Rapture: A Background for Consideration (Compiled by CM)

C Mc

I have taken the liberty to compile the points to give contexts to the subject at hand aiding the conversation. This way we won't be going in circles-talking pass one another. The concept of the rapture is popular in evangelical circles. Supporters and promoters of this view understand Christ’s coming as a secret to rapture the church, after which the earth undergoes a seven-year tribulation period followed by Christ returning with the church in glory and judgment.

1. Premillennial dispensationalism was popularized by John Nelson Darby, and in the early years of his ministry (late 1870’s), he and others went to great lengths to distinguish dispensationalism from the historicist prophecies of the Second Great Awakening (See Weber in Sources below).
2. Darby was the famous organizer and promoter of the Plymouth Brethren Movement. He never claimed to have originated the pretribulation rapture theory. According to MacPherson, modern pretribulation rapture theory was originated from a private revelation of Margaret MacDonald, a young Scottish woman (15 yrs old), in the early part of 1830.
3. The distinguishing FEATURES OF DISPENSATIONALISM, as compared to other forms of evangelism are:
   -- "A literal interpretation of Biblical prophecy".
   -- A theological "separation of the conceptual categories of the Church and Israel".
   • a. The Church signifies Christians (or “heavenly people”).
   • b. Israel refers to Jews (or “earthly people”).
4. By separating Israel from the Church, dispensationalists claimed that during the end times God would take His Church people bodily to heaven so that He might focus all his attention on His earthly people who had previously rejected His son and His salvation.

In the 20th century, this became one of the most widely recognized theologies of dispensationalism: that of the Rapture by emphasizing biblical literalism and infallibility of Scriptures.

According to premillennial dispensationalist belief, the Rapture, when true Christians will be “caught up” (see 1 Thess. 4:17) and taken to Heaven, will be the first sign that the Second Coming has begun. Let's be clear the word “Rapture” is not found in the King James translation. The modern expression “Rapture” has been invented to explain the overall teaching and the term suits the subject well. The basic tenets of the doctrine are simple. It purports that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases:

1. He will first return secretly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape the Great Tribulation to occur at the end of the age.
2. Christ then returns in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world’s nations. This is the general teaching of the doctrine of the Rapture.

Some think the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 ½ years, others say 7 years. Some feel that the Rapture of the ekklesia (Church) occurs before the Tribulation, others about mid-way through. Many suggest that the saints of God will be taken to heaven for protection, while others suggest a geographical area on this earth. This is completely contrary to biblical teachings. I don't agree with the dispensationalist belief of the Rapture. What have you to say about this? CM

SOURCES:

-- Weber, Timothy, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1875-1925. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1979.
-- Gibson, The Meaning and Chronology of the Trumpets of Revelation 2:3-4
-- John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies: 37 Crucial Prophecies That Affect You Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991).
-- MacPherson, Dave. The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin: The Recent Discovery of a Well-Known Theory's Beginning-and Its Incredible Cover-up! Kansas City, Mo.: Heart of America Bible Society, 1973. pg 101.
--- . The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), 47-53.
-- See Dr. Martin’s articles “The Place of Safety” at http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p971116.htm and “Personal Safety During End-Time Prophecy” at http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p991123.htm. DWS

GaoLu

Quite a tossed salad there. Some names and salad pieces I recognize.

Dave_L

Thanks CM, I made a copy for my notes if that's OK.....

C Mc

Background Information # 2

One should make a note of the fact that J. N. Darby's first dissent was on the doctrine of the church and not eschatology (final events]. He doubted the "scriptural authority for church establishment". Darby took Eph 3, to mean that Christians are above the Law and the law applies merely to the former dispensation, to Israel. Believing this Darby "compartmentalized Israel and the church as distinct objects of God's separate purposes".

The term "dispensation", means somewhat the same as the Gk word_ "oikonomia"_ -- refers to a time period only in Eph 1:10. Its usual meaning is "stewardship", more so than a time period. It clearly means: "the act of dispensing" or "an administration". The four New Testament texts in which the word "dispensation" is found: 1 Cor. 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; and Colossians 1:25. In the Bible, the word "dispensation" never refers to a period of time. Weymouth's translation of 1 Corinthians 9:17 reads: "A stewardship has nevertheless been entrusted to me."

C. I. Scofield defines "a dispensation" as a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (See Scofield Bible). It's fair for one to ask, who is this man who has had such a great influence upon the theological thinking of our generation?

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921):
1. He was educated in Tennessee.
2. Served valiantly under Gen. Robert E. Lee
3. Became a successful lawyer
4. He was converted to the Christian faith in the year 1882.
5. Three years later—without any formal theological training—he was ordained to the ministry by the Congregational denomination and began to have a mighty influence through his writings, which culminated in the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1913.

One should be aware that Dispensationalists divide the salvation history into distinct time periods:

• Seven for Barby and Scofield (1843-1921)--dispensations.
• Eight, ten, twelve dispensations for others.
• Three dispensations for the Dallas Theological Seminary.

