Pre-tribbers, what do you have

[Marilyn C]

Hi Enoch2010,

 

It is based on what God shows in His word.

 

`For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order ;....` (1 Cor. 15: 22 & 23)

[Montana Marv]

Enoch

 

I will say what Marilyn said is Fact.  Only two Resurrections; one for the Just, the other for the Unjust.  Christ was the first fruit of the Resurrection for the just and to eternal life.  The A/C and false prophet are the first fruits for the unjust and to the lake of fire.  I only see two destinations.  You are stuck on the words "First" and "Second".

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Montana Marv]

And then there is 1 Cor 15: 54, 55 - When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true.  Death has been swallowed up in victory.  Where, O death, is your victory?  Where O death is your sting?

 

The finality of this is not full filled until Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14)

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

[Joshua David]

FACT - 2 resurrections of a group of people are spoken about in Revelation, the first resurrection happens at the second coming of Christ, at the start of the 1000 year reign, the other resurrection happen after the 1000 year reign at the great white throne judgement . 

 

FACT - Any resurrection added prior to these, for a pre-trib rapture to accompany is adding to the Book.

Enoch, 

 

As far as your first statement, I agree with you, but when we are considering doctrine, we must consider all scripture from the entire bible, not just from the book of Revelation.  

 

As far as your second 'fact', it is nothing more than your opinion or interpretation. 

 

Again, why don't you address the points that I raised in my previous post.  Please explain how  1 Cor 15:51, Matt 25:31-46, and Isaiah 65:20 can all be true in a post tribulation rapture.

 

Isaiah 65:20  20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

 

Matt 25:45-46  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

 

1 Cor 15:51  51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

Because, if you can't make your interpretation fit with all of scripture, then it is time to change your interpretation.

 

As Iron sharpens Iron, 

 

Joshua David

[ARGOSY]

 

 

 

Again, why don't you address the points that I raised in my previous post.  Please explain how  1 Cor 15:51, Matt 25:31-46, and Isaiah 65:20 can all be true in a post tribulation rapture.

 

Isaiah 65:20  20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

 

Matt 25:45-46  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

 

 

I'm not sure of Enoch's opinion, but I see Matthew 25 as representing the sheep nations, those nations that treated the brethren well are allowed to live on into the millenium in relatively blessed lives compared to current economic conditions. These sheep are obviously not the brethren, and are described as nations.

 

This would explain the state of Israel in Isaiah 65 as well. Obviously saved Jews have the higher blessing of the heavenly Jerusalem, instead of a better earthly Jerusalem as per Isaiah 65.

 

Being post-tribbers, we believe the rapture occurs at the resurrection at the last trumpet, which explains the rapture/resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15. This rapture/resurrection occurs "at His coming".  So we can be sure of the timing of the rapture/resurrection which occurs at the coming of Christ (1 Thess 4 also confirms this).

 

A pre-tribber would then have to introduce two raptures and two comings and two last trumpets if they wish to split the Thess/Corinthians raptures from the Matthew 24/Mark 13 gathering of the elect.

[Guest]

Here's wikipedia, with an article on the rapture written in either the 3rd century (or 6th but based on a 3rd century writer, hey, wiki is secular and crowdsourced, whaddaya expect), but  either date is significantly before Darby. Again, the "my theory is older" game is a waste of time, since Dan 12:4 says knowledge will increase:

 

 

I agree that the evidence of the age o views is not that relevant, it is what the bible says, that matters. Still, what happens, or seems to have happened, is that at some point in recent history, some postie made the claim, that pretribism/dispensationalism, are recent inventions. If that is true, then people have the right to take 2 Tim 4 and wonder if it should be appled to pretribism. 

Naturally, someone fond of the pretrib view, would like to find evidence of premieism, before the 1800s, quite understandable. So the search was on, and writings of the early church were scoured, looking for that evidence, Some claim to have found such evidence, However, I fid that typically it consists of quotes out of context, or the ignoring of other quotes in the same writings, that make it clear that some of the writers were definite posties.

 

The case in the Wiki artical, is about Psuedo-Ephraim. Part of P-E states:

 

"And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the 

Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of 

the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day 

which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son 

of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and 

much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also 

even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with 

those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic 

trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping 

ones, arise, meet Christ, because His hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall 

come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by 

the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of 

everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall 

perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life 

with the Lord forever and ever." 

 

Seems like P-E places the Resurrection after the glorious second coming of Jesus, and well he should, as that is what the bible also says.

 

P-E also said:

 

"We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or 

overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of 

nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been 

fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the 

advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom." 

 

I don't know about you, but that looks to me like P-E thought the signs of birthpains in Matt 24 were already completed in his own day, and that therefore, he was expecting an imminent appearing of the anti-christ, and the time for a pre-trib rapture, already having been past. 

 

I would not look to P-E for any help, and even if he did believe in a pre-trib rapture, which I was unable to verify, if begs the question of what the thread is supposed to be about, actual Bible evidence.

[Guest]

Ok, let me try my hand in this...

