The Rapture

[veteran]

I never said that John Darby was not important. Just that it did not originate with him. Let me try to explain something. Just because the early church believed or didn't believe something does not really influence my acceptance or rejection of an idea. The majority of the church at one time accepted replacement theology. Does this mean that I should accept it? I do not, as I consider this to be a heresy. Before the reformation there was a lot of things about Salvation that the church did not believe, that I do. The church used to believe that you had to confess your sins to a priest and only a priest could forgive them, I do not believe this. The church used to believe that it can sell sin 'indulgences', and you can have some of your sins forgiven by giving money to the church, I do not believe this. I am a protestant, not because I followed the history of the Protestant movement, and because of what some man in the movement might have said or done, but because the protestant churches for the most part teach what I believe to be true when compared to the Catholic church.

I understand, but I didn't try to bring in history of the doctrine, you did. I was ready to go to Scripture.

I

do not consider myself to be in any denomination because I have yet to find one that believes exactly what I believe to be true. As far as John Darby is concerned, to be totally honest, I have never actually read anything that the man wrote. I don't use the term 'secret rapture'. And in fact, with only one exception, every single time I have seen that term used, it has been used by a Post tribulationist, as they talk about the pretrib rapture. They try to disprove that the rapture is secret as if that had any bearing on my understanding of scripture at all.

Darby was actually the one who created the phrase "secret rapture", and he is one of the fathers of the pre-trib doctrine that exists today. It was because the doctrine originally believed the gathering of the saints prior to the tribulation to be a 'secret' coming and gathering by Christ. It's a very important point having to do with how the doctrine in Britain got started. It's also significant that the proponents of the later Pre-trib school based the doctrine on Irving, Darby, et al, and at some later point decided to drop off that word "secret", and just use the word "rapture". That's likely the reason you can say you don't recognize the term 'secret' that originally was included with the doctrine.

Let me address one more point and then hopefully we can move past the 'history' of the pretrib rapture. Margaret McDonald did not teach a pre-tribulation rapture. I would ask, have you ever read the actual 'prophecy' of Margaret McDonald or are you just repeating what other Posttribs have said? I found a copy of the entire vision on a post trib site, which is an excerpt from Dave Macpherson's ( A post tribulationist ) book 'The incredible coverup.' Hopefully this site is slanted enough in the Post tribulation arena that you will not claim that I got my information from a biased source.

I won't include the entire 'vision' here but you can read the entire vision at http://www.preterist...le-coverup.html

... I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - But the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth. and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive ... It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within - be clay in the hands of the potter - submit to be filled, filled with God This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the lamb. I saw It to be the will of God that all should be filled.


Yep, that fits right into the pretrib doctrine. I mean doesn't everyone know that Pretribbers teach that the people of God will be in awfully dangerous situations, to be tried, and many will be deceived and fall? Oh wait.. no that is the post tribulation people that believe that. Oh I know, the pretrib people must think that the fiery trial which shall come upon us will be 'The Wicked' with all power and signs and lying wonders.. no wait, that not us either, that is the post trib folks. Wait I got it.. the pretrib folks are going on and on about how the body of Jesus must be purged and purified by a fiery trial. No wait a minute, that's not us either, the pretrib folks claim that Jesus has already purified us with his blood. That is the post tribulation folks that claim that the church needs to be purified. WAIT...WAIT I got it, I got it.. The pretrib folks are saying that the trial of the Church is from the Antichrist! Right?? No... Oh that's right... that is the Post tribulation folks again.

Well, there's a precise point about it I don't think you understand yet. Because she said things like the following also, those ministers around her took a single idea out of it and furthered the idea of a 'secret' coming of Christ prior to the tribulation...

"Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance. No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is." (from the letter by Margaret McDonald from that site link).

Do you see how her words in bold could easily become misconstrued as a 'secret' coming of Christ, known only to those who will see Him? That's what religious leaders around her took and ran with, creating the idea of Christ coming to rapture the saints in 'secret', before the tribulation. Margaret's own words point also to the idea of the saints going through the tribulation, simply because that's what Scripture states, but those ministers decided to leave those things out and opt for their 'secret' idea. That point of Christ coming in 'secret' was a whole new revelation to them by The Holy Spirit, they thought. In essence, they denied the post-trib account in Scripture, even Rev.1 Scripture about Christ's coming in the clouds with every eye seeing Him.

Man, Veteran, I am sure glad you set me straight on that, now that I know where the pretrib doctrine comes from, I can rest easy. But seriously.. The 'vision' of Margaret MacDonald had nothing to do with the pretribulation rapture doctrine. In fact, I have yet to find one pre tribulationist who credits Margaret MacDonald with anything, much less relating to pretribulation rapture theory. It has been Post Tribulationist like Dave MacPherson who has made this claim, and as you can clearly see, it is a bunch of mess. I do try to be unbias as far as where I get my information, but I have found information on Post tribulation slanted sites to be lacking.

I don't think it's really hit you yet how that 'secret' coming of Christ idea is one of the ideas that was responsible for the Pre-trib doctrine in 1830's Britain, which is why Darby used the phrase "secret rapture". That was one of the major points that MacPherson documented in his work. And what he documented was the history of the Pre-trib origins. Margaret McDonald was one source, Irving and Darby were others. So no, MacPherson's documentation is not a mess. You just haven't understood it yet, even as you've already revealed that you don't recognize the "secret" term in the phrase "secret rapture" nor aware why Darby coined such a phrase because of the movement. Just because those of the Pre-trib school that came later decided to drop that term "secret" out and just use the word "rapture" does not disconnect the origin of their Pre-trib doctrine from 1830's Britain. I think it's obvious that's what those later Pre-trib school leaders were trying to do.

So to be honest, I don't care that the church has believed in a post tribulation rapture of the church. I see a distinction between Israel and the Church. I see that Jesus promised that he would keep the church from the trial that is about to come upon the entire earth. I believe that when Jesus said, "If I go away I will come again and recieve you unto myself. So that where I am you will be also." That is exactly what he meant. The tribulation has 3 purposes, 1) To purify an unbelieving Israel, so that her blindness will be removed and she will accept her messiah, 2) to awaken the undecided in one final attempt to draw them to God, and 3) To punish an unbelieving and rebellious world.

The church does not have any part in any of those three functions.

Does this mean you're ready to discuss actual Scripture instead? We should do that in a one-on-one. Isn't there an area on the Forum to do that?

Distinction of Israel and the Church is a different subject. We'd have to get into a lot of Bible prophecy in comparison, which would get away from our original discussion.

The Church had held to a post-tribulational view of the gathering to Christ, until some Churches opted for the 1830's "secret rapture" Pre-trib idea that came out of Britain from Darby, et al. And the Bible passages you're pulling from do not prove a Pre-trib gathering to Christ. I can go into greater detail about them, letting Scripture interpret it, for there are many other Scriptures linked to what He said there, some of the most important ones in the Book of Ezekiel which define what abodes (mansions) and where they will be located.

This comment actually made me laugh. First off, I did not say that Post Tribulationist always do this or do that, I said that most of them will just quote Matt 24 and think that this solves the issue. And not only that, but I later provided an example of you doing this exact thing. In case you missed it, let me repost it.

But what made me laugh was that you did the exact same thing that you condemn me for doing.