Dispensationalism System of Bible interpretation that divides human history—past, present, and future—into seven periods. C. I. Scofield's Seven dispensations (though different from his mentor-- Darby) are:

1. Innocency, beginning with Creation and ending with the expulsion from Eden.
2. Conscience, ending with the judgment of the Flood.
3. Human Government, the period of racial testing ending with the confusion of tongues.
4. Promise. From the promise of Abraham to the law (Ex. 19:8).
5. Law. Sinai to Calvary.
6. Grace. Death of Christ to the final great apostasy.
7. Kingdom (See The New Scofield Reference Bible, pp 3-4).

For the believers, the number of dispensations or names don't matter. They view the essence as follows:

1. The distinction between Israel and the church.
2. A literal principle of interpretation.
3. A basic and working conception of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than as a single purpose of salvation (See Ryrie below).

Many people are not aware that getting to the root of Dispensationalism, one finds it was once compared to Marxism and catastrophism, which both divide history into periods brought to an end in judgment as does dispensationalism (See George M. Marsden below).

In discussing the rapture, make the comparison between the terms ―"rapture" and "resurrection":

• Another term to be defined and placed in juxtaposition to rapture is resurrection (mostly the verb, egeiro, meaning "to rise, have risen" and the noun, anastasis, meaning "a standing up, a resurrection or recovery" (See Zodhiates below). Resurrection speaks about the same type of raising or taking up as harpazo, but in reference to the dead or "sleeping" versus the living. In other words, raising the dead bodily back to life in a new incorruptible, immortal body compared to transporting or translating the living bodily to heaven. Jesus is the first example of this resurrection. Then, there will be those who are his (asleep/dead in Christ) at his "coming" immediately preceding the Rapture (1 Cor 15:20-23, 50-52 and 1 Thess 4:16-17). Rapture and resurrection are very closely related, yet still completely separate and distinct concepts...[emphasis added]

Even with this, the question remains, when during the Parousia will the Rapture of the Church occur? What think ye? More on this another time. CM

SOURCES:

-- C. I. Scofield. The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford Univer­sity Press, 1967), p. 3-4 (notes on heading for Gen 1:3).
-- Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1973), p. 50.
-- George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 64-65.
-- Zodhiates, Spiros, The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 1992:496, 159
-- Hebert, David K. "The Rapture of the Church: A Doctrine of the Early Church or a Recent Development of the Dispensational Movement?" M.Th. thesis, Oral Roberts University, 2006:19.

GaoLu

Your beef is not with Darby or Scofield (attack them if you want), but with God and Paul (only Bill openly attacks them). They have already written on the matter long before anyone else.

I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

C Mc

@GaoLu said:
Your beef is not with Darby or Scofield (attack them if you want), but with God and Paul (only Bill openly attacks them). They have already written on the matter long before anyone else.

GaoLu,
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are wrong in your projections. I don't have a problem with Darby, Scofield, or God. I've merely reflected the historically verifiable truth. I was sharing factual information, as fellow users of CD, to engage the topic in-depth. All can do so with terms clearly defined and context in place. What is so sinister about this? My intent is to contribute to the preparation for a healthy discussion. I thought of all people you would appreciate this. Are you estranged to or afraid of the historical factual truth?

I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

"Hold your horses"! I have not shared my take on the subject in any declarative way in details. Because of the nature of the subject matter, sometimes moving parts and nuances, some pre-detailing are required. This is not politics, trust me. I will keep it biblical. You're at liberty to participate (or not), but don't try to discourage me. Every contribution adds to one knowledge base, one's understanding of self, others and the topic at hand. Is not, this is one of the principal reasons for the rebirth of CD?

Lastly, don't "pity those who are not looking for Jesus", share the "good news" (gospel) of the salvation of Jesus. Remember, John 14:1-3; Matthews 28:18-20?

I will see you around the forums. CM

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

A "hope of the rapture" is not what Scripture defines as the believer's hope, is it? Else, all those who never experienced it prior to the end of their earthly life would be proof that it was a false hope !!

Believers' hope is spoken of in Scripture as the hope to be granted eternal life in the presence of God, either after the resurrection from the dead or with an immediate change with the Lord's coming when corruptible puts on incorruptibility, etc

GaoLu

@C_M_ said:

GaoLu,
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are wrong in your projections.

Projection? ???

I don't have a problem with Darby, Scofield, or God. I've merely reflected the historically verifiable truth. I was sharing factual information, as fellow users of CD, to engage the topic in-depth. All can do so with terms clearly defined and context in place. What is so sinister about this?

It is fine. So I responded. What is so sinister about that?

I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

"Hold your horses"! I have not shared my take on the subject in any declarative way in details.

I didn't suppose you had.

