The PRE-tribulation RAPTURE saves the Christians from the WRATH!!!

[CrowCross]

You have never given your definitions, and I am asking you to please provide them for me.

Again.

I asked you to provide your definition....If you don't understand what trials and tribulation during the judgement of God is.... during what is written about the wrath of God in the book of Revelation....already....you'll never get it.

Sorry. that's how i feel. Now, please give your definitions.

 

[CrowCross]

Three problems with that response:

1. I explicitly stated only the first two parts of Rev. 1:19 are in the past.
2. Claiming something hasn't happened is a post hoc argument.
3. You went on record stating the letter to the church in Philadelphia addressed events of their day, not ours.

We're not discussing anything in Revelation except Revelation 3:10. That is the one verse cited in the op to support the pre-tribulation rapture position. It is self-contradicting to say 1) Revelation 3:10 is about events happening in the days of the Philadelphian church in the first century AND 2) Revelation 3:10 supports a future rapture. If Revelation 3:1 is about the first century events, then it CANNOT be about any 21st century event. You cannot have it both ways. Either the first century relevance has to be abandoned or the 21st century relevance has to be abandoned. In other words, the problem is not a difference of interpretation or opinion between you and me - it is a problem of internal contradiction, a problem in which two of your own viewpoints contradict with one another. That has absolutely nothing to do with my viewpoints or what scripture may or may not state. A cannot be not-A. The Law of non-contradiction prohibits it. You've got a gigantic contradiction at the foundation of the op and time is being wasted on nonsense about my concepts being shot down when the contradiction should be corrected.

Start with the log in your own argument before seeking to address any perceived speck in mine.

10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. 11I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.

The hour of trial has NOT come to the whole world yet. Do you know what that means? There is a future aspect in it. It's not science.

 

[CrowCross]

What is the next age? I would like your definition.

The age that comes after the rapture.

What is your definition?

 

[CrowCross]

Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of the problems inherent in post hoc arguments.

Post hoc (or "after the fact") arguments seek to undermine or refute a position based on what has or has supposedly happened or not happened after something has occurred. For example, someone might say "God did not judge Israel when Babylon invaded because God never went to Israel........ It never happened." What that "it did not happen" part means is it did not happen the way the protester thinks it was supposed to happen, not that God never judged Israel through the use of Babylon. The Jews of Jesus' day did not believe Jesus was the Messiah because he did not overthrow the Romans and re-establish the monarchy and restore the priesthood to orthodoxy. The problem was not that Jesus was not the Messiah. The problem was their expectations pertaining to how and when the Messiah would be King and High Priest were wildly incorrect. The Messiah did, in fact come. He simply did not come in the way Jews think he was supposed to have come. To this day a Jew might say the exact same thing you often post: It never happened! It is a very irrational and foolish response. It is irrational. Measuring the veracity of anyone case based on a biased perception of what did or did not happen is a logical fallacy.

You should stop employing that device and engage the premise with which you disagree. Engage it with substance not rhetoric and fallacy.

The correct way to understand scripture's temporal markers is this: If scripture states something happened during X time period, then whether or not we understand exactly how the event happened the event did happen when scripture stated it happened or would happen. If, for example, scripture states X is a fulfillment of prophecy then that is the fact of scripture. The prophecy scripture itself cited happened when the scripture itself stated it happened and unless the scripture also states there will be a second, third, or fourth re-occurrence of the same prophecy then that prophecy has been fulfilled and there's no reason or warrant to think it will happen again. This is critically important because the New Testament frequently redefines, or more accurately correctly defines the New Testament. This is an exegetical principle Dispensational Premillennialism often rejects because f its unique and misguided ecclesiology (God has two completely different, separate, and unrelated people). Scripture is very clear about this mistake on many occasions. Every time Jesus states, "You have heard it said......., but I say......." and he then provides the correct understanding, that is an example of the Old Testament Jewish understanding being incorrect and the New Testament redefining - correctly defining - the OT. When the Holy Spirit defines the promise of an endless throne in Acts 2 that is an example of God correcting old, mistaken ideas about the throne of David. When Paul explicitly states the ends of the ages have come upon the first century Corinthians that is a fact, not a point of eschatology up for dispute and debate. The ends came, not the beginning. "It never happened!" is foolishness in response to what scripture tells us. In this case the letters to the seven churches were addressing events happening in the first century, not the 21st century.

