Things the Bible does not say about the End Times

[Omegaman 3.0]

Hi Omegaman 3.0,

 

Do you realise that -

 

`...knowing first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,...` (2 Peter 1: 20)

 

Meaning that no scripture is to be taken by itself - not `private or separate,` (Gk. `idios). Thus you need to rethink your position.

 

Marilyn.  

 

Hi Marilyn. Thanks for that advice. It is good advice. Is there some reason, that you think I do not already understand these things, and take them seriously? I have been rethinking my position for over 3 decades, and continue to do so to this day. I just finished taking a 5 week class on the book of Revelation, and the teacher had some interesting things to say, things worth considering. His position was from an amillennial, preterist position. While I am not convinced to change views just yet, he was pretty persuasive. He, like myself, is a former pre-tribber. Like myself, it was his study of scripture, that led him to abandon pre-trib rapture eschatology.

 

I am also looking into yet another position which I was recently introduced to. I never stop investigating this topic, but I plan to, when I meet the Lord, face to face.

 

Since these matters are of no private interpretation, what about you, should you rethink your position also, or is your personal interpretation okay? Just asking!

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

Hi Omegaman 3.0

 

I just wanted you to know that I agree with you; there are no scriptures that support the nine things on your list.

 

Jeff

 

Thanks Jeff

[Ezra]

Okay, Yet another poster who cannot rise to the challenge of sticking to the topic, or post verses refuting the nine statements. That is OK, I never really expected any. So, let's see what you had to say, and if there is anything I want to respond to anyway.

Actually, the scope of this thread is so wide, that responding to any one point would require a thread in itself (and there are several related threads in existence anyhow).

 

The bottom line in that most Christians who have decided to take a specific position in eschatology will not budge from that regardless of how many Scriptures or how many expositions are presented.  You could not get Watchman Nee, for example, to abandon his partial Rapture theory, no matter what you presented.  You could not get an Amillenialist to recognize the absurdity of his position.

 

All the so-called things which the Bible does NOT allegedly say are actually there if one wishes to see them.  For example, since the Rapture is also called "the Blessed Hope", it cannot possibly have anything in common with judgment, wrath, tribulation, destruction, mourning, and Hell.  These are fundamental premises, not rocket science.

[MorningGlory]

 

 

 

P.S. Please try to stick to the actual topic, and provide us with the information which would show me to be in error, when I claim the bible does not express the ideas in the list.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, O man, is this your own list or did it come from another source? 

 

 

I this list came to me as I was just awakening, while groggy at about 6 A.M. this morning. So it is not that well thought out. Also just out of curiosity, why do you ask?

 

 

I ask because it's importantt to know if these are your own  thoughts or if you are agreeing with someone else.  It's always best to know whose door you're knocking on before you enter. 

[Omegaman 3.0]

 

On 5/27/2015 at 12:49 PM, Ezra said:

Omegaman,

 

I would have to disagree with most of your conclusions.  

 

Some have this idea that unless a Scripture can state precisely (in the very same, exact words) what is believed, then that truth is not valid.  But that is not how the Lord and the apostles handled Scripture.  There are many instances when the Lord applied Scripture obliquely to establish doctrine.  Our responsibility is to take all Scriptures into account and arrive at the teaching which is consistent with all Scripture.

 

Take the example of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  First of all, what is the purpose of the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation?  If it has nothing to do with the Church, why should we expect God to say "There will be a Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church" precisely in so may words?  Why can we not be satisfied with the statement that God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through Christ? 

 

Unless you can prove that everything described in Revelation chapters 6 through 18 is an expression of God's grace and mercy, and not His wrath, why should we not believe that the entire Tribulation period is an expression of God's wrath?  And why should we not believe that Daniel's 70th week ( seven years) is tied into this?  Do we really need another statement saying "Daniel's 70th week is tied into the book of Revelation, and believers, make sure to integrate the two"?

Okay, Yet another poster who cannot rise to the challenge of sticking to the topic, or post verses refuting the nine statements. That is OK, I never really expected any. So, you have to disagree with my conclusions That is fine feel free to do so, but can you refute any of them? So, let's see what you had to say, and if there is anything I want to respond to anyway.