Because of the nature of the subject matter, sometimes moving parts and nuances, some pre-detailing are required. This is not politics, trust me. I will keep it biblical. You're at liberty to participate (or not), but don't try to discourage me. Every contribution adds to one knowledge base, one's understanding of self, others and the topic at hand. Is not, this is one of the principal reasons for the rebirth of CD?

Fine with me. I might challenge you to be truthful as your presentation is standard slander and twisting facts to attack a dead man in order to disparage a view on the Bible.

I find that distasteful and will say so as you can see.

If you want to talk about the Bible, then talk about what the Bible says.

Lastly, don't "pity those who are not looking for Jesus", share the "good news" (gospel) of the salvation of Jesus. Remember, John 14:1-3; Matthews 28:18-20?

Exactly. Pointing out false teaching is a step in doing so.

Dave_L

@GaoLu said:
Your beef is not with Darby or Scofield (attack them if you want), but with God and Paul (only Bill openly attacks them). They have already written on the matter long before anyone else.

I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

Think of it this way. The millennium pre-tribbers expect is full of sin and death. And lasts only 1000 years. The Rapture Paul speaks of, which can happen any time now, follows the resurrection of the saints on the last day. Followed by the resurrection of the wicked whom God judges as the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth where we will be forever basking in God's glory. Paul's teaching on the Rapture is better than Darby's.

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:
I pity those who are not looking for Jesus, those who have no hope of the rapture.

A "hope of the rapture" is not what Scripture defines as the believer's hope, is it? Else, all those who never experienced it prior to the end of their earthly life would be proof that it was a false hope !!

Believers' hope is spoken of in Scripture as the hope to be granted eternal life in the presence of God, either after the resurrection from the dead or with an immediate change with the Lord's coming when corruptible puts on incorruptibility, etc

I concur. CM

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Think of it this way. The millennium pre-tribbers expect is full of sin and death. And lasts only 1000 years. The Rapture Paul speaks of, which can happen any time now, follows the resurrection of the saints on the last day. Followed by the resurrection of the wicked whom God judges as the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth where we will be forever basking in God's glory. Paul's teaching on the Rapture is better than Darby's.

Fantasy runs lose ... what Paul spoke of was imminent and happened shortly after
Paul wrote his epistles in the 1st century AD. It had nothing to do with a "rapture" in a "literal sense" (as some modern day Christians seem to think judging from the Careful, this car will be without driver at the rapture bumber stickers on their cars).

"the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth" ??? what kind of fiction books did you read ?

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Think of it this way. The millennium pre-tribbers expect is full of sin and death. And lasts only 1000 years. The Rapture Paul speaks of, which can happen any time now, follows the resurrection of the saints on the last day. Followed by the resurrection of the wicked whom God judges as the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth where we will be forever basking in God's glory. Paul's teaching on the Rapture is better than Darby's.

Fantasy runs lose ... what Paul spoke of was imminent and happened shortly after
Paul wrote his epistles in the 1st century AD. It had nothing to do with a "rapture" in a "literal sense" (as some modern day Christians seem to think judging from the Careful, this car will be without driver at the rapture bumber stickers on their cars).

"the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth" ??? what kind of fiction books did you read ?

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

This happens after the resurrection of the dead, and the Rapture (translation of the saints) on the last day according to Paul and Jesus.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:
Fantasy runs lose ... what Paul spoke of was imminent and happened shortly after
Paul wrote his epistles in the 1st century AD. It had nothing to do with a "rapture" in a "literal sense" (as some modern day Christians seem to think judging from the Careful, this car will be without driver at the rapture bumber stickers on their cars).

"the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth" ??? what kind of fiction books did you read ?

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Yes ... and that judgment day of the Lord already came in the 1st century AD, just as Jesus and his apostles taught and as the early church believed and expected ...remember, Jesus connected his coming with Jerusalem being besieged and the temple being destroyed ... which indeed did happen approx 40 years later toward the end of his generation.

The problem is, you also still think physical earthly matters being described ... and since the physical universe hasn't exploded yet (and never will !) you think it must be still future. You fall prey to the very same trap which you correctly identified in another post regarding those who are thinking of Jesus establishing an earthly political nation kingdom, even though he himself stated that his reign (kingdom) would not be of this world.

This happens after the resurrection of the dead, and the Rapture (translation of the saints) on the last day according to Paul and Jesus.

And according to Paul and Jesus, this was to happen within the time frame of their generation and while some of their audience were still alive ...
The truth is: It did happen, just as had been prophesied and taught by Jesus and Paul! It just did not happen in the manner in which many theologians today and throughout centuries have thought (and how also the Jews of Jesus' time had wrongly expected it to happen.

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:
Fantasy runs lose ... what Paul spoke of was imminent and happened shortly after
Paul wrote his epistles in the 1st century AD. It had nothing to do with a "rapture" in a "literal sense" (as some modern day Christians seem to think judging from the Careful, this car will be without driver at the rapture bumber stickers on their cars).

"the universe explodes into the new heavens and earth" ??? what kind of fiction books did you read ?

