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 ...
Was the “marriage supper” (Rev. 19) just symbol?
I don’t believe so.
Apparently it is strong enough as judged by your response.
Not exactly.
Yawn.
Titus
To reiterate post #11: Although the posts of many who seek to attack His plan by demonizing the doctrine of dispensations is intended for evil, He is now using it for His good. Myself and a number of other believers remaining in fellowship with Him have been afforded opportunity to further study and communicate His Prophecy which He prepared in eternity past so that His Church may be edified and further completed for eternity future, not by our will, but by His.
There are many who discern the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.
Just for some ballanced perspective, I suspect you will appreciate the following (as well as the website links).
From Arno Gaebelein’ notes on Daniel at http://bartimaeus.us/a_c_gaebelein.html
THE SEVENTY PROPHETIC YEAR WEEKS OF DANIEL’S PROPHECY
(Chart reformatted into chronological order. A *
[asterisk] denotes the title of each of the sections.)
* Seven Weeks
49 years later the street and wall built
Artaxerxes in the month Nisan gives edict to
rebuild Jerusalem 445 B.C.
* Sixty-two Weeks—434 Years
From the word to restore and build
Jerusalem seven weeks and sixty-two weeks
(483 years) till Messiah the Prince
The 69 weeks, or 483 years, expired in
A.D. 32
In the week they expired Christ died on
the cross as predicted. Messiah shall be cut
off and shall have nothing
End of 69th Week, April 10, A.D. 32
* The Great Unreckoned Period
The Romans under Titus destroy
the city and sanctuary, 70 A.D.
Jews are scattered among all nations
Jerusalem trodden down
Desolations till the end
The mystery hid in former ages made
known (the Church)
Worldwide preaching of the gospel
Apostasy of Christendom
Part of the Jewish nation returns to
the land in unbelief (Zionism)
The coming of the Lord for His saints.
Dead saints raised and living saints changed
(1 Thess. 4:13-18)
* The Last Week—7 Years
First half, 3-1/2 years, 1260 days
Roman prince (little horn, Dan. 7) makes
a covenant with the Jews
Jewish people fully restored and temple
worship resumed
Many other predicted events in prophets
and Revelation fulfilled
The covenant broken
* The Middle of the Week
Second half, 3-1/2 years, 1260 days,
The Great Tribulation
Sacrifices and oblations cease
Antichrist in Jerusalem
Image set up and its worship demanded
Great tribulation
Jerusalem in distress
The little horn (Dan. 8), the king with
fierce countenance
The Lord appears to deliver His people
* The end of the seventieth week brings in the
Righteousness of Ages through the second coming of
the Lord. The kingdom established. All vision and
prophecy fulfilled. Jerusalem a praise in the earth.
Universal peace. Nations learn war no more.
When identifying “this generation”, what criterion do you use to exclude or include that generation?
Such is the fellowship of believers, for those who are willing.
In all the places where it is found in the NT we will discover by examining the context that it is referring to that 1st century generation of contemporary Jews, e.g.,
"The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here" (Matt. 12:41).
In fact one is hard pressed to find any verses which conclusively uses the greek word genea to means "race" as in "the entire race of Jews".
I'm afraid that if you examine the evidence objectively it is very difficult to make the case that "generation" means the Jewish race in general, and the setting and the detailed account by Jesus of what would take place makes it clear that it is not some far future generation of Jews.
One of the best known and most accessible of the ancient preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the "father of church history." In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem's woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus's Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that "it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events" (3:7:1-2.) He then refers to the Olivet Discourse, citing Matthew 24:19-21 as his lead-in reference and later Luke 21:20, 23, 24. He concludes: "If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange" (3:7:7).
Another ancient document applying Matthew 24 to A.D. 70 is the Clementine Homilies (2d c.): "Prophesying concerning the temple, He said: 'See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away Matthew 24:3; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin Matthew 24:34....' And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken" (CH 3:15).
