The rapture

Bob,

Round and 'round we go, when it stops, only Jesus knows, for we will be arguing the rapture until He comes, either in the air first, or physically to earth first. If you will read all seven pages of this thread closely, you will see good, sound, reasonable counter-arguments for the website ones. Nothing is new, we are all chasing after the wind (is it meaningless?).

You said you use "Godhead" in lieu of trinity. Does that mean you view God as having three distinct natures or essences, or not?

"because I tell you the truth?" How is it that you are the authoritative source on a complex issue like the rapture? Because you say so, should I blindly accept it as "truth?"

 

Hey pre-tribber why don't you put away your commentaries and just get your BIBLE, open it and your mind. put away scofield notes and pray asking for the LORD to open the truth to you and read what the book has to say and trash the new "dispensational" doctrine and just read the Bible and believe what it says.
you may be suprised


do you know why all the old Bible books disappeared??? New doctrines need old truth to disappear....

 

God the Father and God the son and God the holy spirit. all one God. We are made in his image as body, soul and spirit. we are not three parts but one as He is one. Jesus was born of a virgin and lead a sinless life in his body of flesh. perfect man and perfect God. I also believe the apostles creed and the nicene creed and athanasian creed.
and catholic as meaning the universal church
of Christ. not the pope or the latin roman
false "catholic" church counterfeit.
I stand by this statement. Christians used to be fed to lions over this...now the brave warriors say nope...rapture instead. we will see guys...we will see.

 

>>why use a latin catholic Bible to support the word rapture? >>

Because, in all probability, it was the word also used in the the Old Itala version which was the Bible of the martyred Church of Rome before it was corrupted and became the Holy Roman Empire.

Brothers and sisters, why must this discussion be so filled with strife?
Don't the scriptures which we each use as "proof texts" concerning our varying points of view say

1 Thessalonians 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

We are to comfort not enrage or terrify one another.
We can all agree that God has not appointed us to wrath. We can know for a certainty that He will keep His word and it's His job to keep us out of the final hour no matter how He has chosen to do it. In fact, He has made the details nebulous for a reason (known but to Himself) but has told us what we need to know. So, we might have little tribulations (relatively speaking) and even church wide chastisement towards the end of all things, but not the final and awesome wrath of God which is to come upon the whole world.

HankD

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bob walker:
most of you take what your pastor says as gospel and will not examine for yourselves. most know more about the TV guide than you do about the Bible. your pastors get paid by the number of members they have. is it not in their best interest to tell people their families will not die in the tribulation, but will be raptured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am post-trib as well. But do our side a favor: Stop arguing for us! The above are two of the most idiotic statements I have ever read at this site.

 

Bob Walker,

You said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No matter what we show you it will be explained away as this was for the jews and this is another dispensation and this and that...so it does not apply to us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can't see in the Bible the difference between Jew / Gentile / Church, then something is wrong. I am not explaining away anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you will know what to do when the mark of the beast comes...but what about those who you taught?????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you believe will happen to a Christian born again in this age if he/she were to take the mark?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey pre-tribber why don't you put away your commentaries and just get your BIBLE, open it and your mind. put away scofield notes and pray asking for the LORD to open the truth to you and read what the book has to say and trash the new "dispensational" doctrine and just read the Bible and believe what it says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I use commentaries. There are great men of God who have a lot of insight that can teach me a thing or two. I have verse for you to consider: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prov 11:14
14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
(KJV)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1 Cor 15:52
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
(KJV)

With love,

Chet

 

Guys I am not trying to be full of hate.
I came out of the new age and occult. I studied their doctrines before I got saved.
one thing they were told to do was infiltrate the church. turn on the sunday morning TV and look at the preachers on. TV is filth all week long and then on sunday let the TV tell you about Jesus. would they (TV) even allow the truth to be preached for the most part? yes there are a few I like for preachers. They claim (Satan church) they planted the pre trib rapture to destroy our faith and have us to renounce Christ. you would be suprised at how many preachers are not christians even in the fundamental camp. try the spirits whenether they be of God the Bible warns us...look up irving and the origin of the rapture and test the fruits of it. satan is not ****** and why even in baptist churchs is the resurrection about a easter egg hunt and a bunny rabbit (playboy symbol) and X-mas becomes a decorated tree (jer. 10) and the gift of eternal life becomes a gift of satan claus oops santa i mean. we are a deceived people.
no one heard of the rapture till irving and darby and they were enemies of the faith that I hold dear. I need not a witch speaking in tongues and having visions to create a new doctrine telling people they will escape even though they are a bunch of luke warm laodician pew warmers. God will hold the church and nation accountable for 45 million babies killed by abortion...
preach repentance and not the rapture...
my friends I do not hate you I am only trying to warn you.
ps the church of satan has been given tax exempt status by the irs and has "chaplains"
in the army and prison...that is how far this country has sunk.
sorry I got carried away
in Christ bob

this makes me want to cry out to God in sack cloth and ashes...

