amillennialism

[CoreIssue]

One could say the same thing about Dispensationalism, instead of being "concocted" by Augustine, by Darby instead. It becomes this giant 'tit for tat' thing, which is hardly helpful, wouldn't you agree? I feel it is much better to set aside 'who went there historically first' (even though it can be helpful in indepth studies) and just attempt to discuss the bible verses around the different views.

You say that John 14 is 'evidence' of a Pre-tribulational Rapture, but I must question that interpretation. Christ most certainly speaks of returning for those who belong to him, but there is no mention of a timing. There is certainly nothing to suggest that this return will be 7 years before the end of human history.

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. -John 14:1–3

So, the only thing John 14 is proof of is Christ's return for his own. And that is something that both Dispensationalists and Amillennialists believe in.

 

[Enoch111]

Christ most certainly speaks of returning for those who belong to him, but there is no mention of a timing. There is certainly nothing to suggest that this return will be 7 years before the end of human history.

The Lord was not expounding on Bible prophecy at that time, which He delegated to the apostles. Therefore no discussion of timing. Furthermore, the Rapture is always shown as being IMMINENT, not tied into a Tribulation period.

At the same time there is no indication in that passage that He would return for the saints only after they had gone through a worldwide and unique Tribulation period. Had it been a necessity, He would have surely stated it, rather than saying "Let not your heart be troubled".

What post-tribulationists fail to understand is the purpose and significance of the Tribulation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the Church). It is not the same as the trials, testings, and tribulations of Christians.

 

[farouk]

One could say the same thing about Dispensationalism, instead of being "concocted" by Augustine, by Darby instead. It becomes this giant 'tit for tat' thing, which is hardly helpful, wouldn't you agree? I feel it is much better to set aside 'who went there historically first' (even though it can be helpful in indepth studies) and just attempt to discuss the bible verses around the different views.

You say that John 14 is 'evidence' of a Pre-tribulational Rapture, but I must question that interpretation. Christ most certainly speaks of returning for those who belong to him, but there is no mention of a timing. There is certainly nothing to suggest that this return will be 7 years before the end of human history.

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. -John 14:1–3

So, the only thing John 14 is proof of is Christ's return for his own. And that is something that both Dispensationalists and Amillennialists believe in.

Try some of the Medieval Lollard Christians, who observed the Lord's Supper in simplicity, and for whom the political constructions of the Reformation did not match their simply looking to the Lord's coming in faith. Hundreds of years before Darby.

 

[Naomi25]

I'm sure that was a nice article. It may have made several nice points. But it does not appear to, in any way, address my point; which was that REGARDLESS of who taught what in the early Church, when looking at John 14 there is NOTHING in that passage that speaks to timeframe.
Once again, you are free to try and show otherwise, but unless it's your own work, please don't expect me to waste my time answering.

 

[Naomi25]

The Lord was not expounding on Bible prophecy at that time, which He delegated to the apostles. Therefore no discussion of timing. Furthermore, the Rapture is always shown as being IMMINENT, not tied into a Tribulation period.

This is a fair enough point, but don't you think, then, that using these verses to lay claim to this: "How could Darby invent the pre-tribulation Rapture when the Lord Jesus Christ stated it as an important divine promise back in John 14:1-3?"
..is overstating it a tad?

And, I would also agree that the Apostles are tasked with shedding the most light upon Christ's return. But, unlike you, I would say that this only leads us away from a Pre-tribulational Rapture. If 1 Cor 15 tells us that at Christ's return we shall be Raptured, but this is also the defeat of death, which we know cannot be before the Tribulation; and Matt 25 tells us that at Christ's return he shall sit and judge all living, just and unjust; and 1 Thess 4 tells us that at the return and Rapture the living and dead shall be raised together; and Rev 20 tells us that both just and unjust dead will be judged together (thus we surmize that both living and dead, just and unjust all come before the Throne of God at the same time and that time is at Christ's return, when he comes to Rapture his Saints); and then 2 Peter 3 tells us that at Christ's return the heavens shall pass away in fire.....then where do we find 'space' for a 7 year Tribulation? All these events, when we read them, are only stated as happening AT Christ's return. There is no mention of a first or second - second coming.

Plus, I should mention that in the Amillennial understanding, Christ's return is also 'imminent'.

At the same time there is no indication in that passage that He would return for the saints only after they had gone through a worldwide and unique Tribulation period. Had it been a necessity, He would have surely stated it, rather than saying "Let not your heart be troubled".

Uh, uh. You can't have it both ways. Either this passage is not explicitly talking about prophecy and therefore we cannot expect timing to come into it....or it is speaking about prophecy...in which case we are back to "it doesn't say ANYTHING specific about timing, one way or the other". Either way, you cannot use it to bolster you case.

