ChristiansUnite Forums

http://www.tribwatch.com/roots.htm



Pre Tribulationism,  is a rather new doctrine foreign, it is grounded in another doctrine proposed in the 19th century; called  “dispensationalism”.

Prior to the 19th century,  the church  recorded very little, and little  was written about the Lord’s return, Jerome did write concerning this in;

  “Jerome's Apology In Answer To Rufinus--Book III" (AD 402)

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Pretrib8.htm


To this point the  earliest of teachings, were known as post tribulation, or pre-millennial.

The word pre millennial cannot be used to describe a post tribulation rapture today, because the modern day definition would include all three positions;

pre-trib, mid-trib and post trib, which are all pre millennial.

Does anyone know the origins of  the pre-tribulation rapture teaching?

 I have searched the internet and always wind up, with four names which stand out prominently in the earliest of advancement  of the doctrine in this country and scotland or england, in the early to late late 19th century.

Here are the names;

1.   Margaret MacDonald, a 15 year old girl involved in spirit-sm, who supposedly  prophesied about the  error of men in interpreting  the “parousia” coming of the Lord at Mat 24:27, she circulated a written revelation she had received WHILE STUDYING THE SCRIPTURES in 1830 in SCOTLAND!

Macdonald wrote:
". . . . Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear - now look out for the sign of the Son of man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; [here comes the switch from a visible parousia to the secret coming:] but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed,  the eye of God in His people.


2.  Robert Norton, who wrote the;

Memoirs of James & George Macdonald, (Margarets relatives) of Port-Glasgow [1840],

http://www.bsmvt.org/mm.html


3.  Edward Irving, the same man who studied bible with the founder of Russrllism or Jehovah Witness’s. in New York, USA

“Irving was a Presbyterian pastor,  ex communicated by the Church of Scotland, and moved his congregation to a rented hall, forming the Catholic Apostolic Church.

MacDonald was a member of Irving’s church

(Irving taught that Jesus had a fallen sinful nature and only kept from sinning by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

According to John Mac Arthur, in his book :   “Charismatic Chaos”  1999, pg 234,  writes;

“I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret coming until it was given forth as “an utterance” in Mr. Irving’s church  from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit.  But whether anyone asserted such a thing or not it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose.  It came not from Holy Scripture , but from that which pretended to be the Spirit of God”

What were these manifestations that hit Irving's church at this time? Here is a description by John MacArthur:


"Then in the early nineteenth century, Scottish Presbyterian pastor Edward Irving and members of his congregation practiced speaking in tongues and prophesying. Irvingite prophets often contradicted each other, their prophecies failed to come to pass, and their meetings were characterized by wild excesses. The movement was further discredited when some of their prophets admitted to falsifying prophesies and others even attributed their "giftedness" to evil spirits. This group eventually became the Catholic Apostolic Church, which taught many false doctrines, embracing several Roman Catholic doctrines and creating twelve apostolic offices."

4.  John Darby,  left the Anglican priesthood in 1830, and devoted himself full-time to forming and feeding similar small gatherings both in Ireland and England. These were days of unrest not only in the National churches but also throughout the various non-conformist bodies. Higher Criticism  was beginning to gain ground among the Anglicans, as was the Tractarian movement with its trend toward Rome. At the same time the Irvingite heresy with its charismatic tongues and prophesying began to surface in London.

Out of this unsettled state of the professing body, many true believers were led to form small groups where there was freedom to worship the Lord Jesus in reliance upon the Holy Spirit and according to the Word of God. As a result many hungry-hearted Christians found in Darby a truly pioneering and God-sent leadership.

Then in 1832 B.W. Newton, leader of one of the larger assemblies located in Plymouth, England, invited Darby to come and share the ministry. This he did.

It was about this same time that Lady Powerscourt opened her "http://www.fransnet.clara.net/ireland/powerscourt.htm" for a series of Prophetic Truth Conferences, which continued for several years. Before long, Darby became the acknowledged leader of these meetings to which many clergymen were attracted, as well as some of the charismatic Irvingite leaders.

“Revival swept 1830 Scotland which brought about many charismatic manifestations, gifts, visions, healings, and glossolalia (speaking in tongues). Margaret received her revelation experience in the spring of 1830 and her prophetic views spread across Britain. John Darby, a leader of the Plymouth Brethern of England, visited Margaret. Later Darby incorporated Margaret's prophetic views into his endtime theology which became popularized as a two stage 2nd coming of Christ. Darby wrote volumes on Biblical subjects, translated the Bible (probably on your Computer Bible) and became known by some as the "father of modern dispensationalism."

http://www.landmarkchurch.com/endtime/rapture.html




Has any one done any research on this subject and have any differing information on this subject?

