Roll Call!

What other Scriptures support this view?

How does this view deal with Revelation?

 

Why do you need other scripture? Can this not stand on its own?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I know it is appointed to man once to die and after that the judgement. Your first post on page one said that you would still be here. Are you refering to still being here dead or alive? Maybe I am not understanding you correctly that you believe Jesus will come back and take away those unbelievers and leave the believers here. Kinda like a reverse "Left Behind".
The fiery destruction described in 2 Peter is what I was talking about. You are comparing the destruction by flood and the "rapture". I am saying maybe you should be comparing that first destruction to the one here:
6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? ...

(and for the record, I am not pre-mil)

 

My view would be to look at the words of Revelation as it would have been understood in that present culture. I think it is important to understand first, that Revelation was written as Apocalyptic Literature, and therefore, to understand the meanings of phrases like, "I am coming on the clouds" and other phrases like that, we should examine how these phrases were used in Old Testament literature and how it was understood by the culture of the time. These visitations were times of judgments known as the Day of the Lord, when God judged the enemies of God and saved the righteous. For example, we see Isaiah write:

Isaiah 26:21

We also see Micah write:

Micah 1:3-5

Obviously, we see very vivid images being used to describe very specific instances where God judged the wicked. These do not, however, refer to the end of the world. I do hold that, as Jesus taught, all the judgments of God listed by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse happened during their generation. Revelation further teaches that the judgments of God and the salvation of his elect were soon to come. The message of Revelation makes no sense otherwise to those who were being persecuted in the Churches of the time. I part ways with preterists in that I believe that the message for us today as the Church is one of judgment for the wicked and comfort for the suffering Church and the promise of God's salvation. I don't think the idea of the day of the Lord has gone away. I still think that God comes to judge the wicked and save the elect. I realize that this is way out there from what is taught to many of us in Churches today. It sounded crazy the first time I heard it. The more I looked at the Bible, and saw the context of the suffering persecuted Church and the imenency of the judgment of the wicked and then tied it together with the apocalyptic messages of the OT and extra-biblical sources, it became clear to me that this wasn't meant primarily to be a message for those living 2 to 3 thousand years removed from the Biblical passages. If I am wrong, then may God have mercy on me for my lack of understanding and weakness.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I believe that Jesus absolutely teaches the reverse of Lehaye theology in the Left Behind series. It is the wicked who are taken away and the remnant who are left behind. Please see my above post for more info.

I am actually, denying that this particular scripture teaches a rapture.

Joseph Botwinick

 

nicely put about Revelation. I agree with ya there (I think - my brain is half asleep) that we have to read this as the type literature it is. It cannot be taken literally, per se. And there had to have been an understanding to the original recipients, not something far out there for some generation to come. It makes so much more sense in light of church history.

 

I dont believe that passage is describing a "rapture" either. But I still cant see how what you have describes does not indicate a 2nd and a 3rd coming.
1st coming -done
2nd coming - to take away the wicked (remnant stayes on earth)
3rd - to take the remnant (bride)?? Thats what I dont get.

 

If you look throughout the Bible, you will see that there were many "comings" of God in judgment that are described in much the same apocalyptic images as are described here and in Revelation. I don't see the coming of the Lord as a final judgment to end all judgments on earth. I see it as a continuation of how God has dealt with humanity since the time of Noah. The final judgment will come when we die and stand before the judgment seat of Christ and we are either taken away to Hell as the wicked will be, or if we are ushered into heaven, as the remnant of God's elect will be.

Joseph Botwinick

 

ok, I think I understand your thinking on it now. Still dont agree with it, lol, but thats ok too. I still cant reconcile the 2nd coming (my understanding of it) and deciding which one stays and which one goes in the first passage you cited. (I think you quoted it, lol. Brain's turning to mush) But the one that says one will be taken and one left...still doesnt clearly show that its the wicked that's taken.
But it has been a good discussion this far and I am sure I will be pondering it in my dreams tonight, as I often do, lol.
Poor stanleyg's gonna be upset that we hijacked his thread, lol, and not a one has signed up on his roll call!!

:wavey: night!

 

:laugh: :sleeping_2: Good night.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, I respect you for standing by your view. I do understand it somewhat better from your last couple of posts. However, I also disagree with it. I think you are reading into Jesus words more than is there about which person is staying and which is leaving. I think there is a problem that there are no other Scriptures that handle this issue. You asked why there was a need for other Scripture. If this is a doctrine Jesus clearly taught as you propose, would there not also be other Scriptures that tie into it? A good rule of thumb in hermeneutics is Scripture interpreting Scripture. I also personally would be quite leary of holding a position that does not have any major support from theologians (other than some preterists) today and across Church history. While you can argue that it does not matter, if this is a truth then why has God not revealed that to others and led others to your same conclusion?

But in the end we are still brothers in Christ and we can agree to disagree. :thumbs:

 

Pastor,

This is a good rule in Hermeneutics. As I was taught hermeneutics, this rule is to be applied when a certain verse is not clear. I believe Jesus is quite clear in this verse.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I disagree Joseph. If He is so clear, why do not more people share your conclusion?

 

I have never even heard that viewpoint. It kinda took me off guard. My husband had never heard that either, and he has sat thru many an eschatological discussion and read tons of books on the subject (as I am sure both you guys have as well). Is this something you came up with on your own, Joseph, or are there some scholars/authors you could point me to?

 

This is the reason that not many share this point of view. They have never been taught this point of view.

I first read about this POV from a preterist author named John Noe. I believe that Steven Gregg also discusses this POV in his book Revelation: Four Views, A Parrallel Commentary, in his introduction when he discusses the Olivet Discourse.

Joseph Botwinick

 

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we (believers) who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

 

I agree with Joseph the wicked shall be taken away and the righteous left behind. I believe 2Thess. Also deals with the wicked being taken away and the rightous left behind.

 

2 Thessalonians only reafirms 1 Thessalonians, what I posted above. How do you reconcile this belief with that?