The rapture

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bro. Lee, Jul 25, 2001.

  1. Bro. Lee

    Bro. Lee
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to get your views on the rapture ( when will the church be taken out )? This should be a really fun topic. In the short time I have been here I have really come to love you all.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I see the rapture as a signless event, the first part of the Second Coming (second part is the Revelation, some 7+ years later).

    There is no prophecy to be fulfilled and the Lord's return is iminent. Summary: pre-trib, pre-mil, literal bodily second coming to establish a literal 1000 years reign.

    Scriptures on request! [​IMG]
     
  3. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy, I really have a hard time with eschatology. I've read a good deal on it and still am as confused as ever. I have always been instructed in the pre-trib/pre-mil position, but honestly, I'm starting to have a real hard time with pre-trib. I told somebody yesterday that I'd believe it if it weren't for one think, I don't see it in Scripture. The traditional "rapture" texts are not secret "stealing-aways" but associated with much pomp (as is the description of the Second Coming). So, right now, I must say that I believe in one more return of Christ -- at the Second Coming. I may change that view next year and certainly wouldn't die for it, but right now, that is what I believe Scripture teaches.
     
  4. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "rapture" is described in 1 Thes 4:

    For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Th 4:17 NIV)

    "the dead in Christ will rise first" is clearly the "first resurrection." Those of us who believe it is a separate event from Jesus' second coming base our belief on "meet the Lord in the air" as opposed to Rev 20 where it talks about Jesus returning to earth to reign for a thousand years. That makes me pre-millennial.

    I also believe the rapture is pre-tribulation based on the fact that the church (even the word itself) is not mentioned after chapter three in the book of Revelation. Chapter four through ninteen are the description of the tribulation. Also in Revelation we find this passage:

    Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. (Rev 3:10 NIV)

    The verb “to keep” is followed by a preposition whose normal meaning is “from” or “out of”—this phrase, “keep … from” supports the pretribulational rapture of the church.

    Also, saints return with Christ to reign for a thousand years on earth. Therefore they must have joined Him by rapture in heaven prior to the thousand years:

    Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev 20:6 NIV)

    "Those who have part in the first resurrection" is a qualifier to reigning "with him for a thousand years."

    So . . . rapture (first resurrection) - tribulation - millennial kingdom - Second resurrection - judgment (for rejectors of Christ only) - New heaven, new earth FOREVER!
     
  5. ROBERTGUWAPO

    ROBERTGUWAPO
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am probably one of the few baptists who believe that the "rapture" teaching is a false teaching.

    1. The doctrine of a secret rapture is very recent--early 1800s.
    2. This doctrine has OCCULTIC origins.
    3. Those who believe in a secret rapture are like KJVOs because the pastor told them so.
    4. Most of those who believe in pretrib have not seriously studied postrib.
    5. There are a lot of pretribs who are now postribs, but not a lot of postribs who are now pretribs.
    6. This recent doctrine is purely "escapist" fare.

    For a quick overview visit: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/rapture.htm :rolleyes:
     
  6. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most people on this board know this, but I want to state the major objections I have for the typical "proof texts" for the rapture.

    1. I Thess. 4:17 -- Right off the bat we have a problem with reading the rapture in here. We have the trumpet like voice of God and the cry of the archangel. This does not accord with the typical pre-trib description of a silent stealing-away (of course maybe only the saints can hear it [​IMG]). Secondly, we face a difficulty with the verb "to meet." There are two clear occurences of this verb elsewhere in Scripture: Mt. 25:6 and Acts 28:15. In both cases the meeting party goes out to meet someone and then returns with him. The person that's coming is not the one that changes directions. To carry this usage into I Thessalonians, we go out to meet Christ and immediately come with Him to earth. So, the rapture by no means needs to be seen, or is even naturally seen, in this passage. It seems to fit well with the Second Coming (Post-trib, Pre-mil).

    2. Rev. 3:10 -- Again, this is a weak verse. The only other occurence of "tereo ek" in Scripture is in Jn. 17:15. The idea in that passage is not that Christ was going to remove His people from the presence of the danger ("hairo"), but that He would protect them in the midst of the danger.

    3. Rev. 20:6 -- This was mentioned in a previous post, so I thought I'd list it here. While this verse is a good argument against amillenialism, it has no bearing on pre-trib vs. post-trib.

    So, just wanted to explain that it is no stretch to interpret these passages for a post-trib return of Christ. They may point to a rapture, as the silence, after Revelation 3, of the church may suggest, but I feel arguments from silence and interpreting verses in a different way than they normally should, is weak ground on which to stand. Anyway, there may be a rapture in the future; it's just, right now, I don't find it in Scripture.
     
