Pre Wrath overview

[Geo]

Ah ok, I get your point. Although, I find it highly speculative.

" The bride is not just the Church, but the bride is all of the elect of God."
I cannot find that anywhere in the Bible. what would that be based on?

"Notice once again the New Testament scriptures speaking of the bride
refer to New Jerusalem, not the Church."

The only place they are mentioned together is:
Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming
down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

what acually says "prepared as a bride" not prepared as The bride.
It's just a comparison, not an identification beyond the meaning of the word.

"entire elect of God are the bride of Christ"
Well, sounds good to me. I also think that democracy sounds good in theory,
or even communism, if we could forget the actual reality of it.

My personal experience is I rejected dozens of girls and just married one.
Not because I don't love humanity, or couldn't love all girls per se, it's just
most didn't have the specific quality I was looking for.
And I appologize for that comparison. But it's reality and not a fable.

On further thought I would absolutley reject the idea that a girl, purely
based on her belief that I exist could qualify to be my bride.

It sounds very much like a Laocidean idea, and the truth might as well
be the total opposite: The bride is just part of the Church. Makes a lot
more sense. For many are called, but few are chosen.

"called" = invited, "chosen" = selected ( not based on THEIR will )
Let me risk another personal comparison: In my house live different
kind of people that I invited. But they are chosen for different reasons.
All qualify to live here. But I have different relationships with all of them.
One is here to care for the house, one is here to be our daughter.
And one is here to be my bride.

 

[Geo]

Another thing you've overlooked: Chronology

Revelation 18:23 comes first, then Revelation 21:2

"the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no
more at all in thee"

and later: "new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven"

To place the New Jerusalem at the end of Revelation serves
two purposes. First to signify that's really the fulfilment of the
whole story and the end of reality as we know it up to then.

And 2) to make it clear that:

To place the removal of the bride from Babylon before she was introduced
and "came down from heaven" is not possible. It cannot be the same bride
we're talking in Rev. 18:23. at that time.

It seems more that both perhaps are called bride, but one resolves into
the other, but they're only really identical in the end (or one is part of the other then).

 

[JM]

I don’t understand why there’s a distinction between the seals, trumpet and bowel judgements. I see them as being all from the ‘right hand of God.’ There from the same scroll. There’s a false division being made because the Church (in the pre-wrath view) is presupposed to be on earth, but according to 1 Thess. 5, we (those saved during the age of the Church) are not appointed to wrath. And how is it possible that the Church is on earth during the 70th week of Daniel when the 70th week is all about Israel (Dan. 9:24)? How is a valid distinction made between the time of Jacob’s trouble and the day of the Lord? I see far too many false distinctions, and then a blending of the Church and Israel. I also believe a very real distinction can be found between the Second Coming of our Lord and the Glorious Appearing.

I’ll post more a little latter.

 

[Vic C.]

Jason, I can only respond right now by asking some questions. I guess you know by now I'm now that big on dispensationalism. I'm more "Historic" which often leaves me pondering whether the seven year period is actually literal or not. My main concern is "when is the catching up" and "how do I interpret 2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition"? It all hinges from there.

So that is my first question. What do you understand 2 Thess 2:3 to be saying?

Secondly, how do you understand the Revelation 12:1-17 passage, particually verses 12:6 and 12:17.

You don't have to answer here what I ask below, but I would ask myself these questions...

Who, throughout Bible history, is responsible for trials and tribulation, including the Great Tribulation? Where in Revelation do youe see this GT?

Third, who is responble for Wrath? Throughout Bible history, when God poured out His wrath on the world, were any of God's elect left to perish?

Where in the Bible does ot say Christ's ekklesia will ever be spared from Tribulation? Yes, I know 1 Th 5:9 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," but the key word here is "wrath".


Why is it so important for dispensationalists to break the Bible up to so many pieces, when it wasn't practiced for the first 1800 years? I only really see two; the age of works (the law) and the age of grace and if you really think about it, grace was in action in the OT, was it not?

Peace,
Vic

*edited to correct typos*

 

[Solo]

Ah ok, I get your point. Although, I find it highly speculative.

" The bride is not just the Church, but the bride is all of the elect of God."
I cannot find that anywhere in the Bible. what would that be based on?

"Notice once again the New Testament scriptures speaking of the bride
refer to New Jerusalem, not the Church."

The only place they are mentioned together is:
Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming
down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

what acually says "prepared as a bride" not prepared as The bride.
It's just a comparison, not an identification beyond the meaning of the word.

"entire elect of God are the bride of Christ"
Well, sounds good to me. I also think that democracy sounds good in theory,
or even communism, if we could forget the actual reality of it.