Wouldn't you say that if most people are doing something, then this something would be considered common? So if most pretribs are doing this, then you can comment on it, but if I say that most post tribs are doing that, and give an example of you doing it, for me it is a strawman argument. Wow.. at least I was trying to add to the debate by providing references, I actually did look for a post trib site that mentioned pre Darby writings, but strangly enough they all said, Darby was the one who started it, just like you did. So forgive me for going to some sites that actually had the information. But then again, I guess if they actually published that there were writings of a pre trib rapture before Darby then they couldn't really claim that Darby came up with the concept now could they?

I'll have to finish this later...

 

[th1b.taylor]

Suit yourself, but we're all going to give an account before God, and those who preach false doctrine are going to have a lot to lose. What scripture(s) do you use to defend your teaching?

1Thes. 4:16-18 and if you will chain-link from there you will find all the scriptures that pertain to the issue. If you will take he time to copy them all into a single study and then, prayerfully, study them with an open minded approach it becomes very clear that the Post-mil. position is in trouble because a complete study will encompass the return of Jesus with His Saints to rule the Earth for a thousand years and the question that just begs for an answer that makes sense, from the Post-mil and post-trib positions is, "Return from where?"

 

[Joshua David]

I understand, but I didn't try to bring in history of the doctrine, you did. I was ready to go to Scripture.


...



I don't think it's really hit you yet how that 'secret' coming of Christ idea is one of the ideas that was responsible for the Pre-trib doctrine in 1830's Britain, which is why Darby used the phrase "secret rapture". That was one of the major points that MacPherson documented in his work. And what he documented was the history of the Pre-trib origins. Margaret McDonald was one source, Irving and Darby were others. So no, MacPherson's documentation is not a mess. You just haven't understood it yet, even as you've already revealed that you don't recognize the "secret" term in the phrase "secret rapture" nor aware why Darby coined such a phrase because of the movement. Just because those of the Pre-trib school that came later decided to drop that term "secret" out and just use the word "rapture" does not disconnect the origin of their Pre-trib doctrine from 1830's Britain. I think it's obvious that's what those later Pre-trib school leaders were trying to do.

You made the statement that the doctrine originated in the 1830's. I was refuting that claim, by giving you pre-1830's documented examples of a pre-tribulation belief. You are the one who brought up MacDonald. Then when I disproved that MacDonald taught a pretrib rapture, as you claimed, you go on this long escapade about this 'secret' rapture. Like I said, I have never seen any documentation to support MacPherson's claim that Darby took anything from Margaret MacDonald. But if you have any documentation that does not come from MacPherson's himself, or quotes MacPherson then please post it, I would like to see it, because I can't find any, and I have looked.


But either way, Veteran, I don't care about the 'secret'. I don't care how influential it was in the 1830's. I don't care that John Darby coined the phrase. I do not believe in the pretribulation rapture because John Darby believed in a secret rapture. Like I told you before, I don't care what John Darby taught, I don't care what the church taught, I do care what the scriptures teach, and based on everything that I have studied, the pretribulation rapture makes the most sense to me.


Does that mean that the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture answers all my questions? No, it does not. But it does answer more questions than the Post tribulation rapture does, and therefore, that is what I believe. It has nothing to do with what I want to happen, it has nothing to do with a belief that I think I am 'above' being 'tried for my faith', it has nothing to do with me being a coward, or any of the other things that I have been called by Post Tribulationist. And before you say anything, I am not saying that you said any of those things ( with the exception of believing this because it what I want to happen) These are just some of things that I have been accused of in the past.

Does this mean you're ready to discuss actual Scripture instead? We should do that in a one-on-one. Isn't there an area on the Forum to do that?

Distinction of Israel and the Church is a different subject. We'd have to get into a lot of Bible prophecy in comparison, which would get away from our original discussion.


The Church had held to a post-tribulational view of the gathering to Christ, until some Churches opted for the 1830's "secret rapture" Pre-trib idea that came out of Britain from Darby, et al. And the Bible passages you're pulling from do not prove a Pre-trib gathering to Christ. I can go into greater detail about them, letting Scripture interpret it, for there are many other Scriptures linked to what He said there, some of the most important ones in the Book of Ezekiel which define what abodes (mansions) and where they will be located.

I am fine discussing scripture, as long as it can be done respectfully. What I mean is this. I accept that you see the pretribulation doctrine as my interpretation, and the Post Tribulation as the correct interpretation of the Word of God. I want you to accept that I see the pretribulation as the correct interpretation of the Word of God, and the Post Tribulation as your interpretation. If there is going to be meaningful discussion and debate, then we will both have to accept that the position that we hold is our own interpretation. In other words, let's forgo the whole...

There's a difference with simply assigning it as an opinion vs. actually being able to back it up in The Scriptures, i.e., the idea of letting The Scriptures interpret Itself.

That was actually being disrespectful, because I have scriptures to support a pretribulation rapture. You may not agree with how I interpret those scriptures, but neither do I agree with the way that you interpret some the scriptures that you use to support your position. But not agreeing with how you interpret those scriptures is not the same as saying that you have no scriptures, therefore it is only your opinion, which is basically what you told me.


Joshua David

 

[TWC]

1Thes. 4:16-18 and if you will chain-link from there you will find all the scriptures that pertain to the issue. If you will take he time to copy them all into a single study and then, prayerfully, study them with an open minded approach it becomes very clear that the Post-mil. position is in trouble because a complete study will encompass the return of Jesus with His Saints to rule the Earth for a thousand years and the question that just begs for an answer that makes sense, from the Post-mil and post-trib positions is, "Return from where?"

In Paul's second letter, it's evident that some in the church at Thessolonica were buying into the false teaching that the Day of the Lord had already come. If he was teaching a pretrib rapture in his first letter, wouldn't they have known better since no one had been raptured? Instead, Paul told them to watch for a falling away, followed by the revealing of the man of sin, not the rapture.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Matthew 24:29-31
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The Bible speaks for itself.

 

[Joshua David]

In Paul's second letter, it's evident that some in the church at Thessolonica were buying into the false teaching that the Day of the Lord had already come. If he was teaching a pretrib rapture in his first letter, wouldn't they have known better since no one had been raptured? Instead, Paul told them to watch for a falling away, followed by the revealing of the man of sin, not the rapture.




The Bible speaks for itself.

You would think that they did know better. I guess that is why they were distressed, exactly because no one had been raptured, and they were told that the rapture happens first.

Joshua David

 

[TWC]

I'll take "Circular Reasoning" for $500, Alex.

 

[veteran]

[quote name='Joshua David' timestamp='1305649474' post='111261']

This comment actually made me laugh. First off, I did not say that Post Tribulationist always do this or do that, I said that most of them will just quote Matt 24 and think that this solves the issue. And not only that, but I later provided an example of you doing this exact thing. In case you missed it, let me repost it.[/quote]

Direct type statements do solve issues. If I said I drive a Chevy, it doesn't mean I said I drive a Ford. When Christ said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" then would appear the sign of The Son of Man in Heaven, He didn't say anything else to counter that.

But what made me laugh was that you did the exact same thing that you condemn me for doing.

Wouldn't you say that if most people are doing something, then this something would be considered common? So if most pretribs are doing this, then you can comment on it, but if I say that most post tribs are doing that, and give an example of you doing it, for me it is a strawman argument. Wow.. at least I was trying to add to the debate by providing references, I actually did look for a post trib site that mentioned pre Darby writings, but strangly enough they all said, Darby was the one who started it, just like you did. So forgive me for going to some sites that actually had the information. But then again, I guess if they actually published that there were writings of a pre trib rapture before Darby then they couldn't really claim that Darby came up with the concept now could they?

