Desperation time!
Posted on 01/15/2011 10:44:22 AM PST by topcat54
In the past one-hundred and fifty years or so, some Christians have argued that there will actually be two comings of Christ. Believers from the dispensational tradition have said that there will be a “secret rapture” of Christ a few years before His visible return. While even those who confess a secret rapture disagree about its timing, the idea basically says that at some point, the church will be removed from the world by Jesus in order that it might escape an ensuing tribulation. Jesus will then make His physical return some time later, usually three and one-half to seven years after the rapture.
The problem with this idea is that there are no passages of Scripture that clearly teach this view. In fact, the idea that believers are guaranteed a safe haven is hard to find in the pages of Scripture. From the faithful remnant that went into exile with the nation of Israel to Jesus’ promise that the days of suffering will be shortened for the sake of the elect (Matt. 24:22), Scripture makes it clear that believers can and will face tribulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ligonier.org ...
I pulled this out of the archive. It was addressed to you. I don't think I ever got an answer.
[Begin quote]
Dear FRiend,
While historic premillennialism is far better that the errant subform of dispensationalism, I have a question about the historical evidence for the premil position.
If we define a premillennialist as one who believe that Christ will physically reign on the earth for a thousand years after the second coming and resurrection, what specific evidence would you use to substantiate the premil position in the early church?
I have not gotten an answer to this question.
In reviewing some on the ancient writers who are listed as supporting the premillenarian position, I could not find anything that could identify with this modern definition.[End quote]E.g., in Justin Martyr, we read:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXX)You will note that in these two rather well-known “premillennial” statements there is absolutely no mention of Christ physically on the earth during the thousand years. One can certainly read one’s biases into the statement and come to that reading, but they do not literally teach what modern premillenarians teach.Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue, Chapter LXXXI)
Where to start? How about Robert Gundry, PHD, Westmont College, Calif.? I quote from the “Historical Confirmation” section of his book, “The Chruch and the Tribulation.” His book is not an argument for futurism per se, it is an argument for the singular second coming (that this thread is about). He argues for posttribulationism over against pretribulationism. In his historical section, every time he cites something from the ECF for posttribulation, he is in effect, citing proof FOR futurism. In his quotes of the ECF concerning the tribulation, it is a FUTURE tribulation that is presupposed.
Gundry makes a survey inclusive of Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Melito of Sardis, Methodius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Lactanius, concerning Lactanius’ “Commentary on the Apocalypse” he says:
“Lactanius describes the plagues of the tribulation, the Antichrist, the persecution of the righteous, the coming of Christ and the resurrection, the millennium, and the final judgment.” P. 178. Lactanius is obviously not a preterist, all these things he places as future.
Gundry then says: “We can conclude from the above survey of Ante-Nicene writings that the early church was as explicitly posttribulational as it was premillennial. [I.e., both the tribulation and the millennial are future] … We discover not even a passing reference to, much less a refutation of, any who believed otherwise… Every Ante-Nicene writer who touches in any detail upon the tribulation, resurrection, rapture, or second coming displays a postribulational persuasion. [Again, these ECF he cites were not preterists, they were futurists] … Almost every time, premillennialism and posttribulationism coincide in the early fathers.” P. 178.
“It is simply not true that the Ante-Nicene eschatology lacked maturity and detail. For example, in long eschatological passages in the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactanius we confront full and challenging discussions concerning Daniel’s seventieth week, the 1,260 days, the abomination of desolation, the ten toes, the mixture of iron and clay, the ten horns, the little horn, the Antichrist, the false prophet, the apostasy, the reappearance of Elijah, the restoration of worship in the Jewish temple, the significance of 666, comparison of Daniel and Revelation, Babylon, Armageddon, the first resurrection, the rapture, the second advent, millennial conditions, the final resurrection, and the last judgment. The only significant eschatological matter of which the early fathers were incognizant appears to be a pretribulational rapture!” p. 183.
Gundry is arguing for post-trib over against pretrib here, but I think you get the picture. Everything topic listed was future not in the past. The ECF were FUTURIST NOT PRETERIST.
Note: I hadn’t seen your last post when I wrote this up.
Correction on this line:
Gundry is arguing for post-trib over against pretrib here, but I think you get the picture. Every topic listed was future not in the past. The ECF were FUTURIST NOT PRETERIST.
