Jump to content
Dr James Ach

Dorightchristians - The Anon Church And Back Row Baptist

Recommended Posts

from: Online Baptist Rules

8) Be nice to the Moderators
c) We have the right to delete any post or ban any member who we feel is inappropriate for these boards without notice.
d) The mods have the right to lock any topic that they feel is not appropriate for this board.

So be nice now means people can't question any decision? ... to be honest that sounds like the way the supreme court has been interpreting the constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just common sense, really, and netiquette 101. This a private site and the owner appoints the mods he wants to run it. If one finds themselves vociferously protesting every decision the mods take, then they are basically saying they don't have any respect for the forum or its owner, which ought to make them ask themselves why they are still on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So be nice now means people can't question any decision? ... to be honest that sounds like the way the supreme court has been interpreting the constitution

 

It's just common sense, really, and netiquette 101. This a private site and the owner appoints the mods he wants to run it. If one finds themselves vociferously protesting every decision the mods take, then they are basically saying they don't have any respect for the forum or its owner, which ought to make them ask themselves why they are still on here.

Like pulling a rabbit out of a hat we somehow get from ANY to EVERY. Good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geneva -- down, back, chill, you're pushing. And don't feel a need to come back nor defend yourself.Remembering that you are on an IFB site with primarily KJVO, pre-mil, non-Calv, members and staff should cause you to think twice about your posts -- especially since you've been skating on thin ice this week.

 

 

"... refrain from questioning mod decisions... " Is that site policy?

 

 

So be nice now means people can't question any decision? ... to be honest that sounds like the way the supreme court has been interpreting the constitution

2 Tim -- if your question was in reference to my post to GB:

 

There was not "action" taken, I didn't give points, etc. It was a reminder to someone who already had 2 points and was (by his own later admission) letting his emotions run his mouth.

 

As to my comment about not needing to reply -- it is the natural tendency to instantly mouth off, OBject, justify and explain why we kept mouthing, OBjecting and explaining. I try to avoid doing that BUT it takes effort and sometimes it is only an attempt (as opposed to an accomplishment).

 

He handled it well, everything is water under the bridge -- I wasn't even going to type this explanation except the mis-perception seemed to grow amongst people other than GB.

 

Question action of a mod? I frequently (when locking thread and other actions) say you have an open door to appeal to Bro Matt if you think it's unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, #2 would apply to the topic at hand. It was already discussed when the ban took place. But #2 answers it very well. Whether or not some folks agree with the decision. ;-)

You don't think the rules ought to say what you mean then? Whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the decision are we saying people don't have a right to ask if the decision was a right decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think the rules ought to say what you mean then? Whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the decision are we saying people don't have a right to ask if the decision was a right decision?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. People can ask. But the point is that we aren't gonna poll people for their opinions if a ban is thought necessary. Heh. If we did that, there'd be next to nOBody left on here. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OLD fashioned preacher I noticed Salyan had said "... refrain from questioning mod decisions... " So I asked "Is that site policy?" hence, nothing to do with you. Salyan did not specify that it wasn't site policy but responded that it fell under "8) Be nice to the Moderators"  since being nice and respectful is NOT explicit in that statement and I would be a little surprised if this site had a NO QUESTIONS/SILENT OBEDIENCE policy then it seemed to me to be a misrepresentation to not be up front and let the members know about that (if it is the case). I apologize OLD fashioned preacher if I was not clear. On the other hand if Salyan thougt I was talking about something specific ...  it seems when I said "Is that site policy?" it should have been clear I was asking a general question. However, I apologize if i wasn't clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Tim -- if your question was in reference to my post to GB:

 

There was not "action" taken, I didn't give points, etc. It was a reminder to someone who already had 2 points and was (by his own later admission) letting his emotions run his mouth.

 

As to my comment about not needing to reply -- it is the natural tendency to instantly mouth off, OBject, justify and explain why we kept mouthing, OBjecting and explaining. I try to avoid doing that BUT it takes effort and sometimes it is only an attempt (as opposed to an accomplishment).

