Revelation: A Cyclical View
- Thread starter Chaps
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I was being a bit sarcastic…but honestly, I am not really interested in responding to these kinds of comments. The moment someone says, “You‘re wrong, the Bible says so!”, the conversation is pretty much over. It’s not a conversation anymore, but an argument and I’m not interested in arguing. If people want to discuss their views and why they feel the Bible supports it more than another view, I will do that. I’m not going to engage in “im right, your wrong” banter. It’s not edifying for anyone and only serves to create division and hard feelings.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Per Scripture itself, the "IT" in your sentence (referencing that which will not over take believers "as a thief in the night"--1Th5's context) is not "the return of Christ" (as many suppose--or in any form one would prefer to surmise [as in your view--the 70ad events])...
... but rather, as the text itself speaks to, "the arrival of the day of the Lord" (which is an earthly-located TIME-PERIOD consisting, in part, of "judgments" unfolding upon the earth [including "the man of sin" and ALL he is slated to DO over the course of SOME TIME])...
... which time-period Paul also says in this context will arrive "exactly like [hosper]" the initial "birth pang [singular]" that comes upon a woman in labor--"suddenly" as the text also states (not after the "birth pangs [plural]" Jesus spoke of are COMPLETED--as others like to suggest, who say this ["the DOTL"] commences at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19).
Additionally, the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse have the 70ad events taking place "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs, just listed in vv.8-11 of Lk21--parallel Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8--'the beginning of birth pangs']";
whereas Matt24 STARTS OUT with those and then proceeds to unfold what follows on from those "BEGINNING of birth pangs" (i.e. further birth pangs that follow on from the "beginning" of them), which further events include the "AOD" in v.15 which Jesus had drawn from Daniel 12:11 ("AOD SET UP")...
... and which passage in Daniel has Daniel (after he will "rest" in death) being raised to "STAND IN THY LOT at the END of the DAYS" (the end of the "days" being referenced specifically in that chpt)--Daniel was not bodily resurrected at any time following the 70ad events, which is what one would have to believe (unless one completely brushes aside all timing clues in these various texts) in order to come to the conclusion that the 70ad events were what was being [solely] referred to (outside of 12 or so verses in Lk21--vv.12-24a,b--the only ones which do) in His Olivet Discourse.
I myself am not willing to disregard all of the timing indicators provided meticulously in His Word. I know many have no problem with doing so (for example, the "Amill-teachings" and the "Preterist-teachings" and the "Historicist-teachings" and others...); but disregarding these very important aspects of His word sets one off on the wrong track (note: I am NOT suggesting that one's salvation is in jeopardy if they don't grasp the timing clues provided in scripture... as some want to pin on pre-tribbers as believing
)
= )
Just my offering...
... but rather, as the text itself speaks to, "the arrival of the day of the Lord" (which is an earthly-located TIME-PERIOD consisting, in part, of "judgments" unfolding upon the earth [including "the man of sin" and ALL he is slated to DO over the course of SOME TIME])...
... which time-period Paul also says in this context will arrive "exactly like [hosper]" the initial "birth pang [singular]" that comes upon a woman in labor--"suddenly" as the text also states (not after the "birth pangs [plural]" Jesus spoke of are COMPLETED--as others like to suggest, who say this ["the DOTL"] commences at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19).
Additionally, the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse have the 70ad events taking place "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs, just listed in vv.8-11 of Lk21--parallel Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8--'the beginning of birth pangs']";
whereas Matt24 STARTS OUT with those and then proceeds to unfold what follows on from those "BEGINNING of birth pangs" (i.e. further birth pangs that follow on from the "beginning" of them), which further events include the "AOD" in v.15 which Jesus had drawn from Daniel 12:11 ("AOD SET UP")...
... and which passage in Daniel has Daniel (after he will "rest" in death) being raised to "STAND IN THY LOT at the END of the DAYS" (the end of the "days" being referenced specifically in that chpt)--Daniel was not bodily resurrected at any time following the 70ad events, which is what one would have to believe (unless one completely brushes aside all timing clues in these various texts) in order to come to the conclusion that the 70ad events were what was being [solely] referred to (outside of 12 or so verses in Lk21--vv.12-24a,b--the only ones which do) in His Olivet Discourse.
I myself am not willing to disregard all of the timing indicators provided meticulously in His Word. I know many have no problem with doing so (for example, the "Amill-teachings" and the "Preterist-teachings" and the "Historicist-teachings" and others...); but disregarding these very important aspects of His word sets one off on the wrong track (note: I am NOT suggesting that one's salvation is in jeopardy if they don't grasp the timing clues provided in scripture... as some want to pin on pre-tribbers as believing
)= )
Just my offering...
