Two good arguments for a Pretrib Rapture

[Grasshopper]

Oh Evan... where are you?

He's busy starting 15 other threads.

 

[DHK]

The truth is there is not a single passage of Scripture that supports either Darby's-pre-trib-rapture or Darby's "parenthesis" Church. Walvoord is at least honest when it comes to this false representation of the Church. Walvoord writes, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

You speak with disdain.
If you are going to get any respect among the dispensationalist camp you would be better off to drop the Darby attack (or mentioning him), and leave out this "Parenthesis" church philosophy which most of us have never heard of in the first place. You are the only one that refers to it and tries to force it upon the dispensationalist. If you want respect and debate or discussion with them you should avoid such terminology.

 

[evangelist6589]

He's busy starting 15 other threads.

I am here awaiting a strong refutation of my argument to which I got none.

 

[OldRegular]

You speak with disdain.
If you are going to get any respect among the dispensationalist camp you would be better off to drop the Darby attack (or mentioning him), and leave out this "Parenthesis" church philosophy which most of us have never heard of in the first place. You are the only one that refers to it and tries to force it upon the dispensationalist. If you want respect and debate or discussion with them you should avoid such terminology.

Then you are ignorant of dispensational doctrine. Walvoord clearly states that a "parenthesis" church doctrine is necessary for a pre-trib-removal of the church. Read it again!

Walvoord writes, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.

I have posted many times the writing of Dr. Thomas Ice, himself a dispensationalist scholar, showing that Darby is the father of the pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. You can believe it or not.

 

[InTheLight]

I am here awaiting a strong refutation of my argument to which I got none.

Well we're waiting for "two good arguments for a PreTrib Rapture."

 

[blessedwife318]

Quote:

Deut. 4:29-30 is not the so-called Great Tribulation time but a prophecy of the Babylonian exile.

It's irrelevant.
Based on what evidence? The "later days" reference may refer to anytime after the initial dispersions but the ultimate fulfillment will be during the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. How do you explain Rev 20:4?

Regardless of if Deut. 4:29-30 is talking about the Exile or the millennial kingdom, that has nothing to do with the timing of the rapture. It does not support your pre-trib view.

Quote:
Jer. 30:4-11 is talking immediately about the exile as well though it does point forward to the time when Christ would be established as King over his people. But you're assuming that the kingdom must be literal physical Israel. The use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 shows that the apostles saw the gathering of the church, Jews and Gentiles in Christ, was the ultimate fulfillment of the regathering of Israel.


Is it? Why was the northern kingdom of Israel not affected? It had already gone into captivity in 722BC. No Jeremiah was referring to the future tribulation period.

Again this has nothing to do with the timing of the rapture.

Dan 12:1-2 is about the resurrection to eternal life and eternal death. Both come at the end of this time of trouble. There is nothing definitive regarding the tribulation here at all.
What of the phrase "at that time" in the ESV in verse 1? Does not this refer to the tribulation period?

Again nothing about the timing of the rapture.

Will reply to the NT section later

Still waiting on this

 

[blessedwife318]

I am here awaiting a strong refutation of my argument to which I got none.

I just gave you one, besides you never finished up your argument since you did not go into the NT passages people presented.

 

[OldRegular]

I am here awaiting a strong refutation of my argument to which I got none.

Your problem Evan is the same as all Darby-pre-trib-dispensationalists. You ignore Scripture that refutes your error! Really, simply using the literal interpretation of John 5:28, 29, that pre-rib-dispensationalists brag about so much, buries the belief of all you rapture-ready folks!

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Ryrie claims literal interpretation is taking the Scripture at "face value". Now take the above Scripture at "face value" and see if you can wiggle out of a general resurrection and general judgment!

********************************************************************

You do have a very bad habit Evan. You start numerous threads, some ridiculous like the extrovert introvert thing affecting the rebellion of Adam and Eve, and then ignore everything posted on them.

