...

Greetings. The Lord bless you.

I have been examining the boasting going on by some major proponents of pre-trib doctrine who claim that their method of interpreting the Bible is an especially literal method. However; I find that their commending themselves on that specific virtue a rather bizarre thing indeed and definitely something that is rather premature. Aside from not producing any literal statement from scripture that speaks of an invisible return of Jesus, or a secret resurrection of the just prior to the only one actually mentioned in scripture, or for that matter a single verse that speaks of any separate end-time seven year post-resurrection Gospel dispensation, I find that their literalness is hardly consistent and in fact appears to be a ruse being employed in order to inappropriately apply promises made to those of faith within Israel unto those natural born children of Abraham that are still outside those blessings. Perhaps what they mean by literalness is the fact that they have 'literally' ignored scripture which reveals that their doctrine actually doesn't have any scriptural foundation.

Rom. 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Rom. 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So much for being literal. Good grief!

Scripture should always be taken literally, (Unless the context and wording demands differently.) however any use of scripture becomes invalid when scripture has first been ignored in order to make possible a distinction that in fact totally contradicts Holy scripture. Go back and read the verses and see for yourself that it is only those who are of faith that inherit the promises made to Abraham. Once you replace those verses above how can anyone thereafter honestly say that those born after the flesh 'only' are inheritors of the promise? The Lord makes it plain, doesn't He, that in order for anyone to come under the promises made to Abraham they first need to born of God's Spirit. Pre-trib's so called literalness regarding Israel cannot be valid when it must first reject the sure foundation of the word of God, depart from such, to thereafter go and build a structure upon some other foundation.

The doctrine of pre-trib depends upon first rejecting the word of God in order to give promises that apply specifically to those Jews (& Gentiles) who have turned to God, (spiritual Israel) to then falsely make it appear that they also apply to those who have not as yet been restored to God. In doing so they have made void part of the New Covenant (The NT promise of inheriting the earth being part of such. Mat. 5:5 & Rev. 2:26-27 & Rev. 5:9-10) by which the Lord brings Jews unto Himself in order that Abraham's children may inherit the promises.

Rom. 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Rom. 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

(Error - 1) Main premise of the doctrine is false because it first rejects the word of God (Rom. 9:6-8 & Rom. 2:28-29) in order to make it appear that promises which belong only to those born of God now also belong to those who are not.

In part two we will examine a second major error that is built upon the first one above, namely that there is a second kingdom of God based on some covenant other than the New Covenant, which actually can't be possible because the only heirs are those who have accepted that NT covenant.

Mat. 21:33-46 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Here it is revealed that the kingdom of God was taken from them who had rejected the Lord, and that such was given over to another nation, that would bring forth fruit onto God. Here we see that the kingdom of God was taken from the priests under the Old Covenant, who were unprofitable, and that such was given over to the Church. Notice that that transfer leaves still only one kingdom of God and that such is made up of those bringing forth fruit unto God. The second kingdom of God therefore does not exist in God's plan, which requires all to come under the New Covenant in order to become part of His true kingdom of God, while at the same time inheriting all the promises, both spiritual and earthly, made to Abraham.

(Error - 2) An additional kingdom of God has been manufactured based on rejecting the Lord's words (Mat. 21:43-44) in order to transfer part of the promise made to Abraham's seed who were restored to God, and make such appear to be the inheritance of those who have not as yet come under the promise in order to be made heirs.

Earlier it was revealed that the main premises used to support pre-trib are borne of having first rejected scripture in order to produce a second, so called, kingdom of God that is populated by those who haven't been born of the Spirit of God, and therefore cannot be heirs of the blessings, either spiritual or earthly, and also that unto them was transferred part of the inheritance above, namely the earthly part which belongs to Abraham's children under the New Covenant.

(Error - 1) Main premise of the doctrine is false because it first rejects the word of God (Rom. 9:6-8 & Rom. 2:28-29) in order to make it appear that promises which belong only to those born of God now also belong to those who are not.

(Error - 2) An additional kingdom of God has been manufactured based on rejecting the Lord's words (Mat. 21:43-44) in order to transfer part of the promise made to Abraham's seed who were restored to God, and make such appear to be the inheritance of those who have not as yet come under the promise in order to be made heirs.

Now we will now examine a third major error, namely that, of creating a Millennial order founded upon those two false premises. Notice that two parallel kingdoms of God now exist in that Millennium based on a biblically impossible transfer of part of the inheritance away from Abraham's seed, according to the promise; to thereby create a second kingdom of God that is nowhere mentioned in scripture. The true kingdom of God consists of those born of the Spirit of God, and it is those saints, and only those saints who rule with Christ during the Millennium. The only kingdom of God that exists was transferred to the saints under the New Covenant by Jesus in the following verses, and it is that kingdom that overtakes and rules over the earth during the Millennium.

