How Did We Get the Idea of The Pre-Trib Rapture?

reformed-theology.org ^ | 1998 | Sandy Fiedler

[topcat54]

"The Roots of Fundamentalism," by Ernest R. Sandeen, in discussing the history of the Brethren, says that [John Nelson] Darby introduced the idea of a secret rapture of the church and a gap in prophetic fulfillment between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel. These beliefs became basic to the system of theology known as dispensationalism.

From 1862 to 1877, Darby lived in and traveled throughout the United States and Canada, spreading his message. He was a very appealing speaker and also intolerant to criticism. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success. He then spread his end-times message to influential clergymen and laymen in churches in major cities without insisting they leave their denominations.

[topcat54]

One of the characteristics of modern-day Preterism, ...

If you're going to steal someone else's words without attribution, it suggests two thing:

You are unable to cogently argue the case for yourself.

You have to be prepared to back up the claims of those you rob. E.g.;

But here’s the rub. Both Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry state that the resurrection of Daniel 12: 2 happened in A.D. 70.

Can you prove that statement is true?

[topcat54]

(Again, if you're going to use someone else's words, at least have the decency to attribute them to the author.)

Altogether … Tradition! Tradition!

[CynicalBear]

>> does this mean you accept St Iraneus and St Clement as Christians?<<

Why wouldn’t I?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

because they were Catholic Bishops who believed in baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, apostolic succession, the Catholic Church, etc. etc. That would make them apostate pagans, no?

[CynicalBear]

>> Can you prove that statement is true?<<

Surely you know that they believe that the resurrection was spiritual not physical. Are you just trying to throw up a straw man here?

[topcat54]

I repeat, can you prove that statement is true?

[Cronos]

Well, the seven beasts referred to in apocalypse are the seven first emperors of Romaoi, the eight was Domitian (the beast) who led the worse anti-Christian persecutors.

The false prophet seem to be Mohammed and Islam had a 1000-year reign from 680 until 1683 when the Ottomans were crushed on 9/11/ 1683 at the Battle of Vienna by the combined Austrian-Bavarian-Russian-Polish armies and that started the retreat of the Moslem world from Europe.

[Cronos]

I disagree with your statement "Fire and brimstone and the negative side of what the Bible teaches. It was such a turn off I stayed away from religion until I was an adult. Then, I met a minister that told me about love and grace and always preached on the upside of salvation. You my friend are only posting things here, yes they are in the Bible, yes they are relevant, yes it applies to our life now, but as I said before, that is only half the story."

I agree there should be balance, but in the modern world we no longer use the word "sin" -- we say "defect", "failing" or "issue" or "problem" but not sin. Hell is real, sin is real.

[Cronos]

"Although the destruction of the Temple was a pretty big deal to the Jews, it was a little tiny event in world affairs."

Actually no. It was a bigg deal for Christianity as until that event Christianity was still a Jewish sect. With the destruction of the second temple, that meant Christ's words were true. It also meant that Christianity now spread further away from it's core in the Jewish lands and Gentiles began to play an important role and Judaizers were now restricted.

From a SECULAR point of view, this was also a big deal -- see the Triumphat Arch in Rome of Titus. This shows the Roman soldiers looting the menorah etc. from the second Temple (incidently this was built by Herod the Great).

Apocalypse indicates the trials and tribulations of Christ's people, just like Daniel related thet tribulations of the people of the first covenant. In both cases, it seemed like they would be wiped out utterly.

Christ's reign in the spiritual world began the moment Satan's plan were destroyed at the foot of the Cross.

[Cronos]

1. By grace we are saved and even that is a gift from God -- correct. Yet losing salvation does not deny that fact that everything is from God

2. Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

3. Christ died for us and appears before God on our behalf. He has provided sufficiently for our salvation yet note that it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to "repeant and believe" or else we would have no need to be born again.

4. Paul notes this in "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22;

5. Jesus declared: ‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 7:21)."

6. Sins against the Holy Spirit, i.e. grace sins, mortal sins are not forgiven in this age or the next, yet for others, Christ's blood washes aways the sins of those who truly repent and believe and sin no more.

7. Paul again "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

[fish hawk]

I've only been “born again” once. How many chances do we get, in your books? Every time you sin? I actually feel sorry for you out there that think you can lose your salvation. Bottom line, it is “working your way into heaven” and scripture tells us that those are a laundry basket full of “dirty rags”.

[Dutchboy88]

This is the classic errant result of “proof texting”. None of the references you use actually support the conclusions you draw from the isolated verses. Nevertheless, your technique is as common as it is incorrect.

To argue with someone who does not recognize the proper way to approach the Scriptures, however, is a waste of effort. Read some good books on hermeneutics then revisit these passages.

[MarkBsnr]

This is the classic errant result of “proof texting”. None of the references you use actually support the conclusions you draw from the isolated verses. Nevertheless, your technique is as common as it is incorrect.

Hello, Dutchboy. Long time no see. I will agree with you to the point where the various interpretations of Scripture vary from the Fathers. They are the ones who wrote, massaged and chose Scripture for us to read.

[topcat54]

Once again, I repeat, can you prove that statement is true?

[Cronos]

Good for you.

Chances for what? Accepting Christ as God? We get quite a few chances -- you know our God is a loving God.

Do you deny Paul saying "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

or "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; ?

Do you deny Christ Himself saying ‘Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 7:21)." ?

[Cronos]

"To argue with someone who does not recognize the proper way to approach the Scripture" --> The proper way meaning the Dutchboo way>?

Or the Calvinist way? Or the Arminian way? Or the Ellen G White Way? Or the J. Smith way?

[G Larry]

Fish Hawk is not interested in reading scripture that challenges his perspective.
If you trace this conversation, you will find over a dozen Biblical citations which undermine his interpretation.
Pretending to understand the meaning of “Salvation” is a final refuge.
So, John 3:16 is the only Bible passage they need to parrot, with no interest in the dozens of passages citing our on-going, personal responsibility.

[Cronos]

you're right.

Fish-hook, what do you think of these?

• Romans 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will be cut off
• Phil 2:12- work out your salvation in fear and trembling
• 1 Cor 9:27 - drive your body for fear of being disqualified
• 1 Cor 10:11-12 - those thinking they are secure,the may fall
• Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you’ve fallen from grace
• 2 Tim 2:11-13 - must hold out to the end to reign with Christ

[Dutchboy88]

"The proper way meaning the Dutchboo way>?

The way the writers intended their argument to be taken. That is, as compared to the Roman way which is fouled up beyond all recognition. Rome's self-serving, self-proving, self-aggrandizing method of supporting their collection of monstrous papists, rather than Christ, alone. The bathrobe boys cannot even recognize the meaning of texts they wrongly claim they gave to the world.

[Cronos]

All as interpreted as the great Dutchboo says? Isn’t it strange that Holland is now 31% Roman Catholic, 13% Dutch Reformed, 7% Calvinist?