 

[RLBosley]

Would say that the best reasons would be that the church is not appointed unto the Wrath of god to be poured out in great tribulation, and that is the time for national isreal to be prepared to meet her comg messiah, and not the church to be made right for him, already have been!

Not appointed for wrath means the wrath of the final judgment, not some supposed "great tribulation" period.

Regardless of if Deut. 4:29-30 is talking about the Exile or the millennial kingdom, that has nothing to do with the timing of the rapture. It does not support your pre-trib view.



Again this has nothing to do with the timing of the rapture.



Again nothing about the timing of the rapture.


Still waiting on this

:thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

Based on what evidence? The "later days" reference may refer to anytime after the initial dispersions but the ultimate fulfillment will be during the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. How do you explain Rev 20:4?

"Latter days" does not mean the end of the world. My evidence is the copntext. This is in the context of the mosaic covenant established with Israel. If they obey they will be rewarded with prosperity in the land. If they disobey God will drive them out. They disobeyed and they went into exile.

As Blessedwife pointed out, I'm still not sure how any of this proves anything about the rapture.

I'm genuinely confused by your reference to Rev 20:4. What does that have to do with anything?

Is it? Why was the northern kingdom of Israel not affected? It had already gone into captivity in 722BC. No Jeremiah was referring to the future tribulation period.

I really already answered this in my first rebuttal of your original statement. There is 0 reason whatsoever to think that Jeremiah was referring to some future tribulation and a(nother) regathering of Israel during the millennium. It's simply not there.

What of the phrase "at that time" in the ESV in verse 1? Does not this refer to the tribulation period?

Why would it refer to the tribulation?

Will reply to the NT section later

OK

 

[DHK]

Then you are ignorant of dispensational doctrine. Walvoord clearly states that a "parenthesis" church doctrine is necessary for a pre-trib-removal of the church. Read it again!

Walvoord writes, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:



I have posted many times the writing of Dr. Thomas Ice, himself a dispensationalist scholar, showing that Darby is the father of the pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. You can believe it or not.

I am not saying if you are right or wrong.
I could argue Calvinism as Augustinianism beginning with Constantine every time I mention the topic. But it won't get me any favors. It will just turn people off. And that is what you are doing.
If you want to discuss this topic, discuss the doctrine from the Word and leave the pejoratives at home.

 

[OldRegular]

I am not saying if you are right or wrong.
I could argue Calvinism as Augustinianism beginning with Constantine every time I mention the topic. But it won't get me any favors. It will just turn people off. And that is what you are doing.
If you want to discuss this topic, discuss the doctrine from the Word and leave the pejoratives at home.

Why is it a pejorative to say that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" church and pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. And I have not noticed you setting an example when it comes to leaving pejoratives at home.

I have discussed the Doctrine of the pre-trib-rapture from Scripture but you reject Scripture that clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment yet are unable to present any Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-rapture.

Furthermore I have no problem with calling Calvinism Augustinianism since it is my understanding that Augustine taught similar doctrines. However, I believe the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace are Biblical. Frankly I am unable to understand why people have no problem believing God chose Israel but cannot accept that He choses anyone else! Of course I believe the primary reason God chose Israel was simply to accomplish the Incarnation. My rationale is as follows:

In Genesis 3:15 God gives the initial promise in Scripture of the coming Redeemer. Since,God in His omniscience foreknew the rebellion of the first family we must surmise that the Triune God had already instituted His purpose in the salvation of His elect. That divine purpose instituted in eternity past is called the Covenant of Grace. This initial promise, the initial revelation of the Covenant of Grace, is veiled to say the least and could not be understood without the continuing revelation of God. But God does not leave us without hope. As the Biblical history of man unfolds so does God’s purpose in salvation.

If the Redeemer was to be born of a woman and that birth was to take place in history the way must be prepared. The Redeemer must be identified with God since He was to reconcile sinful man to God and since He was a man, the seed of a woman, He must be identified with the people of God. It was necessary, therefore, that God call out a people for His Name. Unto that people would be given the oracles of God [Romans 3:2] and through that people would come the promised Redeemer.