This is post hoc fallacy is why a Dispensationalist might protest the prophecy of another temple being built has already been fulfilled. "It never happened!" Well, according to the New Testament it did happen. Jesus and his body is the temple God built, a temple not built with human hands, a temple in which God Himself indwells. It is in the NT that we find a very shocking proclamation: God does not dwell in houses built by human hands. Dispensational Premillennialists still look forward to another temple being built even though 1) there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible explicitly stating another temple will be built and 2) Jesus is the temple God promised to build (see John 2:21 and 1 Cor. 3:16).

It is not that the prophecy was not fulfilled. It is not that another temple was not built. The problem is that the Dispensational view of the temple has not occurred.

Revelation 3:10 has happened and we know it has happened because the letter in which that verse occurs was written about events the Philadelphian church was experiencing in the first century, not the 21st century.

And you are on record stating the letter to the church in Philadelphia addressed events of their day, not ours.

You cannot, therefore, say it addressed events of their day AND claim the events of their day did not happen.

If the letter addressed events of their day, then it is not addressing events in our day (except possibly in an allegorical sense). YOU cannot have it both ways. No one can. It is irrational to do so. The only alternative available to you is to either discard the earlier statement about the letters to the seven churches addressing events of their day or discard the viewpoint Revelation 3:10 is about some future rapture.


I will wait while you decide which premise you choose to abandon and discuss your choice with when that has been decided.

You lost me in the lengthy post.

As I said...There are many things in Revelation that hasn't happened yet. That's a biblical AND historical fact.

For example the events mentioned to the church of Philly...point to a future event. How do we know that? Go reread post 42. It speaks of the entire world.....not some local area around the church of Philly. You don't need to be a surgeon to understand that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Sorry. that's how i feel. Now, please give your definitions.

So basically you have no earthly idea even what these words mean yet you're running around the forum promoting a bunch of nonsense on the back of it.

You refuse to even provide definitions. This entire thread should be locked until you can answer a simple question.

@John Bauer

 

[Arial]

The age that comes after the rapture.

The seven years then? Is that what you mean?

What is your definition?

This is my definition of the next age.
Rev 21:1-7 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

 

[CrowCross]

The seven years then? Is that what you mean?

This is my definition of the next age.
Rev 21:1-7 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Ages in the bible can be broken down to certain time periods. For example the time between creation and the flood could be considered as an age.

The current age ends at the rapture. Many say we are in the age of grace. Another age ended when Christ was cut off.
The 7 years is an unfinished portion of that age.

 

[Arial]

I asked you to provide your definition....If you don't understand what trials and tribulation during the judgement of God is.... during what is written about the wrath of God in the book of Revelation....already....you'll never get it.

Sorry. that's how i feel. Now, please give your definitions.

The above is post #41

This is not a definition of the words . It's a simple ask. How are you defining the words?

Above is Post #35

How do you define the words?

i believe you already know my definition.

Above is post #36 your response to @Hazelelponi asking you to define some terms. You don't do so but instead ask her to define them.

Why such a hostile response in post #41 when you were first asked to define some terms and did not.

 

[CrowCross]

So basically you have no earthly idea even what these words mean yet you're running around the forum promoting a bunch of nonsense on the back of it.

You refuse to even provide definitions. This entire thread should be locked until you can answer a simple question.

@John Bauer

The definitions have been provided for you.

What is your definition of wrath, judgement and tribulation? My definition has been expressed to you in the many post I responded to you and others in.

 

[CrowCross]

You don't do so but instead ask her to define them

Yes, I want to know her definition so I know where she is coming from. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

 

[Arial]

Yes, I want to know her definition so I know where she is coming from. Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

ANd she would like to know your definitions so she knows where you are coming from? Is that too much to ask? WHy do you feel that she has to answer your question before you answer hers. She ask you first. I am saying this to hopefully prevent you making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Arial]

The definitions have been provided for you.