  7. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ahh yes ....the old argument from silence

    I would like to quote at this point from John Noe's book, "Shattering the Left Behind Delusion", pp. 21-23:

    "Most rapturists teach that the events in chapters four through eighteen,...transpire after the removal of the church from planet Earth. This is inferred, since the word "church" never appears in these chapters. Not only is this deductive assertion an argument from silence, but it fragments the structural integrity and unity of the book. It also violates what this book says about itself in both the first and last chapter regarding the whole of 'the words of this prophecy.' Note how the Revelation itself describes the time of its prophecies.

    '...things which must shortly come to pass.' (Rev. 1:1, 22:6 KJV)

    'Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.' (Rev. 1:3, 22:7 KJV)

    '...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.' (Rev. 22:10 KJV)

    At best, it's questionable to make a case for or against anything from a position of silence. The absence of a word does not guarantee the absence of the reality related to that word....the two words most often used in the New Testament to describe God's people are 'church' and 'saints.' The word 'saints' appears eleven times in Revelation 4-18, and they are clearly on earth, not in heaven. Furthermore, in the middle of Revelation, John records the warning to the same 'saints': 'He who has an ear, let him hear' (Rev. 13:9). That warning is also repeated seven times after each of the seven letters to the churches in chapters 2 and 3.

    Another argument from silence equates John's experience of being commanded to 'come up here' (Rev. 4:1) with a rapture-removal of the church. Again, it's a major deduction and not directly justifiable, nor inductive. Likewise, the two phrases 'after this' in this same verse are often taken by rapturists to mean after the so-called church age. Yet a natural reading of the context makes it clear that the first 'after this' means after opening the door to the spirit realm. The opening of this door demonstrates a spiritual enlightenment for John, not a physical removal out of the world for the church."
     
  8. ROBERTGUWAPO

    ROBERTGUWAPO
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, since the doctrine of the rapture is occultic in origin, perhaps we should be open to the fact that Satan is involved in its origin.

    Let's see...
    1. Satan succeeds in having zillions of Christians believe that they won't undergo the tribulation.
    2. Zillions of Christians undergo the tribulation.
    3. Satan succeeds in disillusioning millions of them.
    4. The "millions" form part of the great falling away. Some even leave the faith.

    A very deceptive and effective plan indeed!
    :eek:

    [ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: ROBERTGUWAPO ]
     
  9. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, Robert, I think you're going a little too far. As seen by my previous posts, I'm not pre-trib, but it is a possibility from the Scriptural data. I know many people who hold to the pre-trib position who hold to it after much Biblical study. I think we would do well to follow Charles Hodge's caution. Charles Hodge wrote what I consider the best Systematic Theology to date and certainly was one of the finest scholars ever to live. When he got to his section on eschatology, he admitted that it was beyond his grasp. He stated the position of Reformed Theology and then admitted that he wasn't sure. Prophecy is intentionally vague, and we should be careful about being too dogmatic on the issue. I don't think pre-trib is correct, but a work of Satan? C'mon.
     
  10. ROBERTGUWAPO

    ROBERTGUWAPO
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear M,

    Well, okay, only a little bit too far. But I said we must be open to the "possibility" that Satan....

    Oswald Smith, noted minister and Christian author said, "I had been taught that the Greek word 'parousia' always referred to the Rapture and that other words were used for the coming of Yahshua in glory...but I found that this is not true...We might go through all the writers of the New Testament, and we would fail to discover any indication of the so-called 'two-stages' of our Lord's coming...That theory had to be invented by man. Search and see. There is no verse in the Bible that even mentions it."


    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikayehu:
    Wow, Robert, I think you're going a little too far. As seen by my previous posts, I'm not pre-trib, but it is a possibility from the Scriptural data. I don't think pre-trib is correct, but a work of Satan? C'mon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
     
  11. For His Name

    For His Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robert .. totally agree with you (for what that is worth!) Ha ... The "rapture" was not in the original manuscript but was added .. based on the suppos-sed RAMBLINGS of a lady .. (will get her name tonight .. work calls) then added by priests at the time. I do not subscribe to or accept the rapture theory. You go Robert!
     
  12. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robert, et al,

    Appreciate your unsubstantiated personal opinion that pre-tribs are occultist. You've shown your true colors. Shame on you for branding someone who disagrees with you! :(

    And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape
    from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. (2 Tim 2:24-26 NIV)


    Maybe you should meditate and pray about the above verse a little.

    As for another's comment about meeting in the air and immediately returning with Christ, how do you explain:

    and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. (Mat 24:39-42 NIV)

    How clearer can it get that there will be many "left behind" when the Lord comes? This verse goes hand-in-hand with the 1 Thes. passage, and distinguishes between the rapture and the "second coming" when Christ returns with all the raptured saints.

    Eschatology is an opinionated discipline at best. Can we debate without belittling, Robert?
     
