Myth of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Cub
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ozzie:
All believers during this Church age (while Christ is building His Church) are part of the Body/Bride of Christ. The true Church is a separate entity and has a unique relationship with the Son, being the Bride of Christ. Beleivers AFTER the Rapture are saved Jews and Gentiles, but not part of the Church.

Have you done any reading on Dispensationalism? A lot of opinions here, but NO readers.
Click to expand...
Yes, and have quickly summized that it is garbage, fast-food theology, at it’s best, patent heresy at its worst. No thanks, I’ll stick with amillenialism as the authentic Church has taught consistently for the last 2,000 years.
 
Sure…and I have some real estate on the moon to sell to anyone if they are interested…I am selling one acre parcels for $200 each.
40.png
Ozzie:
All believers during this Church age (while Christ is building His Church) are part of the Body/Bride of Christ. The true Church is a separate entity and has a unique relationship with the Son, being the Bride of Christ. Beleivers AFTER the Rapture are saved Jews and Gentiles, but not part of the Church.

Have you done any reading on Dispensationalism? A lot of opinions here, but NO readers.
Click to expand...
 
Ozzie,

You asked which Pre-Trib. books that I have read. The answer is none. Why? for good reasons, please consider the following:

"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth.shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose.on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” … (Cf. Matthew 16:15-19)

Note: In the passage above, Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jona’s name to ‘Peter’. The word “peter” means “rock”. He gave charge (i.e. the keys) of His Church on Earth to Peter. The Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and his tomb lies beneath the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy.

To the Apostles (the first Roman Catholic Bishops) he said: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Cf. Luke 10:16).

Now, all one has to do is read the highlighted verbiage at the following URL to see that the Pre-Trib Rapture is a recent man-made feel-good myth. It’s professors and adherrents are living in a dangerous dream world.

call2holiness.org/mythofrapture/MythofRaptureHTML.htm

If believing the truth (i.e that there is no Pre-Trib Rapture) threatens your comfort zone…and you insist in believing in this myth…PLEASE PREPAR A PLAN B…You will find the details of such “Plan B” (Which shoulg by your Plan A) delineated in the writing above and the Link at its bottom entitled: “To the Refuges on Wings of Eagles”.

Our Lord told Fr. Arnoudt during the 19th century in a different context “Why would you drink from a poisoned cup?”

Similarly, with respect to your question about my reading Protestant Pre-Trib. mythology…“Why wold I want to drink from a poisoned cup?”

God Himself has told me that the truth lies in His One Apostolic Church.

God bless your family,

cub
 
40.png
Benadam:
Does your pretrib view hinge on the concept that God wouldn’t make His believers suffer His wrath?
Click to expand...
No. The Pre-Trib. view is based on the Scriptural revelation that we, the true Church, are not destined for wrath, but instead eagerly wait for our Savior from Haven:

1TH 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1TH 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

True theology is not based on what men believe, but on what God has revealed in His written Word.
 
Regarding the “great multitude” in Rev. 7:
40.png
SusanG:
Please cite your evidence that this is a second group of faithful.

This is a question that I asked of my church leaders on many occasions when a protestant…believe it or not they cited “mystery” and accepting the precept on faith…because there was no scriptural evidence to support the dogma.
Click to expand...
The key to interpreting the Book of Revelation is found in the first chapter of that Book. John received a revelation of Jesus Christ in His resurrected glory, whom it is said “who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood” (Rev. 1:5). Something Rome with its sacramentalism needs to ponder. But I digress!

In Rev. 1:19 John is told to* “Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall take place after these things*.”

"The things which you have seen" pertains to the vision of Christ in chapter one. “The things which are” refers to the letters to the seven Churches in Asia Minor in chapter 2-3, and refers to this Church age - this time in which Christ is building His Church, called out and made up of both believing Jews and Gentiles baptized by the Spirit into one new body (Eph. 2:15-16; 20-22). Rev. chapter two coves this Church age starting at Pentecost and ending at the Rapture of the Church (1 Thess. 4:15-18; cf Jn. 14:3; 17:24) “The things which shall take place AFTER these things” refers to what takes place AFTER this Church age (yet future). After the seven letters to the churches John is told to “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place AFTER these things” (Rev. 4:1). John is then transported to Heaven where he sees a throne and One sitting on the throne (Rev. 4:2). John views the opening of the seals from heaven. And after chapter three the Church is no longer mentioned. It is viewed by many that the Apostle John represents the Church (he being part of the Church) when he is called up into glory.