The word “rapture” is never used in the Bible to describe End-time events. It is only found in the Scofield reference notes.
Why not start with some actual quotes from some actual ECFs. That would be impressive.
According to Dave MacPherson, the Epharaem quote does not support rapture theory because it is taken out of context:
But now it's time to analyze Pseudo-Ephraem (hereafter: P-E), the name attached by scholars to manuscripts that were possibly, but not provably, written by the well-known Ephraim the Syrian who lived from 306-373 A.D. And what's the discovery in P-E's early Medieval sermon on the end of the world that's led pretrib promoters to see pretrib in it? It's basically these words:
"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." A pretrib rapture is seen by promoters in the phrase "taken to the Lord."
It needs to be emphasized that pretrib in P-E has been palmed off on unsuspecting Christians by promoters seeing rapture aspects in P-E's sermon where none exist and by covering up such aspects where they do exist in his 10-section sermon!
In Section 2, P-E says that the only event that's "imminent" is "the advent of the wicked one" (that is, Antichrist). Nevertheless, Grant Jeffrey in his 1995 book, FINAL WARNING, had the audacity to claim that P-E "began with the Rapture using the word 'imminent'" and added in the next sentence that "Ephraem used the word 'imminent' to describe the Rapture." (If he and other P-E promoters can look at a coming of Antichrist and see a coming of "Christ," is it any wonder that in his endtime view folks will look at Antichrist and see "Christ"?
Ephraim the Syrian, reportedly P-E's inspiration, said the same thing (SERMO ASCETICUS, I): "Nothing remains then, except that the coming of our enemy, Antichrist, appear...." (Nobody's ever found even a trace of pretrib in this earlier work!)
In the before-the-tribulation sections, P-E mentions neither a descent of Christ, nor a shout, nor an angelic voice, nor a trumpet of God, nor a resurrection, nor the dead in Christ, nor a rapture, nor meeting Christ.
So where does P-E place the rapture? The answer is found in his last section (10) where he writes that after "the sign of the Son of Man" when "the Lord shall appear with great power," the "angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because the hour of judgment has come!"
http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/articles/deceiving.htm
So far I’ve quoted on this thread and on another similar one, the following reputable scholars to you, Robert Gundry, George Ladd, Michael J. Vlatch, and Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, 2:614, are you saying they are liars?
An outstanding post. Thanks for bringing this out about pseudo-Ephraem.
That’s a cop out, and you know it. It has nothing to do with my views of these men.
You claim that somehow your view on the millennium matches with the views of the early church fathers, yet you are unable (or unwilling) to provide direct quotes from those ECF that supports your claim.
The critical idea, in my opinion, if the modern premil idea that Jesus will be reigning literally on the earth during the future thousand years. Without this key piece of data, it can hardly be thought that the ECF were chiliasts in any modern sense. In fact this was the conclusion of premil Alan Patrick Boyd, that the best we can say of the ECF is they were “seminal amillennialists.”
Given your oft-repeated claim (e.g., “The ECF writings abound with statements …”), it should be fairly simple process to find numerous ECF quotes with that idea clearly spelled out. You should not have to rely on the (hearsay) analysis of others. (Unless, perhaps, you have not actually read the ECF to verify your claim.)
So far all you have managed to do is avoid the real issue. It’s time to man up.
Similar things could be said generally about the alleged chiliast teachings of the early church fathers. Read in context, key elements of modern chiliast thought are missing or very obscure.
Ummm, it’s the Latin word for the term “caught up” from 1 Thess.
And what about your oft repeated claims? that the ECF were not futurists? Though he was arguing against pretribism not preterism, Gundry got to the heart of the matter...and you know it. The evidence from the ECF is overwhelming that they were futurists.
As to your other statements, they are about postmillennialism, the point I was making using Gundry was that the ECF were not preterists. By trying to divert this to a postmill issue, all you are doing is sidestepping the issue. You are a pp, where are your pp’s in the ECF?
Speaking of Gundry, was he a liar? You never said yea or nay.
Just show us the quotes from the ECF regarding your theory and that should clear things up. The way an argument usually works is the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. That’s you.