“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Yes ... and that judgment day of the Lord already came in the 1st century AD, just as Jesus and his apostles taught and as the early church believed and expected ...remember, Jesus connected his coming with Jerusalem being besieged and the temple being destroyed ... which indeed did happen approx 40 years later toward the end of his generation.

The problem is, you also still think physical earthly matters being described ... and since the physical universe hasn't exploded yet (and never will !) you think it must be still future. You fall prey to the very same trap which you correctly identified in another post regarding those who are thinking of Jesus establishing an earthly political nation kingdom, even though he himself stated that his reign (kingdom) would not be of this world.

This happens after the resurrection of the dead, and the Rapture (translation of the saints) on the last day according to Paul and Jesus.

And according to Paul and Jesus, this was to happen within the time frame of their generation and while some of their audience were still alive ...
The truth is: It did happen, just as had been prophesied and taught by Jesus and Paul! It just did not happen in the manner in which many theologians today and throughout centuries have thought (and how also the Jews of Jesus' time had wrongly expected it to happen.

I think it interesting that science looks for a second big bang and a new universe too.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

I think it interesting that science looks for a second big bang and a new universe too.

Yes, and what does that have to do with anything ??

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

I think it interesting that science looks for a second big bang and a new universe too.

Yes, and what does that have to do with anything ??

Peter says this is how this world ends and the new world begins.

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Peter says this is how this world ends and the new world begins.

I do not read that in Peter's epistles ....
I do read your interpretation of what Peter wrote, and consider that interpretation to be not in harmony with the rest of scripture addressing the same events at the end of the then age/aeon

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Peter says this is how this world ends and the new world begins.

I do not read that in Peter's epistles ....
I do read your interpretation of what Peter wrote, and consider that interpretation to be not in harmony with the rest of scripture addressing the same events at the end of the then age/aeon

Peter (not me) said: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:
Peter (not me) said: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Indeed ... this is what we read in Peter's epistle.

But, pray tell, where does it say what you make of it, such as the universe exploding or planet earth exploding or burning into ashes, etc ??

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:
Peter (not me) said: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Indeed ... this is what we read in Peter's epistle.

But, pray tell, where does it say what you make of it, such as the universe exploding or planet earth exploding or burning into ashes, etc ??

Ending in a Fervent heat... passing away with a great noise... melting... dissolved... etc. Followed by the new heavens and earth... Well sort of..

[Deleted User]

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said: .... (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Indeed ... this is what we read in Peter's epistle.

But, pray tell, where does it say what you make of it, such as the universe exploding or planet earth exploding or burning into ashes, etc ??

Ending in a Fervent heat... passing away with a great noise... melting... dissolved... etc. Followed by the new heavens and earth... Well sort of..

So then, since that day of judgment, the day of the Lord, was to come even still in the generation of Jesus' contemporaries, what happened, since the universe (planet earth, other planets and stars, sun, moon, etc) did obviously not explode as you claim they should have?
Could it be that Peter uses apocalyptic language to describe the passing away of the then old age (the age of the old covenant) and the full installing of the new age (age of the new covenant)?? With the judgment executed on the apostate old covenant people who had fulfilled the measure of their apostasy in their rejection of their Messiah, the most terrible disaster and catastrophe came upon them when Jerusalem and the temple ("the old Jerusalem, that Jerusalem representing the old covenant system of worship") were completely destroyed and the people scattered all over the ancient world?
The old covenant world order passed away, melted, dissolved in an apocalyptic fashion in the roaring fire that destroyed the temple of stone ....

Dave_L

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said:

@Wolfgang said:

@Dave_L said: .... (2 Peter 3:10–13)

Indeed ... this is what we read in Peter's epistle.

But, pray tell, where does it say what you make of it, such as the universe exploding or planet earth exploding or burning into ashes, etc ??

Ending in a Fervent heat... passing away with a great noise... melting... dissolved... etc. Followed by the new heavens and earth... Well sort of..

So then, since that day of judgment, the day of the Lord, was to come even still in the generation of Jesus' contemporaries, what happened, since the universe (planet earth, other planets and stars, sun, moon, etc) did obviously not explode as you claim they should have?
Could it be that Peter uses apocalyptic language to describe the passing away of the then old age (the age of the old covenant) and the full installing of the new age (age of the new covenant)?? With the judgment executed on the apostate old covenant people who had fulfilled the measure of their apostasy in their rejection of their Messiah, the most terrible disaster and catastrophe came upon them when Jerusalem and the temple ("the old Jerusalem, that Jerusalem representing the old covenant system of worship") were completely destroyed and the people scattered all over the ancient world?
The old covenant world order passed away, melted, dissolved in an apocalyptic fashion in the roaring fire that destroyed the temple of stone ....

The kingdom came with Christ at the first advent. It is here now. And remains forever in the new heavens and earth.

GaoLu

@Dave_L said:
The kingdom came with Christ at the first advent. It is here now. And remains forever in the new heavens and earth.