Mat. 21:43-44 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Rev. 2:26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Rev. 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and has redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Here it is revealed who the true rulers of the earth are, during the Millennium; and that such are all those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ regardless of their nationality. In other words, the Church; unto whom the kingdom of God was delivered.

(Error - 3) Contrary to the word of God, (Rev. 2:26-27 & Rev. 5:9-10 & Gal. 3:29) the resurrected saints from all the nations are replaced as rulers during the Millennium with those who never entered the kingdom of God, that was delivered to the Church, and so they never became Abraham's spiritual children, or heirs according to any promise.

So far it has been revealed that much scripture has been cast aside in order to make the prophetic scenario, put forward under the name pre-tribulationism, appear possible. Next I will show that dispensationalism's final pre-Millennial part, that being a short post-Church Gospel section, is not scripturally valid due to such being built exclusively upon errors that serve as its underlying foundation. I will also reveal the true significance of the final years leading up to the Lord's visible return. To recap I point out those specific errors used to produce a separate post-Church dispensation.

(Error - 1) Main premise of the doctrine is false because it first rejects the word of God (Rom. 9:6-8 & Rom. 2:28-29) in order to make it appear that promises which belong only to those born of God now also belong to those who are not.

(Error - 2) An additional kingdom of God has been manufactured based on rejecting the Lord's words (Mat. 21:43-44) in order to transfer part of the promise made to Abraham's seed who were restored to God, and make such appear to be the inheritance of those who have not as yet come under the promise in order to be made heirs.

(Error - 3) Contrary to the word of God, (Rev. 2:26-27 & Rev. 5:9-10 & Gal. 3:29) the resurrected saints from all the nations are replaced as rulers during the Millennium with those who never entered the kingdom of God, that was delivered to the Church, (Mat. 21:43-44) and so they never became Abraham's spiritual children, or heirs according to any promise.

First of all that particular dispensation depends upon the transfer of an earthly blessing from Abraham's children according to the promise, (which includes all the saints who have actually been born of God's Spirit) over to those still outside the blessing, and outside the kingdom of God, such having been transferred by Jesus over to the Church. Actually in order for Abraham's children, according to the flesh, to enter the kingdom of God, and so become true spiritual children of Abraham, to therefore become heirs of the earthly part of the blessing, they would have to become part of the present Church. The entire seventy weeks mentioned in Daniel focus on the desolations of Jerusalem so it is not even valid to make that final week into a dispensation when it is actually a continuation of the former desolations. A period of desolation upon Jerusalem hardly equals a Gospel dispensation, that desolation being a different matter altogether. That final period is however the closing chapter of the Lord's dealings with the nation Israel in the days leading up to His return.

Dan. 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Dan. 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Rom. 11:25-27 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

(Error - 4) The final years concerning the desolations of Jerusalem are, apart from any scripture to that effect, made into a separate Gospel dispensation which goes out after the Church, unto whom the kingdom of God was transferred, has been removed. (Dan. 9:2, 12:1 & Rom. 11:25-27) A removal of the remaining blindness as concerns natural Israel, in respect to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hardly signals the creation of some new dispensation, but rather the closing chapter of the present Great Commission as delivered unto the Church, the Gospel having come full circle back to gather into the kingdom of God, the natural seed of Abraham, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in. Praise the Lord!

We will now look at the final error that serves as the emotional propellant to carry along the four previously mentioned errors, and then after that in the following part we will look at the dangers involved in this conditioning, and the potential for such to be used to help bring in a kingdom that is not the kingdom of God, but nevertheless may appear to be so based on having accepted a separate earthly order not directly ruled or operated by born again resurrected saints.

The main concern underlying this teaching is one of severe persecution by the 'man of sin', and a perceived necessity for the Church to be spared such an indignity, and those trials that would accompany a worldwide rejection of the Gospel under an anti-Christ world order. The second concern is the horrific conditions that prevail upon the earth in the last days due to the Lord's judgments upon such, and the view that the Lord would have to remove His people from harm's way, by removing them from the earth altogether. Since these misconceptions contain a number of fallacies I will deal with each separately.

The history of the Church reveals that the Lord grants the grace to overcome even the most horrific persecutions, and indeed the Lord's presence, and support is most evident among believers who are undergoing severe opposition from the wicked.

