• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why is the Pre-Tribulation rapture popular and does it have a future?...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allan

Active Member
A long time ago a read an article where it was explained that some of the so called premillenial thought was as simple as......Jesus goes to heaven about 33 ad....so when the thousand years were finished ..1033 an earthly kingdom would appear.

When it did not happen...the they started to re-think it.It was not based on what today is called dispy premill however,
:thumbsup::wavey:
The above is not, in any way, historically true. Actually the pre-mill view stood without constest for just over 250 after Christ's ascention, at which point we have record of only 4 people (writings) who didn't agree with it and even then it was never brought forth in Church councils or shown as a division in the CHurch as of yet.

In fact, it was Augustine who became the poster boy for the new church/state view. We also note that it was only after christianity became a state mandated religion (the early footing of the Roman Catholic Church) do we find the Chilianist view being forced out of the churches, in favor of replacement theology (which later evolved into a different view - Covenant theology).

For me, it is strange when people say the apostles held to something else. Personally, I always wonder why 'their' disciples never taught anything else (which we would see in their disciples teaching as well), and those churches they set up all over didn't hold to any other views that can be noted historically. It wasn't until a couple hundred years later 'other' views began to be noted to stand in opposition to said view.

Here are some other Church Historians who are on record as stating the Pre-mil view was not only apart of the early church but also the dominant orthodox view of it. Some of the authors are even Amil, Post-mil believers who are even against the Premil view

THE RECOGNITION BY WORTHY HISTORIANS OF THE PLACE CHILIASM (PREMILLENNIALISM) HELD IN THE EARLY CHURCH
The following list with their declarations is taken from the pamphlet, The History of the Doctrine of Our Lord's Return, by Dr. I.M. Haldeman:
Eusebius, the early historian of the Church, admits that most of the ecclesiastics of his day were millenarians. That is -- they believed in the coming of Christ before the millennium.

Gieseler, "Church History," Vol. I, p. 166, says
"Millenarianism became the general belief of the time and met with almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics."

Dr. Horatius Bonar says, in his "Prophetic Landmarks,"
"Millenarianism prevailed universally during the first three centuries. This is now an assured historical fact and presupposes that chiliasm was an article of the apostolic creed."

Muncher says, p. 415, History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. 11:
"How widely the doctrine of millenarianism prevailed in the first three centuries appears from this, that it was universally received by almost all teachers."

W. Chillingworth says:
"Whatsoever doctrine is believed or taught by the most eminent fathers of any age of the church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, that is to be esteemed the Catholic doctrine of the church of those times. But the doctrine of the millenarians was believed, and taught by the most eminent fathers of the age next after the apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned, therefore it was the Catholic or universal doctrine of those times."

Stackhouse, in his "Complete Body of Divinity," says:
"The doctrine was once the opinion of all orthodox Christians."

Bishop Thomas Newton says:
"The doctrine was believed in the three first and purest ages."

Bishop Russell, Discourse on the Millennium, says:
"On down to the fourth century the belief was universal and undisputed."

Mosheim, Vol. I., p. 185, or his "Ecclesiastical History" says:
"That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men before the end of the world, had been believed by many in the preceding century (that is, the second), without offense to any."

Neander, the eminent church historian, says in his Church History, page 650, Vol. I.:
"Many Christians seized hold of an image which had passed over to them from the Jews, and which seemed to adapt itself to their own present situation. The idea of a millennial reign which the Messiah was to set up on the earth at the end of the whole earthly course of his age -- when all the righteous of all times should live together in Holy Communion..."

Gibbon, the author of that immense work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," cannot be accused of sympathy with Christianity.... In the first volume of his work, p.532, he writes:
"it was universally believed that the end of the world was at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles. The tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ Himself were obliged to expect the Second and glorious Coming of the Son of Man before that generation was totally extinguished."
And now, mark you what he says:
"As long as for wise purposes this error was permitted to exist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians who lived in the awful expectation of that moment."
... "The ancient and popular," --note, I pray you, the ancient and popular--
"The ancient and popular doctrine of the millennium was intimately connected with the Second Coming of Christ: As the works of creation had been finished in six days their duration in their present state, according to tradition, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed, would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years, and that Christ with His triumphant band of the saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon the earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection."
"The assurance of such a millennium ... was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine. It appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers, and ... it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith."
... "But when the edifice of the church as almost completed the temporary support was laid aside. The doctrine of Christ's reign upon earth was at first heralded as a profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism."

