Warning: session_start(): open(/var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80/sess_dqc83umk830300fqn2mfta1a4u, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2
Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2 BIBLE DISCUSSION THREAD 202075
If the idea of the rapture didn't come up until the 1830's in North America, what did the rest of the world believe would happen for Jesus' return? As far as how and when the church would be called up to be with the Lord? Is the rapture just a new world idea?
Sorry but this is not a topic I care to discuss much. But I do and will if I know the person is not looking to do battle.
My msg to you wasn't about the topic. It was conduct.
As I said before it was the way you responded that moved me to respond. And yes you you did everything I said you did.
However we can move on from that.
On to the early church farthers and Darby.
When you stated
The modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
I asked in what ways do they differ?
My reasoning for asking is I never read anything from neither! I was interested in knowing ""the accused differences"" in their Pretrib view because I believe what Brother Chris was saying is that some of the early church farthers had a Pretrib view aa well. It didn't start in the 1800's.
And you responded with several pages.
1st) I should have made myself clearer. We were discussing the pretrib rapture not the Millennium.
However I got my answer from your first page.
You said the ECF believed that the church will go through the tribulation. The DP believe that the church will not suffer any to the tribulation.
Another of many internet clippings that is argumentative and not inspired. Not to say it's wrong but I think I can trust what scripture has to say instead.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.
Revelation 3:10 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.
( Do you notice it doesn't say I will protect you from the tribulation, It says I will keep you from the "hour ).
My issue was you providing material from off the internet to correct ones view that seemed to line up with scripture. And the scripture you provided was not even scripture about the rapture.
I have no further comment to you on this biblical topic nor on my conduct, nor on yours. I leave it all to the Holy Spirit to deal eith each of us on this matter.
When does Salvation come and remain for ever.. Revelation 12 :10....No Salvation can come till the woman which is the world births the manchild which is the H.G.....That Spirit of truth that Jesus tells us will reprove the WORLD of sin and righteousness and Judgement ....He is the manchild that has just been born, just an Infant so he cannot speak as of yet....But He is gona rule this whole world as our lord said.
......Rev.12:10 Now is come Salvation and the kingdom of our God and strength...And the power of our God and his Christ ( the baby the H.G. ) ....We be the woman the world the field where that good seed was sown....The contents of that Book that he wrote with his own blood that New Covenant.
......Plz note No Salvation can come till the book is opened as God told Daniel in 12:9 )....Impling no kingdom can come till the book is opened simply b/c the words of the Book are the seeds of the sower that is gonna form Christ in us...Our King...Unless you receive the Kingdom of God as a lil Child ( THE MANCHILD) you will in NO WISE ENTER THERE IN....Which answers to that Child of Promise....Remember the great Promise that Christ wd be multiplied as the stars of heaven..Thus the sower and his seed...The contents of the book...That New Covenant..An Israel of God which are spirits the H.G. plural That heavenly Jacob as in Isaiah 49 has to come in that last Day..But No Salvation can come till we birth the Child which is the H.G...The Child of Promise.
.....And thats y Jeremiah 30:6, ...he saw ALL men in travail and birth pains...A time of Jacobs troubles....The tares are the wheats troubles....The Wheat are baby Christ simply b/c the sower of the good seed is the bridegroom...Thus a warfare between the manchild and the dragon...The Tares SATAN....And this war is raging with in us.....But the Kingdom is gona be with in us.
Hello Patrick. I don't believe that "the rapture is just a new world idea". It has been described in the NT (couple of Scriptures already given), as well as the belief of others, post-Book of Revelation. If interested to learn more, I would point you to 'David K. Herbert - The Rapture of the Church', where he has listed many men of old and of note who have expressed their views on this subject. The two more important ones, familiar to many of us, are Polycarp (a disciple of Apostle John) & Irenaeus (Polycarp's disciple).
Herbert wrote this thesis, over one hundred pages in length, & is therefore is too long for close examination here. So, I offer this not to present which view is correct as well as info coming from extra-biblical sources, but to state that the present view held by many that 'the rapture theory was developed only in recent times' is not quite correct. It may have become more widely talked about, preached & believed in many Churches latterly, but from Church history, we can see that this subject was never far out of the minds of those of the post-first century Church. If this document is too long to read, then Chapter 4 gives an adequate summary, evaluation & conclusion to his thesis.
It is true that there were some in the early church who believed in a pre-tribulation rapture. The most consistent view in the church over the centuries was that the rapture happens on the Last Day, as Jesus said in Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:29-31. Even Daniel was told that he would arise on the Last Day in Daniel 12:13. This is why I believe that Jesus comes back only once again and will gather believers to Himself on the Last Day.
Polycarp and Irenaeus may have spoken in regards to a pre-trib rapture, but the modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
In Revelation 19:17-21 you see the parallel verse " Where the eagles gather as mentioned in
Matthew 24:28.
No mention of the removal of saints. If the saints were raptured and everyone else cast into hell and this is the last day on earth as you presented Who's going to populate the Millennium?
In Revelation 20 you see the Millennium reign of Christ and the great white throne judgment.
Let's use Daniel 12:13 you provided to see who the elect is in these scriptures.
Daniel 12:1-2 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for THE CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time THY PEOPLE shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Who's Daniels people? Israel.
Who's gathered from the four corners of the earth? Israel.
Isaiah 11:9-12.
Ezekiel 34:11-14.
Daniel is not talking about the Church.
The tribulation will drive Israel to their Messiah.
Hosea 5:15. I will go and return to my place, TILL THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OFFENCE, AND SEEK MY FACE: IN THEIR AFFLICTION THEY WILL SEEK ME EARLY.
Matthew 23:37-39 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, YE SHALL NOT SEE ME HENCEFORTH, TILL YE SHALL SAY, BLESSED IS HE THAT COMETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.