My personal experience is I rejected dozens of girls and just married one.
Not because I don't love humanity, or couldn't love all girls per se, it's just
most didn't have the specific quality I was looking for.
And I appologize for that comparison. But it's reality and not a fable.

On further thought I would absolutley reject the idea that a girl, purely
based on her belief that I exist could qualify to be my bride.

It sounds very much like a Laocidean idea, and the truth might as well
be the total opposite: The bride is just part of the Church. Makes a lot
more sense. For many are called, but few are chosen.

"called" = invited, "chosen" = selected ( not based on THEIR will )
Let me risk another personal comparison: In my house live different
kind of people that I invited. But they are chosen for different reasons.
All qualify to live here. But I have different relationships with all of them.
One is here to care for the house, one is here to be our daughter.
And one is here to be my bride.

No where is the church called the bride by herself. The bride of the Lamb is New Jerusalem with the names of the twelve apostles and the names of the twelve tribes inscribed on her gates and foundations.

 

[Geo]

Let's expose a few more myths held so dearly and have a look at
the "non-all-inclusive" selective marriage of the Lord in Matthew 22:

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there
a man which had not on a wedding garment:

And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not
having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot,
and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness,
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

That friend obviously was invited, and had no words left
when confronted to the reality that this wedding wasn't one
of these "come as you are" events. But remember the fact
he is a guest, a saved person, not a unbeliever.

Outer darkness is not the same as hell, yet still a place
of discomfort with weeping and gnashing of teeth.

One size doesn't fit all and "people's rights" isn't
general policy for the New Jerusalem. I think the faster we let
this theory fail, the more time we gain to get back on track.

 

[JM]

I'll try to give a classic/traditional dispey answer here, but I've have been re-thinking many issues, I'll not share them now.

So that is my first question. What do you understand 2 Thess 2:3 to be saying?

I believe it is saying the Son of man will literally return Luke 12: 35-46, Luke 17: 22, 37, Luke 18: 1-8, Luke 19: 11-27, Luke 21: 27-36. I understand how many folks believe Matt. 24: 30, Mark 13: 26 have been fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem in 70ad however, past and present disasters, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," are fully described already in Luke 21: 20-24. We read "This generation" or the present unbelieving Jew lasts till then. But I'm getting off topic...

Secondly, how do you understand the Revelation 12:1-17 passage, particually verses 12:6 and 12:17.

I'll have to think on it more before I give an answer.

You don't have to answer here what I ask below, but I would ask myself these questions...

Who, throughout Bible history, is responsible for trials and tribulation, including the Great Tribulation? Where in Revelation do youe see this GT?

According to Easton's, tribulation is "trouble or affiction of any kind (Deuteronomy 4:30; Matthew 13:21; 2co 7:4). In Romans 2:9 "tribulation and anguish" are the penal sufferings that shall overtake the wicked. In Matthew 24:21,29, the word denotes the calamities that were to attend the destruction of Jerusalem."

Third, who is responble for Wrath? Throughout Bible history, when God poured out His wrath on the world, were any of God's elect left to perish?

Baker's tells us, "The wrath of God has been revealed throughout the entire history of humanity. It was implied when Adam was warned he would die if he disbelieved and disobeyed God (Gen 2:17) and when he revealed that Satan's head would be crushed (Gen 3:15) because God's loving character, will, and purposes were challenged by Satan and Adam and Eve. God revealed the execution of his wrath when he drove Adam and Eve from Paradise (Gen 3:24-25). God revealed his displeasure when, placing a curse on Cain, he banished him (Gen 4:11). When he destroyed the cosmos by the flood God demonstrated the results of his grief and wrath with his image-bearer (Gen. 6-8)." http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries ... ry/bed.cgi

You'll notice wrath is for those who disbelieve and disobey...how does Christ's blood cover/atone for the sinner? It comes down to soteriology.

Where in the Bible does ot say Christ's ekklesia will ever be spared from Tribulation? Yes, I know 1 Th 5:9 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," but the key word here is "wrath".

:D

Why is it so important for dispensationalists to break the Bible up to so many pieces, when it wasn't practiced for the first 1800 years? I only really see two; the age of works (the law) and the age of grace and if you really think about it, grace was in action in the OT, was it not?

