Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Amillennialism - the majority view in Christendom


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 hour ago, Invicta said:

I understand your position Alan but if you were to read any on the historic books I mention you will see that I am correct.  But you won't read them because you don't want to be proved wrong.

Okay, I couldn't help but add my 2 cents here.... WHY WHY WHY would any of us here want to read a book by someone else on THEIR (non-fundamental) supposed theory of where the pre-trib rapture came from when I can just read the BIBLE, the word of God??? Want to know what is entirely amazing about the pre-trib rapture? FUNDAMENTAL evangelical Christians (uh-hum... the Independent Fundamental Baptists) believe in it! What does the word fundamental mean??? basic, underlying, core, rudimentary, elemental, root.... does the definition not give a clue? Do all those words not prove the truth of the viewpoint? The first viewpoint? The scriptural viewpoint! Why do you think fundamental Baptists are called fundamental? Oh my... this is ridiculous... so again, WHY would a fundamentalist want to learn from a non-fundamentalist? Would the non-fundamentalist not have a "newer" idea?  Wouldn't the non-fundamentalist have ideas that were CONTRARY to or OPPOSITE of the basic, underlying, core, rudimentary, elemental, root understanding of the Bible? It seems self-explanatory to me... But I guess that's what's wrong with this upsidedown world. Good is spoken evil of and evil is instead promoted.  And doesn't that make the father of lies happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ronda, I see your point, and, as I have stated earlier, I do not think we should count these unscriptual writers as 'authorities,' nor should we contiually purchase their books. Usually one book is enough to know what, and why, a person believes a particular subect. Your two cents :twocents: are understandable. My response is not an effort to change your mind nor refute in any way or fashion your reasonings. In fact, I somewhat applaude and agree with them. If I was not a missionary I would not be read as many unsound books as I do.

We do need to obey the scriptual injunction, " Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." Proverbs 19:27 So, there are a lot of itmes we need to stop listening to, and reading, those in error. That point is sometimes not as black and gray as we like.

 I will give you three reasons why I read, on a limited basis, material I know I do not agree with. Please bear in mind, a lot of times there is a point I reach where I stop the reading and classify a book as just a reference book that will sit on the shelf until I need it or the time comes when I throw it away.

1. Many detractors of the correct scriptural doctrines claim that Fundamentalist are ignorant and just rely on our emotions. To disprove the claim that we are not ignorant, and are not just relying on our emotions, we need to be well read. 

2. One other reason is to learn the terminology used by the adversaries of the truth. As most missionaires learn, in a different culture this is important. If we do not know what the person is referring to than that person will not listen to us. The Chinese are well educated and they appreciate a missionary who takes out the time to learn their religious beliefs.

3. In order to be reasonable, we need to, up to a point, listen to those we do not agree with and hear him out.

Again, I do agree with you Ronda and understand your rational, Sherry and I consider you a friend of our family, and we do not want to belabor, or, argue the point.

Alan

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 1/19/2016 at 6:06 PM, Alan said:

Brethren,

The above information by Invicta is not true. The pre-tribulation coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is the truth. The other interpretations of the Book of Revelations (the 'Historical' allegorical, symbolic, A-millennial, and other interpretations), are in error.

A true Bible believer is a fudamentalist who believes in the pre-tribulational and the pre-millenial coming of the Lord Jesus. In the early days of the liberalism in the main-line denominations, men who believed in the fundamentals of the faith (which includes a pre-tribulation coming of Christ (the Rapture), left the mainline denominations and became fundamentalists.

According to the doctrinal beliefs of the early fundamentalists, those who do not believe in the pre-tribulation coming of the Lord Jesus for the church (commonly called the Rapture), is not a fundamentalist.

Alan

Where can this information be found?

While I know most early IFBs held to the pre-trib view, thus far I've not found such included in their list of fundamentals of the faith. I've actually found few records of this issue and those I have found didn't proclaim any end time view as being a fundamental of the faith and didn't exclude those who held to other views as being anything other than fellow believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I reaad the same Bible, and no one else seeking support, but I see no removal of the saints before the start of the tribulation, and no one yet has shown me. I have seen He IS coming to take us, (1Thes 4), I see We return with Jesus, (Rev 19), and I see Jesus in the clouds taking SOMEONE from the earth just before the wrath of God falls, (Rev 14), but to this point, I have yet to see any incident depicted in the Bible showing believers being removed just prior to the tribulation. Oh and I Am a Fundamentalist, by the way.

As for Amillennialism, its a bunch of hooey, having to take everything clearly spoken in MANY scriptures as nothing more than symbolism. I believe some of what we read in Revelation could well be symbolic, perhaps the difference between what John sees in the spirit, and what man sees in the flesh, but I would not try to say which was which. Until things happen, it will be as the Bible says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, John81 said:

Where can this information be found?

