Why [I believe] Premillennialism is false

[Saint of Circumstance]

Yes. That is what I said. The dead in Christ rise first then the living are caught up to be with them in the air. Just like the bible says.

Yes, at some later time the living are caught up. The bible does not teach how long after.

Pre resurrection Rapture? What in the world is that? The rapture IS the resurrection.

So you are teaching that THESE SCRIPTURES depict the Rapture?:

Matthew 25:32-33
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.


John 5:28-29
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

 

[TCassidy]

So you are teaching that THESE SCRIPTURES depict the Rapture?:

Can you please post where I did so?

 

[Saint of Circumstance]

Can you please post where I did so?

It was a question based on this comment of yours:

The rapture IS the resurrection.

Since Matthew 25:32-33 and John 5:28-29 depict the resurrection, and you are teaching that the rapture IS the resurrection, How can you claim anything BUT that these verses depict the rapture?

Or, do you claim the rapture happens BEFORE (perhaps even 1000 years before) Matt 25:32-33 and John 5:28-29 take place?

It surely can't be both

 

[TCassidy]

The dead in Christ will rise first then we, which are alive and remain, will be caught up together with them in the air.

Not sure how that can be made any plainer.

 

[Yeshua1]

The dead in Christ will rise first then we, which are alive and remain, will be caught up together with them in the air.

Not sure how that can be made any plainer.

Seems that many here think we historical premils are the same as our Dispy friends!

 

[Beauclair Bouchard]

Ahh Baptist fellowship.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God, the devil, angels, the saints, the world, trees etc are all mentioned in Revelation - are they all to be dismissed as fiction? Are we to argue "no truth in Revelation just in the rest of the Bible"?

There are 66 books in my Bible and even though a few of those books use a symbol here or there - does not mean we can toss them out the window.

Revelation tells us about two resurrections and they are 1000 years apart. Shall we cancel the doctrine on the resurrection?

Revelation tells us the saints are raised in the first resurrection and the wicked are raised 1000 years later in the second resurrection. Is this Bible detail supposed to be "too hard to read and understand"?

In your example above it was "easy" find symbols that we all know are symbols... that was "easy" not "hard". So then where is the difficulty here??

The number 1,000 is used literally very rarely indeed in the Bible as a whole (e.g. Psalm 50:10; 90:4). I see no reason to suppose that it is used literally in Rev. 20. IMHO just about all the numbers in Revelation are symbolic. There are loads of 7s 10s and 12s; where are the 9s, 11s and 13s?

 

[BobRyan]

The number 1,000 is used literally very rarely indeed in the Bible as a whole (e.g. Psalm 50:10; 90:4).

In Rev 20 - the saints are real, the earth is real, God is real, the wicked are real, the lake of fire is real, the resurrection is real, the judgment is real, the 1000 years is real, the devil is real... etc.

 

[HankD]

The number 1,000 is used literally very rarely indeed in the Bible as a whole (e.g. Psalm 50:10; 90:4). I see no reason to suppose that it is used literally in Rev. 20. IMHO just about all the numbers in Revelation are symbolic. There are loads of 7s 10s and 12s; where are the 9s, 11s and 13s?

Were the seven churches of Revelation 2 - 3 literal?
If so why not "the one thousand years"?

BTW in this case the definite article is used with "the one thousand years" : τὰ χίλια ἔτη

HankD

 

[BobRyan]

Were the seven churches of Revelation 2 - 3 literal?
If so why not "the one thousand years"?

BTW in this case the definite article is used with "the one thousand years" : τὰ χίλια ἔτη

HankD

The 7 churches in Rev 2-3 were literal and were also symbolic of different ages of the church over the past 2000 years.
The dragon is symbolic in Rev 12 - but the devil in that chapter is literal ... real
The saints (as the children of the woman) in Rev 12 are real
The woman is a symbol for the saints. both terms used in Rev 12.

17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Jesus is real in that chapter.
Commandments of God are real in that chapter.
God is real in that chapter.
Dragon -- is said "in the chapter" to represent Satan.
And the 1260 years (day for year in all apocalyptic texts) same day-for-year as in Daniel 9 (70 weeks = 490 apoc-days = 490 literal years pointing to the first coming of Christ in Daniel 9)

 

[Yeshua1]

The number 1,000 is used literally very rarely indeed in the Bible as a whole (e.g. Psalm 50:10; 90:4). I see no reason to suppose that it is used literally in Rev. 20. IMHO just about all the numbers in Revelation are symbolic. There are loads of 7s 10s and 12s; where are the 9s, 11s and 13s?

I have always taken it to be literally an extended long period of time.

