What do you think jac3510? or anyone else? I've read it and It seems fine, but one person can easily miss stuff.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
PLpuritan lad wrote:Here are 10 points…
1.) There is no mention of a “rapture” in any of the scriptures quoted.
2.) There is no mention of a “tribulation period” in any of the scriptures quoted.
The church of Philadelphia is given a promise to escape from the tribulation and the church of Thyatira is warned that unless they repent, they will be thrown into the tribulation.
Again, where is the rapture? Was Noah or Lot Raptured?Once again, this shows Noah was removed from judgement, Lot was removed from judgement, and the True Christians will be removed before the tribulation judgement.
What in the world does this have to do with any rapture?2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
First of all the Rapture is inferredpuritan lad wrote:There is a big difference bizzt. The trinity can be inferred by the fact that God the father is God, Jesus Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that they are three distinct persons.
There is absolutely nothing that can infer a pre-trib rapture. Just look at how this doctrine is supposed to be "inferred" on the aforementioned site.
The church of Philadelphia is given a promise to escape from the tribulation and the church of Thyatira is warned that unless they repent, they will be thrown into the tribulation.
What does this have to do with a rapture? Was the Philadelphia church raptured?
Again, where is the rapture? Was Noah or Lot Raptured?Once again, this shows Noah was removed from judgement, Lot was removed from judgement, and the True Christians will be removed before the tribulation judgement.
What in the world does this have to do with any rapture?2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
There is more, but you should get the point. The Trinity Doctrine is based on things that the scriptures plainly tells us. Such is not the case with the pre-trib rapture. There is nothing that even hints at this in the scriptures. It is a doctrine that was invented by John Darby in the 1830's, promoted by the Scofield Reference Novel, and made popular by Hal Lindsey. It's just not in the Bible, plainly stated or inferred.
However if you read my post IT still deals with a Rapture! Like I said I do not care if it is Post mid or Pre it deals with the Rapture... And you in turn have to come from where you say there is no Rapture and agree that there is a Rapture... The rest I will leave it to Jac...puritan lad wrote:Sorry bizzt. If anything, 1 Thess. 4 teaches a "post-resurrection" rapture, not a "pre-trib" rapture. Since the resurrection takes place on the last day (Daniel 12:13, John 6:39, 40, 44), there cannot be a 7 year tribulation period after this event.
I'll deal with Ice's hoaxes above later. This will require me to dig up some stuff in my archives
As currently defined? No bizzt. Nice try. There is no secret snatching away of saints into heaven to avoid some future judgment. I see trumpets, a resurrection, and, when Christ returns, history ends. Plus, the "great tribulation" is history.bizzt wrote:However if you read my post IT still deals with a Rapture! Like I said I do not care if it is Post mid or Pre it deals with the Rapture... And you in turn have to come from where you say there is no Rapture and agree that there is a Rapture... The rest I will leave it to Jac...
Really? How so?1. The Apostolic Fathers held to both the imminent return of Christ as well as a post-tribulational rapture theory. While these positions are self-contradictory, the fact that imminence was taught is very important, as it forms the irrefutable basis of pre-trib. rapture.
See http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/deceived.html concerning Pseudo-Ephraem and Morgan Edwards (#9).2. A sermon preched by a man referred to as Pseudo-Ephraem in the fourth to sixth century AD, entitled Sermon on The Last Times, The Antchrist, and The End of the World, contains the following:
Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all of the world? . . . For all the saints of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.
I didn't say that Darby invented premillennialism. I said he invented the Pre-trib rapture. Premillennialism has been around for a long time in different forms. It is Dispensationalism that is the new kid on the eschatological block.3. It is believed that sects like the Albigenses, Lmbards, and the Waldenses were attracted to premillennialism . . . difficult to say much as the RCC (which was/is amill) destroyed their works whenever they found them.
Here is Gary DeMar's reply.4. Brother Dolcino (1304) held to a pretribulational rapture, according to Francis Gumerlock. "[Dolcino taught that he and his followers would] be preserved unharmed from the persecution of the Antichrist."
The commentaries of these men are both pretty good size. Would you care to show me exactly where they taught this? Both, at best, were historical premills with very heavy preterist leanings. Both viewed the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled, and neither taught a pre-trib rapture as far as I can tell. I am open to correction on the last statement. Here are some commentaries on the Olivet Discourse.5. Both Philip Doddridge's commentary on the NT (1738) and Gill's commentary on the NT (1748) teach the imminence of the rapture. "It is clear that these men believed that [the rapture] will precede Christ's descent to the earth and the time of judgment. The purpose was to preserve believers from the time of judgment."
Please show proof. Like Gill and Doddridge, both were historical premills with very heavy preterist leanings.6. James Macknight (1763) and Thomas Scott (1792) taught that the righteous will be carried to heaven, where they will be secure until the time of judgment is over.
Good for Frank. Did he provide any proof?7. Frank Marotta, not a pre-triber, believes that Thomas Collier in 1674 makes reference to a pretib rapture.
Not familiar with this guy at all. Can you give a direct quote?8. John Asgill wrote a book in 1700 discussing the possibility of translation without seeing death.
See Article posted above. And you wonder why I don't like referring to Dispensationalist Study Material. Very sloppy Jac (and Mr. Ice.)9. Baptist Morgan Edwards, founder of Brown University, apparently believed in a system comparable to modern day mid-trib rapture. He published his beliefs in 1744 saying,
The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more--, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" . . . ; and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium . . . they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" . . ., and disappear during the foresaid period f time. The design of ths retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints.
Can't wait to see it, though I must say, it sure has been tough finding this doctrine in church history, hasn't it? Maybe it's because it's just not there (as well as not in the Bible).In addition to all these, Dr. Ice mentions an individual who is currently compiling a list of pre-19th century references to the pre-trib. rapture from previously unpublished material. These should be released in the next few years.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
As I understand the pre-trib rapture view of imminence, they believe that Christ will remove all Christians from planet earth, and that this could happen at any moment (although the great majority were convinced that it would happen before 1988 - their first attempt to redefine "this generation".) Does that answer your question? What else specifically do you wish to know?edit: Actually, to clarify, it's not YOUR understanding of the doctrine I want. It's the understanding of the pretrib position, which you would probably disagree with.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue