Defense of the Post Trib Rapture

[The Light]

On 11/21/2024 at 10:05 AM, BornAgain490 said:

You quoted me, not Romans 1:18.  I guess you don't believe the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.  I'm not surprised. 

Here is the Word of God. Can you show me where it says, "revealed from heaven every day against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

You added to the Word of God again. Do you have any other scripture to support your incorrect statement that the wrath of God is an everyday thing.

The wrath of God will last one year just as the scripture says.

 

[BornAgain490]

4 minutes ago, The Light said:

. Do you have any other scripture to support your incorrect statement that the wrath of God is an everyday thing.

Keep reading Romans 1. What does God do the ungodly and unrighteous when they are unabated in their ungodliness and unrighteousness?  God's wrath (judgment) is revealed, but you can't see it because you think the only time God's wrath is revealed is at the very end of this present evil age. 

[The Light]

10 minutes ago, BornAgain490 said:

You don't get it: omnipotence means all powerful. God went through no trouble exercising His power. 

As I said, you don't get it. God went to the trouble of listing 12,000 from every tribe so you wouldn't make up some nonsense, such as the 144,000 are the great multitude.

Further, the 144,000 are before the throne as first fruits in Revelation and the harvest does not happen until Jesus is on a cloud in Rev 14:14

10 minutes ago, BornAgain490 said:

 

You mean like when you denied that the "seed" is Jesus Christ.  Heretic!

First off, you called me a heretic because I believe in a pre trib rapture. Obviously you have no clue what a heretic is.

As for Jesus being the seed of the woman in Revelation 12, that's more nonsense.

You are saying that the dragon is wroth with the woman and went to make war with Jesus, who is a remnant, that keeps the commandments of God and have the testimony OF HIMSELF. 

Revelation 12

17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Bad logic. Poor understanding of the written Word of God.

[other one]

2 hours ago, BornAgain490 said:

You are a heretic.

That is not allowed here.  Cut the personal stuff.

[BornAgain490]

43 minutes ago, other one said:

That is not allowed here.  Cut the personal stuff.

Copy. 

 

[Retrobyter]

On 11/21/2024 at 10:53 AM, BornAgain490 said:

Saints throughout history have viewed Revelation through a preterist view, historicist view, futurist view, and idealist or symbolic view.  Are you suggesting that the dispensational futurist view is the only view in which to interpret Revelation?

When the dispensationalist says "Revelation 4:1 is the rapture" because the word "church" is not found again until 22:16, has he not added to the book of that prophesy by claiming an event that is neither explicitly supported not implicitly supported, but assumed only based on its theological framework?  5

If I say that "the church is still on earth because there is no explicit mention of rapture in 4:1,  and because there is no mention of the church in heaven until much later", aren't I being more literal than the dispensationist?  

Shalom, @BornAgain490.

[Sorry this took so long, but weekends are a little more hectic for me. To be honest, I almost missed your post!]

I believe that the correct way to understand the Scriptures is through the normal historical/grammatical interpretation of those Scriptures. When the normal sense of Scripture makes historical sense and is grammatically correct, one should not go looking for some other sense to that Scripture! This is usually the literal sense of the wording, but if the wording calls for an analogy, then it is within the historical/grammatical method of interpretation to see this portion as an analogy. However, when the NORMAL, grammatical sense makes good sense in the context of that Scripture, one should not go looking for another sense! (There's a quote to that effect, but I couldn't find it.)

Some say that one should look for the "spiritual" sense to a text, but that is NOT even what the word "spiritual" means! The actual word one should be using for such interpretation of Scripture is an "ALLEGORICAL" sense. However, imo, allegorical interpretation is reading what the PERSON WANTS to see in the text INTO the text! This is known as "eisegesis" - a "reading into" the text what is not normally discernable by the text. The correct approach, again in my opinion, is "EXEGESIS"; that is, allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves, "EXTRACTING OUT" of the Scriptures what the AUTHOR wanted the reader to understand.

I am not technically a "dispensationist." A "dispensationist" is one who believes that God worked in different ways for different time periods and for different peoples. These time periods were known as "dispensations." I believe that God has ALWAYS worked with ALL people by His Grace, through Faith, and by the Blood. While animal sacrifices were used in the Old Testament, that was a PICTURE of what the Messiah would be when He was crucified.

I AM a futurist, because I do NOT believe that the Lord Yeeshuwa`, the Messiah of God, has already come in some mystical or "spiritual" way. Nor has He already fulfilled those things that are yet to be accomplished in the future. Because the literal interpretation of a passage is often what the historical/grammatical method produces, I'm okay with being called a "literalist." On the other hand, I believe that the correct grammatical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, for instance, reveals that much of the Olivet Discourse is already fulfilled, just not all.

Revelation 4:1 was just YOCHANAN'S ("JOHN'S") invitation upward, but I don't believe that even HE went to a place called "Heaven" for this revelation! He was seeing visions of the FUTURE, and He was called upward into the sky for a vantage point, PERHAPS within the already constructed throneroom of the New Jerusalem. It is NOT about the "Rapture!"

Lastly, a "church" is just a "gathering" of people, for whatever purpose. In Acts 7:38, Stephen uses the word "ekkleesia" (as translated) to mean the "children of Israel in the wilderness," and in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41, the word is translated "assembly" speaking of the town meeting that was being called in Ephesus. Therefore, the ONLY time there is a general assembly, a "universal church" of those who belong to the Messiah will be when He gathers them after He has returned to the earth's atmosphere, when He "meets us in the sky," not to take us to some "Heaven" but to assist those He rescues in His Land - the Land of Israel.

What are your thoughts about this perspective, pro or con?