You're already misrepresenting my words. Go back and read what I said about Darby from the first. Notice I said the idea of the "secret rapture" is what started with Darby, because, he is the one who coined the term "secret rapture". He actually got the seeds of the idea from others, like Edward Irving and his Church for one. So your point is all moot, and humor for naught.

Oh I am sure you could. But I could probably find MORE examples of condemnation coming from Post trib folks, than coming from pre trib folks. That was the point I was making. Now am I saying that this is true from all of either one, as you are implying I did? No absolutely not. And I dare you to find a quote of me saying such. If you do, then by all means quote it and I will come on here and issue an apology to each and every post tribulationist on this board.

So now you want to go into that foolishness of generalizing a weak point? And I thought you were serious about this discussion.

And as I said many times in this debate, I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT MATT 24. There is not a single pretribulationist I know, that does not believe that Jesus will return at the end of the tribulation. YES! John ate the sandwich! I don't know how to make this any clearer. I believe, I believe, I believe, by everything that I hold dear, I believe. Does that help?

No. You clearly have not agreed with me on the Matthew 24 Scripture. You've only attempted to ADD to the existing pre-trib doctrine. That's all you've done. And it won't work, because there is no Scripture evidence to support ANY gathering to Christ before the tribulation.

You said:
"Those of us that believe in a pretribulation rapture believe that Jesus' second coming is at the end of the Tribulation. We also believe that there is a gathering at the end of the tribulation. What we disagree on is that there is only one gathering, or that the that rapture is the exact same event as the second coming. It's not."

That idea is actually the pre-trib doctrine + 1, and not the pre-trib doctrine held by most Pre-trib schools, nor the pre-trib "secret rapture" doctrine of Darby's days. The history of Pre-tribulationalism has not declared two gatherings to Christ, one before the tribulation, and another after the tribulation.

What Pre-tribulationalism through its history does declare, is that Christ gathers His saints to Heaven prior to tribulation, and then returns to earth WITH all His saints after the tribulation. That's why it's called the PRE-Tribulational doctrine.

But Christ Himself declared in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that He returns AFTER the tribulation, and THEN gathers His saints. No mention of any gathering prior to the tribulation at all.

Well anyone who was following along with our conversation and looked at the context of my statement would know that I forgot to add in the words 'doesn't' as in "Just because you can prove that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation doesn't prove that the Rapture takes place at the exact same time."

Yes I made a mistake. And I also believe that there is going to be a gathering at the end of the tribulation. A gathering from one end of Heaven from the other ( hmm... I wonder who is in Heaven at this point?) and a gathering of Israel and the Tribulation Saints on earth.

That's what I figured, which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe you've not considered how the Heavenly is revealed on earth at the point of Christ's coming after the tribulation? If so, then where is the gathering to Christ going to then be, if the Heavenly is joined on earth at that point? I doubt you've considered that. The pre-trib doctrine depends upon being 'raptured' off this earth to up in Heaven when being gathered.

But anyway, the idea you're actually preaching is that we Christians are 'raptured' before the tribulation, while unbelieving Israel is left-behind, with some of unbelieving Israel coming to Christ Jesus during the tribulation (i.e., "tribulation saints" idea). And then Christ gathers them with the raptured and alseep saints He returns with after the tribulation. Right?

The only problem with that, and it's a BIG one, there's no Scripture to support a gathering of the alive saints on earth to Christ in Heaven BEFORE the tribulation.

That's the difference that defines the POST-tribulational view. The post-trib view defines that Christ Jesus gathers the alive saints on earth (which ALL go through the tribulation), and the asleep saints which He brings with Him, all at the same time, AFTER the tribulation. One time of His coming, not two different times of coming in the last days.

No, what I am saying is that I realize that I am human, and that means that I could be wrong in what I believe the scriptures are saying. If I saw a compelling enough argument that addressed more of the questions that I have than a belief in a pre tribulation rapture, then you can rest assured, I would be one of the most ardent defenders of the Post Tribulationist doctrine that you have ever seen. But right now, there are just too many gaps that I see in the Post Tribulation rapture doctrine. The problem, and consider this a strawman if you want, most of the post tribulationist that I talk to can't understand my position enough to address my concerns. They think that Matt 24 should be enough for me. And like I said before, if you believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation and I believe that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation, proving that Jesus is coming back at the end of the tribulation isn't going to prove anything to me. It isn't going to sway me one bit.

Joshua David

Got it! But... for your position to be tenable, there must be Scripture evidence for a gathering of the saints on earth to Christ in Heaven PRIOR to the tribulation He mentioned. That truly is the main anchor point to what you're saying you believe. God's Word simply does not point to that, but to one time of Christ's angels gathering ALL His saints, from one end of Heaven to the other, and from one end of the earth to the other...

Mark 13:24-27
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

OK. That's the time of Christ's coming AFTER the tribulation He mentioned.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

This is the time when every eye shall see Him (Rev.1:7), including those who pierced Him. And at that time, the following also will happen...

27 And then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
(KJV)

The "four winds" would make a good Bible study. It is used Biblically as a symbol in connection with judgment upon the earth.

The Matt.24:31 event is about asleep saints being gathered, and the Mark 13:27 event is about the still alive on earth saints being gathered at that time AFTER the tribulation too.

And the "four winds" symbol is about the 'change' that is to happen per Isaiah 25 and 1 Thess.4, which comes with a judgment upon the nations on the day of The LORD (Zech.14), which is also the time when Christ comes as a thief in the night (1 Thess.5; 2 Pet.3:10).


Rev 7:1-4
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
(KJV)

Notice the four angels are told to hold the four winds back until God seals His servants with His seal in their foreheads. Now per the Pre-trib view, these are the 'tribulation saints' of unbelieving Israel that come to Christ DURING the tribulation. YET, the four winds have not blown yet, which also means the gathering His saints of Matt.24:31 and Mark 13:27 has NOT happened yet at this point in time either.

The "four winds" blowing is in connection with the events on the day of The LORD, the day of Christ's coming. That day accompanies a great battle against the nations...

Isa 13:4-9
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.
5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
(KJV)

That day of The LORD is also the event Apostle Paul said was when Christ comes as a thief in the night (1 Thess.5).


Isa 43:5-8
5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the ends of the earth;
7 Even every one that is called by My name: for I have created him for My glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears.
(KJV)

God said that to the seed of Jacob who was also named Israel by Him. But not only they, but "Even every one that is called by My name" is gathered along with them.

All of those who come to Christ Jesus, the asleep saints, the alive saints, and the believers of Israel, will ALL be gathered to Christ at the same time, after the tribulation, which is when the four angels will loose the "four winds" on the day of The LORD. It's actually those four winds blowing on the earth that ENDS the great tribulation, but causes the gathering of all of Christ's saints at the same time.

 

[veteran]

You made the statement that the doctrine originated in the 1830's. I was refuting that claim, by giving you pre-1830's documented examples of a pre-tribulation belief. You are the one who brought up MacDonald. Then when I disproved that MacDonald taught a pretrib rapture, as you claimed, you go on this long escapade about this 'secret' rapture. Like I said, I have never seen any documentation to support MacPherson's claim that Darby took anything from Margaret MacDonald. But if you have any documentation that does not come from MacPherson's himself, or quotes MacPherson then please post it, I would like to see it, because I can't find any, and I have looked.