 

He handled it well, everything is water under the bridge -- I wasn't even going to type this explanation except the mis-perception seemed to grow amongst people other than GB.

 

Question action of a mod? I frequently (when locking thread and other actions) say you have an open door to appeal to Bro Matt if you think it's unjustified.

 

I am fine with the Brother here 2T3:16.

Thank you for re-explaining it to 2T though OFP.

 

:godisgood: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OLD fashioned preacher I noticed Salyan had said "... refrain from questioning mod decisions... " So I asked "Is that site policy?" hence, nothing to do with you. Salyan did not specify that it wasn't site policy but responded that it fell under "8) Be nice to the Moderators"  since being nice and respectful is NOT explicit in that statement and I would be a little surprised if this site had a NO QUESTIONS/SILENT OBEDIENCE policy then it seemed to me to be a misrepresentation to not be up front and let the members know about that (if it is the case). I apologize OLD fashioned preacher if I was not clear. On the other hand if Salyan thougt I was talking about something specific ...  it seems when I said "Is that site policy?" it should have been clear I was asking a general question. However, I apologize if i wasn't clear enough.

No prOBlem, I just noticed your first question was directly below my post and by the time you asked the second time wasn't sure what prompted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like pulling a rabbit out of a hat we somehow get from ANY to EVERY. Good one.

 

Ok, well I didn't mean literally every decision and I didn't think you were really asking whether we couldn't ever, ever, ever question a single decision, ever, so apologies for misunderstanding. The point I was trying to make is that it's both common sense (maybe common courtesy would be better) and netiquette 101 not to do it a lot. And Saylan's original comment and your question about it comes at a time when folk are doing it a lot. I've certainly publically questioned mod and webmaster decisions before--in fact I think I've questioned why someone's been banned before--and I've seen others do it too, and the mods have generally been fine about it.

I say netiquette 101 because pretty much every forum I've ever been on has had some kind of rule to the effect that the mods ought to be allowed to do their jOBs and piecemeal heckling of them is out of order. I say common sense, or common courtesy, because it seems OBvious to me that, say, someone in your church was volunteering to do the cleaning and you thought they weren't doing a great jOB, you'd have a discreet word with the person wouldn't you? Or you'd take your concerns to those in charge of them.You wouldn't stand in the middle of the space while the person was doing it, following them with your finger and continuously crying out 'you've missed a bit', 'you've missed a bit', 'why did you do it like that', 'you're not doing it right', 'don't use that product on that' etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make of it what you will...

_________________________________________________________

 

Examining an Ancient Pre-Trib Rapture Statement

by Thomas Ice

 

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins. -Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

 

Critics of pretribulationism sometimes state that belief in the rapture is a doctrinal development of recent origin. They argue that the doctrine of the rapture or any semblance of it was completely unknown before the early 1800s and the writings of John Nelson Darby. One of the most vocal and sensational critics of the rapture is Dave MacPherson, who argues that, "during the first 18 centuries of the Christian era, believers were never 'Rapture separaters' [sic]; they never separated the minor Rapture aspect of the Second Coming of Christ from the Second Coming itself."1

 

A second critic, John Bray, also vehemently opposes a pretribulational rapture, writing, "this teaching is not a RECOVERY of truth once taught and then neglected. No, it never was taught-for 1800 years nearly no one knew anything about such a scheme."2 More recently, pre-trib opponent ROBert Van Kampen proclaimed, "The pretribulational rapture position with its dual parousias was unheard of in church history prior to 1830."3 In our previous issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives, I noted that pre-wrath advocate Marvin Rosenthal has also joined the chorus.4

 

Christian reconstructionists have also consistently and almost universally condemned premillennialism and pretribulationism, favoring instead, postmillen-nialism. One sample of their prolific and often vitri-olic opposition can be seen in Gary North's derisive description of the rapture as "the Church's hoped-for Escape Hatch on the world's sinking ship," which he, like MacPherson, believes was invented in 1830.5

 

How to Find the Rapture in History

 

Is pretribulationism as theologically bankrupt as its critics profess, or are there answers to these charges? If there are reasonable answers, then the burden of proof and historical argumentation shifts back to the critics. Rapture critics must acknowledge and interact with the historical and theological evidence.