In my post I was simply speaking to the request of the original poster on the thread. But thank you for your perspective you gave me in these 4 posts.
I do not think I was being argumentative at all in my post, so your words implying that I am being so seem unwarranted.
Just to be clear, my viewpoint on eschatology, especially, concerning the rapture and return of Jesus are based on what I've read in Scripture, not from research. I gave a few of those Scriptures that form my view. There are many more, but I do not think I need to give ALL of them for my comment to be considered based on Scripture.
I plan to get back to you tomorrow with the ways that the Early Church Fathers, which Chris mentioned, differed in their eschatology from Darby.
I am not on this forum to be a teacher. I am just another believer who shares what I believe to have learned from Scripture, like you. I have never claimed to be a teacher, nor to have an expectation for anyone to change their view to mine.
Also, your implication that researching is spiritually dangerous seems to reveal an anti-intellectual bias. But I may be wrong in that assessment. I doubt that most people on this forum, nor believers in general only study the Bible. I venture to guess that most believers read books from Christian authors or watch videos from from Christian teachers, pastors, etc. or research online to read up on some aspect of Biblical thought or other ideas running through the church in these times. I admit to doing this. I have learned a lot. It helps me rather than harms me. But everyone chooses for themselves on this matter.
You challenged me to present my viewpoints using Scripture. I get that. And I do this often. But some posts really simply are giving a viewpoint or opinion on a topic, and are not authorative in any way. These viewpoints or opinions can give Scriptures to support it or not. I do not see in the guidelines that this HAS to be done. Talk tomorrow.
There's nothing wrong with researching but when you use researching the web to settle a viewpoint concerning a topic such as this you have to keep in mind that there's a ton of info and diverse opinions Pretrb, Midtrib, Postrib, no rapture at all, ect ect.
What I took issue with is you stated.
Quoting you:
"I do not think that this KJV forum is the best place to study and discuss this since there are sites readily available that will give articles that address both sides. This forum tends to get heated up."
And then you go on and offer your own opinion from the very website you directed him away from!
You and 2 other persons answered the post simultaneously but when their reply didn't agree with yours you went after each one of them and pretty much told them that their views were wrong and you gave verses that supposedly backed your view. But the verses that you gave has nothing to do with the rapture, You gave verses that has more to do with Israel, the resurrection, and of judgment not the Rapture of the Church.
I welcome your response. I realize that not all Dispensational Pre-millennialists hold to all of these beliefs. But by my comparison, there was quite a bit of distinct differences between the early church premillennialists (known as historic premillennialism or Chiliasm) and the tenets of Darby and those who follow his DP teachings.
When people say that Darby's teaching have been taught in the early church and across the centuries, this is a either a mis-informed view or a disingenuous one. As I have shown, there are some similarities and some major differences that would make it pretty impossible to say that they are both the same teachings.
I hope you have a good evening Steve. I usually do not enter into discussion threads on eschatology exactly because of the way you responded to my reply to Chris. as he was the first to respond to Patrick, and I responded to him before you responded to me. For me. I probably will exit this thread because I have pretty much spoken to the original post and responded to you with kindness and openness. My motivation is not to argue nor teach, just to share my view and why I think as I do. I think it is good to use Scripture to explain why one believes as they do, but I do not think it is always necessary. I think that this site allows people to choose for themselves how they will word their posts as long as they follow the posting guidelines, which I have done.
If you respond to this reply with reason and not accuse me of doing wrong here, I will be glad to reply. But, as I have respected you in my words, I ask that you do the same to me in your words. I can tell this is a topic that you feel very strongly about and that may be why you responded as you did. Nevertheless, I always enjoy interacting with you. I am glad that you are my brother in the Lord.
15) ECF believed that Jesus death and resurrection was planned since before the foundation of the world, having always been the goal of creation and the salvation of the elect being the perfect plan of God. DP believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was enacted because the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah and if they had accepted Him He would not have sacrificed Himself, but would have begun His earthly Kingdom then. DP admit that they believe that the Church was God's plan B.
16) BP believe that the church age is a "pause" or parenthesis in the middle of the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, and unexpected pause to God, at that and that the rest of the 70th week will resume when the rapture occurs prior to the tribulation. The ECF show no adherence to this belief of the DP.
Been canning salsa this evening and as I was prepping tomatoes and such I remembered these after I had sent my previous posts.
I do hope this is of some help to you or others. That is my aim. It is easy to check on a few sites online to see if you find what I have found, if you wish. I suggest that as these sites do cite Scripture passages, which I think is important. And since these sites do this citing, I refer people to check and see if what I found in my research and the Scriptures cited on such sites align with Scripture.
As you said, Steven, eschatology varies from group to group. There are four major groups: (in order that they appeared in history chroniologically)
Historic Premillennialism (Chiliasm)
Amillennianism
Post millennialism
Dispensational Pre-millennialism
And within these for major groups there are subgroups, too, such as:
Preterist
Futurist
Literalist
Symbolic
Allegorical
Whether someone has already set their minds on one view or not, I think it is a good thing for anyone regardless of view or no view, to study these viewpoints, especially when entering into discussions concerning the end times.
9) the ECF believed that God would fulfill all of the remaining promises to Abraham in the millennium. DP believe this also.
10) the ECF believed that both OT and NT saints will be involved in the millennial reign of Christ. DP believe that it will be ethnic Israel that is present in the millennium without any N.T. church.
11) DP teaches that in the millennium the O.T. Judaic religious practices with temple worship will be in force and that salvation will be, once again, by the tenets of Judaism, with the animal sacrifices and ordinances. ECF did not Believe any of this viewpoint.
