User talk:Brwebb

Hey Bro:

If you would, please review and comment. Thanks. --Midnite Critic 06:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm going to think/pray about it some more.  --Midnite Critic 17:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

POV in disp: Bib args against
Bro:

As you may have guessed, I am by no means a dispensationalist (although I was raised to be one). However, I am a bit disturbed by the rather blatant POV in the first two sub-sections in the above-referenced section of the Dispensationalism article, although I don't necessarily disagree. I noticed that you have made some non-POV modifications in this section, and I am wondering if you have any suggestions for rewording these two sub-sections. Thanks in advance for your input. --Midnite Critic 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank you for your comments, although I wasn't necessarily trying to turn the section into non-POV. I simply did not wish to be included among those who believe the seven churches represent seven periods of history, or among those who add a seven-year trib between the "glorious hope" and the "blessed appearance". I don't hold these views; and I know other dispensationalists who don't hold them, either. Personally, I have no problem with the section on Biblical Arguments Against Dispensationalism being POV, because that is the intent of the section. But if it bothers you, maybe you could add something like, "(From a non-dispensational standpoint), the main problems with dispensationalism involve (perceived) errors in biblical interpretation..."; etc. Will that work? Brwebb

Criticism and Rebuttal: Rapture
Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 previously edited my comments found on the Rapture Discussion page, making it appear to the casual reader that I wrote the words he or she added. I have changed that section back to my original comments, and will address his or her additional comments here.

I had initially written: ...we don't believe the Lord will come two different times, as the author claims. We believe that there is only one future prophesied coming of Christ to the earth, preceded by a  non-prophesied  coming of Christ in the air for His saints (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

To which Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 added, "(Is not this two comings of Christ?)"

 My reply : The scriptures never state that the Lord can only come once; this is simply a conclusion drawn by Theologians. If He chooses to come in the air for His church before the tribulation (as I believe 1 Thess. 4:17 is talking about), and later come to the earth in wrath (2 Thess. 1:8, 2:8), there is no scripture that forbids Him from doing so. If you choose to define the Rapture as another coming of Christ, that’s your choice. Prophecy simply states that the Lord will "come again" (John 14:3; compare Zech. 14:4; Mt. 16:28; Mt. 24:3, 27, 30,and 37; Mt. 26:64; Mk. 13:46; Acts 1:11 and 3:20; Ro. 11:26; 2 Thess. 1:7, 1:10, and 2:8; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 9:28; James 5:7; 2 Peter 3:4; Jude 14; Rev. 1:7 and 22:20). But as I stated before, most "Pre-Tribbers"believe the Lord will only come to the earth once, after the tribulation. There are, however, a few "Pre-Tribbers" who believe there will be multiple Raptures in the future. Maybe some of them believe the Lord will return to the earth more than once; but if they do, I am not familiar with this belief.

I had also written: At that time, the Lord will never come to the earth (according to 1 Thess. 4:17, He comes in the air), so His second coming - which will be to the earth - will still be future.

To which Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 added, "(Again he mentions two comings)"

 My reply : See my above explanation.

I had also written: As for the "first resurrection" into the Millennial kingdom (Revelaton 20:4-5), again, many of us do not believe that either the pre-trib resurrection or the Rapture was prophesied.

To which Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 added, "(Didn't he just say that the Rapture was not prophecied?)"

 My reply : Basically, there are two types of "Pre-Tribbers" that I am aware of. One group does believe the Lord was referring to the Rapture in Mt. 24:31, when He stated that His angels "shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other". Personally, I do not hold this view - I can see how this would make the Rapture a prophesied event (indeed, there are a lot of prophecies connected with Matthew chapter 24). That is why I belong to a second group, which doesn’t believe Mt. 24:31 refers to the Rapture, but to Israel's future return back into the land (see Deut. 30:1-5; Neh. 1:9; Is. 11:11-16; Jer. 29:14, 30:10-24, and 31:7-11; Ezek. 11:17, 20:34-43, 28:25-26, and 36:24-28). In any case, most of the "Pre-Tribbers" I know of today (in both groups) make a distinction between the resurrection that was prophesied in the Old Testament (Is. 26:19-21; Ezek. 37:12-14; Dan. 12:1-3) and the resurrection that will occur at the Rapture (1 Corinthians chapter 15; Phil. 3:11; 1 Thess. 1:16). In the past, some "Pre-Tribbers" may have taught that these passages all refer to the same resurrection, thereby combining the resurrection of Old Testament saints with the resurrection of the New Testament saints at the Rapture. But I don’t think this is a widely held belief today. There are also those who distinguish the "rapture" of 1 Thess. 4:16-17 from the resurrection of the dead in Phil. 3:11 (known as the "out-resurrection"); but I don’t hold that belief, either.