 

Rapture critic William Bell has formulated three criteria for establishing the validity of a historical citation regarding the rapture. If any of his three criteria are met, then he acknowledges it is "of crucial importance, if found, whether by direct statement or clear inference." As will be seen, the Pseudo-Ephraem sermon meets not one, but two of his canons, namely, "Any mention that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years," and "any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period."6

 

Pseudo-Ephraem's Rapture Statement

 

I vividly remember the phone call at my office late one afternoon from Canadian prophecy teacher and writer Grant Jeffrey.7 He told me that he had found an ancient pre-trib rapture statement. I said, "Let's hear it." He read the following to me over the phone:

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.

 

I said that it sure sounds like a pre-trib statement and began to fire at him all the questions I have since received many times when telling others about the statement from Pseudo-Ephraem's sermon On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.8 Grant's phone call started me on journey through many of the substantial libraries throughout the Washington, D.C. area in an effort to learn all I could about this historically significant statement. The more information I acquired led me to conclude that Grant is right to conclude that this is a pre-trib rapture statement of antiquity.

 

Who is Pseudo-Ephraem?

 

The word "Pseudo" (Greek for false) is a prefix attached by scholars to the name of a famous historical person or book of the Bible when one writes using that name. Pseudo-Ephraem claims that his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306-73), considered to be the greatest figure in the history of the Syrian church. He was well-known for his poetics, rejection of rationalism, and confrontations with the heresies of Marcion, Mani, and the Arians. As a poet, exegete, and theologian, his style was similar to that of the Jewish midrashic and targumic traditions and he favored a contemplative approach to spirituality. So popular were his works that in the fifth and sixth centuries he was adopted by several Christian communities as a spiritual father and role model. His many works, some of doubtful authenticity, were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, Armenian, and Latin.

 

It is not at all unreasonable to expect that a prolific and prominent figure such as Ephraem would have writings ascribed to him. While there is little support for Ephraem as the author of the Sermon on the End of the World, Caspari and Alexander have demonstrated that Pseudo-Ephraem was "heavily influenced by the genuine works of Ephraem."9 What is more difficult, though secondary to the main purpose of this article, is determining the exact date, purpose, location of, and extent of subsequent editorial changes to the sermon.10

Suggestions on the date of the writing of the original sermon range from as early as Wilhelm Bousset's 373 date,11 to Caspari's estimation of sometime between 565 and 627.12 Paul Alexander, after reviewing all the argumentation, favors a date for the final form similar to that suggested by Caspari,13 but Alexander also states simply, "It will indeed not be easy to decide on the matter."14 All are clear that it had to have been written before the advent of Islam.

 

Pseudo-Ephraem's Sermon

 

The sermon consists of just under 1500 words, divided into ten sections and has been preserved in four Latin manuscripts. Three of these date from the eighth century and ascribe the sermon to Ephraem. A fourth manuscript from the ninth century, claims not Ephraem, but Isidore of Seville (d. 636) as author.15 Additionally, there are subsequent Greek and Syriac versions of the sermon which have raised questions regarding the language of the original manuscript. On the basis of lexical analysis and study of the biblical citations within the sermon with Latin, Greek, and Syriac versions of the Bible, Alexander believed it most prOBable that the homily was composed in Syriac, translated first into Greek, and then into Latin from the Greek.16 Regardless of the original language, the vocabulary and style of the extant copies are consistent with the writings of Ephraem and his era. It appears likely that the sermon was written near the time of Ephraem and underwent slight change during subsequent coping.