It appears that “dispensationalism was born about the same time as the pre trib doctrine, and all foru of these individuals played an important part in begining it.

I would like to know if there is any other persons which were consider stalwarts of the faith in these beginning years of these early teachings  of pre tribulationism.

Bible scholars, including :

John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Knox, John Hus, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, John Wycliffe, and John Bunyan,  did not hold to the pretribulation rapture view.

If it were not for the ominous historical beginings of what appears to be the history of this teaching in what appears to be this false prophecy of 1830 by Margaret Mac Donald, and these questionable characters, every christian on the continent would believe it, today; but

What about these other men of Faith mentioned above, why didn,t they take the bait, was it because they didn't buy the teaching of the spirit in Irving's church?


Thank You,

Hi Arpel,

The pre-tribulation rapture was actually taught before that. This is the earliest known commentary that I have ever seen on it.

C I Scofield

Seems to be a man who made dispensational teaching popluar.  His Bible notes, altough proven in error over the years, are saddly revered as scripture in many cases.


Modified...
Just for you Mr. Bepster  :)

Seems to be a man who made modern dispensational teaching popluar.  His Bible notes, altough proven in error over the years, are saddly revered as scripture in many cases.

Brothers and Sisters,

Dispensational teaching was done by the Apostle Paul about 2,000 years ago, and he even used the term "dispensation". The Apostle Paul also preached about the rapture of the Church which is THE BODY OF CHRIST, so there is nothing new at all about these teachings.

Love in Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 55:10-11 NASB  "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Hello Pastor Roger,


Morgan Edwards, writings have been attributed to be of a Mid Trib position, and not  Pre Trib.

Though Pre Trib and Mid Trib are lumped together by some who do not undertand the respective teachings of each position, and are not clear as to what they actually believe, those who are devoted Pre Tribb adherents, would never concede  there position to be mid trib.

So, that would strictly place them under the doctrinal teachings of these questionable men; Darby, Norton and Edwards.  and place them in the orbit of Mac Donalds prophetic principle tenets of the Pre Trib Doctrine;

Christs return would be seen only with the eye of God by those who are to be raptured (not every eye) , and her teaching of the ten virgins (Mat 25)

I am trying to ascertain, the origins of the PRE Trib teaching specifically.

While the Morgan Edwrads writings concerning the mid trib rapture are interesting, I have tried to locate the text containing the original writings of 56 pages dtd 1788. I have only been able to locate a 37 page work, which is clearly not the original, since it has *'s with comments and annotations,

Do you know of a good site which provides the written works of Morgan Edwards?

Would apreaciate any help, for future historical study.

Thanks, and God Bless

Hello Tom,

I do agree with the scripture you have quoted and also, that Paul used the trem "dispensation" which is defined as "administration, stewradship" the nearest instance I might agree with, wherein he used this word to refer to a specific period in time would be his use of the word at Ephesions 1:10, refering to Christ's reigning during the Millenium as King of King's and Lord of Lord's.

But to claim that Paul taught a dispensational teaching in the form of doctrinal teachings as found today, would be to strecht the truth, a might.

The other three places wherein Paul uses this word, is not  time specific related, at all, but simply refers to his own stewardship entrusted to him, by God.

Are you a dispensationlist?

If you are, aside from what you have shared already is there any other historical teachings you rely on.

For instance what I am interested in knowing is, if any Bible Scholars who were considred solid Bible Theologians of the caliber of ;  John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Knox, John Hus, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, John Wycliffe, and John Bunyan,advanced or agree with the modern day dispensationalism teaching.

I shared this very question with a pastor recently who responded that he believed the pre Trib position because he had found an article pointing to the teaching in a 4th century sermon which had been preached by Eaphraim, as I asked him for more information, he was able to point me to a document known as the Pesudo-Ephraim, this is not what I am asking for, I am looking for solid evidence that the dispensational doctrine came from cannon script, advanced by Holy Men who are recognized as having impeccable virtue in handling and dispensing God's Word.  

Somehow, I have a problem with what I have been able to find on the origins of this teaching.

John Darby is actually considred the Father of dispensationalism ,

"Darby insisted that his own interpretation, over against that of the Millenarians, was correct because the Lord had revealed it to him by special revelation. "

"...what God has with infinite graciousness revealed to me concerning His dealing with the Church... it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout."


Any help would be greatly appreaciated.

God Bless,

Hello Arpel,

I've studied the Bible for over 50 years, and I do believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. This would not be because of any commentary or anything other than the study of the Holy Bible.

I rarely use terms like dispensations because they conjure up all kinds of different thoughts by each person who hears the term. I will simply say there are obvious dispensations in God's plan for the ages of man, and one must pay the proper attention to dispensations if they ever understand the Holy Bible (i.e. Law, Grace). That must be and is part of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". The speaker, audience, purpose, time, and other factors must also be considered, but the biggest factor is always before or after the CROSS.