12) ECF believed in a literal rebuilt 3rd Jewish Temple that will house the Temple worship practices of Judaism before the anti-chirst stops the daily Sacrifice. DP believe that a literal rebuilt 3rd Jewish Temple for the Judaic sacrifices and practices till be done in the millennium.
13) ECF believed in the eminent return of Christ in is 2nd and last retun due to the persecution of the church and the anti-christ spirit and actions of the emperors of Rome. DP believe in the eminent rapture of the church as Christ's return for the church and then seven years later in another return of Jesus to begin the millennium.
14) ECF did not make a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church as far as salvation is concerned. The DP keep apart Israel and the Church as distinct unrelated groups of people under different dispensations and God's way of dealing salvifically with each group.
I am sure there are more information than this for comparing the two branches of premillennialism. This is the information i found when researching the topic. Since both the ECF and DP are chronologically past the closure of the N.T. Scriptures, their express movements/viewpoints are not enumerated in Scripture in a historical way. These movements look back in time to the Scriptures to form their views, as we do.
I reviewed this thread and I did not respond as you have stated. I do not think I was pushing my viewpoint on anyone else, nor did I say that another poster was wrong in their view. I guess I just don't see where your angst is coming from in this thread.
I know I said that I would get back to you and share how I have found that the eschatology of Darby's dispensational pre-millennialist and the (historic) premillennialist viewpoint differ.
I am prepared to do that here:
1) the early church fathers (ECF) were mostly premillenialists (P), being that they believed that Scripture taught that Jesus would return before the millennium. So do the Dispensational premillennialists (DP).
2) the ECF and (P) of the early centuries believed in a physical 1000 y reir.gn of Christ after His 2nd return
(DP) believe in a 1000 yr. reign, too.
3) the ECF believed that the church will go through the tribulation. The DP believe that the church will not suffer any to the tribulation.
4) the ECF believed that the church will be translated, resurrected, and gathered (rapture) to Jesus at the end of the tribulation.
DP believe that the church will be raptured before the tribulation.
5) the ECF believed that Jesus returns only once again. The DP believe that Jesus returns twice and these returns are at two different times.
6) the ECF believed that the church will face the anti-christ and his persecution. DP believe that the church will not face the anti-christ and his persecution.
7) the ECF believed that the length of man's history on earth up to the 2nd coming of Jesus will be 6000 years, with the millennium being the 7th millennium and a Sabbath rest for all saints on earth. I am sure if DP believe this or not as I did not find any information saying this.
8) the ECF believed that the history of man is divided by the Old and New Covenants. The DP believe that the history of man is divided in dispensations, typically 7,
Again I'm not saying this researching is bad but when you build your theology off historical research you will find that there is arguments for both sides and often for several sides on every topic.
It's not the way we're prompted to study the Bible.
There's a danger you will fall in the hands of doctrines of men and traditions.
There is more to teaching the Bible than reading scripture and giving a perspective that you adopted from researching history throughout the church age because it don't cause you to understand scripture!!
It hinders spiritual growth and causes one to have a carnal approach in their display of doctrine and misuse of scripture no matter how long they study this way.
When or if one research history for "whatever" concerning doctrine, revelation of truth is always given by the Holyspirit not by the scribe.
So be sure and use convincing scriptures when you go into a debate or rebuttal saying ones view is not supported by scripture.
This is not about whether you are right or wrong because even when you are right about a matter you authenticate it by what you "believe" was taught by the early church as your reasoning. That doesn't always seal the deal when your explanation and rebuttal doesn't go into debth using scripture. It's just argumentive.
With that being said let's look into the scriptures you provided supporting the rapture coming at the second coming.
Luke 21:27.
Matthew 24:29-31.
Daniel 12:13.
When dealing with Luke and Matthew "Notice who's being removed" In Matthew 24:37-39 it says "as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Who's eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
AND KNEW NOT UNTIL THE FLOOD CAME, AND TOOK THEM ALL AWAY?
This speaks of judgment, it's not the rapture of the Church.
We should do more studying the scripture like the Bereans for our foundation instead of research. Especially If we're going to boldly say "Scripture doesn't support that!"
Here's a portion of the mess throughout history.
In the early 4th century the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, which up till then had been illegal in the Roman Empire. Constantine also decided that the Roman Empire was too big to govern from a single capital, Rome, so he founded another capital further east and named if after himself: Constantinople ("Constantine City"; present-day Istanbul). Soon enough, the Roman Empire started to split into two: the Western Empire, governed from Rome, with Latin as its native language, and the Eastern Empire, governed from Constantinople, with Greek as its native language.
In A.D. 476 the Western Empire collapsed, leaving only barbarian tribes, and the Pope in Rome as its spiritual head. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish, with the Eastern Roman Emperor as its temporal head and the Patriarch of Constantinople as its spiritual head. In A.D. 1056 the estrangement and incomprehension (they spoke two different languages) between the Western and the Eastern Church grew so great that they excommunicated each other. Thus from A.D. 1056 until 1517 (Martin Luther) there were (at least) two Christian churches: the Roman Catholic Church in the West, with Latin as its main language, and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East, with Greek as its main language.
Since then, of course, the Protestant Reformation has split the Western church into even more denominations; and the Eastern Church has divided into a number of more or less ethnic churches, each speaking its own language: Greek, Russian, Syrian/Lebanese, Ukrainian, Armenian, American, etc.. Only in the 20th century has the Ecumenical Movement tried to bring all these Christian denominations back at least into conversation with each other.
Hello Patrick, What you are identifying is "dispensationalism", and yes, IT HAS NOT BEEN TAUGHT THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY. (You can search ONLINE) on the subject. You can find on the site testallthingsDOTcom articles concerning this viewpoint that introduced the pre-tribulation rapture into Christian thought in the 1800's by Irwin and Darby in Ireland. Irwin learned of it from the writings of a Jesuit priest from Spain.