I get the impression you’re shooting blanks here, my FRiend. Otherwise the quotes would be flowing fast and furious. No?
For the record, I’m not going to respond to any of your diversionary (“still beating your wife”) tactics until the ECF quotes are provided.
The choice is yours, a) provide the proof, or b) stop claiming to be a premil like those early alleged premils who really weren’t premil.
There is an overwhelming amount of scripture that points to a pretribulation rapture of the church.
example?
You have some red letter version of the Bible? For Israel vs For the Church? Or is this just a manifestation of the dispensational error?
I think there are a number of fundamental errors on their part in terms of Israel and Church. First, is their confusion regarding the term "Israel" as it used in Scripture. Second, and sad to say, despite their expected protesting, Dispensationalists have no love for the Church.
Look at how they characterize the Church of God, they view it as starting at Pentecost, they consider it a "parenthesis", or an irrelevant tangent that is a side-line of God's real rail-line the genetic offspring of Abraham. They attribute no value to the Church as God is only indulging 21st century Westerners with an "Escape From Hell" path so that they won't be inconvenienced with eternal damnation.
Because they have no love for the Church, they have no problem making a mockery of the Church in their so-called Worship services, their forms of entertainment, and on a dozen channels on cable and satellite.
Because they have no love for the Church, they don't think in accordance to the knowledge that Jesus died for His Church and that it might actually have some relevance in exhibiting His Glory (hence Free Will soteriology that makes God a second billing as a mere "co-pilot")
Because they have no love for the Church, they have no problem arrogantly dismissing great theologians of God from Augustine to RC Sproul, even calling you a heretic to your face because their vanity exceeds their respect for the Spirit's work within the saints of the Church.
Because they have no love for the Church they refuse to believe that the passages of Scripture referring to the Church are to the Church, rather then think that these passages are for post-Apocalyptic exiles, blasphemers and people like Rhaum Emanuel and Barbara Streisand.
That is why they pooh-pooh the martyrs of all ages and run around terrorizing each other, hoping that when it gets real inconvenient and uncomfortable they can pull the Rapture Ripcord and be exempt from any Consequences of their Ideas
Vanity.
Topcat:
Just show us the quotes from the ECF regarding your theory and that should clear things up. The way an argument usually works is the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. That’s you.
Me:
Yeah, it does work that way. But it is you that makes all the claims. You are the one constantly trashing futurists as “prophecy pimps” on these threads, the big bully on the block, therefore you are the one with the burden of proof.
I’ve given historical proof for futurism, I’ve given good reasons from the ECF why Ribera didn’t start futurism, you preterists claim he did. What historical proof for preterism before Alcazar do you have?
Topcat:
I get the impression you’re shooting blanks here, my FRiend. Otherwise the quotes would be flowing fast and furious. No?
For the record, I’m not going to respond to any of your diversionary (“still beating your wife”) tactics until the ECF quotes are provided.
The choice is yours, a) provide the proof, or b) stop claiming to be a premil like those early alleged premils who really weren’t premil.
Me:
It’ll be a cold day in Haiti before I let preterist heretics be in my drivers seat. No more than I’d let a Mormon. Like I said on another thread, preterists are to eschatology what Mormons are to Christian orthodoxy.
You are the one shooting blanks. I have read the ECF quite extensively, and I have found men like Gundry, Ladd, and the others I’ve quoted, were not lying, they are spot on. Therefore, that is good enough for me to quote them, if it isn’t good enough for you, well that’s too bad.
Your claim that the ECF weren’t premil is just out in the weeds ridiculous. Again, read what I posted by Gundry and Ladd, they said they were, and every other reputable historian I know of says the same, that’s good enough for me. Again, if it isn’t good enough for you, too bad. You don’t like the way I respond? I could care less what you or any preterist thinks.
Another irresponsible and unprovable statement. You're batting zero my Friend, and proving yourself to be not unlike your dispensational cousins -- all talk and no truth.
All you have to do is provide us with the multitudinous quotes you claim are out there. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Desperation time!
You know, early on you had me believing you were a reasonable sort of person. Your recent comments like this and elsewhere about Mormonism have proved that you are just as vitriolic and irrational as your dispensational cousins. I assume the blather is to cover up the fact that you are shooting blanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.