Covenant Aspects

3 Basic Aspects

• 1. Land (Palestinian)
  2. Seed (Davidic)
  3. Blessing (New)

Abraham had 8 sons by 3 different women, only through Sarah's son Isaac was the Covenant to be passed. Gen. 26:2-5, 24

Provisions to Isaac

• 1. Blessings Gen. 26:3, 24
  2. Land Promised
  3. Multiply descendants & become a 'people'
  4. Gentiles would be blessed
  5. Based on God's covenant with Abraham

These provisions were passed on to Jacob only. Gen. 28:13-15

Provisions to Jacob

• 1. Land Promised to Jacob and his seed en. 28:13,15
  2. Seed multiplied v.14
  3. Gentiles blessed through seed

Covenant provisions confirmed to all of Jacob's twelve sons, the fathers of the twelve tribes Gen. 49. Therefore, the covenant made by God with Abraham is the Biblical definition of Jewishness, the descendance of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob are by race Jews...

I depart a little from dispensationalism here.

All believer's are saved by Grace, the Everlasting covenant made between the Father and the Son carried out by the Holy Spirit gathers the elect according to the will of God for His glory in every age.

 

[Vic C.]

Hey... I miss discussing Biblical issues with you. Wish you could be on more often.

I'll try to give a classic/traditional dispey answer here, but I've have been re-thinking many issues, I'll not share them now.

Not a problem. Always good to rethink issues and positions.

[quote:4de6c]So that is my first question. What do you understand 2 Thess 2:3 to be saying?

I believe it is saying the Son of man will literally return Luke 12: 35-46, Luke 17: 22, 37, Luke 18: 1-8, Luke 19: 11-27, Luke 21: 27-36. I understand how many folks believe Matt. 24: 30, Mark 13: 26 have been fulfilled in the siege of Jerusalem in 70ad however, past and present disasters, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," are fully described already in Luke 21: 20-24. We read "This generation" or the present unbelieving Jew lasts till then. But I'm getting off topic...[/quote:4de6c]
At this point, if we are discussing eschatological beliefs, nothing is off topic. I kind of like the many directions this thread has gone.

I guess what I was wanting to know was, does 2 Thess 2:3 suggest to you when that day is(approx. timeframe)? In other words, how do you interpret, "except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

[quote:4de6c]Secondly, how do you understand the Revelation 12:1-17 passage, particually verses 12:6 and 12:17.

I'll have to think on it more before I give an answer.[/quote:4de6c]
Hey, you've got until one of us die or the "catching up", whichever comes first. LOL

[quote:4de6c]You don't have to answer here what I ask below, but I would ask myself these questions...

Who, throughout Bible history, is responsible for trials and tribulation, including the Great Tribulation? Where in Revelation do youe see this GT?

According to Easton's, tribulation is "trouble or affiction of any kind (Deuteronomy 4:30; Matthew 13:21; 2co 7:4). In Romans 2:9 "tribulation and anguish" are the penal sufferings that shall overtake the wicked. In Matthew 24:21,29, the word denotes the calamities that were to attend the destruction of Jerusalem."[/quote:4de6c]
Hmm, ok. Would Adam and Eve have been subjected to any kind of trial or tribulation prior to The Fall?

[quote:4de6c]Third, who is responble for Wrath? Throughout Bible history, when God poured out His wrath on the world, were any of God's elect left to perish?

Baker's tells us, "The wrath of God has been revealed throughout the entire history of humanity. It was implied when Adam was warned he would die if he disbelieved and disobeyed God (Gen 2:17) and when he revealed that Satan's head would be crushed (Gen 3:15) because God's loving character, will, and purposes were challenged by Satan and Adam and Eve. God revealed the execution of his wrath when he drove Adam and Eve from Paradise (Gen 3:24-25). God revealed his displeasure when, placing a curse on Cain, he banished him (Gen 4:11). When he destroyed the cosmos by the flood God demonstrated the results of his grief and wrath with his image-bearer (Gen. 6-8)." http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries ... ry/bed.cgi

You'll notice wrath is for those who disbelieve and disobey...how does Christ's blood cover/atone for the sinner? It comes down to soteriology.[/quote:4de6c]
Excellent point, J.

[quote:4de6c]Where in the Bible does it say Christ's ekklesia will ever be spared from Tribulation? Yes, I know 1 Th 5:9 "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," but the key word here is "wrath".

:D[/quote:4de6c]
LOL!!! You knew that was coming. ;-) So I guess the distinctions are not so invalid after all.

... I depart a little from dispensationalism here.

That's ok, I didn't quote some of what you said above to save space.

All believer's are saved by Grace, the Everlasting covenant made between the Father and the Son carried out by the Holy Spirit gathers the elect according to the will of God for His glory in every age.

Can't argue with that. ;-)

 

[JM]

Do you agree or disagree with what I posted about the Abrahamic covenant?

peace

 

[Vic C.]

Do you agree or disagree with what I posted about the Abrahamic covenant?

peace

Most of it... though I disagree with this right off the bat...

