Featured Question for Pre-Tribbers (not to debate you)

No one? Uh, maybe not where you are but out here lots of folks do just that. You mentioned The Shack, there is Dantes Inferno which has influenced beliefs about hell as just a couple. There was also This Present Darkness.

Fiction, myth and metaphor can help get a handle on difficult theological concepts but far too many have reversed these.

 

LaHaye deep? Nope, not even close.

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

I suspect more do than people want to recognize.

 

I do not know one of them and I was born in the Bible belt. By the way I love This Present Darkness. I have never seen or read anything from the left behind series. It just never interested me. And The Shack is complete heresy. It was intended to influence people's understanding of God.

 

It does happen. A friend of mine that I've been witnessing to for years read some of the books and came at me with a lot of questions. He seems to think this is what mainstream Christianity end times theology consists of. He has called me during the History Channel programs with questions about the end times as well.

The fact is that outside of evangelical Christianity, and especially pre-trib dispensationalism, there is virtually no discussion about end times. Jesus will return at the end of the age and there will be a Final Judgment. The End.

 

And here you have an honest assessment of the Darby-pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. The Church for which Jesus Christ died is an utter failure. Of course the Church was only a "parenthesis" in God's program for Israel.

 

So when did one unorthodox view become the poster for "honest" pretrib doctrine?

 

Oh but you do.

I haven't read any of the left behind books either. But, I have listened to messages by Tim LaHay and he speaks of repentance from sin and the need to place your faith and trust in the work of Christ. You know, the good old Gospel. If an individual listens to a sermon delivered by Tim LaHay, they will not be able to stand before Christ and make the claim that they never heard the truth.

As for the question in the OP, many evangelicals are quite unsure what is the fate of babies born in this present age who die at a very young age or have developmental issues that don't allow then to understand the concepts of sin and forgiveness. If you believe that at a rapture infants are translated then it would seem logical that you would also believe that a child that dies two weeks after being born goes to heaven. Put it another way, do you tell a grieving mother (one that isn't saved) at her infants funeral that her child is going to hell because the infant didn't repent and trust Christ? There are three possibilities, 1. I don't know, 2. yes and 3. no. The truthful answer to that question is #1, you don't know and I don't know and Tim LaHay will tell you that he isn't going to the wall on this question either.

A strict Calvinist might argue that only those dead babies who are of the elect go to heaven. So why would they not be raptured when Christ translates the dead in Christ just before judgement? On the other hand, the Bible states that "ye must be born again", which implies the ability to confess sin and accept Christ as Savior.

Jesus tells us that at his second coming it will be like the days of Noah. In those days, all of the babies, cute and innocent as they were, were judged. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that many will come to Christ during the tribulation. An unbelieving mother that has her baby raptured, just might find herself looking for the answer to her problem in the Bible. If she did, then she would not only find salvation for herself but would also know that her child is safe in the presence of Jesus.

A previous poster in this thread mentioned that at the end times of a pre-trib rapture, there will be very few believers alive to be raptured. This is actually a Biblically sound statement. Jesus said it in Matt. 24:10-12

Stepping back from this discussion for just a moment, allow me Tim to make the observation that you think that there are millions of young people out there getting their theology from fictional books. Well from my perspective, there are a huge number of posters on this forum who get their theology from "theology books" and not the Bible. If Tim LaHay is pointing young people to Jesus Christ and the Bible then he is doing his job regardless of what you think on the matter.

 

Baloney.............

 

No, I don't think it is true and yes you did borad brush.

 

I would challenge you to tell me what from the books is not solid mainstream eschatology, and I'm not referring to the stories within the story. There is a lot more to It than Jesus just returning at the end of the age which encompasses many views.

 

It is my understanding the pre-trib, pre-mill position is a minority position. Mainstream eschatology is Amillennialism. Since the Left Behind books are pre-trib, pre-mill, I would say that it is not mainstream eschatology. (Disclaimer: I hold to pre-trib, pre-mill, but I'm not adamant about it.)

 

In my neck of the woods the Amill position is unorthodox. Maybe geographics play a part.

 

Don't know where your neck of the woods is, webdog. Where I am, in northeast Georgia, the amill position is the majority position, followed somewhat distantly by pretrib premil.

 

A Mil is dominent view, as held by Church of rome, Lutheryns, reformed, mainline churches etc...

Doesn't mean its the correct view though, as its roots came out from those liek Augustine spiritualizing the texts to make the RCC the kingdom of God here on earth!

 

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is the 19th century invention of John Nelson Darby while he was recovering from a riding accident at his sister's home as has been documented on this Forum repeatedly. Seventh Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Mormons are also 19th Century inventions of men/women!

 

I have heard others say that amils are wrong for "spiritualizing" the scripture rather than taking it at literal face value. Then again, many of those same people will turn around and pick-and-choose when to apply spiritualization to the scripture.

The amils that I'm around recognize that, since the vast majority of millennial doctrine comes from Revelation 20, then it takes a a certain degree of spiritualization to say that Rev 20 is literal but other sections of the book are not. Then again, many of us hold to a position, as written in scripture, that the things of God are spiritually given, and therefore must be spiritually discerned.