 

First let me say that I do understand where you are coming from and I try very hard not to state opinion as fact.  And pre-tribbers are all guilty of using all the 'evidence' that you have stated in your OP.  But, I would have to say that posttribbers are just as guilty of this as pretribbers are.  Before I get started, let me qualify something.  I have yet to meet or talk with a single pretribber who does not belief that Jesus returns to the earth at the end of the tribulation.  Both pretribbers and posttribbers believe this to be true.  I have yet to meet a single pretribber who has really studied this topic who does not believe that there is a resurrection at the end of the tribulation.  If we both believe that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation, then proving that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation does not prove either point. This would be like one person saying that the ocean is wet and salty, and the other says that it is wet and fresh, and the second one spending all of his time proving that the ocean is wet.

 

I agree with the above, Anyone who does not acknowledge a post-trib return of Christ, and some sort of gathering of the elect after the tribulation, is not taking the bible in any remotely literal way. So, we all agree (I think) that there is a post trib return of Christ.

 

The question was, however, "Where is the evidence in the bible, of a pre-trib return of Christ?"

 

One of the main differences is that a posttribber believes that this resurrection is the rapture, and pretribbers do not.  ( stating that they are the same is just as much opinion as the 'evidence' that you are trying to stay away from )  So if there is scriptural evidence for believing that the resurrection that takes place at the end of the tribulation is not the rapture, then it by definition is evidence for a pretribulation rapture.  or at least a non posttrib rapture.

 

So this is where I will be directing this post.  First lets consider the nature of the rapture.  What is the rapture?  The rapture is the 'catching away' of the Bride of Christ.  Who is the Bride of Christ?  Everyone who is saved.  They make up the 'Church' and the 'Church' is 'Bride'.  In the old Testament, you had two types of people, the Children of Israel and the Gentiles.  If you were not part of the Children of Israel, then you were a Gentile, plain and simple.  In the New Testament, we also  have two types of people.  The Church, those people who are saved, and everyone else.  You are either saved or not saved.  If you are saved, then you are in the Bride, if you are not, then you are not.  There is no such thing as being partially saved.  No matter what you believe as far as OSAS, most Christians believe that you are either saved or lost. 

 

At the moment of the rapture, you are either saved or lost.  If you are saved, then you go up in the rapture, if you are lost, then you don't.  Pretrib or posttrib, doesn't matter.

 

All well and good, We posties, now stand accused, of saying that the rapture and the resurection are the same. I do not say they are the same, but I do say they are both post-trib events. If there is a single rapture passage in scripture, it is in 1st Thess 4, where we get the word rapture from (in the Latin Vulgate):

 

16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up (raptured) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

 

Verse 16 sounds a lot like Matt 24, by the way - which is about the trib and the post-trib arrival of Jesus. Anyway, in this rapture passage, it is said that the dead in Christ rise first, then the living Christians follow. That is a chronological sequence.

 

So, since we know that the rapture follows a resurrection, why isn't it incumbant on pre-tribbers, to demonstrate that there is a Resurrection before the tribulation. Posties can point to a post trib res in Rev 20:

 

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

So, unless there is a specified pretrib resurrection, the scriptural evidence seems to be with the posties, so, I will ask, is there a resurrection in scripture, speciied as pre-trib?

 

1 Cor 15:51  51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

So whether you are dead or alive, if you are saved you will go into the rapture.  At this moment in time, there will be two types of people in the world.  Glorified believers, and lost unbelievers.  

 

Now when Christ returns, he fights the war of Armageddon, after which, he has the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats.  Matt 25:31-46.  If you believe in a post-tribulation rapture, then by definition, the sheep would be the glorified believers, and the goats would be everyone else.  What does he tell the Goats?  Matt 25:45-46  45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

So all the unbelievers are sent away into everlasting punishment.  And we begin the Millennium Reign of Christ with all believers, and if you are a post tribber, then everyone left has a glorified body, because the scripture says, we will all be changed.

But if that is true, then how is the earth repopulated during the Millennium?  People in glorified bodies do not marry, and since sex outside of marriage is a sin, we know that glorified bodies will not procreate.  Where do the children come from?  

Isaiah 65:20  20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Does the post trib rapture explain this verse?  no it does not.

 

Personally, I think there is a logical fallacy here. You have assumed that there are two types of people the saved and the unsaved, and that the saved are raptured, and the unsaved destroyed. I submit that there is another class of people. The book of Isaiah speaks of Jews who survive the tribulation, at least that is how I see it, but I don't want to belabor that point here, after all, I am trying hard to keep the thread focused on looking for scripture specifying a pre-trib coming of Christ, not wanting to make this about defending "there, I ran circles around you with logic" type arguments from pre-tribbers. I don't mind doing that elsewhere, but I want to keep this thread a little purer

 

As Iron sharpens Iron, 

Joshua David

 

Indeed Joshua, Thanks

[Persuaded]

Here's wikipedia, with an article on the rapture written in either the 3rd century (or 6th but based on a 3rd century writer, hey, wiki is secular and crowdsourced, whaddaya expect), but  either date is significantly before Darby. Again, the "my theory is older" game is a waste of time, since Dan 12:4 says knowledge will increase:

I agree that the evidence of the age o views is not that relevant, it is what the bible says, that matters. Still, what happens, or seems to have happened, is that at some point in recent history, some postie made the claim, that pretribism/dispensationalism, are recent inventions. If that is true, then people have the right to take 2 Tim 4 and wonder if it should be appled to pretribism. 