-
1
- Show all
[for now, as I'm short on time...] As to the second part (the part I bolded in your post above), here's what I have as to quotes:
D. MacPherson [himself] writes:
"In 1880 William Reid, in his book on Brethrenism, stated that 'Edward Irving contributed the notion of . . . the secret rapture of the saints.'"
[underline mine]
[but note T. Ice says of that...] "but he [MacPherson] doesn't actually reference any pre-tribbers when he makes these statements."
(note: I'm not sure of the exact quote by Ice as to whether he used the actual term "pre-tribbers" or pretribulation adherents or something similar)
R. A. Huebner, in his PreTribulation Rapture Recovered, writes:
"... erroneous notions are the result of the myth that the Irvingites held a pretribulation rapture and also results from trying to link J. N. D. with this falsified Irvingism."
[and]
"... the Secret Rapture as used at that point in time [early 1800's] did not refer to the pretribulation rapture."
[underline mine]
[end quoting]
____________
Again, E Irving was an Historicist... not a pre-trib-rapture adherent. He believed the rapture occurs at Christ's Second Coming (not at a distinct time-slot, as "pre-tribbers" do)
D. MacPherson [himself] writes:
"In 1880 William Reid, in his book on Brethrenism, stated that 'Edward Irving contributed the notion of . . . the secret rapture of the saints.'"
[underline mine]
[but note T. Ice says of that...] "but he [MacPherson] doesn't actually reference any pre-tribbers when he makes these statements."
(note: I'm not sure of the exact quote by Ice as to whether he used the actual term "pre-tribbers" or pretribulation adherents or something similar)
R. A. Huebner, in his PreTribulation Rapture Recovered, writes:
"... erroneous notions are the result of the myth that the Irvingites held a pretribulation rapture and also results from trying to link J. N. D. with this falsified Irvingism."
[and]
"... the Secret Rapture as used at that point in time [early 1800's] did not refer to the pretribulation rapture."
[underline mine]
[end quoting]
____________
Again, E Irving was an Historicist... not a pre-trib-rapture adherent. He believed the rapture occurs at Christ's Second Coming (not at a distinct time-slot, as "pre-tribbers" do)
Per Scripture itself, the "IT" in your sentence (referencing that which will not over take believers "as a thief in the night"--1Th5's context) is not "the return of Christ" (as many suppose--or in any form one would prefer to surmise [as in your view--the 70ad events])...
... but rather, as the text itself speaks to, "the arrival of the day of the Lord" (which is an earthly-located TIME-PERIOD consisting, in part, of "judgments" unfolding upon the earth [including "the man of sin" and ALL he is slated to DO over the course of SOME TIME])...
... which time-period Paul also says in this context will arrive "exactly like [hosper]" the initial "birth pang [singular]" that comes upon a woman in labor--"suddenly" as the text also states (not after the "birth pangs [plural]" Jesus spoke of are COMPLETED--as others like to suggest, who say this ["the DOTL"] commences at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19).
Additionally, the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse have the 70ad events taking place "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs, just listed in vv.8-11 of Lk21--parallel Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8--'the beginning of birth pangs']";
whereas Matt24 STARTS OUT with those and then proceeds to unfold what follows on from those "BEGINNING of birth pangs" (i.e. further birth pangs that follow on from the "beginning" of them), which further events include the "AOD" in v.15 which Jesus had drawn from Daniel 12:11 ("AOD SET UP")...
... and which passage in Daniel has Daniel (after he will "rest" in death) being raised to "STAND IN THY LOT at the END of the DAYS" (the end of the "days" being referenced specifically in that chpt)--Daniel was not bodily resurrected at any time following the 70ad events, which is what one would have to believe (unless one completely brushes aside all timing clues in these various texts) in order to come to the conclusion that the 70ad events were what was being [solely] referred to (outside of 12 or so verses in Lk21--vv.12-24a,b--the only ones which do) in His Olivet Discourse.
I myself am not willing to disregard all of the timing indicators provided meticulously in His Word. I know many have no problem with doing so (for example, the "Amill-teachings" and the "Preterist-teachings" and the "Historicist-teachings" and others...); but disregarding these very important aspects of His word sets one off on the wrong track (note: I am NOT suggesting that one's salvation is in jeopardy if they don't grasp the timing clues provided in scripture... as some want to pin on pre-tribbers as believing )
= )
Just my offering...
... but rather, as the text itself speaks to, "the arrival of the day of the Lord" (which is an earthly-located TIME-PERIOD consisting, in part, of "judgments" unfolding upon the earth [including "the man of sin" and ALL he is slated to DO over the course of SOME TIME])...