Kitto, in his encyclopedia of "Biblical Literature, " under the head of article "Millennium,
" states that the millenarian doctrine was generally prevalent in the second century, and that it received its first staggering blow from Origen, followed by Augustine, Jerome, and others in the fourth century.

In the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," under article "millennium," the writer, a no less distinguished scholar than Adolf Harnack, D.D., Professor of Christian History in the University of Giessen, Germany, says:

"This doctrine of Christ's second advent, and the kingdom, appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion."

Sheldon, "Church History," Vol. I., p. 145, ch. 6, testifies that
"premillenarianism was the doctrine of the Christians in the first and second century. The fathers expected anti-Christ to arise and reign, and meet his overthrow at the personal coming of the Lord. After which the Kingdom of Christ for a thousand years, would be established on the earth."

Crippen, History of Doctrine," P. 231, sec. 12, says that
"the early Fathers live in expectation of our Lord's speedy return";
on p. 232 he remarks:
"They distinguish between a first resurrection of the saints and a second or general resurrection. These they supposed would be separated by a period of a thousand years, during which Christ should reign over the saints in Jerusalem."
... "While the church was alternately persecuted and contemptuously tolerated by the Roman Empire, the belief in Christ's speedy return and his millennial reign was widely entertained."
... "When the Church was recognized and patronized by the state, the new order of things seemed so desirable that the close of the dispensation ceased to be expected or desired."

Smith, "New Testament History," p. 273, says:
"Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, Christianity having become dominant and prosperous, Christians began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord's speedy advent, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of the promised reign of Christ on earth." --Pp. 14-20,24
Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):
1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were 2 distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.
7. Pre-mils did distinquish between Israel and Church.

Regarding #7:
The fact that the Jews (Israel) are brought back to Jerusalem for and during the reign of Christ and His saints is indictive of this.
One last point to remember: The Dispy view and Covenant Theology are close in age as they both, as you say, new kids on the block
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
A segment from from Church Historian Philip Schaff

These all lived between A.D. 1-100; John, it is supposed -- so Mosheim, etc. -- died about A.D. 100. (All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenaeus, was one of John's hearers, and intimate with Polycarp. John is also expressly mentioned by Justin. Now this reference to the apostles agrees with the facts that we have proven: (a) that the disciples of Jesus did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they linked them with the Sec. Advent)."

10. Clement of Rome A.D. 40-100
11. Barnabas A.D 40-100
12 Hermas A.D 40-150
13 Ignatius A.D. 50-115
14 Polycarp A.D. 70-167
15. Papias A.D. 80-163


None can be cited in this century to be against The Premillennial view.

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 2nd Century:
1. Pothinus A.D. 87-177
2. Justin Martyr A.D. 100-168
3. Melito A.D. 100-170
4. Hegisippus A.D. 130-190
5. Tatian A.D. 130-190
6. Irenaeus A.D. 140-202
7. The Churches of Vienne and Lyons - a letter A.D. 177
8. Tertulian A.D. 150-220
9. Hippolytus A.D. 160-240
10 Apollinaris A.D. 150-200


None can be cited in this century to be against Premillennialism. The common belief of the Church was Chiliastic (Premillennial).

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 3rd Century:
1. Cyprian A.D. 200-258
2. Commodian A.D. 200-270
3. Nepos A.D. 230-280
4. Coracion A.D. 230-280
5. Victorinus A.D. 240-303
6. Methodius A.D. 250-311
7. Lactantius A.D. 240-330


There were only four in this century that opposed the Premillennial view:
1. Caius (or Gaius), wrote about A.D. 210
2, Clemens Alexandrinus, died A.D. 202, great influence on Origin
3. Origin A.D. 185-254
4. Dionysius A.D. 190-265
 

Allan

Active Member
Thus Brother Icon, based on the Historic Pre-mil view (of which MarArthur is) the 7 points I noted earlier:
Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):
1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were 2 distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.
7. Pre-mils did distinquish between Israel and Church.