Naturally, someone fond of the pretrib view, would like to find evidence of premieism, before the 1800s, quite understandable. So the search was on, and writings of the early church were scoured, looking for that evidence, Some claim to have found such evidence, However, I fid that typically it consists of quotes out of context, or the ignoring of other quotes in the same writings, that make it clear that some of the writers were definite posties.

 

The case in the Wiki artical, is about Psuedo-Ephraim. Part of P-E states:

 

"And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the 

Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of 

the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day 

which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son 

of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and 

much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also 

even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with 

those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic 

trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping 

ones, arise, meet Christ, because His hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall 

come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by 

the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of 

everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall 

perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life 

with the Lord forever and ever." 

 

Seems like P-E places the Resurrection after the glorious second coming of Jesus, and well he should, as that is what the bible also says.

 

P-E also said:

 

"We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or 

overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of 

nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been 

fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the 

advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom." 

 

I don't know about you, but that looks to me like P-E thought the signs of birthpains in Matt 24 were already completed in his own day, and that therefore, he was expecting an imminent appearing of the anti-christ, and the time for a pre-trib rapture, already having been past. 

 

I would not look to P-E for any help, and even if he did believe in a pre-trib rapture, which I was unable to verify, if begs the question of what the thread is supposed to be about, actual Bible evidence.

Ya missed this bit:

"For all the saints and elect 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. "

Clearly, these aren't definitive doctrinal articles. They are stories wrapped around a 3rd century guy's theology.

Moving on...

[Joshua David]

Omegaman, 

 

 

So, since we know that the rapture follows a resurrection, why isn't it incumbant on pre-tribbers, to demonstrate that there is a Resurrection before the tribulation. Posties can point to a post trib res in Rev 20:

 

This is a very valid argument, and to be honest, I dearly wish there was a single scripture that clearly and distinctly stated that there was a pretrib rapture, but I am honest enough to say that there isn't.  Yes I realize that there can be a strong argument made for the case for a post trib rapture, and if I was to build my doctrine on one or two verses then, yes,I would believe in a post tribulation doctrine.  But I try to the best of my ability to build my doctrine by examining all the scriptures.  By constantly checking my understanding of the scriptures by examining all the verses.  I see scripture like a lock, with only the correct key being able to unlock it.  Now there are many different keys that will 'slide' into the lock, but there is only one key that will line up with all the tumblers that will allow the key to turn and unlock it.

 

Personally, I think there is a logical fallacy here. You have assumed that there are two types of people the saved and the unsaved, and that the saved are raptured, and the unsaved destroyed. I submit that there is another class of people. The book of Isaiah speaks of Jews who survive the tribulation, at least that is how I see it, but I don't want to belabor that point here, after all, I am trying hard to keep the thread focused on looking for scripture specifying a pre-trib coming of Christ, not wanting to make this about defending "there, I ran circles around you with logic" type arguments from pre-tribbers. I don't mind doing that elsewhere, but I want to keep this thread a little purer

 

The reason that I have this 'logical fallacy', as you put it, is because this is exactly what the scripture says.  Rom 10:12  For there is no difference between the Jew and theGreek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

But, I do not want to derail this thread, and this is not my intention.  I want you to see that I see all of these 'bits' of scripture, as evidence of a pretrib rapture.  For a pretrib rapture is the only key that will turn all the tumblers on the lock.  ( at least that I see ), if you wish to start another thread, I will be more than happy to move to that one. I can't start a thread, as I am still on 'probation' by not having enough posts.  

 

As Iron sharpens Iron,

 

Joshua David

[Guest]

Ya missed this bit:

"For all the saints and elect 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. "

Clearly, these aren't definitive doctrinal articles. They are stories wrapped around a 3rd century guy's theology.

Moving on...

 

Yes, I did miss that. It got me curious though. However, I guess I get to remain that way. I wanted to look at P-E, but was unable to track down a copy online. As near as I could tell, there is no 'official' translation of it. All I could discover was that one pre-tribber, hired another pre-tribber to translate the Latin, and that of a document originally written by a guy, who was not even who he pretended to be (seemingly). So, I guess I cannot look at it more critically or fairly, and am not that entitled to an informed opinion on it.

 

Let's say that I grant that the translation is accurate and that in spite of indication to the contrary by P-E, that he really was a premie. If that is the case, then what we have is that there might be one or two minor, references to a pretrib belief before Darby etc. In such a case, we would conclude that the belief, though uncommon, did exist earlier than I assume, but that still does not push it back to apostolic times, or really even near them. So, like you said . . . 

 

"moving on"