That much is true. That is part of the story, an important part.

C Mc

@C_M_ said:
Background Information # 2

Continues-- Background Information # 3 (The Rapture)

Many times we use the same words with different meanings. I hope below would be an aid to avoid this. Some CD Users positions are made clearer in the definitions below, even if one didn't or couldn't do so. CM

DEFINING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED:

Pre-millennialism -- is the belief that after a period of severe tribulation of the earth, the Lord Jesus Christ will visibly and bodily return to earth (His Second Coming/Advent or Parousia) and will then rule and reign on the earth for a period of one thousand years (millennium) of peace and prosperity. The scripture reference most often given for this order of events is in Revelation 19:11- 20:6.

Pre-millennialism can be subdivided into two groups: Historicism and Futurism.

1. Historicism is the belief that the prophecies concerning the End Times provide a symbolic history of the Church period leading up to the Second Advent; past and present Church history is examined to seek fulfillment of specific prophecies.
2. Futurism, on the other hand, is the belief that none of the End Times prophecies will be fulfilled until a short period before the Parousia. The futurists further subdivided into three groups based on their belief of when the Rapture (or catching away) of the Church will take place:

• a. Pretribulationists (the Rapture takes place before the seven-year tribulation on earth).
• b. Midtribulationists (the Rapture takes place midway through the seven-year tribulation, before the Great Tribulation or wrath of God is poured out).
• c. Posttribulationists (the Rapture is not a separate event and takes place in conjunction with the Lord‘s Second Coming) (See Hebert below).

Other names for premillennialists are millenarians and chiliasts—taken from the Greek word for thousand (See Torrey below).

1. Premillennialism was the prevailing view of the Early Church for about the first three centuries, up to and including the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325, and until Origen and his allegorical interpretation of Scripture began to take hold and Augustine spread the concept of amillennialism.
2. Premillennialism then receded in prominence (eschatologically speaking) to amillennialism and postmillennialism until the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century, with the rise of dispensationalism.
3. Amillennialists (taken from “amillennium”, meaning “no millennium”) believe that the references to the Millennium in Scripture are figurative or allegorical and take place in the believer‘s heart, thereby creating heaven on earth in the Body of Christ.

Although similar in belief to the postmillennialists, the amillennialists also believe that there is no literal reign of Christ on earth; that the Great White Throne Judgment occurs immediately following the Second Coming of Christ; and that there is only one, not two, resurrections addressed in Revelation 20.

• This view was initiated by Origen and spread as the orthodox eschatological view of the Catholic Church by Augustine.
• • Augustine also taught that the period of this spiritual millennium in the Church or Body of Christ was from the Cross to the Parousia, commonly called the Church Age by other theologians.

Postmillennialists believe that Jesus will return after the Church has established the Millennium on earth by the faithful completion of the Great Commission. It will be a period of peace and righteousness and may or may not be a literal one thousand year period but will definitely conclude with the Lord‘s Second Coming.

• Postmillennialists are considered optimists and teach that the kingdom of heaven/God is here and now on earth and things will get better and better until the Church ushers in the Second Coming of Christ.
• This belief started during the Age of Enlightenment (seventeenth century), most probably by Daniel Whitby (1683-1726), a Unitarian (See Van Hoogen below).
• Most Reformed Theology teaches postmillennialism (which includes the Puritans, founders of the American Church) and it was the majority view of the Church in the late-seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

However, after the rise of dispensationalism in the mid-nineteenth century and the turmoil, strife, World Wars, and overall increase in evil and Satan‘s kingdom of the twentieth century, postmillennialism faded into the background and premillennialism once again moved to the forefront (See sources).

A premillennial- futurist, pretribulational frame of reference. This view has received much attention lately and has become the popular view in America in the mid-to-late twentieth century, carrying over into the twenty-first century. However, there still remains when the Rapture of the Church will take place? (See Hebert).

This is a real eye-opener. It's what the Bible teaches that rules over theories. CM

Sources:

-- Hebert, David K. “The Rapture of the Church: A Doctrine of the Early Church or a Recent Development of the Dispensational Movement?” M.Th. thesis, Oral Roberts University, 2006, pp. 5-6
-- Torrey, R. A. The Return of the Lord Jesus. Bible Institute of Los Angeles: Registered in Stationers Hall, London, 1913, p. 145).
-- Van Hoogen, Joel. “Premillennialism and the Alliance Distinctives”, in Essays on Premillennialism, eds. K. Neil Foster and David E. Fessenden, 113-137. Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications Inc., 2002.
-- Weber, Timothy P. Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, American Premillennialism 1875-1925. New York City, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 9-11
-- Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, pp. 1212-1222
-- Hart, Larry D. Truth Aflame: A Balanced Theology for Evangelicals and Charismatics. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999, pp. 453-462
-- Geisler, Norman. Systematic theology. 4, Church/Last Things. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2005. Pp. 547-551

C Mc

The road to truth and away from error:

1. What do we know and understand about apocalyptic language?
2. What are the characteristics of apocalyptic language?
3. Did Peter use apocalyptic language?
4. Does apocalyptic language appear in the NT?
5. How much of the OT (words, phrases, languages, etc) is reflected in the NT?
6. Regardless of the amount, the Bible writers used the language of their past. This should be kept in mind when taking on passages of Scriptures. May I suggest one from the prophetic Book of Revelation 19:11- 20:6?
7. To keep from getting lost in the theological-word woods, is there a "Premillennial" Rapture other than the ones dispensationalists espouses?