Chapter six describes the opening of the seal judgments and in verse seventeen these “seals” are described as “the great day of their wrath, which has come” and of which the Church has no part. God never leaves Himself without witness on this earth and with the Church gone He shifts back to fulfill His prophetic program with national Israel. In chapter seven He seals into His service (bond-servants) 144,000 Jewish believers, 12,000 from each tribe (the actual tribes are listed). AFTER these things (7:9) John sees a great multitude standing before the Heavenly throne. In verse fourteen these are identified as those who have come out of the great tribulation (the “wrath” mentioned in 6:17, of which the Church has no part).

So you see Susan, they are not the Church but those who believe (both Jews and Gentiles) during the great Tribulation (Divine wrath) which will come upon the whole earth (see Rev. 3:10). They seal their faith with their lives. God does not stop saving people after the Church has gone up to meed her Bridegroom, Jesus Christ.

RC’ism especially has a hard time understanding these truths because it holds a faulty view of what the true Church is.
 
QUOTE=Maccabees]Origen is certainly more Orthodox in many ways than you rapture heretics.Oh, stooping to name calling, are you?

It is a well known and documented fact that those in the early Church who held to the Premillennial (Chiliastic) view were regarded as the “exactly orthodox.” They were so regarded because that is exactly what they were handed down by the Apostles who, themselves being Jewish, held to the literal , orthodox, Jewish view of the Messianic/Davidic Kingdom.

Just prior to Christ’s ascension His disciples (Apostles) asked Him if it was at this time He was “restoring the Kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). A very legitimate question because the O.T. canon closed with that hope not yet fulfilled - and in the Jewish mind it was espected to be fulfilled literally (i.e., politically/earthly). The kingdom restored to Israel is a major theme throughout the Hebrew, prophetic writings: Is. 52:8; Jer. 29:14; 30:3,18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7,11,26; Eze. 39:25; Joel 3:1; Zeph. 3:20; Hos. 6:11; Amos 9:14 (only a small example). Jesus did not tell his disciples they were mistaken by taking their prophets literally (after all, they were to take literally their prophecies regarding Him), but simply told them that it was not for them to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.

The Premillennial view was also confirmed at the first Church council held in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church had a question as to how to deal with the Gentiles God was bringing into the Church by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (read Acts 15:6-11). In conclusion James lays out the prophetic chronology based on the writings of the Hebrew prophet Amos (Amos 9:11). James confirms that Christ is at this time (i.e., during this Church age) taking out from the Gentiles a people for His name and placing them into the Body of Christ alongside believing Jews. But he goes on to reveal what God will do after this Church age regarding His future dealings with national Israel:

ACT 15:16-18 “'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”"

Continued to next post:
 
40.png
Ozzie:
No. The Pre-Trib. view is based on the Scriptural revelation that we, the true Church, are not destined for wrath, but instead eagerly wait for our Savior from Haven:

1TH 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1TH 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

True theology is not based on what men believe, but on what God has revealed in His written Word.
Click to expand...
Well someone is lying to you, because Jesus spoke about the tribulations that the early Christians would face. Why should we be any different than those early Christians who gave up their lives because they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God?

Your words demonstrate why I say that the theology of the Rapture is based upon selfishness and has nothing to do with Christ.

Maggie
 
Continued from previous post:

The Apostle Paul also confirms this prophetic scenario in Romans chapter 11, stating that when all the Gentiles who are called have come into the Church (i.e., “the fulness of the Gentiles,” vs. 25) then God will again turn to national Israel to fulfill His unconditional, covenant promises with that nation. …

ROM 11:26-27 "…and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.” “And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins” (see Zech. 12:10).

