessment blessedwife318 with the following caveat.

DHK uses this argument as reason only to facilitate his newer theology which has its roots in the rejected Finneyism. This error has now advanced into FGT, easy-believism and etc. In other words if his decisional salvation doctrine is not very old (and old it is not) then it is OK, still biblical and is correct as, i.e. 'I know it's new(er), but I will verify it as truth because I am making the rules.'

We don't get to make the rules but should respect the works of others who have held to the orthodox teachings of the church. Those who believe they are 'old-fashioned' and are 'the true representatives' of the early NT church are making an erroneous near-sighted claim. Their beliefs are not all that 'old-fashioned' as their soteriology is fairly new to the scene.

By the way, Charles Grandison Finney held the same cavalier attitude when rebuked for his new methods in what was labeled The New Divinity. How dare any say he is incorrect just because his theology and methods were new?

If your Soteriological view is one that has been followed since the NT times and is even documented theologically from the earliest history he, among others, can now say it is incorrect because it differs from his newer position. This make ones determinations as based purely on convenience and subjectivity, not from orthodox sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3. The same can be then said about any doctrine, Eschatological, Pneumatological, Hamartiological and etc. Yours is to be cast away because it is old, his is to be accepted because it is new. It's making up the rules as one goes along.

 

[DHK]

I agree with your assessment blessedwife318 with the following caveat.

DHK uses this argument as reason only to facilitate his newer theology which has its roots in the rejected Finneyism.

First of all, most on this board would agree with me that Finney is an outright heretic. Perhaps you don't know much about him and his Oberlin theology. I have nothing to do with Finney and his theology, and to lump me in with him is just plain ignorance or slander. You choose.

This error has now advanced into FGT, easy-believism and etc. In other words if his decisional salvation doctrine is not very old (and old it is not) then it is OK, still biblical and is correct as, i.e. 'I know it's new(er), but I will verify it as truth because I am making the rules.'

Disgraceful! If you can't debate why are you here. Your answer is simply ad hominens and misrepresentations. It is full of ignorance and ill-conceived ideas or opinions.
What is the truth?
1. FGT is a movement conceived to fight the error of the type of Lordship Salvation that John MacArthur introduced to our society. Thus both movements are relatively new. My theology predates both.
2. I have never advocated easy-believism. This is your slander, your misrepresenation of others.
3. "My delusional salvation doctrine."?? To question another's salvation is against the rules. That is basically what you are doing. It is a serious offence. You are saying that not only do I know how to be saved but I don't know how to tell another how to be saved, nor do I know what salvation is all about!! Are you sure you belong here?
4. Since when is "being saved by the blood of the Lamb" "not very old" in doctrine. Are you sure you belong to this board and not maybe a J.W. board or one that has a different idea of salvation. Quite frankly I don't know what kind of salvation you do believe in!

We don't get to make the rules but should respect the works of others who have held to the orthodox teachings of the church. Those who believe they are 'old-fashioned' and are 'the true representatives' of the early NT church are making an erroneous near-sighted claim. Their beliefs are not all that 'old-fashioned' as their soteriology is fairly new to the scene.

What kind of respect have you shown in your post? You have broken most of the rules in the book!
Your teaching is in no way orthodox.
Let me paraphrase Dr. Bob Jones III:
Those who still believe in Amillennialism and post-millennialism are simply dinosaurs left over from the 19th century.
Revelation is progressive. We learn as we move on. We build on the shoulders of other Godly men who have gone on before us. The trinity may not have been aptly expressed by the early Christians, but someone eventually but it into a cogent and coherent manner that is more understandable to most of us.

By the way, Charles Grandison Finney held the same cavalier attitude when rebuked for his new methods in what was labeled The New Divinity. How dare any say he is incorrect just because his theology and methods were new?

Do I care? Finney was a heretic. It doesn't matter to me what he did.
Your argument fails. Argument by association is very weak.
Did you know that the RCC believes in the trinity. Therefore am I to assume you are a Catholic??
You are using the same argument--argument by association.

If your Soteriological view is one that has been followed since the NT times and is even documented theologically from the earliest history he, among others, can now say it is incorrect because it differs from his newer position. This make ones determinations as based purely on convenience and subjectivity, not from orthodox sound doctrine, 2 Tim. 4:3. The same can be then said about any doctrine, Eschatological, Pneumatological, Hamartiological and etc. Yours is to be cast away because it is old, his is to be accepted because it is new. It's making up the rules as one goes along.

You have done the one thing I said not to do.
Your position must be one supported by the Bible, which you have not done. History doesn't matter here. What saith the Lord? It is in God's Word that you will find the truth. If you want history then go to the RCC Catechism. It is unfortunate you cannot defend your position through the Bible.

 

[agedman]

It is interesting to me that of the last three posts by DHK in the first two he consistently showed by Scriptures his view.

Rather than taking those Scriptures and proving the view in error, some would merely express unsupported opinion and inappropriate defamation.