 

What is most significant for present-day readers is the fact that the sermon was popular enough to be translated into several languages fairly soon after its composition. The significance of the sermon for us today is that it represents a prophetic view of a pre-trib rapture within the orthodox circles of its day.

 

The sermon is built around the three themes of the title On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World and proceeds chronologically. The fact that the pre-trib statement occurs in section 2, while the antichrist and tribulation are developed throughout the middle sections, followed by Christ's second coming to the earth in the final section supports a pre-trib sequence. This characteristic of the sermon fits the first criteria outlined by William Bell, namely "that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years." Thus, phase one is the rapture statement from section 2; the interval of 3 1/2 years, 42 months, and 1,260 days, said to be the tribulation in sections 7 and 8; the second phase of Christ's return is noted in section 10 and said to take place "when the three and a half years have been completed."17

 

Why Pseudo-Ephraem's Statement is Pretribulational

 

After learning of Pseudo-Ephraem's rapture statement, I shared it with a number of colleagues. My favorite approach was to simply read the statement, free of any introductory remarks, and ask what they thought. Every person, whether pre-trib or not, concluded that it was some kind of pre-trib statement. A few thought it was a statement from such pre-trib proponents like John Walvoord orCharles Ryrie. Most noted the clear statement concerning the removal of believers before thetribulation as a reason for thinking the statement pre-trib. This is Bell's second criteria for identifying a pre-trib statement from the past, namely, "any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period." Note the following reasons why this should be taken as a pre-trib statement:

 

1) Section 2 of the sermon begins with a statement about imminency: "We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent [Latin "immineat"] or overhanging."18 This is similar to the modern pre-trib view of imminency and considering the subsequent rapture statements supports a pre-trib scenario.

 

2) As I break down the rapture statement, notice the following OBservations: "All the saints and elect of God are gathered . . ." Gathered where? A later clause says they "are taken to the Lord." Where is the Lord? Earlier in the paragraph the sermon speaks of "the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion. . ." Thus the movement is from the earth toward the Lord who is apparently in heaven. Once again, in conformity to a translation scenario found in the pre-trib teaching.

 

The next phrase says that the gathering takes place "prior to the tribulation that is to come. . ." so we see that the event is pretribulational and the tribulation is future to the time in which Pseudo-Ephraem wrote.

 

The purpose for the gathering was so that they would not "see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of their sins." Here we have the purpose of the tribulation judgments stated and that was to be a time of judgment upon the world because of their sin, thus, the church was to be taken out.

 

3) Finally, the Byzantine scholar Paul Alexander clearly believed that Pseudo-Ephraem was teaching what we call today a pre-trib rapture. According to Alexander, most Byzantine apocalypses were concerned with how Christians would survive the time of severe persecution by Antichrist. The normal approach given by other apocalyptic texts was a shortening of the time to three and a half years, enabling the survival of some Christians.19 Unlike those texts, this sermon has Christians being removed from the time of tribulation.

 

Alexander OBserved:

 

It is prOBably no accident that Pseudo-Ephraem does not mention the shortening of the time intervals for the Antichrist's persecution, for if prior to it the Elect are 'taken to the Lord,' i.e., participate at least in some measure in beatitude, there is no need for further mitigating action on their behalf. The Gathering of the Elect according to Pseudo-Ephraem is an alternative to the shortening of the time intervals.20

 

Conclusion

 

Regardless of what else the writer of this sermon believed, he did believe that all believers would be removed before the tribulation-a pre-trib rapture view. Thus, we have seen that those who have said that there was no one before 1830 who taught the pre-trib rapture position will have to revise their statements by well over 1,000 years. This statement does not prove the pre-trib position, only the Bible can do that, but it should change many people's historical views on the matter.

 

ENDNOTES

1 Dave MacPherson, The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, NC: New Puritan Library, 1983), 15. For a refutation of MacPherson's charges see Thomas D. Ice, "Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald," Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 155-68.