While I know most early IFBs held to the pre-trib view, thus far I've not found such included in their list of fundamentals of the faith. I've actually found few records of this issue and those I have found didn't proclaim any end time view as being a fundamental of the faith and didn't exclude those who held to other views as being anything other than fellow believers.

Most of the early fundamentalists did not use doctrinal Statement of Faiths that we find common in most churches today. The early fundamentalists included the belief of a pre-tribulation rapture in their sermons and writings. Furthermore, most of the early fundamentalists were preachers and not authors. As a starter I would suggest you read,  "A History of Fundamentalism in America," by George W. Dollar

We need to further add a bit of history. Of all the New Testament local churches that are known in the Bible, there are no, "Statement of Faith." The Bible is our sole authority. So whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture is included in a Statement of Faith does not make it any less a doctrine.

.

Edited by Alan
grammer and spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
26 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

I reaad the same Bible, and no one else seeking support, but I see no removal of the saints before the start of the tribulation, and no one yet has shown me. I have seen He IS coming to take us, (1Thes 4), I see We return with Jesus, (Rev 19), and I see Jesus in the clouds taking SOMEONE from the earth just before the wrath of God falls, (Rev 14), but to this point, I have yet to see any incident depicted in the Bible showing believers being removed just prior to the tribulation. Oh and I Am a Fundamentalist, by the way.

 

Interesting question. As this thread is on A-millennialism I do not think it is appropriate to answer this question at this time. But, maybe later on in a different thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Alan, Thank you! I appreciate all the kind words from both your wife and yourself!  I first wanted to thank you for the study on Revelation 19-22, it arrived in the mail today and I was very thankful and excited to receive it!  My son brings the mail in each day to me and he said... "Mom, you've got something from Taiwan...did you buy something from ebay?" lol  I knew what it was but he didn't, so I told him he might also be interested in what I got in the mail, but that it didn't come from ebay!!!   I showed him the book, and he perked up (well as much as any teen "perks", lol).  He is also showing interest in eschatology and so we discuss it from time to time. I told him that these chapters in Revelation contain some of my most favorite scripture because of the wonderful future promises we have to look forward to. So it was another occasion to talk about the Bible with him. We used to do Bible study together several times a week as he was growing up (never really getting into eschatology much other than the millennial dispensation as he was younger). However, since the Independent Christian school closed just prior to his 8th grade year ( he went from pre-school until the end of 7th grade), and I then sent him to public school since the high-school curriculum (the natural gas and oil field program) is what he was interested in.  With the high school curriculum (and my physical status) I didn't think home-schooling for high school would work out well.   I really regret that decision (to allow him to go to public school)... I wish I could have still been able to drive then I would have taken him to another Christian school about 45 minutes away.   But it wasn't in God's plans.  He still goes to church every Sunday and also to youth group, but since he's been in public school, AND become a teenager (he's a junior now), and since I've become more bedridden,  he doesn't like to "hang around" Mom too much anymore...  We do still participate in Bible study and fellowship together. Not just as much as I'd like. 

And I do understand why you would have the need to read such things. Especially given the culture where you are currently a missionary, it is important to know what they believed (if anything) prior to witnessing to them.  I know when I witness to someone from a catholic background, I do use a different approach than I would if I were witnessing to someone from a secular/worldly background.  And I wasn't actually ranting about the books you read in particular (although I WAS ranting, lol) It was more about the suggestion someone made to another person (presumably not a pastor as you are) and was wondering why that person would suggest reading such books with an allegorical interpretation like that to other fundamental Baptist Christians... sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention,and it wasn't really directed at you!  I think history shows that hermeneutics almost always defines ones eschatological position. Most "literal" in hermeneutics believe in dispensationism (in varying degrees of course) as well as a pre-trib rapture.  But those who are "allegorical" in hermaneutics generally believe in a covenant position (replacement theology) to varying degrees, and in a post-trib or no-trib rapture. I'm sure there are cases where this isn't always the case... as some seem to mix and match hermeneutics also (one may claim to use "literal" interpretation, yet allegorize certain parts, to fit a theory perhaps? I call that mix-n-match hermeneutics, lol)... but again "literal" hermeneutics generally means a belief in the pre-trib rapture goes along with it, as well as a belief in dispensations (to varying degrees). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
50 minutes ago, Alan said:

Most of the early fundamentalists did not use doctrinal Statement of Faiths that we find common in most churches today. The early fundamentalists included the belief of a pre-tribulation rapture in their sermons and writings. Furthermore, most of the early fundamentalists were preachers and not authors. As a starter I would suggest you read,  "A History of Fundamentalism in America," by George W. Dollar

We need to further add a bit of history. Of all the New Testament local churches that are known in the Bible, there are no, "Statement of Faith." The Bible is our sole authority. So whether or not the pre-tribulation rapture is included in a Statement of Faith does not make it any less a doctrine.

