Posted on 04/02/2007 8:40:21 AM PDT by topcat54
Conclusion
Although the pretribulation rapture theory is very popular today, given arguments that are offered in support of this doctrine we must declare Pretribulationalism to be contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. Simply put, there is not one shred of evidence that can be found in the Bible to support the pretribulation rapture. The typical Pretribulational arguments offered reveal a pattern: of imposing one’s presuppositions onto a text without any exegetical justification whatsoever; of finding subtle meaning between words and/or phrases that were never intended by the author; of spiritualizing or ignoring passages that contradict the Pretribulational paradigm; and, of imposing Pretribulationalism upon passages that actually teach the unity of the eschatological complex (i.e., the rapture, second coming, general resurrection, and general judgment all occur on the same day—the day of the Lord). It is our hope and prayer that professing Christians would cast off this escapist fantasy and return to the task of personal sanctification and godly dominion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformedonline.com ...
Birth, death, resurrection. Is it OK to change the order?
By grace you have been saved.
Sounds like birth to me.
So you’ve got a 1/2 coming and then a 2nd coming??? ;-)
Where is the post in which you spell out this position?
“However, not all comings of Christ are the second coming”
The Matt 16:28 was, contextually speaking, immediately fulfilled by the transfiguration. The verb Erchomai (coming) also give the idea of making an appearance, shewing yourself - not just to coming from a distance.
“The one and only second coming is the personal, visible coming of Christ at the end of the age.”
True, and do you think that the passage we referred to earlier (in Thes) where Jesus destroys the man of sin refers to the visible second coming at the end of the age?
We are physically born in trespasses and sin. We are born spiritually dead. It is only by the new birth that we are made alive. This is also pictured by being raised up in Christ.
There’s a big difference between mystical and spiritual.
Most non-Romanist Christians understand that. It’s pretty “easy” to grasp from a correct reading of Scripture.
You can review this posting.
“However, not all comings of Christ are the second coming”
The Matt 16:28 was, contextually speaking, immediately fulfilled by the transfiguration.
How did the transfiguration fulfill the part about “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”?
And how does this fit with Jesus' words in Matt 26:64, “hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming (ercomenon) on the clouds of heaven.” That came long after the transfiguration.
The verb Erchomai (coming) also give the idea of making an appearance, shewing yourself - not just to coming from a distance.
The same Greek word is used in Matt. 24:30 and 26:64.
True, and do you think that the passage we referred to earlier (in Thes) where Jesus destroys the man of sin refers to the visible second coming at the end of the age?
“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness (appearing; epifaneia) of His coming (parousiaV).” (2 Thess. 2:8)
Ultimately it is at the second coming with all the unrighteous, including the lawless one, are judged and cast into the lake of fire.
"Thus, Revelation 20 provides no reason to reinterpret the rest of Scripture: there is a general resurrection at Christ's return, followed by the final judgment."
This is from the article you gave me in post#294. Perhaps Revelation 20 does give us a reason to reinterpret the rest of Scripture.
IV.
[As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: "The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man."
V.
As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:" for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die.
VI.
The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John.
IX.
Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.
Points to note:
1. The millennium is seen as a real, physical time on the earth - not as a metaphor for a spiritual reality.
2. People will be living on the earth during the millennium. The curse will be rescinded (to some degree).
3 The millennium occurs after the resurrection and is the physical reign of Jesus Christ on the earth.
4. The Church age is metaphorically the "first six days" implying that the millennium is the seventh - i.e. the day of rest.
Ref: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
(All normal fees have been waived, and this post has been provided for your enjoyment at no cost. Offer good while supplies last No Church Fathers were harmed during the making of this post)
“There’s a big difference between mystical and spiritual.”
To follow on then with TomSmedley’s line of argument, what is it exactly about the “baptistic” presentation of the Gospel that you find to be overly “mystical”?
In other words, why are you knocking the baptistic presentation of the Gospel? Where is it deficient? Why do you consider the reformed presentation better?
Does Papias or any of the other early church fathers speak to this issue?
You will get no argument from me that there were many premils in the early church, but it was not the only position among orthodox believers. Justin Martyr admitted as much in his Dialog with Trypho, "However, I did point out that there are many pure and pious Christians who do not share our opinion [on the millennium]." (Chapter 80)
Justin had his own set of problems. For example, in the same chapter he wrote, "If you have ever encountered any so-called Christians who do not admit this doctrine, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob by asserting that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls are taken up to Heaven at the very moment of their death, do not consider them to be real Christians;"
Justin, as with all orthodox Christians, held to the bodily resurrection of the dead. However, he also seemed to hold to some form of soul sleep for the believer preceding the resurrection of the last day.