Then you stated on a separate post.
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WERE SOME IN THE EARLY CHURCH WHO BELIEVED IN A PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE.
The most consistent view in the church over the centuries was that the rapture happens on the Last Day,
( You seem to contradict yourself in your rebuttal.)
Then you went on to say;
" as Jesus said in Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:29-31. Even Daniel was told that he would arise on the Last Day in Daniel 12:13." Let's set that aside for now.
I believe scripture supports this and the early Church taught this throughout history; "as you seem to acknowledge to some degree."
Where part of the issue is during the reformation their wasn't much focus on eschatology. Their focus was on Justification. "And by the way they done a great job on that,"
But some accused the jews for the crucifixion even though Christ said for this purpose he came into the world.
Here's the issue.
There's some value in areas to research what the church believed throughout the centuries but when you leave off from studying the Bible and you use history to settle a debate you don't fall on solid ground.
That may work in our academic school system on history but not so well when studying the Bible, Especially when you have the same bible they had in your midst and the Holyspirit doing the teaching.
This method doesn't qualify one as a teacher but an historian.
Martin Luther protested for Justification by faith in the early 1500's. before then what was widely taught? Is it good to hold those diverse views?
Thank you GiGi, and as you're aware the eschatology debate is one that can never be resolved as we all look at it using various Scriptures. Yet, I was attempting to answer Patrick's query about the Rapture of the Church being a new teaching, one that was unknown by the apostles or the early Church. Whether the early Church fathers believed in dividing history into dispensations or not, I'm unaware, but that many of them did express, whether directly or indirectly in their writings, that they believed that the Church would not suffer under God's Wrath that would be poured out upon the world. So, I cannot believe that the Rapture of the Church is just a Darby/Irving invention which was taken up by the Church, rather one that was believed (& of course, there were others who held different beliefs), from the earliest times. The fact that it was mentioned in the first century, should cause us to seek further as to why they held their beliefs; but I'm unsure whether there would be anything around to help us.
If you would, please read my latest reply to S.Spencer where I contrast the views of the Early Church Fathers and that of Darby and Dispensational Premillennialists. This is information I researched this week. You are welcome to bring back to me anything you find that differs from what I found.
Thanks GiGi for your invitation to offer further comment. Firstly, on the matter of what bro S. Spencer has shared with you, I offered no comments on your exchanges with him earlier as I perceived that both he & I read & understood your comments differently. I sensed that he believed that you were relying heavily on what Church history had shown about Christ's second coming rather than weighing your beliefs solely on Scripture. And as much as I too could understand his view, knowing a little about you from your other comments & reliance on the Word, I believed that your appeal to history was solely to show that the early Church fathers also spoke/wrote about this subject but not in the manner that 'dispensationalists' have done, nor was it promoted extensively. Thus the apparent general view of the 'pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church' being a modern interpretation of the Scriptures & wasn't believed/accepted by the early Church.
Having got that out of the way & recognizing your efforts in gathering together the beliefs of the ECF & DP, unfortunately I have little else to offer. Only because to examine more fully their beliefs would need us to acquire much more information on how they exegeted the various applicable Scriptures, what percentages of them held to their various views, how strongly/widely were those beliefs promulgated, etc. With that difficulty, it would be too time consuming, even unproductive for lack of data, to pursue that line of research. Rather, knowing the range of beliefs that were held throughout the centuries, we would be better served to acknowledge that fact & then conduct our own exegesis from the Scriptures to prove what we believe. And yes, there were differences in views between the ECF & DP, just as there are now, but hopefully they, as us, have formed our views according to what we read in the Word & the Holy Spirit graciously assisting us to more deeply understand the Truth. Thank you again for your efforts sister.
Chris, thank you. Your impression of where I was coming from in this matter is correct.
I agree that I think each person should find out for themselves about this matter rather than just take in what someone says on here or in any other publication or the preaching/teaching of others in such roles.
And I agree that there is so much we do not know about the early church and the leaders who wrote and spoke about many matters, eschatology included.
I am fine with bringing this discussion between us to a conclusion, but I just wanted you to know that I welcome any replies you wish to send me.
I do agree that eschatology is a matter that has many different interpretations. I do not usually enter into discussions on here concerning end times, but I had just been reading up on dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture promoted by Darby, so I responded to Patrick from that perspective. I have read the book of Revelation many times. But it is a most difficult book to understand. I think that is because the events mentioned in it have not begun to happen yet. I think that when they do happen, then I think that God will open up our understanding of this revelation more and more. The best I can say is to be ready in the ways that Jesus has told us to be ready: saved, faithful, prayerful, wise, watchful, etc.
Hello Patrick, What you are identifying is "dispensationalism", and yes, it has not been taught throughout church history. You can search online one the subject. You can find on the site testallthingsDOTcom articles concerning this viewpoint that introduced the pre-tribulation rapture into Christian thought in the 1800's by Irwin and Darby in Ireland. Irwin learned of it from the writings of a Jesuit priest from Spain.
This site mentioned has several articles that explain many things about dispensationalism and what are the pros and cons of this viewpoint. I do not think that this KJV forum is the best place to study and discuss this since there are sites readily available that will give articles that address both sides. This forum tends to get heated up with topics such as this with people attempting to prove their viewpoint in this discussion format. I don't think that would be as helpful as you studying from online sites on your own. That is my recommendation.
To answer your question, the teaching of the Christian faith throughout history has been that Jesus will come back "on the Last Day" and that is when we all will be resurrected or translated. This last day is the Final Day in the History of the earth as it is now. Jesus' return will be the culmination of redemptive history and the plan of salvation in Him since before creation. There are several names that identify a couple differing viewpoints on this topic. post-millenialism, pre-millenialism, amillenialsim. These viewpoint address the coming of the Kingdom of God and the reign of Jesus over all the nations.
