Posted on 09/09/2006 4:04:19 AM PDT by xzins
Everything that I have studied is that we will go through the 3.5 years of the tribulation period.
Do you have any Scripture to support the theory that the "tribulation" and the "wrath" are two distinct things?
If one does a word search for wrath in the bible it is alway associated with the great and dreadful day of the Lord, which is the return of Christ to earth.Tribulation is not associated with God it is always associated with man with this present world system.
Figuratively verses would be under the shadow of His wings gathering them as a hen under her wings. We all know God ain't no chicken and He don't have no wings.
"So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath (Gr. thumos), and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff." (Luke 4:28,29)
"For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time." (Rev. 12:12)
"Behold, I [Jesus] will cast her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation (Gr. thlipsis), unless they repent of her deeds." (Rev. 2:22)
Well, since the passage I quoted was from Isaiah 13:10, and it had to do with the judgment against ancient Babylon, when did this literally happen?
How 'bout this one:
{Babylon] will never be inhabited, Nor will it be settled from generation to generation; Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there. (Isa. 13:20)Is that "literal" or "figurative" language?And the land will tremble and sorrow; For every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon, To make the land of Babylon a desolation without inhabitant. (Jer. 51:29)
I have read such a quote from, I believe, Justin Martyr, when he was discussing the millennium, but I can't find one in Irenaeus.
However, in Irenaeus as in Martyr, there is no indication that they are speaking of any other DOCTRINE but of various points of THAT PREMILLENNIAL doctrine. In other words, premillennialists discussing points of dispute with other premillennialists.
You make a gross assumption that Irenaeus was speaking of post-millenialism or of amillennialism. There is no indication of that whatsoever.
In fact, it is not even likely that those opinions would receive any kind of approval by Irenaeus (they didn't exist then). Irenaeus is very firm when he says:
1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question](Irenaeus, V, 35)
He is speaking against gnostics who attempt to allegorize scripture.
Sadly, this makes it appear that the later tendency to allegorize prophecy was an idea that came to them from gnosticism.
There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a premillennialist:
But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has been called again by Christ [to its pristine condition], and Jerusalem rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above, of which the prophet Isaiah says, "Behold, I have depicted thy walls upon my hands, and thou art always in my sight,"(323) And the apostle, too, writing to the Galatians, says in like manner, "But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."(324) He does not say this with any thought of an erratic Aeon, or of any other power which departed from the Pleroma, or of Prunicus, but of the Jerusalem which has been delineated on [God's] hands. And in the Apocalypse John saw this new [Jerusalem] descending upon the new earth.(325) For after the times of the kingdom, he says, "I saw a great white throne, and Him who sat upon it, from whose face the earth fled away, and the heavens; and there was no more place for them."(326)
If Ireneaus was speaking of others with different opinions than his, he WAS NOT speaking of others given to ALLEGORIZING scripture. He didn't approve of that at all.
Incidentally, he says that John wrote Revelation near the death of Domitian (96 AD.) Importantly, he says that IF JOHN had known the name of the anti-christ that John would have told the name rather than give a number (666.)
This is so true and proves that Revelation was not written prior to 70 AD. John lived afterwards in Ephesus and had plenty of time to clear up that name if he had known it.
Thank you so much for the fascinating post!
The wrath here spoken of by Jesus in Revelation is after the tribulation period, after the millennial rein, the devil will be set loose. We were speaking of the tribulation period and the wrath of God period prior to the 2nd coming. Jesus in Rev 2:22 will place them in a bed that will result in tribulation it does not say that He will cause the tribulation.
I love your spirit and skill with facts! THANKS.
You might like my post:
#961
at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1681341/posts?page=906
listing a bunch of sources against Contrary Replacementarianism and some excerpts from some of them.
Sorry, that was Justin Martyr, not Irenaeus.
