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 ...
Are you suggesting that anyone who does not believe as you do on the pre-trib rapture is not spiritual enough? (Spirit filled?)
Hey, at least they are not burning us at the stake.
I will have to defer you to tomorrow on the Scriptural evidence. Have to prepare a Powerpoint for my Sunday School lesson tomorrow.
As to the deficiency in the OT, I agree. Christ is all over the Old Testament. But, if you look even at the life of the Apostle Peter, it was only after the resurrection that the light seemed to click on - and boy did it. Such is the work of the Holy Spirit. I know the OT saints recognized the need for an atoning sacrifice and the need for God’s grace. It is hard to say if they truly “got” what would happen, since even His own apostles and one as educated as Paul didn’t get it until it was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Such it is with us today though.
As to the time of John, I would say that Jesus was saying “Believe I am who I say I am. I am the Messiah. I will save my people from their sins. Believe and live” Only after the cross did we truly know how He would do it (though even it is clearly seen in the Old Testament Psalms and Prophets). We have the benefit of hindsight, don’t ya know.
Alex. That is not what I said and I am not discussing it further. Goodnight.
You have the first death is spiritual, the second death is the lake of fire, so where do you put physical death?
This is your second post refering to my 375. The first was 376. The point was made the first time.
The Second Death is only for the unrighteous, just as the First Resurrection is only for the righteous.
That is the parallel. In fact only those two things are mentioned in Rev. 20. There is not "First Death" or "Second Resurrection" mentioned by name in that chapter.
Interesting.
As I understand it, a sacrifice allows the beneficiary to escape death altogether.
Would you say that spiritual birth must come before spiritual death? Is Adam a special case?
True. Ultimately that is where those who are dead in trespasses and sin end up. It is all part of the same judgement - spiritual death and death eternal in the lake of fire. As to the text, there may be a little room for interpretation here, though most literally you are correct. King James says that “death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” This makes it sound as if the punishment of death itself rather than the lake is the second death. Most other versions say “the lake of fire is the second death” or “this is the second death” the lake of fire. So, saying that the lake of fire is the second death is correct. But also saying that those who are without Christ are under the sentence of the second death is also correct, wouldn’t you say?
Here are a few more verses from Revelation about the 2nd death:
Revelation 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
That is an issue between them and God.
In the case of man, in God’s brilliant plan, we were condemned before we were saved.
Yes, but the law and prophets clearly told of the gospel of grace via redemption from sins by Messiah's blood. This was the message of the kingdom that Jesus preached from the very beginning. It never changed.
Only after the cross did we truly know how He would do it (though even it is clearly seen in the Old Testament Psalms and Prophets). We have the benefit of hindsight, don’t ya know.
Really? I think you're missing some things.
"'And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.' This He said, signifying by what death He would die." (John 12:32,33)
That's why it's good to quote the Scriptures, esp. f you are going to say something controversial. That way we will know you are not making it up.
They were already dead. They died the day they ate from the tree.
In the case of Adam,...”in your dying, you will surely die.”
After the fall, Adam hid from God, displaying a mental activity and heart, so he still had a living soul. He later was sent out of the Garden to provide for himself and Eve and work. This indicates he still had a living body.
I understand the passage to tell us he died in the spirit and remained alive in the soul and body. So in his dying (spiritual) he would surely die (separation of body and soul).
IMHO, there are number of older studies reflecting on these doctrines associated with the old sin nature and the effect of the sin on the body.
topcat. No need to throw in snide comments. I referenced the life of Peter. Look at him. Jesus said that he would be killed. Peter told him “Not so, Lord”. Do you think that he would have said that if that was the disciples expectation? Yes, these things were all over the Old Testament. But people tend to see what they want to see. Compare Peter before the crucifixion. Just after the crucifixion. And then, at Pentacost. There is a sudden change. The light has switched on. He gets it, and he finally gets the tie-in with the Old Testament Scriptures. Now Peter is no Paul. He’s a fisherman. He hasn’t been sitting there with his nose in a scroll at the feet of Gamaliel all of his life. Yet, this fisherman has the profound change of someone whom the Spirit has enlightened as to His truth.
The Old Testament Saints may well have had full knowledge of what was going to happen. I don’t know if you can post Scripture, aside from Isaiah 53, that says “I prophet XYZ believe this is what my Messiah will go through.” Remember, the Jews were expecting someone who would bring them political freedom from the Romans. They weren’t expecting the suffering Messiah.
Now, I really am signing off. Good night, all.
In all fairness, I am also aware that some denominational differences seem to hinge on some interpreations of some doctrines, which effect other doctrinal beliefs. For example, I understand the Greek Orthodox to not believe children are born with an old sin nature, but acquire it upon sinning.
This then effects their position on the premature death of children, and idiots and their soteriology. A more Protestant perspective approaches the issue from the perspective of volition. Where idiots and children are not yet matured to exercise an accountable volition, God is still free to give eternal life without contravening His immutable nature of perfect righteousness and perfect justice. The Orthodox perspective (as I limitedly understand it) is a child not yet with sin, bears no unrighteousness to prevent God in His grace to bestow eternal life upon the child.
Likewise, the approach with the doctrine facing the rest of mankind may vary with denominational perspective.
IMHO, the real task is to remain in fellowship with God through faith in Christ, so the ministry of God the Holy SPirit is free to teach each believer in faith His actual will, plan and guide us in our sanctification, since all faith, including true doctrine in our thinking comes from the ministry of God the Holy Spirit.
I wish I had a better definition of spiritual death and resurrection. I think that would help in this discussion. We haven’t even started to discuss how this relates to the judgment of Christ at the cross.
If this is true who was it that Christ paraded before all to see when He descended and then ascended into the heavens?
1 Pet 4:6 6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
1 Pet 3:19 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Eph 4:8-10 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Col 2:15 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
These are several verses that state that Christ descended preached to captive, and then openly paraded them before the principalities His victory over them.
There is no such thing as soul sleep of the righteous. Absence from the body is to be in the presence with the Lord
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.