What is your definition of wrath, judgement and tribulation? My definition has been expressed to you in the many post I responded to you and others in.

Perhaps the definition was lost in all the rhetoric and the many posts. WHy don't you just be a gentleman and provide her with your answers. Definitions are usually short and sweet, not containing a thesis.

Wrath:
Judgement:
Tribulation:

 

[Hazelelponi]

I want a response to post 31

Post in thread 'The PRE-tribulation RAPTURE saves the Christians from the WRATH!!!'

Friday at 4:02 AM

I don't disagree....Jesus is the one who comes back for us at the rapture.

Then again Jesus is also God.

Will you please define: 1.) Judgement 2.) Tribulation and 3.) Wrath

Please and thank you.

I need to know how your defining the terms.What are the proper definitions of each word?

• Hazelelponi

• 

 

[Arial]

Ages in the bible can be broken down to certain time periods. For example the time between creation and the flood could be considered as an age.

The current age ends at the rapture. Many say we are in the age of grace. Another age ended when Christ was cut off.
The 7 years is an unfinished portion of that age.

We are not talking about "ages" and what that means. Jesus and the apostles speak of a specific time period called age. Dispensationalists break the Covenant of Redemption into ages and then build the house around that. It is built on sand and will not stand.

Covenant theology on the other hand builds the house around covenants, which is the way in which God relates in a relationship way with the lesser being of man. It is built, then, on the rock because it is always Christ centered, always a consistent unity of the eternal covenant of redemption within the Godhead before the foundation of our world.

You can see even from your response that you have God's dealing with mankind in relationship and in history all broken up into little bitty chunks.

Jesus and the apostles however did no such thing. They speak of only two ages. "This age" and "the age to come".

We see from Scripture that this age refers to the present fallen world marked by sin, death and Satan's influence. It is the age prior to the final consummation. (Matt 12:32; Luke 20:34-35).

The age to come is the future age that follows the final judgement and the return of Christ. Eternal life, resurrection and the full realization of God's kingdom. (Mark 10:30; Luke 20:35; Eph 1:21)

So this age does not end with a rapture that occurs before a seven year period of judgment, followed by another age of a 1000 years and the war to end all wars. This age ends when Christ destroys death and all his enemies, and Christ's people, the living and the dead, meet him as he returns and return with him in his train, rejoicing in his victory. And the lion lies down with the lamb and a little child and a bear play together. You have a really dark eschatology.

​

 

[CrowCross]

ANd she would like to know your definitions so she knows where you are coming from? Is that too much to ask?

Not to be smart....But she as well as you already knows.

WHy do you feel that she has to answer your question before you answer hers. She ask you first. I am saying this to hopefully prevent you making a mountain out of a mole hill.

She has already been answered. NOW, it's time for her to answer.

Then again it's playing big sister making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[CrowCross]

Perhaps the definition was lost in all the rhetoric and the many posts. WHy don't you just be a gentleman and provide her with your answers. Definitions are usually short and sweet, not containing a thesis.

Wrath:
Judgement:
Tribulation:

Wrath...Gods anger poured out in the 7 year tribulation.
Judgement....Gods divine punishment on the world.
Tribulation...The period of wrath and judgement

So, are you going to tell me you didn't know that? Sheeze, are you guys that ignorant of the pre-trib definitions? I've been telling you this for dozens of post........and you act like you don't know.

Now it's @Hazelelponi turn. Would you like to give it a whack Arial?

I think it will sound something like this

Wrath...Hell
Judgement....God sending you to hell.
Tribulation....when a christian gets a boo-boo.

 

[CrowCross]

We are not talking about "ages" and what that means. Jesus and the apostles speak of a specific time period called age. Dispensationalists break the Covenant of Redemption into ages and then build the house around that. It is built on sand and will not stand.

How is it built on sand? Can you support that claim?

Covenant theology on the other hand builds the house around covenants, which is the way in which God relates in a relationship way with the lesser being of man. It is built, then, on the rock because it is always Christ centered, always a consistent unity of the eternal covenant of redemption within the Godhead before the foundation of our world.

You can see even from your response that you have God's dealing with mankind in relationship and in history all broken up into little bitty chunks.