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such [Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt, etc] will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. (Dialogue, c. 80)In fact, it is not even likely that those opinions would receive any kind of approval by Irenaeus (they didn't exist then). Irenaeus is very firm when he says:
Since no one here to my knowledge is speaking of allegorizing, I'm not sure of the relevance of the comment. However, if you read Irenaeus in context you will see that what he has in view are resurrection saints living the kingdom with Christ. He does not countenance the idea that these are "tribulation saints" or any such natural person living and dying in the eternal kingdom. So we do see that he ends up "spiritualizing" (as opposed to allegorizing) the prophecies made to Israel and applies them to the future resurrection church.
Irenaeus was, as we can see, what we might characterize as a historic premil. He clearly believed that the promises made to Israel had been fulfilled in Christ and His church. He was a spiritualizer.
If Ireneaus was speaking of others with different opinions than his, he WAS NOT speaking of others given to ALLEGORIZING scripture. He didn't approve of that at all.
Not according the Irenaeus himself. He was certainly given to allegorizing when he suited him. For we read:
But as to those animals which do indeed chew the cud, but have not the double hoof, and are themselves unclean, we have in them a figurative description of the Jews, who certainly have the words of God in their mouth, but who do not fix their rooted stedfastness in the Father and in the Son; wherefore they are an unstable generation. (Against Heresies, 5.8.4)That's an interesting application of the law to the Jewish people, don't you think?
Irenaues also believed that Christ was more than 50 years old when He died based on a certain "allegorizing". He wrote:
yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. (Against Heresies, 2.22.1)He then applied this "allegorizing" method and speculation about how old Jesus looked to come up with the number "50" and apply it to Christ's earthly lifespan.
Hmmm, that's an interesting parsing of words. Let's look at it again:
"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds."
I cannot see how your interpretation is allowed unless I first adopt your presuppositions about the distinction in question. IOW, I have to accept the thing being proved as true in order to understand the steps in the proof. Not a very good method.
But it plainly, "literally" speaks ot the wrath of Satan. And it also is plainly, "literally" speaking of the tribulation of Christ. The only way to arrive at what you want is to impose another meaning on the words. Thus the quite arbitrary distinction between tribulation and wrath in this alleged future seven-year "great tribuation" period.
LOL!!! In the words of Polycarp...
"...forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
You meant 19th century. JN Darby and his vision-inspired Irvingite friends in Scotland were not that old. This was also the age of the Millerites, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and a number of other lesser cults. Many of them shared a carnal view of future events.
As to "whispers of it ... in the 12th and 13th centuries", I don't think it was a whisper so much as laryngitis. No one heard of these folks until they were invented by the modern dispensationalists intent on validating their pedigree.
BTW, have anyone specific from the "12th and 13th centuries" in mind?
I'm looking through some of these writings now to see if anyone articulates at least a smattering view. Beyond a one or two sentence statement (some of which I thought of posting), I can't make head nor tails out of their eschatology position.
Paul chastised the Thessalonians for thinking they had missed the Rapture.
He did not deny the Rapture (which he discussed in 1st Thessalonians) but explained certain events needed to occur first, like the apostasy of the Church.
Ofcourse, it is by the will of God, it is God's will that none perish! (2Pe.3:9)
The key word is 'articulated'.
These doctrines were taught in the early church because they are Bible doctrines.
The Reformed church was a move back to the early century of salvation by faith and a rejection of traditon for scripture.
In many areas, however, they held to traditon and did not go fully to sola scriptura.
The key difference in the Pre-Mill, vs the Amill and Postmill. view is the hermenutic.
No literal/figurative reading of the scriptures will lead to any other interpretation then that of Pre-Millennialism.
What the Jews did to get rid of the 1st Advent scriptures of Christ, heretical christians did for the 2nd advent, allegorization.
Well, that is a great approach to sola scriptura!
Lets just ignore a Book in the Bible.
The two most important Books in the Bible are Genesis and Revelation.
The first tells us how man got in the mess he is in, and second, how he gets out of it.
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.