2 John L. Bray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, FL.: John L. Bray Ministry, 1982), 31-32.

3 ROBert Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 1992), 445.

4 Thomas Ice, "Is The Pre-Trib Rapture A Satanic Deception?" Pre-Trib Perspectives (II:1; March 1995):1-3.

5 Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (Tyler, TX.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), 105.

6 William E. Bell, "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1967), 26-27.

7 For more information on the Pseudo-Ephraem statement see Grant R. Jeffrey, Final Warning (Toronto: Frontier Research Publications, 1995). Forthcoming, Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice, "The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation" Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July 1995): 300-11. Grant R. Jeffrey, "A Pretribulational Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church" in Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, ed., When the Trumpet Sounds: Today's Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1995).

8 Grant Jeffrey found the statement in Paul J. Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, by (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 2.10. The late Alexander found the sermon in C. P. Caspari, ed. Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters, (Christiania, 1890), 208-20. This German work also contains Caspari's commentary on the sermon on pages 429-72.

9 Paul J. Alexander, "The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and the Beginnings of Joachimism," in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed. Ann Williams (Essex, U.K. : Longman, 1980), 59.

10 Paul J. Alexander, "Medieval Apocalypses as Historical Sources," American Historical Review 73 (1968): 1017. In this essay Alexander addresses in-depth the historical difficulties facing the interpreter of such texts. To these difficulties, issues of theological interpretation and concern must also be added.

11 W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend, trans. A. H. Keane (London: Hutchinson and Co., 1896), 33-41. An early date is also accepted by Andrew R. Anderson, Alexander's Gate: Gog and Magog and the Enclosed Nations. Monographs of the Mediaeval Academy of America, no. 5. (Cambridge, MA.: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1932):16-18.

12 Caspari, 437-42.

13 Alexander, Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, 147. This leaves the possibility that the work may have been altered or revised prior to the date of the extant manuscripts.

14 Ibid., 145. Earlier, he writes: "All that is certain, is as Caspari pointed out, that it must have been written prior to Heraclius' victories over Sassanid Persia, for the author talks repeatedly of wars between Rome and Persia and such discussions do not make sense after Heraclius' victories and the beginning of the Arab invasions" (144).

15 Ibid., 136-37. The only critical edition is Caspari's which suffers a lack of OBjectivity in that he relied upon only two of the four extant manuscripts.

16 Ibid., 140-44.

17 Caspari, 219. English citations are taken from a translation of the sermon provided by Cameron

Rhoades, instructor of Latin at Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, TX.

18 Ibid., 210.

19 Alexander, 209.

20 Ibid., 210-11.

 

Yes I remember that post.  One almost anonymous person.  Not a lot to build a whole doctrine on.

 

Goes even fatther back than Irving. The Apostle Paul taught it in the first century.

 

 

That is the great prOBlem.  Paul didn't teach it.  It is what is read into his teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I remember that post.  One almost anonymous person.  Not a lot to build a whole doctrine on.

 

I understand, but my reason for posting it was just to show an example that the pre-trib rapture view was held long before this Darby character may have popularized it. I'm personally unfamiliar with Darby, though I have heard the name a lot.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Pseudo-Ephraem quote specific Scriptures on which he bases his doctrine? And was he basically sound in his teaching? By the time of his writing, theologians were all over the place in doctrine.

 

Can we read the sermon on line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Pseudo-Ephraem quote specific Scriptures on which he bases his doctrine? And was he basically sound in his teaching? By the time of his writing, theologians were all over the place in doctrine.

 

Can we read the sermon on line?

 

No, there are no specific Scripture references...only references to Scripture (if that makes sense).  :nuts:

 

You can read it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Pseudo-Ephraem

 

I would suggest scrolling down to the "Rhoades Translation"...it's easier to read.

Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I found this analysis:

 

DECEIVED, AND BEING DECEIVED by Dave MacPherson

 

 

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!" (Like Morgan Edwards and Manuel Lacunza, Pseudo-Ephraem has the nasty, non-pretrib habit of blending the rapture with the final advent!)

 

I have found the translated text of two versions here:

 

From Section II

Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord.

.......

Section X

And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever.

Clearly P-E teaches that the "tribulation that is to come" is Hell-fire of the final judgement. Which agrees with Paul's teaching in 2 Thes. 1.

seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

 

I don't accuse anyone on IFB, but it seems to me that there is a serious element of dishonesty in those who promote Pseudo-Ephraem as a teacher of PTR. It is now easy to check on available sources.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have not read any of the P-E stuff.  All I know is that the pre-trib rapture can be seen by rightly dividing the word of truth.  It is in there, and it is what the Apostle Paul taught.  The Tribulation is the time of JACOB's Trouble - and the Church is not JacOB

 

Enough said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I found this analysis:

 

DECEIVED, AND BEING DECEIVED by Dave MacPherson

 

 

I have found the translated text of two versions here:

 

Clearly P-E teaches that the "tribulation that is to come" is Hell-fire of the final judgement. Which agrees with Paul's teaching in 2 Thes. 1.

seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

 

I don't accuse anyone on IFB, but it seems to me that there is a serious element of dishonesty in those who promote Pseudo-Ephraem as a teacher of PTR. It is now easy to check on available sources.

 

Well, I would disagree with you, and as much as I do disagree with parts of the "sermon"...it seems rather OBvious when reading the whole of the "sermon" that he relates a Pre-Trib doctrine...

 

I'm not defending Pseudo Ephraem by the way...I know nothing about him other than this "sermon", and I've personally never met him.  :coffee2:

 

That's why I said in the original post when I referenced him..."make of it what you will".

 

In my view, he's espousing Pre-Trib, and even the article from WICKEDpedia admits that it is an ancient work from "at least" the 8th century...and that's a long time before this Darby character came on the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ot: 

As for the female Mods lets says they wasn't mods, Dr. Ach should never use a coarse phrase the way he did in front of women. There was a time when men controlled how they spoke in front of women whether a man was saved or lost. I like reading Dr. Ach's articles. I joined wordpress so I could thank him for writing them. But he should never say "shove it" as a christian. He's human and made a mistake. We have all been there. 

 

Bro Matt set up a world style system of government for this site. The Biblical system being all male. Yes, that's a mistake. BUT that's his right as owner so while you are kicking him remember he doesn't have time to be on here because he is out preaching salvation to sinners and trying to warm back to life cold half dead christians. Are we out trying to win the lost or setting down complaining on a computer? 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

So a thread that's about wolves attacking us online, moved to "there is no rapture". Can anyone see the irony? This is proof of what James is saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have not read any of the P-E stuff.  All I know is that the pre-trib rapture can be seen by rightly dividing the word of truth.  It is in there, and it is what the Apostle Paul taught.  The Tribulation is the time of JACOB's Trouble - and the Church is not JacOB

 

Enough said...

If "we" are going to discuss pretrib vs <whatever else> then why not post some scripture or link an old discussion? Pseudo-Ephraim is interesting but I didn't see too much Bible. I was meaning to lurk and when I got to the end of the thread all I recalled was a brief 2 Thess 1 comment by Covenanter. Is this a continuation of a discussion on another thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry MountainChristian, but I do need to say one more thing, and then I'll drop it.

 

I don't know this Dave MacPherson character either, but I did notice (in that article Covenanter posted) that he spent an awful lot of time making personal attacks against people (whom I assume) teach a Pre-Trib rapture...making a lot of nasty accusations and dragging their names through the mud to make it even nastier...and using "I won't tell you about...", and then telling about it!

 

It always resorts to attacking the character. Everything he said might be true; I don't know. But what I do know is that he lost all respect and all credibility when he resorted to character assassination...at least, he did in my view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 37 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...