What post-tribulationists fail to understand is the purpose and significance of the Tribulation (which has absolutely nothing to do with the Church). It is not the same as the trials, testings, and tribulations of Christians.

I understand perfectly well what Dispensationalists say the Tribulation is for, and that alarms me exceedingly. And I'll tell you why. Because by insisting upon this separation between Church and Israel, you are in effect refusing to acknowledge that Jesus Christ fulfilled all the promises that the Temple was meant to, all the promises the land was pointing to and all the promises that Israel failed to. The Temple was that which was supposed to cleanse the sins of the people and make God dwell among his people. Christ did that, and in doing that in a 100% more perfect way than the Temple ever did, made any further insistence upon a temple a sacrilege. The land was promised as an inheritance to those who held absolute faith and trust in God. It stood as a symbol of blessing and abundance from a loving God who promised to use a people to bless all nations. We see in scripture that no only does Israel fail to uphold covenant faith and trust with God, but that Paul himself tells us that this promise to Abraham has been met and fulfilled IN Christ. Christ is the true inheritor of the land...indeed ALL the land, not just Israel. And finally, the Jewish people were supposed to be a light to the nations...they were supposed to show all the pagans the way of the one and only true God...the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We know how that went. But Christ stepped forth as this example. But obeying his Father, even unto death on a cross, he was both glorified, which we see in his receipt of all lands and powers and authorities, and he became what Israel could not.

And so, you see, Jesus Christ, in his roles of Prophet, Priest and King, has stepped forward as the true Israel...everything that God called Abraham apart from the Gentiles for. And if a time is coming when the Jews can turn back time and replace Christ with four walls, a shadow promise for a small parcel of land when he's won it all, and their own feeble attempts to shine God's love...then what on earth did Christ come for?
We know that any Jewish person to be saved, he must accept Christ. That is leaving the old covenant behind. There is NOTHING in scripture that suggests a time period where they will need to revert back to it in everything but name, but with Christ still tacked on. Because the WHOLE POINT of Christ's coming was to move past ALL those things.

 

[Naomi25]

Try some of the Medieval Lollard Christians, who observed the Lord's Supper in simplicity, and for whom the political constructions of the Reformation did not match their simply looking to the Lord's coming in faith. Hundreds of years before Darby.

My point was, that most people can pull out musty texts 'prooving' that early Church members held their particular views. And for our particular purposes, what good does that do? So what if Dispensationalism can track its roots back that far? So can Amillennialism. So can Historicism. My point was, when most of us can pull out at least one or two decent 'Fathers', shouldn't we just put that aside and focus on what should really matter....what scritpure says about it?

 

[farouk]

My point was, that most people can pull out musty texts 'prooving' that early Church members held their particular views. And for our particular purposes, what good does that do? So what if Dispensationalism can track its roots back that far? So can Amillennialism. So can Historicism. My point was, when most of us can pull out at least one or two decent 'Fathers', shouldn't we just put that aside and focus on what should really matter....what scritpure says about it?

The question is, also, What is the church? is it really an earthly institution destined to wield the temporal sword in some supposed outworking of passages in the Old Testament relating to Israel? or is the church a heavenly people looking for the return of their Lord and not bound up with temporal/earthly roles and commitments? this is part of the question of the rapture (1 Thess. 4) which relates particularly to the church and not to Israel.

 

[Naomi25]

The question is, also, What is the church? is it really an earthly institution destined to wield the temporal sword in some supposed outworking of passages in the Old Testament relating to Israel? or is the church a heavenly people looking for the return of their Lord and not bound up with temporal/earthly roles and commitments? this is part of the question of the rapture (1 Thess. 4) which relates particularly to the church and not to Israel.

I must confess to not being sure what your talking about in terms of "destined to wield the temporal sword" in regards to Israel. Huh?
But...in regards to the rest, cannot it be both? Do we not have enough scripture to teach that, yes, this is NOT our home, we are strangers here, and that, yes, we should be longing for our Lords return. And yet...we also have clear instructions to participate in the Great Commission...to spread the good news of the gospel...to participate in the Spirit's work of saving others. Of loving others. And, of course, we have Christ himself praying that we should be kept IN this world, not taken out of it. There is clearly expectation that while we are here, we live wisely and live for him, in terms of Kingdom forward.
As far as how we should view/interact with Israel....many mistakenly think that Amillennials couldn't care less for Israel. We get lumped with "replacement theology" labels which, as far as I can tell from many a mistaken discription of it, puts us in the same camp as Hitler....or at the very least Hamas...wishing Israel would disappear. This is not true. Paul clearly shows his love and heartfelt desire for his breatheren to become believers! He fully admits they are strangers...enemies of the gospel because they reject Chist. But that is not where he leaves it! He tells us they are LOVED for the sake of the forefathers, for the sake of election. And that a 'partial hardening' has happened "until"....! We must pray for our Jewish brothers and sisters and take the attitude Paul does with them, remembering WHO they are, where they came from and what they've been through. They are NOT God's chosen at present, but oh! He has not forgotten them, and his plan is to bring them to his Son, to graft them back in.