... which time-period Paul also says in this context will arrive "exactly like [hosper]" the initial "birth pang [singular]" that comes upon a woman in labor--"suddenly" as the text also states (not after the "birth pangs [plural]" Jesus spoke of are COMPLETED--as others like to suggest, who say this ["the DOTL"] commences at Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19).
Additionally, the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse have the 70ad events taking place "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs, just listed in vv.8-11 of Lk21--parallel Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8--'the beginning of birth pangs']";
whereas Matt24 STARTS OUT with those and then proceeds to unfold what follows on from those "BEGINNING of birth pangs" (i.e. further birth pangs that follow on from the "beginning" of them), which further events include the "AOD" in v.15 which Jesus had drawn from Daniel 12:11 ("AOD SET UP")...
... and which passage in Daniel has Daniel (after he will "rest" in death) being raised to "STAND IN THY LOT at the END of the DAYS" (the end of the "days" being referenced specifically in that chpt)--Daniel was not bodily resurrected at any time following the 70ad events, which is what one would have to believe (unless one completely brushes aside all timing clues in these various texts) in order to come to the conclusion that the 70ad events were what was being [solely] referred to (outside of 12 or so verses in Lk21--vv.12-24a,b--the only ones which do) in His Olivet Discourse.
I myself am not willing to disregard all of the timing indicators provided meticulously in His Word. I know many have no problem with doing so (for example, the "Amill-teachings" and the "Preterist-teachings" and the "Historicist-teachings" and others...); but disregarding these very important aspects of His word sets one off on the wrong track (note: I am NOT suggesting that one's salvation is in jeopardy if they don't grasp the timing clues provided in scripture... as some want to pin on pre-tribbers as believing
)= )
Just my offering...
I appreciate that you have devoted a great deal of time to the subject, but if you missed what I just shared, you missed the purpose of the book.
Darby was probably THE LAST one to recognize the "secret Rapture" (if secret applies to non-disclosure to the unbelieving world). Christ was the FIRST ONE to present the doctrine of the Rapture in John 14:1-3. All the apostles and apostolic churches expected the Rapture in their time. Some of the Early Church Fathers also expected the same. Then a Jesuit priest -- of all people -- presented a detailed position on the imminent Rapture.
Darby simply recognized what the rest of Christendom was ignoring at that time. But Dispensationalism originated with him. However, the Bible already speaks of dispensations, so once again he simply recognized what other had ignored. Amillennialism was dominant at that time, so he did everyone a favor. There is indeed a literal Millennium.
Darby simply recognized what the rest of Christendom was ignoring at that time. But Dispensationalism originated with him. However, the Bible already speaks of dispensations, so once again he simply recognized what other had ignored. Amillennialism was dominant at that time, so he did everyone a favor. There is indeed a literal Millennium.
Because you don't understand why the book of Revelation was written. You and others have been taught that it is all about the future. When you search the scripture, somehow like the Pharisees you don't understand that they speak of Jesus.
All the promises of God are fulfilled in Him. He isn't showing John some unknown distant history. He is showing him things that are at hand, which will come to pass shortly, and will be viewed by those who pierced Him.
All the promises of God are fulfilled in Him. He isn't showing John some unknown distant history. He is showing him things that are at hand, which will come to pass shortly, and will be viewed by those who pierced Him.
First, I’d like to thank you for your thoughtful replies. It seems you are the only one who actually understands the questions I am asking and is willing to provide a meaningful response backed with some documentation. Interesting quote, but I’d like to see some of his actual writings on the topic to see if what he is describing is similar to the “secret rapture” notion that is popular in Dispensational theology today.
But again, I do think a lot of this discussion is losing sight of my original point. My original point was that these ideas that God needed to remove the Church to focus on national Israel or that the (first) Second Coming (parousia) of Jesus would be invisible event that was unseen by much of the world was entirely foreign to the Church and how scholars viewed revelation for well over a thousand years. I think a lot of these efforts to try to tie in some obscure quote or vague commentary that “might” make it sound like someone could have possibly thought something similar is usually more of an anachronistic rendering of their work.
So to be clear, I am not saying the secret rapture and Dispensational theology CAN‘T be true (although I have SERIOUS concerns about the theology behind it beyond the questionable interpretive methods) because it wasn’t even considered by Christian theologians until very recent history. However, I am saying that I find it shocking that so many on here have never really even considered another view or see any other view on the book as OBVIOUSLY wrong and even accuse people with other views of false teaching. It is just bewildering to me that people can so quickly dismiss any other view and even chastise other positions when no Christian thought as they did until about two seconds ago…lol
But again, I do think a lot of this discussion is losing sight of my original point. My original point was that these ideas that God needed to remove the Church to focus on national Israel or that the (first) Second Coming (parousia) of Jesus would be invisible event that was unseen by much of the world was entirely foreign to the Church and how scholars viewed revelation for well over a thousand years. I think a lot of these efforts to try to tie in some obscure quote or vague commentary that “might” make it sound like someone could have possibly thought something similar is usually more of an anachronistic rendering of their work.
