|
Post by Gary on Jun 11, 2015 10:18:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rant on Sept 14, 2018 18:59:23 GMT -6
The early very much new and understood that there would be a rapture of the church !! Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them. In his writings on Bible prophecy, he acknowledged the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” in Daniel 7 to signify the 3 ½ year reign of the Antichrist as ruler of the world before the Second Coming of Christ. He also believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the just.
|
|
|
Post by rant on Sept 14, 2018 19:02:58 GMT -6
Irenaeus in this passage describes the church leaving the sinful world just before unprecedented disasters. Note his use of the term “caught up” which is Rapture terminology as that is the meaning of harpazo, the term for “caught up” in the King James Bible describing the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4.
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Sept 14, 2018 22:06:37 GMT -6
The early very much new and understood that there would be a rapture of the church !! Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them. In his writings on Bible prophecy, he acknowledged the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” in Daniel 7 to signify the 3 ½ year reign of the Antichrist as ruler of the world before the Second Coming of Christ. He also believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the just. I think the quote you posted might have an error in it. If Irenaeus was born in 130 and yet eye-witnessed the Apostle John, that would make the apostle well over 130 years old at the time of his death, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Sept 19, 2018 8:09:20 GMT -6
All over the internet there are many articles and videos that claim that the Rapture doctrine was “invented” in 1830 by a man named John Darby.
This article dispels that myth... (repeat of Gary's link)
Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them.
On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:
“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”
Cyprian (200 AD – 258 AD) – Cyprian was Bishop of the church in Carthage.
In Treatises of Cyprian he wrote in describing the end times Great Tribulation:
“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”
Ephraim (306 AD – 373 AD) bishop of Nisibis. Although he was made a “saint” in the Roman Catholic Church, he was not involved in Catholicism and did not even live in the Roman Empire until the final years of his life.
In his work, On The Last Times 2, he wrote:
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.
The point of this article (and what I am trying to drive home) is while John Darby may have "rediscovered" the Pre-Trib Rapture .....
The "theory" has been around since the early church Fathers......
IT IS NOT a new theory! IT IS Spoken about directly in scriptures.....
Be careful of those "experts" who try to get you to doubt or question these topics............
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Nov 9, 2020 10:34:03 GMT -6
The "theory" has been around since the early church Fathers......
IT IS NOT a new theory! IT IS Spoken about directly in scriptures.....
Be careful of those "experts" who try to get you to doubt or question these topics............
something I came across in John made me wonder that the disciples themselves already had a somewhat clear understanding of the rapture. At the Last Supper Jesus gave quite the long talk to His disciples as described in John chapters 13 to 17. Four whole chapters devoted to that night. At one point, after Jesus told them He would be leaving, the disciples were asking each other, "what does he mean by 'a little while'.". Jesus then explained it to them:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full." John 16:20-24
I've always taken this to refer to when Jesus appeared to them after His death and until He ascended to Heaven. But! that one line "In that day you will ask nothing of me." made me think of when we are raptured. Right now, yes, we have joy knowing what's coming, but our daily struggles tend to overshadow our joy, we have sorrow. "In that day" no one will take that joy from us. We will see Him and our hearts will rejoice. When we are like Him we will no longer need to ask Him of anything.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Nov 11, 2020 16:09:20 GMT -6
All over the internet there are many articles and videos that claim that the Rapture doctrine was “invented” in 1830 by a man named John Darby.
This article dispels that myth... (repeat of Gary's link)
Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them.
On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:
“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”
Cyprian (200 AD – 258 AD) – Cyprian was Bishop of the church in Carthage.
In Treatises of Cyprian he wrote in describing the end times Great Tribulation:
“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”
Ephraim (306 AD – 373 AD) bishop of Nisibis. Although he was made a “saint” in the Roman Catholic Church, he was not involved in Catholicism and did not even live in the Roman Empire until the final years of his life.
In his work, On The Last Times 2, he wrote:
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.
The point of this article (and what I am trying to drive home) is while John Darby may have "rediscovered" the Pre-Trib Rapture .....
The "theory" has been around since the early church Fathers......
IT IS NOT a new theory! IT IS Spoken about directly in scriptures.....