You stated "the modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
Hello, are you referring to verses 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Matthew 24:41 that say people will be taken or caught up in the air when Jesus returns?
I surely believe what God's word says over what a man says, regardless of how convinced he is. I've studied the Bible all my life and have never heard of this idea of 1830s something being invented; there is no truth to that whatsoever.
Please, if you will, read my latest reply to S. Spencer where I contrast the views of the Early Church Fathers and Darby Dispensational Premillennialism. I found this information from multiple sites that addressed this topic. Maybe you will find something different.
I agree that the verse in Thessalonians speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the tranformation of those alive when Jesus returns (now termed the rapture). The pre-tribulation rapture with Jesus coming (the 2nd time) and then coming again on the Last Day (a third time) is what Darby (and modern dispensationalism) promotes. It was not the teaching of the church prior to the 1800's that this event would precede the tribulation. I do not think it is supported by Scripture either. Jesus' Words say that He will return a second time on the Last Day and that is when the resurrection and translation will occur.
Yes the rapture theory evolved in the early 1800s the Christians of that era rejected it as another gospel . It became popular though the scofield Bible and fits in well with easy believism .
Sorry but this is not a topic I care to discuss much. But I do and will if I know the person is not looking to do battle.
My msg to you wasn't about the topic. It was conduct.
As I said before it was the way you responded that moved me to respond. And yes you you did everything I said you did.
However we can move on from that.
On to the early church farthers and Darby.
When you stated
The modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
I asked in what ways do they differ?
My reasoning for asking is I never read anything from neither! I was interested in knowing ""the accused differences"" in their Pretrib view because I believe what Brother Chris was saying is that some of the early church farthers had a Pretrib view aa well. It didn't start in the 1800's.
And you responded with several pages.
1st) I should have made myself clearer. We were discussing the pretrib rapture not the Millennium.
However I got my answer from your first page.
You said the ECF believed that the church will go through the tribulation. The DP believe that the church will not suffer any to the tribulation.
Another of many internet clippings that is argumentative and not inspired. Not to say it's wrong but I think I can trust what scripture has to say instead.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.
Revelation 3:10 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.
( Do you notice it doesn't say I will protect you from the tribulation, It says I will keep you from the "hour ).
My issue was you providing material from off the internet to correct ones view that seemed to line up with scripture. And the scripture you provided was not even scripture about the rapture.
GB
I have no further comment to you on this biblical topic nor on my conduct, nor on yours. I leave it all to the Holy Spirit to deal eith each of us on this matter.
Neither do I, Let's move on.
God bless.
......Rev.12:10 Now is come Salvation and the kingdom of our God and strength...And the power of our God and his Christ ( the baby the H.G. ) ....We be the woman the world the field where that good seed was sown....The contents of that Book that he wrote with his own blood that New Covenant.
......Plz note No Salvation can come till the book is opened as God told Daniel in 12:9 )....Impling no kingdom can come till the book is opened simply b/c the words of the Book are the seeds of the sower that is gonna form Christ in us...Our King...Unless you receive the Kingdom of God as a lil Child ( THE MANCHILD) you will in NO WISE ENTER THERE IN....Which answers to that Child of Promise....Remember the great Promise that Christ wd be multiplied as the stars of heaven..Thus the sower and his seed...The contents of the book...That New Covenant..An Israel of God which are spirits the H.G. plural That heavenly Jacob as in Isaiah 49 has to come in that last Day..But No Salvation can come till we birth the Child which is the H.G...The Child of Promise.
.....And thats y Jeremiah 30:6, ...he saw ALL men in travail and birth pains...A time of Jacobs troubles....The tares are the wheats troubles....The Wheat are baby Christ simply b/c the sower of the good seed is the bridegroom...Thus a warfare between the manchild and the dragon...The Tares SATAN....And this war is raging with in us.....But the Kingdom is gona be with in us.
Herbert wrote this thesis, over one hundred pages in length, & is therefore is too long for close examination here. So, I offer this not to present which view is correct as well as info coming from extra-biblical sources, but to state that the present view held by many that 'the rapture theory was developed only in recent times' is not quite correct. It may have become more widely talked about, preached & believed in many Churches latterly, but from Church history, we can see that this subject was never far out of the minds of those of the post-first century Church. If this document is too long to read, then Chapter 4 gives an adequate summary, evaluation & conclusion to his thesis.
It is true that there were some in the early church who believed in a pre-tribulation rapture. The most consistent view in the church over the centuries was that the rapture happens on the Last Day, as Jesus said in Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:29-31. Even Daniel was told that he would arise on the Last Day in Daniel 12:13. This is why I believe that Jesus comes back only once again and will gather believers to Himself on the Last Day.
Polycarp and Irenaeus may have spoken in regards to a pre-trib rapture, but the modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
Part 4.
In Revelation 19:17-21 you see the parallel verse " Where the eagles gather as mentioned in
Matthew 24:28.
No mention of the removal of saints. If the saints were raptured and everyone else cast into hell and this is the last day on earth as you presented Who's going to populate the Millennium?
In Revelation 20 you see the Millennium reign of Christ and the great white throne judgment.
Let's use Daniel 12:13 you provided to see who the elect is in these scriptures.
Daniel 12:1-2 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for THE CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time THY PEOPLE shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Who's Daniels people? Israel.
Who's gathered from the four corners of the earth? Israel.
Isaiah 11:9-12.
Ezekiel 34:11-14.
Daniel is not talking about the Church.
The tribulation will drive Israel to their Messiah.
Hosea 5:15. I will go and return to my place, TILL THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OFFENCE, AND SEEK MY FACE: IN THEIR AFFLICTION THEY WILL SEEK ME EARLY.