Covenant provisions confirmed to all of Jacob's twelve sons, the fathers of the twelve tribes Gen. 49. Therefore, the covenant made by God with Abraham is the Biblical definition of Jewishness, the descendance of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob are by race Jews...

Compare that to Revelation 7:5-8. The names are different... and for a reason. I also don't quite know what you mean by Jewishness. I thought they were Hebrews? Jewish is not a race, it's both a culture and a "religion", or so I've been taught.

 

[JM]

Compare that to Revelation 7:5-8. The names are different... and for a reason. I also don't quite know what you mean by Jewishness. I thought they were Hebrews? Jewish is not a race, it's both a culture and a "religion", or so I've been taught.

Jacob's son's are the fathers of the 12 tribes.

By Jewishness I mean the way in which the Hebrews lived according to the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed.

Does the Pre-wrath view say anything about the 'last days Temple?'

 

[Geo]

"Does the Pre-wrath view say anything about the 'last days Temple?'"

--- "OLOGIES and ISMS" --- and "VIEWS"

What does the Bible say about the 'last days Temple?'



P.S. What does the Bible say if Jesus will come alone or not?

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Where do these saints origin from?

--- Please no "OLOGIES and ISMS or VIEWS"

 

[JM]

Thx Geo, I was asking for the 'ism' and what you just displayed is anti-ism which is an ism... :D

 

[Jake99]

Luke 12 35-46 as I read it says the servant should be waiting for the master at an hour they know not of. If a man who walks alone, knocks on your door in the middle of the night and cries out that he is the christ, I say no one will listen for, or awaken to answer the call. He was cloaked in secrecy like in a bubble, with a suit of armor that was invisible while performing miracles and was not recognized. How then will you know him if you never knew him? He is alone on a path so different from mans that most if not all would call him a madman and have him ignored or silenced. Does the bible not also say that Christ will find no place to rest his head when he returns? Vast amounts of residue and the failsafe mechanism of having performed many miracles would be a good place to start investigating if you are looking for the thief in the night.

 

[Darrell dunn]

Rev.6:3 the red horse, this is WW3, Ezek.38&39 The 7 years of burning the weapons can't start till after this. Ezek39;9[/quote]
To be honest, I'm not sure how I can fit this into End Times. In Ezekiel 39:11-12, it says Gog and and all his multitudes (Magog) will be destroyed and buried. Yet in Revelation 20:8, we see Gog and Magog. I'm not sure if this passage in Ezekiel can be taken as symbolic if it's read and understood in a literal sense... and in light of the fact that they are destroyed in 39:11. How do I see this seven years as referring to Daniel's 70th. week?[/quote]

___________________________


After reading this over and over.

The 7 yrs here are not referring to Daniel's 70th week, but they do take place after the rapture and before Christ's return.

And all are not killed, there is 1/6 of them left Ezek.39;2
If this is a army of 400,000 (not a real big army) and no where near all the Muslims , That would leave 70,000 or so.

So I don't see any problem with them growing to a large group again during the 1,000 yr reign of Christ, but I believe that in Rev.20;8 it is speaking of the spirit that is leading them.

 

[JM]

The more I study prophecy, the more I see where the differences in understanding the nature of the Church come in. I don't see Israel as being 'the Church' in anyway...this leads to different conclusions about end times.

A good example is the way the pre-wrath view understands how the Lord will deal with people at His coming. I think we agree the Rapture separates the righteous from among the wicked, God does this by removing believers and leaving unbelievers.

"So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels shall come forth, and sever [separate] the wicked from among the just [righteous]" (Matt. 13:49). To me, and my limited understanding...the unrighteous will be removed by judgment and the righteous will remain on earth at the end of the age and not be Raptured...that's how I understand the whole Noah passage and the unbelievers/unrighteous being taken away in judgment (Luke 17:34-37).

Some pre-wrathers teach that the Church is on earth until the end of the age and then the Rapture takes place. My understanding of Matthew 13:49 teaches that at the end of the age God will separate the wicked from among the righteous. But most will agree the Rapture is a separation of the righteous from among the wicked unbelieving. How then do you guys (pre-wrathers) explain what seems to me a contradiction?

 

[Vic C.]

"So shall it be at the end of the age: the angels shall come forth, and sever [separate] the wicked from among the just [righteous]" (Matt. 13:49). To me, and my limited understanding...the unrighteous will be removed by judgment and the righteous will remain on earth at the end of the age and not be Raptured...that's how I understand the whole Noah passage and the unbelievers/unrighteous being taken away in judgment (Luke 17:34-37).