Arpel, you will find several highly detailed studies and debates about the rapture of the Church which is the BODY of Christ already on the forum. Do a search for "rapture" and you should have enough to keep you busy for several years.

I do believe that the Apostle Paul plainly taught the pre-tribulation rapture of the CHURCH, and I placed the details for my beliefs in numerous threads already on the forum. None of the men listed were any part of my study, and I believe the same would be true for others participating in the discussions and debates. The details and Scriptures supporting those details are already here in several places for you to study. Regardless of how you do it, it's a lengthy and difficult study.

I want to add that I expect there to be disagreement and various opinions in Bible prophecy, and that should not be used by anyone as a bar to fellowship or getting mad at someone. However, we also had that problem a couple of times on the forum. That's a shame because it ruined a couple of really good studies and discussions. Disagreement doesn't bother me at all, and I certainly believe that brothers and sisters in Christ should be able to disagree and still have fellowship. However, you will find some episodes of name-calling and anger in at least two detailed threads. Holler if you have problems finding them.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Hebrews 11:6 NASB  And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Hello Arpel,


I just found a web site for Morgan Edwards written essay. I have never seen the book that so many refer to as being his. I do not use written commentaries, or other written works of this nature,  in my Bible studies so I know little of this person or his writings. I know of him only because of the historical aspects of Christianity that I had to study.

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/resources/morgan.html

Hello Tom,

I whole heartedly agree with you, Futuristic discussations should not interfere with fellowship between believers, it is a secondary issue, and not to be confused with the more pressing doctrines of the faith, which bind us together.

While agreeing that there are teachings in scripture that can definitely be tied to the administration of faith, grace etc. etc.

I do not see it taught in scripture as it is today; it is clear to me, ALL believers begining with Abraham through Moses are saved "by grace throguh faith"  (Eph 2:8-9)  "not of themselves", "it is a gift of God".

Having said this, and refering to what Paul did or not write concerning dispensational teaching; what he did do is warn us not to be decieved by men's teachings.

Just this morning as I was reading in 2 Pet 1:20-21, I was reminded when I read;

That doctrine is not of any mans own personal interpretation, but was given by men of old as the sp[irit moved them. (I have paraphrased it)

One thing that I do remember is that John Darby, did claim to have this personal interpretation given to him of God, and this why his version of dispensationalism  (as taught today) was diferent from that of other milliniarists.

In your own understanding of dispensationalism, do you use or include the teaching of the 10 virgins?

And do you see, some of the scriptures speaking only to the Jewsish  Christians, while others applying only to Gentile Christians?

If you do how do you arrive at this?   I am not aware Paul ever made this clear n any of his writings.



Thanks for your insight.

God Bless

Thanks Pastor Roger,

I believe I have seen this site before, it only contains 36 pages, transcribed by Tim Warner.

If you ever run into the true copy, I would appreacite if you would bring it to my attention.

In my own studies concerning this matter I have come across earlier versions of roman catholic priests who have written concern the rapture, as I recall there was a jesuit, in the 15th or 16th century who did write something which supposedly was considered pre trib, but it has been dismissed by reformed scholars, others from the rcc followed with more closer tyo the present teachings, which were even incorporated into the present pre trib doctrine, My understanding is that Edward Irving translated Jesuits Laconza's work from spanish to english as I recall.


Well thanks anyhow,

God Bless,

Arpel:

Approx. 373 AD, there was published a book (one of several by the author), of which 4 copies currently exist.  The title of the books is:

On the Last Times, the Antichrist and the End of the World

and is attributed to Ephraem the Syriac, who was bishop of the Syrian church at the time.  He was well-published, and this is just one of his many sermons.

Of the four copies extant, 3 are directly attributed to Ephraem, and one is attributed to another person, thus causing all four copies to be generally attributed to "pseudo-Ephraem," and casting doubt on its veracity or authorship.  It is interesting, however, that none of the copies vary in content, nor is there any real evidence for the claim that someone else authored the manuscript.

However, within the text of the sermon is the following statement:

"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

This seems to be a relatively clear statement of a pre-tribulation rapture.

Reliance upon any of the early "church leaders" after about 390 AD for doctrinal guidance is "iffy" at best, considering that the move within the church at that point in time was toward "replacement" theology, led by Augustine.  Replacement theology posits that the church has completely and absolutely replaced Israel, and that there will be NO millennial kingdom.  The only thing left is the final judgment.

In conjunction with statements by Paul and Jesus, it would appear to me that there most assuredly is;
1. A Millennial kingdom on this earth
2. A rapture of the church
3. And this rapture occurs PRIOR to the pouring out of the wrath of God (21 judgments), which is considered to be the tribulation period.
4. This rapture will occur shortly AFTER the man of sin is revealed (how long is anybodies guess), and his revelation to the world will *most likely* be by his execution of a treaty with Israel saving them from annihilation.