Rom. 8:35-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Heb. 2:14-15 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

1 John 4:16-18 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Rev. 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

So it is plain that believers need to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and through Jesus Christ, put to death the 'fear of death' itself. With that out of the way that emotional factor, being used to distort the picture, has been removed. The present evil world does not contain the blessedness that the Lord's people seek anyway due to its pollution because of sin, and so our hope is to be entirely wrapped up in that blessedness, that comes in when the Lord has returned to take possession of the world's kingdoms, and definitely not something established in respect to any temporal things found this side of the resurrection.

Heb. 11:8-16 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

The Lord prior to bringing the Israelites out of Egypt brought down many plagues upon the Egyptians while at the same time protecting His people from those same judgments. To insinuate that the Lord couldn't do the same again as regards those saints upon the earth in the end time is a matter born of unbelief, and therefore that is a subject that should not even be momentarily entertained, or whispered in your closet, or yet even considered in your heart, and most definitely not by those who hope to be spared coming under those particular judgments.

And to conclude:

John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

(Error - 5) A formidable tag team play on the infirmity of the flesh; namely the fear of death, and unbelief concerning the Lord's ability to preserve His own, is used to usher in a number of errors that directly contradict the word of God. Neither influence can be attributed to the Spirit of God, but rather to man's own weakness. Fear of death and unbelief are not of the Holy Spirit and therefore ought not to be used to interpret the Holy scriptures.

To establish the overall situation I present the five errors all together.

(Error - 1) Main premise of the doctrine is false because it first rejects the word of God (Rom. 9:6-8 & Rom. 2:28-29) in order to make it appear that promises which belong only to those born of God now also belong to those who are not.

(Error - 2) An additional kingdom of God has been manufactured based on rejecting the Lord's words (Mat. 21:43-44) in order to transfer part of the promise made to Abraham's seed who were restored to God, and make such appear to be the inheritance of those who have not as yet come under the promise in order to be made heirs.

(Error - 3) Contrary to the word of God, (Rev. 2:26-27 & Rev. 5:9-10 & Gal. 3:29) the resurrected saints from all the nations are replaced as rulers during the Millennium with those who never entered the kingdom of God, that was delivered to the Church, (Mat. 21:43-44) and so they never became Abraham's spiritual children, or heirs according to any promise.

(Error - 4) The final years concerning the desolations of Jerusalem are, apart from any scripture to that effect, made into a separate Gospel dispensation which goes out after the Church, unto whom the kingdom of God was transferred, has been removed. (Dan. 9:2, 12:1 & Rom. 11:25-27) A removal of the remaining blindness as concerns natural Israel, in respect to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, hardly signals the creation of some new dispensation, but rather the closing chapter of the present Great Commission as delivered unto the Church, the Gospel having come full circle back to gather into the kingdom of God, the natural seed of Abraham, after the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in.

(Error - 5) A formidable tag team play on the infirmity of the flesh; namely the fear of death, and unbelief concerning the Lord's ability to preserve His own, is used to plant a number of errors that directly contradict the word of God. (Rom. 8:35-39 & Mark 8:35 & Heb. 2:14-15 & 1 John 4:16-18 & Rev. 12:11 & Heb 11:8-16 & John 17:15) Neither influence can be attributed to the Spirit of God, but rather to man's own weakness. Fear of death and unbelief are not of the Holy Spirit and therefore ought not to be used to interpret the Holy scriptures.

The introduction of an unbiblical return of the Lord prior to His visible glorious appearance lends itself to much speculation as to when that supposed event will happen, and with each new false alarm the Gospel loses more credibility in the eyes of those outside the body of Christ. Among those who have faith; the dashed hopes of an early deliverance, based on believing those irresponsible claims being put forward, cannot be anything but detrimental to their stability regarding their hope in Christ.

I have yet to see, or hear of, any tearful public display of repentance regarding those who have deceived many by their false predictions concerning the Lord's return, which reveals that not only do they tend to downplay the seriousness of their actions, but that they suffer from an extreme form of self deception in that they refuse to even acknowledge that they are actually out of the loop altogether as concerns any true understanding of prophetic matters as taught by the Holy Spirit.

Then of course there is the danger of believers not being properly prepared to hold out during an intense end time war against the saints. Then there is the false hope of a second chance for salvation which can only encourage a wait and see attitude as regards many. Suffice to say there are serious consequences involved as pertains to; the effective preaching of the Gospel, procrastination as regards repentance, the stability of many as regards the faith, and the overall efforts to fortify the Church in advance of Satan's last ditch efforts to deceive and destroy many.