'Cause it is. I've given you an example. How are they not little bitty blocks as you called them? Do you know we're in a ange where we no longer sacrifice animals? Do you?

Jesus and the apostles however did no such thing. They speak of only two ages. "This age" and "the age to come".

Then this age as you so narrowly defined it ends at the rapture. Actually one of the ages ended when Jesus died. One of the ages ended with Noah....There was also the age of law.....Currently we are in the "church age".

We see from Scripture that this age refers to the present fallen world marked by sin, death and Satan's influence. It is the age prior to the final consummation. (Matt 12:32; Luke 20:34-35).

The age to come is the future age that follows the final judgement and the return of Christ. Eternal life, resurrection and the full realization of God's kingdom. (Mark 10:30; Luke 20:35; Eph 1:21)

So this age does not end with a rapture that occurs before a seven year period of judgment, followed by another age of a 1000 years and the war to end all wars. This age ends when Christ destroys death and all his enemies, and Christ's people, the living and the dead, meet him as he returns and return with him in his train, rejoicing in his victory. And the lion lies down with the lamb and a little child and a bear play together. You have a really dark eschatology.

​

You don't understand age.

LOL....you call my escatalogy dark? I escape the tribulation and enjoy the 1,000 year reign. Your escatology places christians into the wrath and judgement of God. That's dark.

 

[Josheb]

The hour of trial has NOT come to the whole world yet.

You are wrong.

AND you are contradicting yourself AGAIN.

If the letter was written to the Philadelphians was addressing events of their day, as you plainly stated it was, then the reference to "the whole world," is about the whole world of their day. You do not get to change the meaning of the words because you believe in Dispensational Premillennialism. Dispensational Premillennialism does not get to redefine the words because it teaches something the Church has never thought, never believed, never taught and never practiced in its 2000 years existence.

You simply do not get to do that.

IF you will examine scripture and how it uses the word "world" you will find that there are many occasions when the word "world" means the known world, the world known to exist at that time, not the world we know exists thousands of years later. The very first rule of proper exegesis is understand the text as the author and his original readers would have understood it. First century Philadelphians would never have understood the word "world" to mean or include the Americas. They had no idea Siberia, or Wa existed. It's doubtful they had any understanding of the Arctic, Antarctic, the furthest reaches of Hibernia, or those of Ethiopia (which is what the Romans called everything south of the Sahara).


Romans 1:8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Was the faith of the saints in Rome proclaimed to the Mayans or the Olmec? How about the datus, or the aborigines? Had the faith of the Roman Christians been proclaimed to them? How about the Anongu, the Koori, Anishinaabe or the Kanien'kehá:ka? All of those people were living and in the first century. The are just a few of the people groups living in the world during the first century. Was Paul stupid? Was Paul being ignorant/ Was Paul being dishonest? Or was Paul simply using the word "world," (Gk.: "kosmo") in a manner common to his era?

1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

If Jesus is God, then the evil one is NOT in control of anything other than that which his Creator permits. If Jesus is King, then the evil one is not king. If ALL power and authority has been given to Jesus and if his rule if far above all other rule, and his name above all other names then the evil one does not actually have power over anything. John is writing about the portion of the world captured by sin. The evil one is, himself, captured, dead and enslaved by sin. The evil one does not even rule himself! John knows this. John's first century Christian readers knew this. John wrote those words in the context of Jesus being the resurrected Son of God who had come to undo the works of the devil and defeat the evil one. The only way the whole world could literally lie in the power of the evil one is if it did not lie in the power of the Creator and/or His Son.

Colossians 1:21-23
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

Here Paul exceeds even the whole world. He states the gospel has been proclaimed throughout all creation!!! I wonder how Paul knew the Anongu or the Inuit had had the gospel proclaimed to them since he did not know either existed .




The minute you said the letter to the Philadelphians addressed events or THEIR day you abdicated any and all ability to make Revelation 3:10 about our future. You cannot escape contradicting yourself once saying the letter is about the first century believers in first century Philadelphia. What is saddest about these facts is that a person does not have to be a millennialist of any kind to understand these precepts. A cannot ever be not-A. All people, whether or Christian or non-Christian have to abide by the laws of logic. Not-A cannot be A for the Lower Slabovian and Not-A only for everyone else. Dispensationalism does not get to invent its own rules of interpretation AND logic.