These above, make up the very core identity and foundation of Dispensationalism. In fact you cannot have any kind of Dipsy view without the foundation of the Historic Premil view.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thus Brother Icon, based on the Historic Pre-mil view (of which MarArthur is) the 7 points I noted earlier:
Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):


These above, make up the very core identity and foundation of Dispensationalism. In fact you cannot have any kind of Dipsy view without the foundation of the Historic Premil view.

Allan, the historic premil position is fundamentally different than dispensational premillennialism which requires a pretrib rapture. The idea of a pretrib rapture was unknown during the patristic age.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thus Brother Icon, based on the Historic Pre-mil view (of which MarArthur is) the 7 points I noted earlier:
Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):


These above, make up the very core identity and foundation of Dispensationalism. In fact you cannot have any kind of Dipsy view without the foundation of the Historic Premil view.

Hello Allan,

Thank you for these helpful posts.it looks as if i might wind up being laid over
on sat/sunday....so i will attempt to stir the pot so to speak and identify the articles that suggested what i put forth.
I do remember that you offered these ideas a year or two back. :thumbsup:

i am taking a lunch break....found this which is very helpful-

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/eschatol.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
fromwiki pedia



If millenarian beliefs have fallen into disfavor in mainstream Christian theology today, this was not the case during the Early Christian centuries. At least during the first four centuries, millennialism was a well-known doctrine in both East and West.[1] Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine.[2] In addition, according to religious scholar the Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee[3] the following is true, "Justin's 'Occasional Chiliasm' sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus – although Justin Martyr, discussing his own premillennial beliefs in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 110, observed that they were not necessary to Christians:

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[4]

Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism.[5] The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”[6]

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote:

And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days' Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture).

Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, 'Christian Chiliastic' ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius.

Into the late fourth century, the bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).

The first known opponent of Christian chiliasm was Marcion, in the 2nd century, who most Christians feel was an early heretic.[7] The Catholic Encyclopedia noted that in the 2nd century proponents of "Gnosticism rejected millenarianism".[8]

Chiliasm was, however, according to the interpretation of non-chiliasts, condemned as a heresy in the 4th century by the Church, which included the phrase whose Kingdom shall have no end in the Nicene Creed in order to rule out the idea of a Kingdom of God which would last for only 1000 literal years.[9] Despite some writers' belief in millennialism, it was a decided minority view, as expressed in the nearly universal condemnation of the doctrine over a gradual period of time, beginning with Augustine of Hippo.

Millennialism is strongly rejected as a heresy by the Orthodox Church. In AD 230, the Synod of Iconium declared that baptisms performed by the Montanist sect were invalid. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381 supported the Synod of Iconium and further declared millennialism to be a heresy.

In a letter to Queen Gerberga of France around 950, Adso of Montier-en-Der established the idea of a "last World Emperor" who would conquer non-Christians before the arrival of the Antichrist.[10]
Reformation and beyond
Comparison of Christian millennial interpretations

Christian views on the future order of events diversified after the Protestant reformation (c.1517). In particular, new emphasis was placed on the passages in the Book of Revelation which seemed to say that Satan would be locked away for 1000 years, but then released on the world in a final battle (Rev. 20:1–6). Previous Catholic and Orthodox theologians had no clear or consensus view on what this actually meant (only the concept of an end of the world coming unexpected, "like a thief in a night", and the concept of "the antichrist" were almost universally held). Millennialist theories try to explain what this "1000 years of Satan in chains" would be like.

Various types of millennialism exist with regard to Christian eschatology, especially within Protestantism, such as Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. The first two refer to different views of the relationship between the "millennial Kingdom" and Christ's second coming. Premillennialism sees Christ's second advent as preceding the millennium, thereby separating the second coming from the final judgment. In this view, "Christ's reign" will be physical. Postmillennialism sees Christ's second coming as subsequent to the millennium and consequent with the final judgment. In this view "Christ's reign" (during the millennium) will be spiritual in and through the church. Amillennialism basically denies a future literal 1000 year kingdom and sees the church age metaphorically described in Rev. 20:1–6 in which "Christ's reign" is current in and through the church.