 

[CoreIssue]

I'm sure that was a nice article. It may have made several nice points. But it does not appear to, in any way, address my point; which was that REGARDLESS of who taught what in the early Church, when looking at John 14 there is NOTHING in that passage that speaks to timeframe.
Once again, you are free to try and show otherwise, but unless it's your own work, please don't expect me to waste my time answering.

There is no date setting per Jesus, about is a false argument.

 

[Jay Ross]

I'm sure that was a nice article. It may have made several nice points. But it does not appear to, in any way, address my point; which was that REGARDLESS of who taught what in the early Church, when looking at John 14 there is NOTHING in that passage that speaks to timeframe.
Once again, you are free to try and show otherwise, but unless it's your own work, please don't expect me to waste my time answering.

The article was written by Dr. Thomas Ice, now deceased. I probably downloaded the article when I was downloading lots of the Pre-trib articles ten or more years ago, but I now make no reference to them as they do not represent God's "truth" on the matters of the End Times and when we will see Christ coming on the Clouds to Judge the world.

Shalom

 

[CoreIssue]

The article was written by Dr. Thomas Ice, now deceased. I probably downloaded the article when I was downloading lots of the Pre-trib articles ten or more years ago, but I now make no reference to them as they do not represent God's "truth" on the matters of the End Times and when we will see Christ coming on the Clouds to Judge the world.

Shalom

So you're rejecting all the other early writings reporting the rapture as well.

And say that correctly. Those ridings do not represent what you believe.

This coming from a guy who uses a Council of churches translation that is loaded with problems.

 

[CoreIssue]

My point was, that most people can pull out musty texts 'prooving' that early Church members held their particular views. And for our particular purposes, what good does that do? So what if Dispensationalism can track its roots back that far? So can Amillennialism. So can Historicism. My point was, when most of us can pull out at least one or two decent 'Fathers', shouldn't we just put that aside and focus on what should really matter....what scritpure says about it?

Spoken by in amillennialist who rejects reading the Bible literally.

 

[Jay Ross]

So you're rejecting all the other early writings reporting the rapture as well.

And say that correctly. Those ridings do not represent what you believe.

This coming from a guy who uses a Council of churches translation that is loaded with problems.

I have no problems with a person who argues against the points made in a post, but I do have a problem with a person who uses personal attacks against another poster in an attempt to discredit the member's post. That is described as a false argument technique.

I use a KJV interlinear bible in my studies. That is not a Council of Churches translation as far as I know.

I have also publicly stated that all of the Translations available to the people to read are fallible in their renderings of the source texts in their translations. I have also publicly stated that the theological bias of the committees involved in the different translations and reviews of the respective translations can be seen in the intended message content of the respective bible translations and their updates.

I also agree with your use of words when you say that "those riding" do not represent what you believe as if by being ridden by those riding means that I am being bullied into a particular way of thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When you can present argument that is not of the form of a false argument technic, then perhaps it may be possible to converse and exchange ideas.

 

[CoreIssue]

I have no problems with a person who argues against the points made in a post, but I do have a problem with a person who uses personal attacks against another poster in an attempt to discredit the member's post. That is described as a false argument technique.

I use a KJV interlinear bible in my studies. That is not a Council of Churches translation as far as I know.

I have also publicly stated that all of the Translations available to the people to read are fallible in their renderings of the source texts in their translations. I have also publicly stated that the theological bias of the committees involved in the different translations and reviews of the respective translations can be seen in the intended message content of the respective bible translations and their updates.

I also agree with your use of words when you say that "those riding" do not represent what you believe as if by being ridden by those riding means that I am being bullied into a particular way of thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When you can present argument that is not of the form of a false argument technic, then perhaps it may be possible to converse and exchange ideas.

So boil it down to the bottom.

The article and other information I posted makes it crystal clear pre-tribulation rapture belief did not begin with Darby. It existed 1500 years beforeBy ancient writers and it also exists in the Bible.

 

[tzcho2]

View attachment 5996

I really like your gifs! LOL!