 

[tyndale1946]

Ahh Baptist fellowship.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

14:4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Brethren have been arguing about this same and similar subjects on here for years... The church I grew up in never talked about the Millennial, pre, post or the thousand year reign... These scriptures don't teach it... Y'all step aside I'm bound for Glory... Brother Glen

 

[David Kent]

"Rapture" is taken from the Latin Vulgate root rapturo and is from 1 Thessalonians 4:17

VULGATE 1 Thessalonians 4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

Actually some reports say that Jesuit priests "discovered" the "rapture" (so called) in the Vulgate Bible.

KJV 1 Thessalonians 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.
caught up - Greek root - harpazo

So it is a biblical word and if we followed the Greek text of inspiration we would call it The Harpazo

HankD

SO?

Christ is descending and we will meet Him in the air with the the dead in Christ. Simple.
This will be on the LAST DAY, John 6
No need to add extra biblical bits to suit your theory.
Ignore Darby
Ignore Larkin and his charts
Ignore Scofield and HIS "bible"
Ignore all preachers that follow thier teachings
You will then be free to follow the scripture and not Jesuit teachings.

 

[HankD]

SO?

Christ is descending and we will meet Him in the air with the the dead in Christ. Simple.
This will be on the LAST DAY, John 6
No need to add extra biblical bits to suit your theory.
Ignore Darby
Ignore Larkin and his charts
Ignore Scofield and HIS "bible"
Ignore all preachers that follow thier teachings
You will then be free to follow the scripture and not Jesuit teachings.

Just explaining the term "rapture" and its source.

I gave up on the Jesuits when I separated from the Catholic Church 55 years ago.
Gave up on Darby, Larkin, Scofield and their teachings many years ago.

Still futurist, premil (pre-chialist ).

HankD

 

[David Kent]

Were the seven churches of Revelation 2 - 3 literal?
If so why not "the one thousand years"?

BTW in this case the definite article is used with "the one thousand years" : τὰ χίλια ἔτη

HankD

Yes but there are also symbolic of the Church through the ages. The great error of the preterists and futurists is that believe that God has nothing to say to the tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of faithful saints who died in the most horrific ways during the persecutions of Rome, pagan and Rome papal, The Turk, Islam, Communist, Fascist, and all the other ists.

Not only is a a gross error, but extremely sad that has happened because Christians, do not recognise that it is their brothers and sisters in Christ that the book is about. Not about the Jews.

Christ's Church is the great work of God, based on the life, death and resurrection of Christ my Saviour.

 

[David Kent]

Just explaining the term "rapture" and its source.

I gave up on the Jesuits when I separated from the Catholic Church 55 years ago.
Gave up on Darby, Larkin, Scofield and their teachings many years ago.

Still futurist, premil (pre-chialist ).

HankD

If you believe in Pre trib you are still following them.

It is their teaching.

 

[David Kent]

Just explaining the term "rapture" and its source.

I gave up on the Jesuits when I separated from the Catholic Church 55 years ago.
Gave up on Darby, Larkin, Scofield and their teachings many years ago.

Still futurist, premil (pre-chialist ).

HankD

Do you believe that Larking's charts are sound teaching?

 

[TCassidy]

Yes but there are also symbolic of the Church through the ages.

No, they are not. The "Historic Recapitulation" theory is pure nonsense. Anyone with even a tiny bit of knowledge regarding history knows the "ages" don't fit. The churches of Revelation were churches that existed in John's time. And it is entirely possible that there were all such churches all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history and that all types are represented by various churches today.

Do you believe that Larking's charts are sound teaching?

Why would anyone think Hyper-Dispensationalism is sound? Even the Dispensationalists believe Clarence Larkin is wrong

 

[David Kent]

Why would anyone think Hyper-Dispensationalism is sound? Even the Dispensationalists believe Clarence Larkin is wrong

I didn't realise that. On another board there is one who is always posting about Larkin's charts he has even made his own charts.

I have heard of Hyper-Dispensationalism but never heard it described, perhaps you can explain it?

I am always ready to learn.

 

[TCassidy]

I have heard of Hyper-Dispensationalism but never heard it described, perhaps you can explain it?

There are two different types of Dispensationalism which go beyond the Dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield, et alii.

There is Hyper Dispensationalism which sees two different "plans of salvation." One now that is by grace and one in the future Millennium where salvation will be by works. And sees many different "plans of salvation in the Old Testament.

The second is Ultra Dispensationalism that dates the church sometime after Acts 2, and in its extreme form sees additional dispensations in the book of Acts.

There are differences of opinions regarding the definitions of Hyper and Ultra Dispensationalism. Many consider Larkin to be main stream as Scofield seemed to teach different requirements for salvation in the different dispensations.

Many believe Ultradispensationalism applies only to the Acts 28 time for the beginning of the church (verse 27).