Rapture views

The rapture happens on the last day;

 

If by Rapture you mean some "taking away" without regard for either of the options given, then yes.

 

I'm pre-trip, but I might be wrong. I'll let you know if I was when we get to heaven. For now, I'll just focus on the gospel. The end will happen as God has chosen for it to happen.

 

You assume the rapture is a separate event from the second coming?

 

I hold to a pre-tribulation rapture because of the 70 weeks (weeks of years) of Daniel
69 are complete and one is left. The church was not part of the 69 and I don't believe it will have any part in the 1 week that is left which is the 7 year tribulation period. The 70 weeks are to deal with Israel and not the church. So if I am correct then the rapture would have to take place at the beginning of the 7 year tribulation period.
I will say this however. I have studied every major idea on the subject. The ones you mentioned and some others and to be honest there is problems with them all included the one I hold. What I have done is pick the one that has the most possible validity based on scripture and even doing that there is some questions left as to the timing.

Since you are in a study of the rapture let me throw you something to consider. Most who hold to any kind of rapture, I say most because some reject it altogether, believe that at the rapture every child that is under what is taught the "age of accountability" will go in the rapture. By the way the age of accountability is also something that raises many questions, but that is another subject.
However I hold that no one except the saved will go in the rapture. No not babies regardless of age or anyone else. Only those who have been born again because they have come to repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is my view.

Now here is why. During the flood only 8 people were carried through the judgment of the flood. All the rest perished. You can be sure there was babies who died in the flood and they were not allowed on the ark. Also during the time of lot. No babies or children went along with Lot his daughters and his wife. Only those who could make a personal decision to believe God were spared in both cases and even Lot's wife blew that by turning to look back. Just something to think about.

 

I believe it's both separate and part of. The "first coming" included Christ dying, returning to the father for 3 days, then coming back to Earth for 40. I know of no scholar that views this as "two comings"...yet make this very accusation in the understanding Christ will come for His own...return to Heaven for 7 (or 3.5 years), then return to earth to reign.

 

I also believe in a pre-trib rapture basically for the same reason(s) as freeatlast does. (OTOH, if I'm wrong about it, I guess I'll line up with what jbh28 posted.)

 

I am a historic premillennialist. In other words, I believe the Bible teaches that Christ will return and reign for 1,000 years without the interference of satan. As far as the rapture goes, I think it happens with the second coming and not 7 years prior.

My two main problems with pre-trib rapture are: one, it is a relatively new idea originating with Darby in the 1800s; two, it gives the impression that Christ returns twice.

 

I dealt with this impression a couple posts above. The "second coming" should be viewed in light of the first.

 

Let me add this. There is nothing wrong with holding a different view on the rapture then pre-trib. However there is something seriously wrong if you hold it because of incorrect reasoning.
First Darby was not the one who started the teaching on the rapture Read here;
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm

Second the pre-trib rapture does not teach two comings of Christ. Sadly that is some false propaganda that some spread about those who hold to pre-trib rapture. The rapture is not about the coming again of the Lord. Scripture is clear that will only happen once. The rapture is about the leaving of the church because the Lord shouts from heaven to call them home. He does not return to do that. So like I said it is fine to believe as you do as long as you have some reason that is not false and fabricated by others. I am not saying you fabricated it. You most likely have just been told it and believed the false teachings. God bless.

 

Paul said in 1 Thess 4 that the saved will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air to be with Him forever.

Jesus said in Matt 24/25 that the coming of the sun of man will be like in the day's of Noah. The unsaved are removed (judged), the saved stay.

Jesus in John 14 said that he is preparing a place in His fathers house and that he will come again for the saved.

Simple:
Pre-trib, pre-mil

 

I find it interesting that in these discussions about the Rapture and 1 Thess 4 that no one care to ask the questions Paul was answering.

 

You are so right TCGreek. This reminds me (not to change the subject), but you remind me of the classic question "what is so new about the new covenant?" And of course the companion question "what is so old about the old covenant?".

Thanks for the memories!

 

Our modern use of the term "Rapture" is foreign to Paul. Paul's eschatology was quite simple.

 

The first teaching I ever heard on eschatology was pre-mil, pre-trib.

The first teaching I ever heard on anything but that was by one of my pastors in a sermon. After the message, several of us headed toward the front to challenge him.

He gave us this challenge: You guys have an assignment. I want you to bring me a scripture verse which clearly, unmistakeably supports your view. It cannot be subject to any other interpretation. It must state not only the fact of the rapture, but also the time of the rapture.

Well, this was going to be easy. There was only one problem. I couldn't find one. There were plenty of verses which clearly taught a post-tribulation return of Christ. But not a single one clearly taught a pre-tribulational rapture.

What a bummer! It's not fun to have to change your view

 

Paul held to a rapture without question.. he didn't use 'our' term 'rapture' but 'catching away'... any more then he used our term 'Trinity' to describe the Godhead as three persons yet one. The "modern use" or concept has been around since the 1st century church.. and that concept is the catching or taking away of the saints of the saints God. And as such you have modifiers concerning it's timing - pre; mid; post.

From a contextual and hermeneutic standpoint no one can deny that scripture speaks to and about a literal physical rapture (catching away) of the saints of God. It is the 'when' that is where we find any biblical debate.

 

While the above is true for you it is not so for others. In fact, it was through through the study of scriptures that lead some of my friends from college from a Post-Trib view TO a Pre-Trib view and they will tell you the proof seems to be incontrovertible. And while I agree with where they stand now, I do disagree that it is 'incontrovertible' (otherwise we wouldn't have other views floating around :tongue3: )

My opinion, I find enough truth in the scripture to support a pre-trib view but I also see support for a post-trib view. For me, I stick with what I see scripture declaring as I understand it, if it moves to a post view, so be it. However, the premise or main views between Post-trib (historic Pre-mil) and Pre-trib remain very much the same with the main exception being the timing of the 'rapture' event.

 

I am assuming the above link is in reference to your statement of 'incorrect reasoning' as that has to be some of the worst scholarship (if one could call it that) I have seen on this subject.
It doesn't even get correct reference where the 'term' rapture even comes from.. not the Greek, but the Latin word for 'catching' or 'snatching away'. It also continues the propaganda that the Pre-Trib view began in the 1800's when in fact it goes back to 1500's but had come to prominence in the 1800's.

Thus Darby was NOT the first person to hold this view as it can be found nearly 300 years earlier. Darby, in this manner is much akin to the likes Augustine and Calvin and Arminius, as Darby did not begin it but was the one who popularized it.

I have posted this a time or two before so I'll do so again:
Here are some examples of those who held and proclaimed a pre-trib view BEFORE 1830 (other than John Darby 1800-1882)

Joseph Mede (1586-1638);
Edward Bickersteth (1786-1850);
James H. Frere (1779-1866);
William Cuninghame (1775-1849); amoung various others.

And while the popularization of the pre-trib view is only slightly younger than the also new-on-scene, Covenant theology, it should be noted to be an older view than Covenant theology in terms of origins, historically.

Agreed.

His return places Christ ON the earth.. When He returns, He comes back to the Earth from whence He left, thus 'returns', or better His 'Second Coming'.