 

[DHK]

Why is it a pejorative to say that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" church and pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. And I have not noticed you setting an example when it comes to leaving pejoratives at home.

In spite of your opinion, many of don't believe dispensationalism started with Darby.
In spite of your opinion, and of these facts being demonstrated to you repeatedly, Scofield's dispensational system was more in line with Isaac Watts than with Darby, who of course lived long before Darby. But you won't listen to facts.
In spite of your opinion, and repeated admonitions, I don't believe in any such "parenthesis church" nor have I ever heard the term until you brought it up on this board. So why "force" me to believe something I haven't. It is simply a false allegation.
IOW, leave the offensive things alone. If you want to have a discussion about the topic base it on the Word.

I have discussed the Doctrine of the pre-trib-rapture from Scripture but you reject Scripture that clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment yet are unable to present any Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-rapture.

No, I reject your interpretation of the Word. I also reject the "authorities" you provide.

Furthermore I have no problem with calling Calvinism Augustinianism since it is my understanding that Augustine taught similar doctrines. However, I believe the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace are Biblical. Frankly I am unable to understand why people have no problem believing God chose Israel but cannot accept that He choses anyone else! Of course I believe the primary reason God chose Israel was simply to accomplish the Incarnation. My rationale is as follows:

In Genesis 3:15 God gives the initial promise in Scripture of the coming Redeemer. Since,God in His omniscience foreknew the rebellion of the first family we must surmise that the Triune God had already instituted His purpose in the salvation of His elect. That divine purpose instituted in eternity past is called the Covenant of Grace. This initial promise, the initial revelation of the Covenant of Grace, is veiled to say the least and could not be understood without the continuing revelation of God. But God does not leave us without hope. As the Biblical history of man unfolds so does God’s purpose in salvation.

If the Redeemer was to be born of a woman and that birth was to take place in history the way must be prepared. The Redeemer must be identified with God since He was to reconcile sinful man to God and since He was a man, the seed of a woman, He must be identified with the people of God. It was necessary, therefore, that God call out a people for His Name. Unto that people would be given the oracles of God [Romans 3:2] and through that people would come the promised Redeemer.

"God in His omniscience foreknew the rebellion of the first family we must surmise that the Triune God had already instituted His purpose in the salvation of His elect."

The Calvinist becomes confused here.
Foreknowledge is to know before time, almost synonymous to omniscience.
Foreknowledge does not demand a cause. Because God knew before time what would happen does not mean he caused it to happen.
As I write this post, God is not forcing me to type or write. I do it on my own volition, my own will. He knows ahead of time what I will write, but does not cause me or force me to do it. There is will, and free will at that.

If you are interested, it is in this area where Calvin disagreed with Augustine. Augustine believed in a free will and Calvin did not.

God is timeless. He sees outside the boundaries of time. He eternal. He created time for man's sake. Only when the world was created was time created, for then the world began to revolve around its axis and the earth around the sun giving it its seasons.
We are bound by time. Christ, the alpha and the omega, knows the beginning from the end. Because he knows every thought and decision you will make from the first breath you take to the last breath you breathe he is totally omniscient about you, without causing you to do or think anything. He lives outside of time. He is eternal. I hope you can understand what I am saying.

Foreknowledge does not equal predestination. It simply equals omniscience. And it is not a cause for anything.

 

[evangelist6589]

Your problem Evan is the same as all Darby-pre-trib-dispensationalists. You ignore Scripture that refutes your error! Really, simply using the literal interpretation of John 5:28, 29, that pre-rib-dispensationalists brag about so much, buries the belief of all you rapture-ready folks!

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Ryrie claims literal interpretation is taking the Scripture at "face value". Now take the above Scripture at "face value" and see if you can wiggle out of a general resurrection and general judgment!

