Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Diaste]

9 hours ago, Last Daze said:

Some people do not arrive at what they perceive to be true through rational logic.  Consequently, rational logic will not persuade them.

I've come to realize that it doesn't really matter if you base your eschatology on wishful thinking or some secret revelation or a perfect exegesis of the original language to arrive at your narrative, because the accuracy of your understanding of end time events ultimately doesn't matter.  Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 that someone could understand all mysteries, and all knowledge and still be nothing.

What matters is that we walk in the Spirit; that we act on Jesus' teachings and keep His commandments.  That's what makes us wise and prepared for His return, whenever that proves to be. 

Truth. Well said. And I agree.

The Spirit calls us all to what fits us, according to His purpose. I'm a defender. This is the most important moment of all time. The end of the age is almost here. Jesus is soon to reappear, but first, the beast. The church is blind to this for the most part. They need to hear.

 

[OldCoot]

3 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

There is something odd here. This thread, is the newest of the "defense of (position)" threads. It is about a position, that is fairly new, at least in terms of nomenclature, and I would argue, it is the least common position people claim among "normal" positions.

Yet somehow, it has more pages that the other positions. Why do we suppose, if we do, that a relatively unknown, relatively new, relatively misunderstood, and relatively unpopular position, has the greatest number of posts, supposedly devoted to it's defense?

Relatively new?  Like Ephraim the Syrian in the 4th Century?  Or how about in Shepherd of Hermes document of roughly 110 AD.  I admit the Isaac Newton in the 17th century is newer.  But these are older than what many presume to be the originator of the idea in the 19th century. 

I would contend that it has the most posts in its defense in this present time because early on in the institutional church that became unified with the state it was not "politically correct" to teach that the Messiah would come reclaim the earth from its evil rulers. Amillennialism and Post Tribulation positions became the norm in that environment. And since the institutional church was the primary organization, it was not until the scriptures started being available to more and more of the masses that the teaching pre-trib resurfaced as a theological position.

Edited August 6, 2017 by OldCoot

[Omegaman 3.0]

No, new as in "who ever heard of it before 1990" new. Sort of like Calvinism is new, if it began with Calvin, but the same things were taught by the Apostle Paul. However, if  you search through records from 1000 A.D., how many references to Calvinism would you find, that is what I mean. 

[OldCoot]

Ok.

[BobRyan]

11 hours ago, OldCoot said:

t was not until the scriptures started being available to more and more of the masses that the teaching pre-trib resurfaced as a theological position.

scriptures are older than that. The pre-trib position is Jesuit. (a Chilean Jesuit priest, Manuel Lacunza) - part of the counter reformation.

Even though the Bible only contains contiguous timeline prophecies - yet the slicing dicing chopping and disconnecting of the last week of Daniel 9 was introduced via Jesuit initiative and creative writing in the 16th century.

It was a Jesuit priest named Ribera (1537-1591) who first taught that the events prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation would not be fulfilled until three and a half years at the end of the age when an individual world dictator called Anti-Christ would arise. Thus Ribera laid the foundation of a system of prophetic interpretation of which the Secret Rapture has now become an integral part. Yet it was not for another two and a half centuries that the Jesuit doctrine began to gain acceptance by Evangelical Christians.

 

In the early 19th Century Futurism entered the bloodstream of Protestant prophetic teaching by three doors:
(a) A Chilean Jesuit priest, Emmanuel Lacunza wrote a book entitled ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty’, and in its pages taught the novel notion that Christ returns not once, but twice, and at the ‘first stage’ of His return He ‘raptures’ His Church so they can escape the reign of the ‘future Antichrist’. In order to avoid any taint of Romanism, Lacunza published his book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben Ezra, a supposedly converted Jew. Lacunza’s book found its way to the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and there in 1826 Dr Maitland, the Archbishop’s librarian came upon it and read it and soon after began to issue a series of pamphlets giving the Jesuit, Futurist view of prophecy. The idea soon found acceptance in the   National Church of England, and then spread to the very heart of Protestantism.
(b) The Secret Rapture doctrine was given a second door of entrance at this time by the ministry of one, Edward Irving….
(c) A third door of entrance to the Reformed fold  via a sincere Christian, J. N. Darby, generally regarded as the founder of the ‘Brethren’. As an Anglican curate Darby attended a number of  meetings on Bible Prophecy at Powerscourt in Ireland, and at these gatherings he learned about the ‘secret rapture’. He carried the teaching into the Brethren and hence into the heart of Evangelicalism. The teaching spread and was later popularized in the notes of the Schofield Reference Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

39 minutes ago, BobRyan said:

scriptures are older than that. The pre-trib position is Jesuit. (a Chilean Jesuit priest, Manuel Lacunza) - part of the counter reformation.

Even though the Bible only contains contiguous timeline prophecies - yet the slicing dicing chopping and disconnecting of the last week of Daniel 9 was introduced via Jesuit initiative and creative writing in the 16th century.

It was a Jesuit priest named Ribera (1537-1591) who first taught that the events prophesied in the books of Daniel and Revelation would not be fulfilled until three and a half years at the end of the age when an individual world dictator called Anti-Christ would arise. Thus Ribera laid the foundation of a system of prophetic interpretation of which the Secret Rapture has now become an integral part. Yet it was not for another two and a half centuries that the Jesuit doctrine began to gain acceptance by Evangelical Christians.