  13. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bro. Lee:
    I would like to get your views on the rapture ( when will the church be taken out )? This should be a really fun topic. In the short time I have been here I have really come to love you all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    On the last day at the return of Christ.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
    39 "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
    40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
     
  14. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gentlemen, I think we should all acknowledge that prophecy is not as cut and dry as we would like it to be! Personally, I am "pre-trib,pre-mill", however, at the same time, I realize that others have come to differing conclusions than I have Al-Mill, Post-Mill, and even though we don't see eye-to-eye, these views are still in the pale of orthodoxy. As far as the Rapture is concerned, I do believe that 1 Thess 4:17 is plain about it, although I'm not debating the "when" of it. "caught up" is from the Latin where we get this word "rapture", from what I've been told. [​IMG] :cool:

    [ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: RevKevin77 ]
     
  15. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally have been studying, but am not sure which one I believe. Until I do, my main concern is to be ready for whenever it is.

    I am enjoying the insight from the varying views though! It gives one much to think about!

    I do have a comment or question if you will..

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ROBERTGUWAPO:

    Let's see...
    1. Satan succeeds in having zillions of Christians believe that they won't undergo the tribulation.
    2. Zillions of Christians undergo the tribulation.
    3. Satan succeeds in disillusioning millions of them.
    4. The "millions" form part of the great falling away. Some even leave the faith.

    A very deceptive and effective plan indeed!
    :eek:

    [ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: ROBERTGUWAPO ]
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    In order to believe this, then one would have to believe that salvation can be lost. For those who believe that salvation is eternal would also believe that this was not possible....correct? (And yes, I know this is another topic, just wanting to see if I get what you are saying here)

    One more question, everyone talks about the "silence" of the rapture makes it not true. If so, then where does Matthew 24:39-44 come in? Where two are walking in the field, the one is taken and the other left...etc. Does it not say that He will come as a thief in the night?

    Asking and learning, be patient with my ignorance!!! [​IMG]

    ~Lorelei
     
  16. fwbbcflames

    fwbbcflames
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with RevKevin on this. In Thess. 4:17 the greek word for caught up is, harpazo which means to seize, or snatch. So my greek dic. says. The word rapture does come from the Latin Vulgate. I heard a man say that he took the pan view on the rapture. It will all pan out the way God wants it to. :D
     
  17. For His Name

    For His Name
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    The year is 1830 .. the country Britain. Margaret McDonald had a vision. While explaining her "vision" she said .. the feeling was one of evil. Her words were documented as truth by two "priests" and out of that the Rapture theory was born and taught. She also predicted a 19th century socialist .. Robert Owens was to be the anti-
    Christ .. he died in 1858.

    My father was a minister and I was taught to believe in the Rapture .. so taught I would not even consider questioning the thought. When it was first brought to my attention that this might not be the truth I was HOT! As I grew older I learned to find the truths for myself and that is what I did.

    I Thess. 4: 17 -- translates "in the clouds" means a multitude or a group ... "in the air" means the breath of life .. our Father. This reference does not refer to the white fluffy things in the sky. II Thess. says .. "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" ... Read Ezekiel 13:20 read the entire Chapter. Don't you think our Father knew this Rapture doctrine was going to take place?

    Read the Incredible Coverup or The Rapture Plot by Dave MacPherson. Just read it and draw your own conclusions.

    Do I suggest you take my word for this? No No No ... all I am suggesting is that you do your research .. follow it through and pray for wisdom .. then draw your own conclusions. Just because Mr. MacPherson wrote these books does not make them the truth BUT do more research on your own. The Bible says .. woe to those that teach my people to fly away

    Just food for thought ....
     
  18. Mikayehu

    Mikayehu
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, I didn't know that Mt. 24 was actually used to support a pre-trib position. Do you guys really believe that? Read the context and the parallel passage in Luke. The people that are taken are destroyed. I hope that's not describing the rapture.

    I might have overstated this. I do see how you pre-trib believers see the rapture here. But, just like in I Thessalonians, it seems to be more natural to take it as the Second Coming. At the Second Coming, the wicked will be taken (to be destroyed) and the saints will be left. The chronology of this passage also seems to indicate that the coming is following the tribulation (Mt. 24:29 ff.).
     
  19. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know of a pre-trib commentary from the last few years that would see the rapture in Mt 24. When Paul speaks of the rapture in I Cor, he calls it a mystery, something new that God had revealed to him and he to the church. Because Paul refers to it as a mystery, I would not see the rapture in any writing that preceeds Paul.
     
  20. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, maybe it's not the pre-tribers, just the pre-trib Marketing strategists that use Matt 24! When I was a baby Christian I saw the movie series "A thief in the night" (we actually showed that at our church) and now there is the Left Behind craze. Yes, both of them use these verses to explain what may have happened the "day after" the "rapture".

    Ok, so when the Left Behind books came out my son and started studying this. I was raised to believe that the rapture took place before the tribulation, but in the past few years, I have been determined to make sure that I can back up ALL my beliefs with the Word. So now, I say, I do not know yet when it will happen, but I do want to make sure I am ready and watching!

    So, I am your student, teach on! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...