The doctrine called the "secret rapture" did begin in 1830's Britain, with Irvingism. And that's the basis of where today's Pre-tribulationalsim comes from, not from others like Lacunza, or those you mentioned that lived in an earlier time than the 1800's. The hunt for others prior to the 1800's by the Pre-trib school was an attempt to show the "secret rapture" idea had earlier origins than in Britain. That has failed to be proven.

Yes, I brought up Margaret McDonald's letter. So what? It's part of the 1800's Britain history of the Pre-trib "secret rapture" doctrine; Darby came into it later, which I know, the Pre-trib school denies Darby had any connection with Irvingism and the word 'secret'. But now it seems, you even want to throw away the Pre-trib's connection with Darby, when the Pre-trib school does not throw his writings away.

What MacPhearson documented with Margaret MacDonald only shows how some ministers misinterpreted her words, towards... the SAME ideas as Edward Irving and John Darby espoused. So there is a doctrinal connection, and it doesn't mean they all had to personally know each other to be found with the same doctrine. Margaret's statement I put in bold espouses a 'secret' coming of Christ.

But either way, Veteran, I don't care about the 'secret'. I don't care how

influential it was in the 1830's. I don't care that John Darby coined the phrase. I do not believe in the pretribulation rapture because John Darby believed in a secret rapture. Like I told you before, I don't care what John Darby taught, I don't care what the church taught, I do care what the scriptures teach, and based on everything that I have studied, the pretribulation rapture makes the most sense to me.

Sorry about that, but that 'secret' part of the doctrine was an early foundation of the pre-trib doctrine from the 1800's Irving Church. That's good that want to rely on God's Word above all, because what God's Word says is really what's important.

Does that mean that the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture answers all my questions? No, it does not. But it does answer more questions than the Post tribulation rapture does, and therefore, that is what I believe. It has nothing to do with what I want to happen, it has nothing to do with a belief that I think I am 'above' being 'tried for my faith', it has nothing to do with me being a coward, or any of the other things that I have been called by Post Tribulationist. And before you say anything, I am not saying that you said any of those things ( with the exception of believing this because it what I want to happen) These are just some of things that I have been accused of in the past.

Does it mean I'm being difficult because I accept what our Lord Jesus showed in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that our gathering to Him is AFTER the tribulation He mentioned? Am I the guilty party just because I cannot understand why another believer on Him cannot understand that simple example?

Something I can relate to, because our Heavenly Father has allowed me to actually see it more than once, is this: with some I've gone through a Bible study with, line upon line, and they understood it all, but yet only a week later it was turned around in their mind, like that study had never even happened. It was then that I paid more attention to our Lord's words about those given ears to hear, and those not given to hear. I realized it was not up to me, but up to our Lord when a person 'hears' with understanding and retains it.

I am fine discussing scripture, as long as it can be done respectfully. What I mean is this. I accept that you see the pretribulation doctrine as my interpretation, and the Post Tribulation as the correct interpretation of the Word of God. I want you to accept that I see the pretribulation as the correct interpretation of the Word of God, and the Post Tribulation as your interpretation. If there is going to be meaningful discussion and debate, then we will both have to accept that the position that we hold is our own interpretation. In other words, let's forgo the whole...

I can relate to that. But the way I'd put it is, what we understand is what God has given us. Problem is though, there's only one true interpretation of it, and it's going to happen the way God says, regardless of what we say.

That was actually being disrespectful, because I have scriptures to support a pretribulation rapture. You may not agree with how I interpret those scriptures, but neither do I agree with the way that you interpret some the scriptures that you use to support your position. But not agreeing with how you interpret those scriptures is not the same as saying that you have no scriptures, therefore it is only your opinion, which is basically what you told me.

Joshua David

Don't really know what that's about, but my intentions are just and good. I have no hatred towards you whatsoever, but love as a fellow-brother in Christ Jesus.

And you're right, I probably won't agree with any pre-trib interpretation of Scripture. But that does not mean I'm unable to fathom how others might construe a pre-trib view.

I still believe that if God's Word is studied and accepted how He showed us to study It, with the help of The Holy Spirit a must, then His Word will interpret Itself for us. Then it's up to us to either accept It, or not. A way to know if we're doing that or not is to strip men's influences and the world's influences away and lay God's Word bare in front of us, making sure we're listening to Him. I also believe that if He catches us listening to men and their doctrines instead of Him directly within His Word, then He will begin closing our eyes to His Truth, allowing us to deceive ourselves.

Of course, that does not mean others we may give a listen to are always wrong. The Christian nations would have never existed if that were so, and The Gospel would have no Power. And another thing I believe; He has called some and given His Truth to them, making it easier for them to understand, having given them ears to hear, and eyes to see. And for His Glory He does that, per His Promise also. He makes sure those are not going to be deceived in the last days. And nothing can, and nothing will deceive them, for He has put an open door before those. He has made them sure. Thing is, we'll have to wait when Christ comes to find out who those are.

 

[Joshua David]

Direct type statements do solve issues. If I said I drive a Chevy, it doesn't mean I said I drive a Ford. When Christ said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" then would appear the sign of The Son of Man in Heaven, He didn't say anything else to counter that.

Verteran you are making my head hurt....

I don't know how I can say it any differently. We both believe that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation. There is a gathering from one end of Heaven to the other and there is a gathering from one end of the earth to the other. I have never said anything that would counter this, but have repeatably told you that I agree.

That idea is actually the pre-trib doctrine + 1, and not the pre-trib doctrine held by most Pre-trib schools, nor the pre-trib "secret rapture" doctrine of Darby's days. The history of Pre-tribulationalism has not declared two gatherings to Christ, one before the tribulation, and another after the tribulation.
What Pre-tribulationalism through its history does declare, is that Christ gathers His saints to Heaven prior to tribulation, and then returns to earth WITH allHis saints after the tribulation. That's why it's called the PRE-Tribulational doctrine.

Veteran, Veteran, Veteran, Please listen to me. I am not debating the history of Pre-tribulationism. I am not debating the doctrine held by most pre-trib schools. I am not debating the 'secret rapture' doctrine of Darby's day. What I am debating is my understanding of the scriptures. That's all. Not John Darby's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, not Lacunza's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, not history's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, I am debating Joshua David's interpretation of the pretrib rapture.

The doctrine called the "secret rapture" did begin in 1830's Britain, with Irvingism. And that's the basis of where today's Pre-tribulationalsim comes from, not from others like Lacunza, or those you mentioned that lived in an earlier time than the 1800's. The hunt for others prior to the 1800's by the Pre-trib school was an attempt to show the "secret rapture" idea had earlier origins than in Britain. That has failed to be proven.
Yes, I brought up Margaret McDonald's letter. So what? It's part of the 1800's Britain history of the Pre-trib "secret rapture" doctrine; Darby came into it later, which I know, the Pre-trib school denies Darby had any connection with Irvingism and the word 'secret'. But now it seems, you even want to throw away the Pre-trib's connection with Darby, when the Pre-trib school does not throw his writings away.

Ok let me say this one more time. I don't care what Darby thought, what Lacunaz thought, what MacDonald thought. I am not debating Darby's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, like I said, I have never even read anything that the man wrote. The only reason that I brought up earlier writings was to refute the direct point that you made that the doctrine of the pretrib rapture originated, or started with Darby. I do not debate other people's positions on things, but I will refute a direct point that you made, that it started with Darby. I refuted this statement by showing earlier writings that clearly showed a pretribulation rapture. You are the one who brought up Lacunaz and MacDonald. I refuted the statement that MacDonald taught a pretrib rapture, by showing direct evidence to the contrary, and then you go into this whole secrete thing.