********************************************************************

You do have a very bad habit Evan. You start numerous threads, some ridiculous like the extrovert introvert thing affecting the rebellion of Adam and Eve, and then ignore everything posted on them.

I do not ignore the threads!!!! What hogwash. Your problem is that there is a rabbit on your front lawn having lunch and you need to go out and chase him!

 

[blessedwife318]

I do not ignore the threads!!!!

Then I should be able to look forward to the rest of your argument supporting the Pre-trib rapture. You did say you would get back later with NT verse. Also should I be able to look forward to a response to my response to your argument?

 

[Greektim]

I am here awaiting a strong refutation of my argument to which I got none.

There is hubris. You arguments aren't good b/c they are weak. And this b/c they are based on arguments of silence. You still have avoided this.

 

[OldRegular]

In spite of your opinion, many of don't believe dispensationalism started with Darby.

Pre-trib-dispensationalism started with Darby and so did the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis", an intercalation, an interruption in God's program for Israel! See the quote from the link below!

In spite of your opinion, and of these facts being demonstrated to you repeatedly, Scofield's dispensational system was more in line with Isaac Watts than with Darby, who of course lived long before Darby. But you won't listen to facts.

From: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism

Watts dispensational scheme is as follows:
I. The Dispensation of Innocency
II. Adam after the Fall
III. The Noahic Dispensation
IV. The Abrahamic Dispensation
V. The Mosaic Dispensation
VI. The Christian Dispensation (Disp. Today, p. 73).

Notice that Watts was not a pre-tribber!

**************************************************************

From: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism

Darby's distinction between God's plan for Israel and the Church formed the basis for his most controversial contribution to Evangelical Christianity-the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Even strong opponents to this doctrine admit that it is logical if God is going to literally fulfill His ancient promises to Israel. The Church must be removed before God resumes His work with Israel, enabling the two programs to fully participate in the millennial kingdom.
Like many before him, Darby saw God's progressive revelation of His plan in terms of dispensations. Unlike C. I. Scofield, Darby did not begin his first dispensation until after Noah's flood.

Darby's view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church. Elmore observed:

By separating any earthly governmental concepts from the Anglican doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, Darby maintained a high view of the gathered church without aligning it with any race or national government fashioned after Old Testament Israel. By emphasizing Pauline uniqueness, he separated the Church unto its heavenly destiny. (312-13)

DARBY'S CONTRIBUTION

Darby is the father of dispensationalism. "Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of 'dispensational truth.' He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God's activity in human history" (Elmore, 312). Darby's
employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature. (Crutchfield, 341)
Dispensationalism came to North America through Darby and other Brethren before the Civil War. After the war dispensational teachings captured the minds of a significant number of Christian leaders, and by 1875, its distinctives were disseminated throughout Canada and the United States. Dispensationalism spread through preaching, conferences, the founding of schools, and literature. By the turn of the century dispensationalism was well known and quickly became the most popular evangelical system of theology.

Scofield was a pre-trib-dispensationalist. Darby's problem was that He considered the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, a FAILURE!

In spite of your opinion, and repeated admonitions, I don't believe in any such "parenthesis church" nor have I ever heard the term until you brought it up on this board. So why "force" me to believe something I haven't. It is simply a false allegation.

I don't care whether you believe in a "parenthesis" Church or not. But according to Darby above and Walvoord in an earlier post, no "parenthesis" Church, no pre-trib-rapture.

IOW, leave the offensive things alone. If you want to have a discussion about the topic base it on the Word.

No, I reject your interpretation of the Word. I also reject the "authorities" you provide.

The only authority I have provided are preeminent dispensational scholars, Thomas Ice and John Walvoord. I did on one post a quote from Scofield's remarks [Original Scofield Bible} that the Song of Solomon was about the love of Jesus Christ and His Church, even though the Church is not in the Old Testament, according to dispensationalism. :laugh::laugh:That remark was removed in more recent versions to make the Scofield Bible comport with dispensational truth!:laugh::laugh:

"God in His omniscience foreknew the rebellion of the first family we must surmise that the Triune God had already instituted His purpose in the salvation of His elect."