There are plenty of websites giving their opinions concerning the Ephraem statement, but as of yet, no one has conclusively proved that Ephraem DID NOT make the statement, or deliver the sermon, or have it published in manuscript form.

Hello Evangelist;

Yes I have heard of this sermon, made popular by a Canadian prophecy teacher and writer Grant Jeffrey, much publicised by Thomas Ice, there are scholars who claim that the writings were possibly, but not probably, authored by Ephream, thus the name False Ephream



According to historian writer Dave MacPherson,  Grant Jeffrey in his 1995 book, FINAL WARNING, had the "audacity to claim that Psuedo-Ephraem";

 "began with the Rapture using the word 'imminent'"

 and added in the next sentence that;

 "Ephraem used the word 'imminent'

to describe the Rapture."

This has been proven to be false..the word emminent is not used in the text by Ephream.

MacPherson goes on to say;

"It needs to be emphasized that pretrib in Pseudo-Ephream has been palmed off on unsuspecting Christians by promoters seeing rapture aspects in Pseudo-Ephream's sermon where none exist and by covering up such aspects where they do exist in his 10-section sermon! In Section 2, Pseudo-phreamE says that the only event that's "imminent" is "the advent of the wicked one" (that is, Antichrist).

Ephraim the Syrian, reportedly Pseudo-Ephream's inspiration, said the same thing (SERMO ASCETICUS, I): "Nothing remains then, except that the coming of our enemy, Antichrist, appear...."

This evidence alone casts a great shadow on this work, I wouldn't trust it, beyond this point.

There is a point I would like to make; as you know there are four philosophical positions in "chiliasm", the one that conflicts with historic premillennialism is the modern dispensational premillenialism, known today as pre tribulationalism, which is the one I have brought up on this thread.

Reformists today, confuse the modern one (dispensationalism) with the historic teaching, which the early church held to.


Historic Premillennialism, seems to have been the prevailing eschatology during the first three centuries of the Christian era, and is found in the works of Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactanitus.

What further clouds the historic is the seeds of amillenialism which were planted by Augustine in the fourth century the result is that the present day,  Roman Catholic Chruch is Ammilennial.

The modern or dispensational premillennialists, teach that the early church taught dispensationalism as held in its present form, when in fact there was no such teaching,

The father of modern dispensationalism (John Darby) in its present form claimed to have been inspired with this new doctrine by god himself; and this is what made his prophecy diferent from all other millenniarists.

Where am I wrong?

God Bless,

Hello Arpel,

I think that you are focused on man's labels, tags, commentaries, etc. All of that appears to have you pretty confused. Forget about all of that stuff for awhile and study the Bible.

I have no desire to argue with you, but I will be happy to suggest some portions of Scripture for you to begin your study. However, nearly all of the applicable Scriptures are already detailed in several existing threads on the forum.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 107:8-9 NASB  Let them give thanks to the LORD for His lovingkindness, And for His wonders to the sons of men! For He has satisfied the thirsty soul, And the hungry soul He has filled with what is good.

Hello blackeyepeas,

You seem awful sensitive for a person who has studied the bible fifty years.

I have asked you these questions precisely because the Dispensational Pre-Millennial position which you ascribe to is a man made doctrine having its origins in the last two centuries, primarily in this country, Reba hit the nail on the head when she brought the name "Dr." C. I. Scofield up; he was the principle promoter of this new doctrine when he published his
commentary in the 1890's, followed by Moody, and then the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary.

My questions were not intended to put you on the defensive, but I can see you have no desire to consider what the early church fathers taught or where they stood.

This is a normal response from someone who feels they have arrived. and have no need to see if what doctrines they have embraced all these years are founded on bedrock teaching of scripture.

You say they do, and from your prespective this matter is immutably taught in scripture, however church history has something else to say concerning this matter.

If you do not care to discuss this, its ok with me;  I would ask you to at least consider the following;

From someone who has researched the historical origins of this new philosophical teaching known at Dispensational Pre Millennialism, and the record indicates it is not the same as Historic Pre Millennialism this is a fact confirmed by history scholars.

You may say, this isn't true as you have,  clearly stated however history has speaks louder then the opinions of men;  we should well head what church fathers taught.

Do you at least agree with this statement?

Modern day dispensationalist would have us believe
that dispensationalism was taught by the early church, not so.

The Millennialism or millennial is derived from the Latin word "chilioi" interpreted "a thousand in Rev 20:1-7, the word is used six times in these verses.