There is another problem however in that there are elements attached to this doctrine that allow for the acceptance of an earthly order operated by mortal men who obviously have not been resurrected which appears all too convenient as regards the setting up of a fake Millennium. When that is considered side by side with the concept of post-Millennialism, (Jesus returning visibly only after the Church has ruled for a thousand years.) Dominionism, and Latter Rain (We are the Christ.) doctrines; the setting up of some global religious system based on those falsely professing to be God's elect becomes that much easier to install. The last such major effort by man along those lines produced the Dark Ages where men paraded around posing as God's representatives while waging a relentless war against the Church. (In that respect we are still in the Dark Ages.)

Awhile back I was amused to read on a web page that Rev. 3:10 was considered to be one of the strongest proofs for pre-trib, and so I wrote to the ministry, and pointed out that the verse in question was a specific promise made to a particular church and that such was fulfilled, and that there was no rapture involved in their being kept from that hour of temptation, and that such therefore couldn't be a reference to the great tribulation that takes place in the end time. (That verse most definitely doesn't mention any rapture.) They replied to the effect that those churches represented church ages, this generation supposedly representing the Philadelphian church, with the one left behind becoming the Laodicean church. (Classic partial rapturism doctrine.)

I pointed out that no reputable historian would back that church age theory business and that their doctrine amounted to partial rapturism because the Laodicean church in scripture, while corrupted through greed, was nevertheless still a genuine church. (Notice here that they had to put the rapture between two church ages which exposes pre-trib's partial rapturist roots.) They wrote back that they were very busy putting together their newsletter and could not respond right away. That must be quite the newsletter they are working on because that was over a year ago. Suffice to say I am not hopeful that I will ever get a response.

PS. The Catholic Church must be delighted in that one twist on this left behind Laodicean church thing makes that into the 'Mother of Harlot's and Abominations of the Earth'. Under that scheme of things who exactly is the Catholic Church; Cinderella?

The verse Rev 3:10 is quite plainly pulled out of context. That verse is addressed to a church in Asia. That promise was indeed fulfilled in their day, it had to have been, otherwise that passage doesn't make any sense. That business about seven church ages which is used to justify that out of context use of that verse comes directly from the Irvingite cult of partial rapturism which is heretical in the extreme. Partial rapturism taught that only the faithful Christians would make it into a secret rapture while those Christians who weren't ready would have to suffer during tribulation and then be caught up later at the Lord's visible return.

They considered themselves to be the wise virgins who would make it into a rapture, (at an invisible return of Jesus) while the foolish virgins (Those who didn't join their cult.) would be left behind to suffer for their sins, and then make it into the second phase of the resurrection at the Lord's visible return. If that sounds just like pre-trib, it is because that is where it came from; that cult. They split the Church into two parts, made themselves out to be the Philadelphians, and those they considered unworthy they called the Laodiceans. (IE. My church makes it, your church doesn't.) It was a form of elitism based on pride and quite properly called a cult because there is nothing in scripture that speaks of any such split phase catching up of the Church. It was a doctrine born of spiritual pride.

Notice that one church age had to be put on the other side of the rapture in order to provide some justification for their having pulled that verse out of context. Even if the church age doctrine were true, (it is not) all seven church ages would have to take place first before any resurrection. The fact that the last 1/7th. part is cut off reveals the truth that pre-trib is actually born of partial rapturism which has the Church itself going up in two sections. That chopping off of the last Church age in accord with partial rapturism ties pre-trib directly into the heretical cult that Darby stole his ideas from.

"September, 1830 The official quarterly publication of the Irvingites, "The Morning Watch," had promoted a post-trib coming exclusively through mid-1830. But, the September 1830 issue featured part two of an article by "Fidus" describing the theory that the seven letters in Revelation actually describe seven consecutive "Church ages." In this article, "Fidus" clearly articulated the new idea of a partial pre-trib rapture. "Fidus" saw the Philedelphian church being raptured prior to the tribulation, and the Laodicean church representing the less fortunate Christians. Click here to read the "Fidus" article (NJ).

This article in The Morning Watch is the first (known) publication of a pre-tribulation rapture in Great Britain, several years before Darby mentioned a pre-trib rapture." -- Tim Warner

The main proponents of pre-trib falsely deny that Darby got his ideas from that cult, while at the same time they teach doctrines from that same cult themselves. That's very much like unto someone standing there selling Watchtower magazines while denying at the same time that they are break away sect or that their leader has any connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Talk about deceiving and being deceived.

