Posted on 06/03/2003 3:42:44 AM PDT by chief_bigfoot
You cannot divorce one verse from its context and assign new meaning to it that it did not have originally.
Regards
Chapter three verse 10 of the book of the revelation of Jesus to John is things to come, not things past, as is most of the Book of Revelation.
Have you ever read or studied the Book of Revelation?
the 19th-century heresy concocted by John Nelson Darby, which serves as the basis for this apocalyptic theology,
Is he saying the idea of an anti-Christ is a heresy originating with Darby?
In John 17:15, Jesus uses the exact same Greek phrase for "keep from" (tereo ek).
"I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keem them from the Evil One."
Tereo ek denotes protection, guardianship. It does not require (or even imply) removal from the world. Pre-trib may be a popular position, but you can't squeeze it out of Revelation 3:10--or out of any other portion of Revelation, for that matter.
I thought Revelation was written by John?
It was, but the Rapture (if by this term we are all agreed we are referring to a specifically pretrib Rapture) is not taught there. The gathering of the saints at the Second Coming is, but in every instance where the timing of the Second Coming is given in relationship to the Abomination of Desolation in Scripture, the Bible teaches a post-Great Tribulation (though pre-Day of the Lord) Coming.
The Geezer, unless I misunderstand, is simply pointing out that until 1830, there is no explicit teaching of a Rapture that comes before the Great Tribulation and 70th Week anywhere in the writings of any theologian, in the Bible or out. Even the best pre-tribbers have to rely on arguments of silence and an overly symbolic approach in order to "prove" their position.
Grant Jeffrey tried to show that the Early Church Fathers believed in pretrib in his book Apocalypse, and for an essay that he wrote for the Raging Into Apocalypse anthology, but he took them out of context and edited them to make them fit. Don't take my word for it. The ECF's writings are available for free on a number of websites. Look up the quotes yourself.
Speaking of positions not taught by the ECF . . . :^) (Sorry, I picked on Timothy, so now it's your turn.)
When the Bible says that something is to happen "soon" or "quickly," that doesn't necessarily mean something "soon" by human standards. Take Joel, for example. In the ninth century B.C., he wrote, "For the Day of the Lord is coming, for it is at hand." Yet, when was the Day of the Lord?
According to Paul (1 Thess. 5:2), the Day of the Lord was an event yet future to him that would coincide with the Second Coming (the parousia in 4:15) and the Resurrection of the dead (v. 16). That would make "at hand" stretch out to more than nine centuries, even if we accepted the premise (which I don't) that the Day of the Lord was about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple for the second time and that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. (despite the clear statements of the ECF that it was written in the days of Domitian, or about 90-96 A.D.).
Therefore, no explicit date-setting can be made on the basis of "soon." Instead, we have simply to look at the events in Revelation, and we see that there is no series of events in the years following John that adequately fulfills them--nor indeed any in history. Therefore, since the theme of Revelation is as given in 1:7, "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him," that is, the Second Coming, I have to regard Revelation as being a prophecy of events mostly yet future to us.
Just IMHO, of course. ;^)
I've put off reading Revelation and wasn't aware Rapture isn't mentioned. Thanks for your kind response, I'll be reading with interest to find out what I should already know.
But, if you are not a Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christian, arguing and debating will make no sense, since, if the Lord declared the beginning of tribulation this very instant, you'd be here regardless.
Salvation first, then debates on denominational differences.
But, if you are not a Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christian, arguing, debating and discussing the Lord's Revelation of things to come to John, will make no sense, since, if the Lord declared the beginning of tribulation this very instant, you'd be here regardless.
Salvation first, then debates on denominational differences.
The whole passage is not a reference to rapture but to the final coming of Christ. Christ will come once to conquer the anitchrist and hold court for the general judgment. This is the doctrine that the primitive church taught and believed.
All else is innovative, a new belief formulated late in the 1800's. Pre- and post- millenialists teach that Jesus will come not once, but two or even three times. This is the new doctrine that the early fathers of the church did not teach - and by corollary, that Jesus did not teach. Jesus will not come once to take some away, then come again to rule for one thousand years, and then depart to return again after a final tribulation to end the world.
He will come once, at the end of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.