These are four doctrinial (philosophical) positions on Millennialism;

1. Historic Pre Millenialism
2. Dispemsational Pre Millenialism
3. Post Millennailism
4. A Millennialism

Dispensational PreMillenialsim is not the same as Historic Pre Millenialism, and anyone that claims it is would be hard pressed to prove it, some have twisting the historical record, but in the end the truth emerges.

The last point I will make is that Dispensationalism is the newest doctrinal position of them all.

For those of you who have arrived, you may not have any interest in knowing anything about the doctrine you rest on, however there are those like the bereans who ........." received the word with all readiness of mind,and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
                                                               Acts 17:11
Dispensationalism is taught through doctrines, it is up to Christians to

search the scriptures to determine if those things they hear are so

and, sometimes this includes searching the churches historical record.

Do you disagree with this blackeyepeas?

God Bless

ARPEL

Personally, I'm pre-trib.    "Blink of an eye" and the lie that everyone will believe aiding that thought heavily, along with many other reasons I'd rather not argue.  But, what I'm so pleased about is that regardless the method, one day I will be with my Jesus.   :)

HI Allinall,

I have a friend who says "it will all pan out in the end".

Well, thats wonderful, I say, I suppose in the mean time we should all just curl up and not bring up anything which might excercise the senses to discern what is of God and what isn't.

 "Blink of an eye"

You said;


That is the blessed hope of every believer, the only thing I would change in your statement is the word I for WE.

Dispensationalism says that "I" will be with Jesus; while those who are not like "I" ( a member of christ's church) will be going thru great tribulation here on earth, and in the end they will somehow or other rule and reign with Christ also in the end.

Paul said,

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
Eph 5:30-31

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.                                                 Eph5:32

Paul had already explained what that mystery was, which had not been revealed to the sons of men in other ages, listen closely to what he said;



If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
                                                            Eph 3:2-6

We gentiles are fellowheirs of the same body and partakers of His promises in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel.

Since dispensationalism makes distinction between those who belong to Jesus and those that do not, those who do not belong to Jesus are those faithful saints of the Old Testatment together with those who are not raptured prior to the tribulation (tribulation saints), this is one of the principle tenets of Dispensational Pre Millennialism.

Hmmm......I fail to see, how we gentiles could possibly twist the scriptures in such a way so as to call ourselves sole heirs (members of the body of Christ)of the promises, while in the same breath proclaiming that the saintly men of faith ,of the Old Testament and Tribulation Saints are not, this claim can only be made by those who are vailny puffed up, through ignorance or greatly deceived.

Here again;

Paul explained the mystery clearly in the letter to the   Ephesian's 2:11-22, consider carefully what he said;


11  ........remember, that ye being  in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:13  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.14  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17  And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Verse 19 bears repeating;

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

What has Paul said;

11  ....remember....ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, ...
called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12   ....at that time ye were without Christ, ...aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, .....strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13  But now in Christ Jesus ye ...are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
 
15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments ......to make in himself of twain one new man,

16 .... that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity.

18  ....through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Notice verse 15, .........."to make in himself of twain one new man,"

It's hard to convince Christians that love Gods word,

that the two only refers to New Testament Jews and Gentiles, it is clear throughout Gods word, there are believers in the Old Testament, that belonged to Him, and they were chosen just like us, in Christ Jesus from the foundation of the world, it is His intent to gather them ALLinto one "new man".

Dispensational teaching says not so, we are his body, they are not.

Question;

Whose blood paid for the sins of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Moses?

Hey, if you rather not talk about it, thats fine with me, but don't be dogmatic claiming the scriptures teach modern day dispensationalism and nothing else, equating discussing the matter with arguing, I am asking for historical facts, which convinces you all of your position; don't tell me you just studied only the bible and lo and behold out came this golden calf but,  no man ever touched it.


God Bless,

ARPEL

Arpel,

I'm not even slightly concerned about what you agree or disagree with me about. Read my previous post to you again.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Psalms 34:9-10 NASB  O fear the LORD, you His saints; For to those who fear Him there is no want. The young lions do lack and suffer hunger; But they who seek the LORD shall not be in want of any good thing.

Dude.  You got all of this from the word "I"?   :D  I am really laughing bro.  To each his own.  No harm nor foul from my perspective.  I am somewhat dispensational in my viewpoint, but I'm not so proud as to think I'm inerrant in my end-times understanding.  What I do know, is that Jesus will come for me, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, like a thief in the night, and with a trumpet blast call me home.  I'm just simplisitic enough to leave it at that, and be satisfied.  The way I figure it, if the Tribulation starts and marks of the beast are being handed out and I'm standing next to my church family on a Sunday morning facing a firing squad for refusing the mark...guess my pre-trib viewpoint was wrong!   :D

Listen, my point isn't as nonchalant as I'm making it.  My point is that in the end we have eternity with Jesus to figure out how many times we got it wrong, and an eternity to praise Him making us get it right.   :)

And all that from the word "I"... ;D ;) :D

His,

Kevin

Well, whatever.