Be careful of those "experts" who try to get you to doubt or question these topics............
kjs , First, Ephraim was known as Pseudo Ephraim. The work was based on a man called Ephraim, but the work itself was considered not reliable and false and not written by this Ephraim. From wikipedia: Secondly, in Irenaeus, you colored one part as if it was the answer...but it wasnt. Read the whole thing. When they are crowned, they have overcome what last contest? The principle before it...there shall be tribulation. We receive the reward after it by Irenaeus own mouth. He is quoting from Mark 13:19, but its based off Matthew 24 which says the son of man returns after the tribulation. But what else did Irenaeus say? Irenaeus (c.120–c.202) So Irenaeus says we rapture and resurrect AFTER the man of sin. Justin Martyr (c.110–c.165) He shows Christ coming for us AFTER the man of sin appears. Tertullian (c.145–c.220) Hippolytus (c.185–c.235) The things that come to pass, he was speaking of the mark of the beast. He said we'd see it and go through it. Cyprian (c.200–c.258) You quoted Cyprian so I felt is what good to add more to what he said. He actually tells them to stand firm and to face what is going to come. Not that they are getting outta here before it. Didache (Alan Garrow claims the earliest part of the Didache was written 49-50 AD) The Shepherd of Hermes Want more? The early Church makes it pretty clear, we go through the tribulation, we see the man of sin and Christ rewards us afterwards. These writers took 2 Thess 2 exactly how many take it. The rapture... It hadnt come yet. When will it come that we can be gathered together with Christ? Our rapture cannot happen TILL the apostasy and the man of sin is revealed first. Now look at 2 Thess 1 which backs this up. So we are to be afflicted and we are to be granted relief when Christ comes for us. Sounds like we go through a pretty terrible time of oppression and ordeal before he comes to save us.... So when you said: "The point of this article (and what I am trying to drive home) is while John Darby may have "rediscovered" the Pre-Trib Rapture .....The "theory" has been around since the early church Fathers.." Based upon the 3 examples you listed...that is not true.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Nov 12, 2020 8:47:56 GMT -6
This link www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2015/pastorbob531-3.htm is also incorrect at the beginning of this thread. The writer says these are Pre-TB truths. Lets take a look.... This Pastor Bob says: I don't like to belabor the subject since we will never convince the morons and ignorant that constantly use the pat statement that MacDonald and Darby originated this doctrine on the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Well, I guess I am a moron and ignorant then because I disagree with him, but let's put it to the test and see who is right. He put forth that the early church all believed in a Pre-TB rapture. As I put many quotes from various ones above supporting just the opposite. They believed we'd encounter the man of sin, they believed the Church would be persecuted..not the Jews only. They believed the rapture came after the revealing of the man of sin. Let's look at his points: 1st Point Nothing in his first point says Papias believed or taught a Pre-TB rapture. 2nd Point Again, Nothing in his second point shows a Pre-TB rapture. 3rd Point I have already quoted once Justin Martyr and he believed Christians would face the AC. But there is not any evidence in this quote above that he supported a Pre-TB rapture. 4th Point I already quoted Irenaeus in the thread above and Irenaeus said the resurrection was after the AC. He did not believe in a Pre-Tb rapture. This 4th point falls on its face. 5th Point Nothing in this quote says anything of a Pre-TB rapture. Yet I also quoted Tertullian...said our sudden change will come because of oppressions by the AC. That refutes he believed in a Pre-Tb rapture. Feel free to look at the link, but I'm going to skip down to his 8th point as his 6th and 7th also provide no evidence. 8th Point Nothing in this quote says anything about Pre-TB. The basis for the page was Pre-TB truths. That the early church was Pre-TB and therefore, Darby wasnt the first. But actually, none of your evidence supports that. If anything, all the quotes I link above which some of the same names you used, all support a Post-TB or Pre Wrath position. The only agreement we have is the early church believed in premillennialism. But on that - we also agree. But that wasnt the title nor the onset of your website.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Nov 12, 2020 10:16:04 GMT -6