Like I said, if you want to debate someone about what Darby thought about the pretrib rapture, or what Lacunza thought about the rapture, or what Margaret MacDonald thought about the rapture, or what Ronald MacDonald, James T Kirk, or Yogi Bear thought about the rapture,then go find someone else to debate with. I hope we can leave all this silliness behind and concentrate on what you and I believe about the timing of the rapture. We have beat this horse to death, then beat it into the ground after it died, then we beat it some more. Let's move on. If you can't talk to me about the pretrib rapture without bringing up what everyone else and their grandmother has thought about the rapture throughout all of history, then maybe we need to end this right here. Let's move on. Please! Pretty Please with sugar on top.

Does it mean I'm being difficult because I accept what our Lord Jesus showed in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 that our gathering to Him is AFTER the tribulation He mentioned? Am I the guilty party just because I cannot understand why another believer on Him cannot understand that simple example?

No it means that you are being difficult because you cannot understand that I completely agree that Jesus comes back at the end of the Tribulation just as he says in Matt 24 and that I believe there is a gathering. The only difference is that I do not agree that this gathering is the same gathering that we refer as the rapture. This is the exact reason that 'proving' that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation is not going to further the debate. We both agree on that point. Ok would it help to say, OK, OK you win, you were right, Jesus DOES return at the end of the tribulation. < that way you can feel as if you won the point

>

Something I can relate to, because our Heavenly Father has allowed me to actually see it more than once, is this: with some I've gone through a Bible study with, line upon line, and they understood it all, but yet only a week later it was turned around in their mind, like that study had never even happened. It was then that I paid more attention to our Lord's words about those given ears to hear, and those not given to hear. I realized it was not up to me, but up to our Lord when a person 'hears' with understanding and retains it.

There is a huge difference in presenting a strong case in why you should believe a certain way concerning a specific doctrine, and teaching a comprehensive lesson on the subject. To really teach a comprehensive lesson on the subject, not only must you teach what you believe the bible is saying concerning your subject, ie the rapture and why you believe it to be Post Trib, but you must also teach what the major opponents teach about the subject, both their strengths and their weaknesses. Most teachers, either because of time restraints, or because they feel that it would over-complicate the subject matter, or that it would just confuse the person, never brings up what the other side is saying. So what ends up happening is that the student soon talks to his friend, who just happens to be a staunch pretribber, who brings up all those scriptures that you didn't. And then he lays out a strong case on why this student should believe in the pretrib rapture. And because the student doesn't understand the subject matter as well as you do, he ends up being confused.

This kind of thing is seen over and over when talking about any hotly contested topic in the bible. For instance on the subject of Eternal Security, if someone is teaching a lesson on Once Saved Always Saved, people have a tendency to completely ignore the verses that seem to imply that you can lose your salvation. Oh they will present a real strong and solid argument on why they believe in OSAS, but by ignoring those other scriptures, they are doing their students a disservice, because it leaves them completely defenseless when presented with a strong argument from the other side.

There is a huge difference in 'not having ears to hear', ie not wanting to hear the subject, and just being confused about the subject matter. And you are right, if someone is already totally convinced on the subject matter, and doesn't really want to hear anyone who has anything different to say, there is nothing that you can say to this person. But if the problem is just that they are confused about the matter, then the fault lies with the teacher. If they are willing to learn, but do not learn, it was because they were not taught correctly.

Maybe you've not considered how the Heavenly is revealed on earth at the point of Christ's coming after the tribulation? If so, then where is the gathering to Christ going to then be, if the Heavenly is joined on earth at that point? I doubt you've considered that. The pre-trib doctrine depends upon being 'raptured' off this earth to up in Heaven when being gathered.
But anyway, the idea you're actually preaching is that we Christians are 'raptured' before the tribulation, while unbelieving Israel is left-behind, with some of unbelieving Israel coming to Christ Jesus during the tribulation (i.e., "tribulation saints" idea). And then Christ gathers them with the raptured and alseep saints He returns with after the tribulation. Right?

The only problem with that, and it's a BIG one, there's no Scripture to support a gathering of the alive saints on earth to Christ in Heaven BEFORE the tribulation.


That's the difference that defines the POST-tribulational view. The post-trib view defines that Christ Jesus gathers the alive saints on earth (which ALL go through the tribulation), and the asleep saints which He brings with Him, all at the same time, AFTER the tribulation. One time of His coming, not two different times of coming in the last days.

I don't really understand what you are talking about as far as the Heavenly being revealed. Could you please explain what you are talking about here. I do have to explain here, that I believe there is a difference in Believing Israel, and the tribulation saints ( Believing Gentiles). I also believe that there is a difference between either group and the church. This is the entire reason that understanding the subject of the difference between Israel and the church is vital to understanding the rapture.


Now getting to some of my scriptural support.

Rev 3:10 [sup]10[/sup]Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

This is probably the clearest example.

John 14:1-3 [sup]1[/sup]Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. [sup]2[/sup]In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

[sup]3[/sup]And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

I would say that these two examples are a good place to start our discussion.

I really don't understand what you are talking about as far as the four winds are concerned. I got that since it said that he was to seal his servants, then the church must be included. Do I have that right? I read it five or six times, and I am really trying to see your position, so if I don't have it right please correct me. But if that is what you are saying then you would only be right IF all of his servants were contained in the church. And again this issue goes back to the difference between Israel and the church. I believe that the church is a part of his elect, but does not fully contain his elect. In other words, the church was established on the Day of Pentecost, and the number will be sealed with the pretribulation rapture.

I believe that the elect contains all the saved Old Testament Gentiles, saved Old Testament Israelites, the Bride otherwise known as the church, the Tribulation Gentiles Saints, and the Tribulation Jews that receive Jesus as their Messiah, as well as the people who are born during the Millennium and receive Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. This is the entire Elect. So you see the Church, which right now is comprised of saved Jews, and gentiles, is a part of the Elect but does not comprise the entire Elect.

Joshua David

 

[[email protected]]

I just looked at the leading question of this thread.
Leading is the word for it.

Maybe MISleading is a better one.

When interpretation of scripture is assumed to be the same as scripture itself, there is a BIG problem at hand.

There are a few questions and a few subjects that will raise the ire of many folks;
the name of John Calvin will do it,
the name of Jesus Christ will do it,
the false doctrines of the Rapture and Tribulation will do it.

At this point I believe I should say that the Bible is true.
On the other hand, does not the Bible chronicle the FACT that the devil uses scripture to advance (or attempt to advance) it's own agenda?

An accounting professor of mine once said, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

The same can be said of the ultimate record of truth, the Bible, as well as those who use it to create their own false gospel.

 

[Joshua David]

I just looked at the leading question of this thread.
Leading is the word for it.

Maybe MISleading is a better one.

When interpretation of scripture is assumed to be the same as scripture itself, there is a BIG problem at hand.

There are a few questions and a few subjects that will raise the ire of many folks;
the name of John Calvin will do it,
the name of Jesus Christ will do it,
the false doctrines of the Rapture and Tribulation will do it.

At this point I believe I should say that the Bible is true.
On the other hand, does not the Bible chronicle the FACT that the devil uses scripture to advance (or attempt to advance) it's own agenda?

An accounting professor of mine once said, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

The same can be said of the ultimate record of truth, the Bible, as well as those who use it to create their own false gospel.