And finally, I had written: This belief is based on passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:51, where Paul stated that he was showing them a "mystery" (we believe he was showing them something that had never before been mentioned in scripture).

To which Mr. or Ms 66.226.32.35 added, "(The subject and object of 1 Corintians 15 is about the resurrection)"

 My reply : I agree that the subject and object of 1 Corinthians 15 is about a resurrection. But since Paul calls the events surrounding this particular resurrection a "mystery" (1 Cor. 15:51), I don’t believe this is the resurrection that was prophesied in the Old Testament (again, see Is. 26:19-21; Ezek. 37:12-14; and Dan. 12:1-3). Paul also mentioned this same resurrection in 1 Thes. 4:16-17, when he stated that "the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air". The events of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 through 5:3 are chronological; so after the resurrection/rapture of 1 Thes. 4:16-17 takes place, 1 Thess. 5:2-3 states that "sudden destruction" shall come upon "them" (those left behind), "and they shall not escape". Here in 1 Thess. 5:2-3, I believe Paul is referring to the wrath of God that was prophesied throughout both the Old and New Testaments (Job 21:30; Psalms 2:5 and 21:9; Is. 13:6, 9 and 13; Joel 1:15; Luke 21:23; 1Thess. 1:10, 5:2, 3 and 9; Rev. 6:17; Rev. 14:10 and 19; Rev. 15:1 and 7; Rev. 16:1). Brwebb 03:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox/Catholics and Dispensationalism
On the Dispensationalism "talk" page, you stated that you knew (Roman) Catholics who hold a belief in a pre-tribulational rapture. These Christians have clearly been influenced by dispensationalism, possibly via charismatic renewal, and, I suspect, would constitute a very small minority within the Roman Church. None of the Churches which pre-date the Reformation teach this, and I, in fact, have seen no evidence to suggest that the idea was known anywhere prior to Darby and/or McDonald, save one quotation from the first millenium, which is, if I recall correctly, rather ambiguous. If you're aware of any other evidence, I would be interested in seeing it. Hope you had a blessed Christmas. --Midnite Critic 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I do not question the accuracy of your information; but I still wonder about some things, including your statement that the pre-trib rapture was not known anywhere prior to Darby/McDonald. Would that really disprove the pre-trib rapture, if it could still be supported from scripture? For example, Lutherans believe Martin Luther "rediscovered" the gospel, which had previously been lost; yet most Lutherans refuse to admit that Darby could also have "rediscovered" the pre-trib rapture teaching. Yet even Paul stated in Acts 20:29-30 that after his departure, some who were already among his flock would begin to speak perverse things, and draw away disciples after themselves. Likewise, when Paul stated that the time would come when men would turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables (2 Tim. 4:1-4), he seemed to be implying that Timothy himself would witness that day. Could this be what happened with teachings such as the pre-trib rapture? If so, then why can't Darby teach a "rediscovered" truth, if Luther can?

Midnite Critic's reply: IMHO, such a situation would not disprove it, but from a pre-reformational perspective, it would, a priori, make it suspect. This is because such a perspective understands the references in the New Testament to "the Church" to refer, not to some invisible entity, but to a visible organization (or organizations), continuous in time and space and, however small it may become, faithful to Christ from the Day of Pentecost until His Second Coming. Because of that, one holding this perspective would not grant your premise concerning Luther and the other Reformers; in order to do so, one would have to document that some community existed from the time of Jesus until Luther, which held the beliefs of the Reformation. Not only is such evidence lacking, but all the evidence points in the opposite direction. As far as II Timothy 4:1-4 goes, it most probably, in its immediate historical sense, refers to the onslaught, on the one hand of gnosticism and, on the other, Judaizers, both of which plagued the Church in the late first and the second centuries, as evidenced by the writings from this time which attack both, especially the gnostics (some of whom were, in fact, also Judaizers). From a purely historical perspective, one would have to show, I think, that Paul, in writing I Thess. 4:13-18, intended to teach a pre-tribulational rapture; however, given that the Fathers of the late first and second century, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles themselves, show no evidence of any knowledge of this belief, one is therefore forced to conclude, historically, that the idea was not around in the First Century, either. (As an opposite example, it IS known that at least some of the Second Century Fathers believed that Christ, upon His return, would indeed establish a literal 1,000 year reign on earth; the most prominent of these was Justin Martyr who, ironically, rejected the canonicity of the Book of Revelation;  the canon of the New Testament had yet to be completely finalized.)  --Midnite Critic 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Brwebb responds: Again, thanks; I think I know what you are saying. I believe you are writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, and that you reject the Lutheran perspective? As for evidence that the pre-trib rapture was known prior to Darby or McDonald, what do you think about the writings of Victorinus, Cyprian, and Ephraim the Syrian, which are documented at http://www.biblefacts.org/history/subject/rapt.html (Right now, I am not sure about Shepard)?