For starters, Bob's use of name-calling is unfortunate. I definitely have to agree with you there. Not exhibitive of how believers should speak with one another. The way Christians talk with one another about these non-essentials is horrid. A lot of Christians are trying to eat solid food, digesting the meaty stuff, but can't handle the milk—loving one another, being kind, finding areas of common agreement, standing firm in the gospel, etc. . . . But to the topic at hand, there's a lot to unpack here and to do any of it genuine service could literally take a book. Little snippets either way can be very misleading depending on how they're used. I've read a lot of the Ante-Nicene material and the single biggest take away about it is this: Catholics use this material to prove a gospel of works. Protestants use it to prove a gospel of sola fide. Post-tribbers use it to prove a post-trib rapture. Pre-tribbers use it to prove a pre-trib rapture. Trinitarians use it to prove the deity of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses use it to prove that Jesus wasn't God. If you've thoroughly researched the "Church Fathers", then one undeniable conclusion is that they showed just about the same discord and confusion regarding doctrine as Christianity has today. They were wrestling with the same sorts of questions we have today. There were writers that wrote earlier in their life things that are now quoted as evidence of a gospel of works, and then later changed their view to a gospel of grace. They were not different than we are. My views have changed considerably in a lot of areas and I suppose in a few thousand years if a researcher is quoting me, he could probably make it seem as if I believe whatever it is he's pushing. Also, Paul made very clear that after his departure savage wolves would come in, not sparing the flock. No doubt they did—corrupting the gospel, corrupting our hope, corrupting many doctrines. There were faithful, Bible-believing Ante-Nicene writers, and there were some who didn't contend earnestly for the faith once delivered. For this and other reasons, we have to make our case straight from Scripture, and if later early-Church writers concur, then great. If not, so be it. . . . Studied as a whole, there is widespread agreement that the early-Church writers held the views of pre-millennialism and imminency. The former supports both the post-trib and pre-trib views. The latter tends to better support the pre-trib view. However, there is much less agreement about what precisely they believed, because, as stated before, their views were all over the place. I highly recommend this paper from James F. Stitzinger where delves into some of these issues and comes to a similar conclusion. The only real take away from the early writers is that they were some flavor of intra- or pan-trib. They hadn't consistently systematized the prevailing view one way or another, because it wasn't the major topic in the era. Also, it's important to continue to keep in mind areas where the post-trib and pre-trib views converge. Both sides agree that the saints will experience and live through the Tribulation. Both sides agree that the final sequential resurrection of the righteous will occur after the Tribulation. Secondly, we have too many assumptions/traditions built around the word "Church" (thinking in the context of some of those passages referring to the Church in the Trib). The word ekklesia generically meant "an assembly" or "a group called out". The exact same word is used in the Old Testament when the Septuagint translates Hebrew qahal. There has always been a qahal/ekklesia/church in each era of mankind. These are those who are called out by God. But there are distinctions between these "churches". The church of Israel, the church of the firstborn/those "in Christ", the church of Trib Saints (Rev. 7:9-14), etc. There *will* be saints in the Trib who will be overcome, defeated, and *all* killed (Rev. 6:9-11; 13:15; 20:4; Dan. 8:12-13, 24). But these are not those of the Church, which is built on the foundation of Christ and the apostles and 1. will have many still alive (1 Thess. 4:17; 5:1-9; 1 Cor. 15:51), and 2. will not be overcome (Mt. 16:17-19; Deut. 32:21; Isa. 26:17-21; 66:7-9; Zeph. 2:3; Jn. 14:1-3; Rom. 16:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-7; 1 Jn. 2:13-14; Rev. 3:10; 4-5). Dr. David Hebert has an excellent rundown of a handful of the quotes from the early-Church writers and has one of the most thorough (and fair) treatments in his thesis. It's really worth studying in depth: web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/DrHebert/M.A.Thesis.htmLastly, the objection to Pseudo-Ephraem is mistaken. The document itself does not ascribe authorship. It was initially assumed that it was written by Ephraem the Syrian (4th century), but later thought to have been written by someone in the 8th century. It's not called "Pseudo-Ephraem" because the author claimed to be Ephraem, but because the author is unknown and *others* claimed it was written by Ephraem. The document was definitively written before 800 AD. There are also scattered references to a pre-, mid-, or intra-trib rapture in both the early Church and even in the Middle Ages.
