Post-Trib Rapture?

[DaveW]

5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

And I agree with you completely. While I really like David Cloud and a lot of how teachings, I am disturbed a bit over his insistence not only that the pre-trib rapture is CLEAR biblical doctrine, but that it is to be considered a fundamental of the faith, meaning, if I understand Fundamentalism properly, that it is a salvation issue, and that anyone who is NOT pre-trib must be separated from, that is even more disturbing. 

This is wrong.

The "Fundamentals" are not all associated with salvation and it is a gross misrepresentation for you to argue it in this way.

Two offices is a fundamental but has nothing to do with salvation.

Two ordinances is a fundamental but has nothing to do with salvation (how they are observed does, but not the fact there are only two).

There are others but you get the picture.

For you to characterise Cloud in this way is totally improper.

[Ukulelemike]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

This is wrong.

The "Fundamentals" are not all associated with salvation and it is a gross misrepresentation for you to argue it in this way.

Two offices is a fundamental but has nothing to do with salvation.

Two ordinances is a fundamental but has nothing to do with salvation (how they are observed does, but not the fact there are only two).

There are others but you get the picture.

For you to characterise Cloud in this way is totally improper.

Well, as a Fundamentalist myself, I actually agree with you-I believe there are many fundamentals-but I also know that there is a large group who hold that a fundamental is an absolute, and a matter of salvation, and separation must occur in such matters. And David Cloud has made clear that he will separate from those who don't hold to a pre-tribulation rapture position. Personally, I believe the requirement for a fundamental would be any doctrine the Bible is absolutely clear on, but I don't know that it extends always to a salvation issue, or even always meaning there must be separation, though usually I would do so. 

Again, I like Cloud and find probably 98% of all he teaches, I agree with-in this I disagree, primarily because of the leaps and assumptions that have to be made to arrive at that point. Again, I don't say he is wrong, I say there is just not solid enough biblical evidence to go on, and to make it a fundamental is wrong. I would agree that a pre-millennial literal rapture of the church and return of Christ to be fundamentals, because they are clearly taught-the timing of the rapture is the problem.  

[DaveW]

And again, you are choosing to smear Cloud on this matter by suggesting that he holds pre-trib and "the fundamentals" as salvation matters - which he doesn't. 

Separating over a false doctrine taught does not necessarily mean that he is saying it is a salvation matter.

Following the doctrinal teachings of a woman would also be a fairly weighty matter, but not necessarily a salvation issue - but I would separate from someone who follows the doctrinal teachings of a woman.

 

You really do appear to be trying to paint Cloud with a brush that is not of his making.

[weary warrior]

Dave, if Cloud is talking breaking fellowship with brethren over the issue of pre-trib / post-trib rapture, it is inappropriate. That's Mike's bottom line point, and its a fair point.

The indignation being displayed here is disproportionate to the thought communicated. 

[Alan]

10 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

just the wrath at the end.

Forgive me, but, the wrath of God is not just "at the end." The wrath of God, the JUDGMENT of God, starts at Revelation 6:1 with the Anti-Christ conquering the nations of the world, and continues to the moment the Lord Jesus steps in Jerusalem.

 

[DaveW]

27 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

Dave, if Cloud is talking breaking fellowship with brethren over the issue of pre-trib / post-trib rapture, it is inappropriate. That's Mike's bottom line point, and its a fair point.

The indignation being displayed here is disproportionate to the thought communicated. 

So somehow I am the bad guy for pointing out that someone is blatantly misrepresenting someone else?

What Mike has accused Cloud of is simply not true.

But I don't care to argue about any further. I pointed it out, and it is done. Fire away at this messenger all you like.......

 

[Alan]

19 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

While I really like David Cloud and a lot of how teachings, I am disturbed a bit over his insistence not only that the pre-trib rapture is CLEAR biblical doctrine, but that it is to be considered a fundamental of the faith, meaning, if I understand Fundamentalism properly, that it is a salvation issue, and that anyone who is NOT pre-trib must be separated from, that is even more disturbing. 

I also find the above reasoning concerning brother David Cloud a misrepresentation and disturbing. It seems to me that it was said in order to discredit David Cloud's teaching that the coming of the Lord Jesus for the church is pre-tribulational.

Also, I find the same arguments listed above in the previous posts against the pre-tribulation view of the Second Coming of Christ faulty reasoning. Furthermore, I can find the same faulty reasoning in the writings of Philip Mauro, Dr. Roland Rasmussen, and Pastor Steven Anderson.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Alan
grammar

[Ukulelemike]

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

And again, you are choosing to smear Cloud on this matter by suggesting that he holds pre-trib and "the fundamentals" as salvation matters - which he doesn't. 

Separating over a false doctrine taught does not necessarily mean that he is saying it is a salvation matter.

Following the doctrinal teachings of a woman would also be a fairly weighty matter, but not necessarily a salvation issue - but I would separate from someone who follows the doctrinal teachings of a woman.

 

You really do appear to be trying to paint Cloud with a brush that is not of his making.