Their basic teaching is that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases:

1. Christ will first return secretly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape the Great Tribulation to occur at the end of the age.
2. And then, Christ will return in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world’s nations. This is the general teaching of their doctrine of the Rapture. Some believers of this view teach that the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 ½ years, others say 7 years. How does Scripture put these points into the sand with almost one text?

In short, we seem to be dealing with time, manner and taking up of the righteous one or "saints" at Christ's return. There seems to be a consensus that "no man knows the day or hour" of Christ's return (regardless of the many date-setters [sincere or charlatans]). Keep studying! CM

GaoLu

Point 1
We ought to admit that there is much that is revealed and much that has not been revealed, so there is much we do not know. We can speculate, and ought to. God wanted us to know what is revealed. This much we know, there is judgment, future glory and in the end, God wins and much more.

On the other hand, people who say they know what isn't revealed are lying, deceived, or just not thinking well. Don't add to or subtract from what Revelation says. Believe what it does say, along with what Peter, Paul, Jesus, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Biblical writers say.

Point 2
Apocalyptic language is up for grabs--what is, what isn't, how literal is it. Probably we will discover it was all completely true. If it hasnt' happened yet, then the worst choice is to say "apocalyptic language isn't really completely true, and events that don't fit, fulfill it." That would be a really bad choice and certain error. The better choice is to say that apocalyptic language describes some really dramatic happenings that are yet to be fulfilled, and when they are, no one will remotely miss it.

Point 3
Pigeonholing people's beliefs is very useful because pigeon holes are spectrum descriptions by definition. The problem is that, probably few if anyone believes the precise description of a pigeonhole, making it a prime for attack. When used for attack, it results in a strawman logical fallacy, but that doesn't prevent people from doing it.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
Point 1
We ought to admit that there is much that is revealed and much that has not been revealed, so there is much we do not know.

Will there by more revealed? or has all of what will be revealed already been revealed in the Scriptures in the Bible?

We can speculate, and ought to.

Any Scipture basis for this idea?

God wanted us to know what is revealed. This much we know, there is judgment, future glory and in the end, God wins and much more.

I agree that what God has revealed He wants man to know (cp. Deu 29:29).

On the other hand, people who say they know what isn't revealed are lying, deceived, or just not thinking well.

Indeed ... but what about those who ignore rather basic truths that have been revealed and - in order to adhere to and/or explain certain things in light of their ideas - claim "to know" things are in the yet future when in truth, according to overall scope of Scripture, they were indeed future (some even rather IMMEDIATE FUTURE) at the time they were revealed and spoken but have now already been many years in the past?

Don't add to or subtract from what Revelation says. Believe what it does say, along with what Peter, Paul, Jesus, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Biblical writers say.

I agree ... yet, don't those who claim that what, for example, was said to happen very soon and shortly after it was revealed and written in the book of Revelatoin has not come to pass and did not happen even 2 millenniums later, the ones who are adding or subtracting from what Revelation (and other Scripture passages) say??

Point 2
Apocalyptic language is up for grabs--what is, what isn't, how literal is it.

"Apocalyptic language" is a certain kind of use of figures of speech for the purpose of providing emphasis to certain truths expressed in a statement. Figures of speech, as any and all figures of speech, are NOT "up to grabs" ... but are a purposely used means employed by an author to emphasize a point.
When you would claim "to pull my leg", is that up to gabs on how to interpret and understand what you are saying? Or did you as the author of that statement have something specific in mind and I as a reader better get my act together and correctly understand your expression if I want to understand correctly what you said??
Did you not make yourself clear when you used that expression? Of course you did, and you used it to emphasize a certain point. Are you at fault, if I do not understand your use of a figure of speech and rather understand the words in a literal sense and then call you a liar because you certainly have NOT - literally - pulled my leg. Am I correct if I would then say, he must have meant that in the future perhaps he will pull my leg since he hasn't done so as of yet???

GaoLu

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:

Will there by more revealed? or has all of what will be revealed already been revealed in the Scriptures in the Bible?

Oh, yes! God is not done at all. He is going to be doing all kinds of things in the future. For the most part, we will discover it as it happens.

Did you really think this is all there was or ever will be?

We can speculate, and ought to.

Any Scipture basis for this idea?

Oh, yes! Think of the Bereans. We have 2 Tim 2:15. Jos 1:8. Meditating on these things, imagining, hoping--these are wonderful delights of the Christian!