The pre-trib view requires the Laodicean church be left behind, that way they can appropriate the verse that was addressed to the Philadelphian church by applying the seven church age doctrine of the partial rapturists. The partial rapturists dreamt that thing up because they considered themselves to be so great, and beside they got to call those who didn't agree with them; "Laodiceans", and they could then also gloat over their being left behind. That historical church age thing is nothing more than wild conjecture. There is absolutely no scripture to the effect that those churches would represent seven church ages. Pure mysticism! Besides; you can't have an imminent return of the Lord while holding to the idea that there had to be all those church ages before the Lord could return. (You just cannot have both.) Either imminency goes or the church age doctrine has to go. You simply cannot have both because of that very obvious contradiction.

In the course of examining pre-trib doctrine I find that oftentimes rationalizations are used to justify the teaching of pre-trib doctrine apart from any literal support for its main claims, and regardless of its many contradictions to Holy scripture. One main doctrine put forward is the concept of 'imminency' and the idea that an any day expectation of Jesus' return helps to encourage godly living.

When you consider that life according to the flesh could end suddenly for anyone surely that truth would be sufficient of itself to induce man into living after a righteous manner if the idea of suddenly meeting one's Maker really could produce genuine godliness. When it comes to teaching imminency I find that pre-trib doctrine is hardly consistent; in that they allow many 'church ages' before the Lord can return. It seems that even the long standing 'imminency' doctrine is sacrificed when such serves the purpose of pre-trib. Strangely enough few seem to acknowledge those contradictions.

Now we will look at the passages referring to the Laodicean church to see if there is sufficient cause to assume that such ought to somehow be considered a post rapture church even when used within that bogus church age doctrine framework.

Rev. 3:14-22 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

There is obviously an assumption being made under the pre-trib scenario to the effect that there was no repentance forthcoming. That viewpoint assumes that the members of the Laodicean church just ignored that letter, and went home to eat, drink, and make merry. I suspect that there probably wasn't a dry eye in the house when that letter was read out. Pre-trib requires that its own particular spin be placed upon those passages in order to lop off the Laodicean church in order to appropriate that Philadelphian addressed verse for its own purposes. That seven church age business that they are employing was created by a cult, and the same one that pre-trib itself was actually derived from. To use that church age doctrine, and divide between the sixth and seventh church is to teach partial rapturism, because you have split the entire Church into two parts. To maintain that pre-trib didn't originally borrow from that cult, while at the same time using doctrines specifically created by that cult, creates a most dubious looking situation indeed. Something like a kid with chocolate all over his face claiming he doesn't know what happened to those cookies.

(1) Question: The Lord in the book of Revelation says that the tribulation saints take part in the first resurrection. Explain how pre-trib ends up with a resurrection prior to the 'first' one.

(2) Question: The Lord says that there would be one flock and one shepherd. How does pre-trib end up with two flocks?

(3) Question: The Lord, His angels, and His apostles all testify that His return would be a glorious event whereby every eye would see Him. Where are the verses that maintain that He returns 'invisibly' sometime prior to that?

(4) Question: Why would the Lord need a separate church for Jews in the end time when Jews are being saved and becoming part of the present Church that was itself founded by Jews?

(5) Question: Where in the NT does it speak of two resurrections for the just in the end time?

(6) Question: Why did partial rapturism; a belief that the Church was going up in two parts, just happen to pop up in the UK just prior to pre-trib having first made its appearance there?

(7) Question: JN Darby traveled to Port Glasgow, Scotland, to report on the alleged gifts of prophecy there, and met Margaret MacDonald, and stayed some weeks at her friend's, Mary Campbell's home. Darby wrote concerning that investigation, but why did he not make mention of Margaret's prophecy whereby he was introduced to the idea of an invisible pre-trib return of the Lord? Darby was very familiar with Edward Irving's partial rapturism doctrine, and regularly read the Irvingite publication, 'The Morning Watch', and even mentioned that he was very much attracted to that new partial rapturism concept. Why did he not accredit Edward Irving for his belief in a dual resurrection in the end time? There were others that taught a form of dispensationalism prior to Darby, why did he not give credit to those sources for having set him on the track in regards to that particular belief system?

(8) Question: Captain Percy Francis Hall, a principal Brethren evangelist, taught partial rapturism for five years (1832-1837) at Providence Chapel, Plymouth, the Plymouth Brethren's first and largest established church. Captain Hall even invited Edward Irving to preach there, but he refused due to his poor opinion concerning the rowdy ecumenical nature of that assembly. That connection to Irvingism's partial rapturism was subsequently expunged, for the most part, from official Brethren records. Are the scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary ignorant of that fact or do they prefer to continue the tradition of covering up that wicked business?