You got that one correct.

The Calvinist becomes confused here.
Foreknowledge is to know before time, almost synonymous to omniscience.
Foreknowledge does not demand a cause. Because God knew before time what would happen does not mean he caused it to happen.

You do not understand the foreknowledge of God. And the only thing I accuse God of causing is the Salvation of the Elect!

As I write this post, God is not forcing me to type or write. I do it on my own volition, my own will. He knows ahead of time what I will write, but does not cause me or force me to do it. There is will, and free will at that.

You really cannot Know that! You may think you do! {But given some of the stuff you write perhaps He doesn't even know!}

If you are interested, it is in this area where Calvin disagreed with Augustine. Augustine believed in a free will and Calvin did not.

Not really a problem with me!

God is timeless. He sees outside the boundaries of time. He eternal. He created time for man's sake.

Can you support that assumption about time with Scripture?

Only when the world was created was time created, for then the world began to revolve around its axis and the earth around the sun giving it its seasons.

A boy genius! Wow!

We are bound by time. Christ, the alpha and the omega, knows the beginning from the end. Because he knows every thought and decision you will make from the first breath you take to the last breath you breathe he is totally omniscient about you, without causing you to do or think anything. He lives outside of time. He is eternal. I hope you can understand what I am saying.

I believe you are way ahead of me boy genius! I am just not in the same league with you for which I thank God!

Foreknowledge does not equal predestination. It simply equals omniscience. And it is not a cause for anything.

You are guessing and boy genius' don't guess. Is it possible I jumped the gun above.

 

[OldRegular]

I do not ignore the threads!!!! What hogwash. Your problem is that there is a rabbit on your front lawn having lunch and you need to go out and chase him!

Your problem Evan is the same as that of all pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensationalists. You say you believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture yet confronted with Scripture whose literal interpretation destroys your pre-trib-nonsense you ignore it.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Your problem Evan is the same as all Darby-pre-trib-dispensationalists. You ignore Scripture that refutes your error! Really, simply using the literal interpretation of John 5:28, 29, that pre-rib-dispensationalists brag about so much, buries the belief of all you rapture-ready folks!

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Ryrie claims literal interpretation is taking the Scripture at "face value". Now take the above Scripture at "face value" and see if you can wiggle out of a general resurrection and general judgment!

You and no pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensationalist can present one passage of Scripture to support either your doctrine of the pre-trib-rapture or the "parenthesis" Church. I have been challenging you people for over 10 years and not one has produced such Scripture.

Now put me on ignore Evan!

 

[evangelist6589]

Your problem Evan is the same as that of all pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensationalists. You say you believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture yet confronted with Scripture whose literal interpretation destroys your pre-trib-nonsense you ignore it.







You and no pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensationalist can present one passage of Scripture to support either your doctrine of the pre-trib-rapture or the "parenthesis" Church. I have been challenging you people for over 10 years and not one has produced such Scripture.



Now put me on ignore Evan!

Why?? There is no logical reason to put you on ignore and I do not ignore people whom make good arguments. Granted I have not put as much time into posting replies to you as I should have. Probably because I have other things on my mind like my debate with with a certain Christian universalist whom denies hell. Strange my last email he has not replied and knows certainly the scripture is quite clear on Hell.

 

[Greektim]

Why?? There is no logical reason to put you on ignore and I do not ignore people whom make good arguments. Granted I have not put as much time into posting replies to you as I should have. Probably because I have other things on my mind like my debate with with a certain Christian universalist whom denies hell. Strange my last email he has not replied and knows certainly the scripture is quite clear on Hell.

I have to be on ignore. Evan has not responded to my charges of his arguments being weak b/c they are arguments of silence. NOt sure what I did to get on ignore either. Anyone want to ask him?