The Catholic Church now strongly condemns millennialism as the following shows:

The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194).

A millennium is a period of one thousand years, and, in particular, Christ's thousand-year rule on this earth, either directly preceding or immediately following the Second Coming (and the Day of Judgment).

The millennium reverses the previous period of evil and suffering; it rewards the virtuous for their courage while punishing the evil-doers, with a clear separation of saints and sinners. The vision of a thousand-year period of bliss for the faithful, to be enjoyed here on earth ("heaven on earth"), exerted an irresistible power. Although the picture of life in the millennial era is almost willfully obscure and hardly more appealing than that of, say, the Golden Age, what has made the millennium much more powerful than the Golden Age or Paradise myths are the activities of the sects and movements that it has inspired. Throughout the ages, hundreds of sects were convinced that the millennium was imminent, about to begin in the very near future, with precise dates given on many occasions.

Premillennial sects look for signs of Christ's imminent return. Other chiliast sects, such as the prophetic Anabaptist followers of Thomas Müntzer, have believed that the millennium had already begun, with only their own members having realized this fact. Consequently, they have attempted to live out their own vision of millennial life, radically overturning the beliefs and practices of the surrounding society. In doing so, they offered a model of the good life and expressed their hope that soon the rest of the world would follow and live like they did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The first teaching I ever heard on eschatology was from a pre-trib viewpoint. Made a lot of sense, and besides, nobody wants to be here for the tribulation.

Then our relatively new pastor preached from a post-trib viewpoint one Sunday. Afterward, we all rushed him to challenge him. He held up his hand and said, "guys, we're not going to debate this right now. You have an assignment. I want you to find for me a single clear scripture which teaches a pre-trib rapture. It must be clear, unmistakable and not subject to any other interpretation. Bring it back and then let's talk."

I couldn't find one. Still can't find one. Until I can, I've abandoned pre-trib eschatology. Hard to do because I really don't want to be here for the tribulation.

I always look tot he very purpose of the Great tribulation, which is to prepare the earth for reign of Jesus, as earth systems demolished in that time, and isreal prepared to meet her King!

No need for the church to endure and go thru that period...
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan, the historic premil position is fundamentally different than dispensational premillennialism which requires a pretrib rapture. The idea of a pretrib rapture was unknown during the patristic age.

perhaps, but the truth is that what we call Covenant theology as regarding how to view the aspects of God dealing with Mna, and especially eschatology and relationship between Church/isreal was not known until catholic church after Augustine made it seem the norm to have A mil/church replacement theology going!
 

Tom Butler

New Member
I always look tot he very purpose of the Great tribulation, which is to prepare the earth for reign of Jesus, as earth systems demolished in that time, and isreal prepared to meet her King!

No need for the church to endure and go thru that period...

The question is not whether the church does or doesn't need to go through the Tribulation. The question is, what scripture verse teaches a pre-trib rapture.

The scriptures spend much time describing the events of the Tribulation (which we don't need if we're not going to be here). It spends exactly zero time giving us an unequivocal scripture fixing the time of a pre-trib rapture
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The question is not whether the church does or doesn't need to go through the Tribulation. The question is, what scripture verse teaches a pre-trib rapture.

The scriptures spend much time describing the events of the Tribulation (which we don't need if we're not going to be here). It spends exactly zero time giving us an unequivocal scripture fixing the time of a pre-trib rapture

Something similar could be said of the Trinity.
 

prophet

Active Member
Site Supporter
I always look tot he very purpose of the Great tribulation, which is to prepare the earth for reign of Jesus, as earth systems demolished in that time, and isreal prepared to meet her King!

No need for the church to endure and go thru that period...







I give my reasons below but I would like to ask a couple questions...

Do you think Pre-Trib is unpopular among the leading theologians of today and mostly popular among pastors and congregations?

Also, if Pre-Trib were ever to vanish as a popular church doctrine what would be its demise?

I would have to say that I believe it is popular for many reasons. I believe one of the biggest influences to popularize it was Dispensationalism, especially after 1948 when Israel was recognized as a nation. The state of the world will definitely have an influence on popular eschatology. Since then there have been those who have studied the scriptures and have been convinced, those whose theology is influenced by popularity, those whose theology is influenced by sensationalism or current events, and then those who can't think for themselves and follow those who hold to it.