 

[tzcho2]

I can't believe you would believe something you cannot prove from direct quotes from scripture. It is flesh faith and not Holy Spirit faith that comes only through hearing the Word.

lol! actually YOU do that all the time. Wow. You must have a different "Word" then the actual Bible then I have. because there's so much of the scriptures that you either dismiss, or have put other meanings to.

 

[Jay Ross]

So boil it down to the bottom.

The article and other information I posted makes it crystal clear pre-tribulation rapture belief did not begin with Darby. It existed 1500 years beforeBy ancient writers and it also exists in the Bible.

Oh I believe in the statement by Paul that we who are in Christ, will on the day of His return when He comes on the clouds to judge the world and are still living, will rise up into the air to meet Him along with those Saint who have stopped drawing a breath.

The issue that I have with the Dr. Ice type People, is that they believe that they will not have to face the tribulations of this world, but the sad thing is that we all have our own times of tribulations where we are forced to make a decision on our faith in Christ. It is a time of refining our faith in Christ, a testing with fire so to speak, where our resolve to be a believer in Christ is tested. Having said that, scripture also tells us that we will nor be test beyond our endurance levels at those times.

Now should you/I die during periods of tribulation, what concern is that or ours, if we in faith, believing in Him Whom He has sent.

I am intending to go to a third world country towards the end of this year, God willing. In that country, Christians regularly die for their faith. In going, I have to be prepared to die for what I believe and trust that God will keep my soul/spirit safe within His embrace of myself. It is my hope that I will show God's Glory during all circumstances, whatever that may mean and play out, when all of them arise.

Are you prepared to die for what you believe so that God can be Glorified through your death?

Do you trust God enough to rely on His protection during any time of tribulation where your death may be a likely outcome?

Shalom

 

[CoreIssue]

Oh I believe in the statement by Paul that we who are in Christ, will on the day of His return when He comes on the clouds to judge the world and are still living, will rise up into the air to meet Him along with those Saint who have stopped drawing a breath.

The issue that I have with the Dr. Ice type People, is that they believe that they will not have to face the tribulations of this world, but the sad thing is that we all have our own times of tribulations where we are forced to make a decision on our faith in Christ. It is a time of refining our faith in Christ, a testing with fire so to speak, where our resolve to be a believer in Christ is tested. Having said that, scripture also tells us that we will nor be test beyond our endurance levels at those times.

Now should you/I die during periods of tribulation, what concern is that or ours, if we in faith, believing in Him Whom He has sent.

I am intending to go to a third world country towards the end of this year, God willing. In that country, Christians regularly die for their faith. In going, I have to be prepared to die for what I believe and trust that God will keep my soul/spirit safe within His embrace of myself. It is my hope that I will show God's Glory during all circumstances, whatever that may mean and play out, when all of them arise.

Are you prepared to die for what you believe so that God can be Glorified through your death?

Do you trust God enough to rely on His protection during any time of tribulation where your death may be a likely outcome?

Shalom

He comes in the clouds for the rapture. No further.

He comes to the earth in judgment at the second coming.

Your questions are moot.

 

[Earburner]

For disclosure I copied the chart posted by David L.

As you can see the millennial kingdom and tribulation period co-exists in this thinking. They have already lasted over 2000 years.

Christ has no earthly kingdom but rules from heaven.

Satan has already been in the pit for 2000 years.

Israel is never restore because of replacement theology.


All the events of revelation and massive amounts of Old Testament prophecy are figurative, not literal.

The second coming, rapture and end of time all happened at the same time.

This belief began in the Catholic Church to justify their replacement theology and that they would be God's physical government on the earth.

The claim Darby invented the pre-tribulation rapture is a lie.

Examining an Ancient Pre-Trib Rapture Statement


View attachment 5903

CI,
You have neglected to understand that Israel, as a nation, was the physical type of the KoG to the anti-type of the literal KoG through Jesus.
Try to let that sink in.

All of the OT Prophecies, that were spoken to Israel, were "if/then Prophecies".
"If" they obeyed God through faith,
"then" that which was promised, would have come to pass to them and for them.
.
The prophetic 70 weeks in Daniel was to Israel and no one else.
Dan. 9[24] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
.
Now, since Israel failed to be obedient to God through faith, all of the OT prophecies for God's goodness towards them, became dysfunctional and obsolete.
Luke 19[42] Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

[43] For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
[44] And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

 

[Naomi25]

There is no date setting per Jesus, about is a false argument.

Wasn't speaking to date setting. The passage in question is often used as proof for a pre-trib rapture. But, as i said, there is nothing IN it that speaks of timeframe...if we can expect Christ's return to happen 7 years before the end of human history. Therefore, the only thing the passage affirms, is Christ's return, full-stop.