[enoob57]

On 11/21/2024 at 5:01 PM, BornAgain490 said:

Dispensational pretribbers who think the church will be secretly raptured out of widespread intense persecution (great tribulation: Greek: megale thlipsis) . 

Be blessed.

👋😊👍

The tribulation is not persecution but God's wrath being poured out on the world... that why I know the rapture will occur before the tribulation... 

1 Thessalonians 5:9 (KJV)

[9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[BornAgain490]

12 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, @BornAgain490.

[Sorry this took so long, but weekends are a little more hectic for me. To be honest, I almost missed your post!]

I believe that the correct way to understand the Scriptures is through the normal historical/grammatical interpretation of those Scriptures. When the normal sense of Scripture makes historical sense and is grammatically correct, one should not go looking for some other sense to that Scripture! This is usually the literal sense of the wording, but if the wording calls for an analogy, then it is within the historical/grammatical method of interpretation to see this portion as an analogy. However, when the NORMAL, grammatical sense makes good sense in the context of that Scripture, one should not go looking for another sense! (There's a quote to that effect, but I couldn't find it.)

Some say that one should look for the "spiritual" sense to a text, but that is NOT even what the word "spiritual" means! The actual word one should be using for such interpretation of Scripture is an "ALLEGORICAL" sense. However, imo, allegorical interpretation is reading what the PERSON WANTS to see in the text INTO the text! This is known as "eisegesis" - a "reading into" the text what is not normally discernable by the text. The correct approach, again in my opinion, is "EXEGESIS"; that is, allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves, "EXTRACTING OUT" of the Scriptures what the AUTHOR wanted the reader to understand.

I am not technically a "dispensationist." A "dispensationist" is one who believes that God worked in different ways for different time periods and for different peoples. These time periods were known as "dispensations." I believe that God has ALWAYS worked with ALL people by His Grace, through Faith, and by the Blood. While animal sacrifices were used in the Old Testament, that was a PICTURE of what the Messiah would be when He was crucified.

I AM a futurist, because I do NOT believe that the Lord Yeeshuwa`, the Messiah of God, has already come in some mystical or "spiritual" way. Nor has He already fulfilled those things that are yet to be accomplished in the future. Because the literal interpretation of a passage is often what the historical/grammatical method produces, I'm okay with being called a "literalist." On the other hand, I believe that the correct grammatical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, for instance, reveals that much of the Olivet Discourse is already fulfilled, just not all.

Revelation 4:1 was just YOCHANAN'S ("JOHN'S") invitation upward, but I don't believe that even HE went to a place called "Heaven" for this revelation! He was seeing visions of the FUTURE, and He was called upward into the sky for a vantage point, PERHAPS within the already constructed throneroom of the New Jerusalem. It is NOT about the "Rapture!"

Lastly, a "church" is just a "gathering" of people, for whatever purpose. In Acts 7:38, Stephen uses the word "ekkleesia" (as translated) to mean the "children of Israel in the wilderness," and in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41, the word is translated "assembly" speaking of the town meeting that was being called in Ephesus. Therefore, the ONLY time there is a general assembly, a "universal church" of those who belong to the Messiah will be when He gathers them after He has returned to the earth's atmosphere, when He "meets us in the sky," not to take us to some "Heaven" but to assist those He rescues in His Land - the Land of Israel.

What are your thoughts about this perspective, pro or con?

Thsnk you for your reply, brother.

I agree we should interpret scripture literally where it is meant to be understood literally, historically where historical, poetically where poetic, figuratively and symbolically where figurative and symbolic, etc.  Therein lies the great debate over Revelation: how should it be interpreted? 

That said, I am not married to any one system of interpretation, but employ each where it seems logically appropriate. 

I don't see the second coming of Jesus Christ and the gathering of His faithful as two events, certainly not a secret event as pretrib posits.  It is a single event in the end when Jesus descends from heaven in like manner as when He ascended, i.e., in clouds, and the faithful that have died will be resurrected and the living faithful will be changed, and we will all meet the Lord as He descends, and we will accompany Him on His descent.  

Once He has descended, Jesus will rule and reign from Jerusalem, but He will reclaim from the prince of the power of the air the entire earth,  wherein His faithful, the Israel of God (all faithful Jews and faithful Gentiles), will rule and reign with Jesus as King. 

Let me just say this: eschatalogical views are as varied as the flavors of Tillamook Ice Cream. It's something in which I was once dogmatic, but now am open to the various viewpoints. 

Blessings. 

 

[enoob57]

19 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

When the dispensationalist says "Revelation 4:1 is the rapture" because the word "church" is not found again until 22:16, has he not added to the book of that prophesy by claiming an event that is neither explicitly supported not implicitly supported, but assumed only based on its theological framework? 

No that is not entirely accurate:
John was of the Church when writing Revelation...
The book of Revelation is outlined for us by God Himself... past, present and future
Revelation 1:19 (KJV)
                                                    John's Gospel          the seven churches
[19] Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the
Rev 4:1 below beginning with rapture
of the Church represented by John
things which shall be hereafter;

Revelation 4:1 (KJV)

[1] After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

this is why The Church is not seen on earth till we return with Christ from Heaven
Rev 19:13-21

[BornAgain490]

21 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

The tribulation is not persecution but God's wrath being poured out on the world

The Greek "thlipsis" means persecution, and it is translated as tribulation or distress, and not used to refer to God's wrath. 

The Greek word "orge" means wrath, anger, and is used to describe God's wrath. 

The church is going through tribulation today, and has been going through tribulation from the beginning, and will go through great tribulation in the end. 

Wrath and tribulation are different and distinct.