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) discusses Daniel's seventieth week as a past event: "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place" (Miscellanies 1:21). The famed premillennialist Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) writes of the Roman conquest: "And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the seventy hebdomads predicted in Daniel" (An Answer to the Jews, 8).
Even the Book of Revelation is applied to A.D. 70 by many in antiquity. In his Interpretation of the Revelation Andreas of Cappadocia (5th c.) noted that "there are not wanting those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus" (Revelation 6:12). Later he commented: "These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews" (Revelation 7:1). According to noted church historian Henry Wace, Andreas's commentary is "the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church." Andreas himself informs us that he wrote it in order "to unfold the meaning of the Apocalypse, and to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it."
Arethas of Cappadocia (6th c.) also provides us a commentary on Revelation which, according to Wace "professes to be a compilation" though "no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incorporates a large portion of the contents of that work." Arethas specifically applies various passages in Revelation to A.D. 70 (Revelation 6-7).
From "Back to the Future - The Preterist Perspective"
With all due respect, there is no reason other than dispensational presuppositions for inserting a gap of (to this point) several thousands of years in between the 69th and 70th weeks.
. . . . .The Great Unreckoned Period
. . . . .
Are you familiar with the concept of kludge?
The only reason I would “trot out” some early church father, is not to “support my view” but to counter the charge coming from your crowd that “nobody ever in the history of the whole church believed any aspect of this ‘new doctrine’ that John Darby ‘made up’ out of thin air” Aside from that, you know quite well topcat, that I and the pre-millenialists on this forum use Scripture to support our views. On the other side, I have heard creeds and “the beliefs of all the church for hundreds and hundreds of years” appealed to as proof that your views are right. Frankly, I’m getting tired of trying to counter charges because I see that when I do my counter claim, rather than being even remotely considered as being proof that the initial charge was incorrect, is now twisted into something such as “the like to trot out some early church father to support their views.” Also, in the case of Preterism, I would think that one would find it relevant to see what the church living after 70 AD believed about the end times (had all of the prophecy been fulfilled or were the vast majority of the church looking for a future fulfillment?) But that’s just me. You are going to believe what you want to believe. It has become clear that none of our Scripture and no quoting for sources contra to your view will stop that. As such, I figure, why bother even trying to reason with you. You aren’t after a dialogue, but rather a lecture. If you sense any hesitancy on my behalf to answer your posts, it is not because you have made this unsurmountable case that destroys anything that the pre-millenialists have said; but rather, it is because in spite of two threads and hundreds of posts of trying to reason with you from Scripture, we are still getting charges thrown out at us that are simply untrue. We have been cooperative in answering your posts to this point, but I simply do not have time to type out detailed answers to someone who is not going to listen to a word that is being said.
If that was ever your purpose, you have failed in your attempt.
None of Darby's uniquely dispensational views on the pre-trib rapture or radical distinction between Israel and the Church are found anywhere in the early church fathers. Mainly because they are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
But I think you already know that.
As such, I figure, why bother even trying to reason with you. You aren’t after a dialogue, but rather a lecture.
Methinks thou dost protest too much, eapecially when your "arguments" have continued to move from the Scriptures to cutesy one liners. You have not responded recently with any substance to my numerous arguments from the Bible. You've been reduced to babbling because your (and Darby's) theories cannot stand up to a plain examination from the Word of God.
Stick to the Bible and we can talk.
We have been cooperative in answering your posts to this point, but I simply do not have time to type out detailed answers to someone who is not going to listen to a word that is being said.
I have never purposely refused to respond to any question or argument. I started another thread at your suggestion to focus on the dispensational theory of the pre-trib rapture. You refused to stick to that topic and have been all over them map, mainly, I think, to hide from the real subject. Your most recent act of desperation has been a series of one-liners.
Te facts as we have seen them do not speak well to your theories.
Would you say that all of the secrets that are contained in scripture have already been discovered and that there is no reason to expect to find anything new?
It’s called the Church Age, prophesied twice by Christ. Once in the upper room discourse, and another time prior to His Ascension.
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.