And again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I merely said that David Cloud holds the Pre-trib rapture to be a fundamental of the faith, and that, according to MY understanding as a Fundamentalist, (AT LEAST IN THE EYES OF SOME FUNDAMENTALISTS), a fundamental is a matter of salvation. I further clarified that David Cloud has said that it is a subject worthy of separation, BUT NEVER SAID HE BELIEVES IT TO BE A MATTER OF SALVATION. If I seemed to imply that, I apologize, I didn't mean to.

WHETHER or not he holds to Fundamentals as salvations issues, I don't know-I suspect NOT because he, like myself, holds to many more things as fundamentals than the basic five that many believe to be the fundamentals of the faith, being:

"1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).  2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27). 3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14). 4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15). 5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20)."

In no way have I misrepresented David Cloud-I do not know if he holds that all fundamentals are salvation issues, but I DO know that he believes the pre-trib rapture IS a fundamental and it is worthy of separation. If you disagree with that, you can read it yourself:  https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/another_church_enters_post-tributional_wilderness.php     Here is a small quote from the article:     "I am sad to report that Pastor Charlie Haddad and Joshua Koura of Grace Bible Baptist Church of New Castle, NSW, have abandoned the fundamental doctrine of the Pre-tribulational Rapture and are wandering in the aforementioned wilderness. Though they admit that they haven’t come to a settled position (and therefore should be keeping their mouths shut as learners instead of teachers), they have become sowers of doubt and confusion.

I have a personal stake in this, because last October I preached a Bible conference at Grace and assisted in the ordination of Joshua. Now I must withdraw my participation in that ordination and my support of that church. "

My main point I sought to make, is that the Bible does not clearly teach any specific timing for the rapture, though it DOES clearly teach a literal pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ-but please, show me clearly where we see Him returning before the tribulation period. I was raised pre-trib, grew up pre-trib, and after a considerable study, I changed my position because I found it wanting.  But that's just the problem, ALL the timing positions are wanting, all are full of assumptions, and every one of them lacks anything specific, EXCEPT, as clearly seen in Rev 14:14-17. This is the only passage that clearly shows Jesus in the clouds reaping the earth, the ripe harvest, just prior to the outpouring of the vials of wrath. THAT is the beginning of wrath, not Rev 6, THAT is tribulation-there is a clear separation between them, as seen in the trumpets and the vials. Trumpets are judgments, vials are wrath. Those with the Spirit of God are protected from the judgments through being marked by the Holy Spirit, which means we could potentially be living then, but protected from God's judgment. 

And again, I do not declare this as an absolute doctrime, because again, I am making assumptions, as well, but the bottom line is, while I greatly respect Dr. Cloud in , as I said, 99.5% of his teachings, I disagree here. I am not angry at him, and I don't take his stance personally, I merely state what we has made clear in association with the OP. I do not hold that anyone who disagree with me is my enemy, and I don't even see it as a reason to separate, UNLESS, as some I know on all sides of the aisle, it becomes such a  matter of contention, that the contention, itself, becomes reason for separation. 

By the way, for what it matters, I use quite a bit of Dr. Cloud's material-currently I have a class going using his 1 year discipleship course, and am awaiting his Digital Baptist Library. I have greatly appreciated and benefitted from his work and material, I just happen to disagree with him in this. 

 

Edited to include: From this article, https://www.wayoflife.org/database/is_fundamentalism_merely_five_fundamentals.html  David Cloud makes it clear that he does NOT hold to the idea of the fundamentals only being "the Five" and all salvation issues.  So I do, indeed, recognize that fact, and again, if I seemed to imply otherwise, I did not and I apologize. 

 

[Alan]

(deleted comment)

 

[Ukulelemike]

5 hours ago, Alan said:

I also find the above reasoning concerning brother David Cloud a misrepresentation and disturbing. It seems to me that it was said in order to discredit David Cloud's teaching that the coming of the Lord Jesus for the church is pre-tribulational.

Also, I find the same arguments listed above in the previous posts against the pre-tribulation view of the Second Coming of Christ faulty reasoning. Furthermore, I can find the same faulty reasoning in the writings of Philip Mauro, Dr. Roland Rasmussen, and Pastor Steven Anderson.

Not at all meant to 'discredit' his teaching, but to disagree. I have no axe to grind with David Cloud, and if you're at all familiar with me and my posts, I am often a great supporter of him. But this is the problem: to so many today, to disagree is to 'discredit', or to 'hate', (not said nor implied by you, just speaking generally." I disagree on the timing, and I disagree that it is a fundamental, but I don't seek to discredit him in any way. 

As I said in my above comment, I also see issues with ALL the positions, because the Bible doesn't teach any one clearly enough to take a fundamental stand on it. As for the three you mentioned, I only know Anderson, and I am hardly a follower of his, and I came to my understanding before I even knew him, and not based on any man's writings or teachings, save for a study of scripture.

I suppose my only thing with Brother Cloud's position is that, though we agree on pretty much everything else, because of this, he would never consider speaking at our church, or probably speaking with me in any way, and I think that's a great loss, but that said, I respect his position on it and don't seek to have our church in his lists, nor do I seek to argue the point with him. 

[weary warrior]

25 minutes ago, Alan said:

Empty.