(9) Question: Why did a man who was editing Darby's writings, try to make it appear that Darby had come to his pre-trib position many years before he actually had? That historic revisionism contradicts the actual facts and records of Darby's own private letters and a number of his publications which reveal that Darby's did not form his views early on or independently, but rather that he was in the habit of borrowing other people's ideas without giving proper acknowledgement. That a fan of Darby's would try to pre-date his work to separate such from the cult movements that he actually 'borrowed' such from indicates that godliness and honesty were not particularly esteemed among the Darby Brethren.

" While the early orthodox Church trained by the Apostles was pre-millennial, and generally held to a literal interpretation of Scripture, it did not hold to a "dual program" kind of dispensationalism, but held that the "Church" consists of all of the redeemed, from both Israel and the nations. They saw a series of progressive dispensations, unfolding in a single plan of God for the redemption of mankind. The nation of Israel was a key component in this plan. The "dichotomy" between Old and New Testament programs found in modern dispensationalism is not found in the early orthodox Christian view, but was actually found in the Gnostic sects the early Church so vigorously opposed.

The same is true of the "heavenly destiny" concept. The early orthodox Church saw its destiny as a horizontal hope, the Millennial Kingdom when Christ returns to earth, followed by the eternal state on a restored earth. It was again the Gnostics who imagined a "heavenly destiny." This concept was carried into Christianity by the writings of Origen, and later made mainstream by Augustine's amillennial view. The early premillennial Christians claimed that their view was handed down by Apostolic authority, and they were quite skilled in defending it using a literal hermeneutic. In today's terminology, the early orthodox Church was "progressive dispensational," "futurist," "post-tribulational," and "pre-millennial."

In Darby's abandonment of amillennial historicism, and return to premillennial futurism, he failed to abandon a key element of amillennialism, the "heavenly destiny" concept. He was right to reject replacement theology. He was right to reject allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures related to Israel. But he was wrong to continue to maintain the "heavenly destiny" concept for the Church. The "heavenly destiny" concept of amillennialism being blended with the "chilaism" (pre-millennialism) of the early orthodox Church, is what produced modern dispensationalism (and pre-tribulationism) with its dichotomy between God's program for Israel and His program for the Church. Darby was on the right track with Israel, but he did not go far enough in undoing the damage of amillennialism." -- Tim Warner

That Catholic mysticism concerning the saints was used to produce a celestial kingdom of God while a renewed form of Judaism was used to create a second kingdom of God on earth for the Jews. That dichotomy being used to produce pre-trib incorporates Catholic concepts concerning the afterlife of saints that were originally derived from pagan mysticism.

Mat. 5:5 Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.

Gnostics taught that the material world, and thus flesh itself was evil, while they held that only pure spirit could be considered blessed. To them having a resurrected body of flesh, and living in a material world were not consistent with their idea of a blessed afterlife, and so their idea of a blessed existence was one of floating around in spirit bodies, something like unto what is found in the Indian 'Happy Hunting Grounds'. However that pagan philosophy is shot to pieces in that Jesus Himself arose in a body of flesh such having been transformed into an immortal state. Furthermore He showed the disciples His hands and feet to make it clear that a material state was heavenly once quickened by the Spirit of God.

The separating of earthly and spiritual blessing was derived from that pagan philosophy which sees the material world as evil while a pure spirit world only was considered as being blessed. To Gnostics escaping the flesh constituted salvation itself because to them flesh was a prison and the cause of man's being unable, for the most part that is, to recognize his own inherent godhood. It was the Catholics who borrowed that pagan concept of the afterlife of the blessed, and so that is where you get that all that unbiblical mysticism whereby Christians end up spending eternity playing harps up in the clouds while wearing little angel's wings.

Considering the power of pre-trib to bedazzle the mind with its Gnostic dualism, that makes the material world incompatible with a spiritual kingdom of God, somehow it doesn't really surprise me that many would buy into that two kingdoms of God business. I cannot however find any such divided or twofold kingdom of God anywhere in God's plan. It is sin and not matter that made the world the evil place that it is; and indeed the Lord after making everything said that such was 'good'.

It was the Gnostics who put forward the idea that matter was an evil trap that prevented man from realizing that he was a god. Hinduism teaches that the material world is an inferior sub order, actually an illusion that blocks man from becoming god conscious, and so they teach that man must transcend such in order to break free and become a truly spiritual being. No atonement needed in that religion; just man plugging into spiritual states whereby man imagines that he has been transformed into a god, he having supposedly separated himself from evil matter by entering into an all encompassing delusion.