Could you please explain how the OP's assertion of a pretribulation rapture is any different than your assertion of a Post Tribulation rapture? Both have scripture to support either position. Each has a different interpretation of the scriptures. Both claim that their interpretation is the only correct and valid interpretation of the Scriptures.

As far as I am concerned if you judge others to be worthy of condemnation, then you should be honest enough to include yourself into that same condemnation. Could this be a fulfillment of the verse...

[bible='Matt 7:1-3 ']1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?[/bible]

Now I am not disputing the fact that it was a leading question. I certainly wouldn't have put it like that, but this was his thread that he started. And if you would have just stopped there, then I wouldn't have said anything, but you couldn't help but start comparing those of us who believe in the pretribulation rapture with the Devil. Besides, he is not creating his own false gospel. Nothing he is saying has anything to do with Salvation. Nothing he said has anything to do with a new Jesus. I get so tired of some of the Post Tribulationist coming on here, and comparing their brothers and sisters in Christ with the Devil just because we have the audacity to think that when Jesus said that he would keep us from the hour of trial, we actually believe him.

RJP do me a favor and spend sometime getting the beam out of your own eye before you start poking at the mote in your brother's eye.

Joshua David

 

[veteran]

Verteran you are making my head hurt....

I don't know how I can say it any differently. We both believe that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation. There is a gathering from one end of Heaven to the other and there is a gathering from one end of the earth to the other. I have never said anything that would counter this, but have repeatably told you that I agree.

You keep saying that we agree, but that's simply not true based on how you've interpreted Christ's coming and the gathering of His saints. I've already marked the difference more than once in my replies to you, but you keep passing over it. So here it is once more.

There is no Scripture support for a return of Christ Jesus and gathering PRIOR to the tribulation He mentioned. There, I even underlined that major point which you and I do not agree on.

 

[veteran]

Veteran, Veteran, Veteran, Please listen to me. I am not debating the history of Pre-tribulationism. I am not debating the doctrine held by most pre-trib schools. I am not debating the 'secret rapture' doctrine of Darby's day. What I am debating is my understanding of the scriptures. That's all. Not John Darby's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, not Lacunza's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, not history's interpretation of the pretrib rapture, I am debating Joshua David's interpretation of the pretrib rapture.

I'm not willing to accept the idea that you're declaring a different doctrine than pre-trib, since you've asserted that you believe in a return of Christ and gathering PRIOR to the tribulation. That is a Pre-trib view, regardless of you having some differences with it. Heck with all the Darby and MacDonald stuff. You still really haven't changed your Pre-trib position.

No it means that you are being difficult because you cannot understand that I completely agree that Jesus comes back at the end of the Tribulation just as he says in Matt 24 and that I believe there is a gathering. The only difference is that I do not agree that this gathering is the same gathering that we refer as the rapture. This is the exact reason that 'proving' that Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation is not going to further the debate. We both agree on that point. Ok would it help to say, OK, OK you win, you were right, Jesus DOES return at the end of the tribulation. < that way you can feel as if you won the point

>

I'm not being difficult. I'm staying with the meaning of terms, like Pre-trib and Post-trib. Any belief that declares a gathering of the saints to Christ PRIOR to the tribulation, is a Pre-trib belief. So where does what you've said cover that point I've raised here, yet once again?

There is a huge difference in presenting a strong case in why you should believe a certain way concerning a specific doctrine, and teaching a comprehensive lesson on the subject. To really teach a comprehensive lesson on the subject, not only must you teach what you believe the bible is saying concerning your subject, ie the rapture and why you believe it to be Post Trib, but you must also teach what the major opponents teach about the subject, both their strengths and their weaknesses. Most teachers, either because of time restraints, or because they feel that it would over-complicate the subject matter, or that it would just confuse the person, never brings up what the other side is saying. So what ends up happening is that the student soon talks to his friend, who just happens to be a staunch pretribber, who brings up all those scriptures that you didn't. And then he lays out a strong case on why this student should believe in the pretrib rapture. And because the student doesn't understand the subject matter as well as you do, he ends up being confused.

If a believer will first learn what God's Word says on a matter, then they will be prepared to debate against counter arguments, regardless of type. New and improved counter arguments from Christ's enemies spring up daily, no way to keep up with them all. That's what makes your argument irrelevant. God's people do not have to teach about the views of His enemies in order to teach His Truth. They will automatically understand the difference if they remain in God's Word as their source. This is not just true with understanding God's Word, it's true with understanding anything. If you know how to do a task, you'll also know when others lie claiming they know too.

This kind of thing is seen over and over when talking about any hotly contested topic in the bible. For instance on the subject of Eternal Security, if someone is teaching a lesson on Once Saved Always Saved, people have a tendency to completely ignore the verses that seem to imply that you can lose your salvation. Oh they will present a real strong and solid argument on why they believe in OSAS, but by ignoring those other scriptures, they are doing their students a disservice, because it leaves them completely defenseless when presented with a strong argument from the other side.

Irrelevant.

There is a huge difference in 'not having ears to hear', ie not wanting to hear the subject, and just being confused about the subject matter. And you are right, if someone is already totally convinced on the subject matter, and doesn't really want to hear anyone who has anything different to say, there is nothing that you can say to this person. But if the problem is just that they are confused about the matter, then the fault lies with the teacher. If they are willing to learn, but do not learn, it was because they were not taught correctly.

When God calls someone and gives them ears to hear, no man can take that away. The blind leaders of Israel persecuted the prophets whom God called to speak to them for Him. Likewise with us today, Christ's enemies think we're confused just for listening to God in His Word, instead of listening to them. Each must decide who they going to listen to. I choose to listen to God in His Word. And I'm still learning with His help, though I've been at it for decades.

I don't really understand what you are talking about as far as the Heavenly being revealed. Could you please explain what you are talking about here. I do have to explain here, that I believe there is a difference in Believing Israel, and the tribulation saints ( Believing Gentiles). I also believe that there is a difference between either group and the church. This is the entire reason that understanding the subject of the difference between Israel and the church is vital to understanding the rapture.

Study 1 Corinthians 15, Isaiah 25 together about the heavenly being revealed. There's a whole lot more related Scripture, but that's a start. As for 'where' it will be revealed, Ezekiel 40 through 48 in comparison with Revelation 21 and 22.

I only accept the Biblical position that God's Church is made up of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles, together as one Body in Christ Jesus. That's the way it was in the Book of Acts, that's what Apostle Paul declared, and that's how it still is today.

Dispensationalism is also something that came out of the 1800's. It's where ideas that Israel is one body, and Christian Gentiles are another body, came from. Biblical history about the two separate houses of Israel must be first understood before the identity of those 144,000 in Rev.7 can be properly understood. Rev.7 is about both believing Israelites and Gentiles, pointing to both groups being sealed in going through the tribulation. The OT prophets revealed both groups joined in Christ also.

 

[veteran]

Now getting to some of my scriptural support.

Rev 3:10 [sup]10[/sup]Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Firstly, I know that Rev.3:10 verse is USED to try and support a Pre-trib rapture view. But does it declare an actual gathering of the saints prior to the tribulation? No. Does it declare an actual physical removal of the saints to Heaven in order to be kept from that hour of temptation? No. To interpret that Christ was speaking of a pre-trib removal of the saints with that verse, it has to be ASSUMED.

Secondly, the Matt.24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 Scripture does not require an 'assumption' about the saints being gathered to Christ after the tribulation. It's a direct type statement of event order instead.