So to be clear, I am not saying the secret rapture and Dispensational theology CAN‘T be true (although I have SERIOUS concerns about the theology behind it beyond the questionable interpretive methods) because it wasn’t even considered by Christian theologians until very recent history. However, I am saying that I find it shocking that so many on here have never really even considered another view or see any other view on the book as OBVIOUSLY wrong and even accuse people with other views of false teaching. It is just bewildering to me that people can so quickly dismiss any other view and even chastise other positions when no Christian thought as they did until about two seconds ago…lol
-
1
- Show all
Have you read church history? Cause I assure you I have read a LOT of the church fathers and early church writings about a host of topics…including Revelation and their views on the return of Christ, and NONE of them thought anything remotely close to what Darby taught. There’s a reason EVERY SCHOLAR who has written anything about prophetic interpretation distinguishes Dispensationalism from interpretive views that came before.
It seems clear to me that your primary issue is that you do not understand what other people are saying with the theological terms they are using. So you are conflating ideas because when scholars and theologians use a term like “dispensation” or “secret rapture” or so forth, they are referring to a very specific theological idea that fits in a theological framework. You can’t pull ideas about the “rapture” from 2nd century Historic Premillennialists and say that they were saying the same thing Darby said as it relates to their understanding of Revelation. Well, I mean, I guess you COULD…but it would only display that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
So let me just encourage you to take some time reading about Historic Premillenialism and the early Christians beliefs about the Second Coming and then read some literature about Dispensational Premillenialism and those beliefs about timelines and the rapture. I think you will see that while some of the same words are used….what is being described are TOTALLY different ideas about what is taking place.
It seems clear to me that your primary issue is that you do not understand what other people are saying with the theological terms they are using. So you are conflating ideas because when scholars and theologians use a term like “dispensation” or “secret rapture” or so forth, they are referring to a very specific theological idea that fits in a theological framework. You can’t pull ideas about the “rapture” from 2nd century Historic Premillennialists and say that they were saying the same thing Darby said as it relates to their understanding of Revelation. Well, I mean, I guess you COULD…but it would only display that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
So let me just encourage you to take some time reading about Historic Premillenialism and the early Christians beliefs about the Second Coming and then read some literature about Dispensational Premillenialism and those beliefs about timelines and the rapture. I think you will see that while some of the same words are used….what is being described are TOTALLY different ideas about what is taking place.
-
1
- Show all
Well, I can say this ... I DISAGREE with how Darby defines the Greek phrase "he apostasia" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3
(and likely a number of other of his notions too, lol).
But in whatever points I DO happen to agree with any writer / teacher / speaker / etc, I don't mind mentioning where I do.
I personally own somewhere around 6000-7000 books in my personal library (many of them on the subject of "eschatology" OF ALL STRIPES)--besides reading abundant online material--and I don't hesitate to express where I do or do not agree with whomever, on such subject, and why... always endeavoring to supply the biblical reasoning behind my viewpoint. = )
... I DISAGREE with how Darby defines the Greek phrase "he apostasia" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3(and likely a number of other of his notions too, lol).
But in whatever points I DO happen to agree with any writer / teacher / speaker / etc, I don't mind mentioning where I do.
I personally own somewhere around 6000-7000 books in my personal library (many of them on the subject of "eschatology" OF ALL STRIPES)--besides reading abundant online material--and I don't hesitate to express where I do or do not agree with whomever, on such subject, and why... always endeavoring to supply the biblical reasoning behind my viewpoint. = )
^ P.S. where that QUOTE (by whomever) said this:
... as a "pre-tribber, [pre-trib Rapture]" I completely DISAGREE that "the wedding FEAST / SUPPER" takes place UP THERE (upon "our Rapture"); but believe rather that it takes place ON THE EARTH, and IS "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" (at least its inauguration) commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19.
[Lk12:36-37,38,40-42 (and its parallel) - "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (i.e. as an ALREADY-WED "Bridegroom")... THEN "the meal [G347--see this word used also in Mt8:11 and its parallel--speaking of the MK age]"]
... as a "pre-tribber, [pre-trib Rapture]" I completely DISAGREE that "the wedding FEAST / SUPPER" takes place UP THERE (upon "our Rapture"); but believe rather that it takes place ON THE EARTH, and IS "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" (at least its inauguration) commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19.
[Lk12:36-37,38,40-42 (and its parallel) - "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" (i.e. as an ALREADY-WED "Bridegroom")... THEN "the meal [G347--see this word used also in Mt8:11 and its parallel--speaking of the MK age]"]