 

Wellsjs:

Nope, I didn't say it. I think Bob did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Robert said, "most know more about the TV guide than you do about the Bible. I ask you this: suppose that the pre trib rapture is false would you die for your faith? Jesus died for you are you living for him? will you die for him?"

You get the Sentimental Sensational Cop-out Plea Award for 2001. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

THE CLOSING OF THE PRETRIB MIND

Pretribbers close their minds to the fact that:

1. The pretrib doctrine was unheard of before 1830.
2. Darby and Irving were its originators.
3. Margaret McDonald spoke in tongues--and the doctrine was born!
4. God did not whisk away Daniel, Paul, Shadrach and his companions, Noah, David out of trouble--He let them pass through it.
5. Rapture is an occult term. Yes, you can prove that it was used by the Catholic scholars--but the Catholic church is the biggest occult religion of all time (Virgin Mary=Venus, etc...)
No sane Christian would use the word Ouija to describe something Christian, but they regularly use the word rapture, unmindful of its occultic origins!

No one has been able to successfully refute the works of Dave MacPherson. He has, with meticulous research, documented the origins of the pretrib teaching, even documenting the personalities behind it.

Gentlemen, the fact that rapture is an occultic term, is enough to raise RED FLAGS in a sane Christian's minds.

Satan is soooooo tricky.

 

For Bob Walker: I believe I have counted now six or seven posts from you with only one anemic reference to Scripture (2 Thess 2 to which I posted a response showing the fallacy of your understanding). You have a lot of comments; they just do not deal with Scripture. As I asked you earlier, please either comment on Scripture or refrain from cluttering up the discussion of those of us who do want to discuss Scripture. You propound a significant number of untruthful statements, one of which is the "newness" of dispensationalism. Read Showers or Ryrie either one for the historical basis of dispensationalism.

For Robert: Another post or two from you with no address from Scripture. (Are we beginning to see a pattern here?) I posted a short discussion of 1 Thess 5 referring to the various verses and rather than interact with it you simply ignore it? Do you have an answer for the exegesis? Additionally, you have now posted your "occultic" connection of pretrib about five or six times. All of us here can read so there is no need to keep repeating it. I think you are dead wrong and I have showed you from Scripture why. You refuse to deal with it? Are you frightened to study Scripture? If not, then get to it.

Some of you posttribers, address 1 Thess 5 in context verse by verse. Let's just start there. If you have a passage you think proves your point and you want it discussed, throw it out with your understanding. Let's move forward here.

 

To all ye pretribbers:

(I'm posting something from truthkeepers.net)

With that thought in mind, I ask the reader what the ramifications would be if either of these two doctrines were found to be wrong. What if Posttribulation Rapture was found to be wrong? The consequences would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Since most of the prominent promoters of pretribulationism also believe in Unconditional Eternal Security, they certainly cannot contend that God will judge the post-tribber unworthy of rapture or hell if they are found to be wrong in the end.

What if Pretribulation Rapture is a false doctrine? If this is true, the ramifications would be immense. Millions would enter the Tribulation period with the iron-clad belief that they would never face the Antichrist. This would be devastating for several reasons. First of all, they might take the mark of the Beast, because they would assume that it could not possibly be the mark. I have no doubt that the same individuals who caused these people to end up in such a predicament would be standing by declaring that it was not the mark, but only a trial run. And one certainly cannot be cursed for taking a trial run mark. Secondly, they would view the Christians who opposed the mark and its producer, the Antichrist, as fanatical militia types, end-time nuts, and doom-and-gloom freaks who are paranoid and deceived. This would put pretribulation proponents on the side of the Beast when the persecution began. Lastly, because they were unprepared, they would be doomed before the first world law was passed that declared everyone an outcast who do not submit to the global leadership of the Beast.

(Very gloomy indeed!)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ROBERTGUWAPO:
To all ye pretribbers:

(I'm posting something from truthkeepers.net)

With that thought in mind, I ask the reader what the ramifications would be if either of these two doctrines were found to be wrong. What if Posttribulation Rapture was found to be wrong? The consequences would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Since most of the prominent promoters of pretribulationism also believe in Unconditional Eternal Security, they certainly cannot contend that God will judge the post-tribber unworthy of rapture or hell if they are found to be wrong in the end.