That is where the Word-Faith ideology comes from; it having its basis in the Christian Science and New Thought movements, such having been subtly transposed by EW Kenyon over top of God's word to create a hybrid religion using the Hindus Gnostic philosophy, and then dressing such up by misusing scripture to put forward that particular form of pagan, mind over matter concept, as if such had something to do with the Christian faith. Pre-trib likewise uses Gnostic philosophy to produce two kingdoms of God; a material one and a spiritual one, as if it were not possible to have an integrated system after sin has been removed.

But Jesus came into the world in a mortal body of flesh in order to be the 'Lamb of God' that takes away man's sin; (The sin that brought in death and a curse upon the whole creation.) and He left this world in an immortal body of flesh. According to Gnostic philosophy that must have been an illusion, (They therefore deny that Jesus came in the flesh.) because they cannot therein reconcile their idea of matter being evil with spirit only being considered good. (They don't necessarily distinguish between good and evil according to the spirit either; it can be simply; matter=evil & spirit=good.) The truth however is that both good and evil exist in the spirit as well as being found in the material realm.

To use that spirit-matter dualism to postulate two kingdoms of God is to use Gnostic philosophy to interpret God's word. That is a carnally minded approach that is not even compatible with spiritual mindedness; since that dualism cannot grasp a truly blessed material world that has been totally cleansed by God; which by the way is exactly what happens when all is said and done. Natural man will be revealed as being incorrigible during the Millennium even without Satan around to stir things up. That number definitely does not include any saint who is therein an immortal being supervising the world's kingdoms that in the end again join in league with Satan.

That reveals that man apart from the resurrection of the just cannot inherit the spiritual kingdom of God. Flesh and blood; that is carnal man, cannot inherit the kingdom of God because he has not been made totally subject to the Spirit of God because of his inherent sinful nature which is done away with only through Jesus Christ, such liberty being only possible on a perfectly consistent basis forever to those who have been born of the Spirit of God, and raised again in an immortal body with the infirmity that accords with mortal flesh being removed altogether. This verse must be ignored by those who maintain that God has two kingdoms with two kinds of saint that correspond to those two kingdoms.

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Rom. 8:5-10 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

2 Cor. 5:1-4 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Rom. 8:19-26 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

At the Lord's visible return all the saints from all time, both from among the Jews and Gentiles, (OT & NT) receive a glorified body and they all will rule with Jesus upon the earth for one thousand years, and then afterward they live with Jesus upon a totally new earth with new heavens. The saints who passed on are in a state of rest with the Lord awaiting their resurrection according to the flesh in order to participate in the Lord's Millennial kingdom. The Lord Jesus while on the earth was also in Heaven, that being a reference to His oneness with His Father who is in Heaven. So then Heaven is of the Spirit which allows for man to be at the same time upon the earth.

John 3:12-13 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Spiritually those who have been born of God have been translated into the kingdom of God.

Luke 17:20-24 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

While Heaven is the Lord's abode those united with Him in Spirit (by the blood of Christ) are partakers of His kingdom. A heavenly spiritual state is therefore based on being in communion with Jesus who is in Heaven. The mystery of that blessedness will be fully understood at the resurrection when the mystery of God shall be finished. Suffice to say we need to be filled with the Spirit of God to comprehend that oneness with God which spiritually places us in heavenly places in Christ.

You could say in one sense that Jesus is bringing heaven with Him, and so the saints can dwell upon the earth, while at the same time being filled with the Spirit of God; which as is the case now, will then be our direct contact with God, our Father, who is in Heaven. That blessedness then will be full and constant because our bodies will be immortal and not be subject to temptations that are directed toward the infirmity that accords with having mortal flesh. Did you really want to spend eternity sitting on a cloud?

Pre-trib is certainly a most profound riddle to unravel, and not something easily dispelled apart from giving one's full attention to the matter, and that is because it has so complicated matters by creating two kingdoms of God; one a materialistic kingdom for Jews, and another heavenly counterpart for born again Christians.

What also further makes it difficult to tune into the simplicity of the Lord's plan, that has been obscured behind that dualistic fašade, is the fact that dispensationalism has coloured so many peoples' views concerning prophecy, whether they are dispensationalists or not. Rather than seeing that the Lord is bringing both Jews and Gentiles together under the New Covenant into one people to rule with Him in the Millennium, pre-trib has created a division based on separating the blessings (spiritual & earthly) that actually only apply to Abraham's seed according to the promise, that is; those who have been born of God.

That dichotomy is then used to produce a people of God that remain outside the Church, and yet are saved which directly contradicts the fact that it is only through acceptance of the New Covenant that Jews or Gentiles can be saved. The old shadows in the OT that pointed to the New Covenant are now being run up alongside of the New Covenant as if the Lord now has two separate plans for salvation whereas there is actually only one. In truth it is only those who are in Christ who inherit the promises, which includes being resurrected with immortal bodies, as well as inheriting the earth. That is a biblical fact.