Matthew 23:37-39 (KJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, YE SHALL NOT SEE ME HENCEFORTH, TILL YE SHALL SAY, BLESSED IS HE THAT COMETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.
This means when they behold him as a nation.
God bless.
In my post I was simply speaking to the request of the original poster on the thread. But thank you for your perspective you gave me in these 4 posts.
I do not think I was being argumentative at all in my post, so your words implying that I am being so seem unwarranted.
Just to be clear, my viewpoint on eschatology, especially, concerning the rapture and return of Jesus are based on what I've read in Scripture, not from research. I gave a few of those Scriptures that form my view. There are many more, but I do not think I need to give ALL of them for my comment to be considered based on Scripture.
I plan to get back to you tomorrow with the ways that the Early Church Fathers, which Chris mentioned, differed in their eschatology from Darby.
I am not on this forum to be a teacher. I am just another believer who shares what I believe to have learned from Scripture, like you. I have never claimed to be a teacher, nor to have an expectation for anyone to change their view to mine.
Also, your implication that researching is spiritually dangerous seems to reveal an anti-intellectual bias. But I may be wrong in that assessment. I doubt that most people on this forum, nor believers in general only study the Bible. I venture to guess that most believers read books from Christian authors or watch videos from from Christian teachers, pastors, etc. or research online to read up on some aspect of Biblical thought or other ideas running through the church in these times. I admit to doing this. I have learned a lot. It helps me rather than harms me. But everyone chooses for themselves on this matter.
You challenged me to present my viewpoints using Scripture. I get that. And I do this often. But some posts really simply are giving a viewpoint or opinion on a topic, and are not authorative in any way. These viewpoints or opinions can give Scriptures to support it or not. I do not see in the guidelines that this HAS to be done. Talk tomorrow.
There's nothing wrong with researching but when you use researching the web to settle a viewpoint concerning a topic such as this you have to keep in mind that there's a ton of info and diverse opinions Pretrb, Midtrib, Postrib, no rapture at all, ect ect.
What I took issue with is you stated.
Quoting you:
"I do not think that this KJV forum is the best place to study and discuss this since there are sites readily available that will give articles that address both sides. This forum tends to get heated up."
And then you go on and offer your own opinion from the very website you directed him away from!
You and 2 other persons answered the post simultaneously but when their reply didn't agree with yours you went after each one of them and pretty much told them that their views were wrong and you gave verses that supposedly backed your view. But the verses that you gave has nothing to do with the rapture, You gave verses that has more to do with Israel, the resurrection, and of judgment not the Rapture of the Church.
We'll talk later.
God bless.
Continued...
I welcome your response. I realize that not all Dispensational Pre-millennialists hold to all of these beliefs. But by my comparison, there was quite a bit of distinct differences between the early church premillennialists (known as historic premillennialism or Chiliasm) and the tenets of Darby and those who follow his DP teachings.
When people say that Darby's teaching have been taught in the early church and across the centuries, this is a either a mis-informed view or a disingenuous one. As I have shown, there are some similarities and some major differences that would make it pretty impossible to say that they are both the same teachings.
I hope you have a good evening Steve. I usually do not enter into discussion threads on eschatology exactly because of the way you responded to my reply to Chris. as he was the first to respond to Patrick, and I responded to him before you responded to me. For me. I probably will exit this thread because I have pretty much spoken to the original post and responded to you with kindness and openness. My motivation is not to argue nor teach, just to share my view and why I think as I do. I think it is good to use Scripture to explain why one believes as they do, but I do not think it is always necessary. I think that this site allows people to choose for themselves how they will word their posts as long as they follow the posting guidelines, which I have done.
If you respond to this reply with reason and not accuse me of doing wrong here, I will be glad to reply. But, as I have respected you in my words, I ask that you do the same to me in your words. I can tell this is a topic that you feel very strongly about and that may be why you responded as you did. Nevertheless, I always enjoy interacting with you. I am glad that you are my brother in the Lord.
I just remembered I forgot to mention.
15) ECF believed that Jesus death and resurrection was planned since before the foundation of the world, having always been the goal of creation and the salvation of the elect being the perfect plan of God. DP believe that the sacrifice of Jesus was enacted because the Jews rejected Him as the Messiah and if they had accepted Him He would not have sacrificed Himself, but would have begun His earthly Kingdom then. DP admit that they believe that the Church was God's plan B.
16) BP believe that the church age is a "pause" or parenthesis in the middle of the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, and unexpected pause to God, at that and that the rest of the 70th week will resume when the rapture occurs prior to the tribulation. The ECF show no adherence to this belief of the DP.
Been canning salsa this evening and as I was prepping tomatoes and such I remembered these after I had sent my previous posts.
I do hope this is of some help to you or others. That is my aim. It is easy to check on a few sites online to see if you find what I have found, if you wish. I suggest that as these sites do cite Scripture passages, which I think is important. And since these sites do this citing, I refer people to check and see if what I found in my research and the Scriptures cited on such sites align with Scripture.
As you said, Steven, eschatology varies from group to group. There are four major groups: (in order that they appeared in history chroniologically)
Historic Premillennialism (Chiliasm)
Amillennianism
Post millennialism
Dispensational Pre-millennialism
And within these for major groups there are subgroups, too, such as:
Preterist
Futurist
Literalist
Symbolic
Allegorical
Whether someone has already set their minds on one view or not, I think it is a good thing for anyone regardless of view or no view, to study these viewpoints, especially when entering into discussions concerning the end times.
Blessings
continued...
9) the ECF believed that God would fulfill all of the remaining promises to Abraham in the millennium. DP believe this also.
10) the ECF believed that both OT and NT saints will be involved in the millennial reign of Christ. DP believe that it will be ethnic Israel that is present in the millennium without any N.T. church.