On the other hand, people who say they know what isn't revealed are lying, deceived, or just not thinking well.

Indeed ... but what about those who ignore rather basic truths that have been revealed and - in order to adhere to and/or explain certain things in light of their ideas - claim "to know" things are in the yet future when in truth, according to overall scope of Scripture, they were indeed future (some even rather IMMEDIATE FUTURE) at the time they were revealed and spoken but have now already been many years in the past?

Yes. That is a problem.

Don't add to or subtract from what Revelation says. Believe what it does say, along with what Peter, Paul, Jesus, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Biblical writers say.

I agree ... yet, don't those who claim that what, for example, was said to happen very soon and shortly after it was revealed and written in the book of Revelatoin has not come to pass and did not happen even 2 millenniums later, the ones who are adding or subtracting from what Revelation (and other Scripture passages) say??

I am sure that happens.

Point 2
Apocalyptic language is up for grabs--what is, what isn't, how literal is it.

"Apocalyptic language" is a certain kind of use of figures of speech for the purpose of providing emphasis to certain truths expressed in a statement.

Right

Figures of speech, as any and all figures of speech, are NOT "up to grabs" ... but are a purposely used means employed by an author to emphasize a point.

Yes, you are right, although, when symbols are used to make a point, then we don't always know exactly what they point to. By definition symbols are not the actual thing. That does not mean the meaning can't be very clear.

When you would claim "to pull my leg", is that up to gabs on how to interpret and understand what you are saying? Or did you as the author of that statement have something specific in mind and I as a reader better get my act together and correctly understand your expression if I want to understand correctly what you said??

Probably something specific. Usually, we know pretty much what was meant.

Did you not make yourself clear when you used that expression? Of course you did, and you used it to emphasize a certain point. Are you at fault, if I do not understand your use of a figure of speech and rather understand the words in a literal sense and then call you a liar because you certainly have NOT - literally - pulled my leg.

You make a good point here. I'd like to move back, at your good counsel, from saying "up for grabs." The language is more clear than that.

Am I correct if I would then say, he must have meant that in the future perhaps he will pull my leg since he hasn't done so as of yet???

Only if He says it is future or if predicted things have obviously not yet happened. For example, we have some lovely pictures of Heaven. I haven't seen much of that yet and suspect it is future. We read amazing descriptions of people being ion the physical presence of God. I haven't seen that yet--not the way it described in the Bible. Have you? If so, please tell me where and how to get there.

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:

@Wolfgang said:

@GaoLu said:

Will there by more revealed? or has all of what will be revealed already been revealed in the Scriptures in the Bible?

Oh, yes! God is not done at all. He is going to be doing all kinds of things in the future. For the most part, we will discover it as it happens.

I was not talking about what God is and will be doing, but was asking if there WILL MORE BE REVEALED (in other words, will there - for example - be more inspired books added to Scripture in which further revelation about yet future events is given) ?

We can speculate, and ought to.

Any Scipture basis for this idea?

Oh, yes! Think of the Bereans. We have 2 Tim 2:15. Jos 1:8. Meditating on these things, imagining, hoping--these are wonderful delights of the Christian!

Now where do these scriptures or the ones in Acts 17 say anything about SPECULATING ??
Seems to me that your ideas are going in the direction of what in Peter is termed "private interpretation" ??

On the other hand, people who say they know what isn't revealed are lying, deceived, or just not thinking well.

Indeed ... but what about those who ignore rather basic truths that have been revealed and - in order to adhere to and/or explain certain things in light of their ideas - claim "to know" things are in the yet future when in truth, according to overall scope of Scripture, they were indeed future (some even rather IMMEDIATE FUTURE) at the time they were revealed and spoken but have now already been many years in the past?

Yes. That is a problem.

And your suggested solution for this problem would be what?

Don't add to or subtract from what Revelation says. Believe what it does say, along with what Peter, Paul, Jesus, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Biblical writers say.

I agree ... yet, don't those who claim that what, for example, was said to happen very soon and shortly after it was revealed and written in the book of Revelatoin has not come to pass and did not happen even 2 millenniums later, the ones who are adding or subtracting from what Revelation (and other Scripture passages) say??

I am sure that happens.

So, in case you are in such company of those who insist on yet future of what already has been past, you would admit to adding to Revelation?

Point 2
Apocalyptic language is up for grabs--what is, what isn't, how literal is it.

"Apocalyptic language" is a certain kind of use of figures of speech for the purpose of providing emphasis to certain truths expressed in a statement.

Right

Figures of speech, as any and all figures of speech, are NOT "up to grabs" ... but are a purposely used means employed by an author to emphasize a point.

Yes, you are right, although, when symbols are used to make a point, then we don't always know exactly what they point to. By definition symbols are not the actual thing. That does not mean the meaning can't be very clear.

Do you really think that an author would use a figure of speech and the meaning of what He would like to communicate is nebulous/not clear??