Respectfully, :thumbsup:
http://tipofthetonguetheology.blogspot.com/
I rest your case.
 

prophet

Active Member
Site Supporter
Darby, Ruckman, Hyles, Roloff,Rice, Roberson, etc.
The mixed bag that is the fundamentalist movement, moved Baptists away from the Scriptures. Dispensational study systems, Schofield's original reference bible. Torrey, and Wheaton College, and all the other intelligensia, have kept this popular.
Amy Semple McPherson made a carecer of cRapture prophecy.
It will tail off When the Son of Perdition is revealed, and the Mark is instituted. No Born again Christian will take it.
There is a backlash against pre-trib mythology, now. One of my favorites is the movie :"After the Tribulation".
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Something similar could be said of the Trinity.

We do have one passage--Matthew 3:13-17--at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the voice from heaven said, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We do have one passage--Matthew 3:13-17--at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the voice from heaven said, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

And you believe that meets that standard?

I would also say that I reject the standard and being necessary.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The question is not whether the church does or doesn't need to go through the Tribulation. The question is, what scripture verse teaches a pre-trib rapture.

The scriptures spend much time describing the events of the Tribulation (which we don't need if we're not going to be here). It spends exactly zero time giving us an unequivocal scripture fixing the time of a pre-trib rapture

The Bible would have us as the Church looking forward to the appearing of our Saviour the Lord Jesus as the sign to us, be ready to go in immenent moment, not having us to look to recognise who Antichrist will be!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We do have one passage--Matthew 3:13-17--at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the voice from heaven said, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

We both agree that the scriptures speak to Jesus coming back and "snatching away" His Church out from the world, so we would just be discussing the timing of that event!

Think bigger issue to concern ourselves with is why some hold that there will not be an actual reign of jesus thru/by His Kingdom being physically manifested on the earth, as know our bethren see Him as spiritually reigning on earth now, but justcannot see that as time when wars will cease, and no more sickness, and people live really long time!
 
The scriptures spend much time describing the events of the Tribulation (which we don't need if we're not going to be here).
We won't be. But the rest of the world needs to know. Despite what many teach, I believe there is opportunity not just for the Jewish nation, but for all, to come to Christ during the Tribulation.

And our Bibles won't be raptured. Just the church.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
We won't be. But the rest of the world needs to know. Despite what many teach, I believe there is opportunity not just for the Jewish nation, but for all, to come to Christ during the Tribulation.

And our Bibles won't be raptured. Just the church.

think some of those against Dispy theology believe we teach none are saved in tribulation, but God will unleash 144,000 Jewish Billy grahams upon earth atthattime, and the message and the Spirit will still be procaliming, and still having sinners come to christ, just many will be killed for the faith!
 
think some of those against Dispy theology believe we teach none are saved in tribulation, but God will unleash 144,000 Jewish Billy grahams upon earth atthattime, and the message and the Spirit will still be procaliming, and still having sinners come to christ, just many will be killed for the faith!
Amen, brother! :thumbsup: :praying:
 

Tom Butler

New Member
We both agree that the scriptures speak to Jesus coming back and "snatching away" His Church out from the world, so we would just be discussing the timing of that event!

Think bigger issue to concern ourselves with is why some hold that there will not be an actual reign of jesus thru/by His Kingdom being physically manifested on the earth, as know our bethren see Him as spiritually reigning on earth now, but justcannot see that as time when wars will cease, and no more sickness, and people live really long time!

Actually we agree on the Coming, and we agree on the Snatching, but part company after that.

To boil it down, I believe that the Snatching Away (or being "caught up" to meet him) is not a rapture of the saints back to heaven before the tribulation.

I see it as we'll be caught up to meet him in the air at the end of the Tribulation, then continue with Jesus as he descends, and return to earth where Jesus defeats the forces of Satan, chains him up and begins his millennial rule.

Of course, to be caught up at the Second Coming requires that we be here during the Tribulation.

And one other question. How can there be two Second Comings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top