We believe: In the premillennial second coming of Jesus. First, to resurrect the righteous dead and to catch away the living saints to Him in the air. Second, to reign on the earth a thousand years.Does this mean that the COG teaches two second comings one ‘first’, and the other ‘second’? Does it teach two more comings which it both labels the ‘second coming? Doesn’t typical pre-trib consider the rapture to be a separate event from the second coming?Or does it mean that there is one second coming, and that the resurrection of the righteous dead and catching away of the living saints is ‘first’ in that it is more important and that the thousand year reign is of secondary importance.Is it saying that at the second coming, first the dead are raised and the Lord catches away the living saints into the air, and after that reigns 1000 years? That seems kind of post-trib.Is it possible that this statement was intentionally ambiguously (or rather unclearly) worded?Where is scripture for this two-step view of the second coming if that is indeed the intent, or for the idea that the resurrection and rapture of the living is more important than the thousand year reign?
It was ambiguous on purpose. So there can be some disagreement on pre, mid, post trib________________
I find the statement to be most consistent with Historic Premillenialism (posttrib). However, it does leave room for those who may prefer to believe in pretrib, mid trib or even prewrath. The CoG has no official doctrine regarding the tribulation period or the specific timing of the rapture other than that it will be at the premillennial second coming.
But wouldn’t that be one coming?The COG Declaration of Faith has it as the ‘Second Coming’ but it happens ‘first’ and ‘second’, as if it is two comings, or else the rapture and resurrection are more important than the thousand year reign, I suppose. It is poorly worded, IMO. I don’t think pre-tribbers consider the rapture to be part of the Second Coming, which seems to be implied with a pretrib interpretation of the statement. It seems oddly worded no matter which if the conventional views one might hold to.
But wouldn’t that be one coming?The COG Declaration of Faith has it as the ‘Second Coming’ but it happens ‘first’ and ‘second’, as if it is two comings, or else the rapture and resurrection are more important than the thousand year reign, I suppose. It is poorly worded, IMO. . Yes, it would be one coming, with two aspects, the resurrection/rapture of the church, and the physical descent of Christ to earth to establish His millennial reign. I think that is all the statement in the DoF requires, one second coming with two aspects involved. This is what I understand Historic Premillennialism/post trib to say.
Is the catching away of the resurrected saints for the marriage supper of the Lamb a second coming or the dead in Christ and those still alive going? When Christ returns will all the saints be with him to begin the 1000 year reign?
But wouldn’t that be one coming?The COG Declaration of Faith has it as the ‘Second Coming’ but it happens ‘first’ and ‘second’, as if it is two comings, or else the rapture and resurrection are more important than the thousand year reign, I suppose. It is poorly worded, IMO. . Yes, it would be one coming, with two aspects, the resurrection/rapture of the church, and the physical descent of Christ to earth to establish His millennial reign. I think that is all the statement in the DoF requires, one second coming with two aspects involved. This is what I understand Historic Premillennialism/post trib to say. I agree pretrib requires a second and a third coming, with the second being only in the clouds and back to Heaven. It’s awkwardly worded for that. We believe:In the premillennial second coming of Jesus. First, to resurrect the righteous dead and to catch away the living saints to Him in the air. Second, to reign on the earth a thousand years.So the second coming is going to happen first to resurrect the dead and rapture the living saints.And the second time the second coming happens is for Him to reign 1000 years?
It isn’t that hard to understand. First the rapture/resurrection, second/then (immediately followed by, in my view) the descent of Christ to the earth to reign.
I’m not sure I’m understanding your first question. Could you perhaps rephrase it?
The Bible does not say that the marriage supper of the Lamb happens in heaven. The passage about it is right before the passage which we premillennials interpret as being about the Second Coming, then the beast and false prophet being cast into the lake of fire, then the first resurrection, then the thousand years, there in Revelation 19
I’m not sure I’m understanding your first question. Could you perhaps rephrase it?I do find the Scriptures to clearly teach that all the saints will rise to meet Christ in the air when He returns, and will then escort Him back down to earth to defeat the enemies of God and establish the thousand-year reign over all the earth. Well, after rereading it, it is hard to understand because it is poorly worded. Sorry about that! My point was, the catching away (first resurrection of the dead in Christ and those Christians still alive) seems not to be the Seconding Coming of Christ, as when that occurs He will step on the Mt. of Olives. I’ve never really understood the reason for the marriage supper and wondered about its placement in the end times, but if it follows the first resurrection and proceeds the Second Coming, that works, especially in regards to the Great Tribulation which does seem to have a seven year time line.
I am unaware of any Scripture that places the marriage supper of the Lamb prior to the second coming of Christ to earth at the beginning of His millennial reign. I also know of no scriptures which say the marriage supper will last seven years. In Revelation 19, the marriage supper of the Lamb is placed in context of the return of Christ to earth in judgment. Indeed, the destruction of the wicked is described in that same chapter also as “the great supper of God.” There is nothing I know of in Scripture which would preclude the marriage supper of the Lamb as occurring at the beginning of the millennial reign of Christ on earth. I realize dispensationalism says the marriage supper of the Lamb occurs in Heaven following the pretrib rapture, but I have found zero evidence for the pretrib/dispensationalist scheme in Scripture. I would of course be absolutely thrilled to rise to meet Him whenever He comes, but the pretrib theory just has no support at all in Scripture.
F. J. Lee and Dispensationalism
If you read old issues of the Evangel, you will note that F. J. Lee was very much into Dispensationalism. He wrote articles on the subject with illustrations of the dispensations, traveled to teach on the subject with one of those dispensation time charts and most likely included it in BTS curriculum. I think I remember seeing an ad in the Evangel where people could buy one of those charts for their own ministry. Like his belief in Signs Following, as far has I have read he never changed his position on Dispensationalism. That could be why it runs deep in COG teaching/belief even to this day. Mat
Yes, dispensationalism was widely held amongst early Pentecostals, which was broadly popular in late 19th century and early 20th century evangelicalism as a result of the “Bible conference” movement of the late 1800s. The Scofield Reference Bible was very popular and influential, even though it was cessationist and antinomian, in keeping with Darby’s original dispensationalism.