What is that "hour of temptation"? It's about the tribulation time, the greatest time of trial this world will ever see. But what is that "temptation" going to be about specifically? Related Scripture covers it, like 2 Thess.2:1-4, Matt.24:21-28, Rev.6 about the 5th Seal and Rev.7 & 9 and Matt.24:9 about the delivering up of some of Christ's saints to give His Testimony. Even the Book of Joel and what Peter quoted in Acts 2 is about that "hour of temptation".

The actual idea of not being 'tempted' means literally, not being tempted, like nothing being allowed to deceive you. Being 'kept' from that does not have to mean physical escape to somewhere else. That temptation is to try them that dwell upon the earth, meaning it's for the purpose of trying the deceived. Christ's FIRST command in the 7 signs of the end He gave on the Mount of Olives was to not allow any man to deceive us. That's what that "hour of temptation" is about. It's related to the "false Christs" Message He gave there, directly tied to what He said about His elect not being deceived.

Matt 24:23-24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
(KJV)

That time of trial to come upon all the earth will be such a powerful time of temptation, that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, it would deceive Christ's own elect servants. The "if it were possible" phrase is important, for that is the same idea as saying 'it is NOT possible' for His elect to be deceived by that event. That's the actual meaning related to Rev.3:10 of being kept from the hour of temptation.

That false one who is coming to do those "great signs and wonders" will NOT be a temptation upon His elect. That's how His elect will be kept from that hour of temptation, not by physical escape. And note Jesus told them that because they 'kept' His Word of patience. Staying in His Word about the events to occur in the last days is about keeping patience to go through those events without being deceived. It will take great patience in that time to stay in His Word about the signs for the end, staying sober and watching so as to not be deceived by the coming Antichrist. The early Church fathers also understood this, that we must go through the tribulation by the Antichrist before Christ comes to gather us.

 

[veteran]

This is probably the clearest example. John 14:1-3 [sup]1[/sup]Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. [sup]2[/sup]In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

[sup]3[/sup]And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
I would say that these two examples are a good place to start our discussion.

OK, the John 14 example. Now that event our Lord Jesus is describing definitely, is about our gathering to Him where He will be. BUT WHEN? AND EXACTLY TO WHERE? Notice even Thomas asked Him where in John 14:5.

The WHERE:
Our Lord Jesus pointed to a specific location, and indirectly to a specific time. Christ told them He goes to His Father's house to prepare a place for them. Notice He said 'prepare a place'. We know then, and still right now, that place is in Heaven where The Father and our Lord Jesus is. Very easy to assume that means being gathered OFF this earth and taken up to Heaven, where our Father's House is right now.

The word "mansions" is important in recognizing what place our Lord was speaking of. It means 'abodes', residences. And where are those in our Father's House?

Ezek 40:45-46
45 And he said unto me, This chamber, whose prospect is toward the south, is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house.
46 And the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto Him.
(KJV)

Those chambers, and there are many, are laid out in the Millennial Temple plan given in the Ezekiel 40 through 48 chapters. That "house" mentioned in those Ezekiel chapters is The Father's House our Lord Jesus was talking about in John 14. The Rev.21 & 22 chapters give a parallel account of some of the vision Ezekiel saw of our Father's House established... WHERE?

ON EARTH.

Ezek 47:1-12
1 Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.
2 Then brought he me out of the way of the gate northward, and led me about the way without unto the utter gate by the way that looketh eastward; and, behold, there ran out waters on the right side.
3 And when the man that had the line in his hand went forth eastward, he measured a thousand cubits, and he brought me through the waters; the waters were to the ancles.
4 Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through the waters; the waters were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and brought me through; the waters were to the loins.
5 Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass over: for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over.
6 And he said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen this? Then he brought me, and caused me to return to the brink of the river.
7 Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other.
8 Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed.
9 And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh.
10 And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.
11 But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.
(KJV)

From Engedi even unto Eneglaim is a direct reference to locations in the holy lands, ON EARTH.


Ezek 40:2
2 In the visions of God brought He me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
(KJV)

That Ezek.40:2 verse also establishes WHERE The Father's House will be manifested, "the land of Israel". In John's vision of this in Revelation 21, he sees the Holy City, the New Jerusalem coming down, descending out of Heaven, to the earth. But Ezekiel is actually shown its very location on earth, AND even a lot... more detail of our Father's House and its many abodes, even to what Christ's saints will be wearing, their ministering, etc. Even more detail about the waters of life of Rev.22:1 is shown to Ezekiel.

In Rev.21, those details of the Holy City are about that same Holy City Ezekiel was given to see. But in Rev.21, we're given other details about it. And mixed within the Rev.21, we're given the following declaration...

Rev 21:22
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
(KJV)

Ezekiel 40-47 shows establishing of The Father's House, and a Temple, along with the waters of life and the tree of life in the holy land, which is Millennial timing, the "thousand years" of Christ's reign per Rev.20. The fact of Ezek.471-12 showing the waters of life flow out from the altar out and from the right side of the House, and places on earth like Engedi and Eneglaim being mentioned, along with the tree of life shown on either side of that River, establishes that is ON the earth during Christ's thousand years reign.

Rev.22:14-15 also establishes the Holy City being on earth during the thousand years, simply by Christ mentioning a separation between His elect inside the gates of the City, and the wicked outside it.

But this Rev.21:22 verse, is pointing to AFTER the thousand years, when that Temple Ezekiel saw will be no more.

Rev.20:9 reveals the "camp of the saints" and "beloved city" is upon the earth during Christ's thousand years reign also. We know that by where Satan will deceive the nations in final to lead them upon the "breadth of the earth" to try and destroy the "beloved city" (Holy City New Jerusalem).

The Zechariah 14 Scripture reveals at the time of Christ's coming, He's going to flatten that area in today's Jerusalem where the Mount of Olives is, and turn it into a great valley, and raise that area up. In Matt.24 and Mark 13 that is the event He was referring to with the not one stone standing on top of the other at the Temple Mount area. Christ is going to bring The Holy City still in Heaven today, down to this earth out of Heaven, to that location, when He returns.

 

[veteran]

[quote name='Joshua David']

I really don't understand what you are talking about as far as the four winds are concerned. I got that since it said that he was to seal his servants, then the church must be included. Do I have that right? I read it five or six times, and I am really trying to see your position, so if I don't have it right please correct me. But if that is what you are saying then you would only be right IF all of his servants were contained in the church. And again this issue goes back to the difference between Israel and the church. I believe that the church is a part of his elect, but does not fully contain his elect. In other words, the church was established on the Day of Pentecost, and the number will be sealed with the pretribulation rapture.

I believe that the elect contains all the saved Old Testament Gentiles, saved Old Testament Israelites, the Bride otherwise known as the church, the Tribulation Gentiles Saints, and the Tribulation Jews that receive Jesus as their Messiah, as well as the people who are born during the Millennium and receive Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. This is the entire Elect. So you see the Church, which right now is comprised of saved Jews, and gentiles, is a part of the Elect but does not comprise the entire Elect.

Joshua David

[/quote]


These are Christ's elect that will reign with Him during His future thousand years reign on earth...
Rev 20:4
4 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.
(KJV)

Notice that verse 4 also defines His elect to include those which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads. You refer to those as "tribulation saints" I think, as if they are a totally separate group by themselves, like left-behind to go through the tribulation and come to Christ during it. So far, you have not established there is any other time of their gathering than what Christ said in Matt.24 and Mark 13 for after the great tribulation, which points to all His saints gathered at one time.