 

Quote

 

Some have this idea that unless a Scripture can state precisely (in the very same, exact words) what is believed, then that truth is not valid.  But that is not how the Lord and the apostles handled Scripture.  There are many instances when the Lord applied Scripture obliquely to establish doctrine.  Our responsibility is to take all Scriptures into account and arrive at the teaching which is consistent with all Scripture.

 

 

Okay, so you make a statement about how scripture should be handled. I do not disagree really, with what you say in that first paragraph. However, that does not alter the fact that you did not even offer even a group of passages or verses, when taken together, refute a single one of those 9 propositions I listed. So, while your 1st paragraph gives us some insight into a way to understand scripture, to come at in more obliquely  (good choice of words there I think) or holistically, you failed to illustrate, by example, how to arrive at the conclusion that any one of those 9 statements I made are biblical ideas, instead of Biblically unsupported ideas as I claim. The last sentence in your first paragraph, implies that perhaps if we take all scriptures into account, that we can arrive at a position which is consistent with scripture. I think that is a grand idea. In fact I contend that no one who did that, would arrive that the pre-trib position, or arrive at the nine ideas that I listed, Desiring the have a position in harmony with the scripture, is exactly why I reject pre-tribism. Ever notice that here on Worthy, we have thread where people can defend different rapture timing sequences? Did you notice that in spite of pre-tribism being a very popular position, that the post-trib position had about 40% more posts than the pre-trib defense does? I know a lot of the posts are replies to positions, not just defenses, but wouldn't you think that if the bible supports the premies, that that thread would be at least as large as that of the posties? Just asking.

 

Quote

Take the example of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.  First of all, what is the purpose of the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation?  If it has nothing to do with the Church, why should we expect God to say "There will be a Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church" precisely in so may words?  Why can we not be satisfied with the statement that God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through Christ?

 

So, in the second paragraph, you begin it as if you are going to give an example. You set our expectation, but then, instead of an example, you ask a question: "What is the purpose of the tribulation?"  Then you do not tell us the answer to the question, you tell us what is isn't, you tell us that it has nothing to do with the church. That is a fine assertion. However, again, you provide no scripture which makes your point. I know there are those who say the Old Testament calls it the time of Jacob's trouble. We are then  supposed to conclude that it is to punish Israel, or some such thing. Even if that were true, and that is the purpose, I have not seen a verse that says to the effect "I God am going to schedule a time of trouble for the purpose of punishing the Jews. "  Indeed, I expect that that time will be very difficult for the Jews, it will be a time of trouble for Israel, but Israel will apparently be saved from or in it (just as a side note).

 

Bye the way, why should we be looking for the church in the Old Testament eschatology. The church is barely mentioned in the Old Testament. Some say it is not mentioned at all. The most detail of eschatology which concerns the church is in the New testament. Those who lived in the first century, could not examine the New Testament, they did not have it yet. Jesus told them to look to the book of Daniel, at one specific thing in particular. The abomination of desolation. Either, that has already happened, or it is future. If it is future, why tell people who would never see it, need to watch for it? Anyway, this is taking me further off track.

 

Let's agree for a moment, that it is the time of Jacob's trouble and that this is actually the purpose of the tribulation. Let's also assume for a moment, that the church were to be present. Would the presence of of the church, in any way, make this less troublesome for the Jew? If so, I do not see how that is stated or implied. The fact that the church is apparently not mentioned in that passage is what, an argument form silence? Really, is that how we get our understanding? Do we assume that something that is not mentioned, must be true? I guess it is, that is the whole point of those 9 things I listed I guess. It is as if some would say: "well, such and such is not stated in the bible, therefore it must be true!"  That is the exegetical  methodology of pre-tribism, if we are honest. 'Let's just string together a whole list of things the Bible does not state, and assume then to be true'.

 

Now, I am sorry if I just wasted my time on the "purpose of the tribulation" thing, I just took a guess, since you did not bother to inform us of what that purpose is, nor give us scripture to tell us, so we could draw our conclusions. I am going to have to learn not to respond to these posts that neglect the O.P. I feel a little like Goliath, challenging the army of Israel : "Is there no one among you who will answer this challenge?" There are 9 propositions, defeat one of, any one of them, head on!

