3 Views on the Rapture (Archer, Moo, Feinberg)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Commas. Periods.

Yes, they believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in some way was or prefigured the destruction of the Old Covenant Creation.
Which is interesting, as Peter seems to indicate that the entire earth will be reborn again, and Jesus links this to His Second Coming event itself.
 
Have eothe
Commas. Periods.

Yes, they believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in some way was or prefigured the destruction of the Old Covenant Creation.
This is not a loaded question but do you subscribe to this belief?

Also, have either of y'all read Josephus' account of the destruction of Jerusalem?
 
That is good, as it's {preterism} not found in the Bible itself.
Well, to be precise, there is a distinction between partial and full preterism. Is there not an historicist that would deny being partially preterist, given that they would hold that some of Revelation was fulfilled in the past?
 
Well, to be precise, there is a distinction between partial and full preterism. Is there not an historicist that would deny being partially preterist, given that they would hold that some of Revelation was fulfilled in the past?
What is the major difference though between those 2 views?
 
Sure, but the Neronic thesis has fallen on hard times, since the chronology of the seven or eight emperors doesn't really work. The David Chilton view of preterism is slightly more defensible, but it, too, has its own problems:

1) The worst tribulation in the history of the world is the death of 70,000 apostate Jews.
2) It's hard to see how this view doesn't lead to full preterism.
And the worst event in Egypts history was the death of the firstborn?
We could go around and around. The chronology is fine.
I fail to see how the proof texts for tribulation comes to 7 years that have been seperated (when Revelation mentions 3 and a half years over and over) and that the one bringing and end to offering was the antichrist. I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.
 
Last edited:
That is good, as it's not found in the Bible itself.
Good grief. Assertion after assertion after assertion. Please use hard exegetical, historical and church history evidence please without saying that the preterist interpretation cannot be found in the Bible.
 
And the worst event in I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.

Have you read or interacted with many pre-wrathers? They are quite clear on that.
 
I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
Not deeply. From my readings they share many of the same assumptions of foundational texts. I The umbilical cord has not been cut between the two.

I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
 
I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.


I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
I will keep that in mind.
Thanks!
 
Good grief. Assertion after assertion after assertion. Please use hard exegetical, historical and church history evidence please without saying that the preterist interpretation cannot be found in the Bible.
I should have clarified that while the partial viewpoint can be supported from the scriptures, the full blown version that denies the future Second Coming and a physical resurrection has been seen as being heresy.
 
And the worst event in Egypts history was the death of the firstborn?
We could go around and around. The chronology is fine.
I fail to see how the proof texts for tribulation comes to 7 years that have been seperated (when Revelation mentions 3 and a half years over and over) and that the one bringing and end to offering was the antichrist. I do not mean to derail or debate; I am just unsure how certain prewrathers or any of those actually distance themselves from the flawed foundation upon which dispensationalism was founded. Undoubtedly one can still be futurist.
many see the wrath of Man in first half, and then the wrath of God from midpoint on, as that would be when Mid trib rapture happens in that viewpoint.
 
I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.


I'll enumerate some differences

1. Dispensationalists argue that God can't work with the church and Israel at the same time. Pre-wrath rejects that.

2. Dispensationalists say that the church cannot experience the eschatological wrath of God, which is why God has to rapture the church in Rev. 4:1. Yet as pre-wrathers keenly point out, the martyred saints in Revelation 6 are asking God when he will pour out his wrath, meaning that the dispie argument is wrong.
Actually, the position would be that the Church itself would be taken away right before Antichrist appears, and that there are also a great multitudes saved out for God in the tribulation that were unsaved before the Rapture event happened.
 
Actually, the position would be that the Church itself would be taken away right before Antichrist appears, and that there are also a great multitudes saved out for God in the tribulation that were unsaved before the Rapture event happened.

Are you talking about the dispensational view or the pre-wrath view?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top