I believe the 'catching up" seperates the NT ekklesia from the rest of the world before God's Wrath begins. I think all prewrath teachers and believers will agree.

I believe Matthew 13:49 is about the sheep and goat judgement, the seperating of the wheat and tares. (see also Matthew 25:32+, Revelation 14:14+) It is not a rapture, but one of the three judgments in the End Times.

Some pre-wrathers teach that the Church is on earth until the end of the age and then the Rapture takes place.

This one's got me a little confused. It actually contradicts the very meaning of why Van Kampen termed his doctrine, Pre-Wrath. There is no contradiction, as we see the "rapture" and the sheep/goat judgement as taking place at two different times in End Times. Where did you read about this "belief" Jason? I'd like to check out the source to see what else is misrepresented.

So my explaination is; two events, one takes place before God's Wrath and one at the conclusion of The Wrath (or thereabouts)

 

[JM]

Thx Vic. What else should I read on pre-wrath besides VK?

I believe Matthew 13:49 is about the sheep and goat judgement, the seperating of the wheat and tares. (see also Matthew 25:32+, Revelation 14:14+) It is not a rapture, but one of the three judgments in the End Times.

I understand the wheat and tares as believers and unbelievers during the trib but after the rapture. These believers are not part of the Church, rather, they are saved during the great trib.

This brings me to my next point...

How do you view Daniel’s 70th week? I see it belongs primarily to Israel based on 'thy people' (the Jews and Jerusalem Daniel 9:24). Are the people saved during the first 5 or so years part of the Church? Who are those that will be saved during that last 2 or so years? Israel? Are the last 2 years for the 144000 Jewish believers in Revelation 7 and 14? If they are saved during the first 5 or so years wouldn't that make them Christians?

I'm still learning, thanks for taking your time to help me out Vic.

Peace,

JM

 

[Vic C.]

Thx Vic. What else should I read on pre-wrath besides VK?

The Bible? ;-) In retrospect, suggesting Rosenthal's book would be unfair. It needs to be read before "The Sign", but if read, you still may get something good out of it. He is a Jewish convert to Christianity and adds insight to the Jewish aspect we've been discussing.

Now, this is long, but I'm not a "sound byte" person anyway and I found it Biblical and fitting into my beliefs on this subject.

http://bible-truths.com/rapture.htm

[quote:9c52d]I believe Matthew 13:49 is about the sheep and goat judgement, the seperating of the wheat and tares. (see also Matthew 25:32+, Revelation 14:14+) It is not a rapture, but one of the three judgments in the End Times.

I understand the wheat and tares as believers and unbelievers during the trib but after the rapture. These believers are not part of the Church, rather, they are saved during the great trib.[/quote:9c52d]
I would disagree with the use of terminology. I see them as survivors of God's Wrath. I have no doubt that there will be survivors. I also believe Matthew 25:34-46 explains their fate. Along with those Jews that come to a saving knowledge during the Wrath are other survivors who will be judged on how they treated these Jews during the Tribulation and Wrath.

This brings me to my next point...

How do you view Daniel’s 70th week? I see it belongs primarily to Israel based on 'thy people' (the Jews and Jerusalem Daniel 9:24). Are the people saved during the first 5 or so years part of the Church? Who are those that will be saved during that last 2 or so years? Israel? Are the last 2 years for the 144000 Jewish believers in Revelation 7 and 14? If they are saved during the first 5 or so years wouldn't that make them Christians?

I think part of this line of questioning can be asnwered in my last statement. I beleive the 144,000 are sealed for protection to aid in guiding those Jews who become saved during the final days. My personal opinion is that anyone who is truely saved before the 'rapture' could be considered a Christian. I don't think I should be labeling anyone who becomes a believer after this time anything but a 'saint'. Maybe we are putting too much emphesis on the word Christian. I ask myself this question; does God look at us and say, "Well done, thou good and faithful Christian"?

I'm still learning, thanks for taking your time to help me out Vic.

Peace,

JM

So am I Jason, so am I. :D and... you're welcome. I know it's tough to have a belief in PreTrib and try to fit it into a PreWrath mindset. Let Scripture be your final guide in these things. I know I am not a martyr and I want Scripture to say I will be whisked away before the first sign of any danger, but I just don't see it. I also don't like to be labeled a sinner, but the Bible says I am and that's that. :-D

 

[JM]

Vic, when was the Church founded? Did the Church replace Israel? When the Bible speaks about Israel do you see it referring to the Church?

IMO, :-D I see Reformed theology as the most consistent, logical outworking of the replacement view...I also see mid to latter Acts dispensationalism as the consistent, logical outworking of dispensational concepts...it's a pickle!