 

This is not about winning a debate, not about who is right and who is wrong. It is about some assumptions made by some people, and if these assumptions are not true, then some people are leading other people astray. If that is the case, then it should cease in my opinion. So much of the Bible, warns us not to be deceived, and yet some of us might be part of the deception.

 

You also asked: "Why can we not be satisfied with the statement that God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through Christ?"

 

Well, I am satisfied with that, I am encouraged by that. This verse is part of the reason  I pointed out that the Bible does not equate the wrath of God, to the great tribulation.

 

1st Thess 5:9 is a great promise, isn't it? Let's look at that without lifting it out of it's context:

 

 1Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; 5for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober. 7For those who sleep do their sleeping at night, and those who get drunk get drunk at night. 8But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him. 11Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing. 

 

Now, if we take your advice and look at more than a single isolated verse, what will we see:

 

• The Day of the Lord will come as a thief - what is the Day of the Lord - what ever you think, can you prove it with scripture? I am not asking you to, because that is beyond the topic here, but for the sake of all reading this, that is the context of the passage, and it should be noted.
• There are two groups of people, those who are in darkness and will experience that days as a thief in the night and the believers who are not in darkness and will not be overtaken like a thief 
• The believers here, as in other passages, are exhorted to be alert, and to put on the hope of salvation. First thing I think of about salvation, is the salvation we look forward to, that Jesus purchased for us, and that seems to be the salvation indicated here, seen in verse 10 (not salvation from the tribulation. In fact in John 14:17, Jesus prayed to the Father: “I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.

Now, your verse about not being appointed to wrath is next, we have it's context.

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Now, what is wrath contrasted with here? It is contrasted with salvation. Indeed, some are appointed to wrath in the final judgement, but not believers. Believers are appointed to salvation, the salvation Jesus died for.

So, as you can see, if you are honest in dealing with the text in context. We saw that the day of the Lord comes on those in darkness, not on believers. They are surprised, like a thief in the night. Do you know that there are some, who even think Jesus comes like a thief in the night in a pre-trib rapture? I should add that the the list, another thing not taught in scripture, that some believe. Continuing . . . 

We saw that the wrath we are not appointed to, is the final judgement, since the alternative is the salvation Jesus purchased. At least, that would seem to be the best, simplest understanding, considering the context. Post tribbers do not need to state that verse out of context, since in context, it in no way contradicts their view. This is hardly a proof text, or even evidence of, a pre-trib position,

Well, that is half an hour I will never get back! I need to stay focused and not get sidetracked. It will take me resisting temptation, to stay on topic myself, I am not blaming you Ezra. In fact, I thank you for taking an interest, and giving me an opportunity to deal with your . . . points! Still, in the future, I am going to have to address such responses by just pointing out, that they are off topic.

For those of you who want to deal with the subjects you want to, there are threads where you can do that. Plenty of them, so please take advantage of those.

Again, this is about 9 common positions or assumptions, that some people have, that are not taught in scripture.

 

Quote

Unless you can prove that everything described in Revelation chapters 6 through 18 is an expression of God's grace and mercy, and not His wrath, why should we not believe that the entire Tribulation period is an expression of God's wrath?  And why should we not believe that Daniel's 70th week ( seven years) is tied into this?  Do we really need another statement saying "Daniel's 70th week is tied into the book of Revelation, and believers, make sure to integrate the two"?

Okay, I am probably not going to address this, since I do not even understand what you are trying to say.

One thing I notice, is that you would have me prove something about  Revelation. I am not out to prove anything. This topic is about others disproving what I said. If you want to do that with the book or Revelation, do so, but spell it out with something less vague and general. Just for grins though, when I read the book of Revelation what I see is this.

Things are going to be tough, but hang on, we win in the end.

Daniel's 70th week IS tied into this, why would I want you to think otherwise? Jesus said to look to the book of Daniel, but  . . .  He also said to note one thing in particular: 

when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17“Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18“Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19“But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20“But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21“For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

My contention in the post was that the 7 year period is not referred to as the great tribulation. Here Jesus calls the period from the abomination onward, great tribulation. I never said the tribulation was not 7 years. Indeed the there is tribulation also in the first 3 1/2 years. For that matter, "in this world you shall suffer tribulation, but be of good cheer, indicates to me that the whole church age we will be subject to tribulation, have you ever watched the news?