 

I dont know who David Cloud is. I dont CARE who David Cloud is. But that response is rude, condescending and not worthy of a brother and a man of God. A brother offers an explanation and an apology for any misunderstanding, and this is the most Biblical, mature, gracious response you can muster? 

Do you not see this?

[Alan]

52 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Not at all meant to 'discredit' his teaching, but to disagree. I have no axe to grind with David Cloud, and if you're at all familiar with me and my posts, I am often a great supporter of him. But this is the problem: to so many today, to disagree is to 'discredit', or to 'hate', (not said nor implied by you, just speaking generally." I disagree on the timing, and I disagree that it is a fundamental, but I don't seek to discredit him in any way. 

As I said in my above comment, I also see issues with ALL the positions, because the Bible doesn't teach any one clearly enough to take a fundamental stand on it. As for the three you mentioned, I only know Anderson, and I am hardly a follower of his, and I came to my understanding before I even knew him, and not based on any man's writings or teachings, save for a study of scripture.

I suppose my only thing with Brother Cloud's position is that, though we agree on pretty much everything else, because of this, he would never consider speaking at our church, or probably speaking with me in any way, and I think that's a great loss, but that said, I respect his position on it and don't seek to have our church in his lists, nor do I seek to argue the point with him. 

A long time ago I made it a point to to argue with a moderator. In my estimation, you are trying to discredit David Cloud due to his teaching, his correct teaching I may add, on the Second Coming of Christ.

45 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

I dont know who David Cloud is. I dont CARE who David Cloud is. But that response is rude, condescending and not worthy of a brother and a man of God. A brother offers an explanation and an apology for any misunderstanding, and this is the most Biblical, mature, gracious response you can muster? 

Do you not see this?

Weary Warrior,

You are misjudging me very much. I deleted my post because I deleted what I wanted to say as I did not want to argue with a moderator and because you had to write something, so,  I just said the word, "empty." You are taking my post entirely wrong.

 

[weary warrior]

20 minutes ago, Alan said:

A long time ago I made it a point to to argue with a moderator. In my estimation, you are trying to discredit David Cloud due to his teaching, his correct teaching I may add, on the Second Coming of Christ.

Weary Warrior,

You are misjudging me very much. I deleted my post because I deleted what I wanted to say as I did not want to argue with a moderator and because you had to write something, so,  I just said the word, "empty." You are taking my post entirely wrong.

 

I see what you are saying, and in that case, I am entirely in the wrong. I do apologize completely for my post. I am sorry.

[Ukulelemike]

41 minutes ago, Alan said:

A long time ago I made it a point to to argue with a moderator. In my estimation, you are trying to discredit David Cloud due to his teaching, his correct teaching I may add, on the Second Coming of Christ.

Weary Warrior,

You're welcome to that opinion, of course, I just don't understand how my disagreement is meant as a 'discredit'. By definition, to discredit means "harm the good reputation of (someone or something)." in no way am I seeking to harm his reputation, and have gone to great lengths to make that clear. But hey, if you equate disagree with discredit, by all means, carry on with that, though I will hold to what I have said on the matter. I suppose we can leave it there.

 

 

[TomB]

When the Scriptures says, They

shall look upon me who they have pierced”, only one soldier and.those that witnessed the crucifixion could possibly be included in that prophesy. Jesus said the day is coming that all who are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man and come forth. On that great day Christ shall give a shout and a roar as it states in Jer. 25. This is definitely the last day. The trump is also mentioned. This is the rapture for we which are alive and remain shall not proceed those which have fallen asleep or “passed away” as some would say. So even those that pierced him will hear his voice. Do you remember when Jesus said in Jn 11 “Lazarus come forth” and although he was dead four days already he heard and came forth. On the last day those Roman soldiers that pierced Jesus will hear his voice and also “every eye shall see him”. Even all those that have fallen asleep since the beginning of the world. For the harvest is ripe as it says in Revelation and have patience for he waits for the first and the last fruits. In your patience possess ye your souls. ”That day is great. It is even the time of Jacobs trouble but he shall be saved out of it”.  That day is a day of darkness and gloominess a day of wastness and desolation. A day of.   Let me copy it word for word...

That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

16 A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.

17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the LORD: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the LORD'S wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.      Jesus said finally in Luke 21:36 pray always that yes me counted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass and stand before the Son  of man.    when he comes in his glory he shall separate the sheep from the goats and place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on the left....   So this second question you have I’m not quite sure what is being requested. The Word of God is far more concerned about the gospel and salvation than any particular invasion of a country. The Scriptures speak in parables that must be interpreted.  Remember Jesus on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection he expounded to them in all the Scriptures from Moses to all the prophets the things concerning himself. Can you find Jesus in every Old Testament book of the Bible? He’s there because He not only spoke the Word he Is the Word. And beware lest you stumble and wrestle with the Scriptures because they can be and are a stumbling block to many as both Jesus and Peter and other prophets warned about.  “Jesus, why do you speak to them in parables?” Did he say so they can understand better? No! He said so in hearing they will not hear”  Verily thou art  a God that hide the himself oh God of Israel, the Savior.     I could go on but I hope this helps. Thank you for your inquiry.