Bottom line, be careful reading these guys. They were right on some things and wrong on others. They also spoke as inidividuals and we know how individuals can be prone to error.
The end is near. Let’t bomb Islam and hurry it up or stop the world, I want to get off.
Jesus has said no one knows but the Father, well except, those who say the Bible tells them so.
Thank you so much for the information!
Justin had his own set of problems. For example, in the same chapter he wrote, "If you have ever encountered any so-called Christians who do not admit this doctrine, but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob by asserting that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls are taken up to Heaven at the very moment of their death, do not consider them to be real Christians;"Justin, as with all orthodox Christians, held to the bodily resurrection of the dead. However, he also seemed to hold to some form of soul sleep for the believer preceding the resurrection of the last day.
or a descent into Hades for all of the dead, there to await the resurrection.
Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah. The name Jesus, and title, Christ comes not from Hebrew but from Latin, a.k.a. Julius Caesar, notice the similarities… As for the rest… climb the mountain of YHVH as in Isaiah 2.
No, actually I don't.
Jesus Christ is a transliteration of the Greek ihsouV cristoV. The Latin is similar to the Greek except in Latin letters. Greek was the language sovereignly chosen of God by to give His Church the NT.
"Jesus Christ" has nothing to do with the Latin name Julius Caesar. "Christ" means "anointed one" or "messiah" in Greek. "Caesar" was the family name of Julius and Co and has nothing to do with Jesus.
The Sadducees would feel quite comfortable with that view. What if His return isn’t really a return? What if it is just a warm feeling that we get in our hearts when we remember the things that Jesus did? Does this speculation have any end? Jesus already said what the resurrections were: John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." (John 5:25)It should be noted that many other translations translate "zao" as "came to live" (NIV, ESV, NASB)"Live" in John 5:25 is translated from the Greek word "zao" (Strongs #2198) which means "to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)""And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" (Rev 20:4 -KJV)"Lived" in Rev 20:4 is also translated from the Greek word "zao".
It should also be noted that John NEVER uses "zao" anywhere else in his books to denote bodily resurrection. John very well knows the two Greek words for "resurrection" -Anastasis (Strongs #386) and Anistemi (Strongs #450).
John ALWAYS, uses Anastasis or Anistemi (with one exception in John 11:31) to denote physical/bodily resurrection from the dead.
John NEVER uses zao to denote bodily/physical resurrection.
John ALWAYS uses zao to emphasize life -especially in contrast to previous spritual death (John 5:25; 11:25) or in contrast to previous physical death (John 14:19; Rev 1:18; 2:8) -but NEVER to the event or act of bodily/phyiscal resurrection itself.
It is important to notice the distinction ephasizing life as opposed to the act of bodily/physical resurrection. If my child were to get lost in the wilderness and, after a period of time, we were reunited, I would exclaim wth joy "You're ALIVE! You're ALIVE!" I would not exclaim "You have resurrected from the dead! You have resurrected from the dead!" The point being that both Anastasis and Anistemi mean something significantly different and emphasize something significantly different than zao.
So, in Rev 20:4, the point being made is that the saints have life with Christ or are alive with Christ and not that they were bodily/physically resurrected. And in vs. 5, John refers to this state of having life in Christ or being alive in Christ as [the first] RESURRECTION because they have, as he explains in John 5:24 "passed from death unto life".
Paul also emphasizes this very same point in the Eph passage topcat posted above.
And Christ himself epmhasizes this quality of life when he says, "I am the resurrection (Anastasis), and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live (Zao)." (John 11:25)
Isn't it cool how John, Paul and Jesus himself all identify life in him as "Resurrection".
THAT's the point of Rev 20:4!!!!
And that's why Rev 20:4 is also cool!
Thanks. Again confirming the true meaning of the "first resurrection".
Let me make my point a little differently. I think that the first death is physical and the second death is spiritual. If you define spiritual death in a way that Adam being sent out of the garden fits the definition, then spiritual death would be the first death since it came first. The second death doesn’t come until after the judgment. Where do you put physical death?
There are quite a few passages in scripture that speak of us being dead. We say that it speaks of spiritual death, but what if Adam never died spiritually. Wasn’t God’s sacrifice in the garden done in place of Adam’s death? Isn’t that what sacrifices are for?
Ignore and self-congratulate. Your case is not a strong one.
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.