 

In the early 19th Century Futurism entered the bloodstream of Protestant prophetic teaching by three doors:
(a) A Chilean Jesuit priest, Emmanuel Lacunza wrote a book entitled ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty’, and in its pages taught the novel notion that Christ returns not once, but twice, and at the ‘first stage’ of His return He ‘raptures’ His Church so they can escape the reign of the ‘future Antichrist’. In order to avoid any taint of Romanism, Lacunza published his book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben Ezra, a supposedly converted Jew. Lacunza’s book found its way to the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and there in 1826 Dr Maitland, the Archbishop’s librarian came upon it and read it and soon after began to issue a series of pamphlets giving the Jesuit, Futurist view of prophecy. The idea soon found acceptance in the   National Church of England, and then spread to the very heart of Protestantism.
(b) The Secret Rapture doctrine was given a second door of entrance at this time by the ministry of one, Edward Irving….
(c) A third door of entrance to the Reformed fold  via a sincere Christian, J. N. Darby, generally regarded as the founder of the ‘Brethren’. As an Anglican curate Darby attended a number of  meetings on Bible Prophecy at Powerscourt in Ireland, and at these gatherings he learned about the ‘secret rapture’. He carried the teaching into the Brethren and hence into the heart of Evangelicalism. The teaching spread and was later popularized in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Giller said:

I personally do not believe this, because I go with the bible, and did you know that the Catholic church does not believe in a pre trib rapture?

Everyone has free will of course you can choose as you wish. But for the sake of clarity the point is not that the Jesuits promoted ideas for themselves - rather they promoted ideas to be inserted into protestantism as part of the counter reformation effort. So we are talking about facts of history and not preference about which history we might want to prefer.

Lacunza’s book found its way to the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and there in 1826 Dr Maitland, the Archbishop’s librarian came upon it and read it and soon after began to issue a series of pamphlets

Darby picks it up from a meeting in  Ireland... Scofield gets it from Darby.

 

As you said "go with the Bible". In the Bible Jesus said "I will come again to receive you to Myself" not "I will come again and again".

Matthew 24 "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... He will send forth His angels to gather His elect"

It is at the John 14:1-3 "second coming" where "I will come again and RECEIVE you to Myself that WHERE I am there you may be also".

Thus the "Dead in Christ rise FIRST" 1 Thess 4 at the "FIRST resurrection" Rev 20:4-5 that occurs at the second coming described in Matthew 24, and John 14:1-3 and Rev 19-20:5

One Bible detail that helps us keep all this straight is to remember that all Bible timelines are contiguous units themselves. So the 70 years of Jeremiah discussed by Daniel in Dan 9:1-6 are all "contiguous years" back-to-back. No inserting "gaps of undefined time length" into the middle of the contiguous 70 year timeline. All bible timelines work that way - including the 70 week (490 year) timeline.

 

 

[Last Daze]

14 hours ago, Diaste said:

Truth. Well said. And I agree.

The Spirit calls us all to what fits us, according to His purpose. I'm a defender. This is the most important moment of all time. The end of the age is almost here. Jesus is soon to reappear, but first, the beast. The church is blind to this for the most part. They need to hear.

 

I agree.  I'm not trying to diminish the importance of a scriptural understanding of eschatology.  Jesus Himself said concerning the things to come, "Behold, I have told you in advance."  He saw fit to forewarn us and we should take note.

If the words we speak are truth then those who have ears to hear will hear.  No one spoke truth more purely than Jesus yet not many believed.  He knew the different types of soil that were out there.  

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, Last Daze said:

  No one spoke truth more purely than Jesus yet not many believed.  

I think about this quite a bit. Very sad thing and it troubles me even though I know it's the way it is.

Blessings.

[iamlamad]

On 8/5/2017 at 7:29 AM, Diaste said:

The trouble with this logic is only one gathering is described by Jesus and Paul as linked to the coming of Jesus. This is why pretrib is incorrect. Do you get this idea? If a thing has supporting evidence we can safely conclude it is fact. If another conclusion is presented that does not fit the facts then it is a false conclusion. Paul said, "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him," Both the gathering of the elect and the coming of Jesus are linked in time/space by Paul. Paul goes on to say, "for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." This is the A of D as described by Daniel in 11:36. This means the Gathering Paul spoke of will not happen until after the A of D, sometime in the 2nd half.

You are already wrong in your first sentence. WHO SAID only one gathering is described? You? Sorry, I will take Matthew, Paul, and John over your theories.

You are correct, Paul DOES give us the timing. The problem is, you did not understand Paul.

"for that day will not come"  What day? The Day of the Lord that they imagined had already begun. 

"until the 'apostasia' or departure occurs" Several of the first translations uses the word "departing"   Paul is telling us that   ..............the departing (gathering) must come first - the very thing He tells us in his first letter.

" This means the Gathering Paul spoke of will not happen until after the A of D"  No, it only means you don't understand the intent of the Author.

Of course, if you don't know when God's wrath begins, how are you expected to know when the rapture is? They are all connected and if one is in error on one point, they will be in error on many points. The truth is, pretrib has it right, and Jesus can come at ANY MOMENT to gather those that are His. I, for one, am watching for His coming. I doubt if you are.

[iamlamad]

11 hours ago, Giller said:

Now it is possible that this Jesuit named Manuel Lacunza, noticed that the bible thought a pre trib rapture, but whatever the case, if he noticed this, then he was right, but he sure did not establish the pre trib doctrine, for God established it, and the Catholic church does not believe in a pre trib rapture doctrine.

Right on!