Replies

Re: the Psuedo-Ephream

Apparently there's a bit more to the story. I ran accross this article a year or so ago:

Pseudo-Pseudo-Ephraem; Grant Jeffrey II, the Sequel! -by Tim Warner

It seems Grant Jeffrey who 'produced' the translation of this sermon, has a bit of a track record in hedging the truth as relates to Dispensational Pre-Millenialism.

Re: Morgan Edwards. At best you can hope for 1700 years until the advent of the pre-trib doctrine rather than 1800 years. This doesn't really help the dispensational pre-mill problem much.

The author above also has a section on Mr. Edwards. As Mr. Edwards gave no literal/Biblical rational for his 'pre-trib' rapture, I can hardly see how this helps todays dispensationalists.

See: Morgan Edwards and the Pre-Trib Rapture -by Tim Warner

Re: your claim that dispensations were spoken of before Darby and Scofield. Yes, this is true. However, the term was used far far differently. There are claims that the ante-nicene church fathers were dispensationalists. To an extent this may be true. However, it is demonstrably false that by dispensation the ante-nicene church fathers had in mind the radical distinction between Israel and the Church.

The fact remains, Ditto, that even if you can find a reference to 'dispensational pre-millenialism' here and there throughout history, that in no way makes it historical. If 'dispensational pre-millenialism' were the theology of the apostles, I would expect to see abundant evidence of this in the early church fathers. Historical Pre-Millenialism and Amillenialism both have a claim of historicity as we can find great amount of evidence of each view in the writings of the ancient church fathers. Rather, all claims finding 'dispensational pre-millenialism' in the ancient church, as I have shown with the information I have posted previously, have been demonstrated to be wishful thinking.

"...many thousands of years justification by grace through faith alone was absent from church history as well...These indicate that a lot of the eschatological portions of scripture were mysteries not necessarily apparent to everyone through history"

Furthermore, your indication that not all are to understand the eschatological happenings which will transpire. I couldn't disagree more. For you to suggest this means A) the Holy Spirit will allow hundreds of generations of believers to preach what really would amount to 'false teachings' and B) the Bible is clear that Scripture contains all we need to know on the matter and the Bible promises us that the Holy Spirit will bring us into all truth. Not some to the truth only when he deems in necessary, but all of us throughout history to all truth!

Jean

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this. Do you mean by 'thousands of years' -hundreds of years? If so, the anaology doesn't apply for we also find Salvation by Grace taught thorought the advent of the authority of the Roman Church. This is what the Reformation was about -to get back to the churches historical/biblical teachings. If you mean, perhaps, the thousands of years before Christs first coming, I disagree. There was no Salvation of Works in the OT, it was Salvation by faith alone as we find it now. The animal sacrifice was a type signifying and foreshadowing the ultimate and once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The animal sacrifices in and of themselves, while showing a substitutional justification, were of no real significance. Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and all the other OT believers were saved just as you and I are -by faith alone.

I mean both. For thousands of years, people were saved by grace through faith. For perhaps 1000 years or a little more, that teaching was largely lost by the church.

Furthermore, your indication that not all are to understand the eschatological happenings which will transpire. I couldn't disagree more. For you to suggest this means A) the Holy Spirit will allow hundreds of generations of believers to preach what really would amount to 'false teachings' and B) the Bible is clear that Scripture contains all we need to know on the matter and the Bible promises us that the Holy Spirit will bring us into all truth. Not some to the truth only when he deems in necessary, but all of us throughout history to all truth!

The facts are that even the Reformers had "false teachings" regarding eschatology. John Calvin wrote commentaries on every book of the Bible except Revelation because he felt he couldn't understand that book. Martin Luther thought the Anti-Christ was the current Pope.

As to the information on Ephraem, have you ever actually read Grant Jeffrey? I have. I admit that he tends towards sensationalism by putting out books on the Bible codes and mid-east crisis etc., but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. He has a lot of good things to say as well, none of them heretical, just things you might personally disagree with. As someone who has studied Bible prophecy since I was at least a teen ager (over 20 years) I believe the testimony of Scripture is that the church will be taken out of the way prior to the day of God's wrath. The purpose of the tribulation is God's wrath to be poured out and the drawing forth of a remnant of believers. Jesus likened his coming to as in the days of Noah and as in the days of Lot. What happened in those cases? Before God poured out His WRATH, He removed His righteous ones. Thessalonians says we are not appointed to wrath. That could be final judgment, but I don't believe we as His children EVER are subjected to His wrath. I believe the Bible teaches a pre-trib or at least a pre-wrath rapture.

As to Ephraem, I noted it could be Pseudo-Ephraem as has Thomas Ice and other (I think Grant Jeffery did as well). I disagree with the article you sent me as I believe it pre-supposes that Ephraem is wrong. The statements

"Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" 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."

And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord. And we think that the earth exists with blind infidelity, arriving at its downfall early. Commotions are brought forth, wars of diverse peoples and battles and incursions of the barbarians threaten, and our regions shall be desolated, and we neither become very much afraid of the report nor of the appearance, in order that we may at least do penance; because they hurl fear at us, and we do not wish to be changed, although we at least stand in need of penance for our actions!"

Do not rule out a pre-trib rapture, and I believe this is what Ephraem or Pseudo Ephraem was teaching. I also believe it is what Paul taught and John. They were looking for the imminent return of Jesus. Paul told people not to marry cause the time was so short. The early church did not have a detailed systematic theology regarding eschatology (or a lot of other things we have since grown to understand more thoroughly), so, no, I would not expect to see an explicit statement necessarily in the Church Fathers. But Paul and John I believe both taught that the church would not be subjected to God's wrath and that Christ's return could come any moment (watch, for you know not what hour), and I believe the eschatological scenario that best fits this is a pre-trib rapture.