God Bless

HI Allinall

Somewhat dispensational?,  ..... Hmm I wonder what that really means?

Hey,  I think, I used to be somewhat dispensational myself, until I took it more seriously.

I can see that you have no interest in looking at this seriously, thats OK, I was just sharing facts with you guys.

Now, I am firmly non dispensational as you can see.

Later,  I am now;

"closing both eyes and shaking my head"

God Bless,

ARPEL,


That means that as far as dispensationalism goes, I'm somewhat dispensational.  I'm not hyperdispensational.  I'm just dispensational within the confines of literal, grammatical and contextual biblical exposition.  It also means that you over analyze simple statements a bit too much.   :)


Taking this seriously isn't a problem, nor am I not taking it seriously.  I'm simply looking at a far bigger picture than a man-focused "ism."  I'm looking at the end game and longing for that to be here, rather than mulling over the evidences to try and figure out just when that time will be.  I know it will be.  I'm looking for it to come.  

It's kinda like me waiting for the bus.  I know it's to come at the scheduled time.  If it fails to come when I think it should, I'll wait for it to come when it comes.  Doesn't change the fact that I'll be on the bus at some point.  Just changes my understanding of the schedule.  You strike me as the kind of fella that will wait, check his watch, recheck his copy of the schedule, and if it fails to show, check the schedule again, call the bus company and inquire, possibly even argue with the next buses driver about the previous schedules failure.  But in the end, you're on the bus.  I'm being simplistic, yes.  If you know anything about me, or ask anyone who knows anything about me, I'm far from simplistic.  However, I think sometimes we get so caught up in the in depth, that we miss the point.  The point of the resurrection isn't the timing or the how, or if we follow Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.  It's that one day, we will be changed and spend eternity with Jesus.  I'm relishing that, rather than beating my bible to find out the path that gets me there.  Rather, I'm beating my bible to find out what being there's gonna be like!  Please, don't confuse my chosen simplicity for ignorant apathy.


Cool!  I don't agree with that, but I don't have too to be your Brother in Christ.  I'm a Cubs fan.  Are you?   ;D


See?!  We've got something in common my friend.   :)

1Co 4:5  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
1Co 4:6  And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1Co 4:7  For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?


 

That is my point, ism's should have no place, a simple read of scripture and you take Jesus's own words at face value, not a doctrine concocted by some contradicting the Lords own Word's.

I pointed out in my discussion how modern day dispensational teaching has allowed the development of another doctrine (PreTribulationalISM) to creep into the church, contradicting Jesus at (Mat 24:21).

Refusing to accept the facts doesn't solve false teaching, and
not discussing it under the pretenses that discussion is the same as arguing is lame.

Yes, I know these secondary issues should not cause division, but just because some are blase about doctrines they embrace and use excuses of causing divisions for not discussing them, just somehow sounds shallow.


Especially if one puts himself, forth as a long time bible student.

What should be of major importance; is to love one another and one way this can be done is to point out pot holes that trip up, unsuspecting Christians, especially since there are babies who need to be helped and encouraged .

Well anyhow this is my understanding of what we should do, I am not one of those Cristians who meet a babe in Christ and say to them; Oh it doesn't matter which church you worship at, they are all the same.

Still,

"closing both eyes and shaking my head"


God Bless

See?!  We've got something in common my friend.   :)

By the way, I don't have any favorites in any sports, Id rather fish in the Cascades, or Sierras Nevada Mtns.

I would never pay to be entertained, it just isn't me.




God Bless

ARPEL,

Whether it is intentional or not your posts are starting to take on the appearance of a condescending tone simply because someone wishes not to discuss this subject with you. This is the very reason that I myself do not normally get involved into this subject because all to often it denegrates into unchristian like behaviour coming from some otherwise very good Christians. I would suggest refraining from such rhetoric. It would aid in a much better ability to continue in the subject.

Okokokok...point taken.  I'll shut up and be nice now.   :)

 ??? ??? ???

I reread my post in light of the scripture you posted and it seemed I was a bit on the proud side.  At least I thought so.  That wasn't for me?   :)

Not my intention but if it was in your heart .......

 ;) ;) ;) ;)

My argumentation was sound, but my comments seemed prideful to me ("...I'm not simplistic...").  So I suppose, God used you to make me not get argumentative and more prideful.  Thanks.   :)

No thanks to me necessary, brother. It was the Lords doing not mine.

All   You just float around all the time... :P....


Esgotolgy (Sheesh) "end times stuff" matters to me because of how the different views see the Cross.

Was the Cross an after thought? Was it planned before the  foundation of the world? I view the Cross as the center of ALL history , not in years, as in importiance. As usual, for me this is off topic sorta......