Paul then goes on to explain to the believers at Rome the situation with national Israel. And it should be noted that because Israel existed as a nation when Paul wrote his letter to the Gentile believers at Rome, his words are just as relevant to Gentile believers today because Israel again exists as a nation in the world. Paul warns his Gentile readers about being ignorant (vs. 25) and especially arrogant toward that nation (vs. 18):

ROM 11:28-29 “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (i.e., Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).” For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

In other words, for the time being, while still in national unbelief, Christ continues to build His Church. That’s what Paul means by “they are enemies for your sake.” For they (unbelieving Israel) were “broken off” so that Gentiles may be graciously grafted in to the blessings of Abraham (vs. 17). But the day is coming when God will, according to His faithfulness to His prophetic Word (Jer. 1:12), again call that nation to Himself and fulfill the unconditional covenants He made with that nation and “restore their fortunes,” and they (as a nation) will serve Him in truth (throughout the Millennial age to come).

Earlier in chapter eleven Paul emphatically states what our position and sentiments should be toward national Israel: “I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall (i.e., never to recover), did they? MAY IT NEVER BE! But by their transgression (unbelief, vs. 20) salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression be riches for the world, how much more will their fulfillment be” (Rom. 11:11-12)? “For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead” (Rom. 11:15)?

After almost two millennia, Israel, against all odds, is back in their ancient homeland for a definite Divine reason. We’re near the end of this Church age and God will, according to His literal, written Word, fulfill His prophetic promises and unconditional covenants with that people and nation. But not before the Bridegoom comes for His bride.
 
40.png
Ozzie:
After almost two millennia, Israel, against all odds, is back in their ancient homeland for a definite Divine reason. We’re near the end of this Church age and God will, according to His literal, written Word, fulfill His prophetic promises and unconditional covenants with that people and nation. But not before the Bridegoom comes for His bride.
Click to expand...
Ozzie, is your real name Rev. Tim LaHaye?

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_212.gif
 
Now now, you guys, there is no need for arguementation, and certainly not name calling. It is unChristian, and uncharitable, which makes it unCatholic. Premillenial Dispensational Millenialism is a theological fabrication that has been utterly rejected by the Church. In essence, if the doctrine was not taught or discussed or believed by the Apostles, then it has no place in Christian life. The Church hold a amillenial position and makes allowances for a semi-preterist point of view. I myself hold to semi-preterist amillenialism, and I believe that Jimmy Akin does as well.

While I agree that we are wasting our time debating this pointless, valueless theological perspective, there is no need to resort to baseless namecalling. It doesn’t prove your point, make you a better apologist, or hasten your adversary to consider your arguement. You just make yourself look like an arrogant, inarticulate Catholic. Please, learn to debate your point without debasing your opponent.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
While I agree that we are wasting our time debating this pointless, valueless theological perspective, there is no need to resort to baseless namecalling. It doesn’t prove your point, make you a better apologist, or hasten your adversary to consider your arguement. You just make yourself look like an arrogant, inarticulate Catholic. Please, learn to debate your point without debasing your opponent.
Click to expand...
Sorry Scott, sorry Ozzie. The devil made me do it!

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_124.gif
 
It is a well known and documented fact that those in the early Church who held to the Premillennial (Chiliastic) view were regarded as the “exactly orthodox.” They were so regarded because that is exactly what they were handed down by the Apostles who, themselves being Jewish, held to the literal , orthodox, Jewish view of the Messianic/Davidic Kingdom.

Just prior to Christ’s ascension His disciples (Apostles) asked Him if it was at this time He was “restoring the Kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). A very legitimate question because the O.T. canon closed with that hope not yet fulfilled - and in the Jewish mind it was espected to be fulfilled literally (i.e., politically/earthly). The kingdom restored to Israel is a major theme throughout the Hebrew, prophetic writings: Is. 52:8; Jer. 29:14; 30:3,18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7,11,26; Eze. 39:25; Joel 3:1; Zeph. 3:20; Hos. 6:11; Amos 9:14 (only a small example). Jesus did not tell his disciples they were mistaken by taking their prophets literally (after all, they were to take literally their prophecies regarding Him), but simply told them that it was not for them to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.