What, then, dear reader is bringing edification?

If a post is in error, prove it by SCRIPTURE! Show the proper rendering, and proper interpretation.

But, such discussion that relies upon defamation and opinion as if it were presenting fact is just a poor use of the web space, and leads to confusion.

 

[Internet Theologian]

With all due respect agedman my post is in reference to his philosophical views, not to any Scripture references or arguments provided. If presenting his actual methods and protocols offends you and you think it's defamation to show the methods of a person then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DHK]

With all due respect agedman my post is in reference to his philosophical views, not to any Scripture references or arguments provided. If presenting his actual methods and protocols offends you and you think it's defamation to show the methods of a person then I don't know what to tell you.

I didn't present a "philosophy." That is simply your biased opinion. I presented what I was challenged to present, the dispensational view of the rapture and backed up every point with scripture. That is something that you failed to do. What I call your post is "an attack ad." It is not worth the space to post.

Bill Bullard once said:
"Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding."

You gave your unsubstantiated opinion, full of innuendo and personal attack. That is all.

 

[Iconoclast]

(To discuss the rapture properly one must look at all the related events, such as the Millennial Kingdom, Christ coming for the Jews and their salvation, the time of Jacob’s Trouble, that is the Tribulation, and Daniel’s Seventieth Week.)



Where in scripture does it say that the time of Jacobs trouble has anything to do with a future tribulation period.

I do not see in Jer.30 any indication of that?
You and others throw that verse out there....but I do not see anyone of the Apostles saying this.

Show from this passage or a direct quote of it how you make this claim.

 

[JonShaff]

Read all of Jeremiah 30. If you think Israel being a sovereign nation again is simply coincidence (How a Calvinist could believe in coincidences is ironic) then I'd say you don't have ears to hear or eyes to see.

This is from a Jewish museum in my area....

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[JonShaff]

Romans 11:23-26 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[JonShaff]

And it is pretty fitting that Calvin, being a anti-semite, would have disciples who dismiss Israel and their future salvation on a National level.

That's why Paul says this...

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

His election was first National Israel, Sons of Abraham. He will fulfill His promise to them.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

And it is pretty fitting that Calvin, being a anti-semite, would have disciples who dismiss Israel and their future salvation on a National level.

That's why Paul says this...

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

His election was first National Israel, Sons of Abraham. He will fulfill His promise to them.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I can't imagine where he got it from:

“Jews deserved death but were destined to wander the earth to witness the victory of the Church over the synagogue.” ~Augustine

 

[DHK]

Where does it not say it has anything to do with the Tribulation?

Jer 30:4 And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.
Jer 30:5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace.
Jer 30:6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

And what do you think "Jacob's Trouble is?

 

[Iconoclast]

Where does it not say it has anything to do with the Tribulation?

Jer 30:4 And these are the words that the LORD spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah.
Jer 30:5 For thus saith the LORD; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace.
Jer 30:6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

And what do you think "Jacob's Trouble is?

66-70ad

 

[DHK]

Consider what William MacDonald, author of "Believer's Bible Commentary says:

VI. PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE RESTORATION (Chaps. 30–33)
Chapters 30-33 contain messages of hope and deliverance and are the bright spot in a book majoring on judgment. Clyde Francisco characterizes them as follows:

No more stirring passages ever were written than those found in this section of Jeremiah. Although most of his messages concerned judgment and doom, when he dreamed of the future he could preach the way he really preferred. All his heart went into these sermons.
The return from captivity was only a partial fulfillment; these chapters look forward to the end times and the final restoration.

This is a very important section, as it contains the famous New Covenant passage which predicts the revival of the nation of Israel. This can only take place after "the time of Jacob's trouble" (the Great Tribulation) in 30:4-17. God keeps His covenants, contrary to the views of some. Jeremiah is told to buy a field to show the certainty of the restoration.

A. The Captives to Be Regathered (Chap. 30)
30:1-11 Both Israel and Judah will be regathered. First there will be the time of Jacob's trouble (the Great Tribulation), then God will break the power of the Gentiles over His people. The promise that God will raise up for them David their king is generally understood to mean the Lord Jesus, the seed of David. However, some take it to mean the literal David, risen from the dead.
30:12-17 Though the nation's affliction now seems incurable, God will . . . heal their wounds and plunder their adversaries.
30:18-24 These verses describe the idyllic conditions that will prevail in the Millennium. The last two verses of the chapter depict God's judgment on the wicked; this precedes His blessing on Israel, as seen in the next chapter.

What chapter 30 so clearly describes is that Israel will go through the Tribulation, which is called Jacob's Trouble. Christ will then return for Israel. He will not abandon his covenants to her. He will set up His Kingdom on earth with her. Verses 18 to 30 describe the conditions that the earth will return to at that time.
Certainly none of these things have happened yet.

 

[DHK]

66-70ad

Opinions don't count for much. You haven't backed it up. Why not 2015?
I just backed up my answer. But you can't back up yours, at least not factually.