 * Actually, I am a priest in an independent Syriac Orthodox Church. Thanks for finding those cites.  I think the Ephrem quote was the one I was thinking of.  I will research them and get back to you.  "Shepard," I think, refers to a text called "The Shepherd of Hermes" which actually may be somewhat earlier than 150.  --Midnite Critic 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also like to expand on my statement that I know Catholics who believe in the pre-trib rapture. A friend, who firmly believes in the pre-trib rapture, was talking one day about praying to Mary. When I asked her about her beliefs, she stated that she is a devout Catholic, but she still believes in a pre-trib rapture. She didn't seem to think there was a problem with this. And since I am not Roman Catholic, I didn't know which doctrines Roman Catholics have to believe, and which ones they are not allowed to believe (I was saved in a Baptist church, where some baptists don't believe in the pre-trib rapture, and others do; this is not a forbidden doctrine within the Baptist Church). Or, for another example, I once worked with an engineer who also claimed to be a devout Catholic; however, based upon passages such as 1 Tim. 2:5, he did not believe in praying to Mary. Or, take another Catholic friend I used to work with: at the age of 53, she received the Lord Jesus Christ as her Saviour. She said that she had never heard this in the Catholic Church; but she would not quit the Catholic Church, because she had been Catholic all her life. These three people come to mind right now; if they are a minority, are their beliefs actually forbidden by the Catholic Church? And if so, does this mean they would be excommunicated if their church found out? God bless! Brwebb 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Midnite Critic's reply: As far as I know, none of the prereformation Churches, including the RCC, have officially declared that the doctrine of a pre-tribulational rapture is a heresy;  therefore, while these Churches do not teach this, neither do they state that one may not hold it (whether one SHOULD believe this is another matter) as a matter of theological opinion. The Marian/Saints issue is a bit stickier, but Rome rarely excommunicates anyone these days. In this case, no Roman Catholic is REQUIRED to ask for the intercession of the Saints; however, if  the engineer you mention were to denounce belief in the intercession of the Saints in a very public way,  I suspect he would encounter opposition from the RC hierarchy. Beyond that, I doubt that much would be done (if he were a theologian, it would be another matter; however, in any event, excommunication is, again, rare these days;  even Hans Kung, a liberal RC theologian, has not been excommunicated.)   As far as the third person you mention, while the prereformation Churches do not use the same language as Baptists, they do, indeed believe in and teach personal commitment to Christ every bit as much, and there are plenty of RC's out there, especially among those involved with charismatic renewal, who are as "born again" in the classic Evangelical/Fundamentalist sense of the term as any Baptist. There are even some who call themselves "Evangelical Catholics" (Not to be confused with certain Anglicans and esp. High Church Lutherans who refer to themselves by this term). --Midnite Critic 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your question at the OR noticeboard
Has the situation been resolved to your satisfaction? Just curious.


 * Yes, thanks. I also see other portions that I need to remove; I just haven't had the time yet. Brwebb 11:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra vs Hyper
Thank you for the reference & quote you left on my talk page. I agree that there may be distinctions to be made between Bullingerites and the less extreme variations. I just don't really see the justification for two separate articles as rammed through by User:Mysteryofthegospel. However, I am not motivated to make an issue of it here on Wikipedia. I will likely take your reference/quote and use it on Theopedia. Thanks, Jim Ellis (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hyperdispensationalism HateSpeech


Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Hyperdispensationalism HateSpeech, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)