11) DP teaches that in the millennium the O.T. Judaic religious practices with temple worship will be in force and that salvation will be, once again, by the tenets of Judaism, with the animal sacrifices and ordinances. ECF did not Believe any of this viewpoint.
12) ECF believed in a literal rebuilt 3rd Jewish Temple that will house the Temple worship practices of Judaism before the anti-chirst stops the daily Sacrifice. DP believe that a literal rebuilt 3rd Jewish Temple for the Judaic sacrifices and practices till be done in the millennium.
13) ECF believed in the eminent return of Christ in is 2nd and last retun due to the persecution of the church and the anti-christ spirit and actions of the emperors of Rome. DP believe in the eminent rapture of the church as Christ's return for the church and then seven years later in another return of Jesus to begin the millennium.
14) ECF did not make a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church as far as salvation is concerned. The DP keep apart Israel and the Church as distinct unrelated groups of people under different dispensations and God's way of dealing salvifically with each group.
I am sure there are more information than this for comparing the two branches of premillennialism. This is the information i found when researching the topic. Since both the ECF and DP are chronologically past the closure of the N.T. Scriptures, their express movements/viewpoints are not enumerated in Scripture in a historical way. These movements look back in time to the Scriptures to form their views, as we do.
continued....
I reviewed this thread and I did not respond as you have stated. I do not think I was pushing my viewpoint on anyone else, nor did I say that another poster was wrong in their view. I guess I just don't see where your angst is coming from in this thread.
I know I said that I would get back to you and share how I have found that the eschatology of Darby's dispensational pre-millennialist and the (historic) premillennialist viewpoint differ.
I am prepared to do that here:
1) the early church fathers (ECF) were mostly premillenialists (P), being that they believed that Scripture taught that Jesus would return before the millennium. So do the Dispensational premillennialists (DP).
2) the ECF and (P) of the early centuries believed in a physical 1000 y reir.gn of Christ after His 2nd return
(DP) believe in a 1000 yr. reign, too.
3) the ECF believed that the church will go through the tribulation. The DP believe that the church will not suffer any to the tribulation.
4) the ECF believed that the church will be translated, resurrected, and gathered (rapture) to Jesus at the end of the tribulation.
DP believe that the church will be raptured before the tribulation.
5) the ECF believed that Jesus returns only once again. The DP believe that Jesus returns twice and these returns are at two different times.
6) the ECF believed that the church will face the anti-christ and his persecution. DP believe that the church will not face the anti-christ and his persecution.
7) the ECF believed that the length of man's history on earth up to the 2nd coming of Jesus will be 6000 years, with the millennium being the 7th millennium and a Sabbath rest for all saints on earth. I am sure if DP believe this or not as I did not find any information saying this.
8) the ECF believed that the history of man is divided by the Old and New Covenants. The DP believe that the history of man is divided in dispensations, typically 7,
continued...
Part 3.
Again I'm not saying this researching is bad but when you build your theology off historical research you will find that there is arguments for both sides and often for several sides on every topic.
It's not the way we're prompted to study the Bible.
There's a danger you will fall in the hands of doctrines of men and traditions.
There is more to teaching the Bible than reading scripture and giving a perspective that you adopted from researching history throughout the church age because it don't cause you to understand scripture!!
It hinders spiritual growth and causes one to have a carnal approach in their display of doctrine and misuse of scripture no matter how long they study this way.
When or if one research history for "whatever" concerning doctrine, revelation of truth is always given by the Holyspirit not by the scribe.
So be sure and use convincing scriptures when you go into a debate or rebuttal saying ones view is not supported by scripture.
This is not about whether you are right or wrong because even when you are right about a matter you authenticate it by what you "believe" was taught by the early church as your reasoning. That doesn't always seal the deal when your explanation and rebuttal doesn't go into debth using scripture. It's just argumentive.
With that being said let's look into the scriptures you provided supporting the rapture coming at the second coming.
Luke 21:27.
Matthew 24:29-31.
Daniel 12:13.
When dealing with Luke and Matthew "Notice who's being removed" In Matthew 24:37-39 it says "as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Who's eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
AND KNEW NOT UNTIL THE FLOOD CAME, AND TOOK THEM ALL AWAY?
This speaks of judgment, it's not the rapture of the Church.
This contradicts
1 Thessalonians 5:2-9.
see part 4.
part 2.
We should do more studying the scripture like the Bereans for our foundation instead of research. Especially If we're going to boldly say "Scripture doesn't support that!"
Here's a portion of the mess throughout history.
In the early 4th century the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, which up till then had been illegal in the Roman Empire. Constantine also decided that the Roman Empire was too big to govern from a single capital, Rome, so he founded another capital further east and named if after himself: Constantinople ("Constantine City"; present-day Istanbul). Soon enough, the Roman Empire started to split into two: the Western Empire, governed from Rome, with Latin as its native language, and the Eastern Empire, governed from Constantinople, with Greek as its native language.
In A.D. 476 the Western Empire collapsed, leaving only barbarian tribes, and the Pope in Rome as its spiritual head. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish, with the Eastern Roman Emperor as its temporal head and the Patriarch of Constantinople as its spiritual head. In A.D. 1056 the estrangement and incomprehension (they spoke two different languages) between the Western and the Eastern Church grew so great that they excommunicated each other. Thus from A.D. 1056 until 1517 (Martin Luther) there were (at least) two Christian churches: the Roman Catholic Church in the West, with Latin as its main language, and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East, with Greek as its main language.
Since then, of course, the Protestant Reformation has split the Western church into even more denominations; and the Eastern Church has divided into a number of more or less ethnic churches, each speaking its own language: Greek, Russian, Syrian/Lebanese, Ukrainian, Armenian, American, etc.. Only in the 20th century has the Ecumenical Movement tried to bring all these Christian denominations back at least into conversation with each other.
see part 3.