What if Pretribulation Rapture is a false doctrine? If this is true, the ramifications would be immense. Millions would enter the Tribulation period with the iron-clad belief that they would never face the Antichrist. This would be devastating for several reasons. First of all, they might take the mark of the Beast, because they would assume that it could not possibly be the mark. I have no doubt that the same individuals who caused these people to end up in such a predicament would be standing by declaring that it was not the mark, but only a trial run. And one certainly cannot be cursed for taking a trial run mark. Secondly, they would view the Christians who opposed the mark and its producer, the Antichrist, as fanatical militia types, end-time nuts, and doom-and-gloom freaks who are paranoid and deceived. This would put pretribulation proponents on the side of the Beast when the persecution began. Lastly, because they were unprepared, they would be doomed before the first world law was passed that declared everyone an outcast who do not submit to the global leadership of the Beast.

(Very gloomy indeed!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another post with random thoughts from the mind of Robert and absolutely no Scripture.

 

As to the order in which living people will be taken from the earth, I believe Jesus tell us in Matthew 13:29-30 But he said, "No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.""'

The evil will be the first ones gathered, then saved will go last, at least according to Jesus.

 

ok pastor Larry answer this for me please

Where did Jesus say he would come again in two stages? ( see Hebrews 9:28; I Timothy 6:14; II Timothy 4:1,8; Titus 2:13; I Peter 1:7; Acts 3:20-21)

Dispensationalists teach that since the ‘church’ is not mentioned in Revelation chapters 4 through 19, this means that because of the rapture, it is not present on the earth during the tribulation. With this logic, can we assume that since the church of Laodicea is also not mentioned past Revelation 3:22 that it is raptured before the tribulation? If so, does Jesus rapture it before or after he spews it out of his mouth? (Revelation 3:15,16). Also, why isn’t the ‘church’ mentioned in Revelation 20-22, (where the millennial reign, the marriage supper of the Lamb and the New Jerusalem are discussed)? Can we assume that the ‘church’ is also not a part of these events?

Since John the Apostle is supposed to represent the church being raptured in Revelation 4:1, where does the Word of God explain that he actually represents the Lord’s Church? How does John being caught up ‘in the spirit’ into heaven (Rev. 4:2) represent a physical rapture? Why didn’t Paul represent the church when he was caught up into heaven? (II Corinthians 12:1-4) What about Elijah, Enoch, the two witnesses in Rev. 11:12?

For those that believe that 1 Corinthians 15:52 describes the pretrib rapture ‘at the last trump’, how can there be another trumpet sound after the ‘last trump’ when the angels gather the elect after the tribulation as described in Matthew 24:31?

The first resurrection which is described in Revelation 20:4-5, discusses trubulation saints who were ‘beheaded for their witness of Jesus’. How can you be raptured seven years before the first resurrection? Remember, 1Thessalonians 4:16 says “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” Jesus said he would raise up his servants “at the last day” (John 6:39,40,44,54), and those who reject him will be judged in the last day (John 12:48). Are you going to be raptured before Lazarus is (John 11:24)? Do you believe the last day includes the tribulation? This would mean that those who are dead will be judged during the tribulation, which is contrary to scripture (Rev. 11:18). This belief would also assume that the last day 'aka' the day of the Lord would be 1007 years in length, which is also contrary to scripture (2 Peter 3:8). The timing problems are solved, however, when you realize that ‘the last day’, ‘the day of the Lord’, ‘the day of Christ’, ‘the rapture’, ‘the first resurrection’, ‘the second coming’ and ‘the great day of his wrath’ all happen at the same time.

 

Scofield was a supporter of westcott and hort and new age bible versions and the dispensational pre trib rapture here goes:

1909 Scofield Reference Bible
This is taken from the January 1, 1909 Introduction:


"After mature reflection it was determined to use the Authorized Version None of the many Revisions have commended themselves to the people at large. The Revised Version, which has now been before the publicc for twenty-seven years gives no indication of becoming in any general sense the people's Bible of the English-speaking world. The discovery of the Sinaitic MS. and the labours in the field of textual criticism of such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Winer, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, have cleared the Greek textus receptus of minor inaccuracies, while confirming in a remarkable degree the general accuracy of the Authorized Version of that text. Such emendations of the text as scholarship demands have been placed in the margins of this edition, which therefore combines the dignity, the high religious value, the tender associations of the past, the literary beauty and remarkable general accuracy of the Authorized Version, with the results of the best textual scholarship."

C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (1917), pp. iii-iv


It should be very apparent when reading a Scofield Reference Bible that Mr. Scofield held the Revised Version of the Bible to be superior to the KJV. For example, the Introduction to 2 Thessalonians is very clear - he wrote that the KJV contained a "mistranslation." Unfortunately, he did not point out that the KJV did not mistranslate - it translated correctly from the Textus Receptus - he just preferred they use the works of "scholars" such as Westcott and Hort. It is ironic that Scofield's continual criticism of the KJV translation is partly based on a manuscript that was found in the trash in 1844.