The Premillennial view was also confirmed at the first Church council held in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church had a question as to how to deal with the Gentiles God was bringing into the Church by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (read Acts 15:6-11). In conclusion James lays out the prophetic chronology based on the writings of the Hebrew prophet Amos (Amos 9:11). James confirms that Christ is at this time (i.e., during this Church age) taking out from the Gentiles a people for His name and placing them into the Body of Christ alongside believing Jews. But he goes on to reveal what God will do after this Church age regarding His future dealings with national Israel:
Click to expand...
ACT 15:16-18 “'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, in order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”"
Click to expand...
Oh gee that is just your interpretation of the facts. Or don’t you know most protestants don’t accept your interpretation of the Biblical eschatology. So you say your interpretation of the Bible is true well join a thousand other protestants who disagree with you.
Justin was posttribulation in eschatology along with every single church father. This was not an invention of anyone. The Bible is posttrib everybody agreed with this both catholic and protestant till the 17th century. Justin was a Chialist he was not Millinarian in the way dispensationalist like you are. Why aren’t you listening. Read real slowly Justin beleived he would undergoe the tribulation of the last days at the conculusion Jesus second coming ensues which would conclude with the Millinum age which would never end.
John Darby on the other hand popularized a new kind of Millinarims which you hold to. First the rapture happens fundies dissapear. Tribulation happens. Jesus comes for the third time this time visibly then the millinium comes. The millinium ends.
Satan is loosed again goes to battle with Jesus and the church once again? Gee you guys see the Bible repearting itself a lot.
THe conclusion Jesus defeats Satan once again throws him into the lake of fire and now we finally have a new heaven and new earth. Justins eschaltogy was really simple just like present day catholcism the only thing we disagree with is his placing of the millinium you on the other had disagree with him on many fronts including the rapture and the the millinium ends the age.
You fail to recognize the vast difference you have with on his eschatology not metion the fact he was no zionist unlike yourself.
How do you know your interpretation of last things are right when most of your protestant brethren would disagree?
Because your pastor said so and a book written by a rapturist said do. Their is no evidence that this existed before the 17th century period. IF justin is the best you could do your pretty sorry as I plainly explained what his beliefs are Which is closer to catholcism than dispensationlist.
 
Hi Ozzie;

You’re making the same critical errors in thinking that Ryrie did when citing to the early Church Fathers for support of dispensational millenarianism.

First, you must be willing to concede there is a clear distinction between *historical * millenarianism and *modern * dispensationalism. No serious scholar would deny that some of the ECFs harbored historical premillinialist views, but what does not follow is your conclusion that - ergo, those Fathers harbored your modern dispensationalist view of premillenialism that includes - as its central themes - belief in a pretribulational rapture and a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. As Olsen notes in his book “Will Catholics be ‘Left Behind’”:
Ryrie’s protests notwithstanding, those early premillenialists did not hold to distinctively modern and dispensationalist beliefs, especially not the belief in a pretribulational Rapture and the radical distinction between an earthly and a heavenly people of God. The early Church Fathers, whether premillenialist or otherwise, believed that the Church was the New Israel, that she - consisting of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 10:12) - had replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
Click to expand...
Olsen, “Will Catholics Be Left Behind” p. 121.
Click to expand...
Second, your reliance on the teachings of some of the early Church Fathers in support of premillenialism ignores the ECF’s early and unanimous teachings on distinctly Catholic beliefs like the nature of the Eucharist, the authority and nature of the Church, and the necessity of baptism. So, you cannot have it both ways. If you argue the early Church Fathers were right about historical premillenialism, then you are also conceding their accuracy with respect to a whole host of distinctly Catholic doctrine.

Peace and Charity,
 
Ozzie,

If the righteous are supposed to miss the wrath of God via the Pre-Trib. Rapture……then please be advised that you and I missed it.

We are seeing the wrath of God unfold before our eyes……ie. those who have eyes to see should see, and those who have ears should hear.