The Jews' return to the land doesn't make them heirs with Abraham according to the promise, which promise is fully made manifest when Jesus returns, and that promise only applies to those who have accepted Him as Saviour. Those Jews who have not accepted the Lord before His return, to thereby become part of His assembly, will not get even so much as one single square inch of land in the Millennium because apart from Christ they will all be in Gehenna.

The pre-trib position has with its dualistic system actually transformed the New Covenant (and the Church) into just a sideline in the Lord's overall program, an earthly nationalism as regards the Jews being brought in as if there exists a promise to them which is not contingent on their having first accepted the New Covenant.

The lack of any initial support from scripture for pre-trib's main tenets clearly reveals that its paradigm was created by way of a purely imaginative process which imposed self serving private interpretations upon scripture. The unorthodox concepts employed in this novel rewriting of God's word are however devoid of any primary literal foundation in scripture. Pre-trib doctrine is thereby betrayed as a clever distortion of the truth which contains more than a few dangerous elements.

These are the unbiblical revelations being used to interpret the Holy scriptures.

(1) A secret invisible return of Jesus before His visible return.

(2) That the Church (spiritual Israel made up of Jews and Gentiles) and restored natural Israel do not merge together by way of the New Covenant into one Bride, but remain two separate flocks. (And so you actually end up with two Brides.) (And two governments during the Millennium.)

(3) Multiple resurrections for the just in the last days.

(An aside: I have been told by pre-tribbers that God has a Bride and so does Jesus. The gross heresy inherent in that view apparently going right past their understanding altogether.)

The two revelations above (1 & 3) came from the Irvingite partial rapturist cult. Darby added revelation number 2 above to produce pre-trib.

Earlier on I mentioned that a reviser (William Kelly) had changed JN Darby's writings in order to make it appear that Darby had developed the pre-trib doctrine independently and much earlier than he actually had in an effort to separate pre-trib from the partial rapturist cult that the doctrine actually developed out of. That fact was well known back then and such proved to be such an embarrassment to Darby, and such a detriment to spreading his doctrine, that William Kelly was working furiously to try and hide the truth that it was the Irvingite cult, and not Darby who created an invisible return of Jesus along with a rapture prior to the man of sin waging war against the saints in the end time.

Darby simply redefined the Irvingite doctrine to make their Laodicean church age into an entirely separate dispensation. While the Irvingites in 1830 considered the Jewish tribulation saints to be part of their left behind Laodicean church, by 1831 they were already making a clear distinction between those particular Jewish saints and that left behind segment of the Church. Darby only had to go one step further and excommunicate those Jewish saints altogether in order to produce his dispensation. Darby basically turned the Laodicean tribulation saints, under partial rapturism, into Jews within a new dispensation. Take particular note that pre-trib's employment of the Irvingite's partial rapturist doctrine of seven church ages exposes the true roots of Darby's dispensationalism. Indeed pre-trib doctrine has made the so called Laodicean church age, conjured up by Irving's partial rapturists, out to be same as that seven year dispensation regarding natural Israel.

I read where the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, Chuck Swindoll, has expressed an interest in distancing DTS itself from pre-trib doctrine. It all comes down to pre-trib's inherent lack of credibility, its inability to provide literal statements from scripture to establish doctrinal integrity, its highly controversial, dangerous, and disruptive nature, and certainly a desire to save DTS by somehow moving it off its shaky dispensationalist foundation.

In 1993 Chuck Swindoll, who became DTS president after John Walvoord, stated: "I'm not sure we're going to make dispensationalism [the chief attraction of which is a pretrib rapture] a part of our marquee as we talk about our school." When asked if the word "dispensationalism" would disappear, he answered: "It may and perhaps it should" ("Christianity Today," Oct. 25, 1993)! -- Dave MacPherson

It's becoming very plain indeed that pre-trib was a spin off from a heretical cult and not something that came from God's word at all. Here is that information on the early attempts to cover up the truth concerning Darby's doctrine.

William Kelly's Journal - The Pinnacle of Pre-Trib Pilfering!

A valid, theologically sound, 'literal' reading of scripture, and the 'true' historical record both support the position I have put forward above. Pre-trib doctrine is therefore simply a mystical illusion, a profoundly subtle form of heterodoxy that is based on false revelations being superimposed over top of the Holy scriptures.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.



Copyright © 2005 by Light of Life Ministries.
This page was created on the 14th. of Sept. 2005


 http://lol.witnesstoday.org/ 

 SITE MAP