Part 1.
You stated.
Hello Patrick, What you are identifying is "dispensationalism", and yes, IT HAS NOT BEEN TAUGHT THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY. (You can search ONLINE) on the subject. You can find on the site testallthingsDOTcom articles concerning this viewpoint that introduced the pre-tribulation rapture into Christian thought in the 1800's by Irwin and Darby in Ireland. Irwin learned of it from the writings of a Jesuit priest from Spain.
Then you stated on a separate post.
IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WERE SOME IN THE EARLY CHURCH WHO BELIEVED IN A PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE.
The most consistent view in the church over the centuries was that the rapture happens on the Last Day,
( You seem to contradict yourself in your rebuttal.)
Then you went on to say;
" as Jesus said in Luke 21:27; Matthew 24:29-31. Even Daniel was told that he would arise on the Last Day in Daniel 12:13." Let's set that aside for now.
I believe scripture supports this and the early Church taught this throughout history; "as you seem to acknowledge to some degree."
Where part of the issue is during the reformation their wasn't much focus on eschatology. Their focus was on Justification. "And by the way they done a great job on that,"
But some accused the jews for the crucifixion even though Christ said for this purpose he came into the world.
Here's the issue.
There's some value in areas to research what the church believed throughout the centuries but when you leave off from studying the Bible and you use history to settle a debate you don't fall on solid ground.
That may work in our academic school system on history but not so well when studying the Bible, Especially when you have the same bible they had in your midst and the Holyspirit doing the teaching.
This method doesn't qualify one as a teacher but an historian.
Martin Luther protested for Justification by faith in the early 1500's. before then what was widely taught? Is it good to hold those diverse views?
c part 2.
If you would, please read my latest reply to S.Spencer where I contrast the views of the Early Church Fathers and that of Darby and Dispensational Premillennialists. This is information I researched this week. You are welcome to bring back to me anything you find that differs from what I found.
Having got that out of the way & recognizing your efforts in gathering together the beliefs of the ECF & DP, unfortunately I have little else to offer. Only because to examine more fully their beliefs would need us to acquire much more information on how they exegeted the various applicable Scriptures, what percentages of them held to their various views, how strongly/widely were those beliefs promulgated, etc. With that difficulty, it would be too time consuming, even unproductive for lack of data, to pursue that line of research. Rather, knowing the range of beliefs that were held throughout the centuries, we would be better served to acknowledge that fact & then conduct our own exegesis from the Scriptures to prove what we believe. And yes, there were differences in views between the ECF & DP, just as there are now, but hopefully they, as us, have formed our views according to what we read in the Word & the Holy Spirit graciously assisting us to more deeply understand the Truth. Thank you again for your efforts sister.
I agree that I think each person should find out for themselves about this matter rather than just take in what someone says on here or in any other publication or the preaching/teaching of others in such roles.
And I agree that there is so much we do not know about the early church and the leaders who wrote and spoke about many matters, eschatology included.
I am fine with bringing this discussion between us to a conclusion, but I just wanted you to know that I welcome any replies you wish to send me.
I do agree that eschatology is a matter that has many different interpretations. I do not usually enter into discussions on here concerning end times, but I had just been reading up on dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture promoted by Darby, so I responded to Patrick from that perspective. I have read the book of Revelation many times. But it is a most difficult book to understand. I think that is because the events mentioned in it have not begun to happen yet. I think that when they do happen, then I think that God will open up our understanding of this revelation more and more. The best I can say is to be ready in the ways that Jesus has told us to be ready: saved, faithful, prayerful, wise, watchful, etc.
This site mentioned has several articles that explain many things about dispensationalism and what are the pros and cons of this viewpoint. I do not think that this KJV forum is the best place to study and discuss this since there are sites readily available that will give articles that address both sides. This forum tends to get heated up with topics such as this with people attempting to prove their viewpoint in this discussion format. I don't think that would be as helpful as you studying from online sites on your own. That is my recommendation.
To answer your question, the teaching of the Christian faith throughout history has been that Jesus will come back "on the Last Day" and that is when we all will be resurrected or translated. This last day is the Final Day in the History of the earth as it is now. Jesus' return will be the culmination of redemptive history and the plan of salvation in Him since before creation. There are several names that identify a couple differing viewpoints on this topic. post-millenialism, pre-millenialism, amillenialsim. These viewpoint address the coming of the Kingdom of God and the reign of Jesus over all the nations.
You stated "the modern view in dispensationalism as promoted by Darby and Scofield are not identical to what Polycarp and Irenaeus taught. The interpretation of Darby is what is promoted and believed by many believers today. His theory began in the 1800's.
In what ways do they differ?
Thanks in advance.
I surely believe what God's word says over what a man says, regardless of how convinced he is. I've studied the Bible all my life and have never heard of this idea of 1830s something being invented; there is no truth to that whatsoever.
Please, if you will, read my latest reply to S. Spencer where I contrast the views of the Early Church Fathers and Darby Dispensational Premillennialism. I found this information from multiple sites that addressed this topic. Maybe you will find something different.
I agree that the verse in Thessalonians speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the tranformation of those alive when Jesus returns (now termed the rapture). The pre-tribulation rapture with Jesus coming (the 2nd time) and then coming again on the Last Day (a third time) is what Darby (and modern dispensationalism) promotes. It was not the teaching of the church prior to the 1800's that this event would precede the tribulation. I do not think it is supported by Scripture either. Jesus' Words say that He will return a second time on the Last Day and that is when the resurrection and translation will occur.
Isn't the real question whether someone believes 1 Thessalonians 4:17 or not?
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?