Just read the captioned headlines……one does not even need to read the underlying articles:

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index20.htm

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=606845

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-1415627,00.html

http://www.terradaily.com/2003/031024064710.pojdrim0.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1391045,00.html

A 9.0 quake! And resulting tsunami’s…….and they don’t have a clue how many perished.

And we can expect much more……much worse…this is only the beginning of the beginning.

Ozzie, it’s time to forget about the myth……come back to the true Church of Jesus Christ.
 
Robert in SD:
Hi Ozzie;

You’re making the same critical errors in thinking that Ryrie did when citing to the early Church Fathers for support of dispensational millenarianism.

First, you must be willing to concede there is a clear distinction between *historical *millenarianism and *modern *dispensationalism. No serious scholar would deny that some of the ECFs harbored historical premillinialist views, but what does not follow is your conclusion that - ergo, those Fathers harbored your modern dispensationalist view of premillenialism that includes - as its central themes - belief in a pretribulational rapture and a radical distinction between Israel and the Church. As Olsen notes in his book “Will Catholics be ‘Left Behind’”:
Click to expand...
I never said the early Church was Dispensational. But it was predominately Premillennial and considered that view orthodox. And why wouldn’t they be? Jesus was Jewish, the Apostles were Jewish, all the writers of Scripture were Jewish, hence, they believed in the Jewish hope of the Davidic/Messianic, literal, earthly Kingdom. All the O.T. prophets spoke of it. They understood it to be a spiritual Kingdom, but NONE of them “spiritualized” that Kingdom as Augustine and others did centuries later.

The Apostles asked Jesus just before His ascension, *“Is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel” *(Acts 1:6)? Jesus did not say they were in error or did not understand the Scriptures (because in that truth they did indeed), but He told them that it was at this time they (the Apostles) were to be His witnesses in the world. In other words, the Davidic Kingdom would not be established at this time. The King was about to ascend to His Father’s throne, but one day He will return and sit on His own throne reigning from Jerusalem (see Rev. 3:21; Matt. 25:31ff; Heb. 1:3).

It is Rome that errors (not Ryrie) by spiritualizing the kingdom. Rome along with many Protestant churches as well.
Second, your reliance on the teachings of some of the early Church Fathers in support of premillenialism ignores the ECF’s early and unanimous teachings on distinctly Catholic beliefs like the nature of the Eucharist, the authority and nature of the Church, and the necessity of baptism. So, you cannot have it both ways. If you argue the early Church Fathers were right about historical premillenialism, then you are also conceding their accuracy with respect to a whole host of distinctly Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
That’s a silly conclusion. That’s like concluding the ECF were divinely inspired writers and themselves were infallible. In fact, not all the ECF agreed on all things, be realistic, please!!! Nor did all the early writers speak on eschatological themes.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Oh gee that is just your interpretation of the facts. Or don’t you know most protestants don’t accept your interpretation of the Biblical eschatology. So you say your interpretation of the Bible is true well join a thousand other protestants who disagree with you.
Justin was posttribulation in eschatology along with every single church father. This was not an invention of anyone. The Bible is posttrib everybody agreed with this both catholic and protestant till the 17th century. Justin was a Chialist he was not Millinarian in the way dispensationalist like you are.
Click to expand...
Justin, based on his writing, was Premillenial. I never said he was Dispensational/Premillennial. But the Church was definitely predominately Premillennial. That is, the expectancy of an earthly Kingdom with Christ ruling over Israel and the nations for 1000 years. That’s what “Millennium” means, my friend. But after the 4th century it followed Augustine and adoped a “spiritualized” view of the Millennium. But the BIBLE, God’s written Word, God’s prophets, NEVER DO. They NEVER spiritualize the Davidic/Messianic Kingdom. It is described by them as spiritual, literal, earthly and political (it is future). It is one of the main reasons Christ is coming back (Zech. 14).

Do you really think I’m going to abandon the Word of God just to follow the crowd? :nope:

REV 20:6 “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”

Sorry, my deceived friend, but that’s a literal 1000 years.

You can’t argue Pretibulational truth until you first establish Premillennial truth. Truth begets truth, error begets error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top