|
|
|
Post by venge on Nov 12, 2020 13:01:55 GMT -6
For starters, Bob's use of name-calling is unfortunate. I definitely have to agree with you there. Not exhibitive of how believers should speak with one another. The way Christians talk with one another about these non-essentials is horrid. A lot of Christians are trying to eat solid food, digesting the meaty stuff, but can't handle the milk—loving one another, being kind, finding areas of common agreement, standing firm in the gospel, etc. . . . But to the topic at hand, there's a lot to unpack here and to do any of it genuine service could literally take a book. Little snippets either way can be very misleading depending on how they're used. I've read a lot of the Ante-Nicene material and the single biggest take away about it is this: Catholics use this material to prove a gospel of works. Protestants use it to prove a gospel of sola fide. Post-tribbers use it to prove a post-trib rapture. Pre-tribbers use it to prove a pre-trib rapture. Trinitarians use it to prove the deity of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses use it to prove that Jesus wasn't God. If you've thoroughly researched the "Church Fathers", then one undeniable conclusion is that they showed just about the same discord and confusion regarding doctrine as Christianity has today. They were wrestling with the same sorts of questions we have today. There were writers that wrote earlier in their life things that are now quoted as evidence of a gospel of works, and then later changed their view to a gospel of grace. They were not different than we are. My views have changed considerably in a lot of areas and I suppose in a few thousand years if a researcher is quoting me, he could probably make it seem as if I believe whatever it is he's pushing. Also, Paul made very clear that after his departure savage wolves would come in, not sparing the flock. No doubt they did—corrupting the gospel, corrupting our hope, corrupting many doctrines. There were faithful, Bible-believing Ante-Nicene writers, and there were some who didn't contend earnestly for the faith once delivered. For this and other reasons, we have to make our case straight from Scripture, and if later early-Church writers concur, then great. If not, so be it. . . . Studied as a whole, there is widespread agreement that the early-Church writers held the views of pre-millennialism and imminency. The former supports both the post-trib and pre-trib views. The latter tends to better support the pre-trib view. However, there is much less agreement about what precisely they believed, because, as stated before, their views were all over the place. I highly recommend this paper from James F. Stitzinger where delves into some of these issues and comes to a similar conclusion. The only real take away from the early writers is that they were some flavor of intra- or pan-trib. They hadn't consistently systematized the prevailing view one way or another, because it wasn't the major topic in the era. Also, it's important to continue to keep in mind areas where the post-trib and pre-trib views converge. Both sides agree that the saints will experience and live through the Tribulation. Both sides agree that the final sequential resurrection of the righteous will occur after the Tribulation. Secondly, we have too many assumptions/traditions built around the word "Church" (thinking in the context of some of those passages referring to the Church in the Trib). The word ekklesia generically meant "an assembly" or "a group called out". The exact same word is used in the Old Testament when the Septuagint translates Hebrew qahal. There has always been a qahal/ekklesia/church in each era of mankind. These are those who are called out by God. But there are distinctions between these "churches". The church of Israel, the church of the firstborn/those "in Christ", the church of Trib Saints (Rev. 7:9-14), etc. There *will* be saints in the Trib who will be overcome, defeated, and *all* killed (Rev. 6:9-11; 13:15; 20:4; Dan. 8:12-13, 24). But these are not those of the Church, which is built on the foundation of Christ and the apostles and 1. will have many still alive (1 Thess. 4:17; 5:1-9; 1 Cor. 15:51), and 2. will not be overcome (Mt. 16:17-19; Deut. 32:21; Isa. 26:17-21; 66:7-9; Zeph. 2:3; Jn. 14:1-3; Rom. 16:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-7; 1 Jn. 2:13-14; Rev. 3:10; 4-5). Dr. David Hebert has an excellent rundown of a handful of the quotes from the early-Church writers and has one of the most thorough (and fair) treatments in his thesis. It's really worth studying in depth: web.oru.edu/current_students/class_pages/grtheo/mmankins/DrHebert/M.A.Thesis.htmLastly, the objection to Pseudo-Ephraem is mistaken. The document itself does not ascribe authorship. It was initially assumed that it was written by Ephraem the Syrian (4th century), but later thought to have been written by someone in the 8th century. It's not called "Pseudo-Ephraem" because the author claimed to be Ephraem, but because the author is unknown and *others* claimed it was written by Ephraem. The document was definitively written before 800 AD. There are also scattered references to a pre-, mid-, or intra-trib rapture in both the early Church and even in the Middle Ages. Gary , Agree on everything you posted above except this: But these are not those of the Church That can be argued both ways. Only Pre-Tb believe it isnt the Church. If Pre-TB is wrong, it is the Church. They are believers. They are Christians. They have the Holy Spirit. They follow Christ. There isnt 2 brides or 2 Churches...there is only 1 original branch and 1 wild olive branch. There is not a third branch we can add "Pre-TB saints" too. The Kingdom that is to be setup and is full of the sons of God is his Church, is it not? If we are all sons of God, and we are all heirs to the promise...why wouldnt that still be one of the 2 branches and part of his Church?
|
|