This seems to put a lot of words in Ephesians 1:10 that are not there.


 Ephesians 1:10.  'That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:"

Rather be floatin' than sinkin' sister!   :D ;)

That's a great reason to study it!  And I don't think you're off topic.   :)

ARPEL,

Believe it or not, I do understand where you're coming from.  Namely, because I've spent a great deal of time there.  I, personally, found that, as Zakdar noted, being in that position had me making many minors, majors.  I'm not equating this particular doctrine with a minor.  I'm simply saying that it's great to get into it for study, and to agree to disagree with brothers in Christ.  But all to often some brothers in Christ will attempt to change your understanding on the basis of preconceived ignorance of the truths.  At the same time, the perceived ignorant brother is anything but, and has simply gained a different understanding.  Yet, those brothers will try to force feed the "truth" to these "ignorant" brethern...subsequently causing them to say "I'm not going to argue with you."  Why?  Because that's exactly where it goes.  Argumentation.  Discussion is good, so long as it remains discussion when minds are set.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you've joined and are sharing your views.   :)

His,

Kevin

That is beautifully profound in it's simplicity, Reba.
God bless you and Amen.  The Truth is so obvious.  Amen again.

Pastor Roger,

Nothing I have said is condencending nor insulting.

I was discussing the doctrine of Eternal Security with a pastor (elsewhere)l who, kept referring me to 70 some odd papers he had written on the subject being discussed.

He pointed out Judas Isacariot was saved and then lost his salvation.

His premise centered around Judas's salvation being sealed because he was numbered with the 11 apostle, chosen by Jesus and  was amazed when I pointed out to him that Judas Iscariot never believed in Jesus to the saving of his soul, but perished  in his sin of unbelief (this is a well  documented fact.)

At that point he (the pastor) became abusive and accused me of twisting scripture together with other claims, this is understandble, since you can imagine, if one was able to find a verse in scripture which destroys preconceived notions (as allinall points out) one would have to undue the work of the building being built upon the foundation of the Apostle's and Prophets, not to mention having to amend his writings, (I never read them, his discussion with me was enough to keep me from becoming interested in peeking).

So, you see,  I understand your concern, but be assured I am well able to defend my position, without the debate  degenerating into an argument which turns ugly.  I agree there is no need for this.

I believe a contributing factor to discussions leading up to arguments are the interjection of false or misleading information.

For instance, allow me to use this thread as an example;

You answered my query concerning Pre Tribulationism not being taught prior to the 19th century, using Morgan Edwards as an example of pre trib teaching prior to 19th century.

Another person pointed out the Pseudo Ephraim in the 4th century as evidence of pre tribulationism being taught in the church.

I firmly rebutted both points with factual evidence, neither were, nor have been considered pre tribulation teachings accepted nor advanced by giants of the faith, within the church prior to the 19th century.

Now, you take the position I am being condescending by pointing out this dissimination of false information, but nothing could be furthere from the truth.

I have an interest that my brothers and sisters in Christ know the truth, about false teaching being circulated within the church in these days, these are perilous times.

And this is the way it is done, by assumptions and pre assumptions, and pre concevied notions, (see I do agree with some here).

In the meantime those who read the false information, posted by some who should know better, (the unlearned, lazy, and young babes,) hear this things and just assume they are true.

Morgan Edwards, never taught Pre Tribulationism, at best he advanced Mid Tribulationism within the Baptist church.

and,

the Psudo Ephraim is FALSE, that is why it is entitled the "False Ephraim" (c 4th century, and it doesn't make any difference how many original copies are floating around).

As I understand it, FORUMS are for the purpose of discussing, exchanging ideas, disseminating factual information, in hopes of learning and being taught.

The dissemination of false information or spin should have no place in so much as the discussion of Christian doctrines.

Bringing up or accusing persons interested in getting at the truth, of being argumentative or condescending doesn help the cause. either.

It's Ok if you do bon't want to discuss this matter.

I understand.

God Bless,

"Let no man deceive you"

                                 Jesus, Mat 24:4


By the way?

What is this "Global Moderator", your title?

Where does one get it?

Arpel,

First of all I want to say that most of your points I agree with. I believe in the post-tribulation myself. I still say that your posts were taking on a tone of a condescending nature. A good healthy discussion is good but sometimes can become overtly wrong in nature. That is my only concern is that this thread does not denegrate to that as this subject so frequently does amongst Christians causing undue division.

As for the "Global Moderator" title that is given to individuals by Admin so that certain individuals can moderate the forum to make it a better place for Christians to come to, to talk, worship together and have all around good fellowship.

Arpel,

I'll put it bluntly and say that it appeared you were looking for a war instead of a discussion. I must also add that your stated opinions are not facts, just opinions. I would guess that's why nobody joined in a discussion with you.

