Members Madeline Posted July 28, 2009 Members Share Posted July 28, 2009 As I have stated before...I am a pre-tribber, however, I do have difficulty with many of the pre-trib arguments. This is from personal bible study and listening to apologetics teachers. Here is a sermon that presents good arguments concerning the post-trib view. Now I am not trying to disseminate the post-trib view to anyone on this forum, but I do want to here your interpretations refuting his post-trib position so I can stand firm in my pre-trib position. Thanks in advance! Please listen carefully: Pre-Trib or Post-Trib Love, Madeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted July 28, 2009 Members Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'll listen to it tonight but usually the confusion comes in the group being spoken to, i.e. Jews during the tribulation or Christians during the church age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 28, 2009 Members Share Posted July 28, 2009 I listened to this and there is quite a lot of good teaching in it. However he separates the different views as A-mil, pre mil and post mil. I would sort them as Preterist, Historicist and Futurist. Antichrist will sign a seven year peace treaty. There is no teaching in the scripture that says the Antichrist will sign anything.It is just not there. Does that mean that it is false; No A strange teaching that "it is not in the scripture so we can teach what we like." The PTR is a false teaching, he quite rightly attributes it to Mary MacDonald in about 1830, it was then picked up by Edward Irving, and "confirmed" by some of his prophets. One of these 'prophets', Robert Baxter, soon retracted his teaching and left the movement. It was then picked up by J.N.Darby, through prphetic conferences held by the Darbyites in Albury, London and by Darby's Brethren movement in Powerscourt, Ireland which Irving attended. They both influenced students at Oxford. Darby went to the US wher his teaching was taken on board by Cyrus Scofield, an unsavoury character and a fraudster, who then produced the Scofield bible. We have all, no doubt, been in churches where this PTR doctrine has been taught, to the extent that if you disagree, you are some sort of heretic. However the teaching is like a house of cards and there is no basis in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LindaR Posted July 29, 2009 Members Share Posted July 29, 2009 As I have stated before...I am a pre-tribber, however, I do have difficulty with many of the pre-trib arguments. This is from personal bible study and listening to apologetics teachers. Here is a sermon that presents good arguments concerning the post-trib view. Now I am not trying to disseminate the post-trib view to anyone on this forum, but I do want to here your interpretations refuting his post-trib position so I can stand firm in my pre-trib position. Thanks in advance! Please listen carefully: Pre-Trib or Post-Trib Love, Madeline I have one question...who is the speaker? Does this person have a website? I am a pre-tribber also. The post-trib view was presented to me many years ago and after much Bible study, this view does not make a lick of sense to me. I am pre-trib/pre-mil, futurist/dispensational (which, BTW, didn't start with Margaret...not Mary...MacDonald or John Nelson Darby) and I am settled in that position...in spite of naysayers (some of which have called me a heretic for believing in a pre-trib rapture and being dispensational). There are many great articles on the Rapture on Middletown Bible Church and the Rapture Ready sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Madeline Posted July 29, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 29, 2009 Here's his website: Institute of Biblical Defense My apologies to BroMatt if I posting links to other websites were not allowed. Love, Madeline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Pastor Matt Posted July 29, 2009 Administrators Share Posted July 29, 2009 Posting links is fine as long as it is not posted for the purpose of spam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LindaR Posted July 29, 2009 Members Share Posted July 29, 2009 Here's his website: Institute of Biblical Defense My apologies to BroMatt if I posting links to other websites were not allowed. Love, Madeline Thanks Madeline! I also found the sermon on sermonaudio and the speaker is Dr. Phil Fernandes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LindaR Posted July 29, 2009 Members Share Posted July 29, 2009 I listened to the entire message and Dr. Fernandes interprets Matthew 24 as meaning the church, when it clearly means Israel. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly shows that the Tribulation period is 7 years and the prophecy is speaking of Israel, not the church. Dr. Fernandes never uses those verses from Daniel.Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. There is no distinction made between Israel and the Church. The Rapture and the Second Coming are seen as ONE event instead of two phases of that same event...the Second Coming of Christ. The Margaret MacDonald/John Nelson Darby story doesn't hold water...and Corrie Ten Boom's non-belief in a pre-trib rapture is not my litmus test for believing or not believing in a pre-trib rapture of the church...the Bible is. The Bible doesn't teach a "secret" rapture....the rapture is definitely NOT a secret to those who are "loving His appearing" and "looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted July 29, 2009 Members Share Posted July 29, 2009 I am an "Awe-millennial, prep-tribulation" believer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 I listened to the entire message and Dr. Fernandes interprets Matthew 24 as meaning the church, when it clearly means Israel. Daniel 9:24-27 clearly shows that the Tribulation period is 7 years and the prophecy is speaking of Israel, not the church. Dr. Fernandes never uses those verses from Daniel.Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.Fulfilled in Christ.Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. Messiah was cut off, after the 69 weeks during the 70th weekDaniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.He, Messiah, confirmed the covenant with the Jews for one week from his baptism till the conversion of Cornelius and the death of Stephen. He caused the sacrifice to cease by his death and resurrection, in the middle of the week. The overspreading of abominations happened fron AD 66-70 There is no distinction made between Israel and the Church. The Rapture and the Second Coming are seen as ONE event instead of two phases of that same event...the Second Coming of Christ. The Margaret MacDonald/John Nelson Darby story doesn't hold water...and Corrie Ten Boom's non-belief in a pre-trib rapture is not my litmus test for believing or not believing in a pre-trib rapture of the church...the Bible is. The Bible doesn't teach a "secret" rapture....the rapture is definitely NOT a secret to those who are "loving His appearing" and "looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" The 69 weeks extended to Messiah, ie when God said "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 The Margaret MacDonald/John Nelson Darby story doesn't hold water.. Why do you think it doesn'd hold water? Is it because it goes against what you have always been taught? If you study history you will find it is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LindaR Posted July 30, 2009 Members Share Posted July 30, 2009 Why do you think it doesn'd hold water? Is it because it goes against what you have always been taught? If you study history you will find it is true. If you rightly divide the Word of God, you will find that dispensationalism was taught by the apostle Paul long before Margaret MacDonald and John Nelson Darby were even born.Margaret MacDonald is not the mother of the pre-tribulation raptureby Todd Strandberg After having examined the claims of those critical of the rapture, I have found holes large enough to drive a dump truck through in their so-called evidence: The first problem with the MacDonald origin is the fact that she wasn't the one who widely taught the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture. A man named John Darby is believed by many to have sparked modern interest in the rapture. The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision. Darby himself claims the revelation of the rapture came to him when he realized the distinction between Israel and the church. Darby reported that he discovered the rapture teaching in 1827, three years before MacDonald had her vision. When one closely examines MacDonald's vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pretribulational one. MacDonald looked for a "fiery trial which is to try us," and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist. Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 31, 2009 Members Share Posted July 31, 2009 Nowhere in the scriptures is dispensationalism taught. It is only by misinterpreting the scriptures that it can be inferred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted July 31, 2009 Members Share Posted July 31, 2009 Nowhere in the scriptures is dispensationalism taught. It is only by misinterpreting the scriptures that it can be inferred. Ah, you say it and therefore it must be true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilchbla Posted August 2, 2009 Members Share Posted August 2, 2009 Without dispensationalism you have a confused contradictory mess in the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. 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.