I refer to these 7 years as Daniel's 70th week all the time, but I do not call it the great tribulation, because the bible doesn't title it that way. I try to use bible terminology so as not to confuse people, to find things we can agree on, to get us on the same page.

P.S. Sorry, the quotes were so screwed up on this when I posted this reply earlier, that I had to do it all over from scratch, that is why is is time stamped so late. Will delete the earlier version from 2 hours ago..

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 5/27/2015 at 5:26 PM, Ezra said:

 

Quote

Okay, Yet another poster who cannot rise to the challenge of sticking to the topic, or post verses refuting the nine statements. That is OK, I never really expected any. So, let's see what you had to say, and if there is anything I want to respond to anyway.

Actually, the scope of this thread is so wide, that responding to any one point would require a thread in itself (and there are several related threads in existence anyhow).

 

The bottom line in that most Christians who have decided to take a specific position in eschatology will not budge from that regardless of how many Scriptures or how many expositions are presented.  You could not get Watchman Nee, for example, to abandon his partial Rapture theory, no matter what you presented.  You could not get an Amillenialist to recognize the absurdity of his position.

 

All the so-called things which the Bible does NOT allegedly say are actually there if one wishes to see them.  For example, since the Rapture is also called "the Blessed Hope", it cannot possibly have anything in common with judgment, wrath, tribulation, destruction, mourning, and Hell.  These are fundamental premises, not rocket science.

 

 

Ah too funny, another one to add to the list. The Rapture is not called the Blessed Hope.

 

    11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

 

Just where is the rapture mentiioned in that passage? I like that  you used yet another example of what I am talking about, making assumptions or repeating things you hear somewhere, instead of sticking to what the text actually says

I will agree with you that the scope is pretty wide, and could take entire threads themselves. It might also be, that these topics exist in other threads. However, I have not read one, that I can remember, that has ever established any of those nine ideas I called into question.

As to the idea that people do not change their positions, I have seen several here on Worthy, do that very thing. Furthermore, I used to be a pre-tribber. I know a few posties from my real life (about half a dozen) who are also former pre-tribbers. So, while that idea is true that people are stubborn, and cling to their positions, it is hardly an absolute. I find though, that for people who say that, it seems to be true.

I also find your notion that  "All the so-called things which the Bible does NOT allegedly say are actually there if one wishes to see them."  to be patently absurd. I do not know post-tribers who want to see the church go through the tribulation. Likely all of us hope pretrib is correct. We would love to embrace this escapism eschatology, we just cannot find it in scripture objectively, so our consciences will not allow us to accept it..

[Omegaman 3.0]

I ask because it's importantt to know if these are your own  thoughts or if you are agreeing with someone else.  It's always best to know whose door you're knocking on before you enter. 

 

Okay MG, if you say so, lol. Even if I had plagiarized these ideas, they are either sound or not, based on their own merits.

[MorningGlory]

 

I ask because it's important to know if these are your own  thoughts or if you are agreeing with someone else.  It's always best to know whose door you're knocking on before you enter. 

 

Okay MG, if you say so, lol. Even if I had plagiarized these ideas, they are either sound or not, based on their own merits.

 

No one inferred that you plagarized anything, O man.  And, yes, the list will stand or fall on it's own.  I need to research these things before I comment on them.

[Omegaman 3.0]

MG, I was not accusing you of accusing me of plagiarism, that is why I said IF

 

As I said in an earlier post, I am usually pretty choosy with my words. Most likely I would have said "Since you are accusing me of plagiarism" if I wanted to imply that. I never assumed that was what your were doing.
 

 

 

I need to research these things before I comment on them.

 

Yay, that is what I pray this thread accomplishes, that people would research these things, especially, the Bible itself, Be a Berean!

[MorningGlory]

MG, I was not accusing you of accusing me of plagiarism, that is what I said IF

 

As I said in an earlier post, I am usually pretty choosy with my words. Most likely I would have said "Since you are accusing me of plagiarism" if I wanted to imply that. I never assumed that was what your were doing.

 

 

I sure wasn't; I was just curious.  Thanks for clarifying that, O man.