NOW, curiosity is killing me. Is this the first time you have ever heard the term "Moderator"?   ???   ::)   ???   8)

Love in Christ,
Tom

1 Peter 2:1-3 NASB  Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

Pastor Roger,

That,s Great I am happy we are in agreement.

God Bless,

As I said, I agree with some of your points. It is my hope and my prayers that I am wrong and that Christians will not have to endure such tribulations. Time will tell.

As I posted before in this thread .....

1Co 4:5  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
1Co 4:6  And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1Co 4:7  For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Your opinion based on appearances.

If you notice, my opening post made distinctions, and I posted factual information, you posted what you believe to be true, It never  appeared to me you were looking for a war, nor a discussion, you stated what you thought is true, but sounded unintrested is explaining the diference between Historic Pre Millennialism (the early church teaching) and the modern day Dispensational Pre Millennialism (begun in the 18th century).


Well, it is historicaly well established when and where the modern day Dispensational Premillenialism doctrine (also known as; The Pre Tribulation Rapture of the Church Doctrine) began, I stated the John Darby is known as the father of what today is known as the doctrine of Dispensational Pre Millennialism , that is an irrefutable fact, not an opinion.

See what I am saying, about the interjection of misleading or false information, my opinions were based on facts, not assumptions.

From what I gather it appeared to you, I assumed certain information I posted was based on my own pre concevied notion (as someone else, put it).

If this sounds condecending, forgive me, but we should not make off the cuff statements, unless we analyse what has been said, we should at least quote our sources (which I did), in the interest of discussing in good faith.

I never argued with you, at all, you were the one who brought up the word "argument" up, stating the dispensationalism was taught in the Old and New Testament
discounting the diferences between what the early church taught and what is taught today.

I respect your not wanting to discuss this matter, it just seemed to me, you wanted to make a point to discount what I had stated factually, without addressing the diferences and the why of them.



No not at all.

It's the global thing, as quick as PR was to crack the whip, when he thought I sounded condenceding, reminded me of uniformed officer with a stick.

Oh well I guess maybe my imagination was getting the best of me.


God Bless

Pastor Roger

Yes I like the letter to the Corinthians, my favorite is Romans, but I love the entire book.

I desire to do all that is written in it.

1 Cor 2
2  Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

We should all study to show ourselves approved of God, rooting out false doctrine, for the day draws nigh.


2 Cor 4
1  Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2  But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

God Bless

Perhaps not. The old Navy Chief Petty Officer in me does come out once in awhile especially when it appears someone is looking for a fight.

 ;) ;)

Arpel,

You posted nothing more than an opinion. It really doesn't matter if you can find someone who agrees with you - it's still just an opinion. Your so-called evidence is support for your opinion and only your OPINION.   ::)   ::)   ::)

Here's some help for your most complicated question in this thread:

From Dictionary.com

glob·al
adj.

   1. Having the shape of a globe; spherical.
   2. Of or involving the entire earth; worldwide.
   3. Comprehensive; total.
   4. Of or relating to the eyeball.

All four are correct, depending on the context, but maybe you can form an opinion with this extra help.   ???   ???   ::)   8)

Holler if you are still confused and need more help.   :)

blackeyedpeas,

Ah yes,

Global, and it is good you have defined it,  this word; global by its very definition should include sites, outside this one.

 Spherical refers to the earth.

I can only think of one religion which would have the odacity to consider itself to be global that can moderate the speech  of all who claim to believe in a god.


Global is this case isn't really global, unless you are able to reign in speech at other sites,              is it??

Can you??

See, I do pay attention to words and there use.

This is why I say, arguments have a way of begining, the misuse and expansive definitions of words, which do not fit there use.

Appearances or misconceptions lead to assumptions.

Would you agree?

God Bless
ARPEL

Pre-tribulation, Mid-tribulation or post tribulation. The Lord specifically tells us that no man will know the time of His coming. For man to put a time frame, even a general time frame such as the pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib teachings is just an opinion and nothing more. God left this as an unclear subject in our minds for a reason. He teaches us through the Bible that we are to stand fast in the faith, to watch for His coming, to be ready in season and out of season.

In other words to be ready at all times. To set our eyes on Him, unwaveringly. To not look back. To not stop to for anything or anyone. When He calls we are to go without question or hesitation.

If you believe in the post or mid tribulation and Jesus comes before that time will you be ready? Or will you be one that will say it is not time, the tribulation has not started so it cannot be Him that is calling? Or will you be one that gets discouraged if the Lord does not come when you think that He should and turn away from Him?




Mar 13:35  Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
Mar 13:36  Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
Mar 13:37  And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

1Co 16:13  Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

Arpel,

You're out of luck, we don't provide babysitting services here. So, come back when you grow up.

Moderator