Rev.5:10 says Christ's elect will reign with Him as kings and priests, specifically "on the earth", which also aligns with the Ezekiel examples I gave in my previous post.

The "four winds" is an important symbol in Rev.7. It's linked with judgment events that occur on earth at Christ's coming, AND with the resurrection at His coming. (see also Ezek.37 about the dry bones).

 

[Joshua David]

You keep saying that we agree, but that's simply not true based on how you've interpreted Christ's coming and the gathering of His saints. I've already marked the difference more than once in my replies to you, but you keep passing over it. So here it is once more.

There is no Scripture support for a return of Christ Jesus and gathering PRIOR to the tribulation He mentioned. There, I even underlined that major point which you and I do not agree on.

What I said was that I agreed that Jesus comes back at the end of the tribulation, I said that I agreed that there will be a gathering at the end of the tribulation. This is all that the scripture says. A gathering is not the same thing as a catching away. For example...

[bible='Gen 1:9']9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.[/bible]

Does this mean that all the water was raptured off the earth? Did God flood Heaven? Is that why dry land appeared on the earth? Hmm.....

What it is talking about is gathering all of his elect, His Bride from Heaven, and Israel and the tribulation Saints from the earth. He speaks of the Gathering for Israel many times in the old testament.

[bible='Eze 11:17']17Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.[/bible]

During the Millennium Reign, Jesus will give Israel all the land that was promised her. The nation that exists now, is just a foretaste of what they will experience, when their King and Messiah returns.

After going back through and rereading all my posts I realize that maybe I mispoke. I shouldn't have said that I agree with you, I should have said that I agree with the scripture as written. I agree that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation, which I agree with, it also says that there will be a gathering, which I agree with. What it doesn't say is that this gathering is the exact same event as the rapture, which is what you claim, which I don't agree with. So as far as me misspeaking by saying that I agree with you, please accept my apology.


I am having trouble with the formatting on this reply, so I am going to try to start again.

Joshau David

 

[Joshua David]

If a believer will first learn what God's Word says on a matter, then they will be prepared to debate against counter arguments, regardless of type. New and improved counter arguments from Christ's enemies spring up daily, no way to keep up with them all. That's what makes your argument irrelevant. God's people do not have to teach about the views of His enemies in order to teach His Truth. They will automatically understand the difference if they remain in God's Word as their source. This is not just true with understanding God's Word, it's true with understanding anything. If you know how to do a task, you'll also know when others lie claiming they know too.

Ok I see your point. Maybe teaching what the other side believes, is not really the right way of saying it. I was trying to explain exactly what I meant by using the example of Eternal Security. There are verses that seem to teach that you can lose your salvation, there seems to be verses that seem to teach that you can't lose your salvation. If you are teaching that you can lose your salvation, then you must at least address the verses that seem to indicate that you can't lose your salvation, and what they really mean. If you feel that you that you can't lose your salvation, then you must at least address the verses that seem to indicate that you can lose your salvation, and what they really mean. Because if you don't the first time your student runs up against someone who says , "Well yeah, if what you are saying is true, then what about this verse?" Then your student will be left struggling to come up with something and it is easy for him to get confused. That's all that I was saying. It is a part of the lesson that I call 'those troubling verses' and I try to include them in every lesson I teach.

I only accept the Biblical position that God's Church is made up of both believing Israelites and believing Gentiles, together as one Body in Christ Jesus. That's the way it was in the Book of Acts, that's what Apostle Paul declared, and that's how it still is today.

And this is the source of why you see scripture pointing toward a post tribulation rapture, and why I see a pretribulation rapture. The timing of the rapture has more to do with a study of the church, and it's distinctness from Israel, as it does with a study of end time prophecy. Because If there is no distinction between Israel and the Church, then I will fully agree that the rapture is post tribulational. But if there is a distinction between Israel and the church, then the rapture must be pretribulational. Now, before you start throwing up one of the those 'troubling verses' allow me a sec to define exactly how I see Israel and the church. In the Old Testament, I see Israel being a national entity. Within this national entity is a spiritual remnant, that is called Spiritual Israel. These are the God fearing, God serving Israelites, such as Moses, David, and Daniel.

All those who are not Israel, they are considered gentile, and can be placed in either the saved gentile, and unsaved gentiles. The saved group would consist of everyone not born an Israelite, but feared God anyway, such as Rahab, but also those that came before Abraham, such as Adam and Noah. So in the Old Testament we have the gentiles, which are composed of saved gentiles and unsaved gentiles, and then we have national Israel, in which is a remnant of those Israelites who are dedicated to God, this remnant is called Spiritual Israel. All through the Old Testament, especially after Abraham, the focus is on the Nation of Israel. The Old Testament is full of distinctions. In one example look at how the Temple was set up. You had the gentiles in the outer court so that only Israelites could enter into the inner court. Only Men could function as the spiritual head of the house. Only Levites could function as priests, and perform duties inside the temple it self. Only one family out of all the Levite families could be trained to be High Priest, and only the current High priest could enter into the Holy of Holies, and even then only once a year.

When we get into the New Testament, it changes... After the Day of Pentecost, in Acts two, which was what I consider the birth of the church, The focus shifts from the Nation of Israel to the entity known as the church, otherwise known as the Bride of Christ. Within the bride, there are no distinctions. There are those that are a part of the bride and those that are not part of the bride.

[bible='Gal 3:26-29']26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.[/bible]

There are no distinctions.. And you see this lack of distinction throughout all of the New Testament books, with one exception. That one exception being the book that deals specifically with the time period known as the tribulation. Once the tribulation gets here, we start to see distinctions again. Only 144,000 Israelites are sealed, and only 12,000 from each tribe are sealed. You have the woman of Rev 12, which represents Israel. You do have the Tribulation Saints, but the focus is back on Israel. You see three distinctions in the book of Revelations. You have Israel, you have the Tribulation Saints, and you have the Unrepentant. Jesus spoke of these three, when he returns he gathers everyone who is alive on the earth. By this time all of Israel (who are left) will be saved.

[bible='Rom 11:26']26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:[/bible]

When Jesus returns, he will gather everyone still alive. This is the judgment of the sheep and goats.

[bible='Matt 25:31-41']31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:[/bible]

So you have Israel, which the Lord calls, my brethern, you have the tribulation saints, which are the sheep, and you have the unrepentant, which are the goats.

These distinctions do not exist in the church, therefore they are not part of the church, and the only way that the could not be part of the church is if the church was no longer on the earth, during the tribulation.


Now I am more than willing to take the conversation into the direction of the 'lost 10 tribes' or what or the distinction between Israel and the church because like I said before, this is one of the defining foundations of what I understand to be the reason for the pretribulation church.


Joshua David

 

[Robbie]

Whoa... at first I thought it was the start of the Rapture at Wedge today but then I just realized it was Bobby flying out the back on a couple bombs... haha

 

[th1b.taylor]

I'll take "Circular Reasoning" for $500, Alex.

Look, you have every right to make a fool of yourself if and when you so choose! I did not and will not reply to your statement. The only one of us that is teaching the timing of the Rapture is you, o'mighty one with the moving lips! I have a good deal more snap than to venture to impose my, and that is just that, my, idea of when the Rapture will occur. You on the other hand are, visibly, seeking to intimidate a three tour combat veteran that trained men on how to intimidate the enemy... are you for real?

Oh yeah, that is an "Over and out, boss!"