.

As I said, I know most early fundamentalists were pre-trib but when they put down what they considered fundamentals of the faith (not church statements of faith) they didn't include pre-trib rapture as a fundamental of the faith. Until much later most fundamentalists held to the basic five fundamentals of the faith, which have been posted on several threads on OB. While each fundamentalist church held to many more doctrinal positions, only those five were considered the fundamentals. It's been mostly in our lifetimes that other things were added to the list of "fundamentals". Today, some churches have a very long list of what they call fundamentals, of which it's hard to even grasp why they would have some of those things on the list.

In any event, I'm not arguing anything here, I just thought perhaps you had come across something I had not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brethren,

In an earlier post in my Larkin study I briefly touch on the issue of a pre-tribulation catching up of the saints to heaven (i.e., commonly called the Rapture), typlified by the catching up of the apostle John as recorded in Revelation 4:1

Here is that reference to the Larkin comments:

Rapture of the Church

Larkin goes in great detail in interpreting that the coming of the Lord Jesus, as recorded in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, hereafter called, ‘the rapture,’ in the clouds, and not to the earth, for the church-age saints in a clear, understandable manner. Larkin brings out interesting details concerning His coming as depicted in Matthew 17:1-9[2] and other verses. Larkin brings out conclusive scriptural proof that the coming of the Lord Jesus, the rapture, occurs before the start of the time of ‘Jacob’s Trouble, Revelation 6:1

Therefore, because the rapture occurs in type with  John being caught up in the Spirit in Revelation 4:1 and 2, the word, ‘pre,’ meaning ‘before,’ has been included in non-biblical terminology. The meaning is a ‘pre-tribulation coming (rapture) of the Lord Jesus for the church. Much ado has been made of scoffers who say, “The word pre is not in the bible.” the word ‘pre’ just simply means before. The rapture occurs symbolically in Revelation 4: 1 & 2 and occurs before Revelation 6.

 

Since the issue of when the Rapture occurs has come up once in this thread, and in the discussion concerning the word, 'signify' as used in in Revelation 1:1, in another thread, during the same day. I have decided to combine these two issues and expound on them,  if time is available, in a couple of weeks. We will study the full meaning of  the word 'signify' and its relationship with the events in the book of Revelation; specifically why the rapture of the church occurs in Revelation 4:1.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2016‎年‎1‎月‎20‎日 at 11:43 AM, Ronda said:

Brother Alan, Thank you! I appreciate all the kind words from both your wife and yourself!  I first wanted to thank you for the study on Revelation 19-22, it arrived in the mail today and I was very thankful and excited to receive it!  My son brings the mail in each day to me and he said... "Mom, you've got something from Taiwan...did you buy something from ebay?" lol  I knew what it was but he didn't, so I told him he might also be interested in what I got in the mail, but that it didn't come from ebay!!!   I showed him the book, and he perked up (well as much as any teen "perks", lol).  He is also showing interest in eschatology and so we discuss it from time to time. I told him that these chapters in Revelation contain some of my most favorite scripture because of the wonderful future promises we have to look forward to. So it was another occasion to talk about the Bible with him.

Ronda,

Very happy to hear that you received the Revelation Study and that it helped with the relationship between you and your son. If your son has any special questions concerning eschatology, whether in the book of Revelation or not, please let him know that he, or you, can either ask me in a thread, the personal messenger here on OnLine Baptist, or my e-mail address. Also, for you, and your sons information, I am finishing Revelation chapter 7 next week at church. Eventully we hope to have a commentary on all of the book of Revelation. Please let your son know that I am personally glad the study is a blessing to him.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 11:50 AM, Invicta said:

I don't think there are any a-mils on the forum now.

As to whether the RCC believe a-mil teaching I don't know.  But I do know they invented the pre trib rapture and you can read some of their books on Google Books. Search for Cardinal Robert Belarmine and  Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, for instance.  To hide the fact that he was a Jesuit, Manuel Lacuza wrote under the false name of Ben Ezra, a converted Jew, but if you read the book you will see that he claims to be converted to the "one true faith," the RCC.  It is that falsehood that your teaching is based on.  Read it and see. 

That is irrelevant for a number of reasons:

1.) It's a genetic fallacy to begin with and therefore proves nothing.  The supposed origin of either:

     a.) An argument itself

Bill Clinton is a known liar and Philanderer

Bill Clinton has argued that lowering taxes on Businesses will stimulate economic growth and increase jobs

Therefore it must be false.