The letters to the seven churches were written to address events those churches were experiencing in the first century. Each of them was told to repent, persevere, and overcome the tribulation they were facing. Not a single one of them were told they would be physically removed from the planet. One of them were told they'd have to open the door when Jesus came. They'd be on earth having survived and overcome the tribulation. Many of them would die but not have given in to the false teachings of the ungodly (like Jezebel or the Nicolaitans).


Revelation 7:13-14
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


Christians go through the great tribulation. They come out of it having washed their robes in Christ's blood to make them white.

Revelation 3:4-5
But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels....

Christians go through the great tribulation and those who overcome (as defined by the letters to the respective churches) will be clothed in white garments.

The hour of trial has NOT come to the whole world yet.

It has if the letter was written to address events of their day.

And you're on record explicitly stating the letter was written to address events of their day.


That contradiction between the acknowledgment the letter was about events in the first century and the claim Rev. 3:10 is about a future rapture is a big, huge, gigantic, enormous inconsistency in modern futurism. It is built on a neglect of the most basic precept in sound exegesis: the failure to first understand the text as the original readers would have understood it.

 

[CrowCross]

You are wrong.

AND you are contradicting yourself AGAIN.

I missed where you said the wrath the church of Philly was delivered from was dumped on the whole world.

Just where did 1/3 of the vegetation burn up? Tell me when the Rev 13 beast system was set up. Who were the two witnesses? When was the sky rolled up like a scroll...... I could make a whole list.

So, show me in history where Revelation happened.

 

[Josheb]

You lost me in the lengthy post.

Then go back and take your time and re-read it and re-read t as many times as it takes to correctly understand it becase to other posters have read it and commended it.

As I said...There are many things in Revelation that hasn't happened yet. That's a biblical AND historical fact.

Yes, but we are discussing ONLY Revelation 3:10 and the only reason we are discussing Revelation 3:10 is because the opening post attempts to use that verse to support a separated future rapture when the verse does nothing of the sort. We are discussing this verse and ONLY this verse because you have gone on record explicitly stating the letter was written to address events in their day. We are discussing that verse and that verse only because you failed to consider the qualifiers that preceded that verse, the contexts stated in the surrounding text, and the way scripture use the word, "world."

For example the events mentioned to the church of Philly...point to a future event.

No, they do not, and you have yet to prove that claim. Before you even attempt to prove that claim you must first reconcile the gaping inconsistency you've incurred by acknowledging the letter to the Philadelphians was written to address events of their day.

Only after doing so can you make an attempt to prove some future "pointing," but you'll have to start by defining what you mean by "point" because that is enormously ambiguous.

How do we know that? Go reread post 42. It speaks of the entire world.....not some local area around the church of Philly.

A little study of scripture addresses the futuristic interpretation of Revelation 3:10 and Post #58 refutes Post 42. Don't confuse geography with time. Just because the letter was written to address events of their day does not preclude the events of their day to reach beyond the border of Philadelphia. All seven of the letters were briefly examined to prove the tribulation the seven churches were experiencing was pervasive and reached beyond the geography on any one locale (see Post 11).

Your interpretation is built upon the premise the phrase "the whole world" does NOT mean the world the original reader knew existed but must necessarily mean the world we know exists two millennia later. That reinterpretation is held despite the fact there are many places in scripture where the world/earth are spoken of relevant to the world known to exist ack then AND in spite of the fact there is nothing in the entire chapter (Rev. 3) that states anything about the far, far, far distant future. That interpretation is held in spite of the belief the letter was written to address events of their day. The interpretation is held in spite of that huge contradiction. If the forceful allegiance to Dispensationalist teaching did not exist and scripture was read scripture as written, letting scripture interpret scripture instead of Darby doing it for you, the futurist abuse of Revelation 3:10 would not happen.


Rev. 3:10 cannot be about the future if it is about events in the first century. The mention of the whole world cannot mean what we know about the world because the first century reader did not know what we know and never would have interpreted John's words the way you have.