When you would claim "to pull my leg", is that up to gabs on how to interpret and understand what you are saying? Or did you as the author of that statement have something specific in mind and I as a reader better get my act together and correctly understand your expression if I want to understand correctly what you said??

Probably something specific. Usually, we know pretty much what was meant.

So then, would such be different when it comes to the Bible? If so, why?

Am I correct if I would then say, he must have meant that in the future perhaps he will pull my leg since he hasn't done so as of yet???

Only if He says it is future or if predicted things have obviously not yet happened.

This is not my point ... my point is that rather many people take figurative language to have been meant not as a figure but in a literal sense, and (a) because what the text says has not literally come to pass, and (b) because they don't want to call the author of the Bible a liar, they say that it must be still future even after 2000 years (even though they thereby flat out contradict texts that say it was to happen soon and shortly and within the time frame of the generation when it was revealed and written.

For example, we have some lovely pictures of Heaven. I haven't seen much of that yet and suspect it is future.

So you are saying that heaven is not a present reality based on the fact that you haven't seen it as of yet?? Sort of like me claiming that someone is not married because I haven't seen her husband or his wife??

We read amazing descriptions of people being ion the physical presence of God. I haven't seen that yet--not the way it described in the Bible. Have you? If so, please tell me where and how to get there.

I would suggest to not take your personal experience as measure for what is still future. My parents wrote me a letter in which they announced that it would only be four more weeks until my mother and sister would come visit me .... Should I after reading it now prepare for my mother's and sister's visit?? I don't think so ... when I consider the date when the letter was written (15 June 1980), it should be clear that the visit will not happen in four weeks from now but - even though it was four weeks in the future when it was written and sent to me - has already been 38 years in the past ...

I would furthermore suggest to perhaps learn some more about the use of figures of speech used in the Bible ... a good resource available in Logos format would be Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (and perhaps its accompanying Dataset )

Dave_L

The problem is, if we create an end time doctrine we cannot support from the gospels or epistles, we ADD to the book of Revelation.

C Mc

@C_M_ said:

@C_M_ said:
Background Information # 2

Continues-- Background Information # 3 (The Rapture)
Many times we use the same words with different meanings. I hope below would be an aid to avoid this. Some CD Users positions are made clearer in the definitions below, even if one didn't or couldn't do so. CM

DEFINING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED:

Pre-millennialism -- Revelation 19:11- 20:6.

Pre-millennialism can be subdivided into two groups: Historicism and Futurism.

This is a real eye-opener. It's what the Bible teaches that rules over theories. CM

--------------------------                  -------------------       ------------

Continues-- Background Information # 4 (compilation for intelligent discussion)

What Are Errors of Dispensationalism?

1. Scofield enumerates “dispensations”:

a. He arbitrarily divided History of the world into seven periods (See CM's Posts: # 1,334-- July 31 above/the Scofield Bible).
b. From this doctrine produces errors such as:

• a. Antinomianism
• b. False ideas of antichrist
• c. Secret Rapture
• d. Jews returning to Jerusalem
• e. Erroneous teachings regarding Christ's kingdom
• f. The False hope of "second chance".

c. The word "dispensation" never correctly refers to a period of time. It usually means a stewardship, an act of dispensing, an administration (again see above CM's Posts: # 1,334). The following texts with the word "dispensation":

• 1 Corinthians 9:16
• Ephesians 1:10
• Colossians 1:25
• 1 Corinthians 12:28

2. There are two main errors:

a. One is the separation of law and grace:

• -- An age of law without grace (OT)
• -- An age of grace without law (NT).
• -- It embraces false ideas regarding two covenants.

b. The second is a revival hope of Israel in Christian form-the soon-expected Messianic kingdom.

3. Should we follow Scofield or Bible Truth?:

• a). The Bible is not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20, 21).

• b). The Word is its own interpreter:

  • Deuteronomy 29:29
  • Isaiah 28:9, 10
  • 1 Corinthians 2:13, 14

• c). God's plans are NOT based on man's thinking (Isaiah 55:8, 9).


• d). The prophets searched to understand God's interpretation (1 Peter 1:9-12).
• e). Theologians and scholars err by NOT holding to Scripture (Mark 12:13, 24).

Private interpretation brings confusion and destruction.

• -- Deuteronomy 4:2
• -- Proverbs 30:6
• -- Revelation 22:18, 19

One may wonder, where am I going with this? I am headed to the place where correct biblical understanding is birthed, Hermeneutics. It's the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. You read out of the text, not into it. Exegete the passage.

Exegesis, though often used in conjunction with textual analysis of scripture, refers to the interpretation and analysis of any text. ... the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

So choose ye this day, whom you will follow, the Bible or Plymouth Brethren Movement via, John Nelson Darby/C. I. Scofield Dispensationalism? This is not a personal attack, it's the Scriptural Truth, we want to get back. CM

SOURCE:

-- C. I. Scofield. The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford Univer­sity Press, 1967)