 

or

 

      b.) HOW one comes to believe it:

You only believe the Bible because your parents and your pastors taught you it was true

Therefore the Bible is not likely to be true

Is irrelevant to the truth of the argument itself.

 

2.) Assuming (for the sake of argument) that your history of this teaching reflects reality what it shows is that AS FAR AS WE KNOW  those are the origins of the teaching of the Pre-trib Rapture.  It's entirely possible that it was commonly held to and believed by numerous Christians over the centuries but this is the earliest examples of that teaching we NOW have access to.  Here's what history also tells us:

Bible-believing Christians have been persecuted throughout the centuries by Jews, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants leaving them little opportunity to write and archive their Theology.

Libraries, monasteries and countless centers of knowledge and literature have been burned and destroyed over the centuries, causing countless losses.

Everything from the Nordic conquest 800-1200 A.D.  to the sack of Rome 5th Century A.D. to the destruction of the Great library of Alexandria 7th Century A.D. have taken their toll on our access to ancient literature.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/burning-library-alexandria

That library contained Hundreds of Thousands of volumes and scrolls throughout the ancient world archived over the course of over 900 years.

Again:....hundreds of thousands of volumes.......900 years worth of literature.  Including countless Christian texts, commentaries and writings.

We have no idea what may have been contained in those volumes, but we also know that Rapture ideology (or something quite similar) is at least alluded to (if not clearly defined or elucidated) in many ancient writers.

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/a-history-of-pre-darby-rapture-advocates

Is it possible that many Christians elucidated such a teaching?  It's quite plausible.  We knew absolutely nothing about the Assyrian king Sargon II until 1842-and not much until 1928.

Atheists and those who denounced the Scriptures continuously railed that the Old Testament  was wrong about a non-existent Assyrian ruler (Sargon II) and was therefore historically unreliable.  Since there was no historical record of any such person other than the Old Testament. 

His palace was unearthed in Khorsabad in 1928 and it contained one of  the largest collections of clay tablets ever found (over 100,000 volumes) thus proving that not only was the Bible correct, but that:

First, we have little preserved of ancient writings

and second, that there is likely much more that remains yet undiscovered. 

We now have more secular historical information about Sargon II than any other ancient Assyrian king; someone secular history knew nothing about, and was denied to exist until 150 years ago.

 

3.) Despite the RCC's many heresies, they aren't wrong about EVERYTHING.

The RCC affirms that there is one God in three persons-------So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the Deity of Jesus Christ----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ died on the cross to save mankind from sin----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ rose bodily from the grave-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the bodily resurrection of mankind-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ was born of a virgin-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the coming judgement of the quick and the dead-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that there is only one God, and that he is the creator and sustainer of the Universe-----So do Baptists

 

If....it is demonstrable that this teaching was first elucidated by an RCC heretic (and that's hardly provable) it is irrelevant.

They are wrong on many counts.......they are not wrong on all of them. 

Ultimately, the only argument which matters is whether the Scriptures teach a Pre-Tribulational Rapture.....that's the only thing that counts.

 

Edited by Heir of Salvation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 1/24/2016 at 2:14 AM, Heir of Salvation said:

Despite the RCC's many heresies, they aren't wrong about EVERYTHING.

The RCC affirms that there is one God in three persons-------So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the Deity of Jesus Christ----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ died on the cross to save mankind from sin----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ rose bodily from the grave-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the bodily resurrection of mankind-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that Christ was born of a virgin-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms the coming judgement of the quick and the dead-----So do Baptists

The RCC affirms that there is only one God, and that he is the creator and sustainer of the Universe-----So do Baptists

FALSE!!!  This is a different God and a different Jesus Christ.  Their Jesus' sacrifice was not good enough to save them, they must DO to get into heaven.  Their God lied in the bible so the RCC created priests to absolve man of his sins for Christ is not good enough.  There God and Jesus and Gospel is accursed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2016‎年‎1‎月‎24‎日 at 3:14 PM, Heir of Salvation said:

We have no idea what may have been contained in those volumes, but we also know that Rapture ideology (or something quite similar) is at least alluded to (if not clearly defined or elucidated) in many ancient writers.

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/a-history-of-pre-darby-rapture-advocates

Brethren,

Heir of Salvation is correct and his link to the website is worthy of our attention and study.

At the aforemetnioned website is the PDF article entitled, "A History of Pre-Darby Rapture Advocates," written by Thomas Ice.

http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-AHistoryofPreDarbyRa.pdf

The teaching that the pre-tribulation rapture origninated from Darby is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...