A Perfected Text?

"The results of the study of God's Word by learned and spiritual men, in every division of the church and in every land, during the last 50 years, under the advantage of a perfected text, already form a vast literature, inaccessible to most Christians."

C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (1917), pp. iv


Mr. Scofield, what did you mean by "a perfected text" when you wrote that? We can't ask you, so let's look at what the Bible says:

2 Peter 1:19-20
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


King James Version


I can not find a Revised Version (R.V.) of 1881-1885 so I will now quote from the American Standard Version (A.S.V.) of 1901:


2 Peter 1:19-20
19 And we have the word of prophecy [made] more sure; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.


American Standard Version


Let's see. That phrase "we have the word of prophecy [made] more sure" sounds a lot like "under the advantage of a perfected text" - corrected, of course, as "scholarship demands" according to Mr. Scofield. (I think the KJV folks did a fine job with "a more sure word of prophecy.")


Conclusion
Many will disagree with the points I am trying to make on this page, and that's okay. We agree to disagree. But our conclusions are hard to deny. Scofield preferred the Revised Version and the Alexandrian Text, including the highly unreliable Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Scofield considered the scholarship of men such as Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, and others to be invaluable. Scofield apparently believed that without the "advantage of a perfected text" that we probably would not understand some things from the Bible. From the Introduction to 2 Thess. it is apparent that one of those things is the pretribulational "rapture" doctrine, which he realized was refuted unless he pointed out the "errors" of the KJV and its underlying Greek.

Of course, there is an explanation for all this. Scofield compromised and used the KJV (after "mature reflection"). He knew his "ministry" would falter if if used the Revised Version outright. But I don't think he compromised when he said he trusted Westcott and Hort and others' scholarship.

 

Pastor Larry:

Let us go back again to 1 Thess 5:9.

I still believe that the wrath being referred to is eternal punishment. This coincides with Romans 5:9.

The problem with you pretribbers is you look for things WHICH ARE NOT THERE. For example, you find a rapture in Matthew 24 when there isn't any; the guys who will be taken are the ones that will perish! That is the characteristic of most pretribbers--they always look for the hidden, the miniscule, the not-so-obvious... 1st Thess 5 does not even give the smallest, microscopic hint that we will be raptured.

This is what I believe chapter 5 says: God will come unexpectedly like a thief in the night. The unconverted will suffer wrath; the Christian will not. The Christian should live a life worthy of Christ's coming.
And this coming of Christ is the Day of the Lord when He will pour out his judgment.

The New Living Translation (a scholarly translation by a multi-denominational team, including baptists) translates verse 9 more clearly: "For God decided to SAVE US THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, not to pour out his anger in us."

So wrath is eternal punishment. Period. The Scriptures put it plain and clear. No hidden things to look for.

The problem with you pretribbers is you read to much between the lines. Because there are no lines between the lines.

So much for contextisimusitis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Robert,

v. 9 – Wrath in the tribulation. To say that Paul is addressing eternal judgment is out of context because Paul declares himself to be addressing the Day of the Lord. The two are distinct in Scripture I believe. There is an eternal judgment from which we have been saved. And it would entirely correct for Paul to say so. However, that is not what Paul is saying here I do not believe.
[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Well this is marginally better and since you made an attempt, I will respond.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I still believe that the wrath being referred to is eternal punishment. This coincides with Romans 5:9. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you believe is not important. The important point is the intent of the author as shown by his words in their context.

You say that 5:9 is the wrath of Rom 5:9. Why isn't it the wrath of Roman 6:16-17, 11:18, 14:10, 16:19, and 19:15. There is a much stronger contextual case that can be made for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem with you pretribbers is you look for things WHICH ARE NOT THERE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, we read the context rather than taking v. 9 out of its context. Look again at the context. The context is that certain people whom the DOL will overtake are saying they are living in peace and safety. You did not address how the tribulation period in which they are living according to you is peace and safety. There is no indication in Scripture that the Tribulation is peaceful or safe. In fact, it is a time of great destruction, famine, sickness, war, death, etc. Christ himself was probably referring to this when he said "when you see these things, lift up your eyes because your redemption draws near." Scripture calls is the outpouring of the wrath of him who sits on the throne from which men will run and hide and pray for the mountains to fall on them (Rom 6:16-17). How is that peace and safety?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The New Living Translation (a scholarly translation by a multi-denominational team, including baptists) translates verse 9 more clearly: "For God decided to SAVE US THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, not to pour out his anger in us."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NLT, when compared with the text, is a poor translation of this verse IMHO. "Decided" is the word tithemi, meaning appointed or destined. Wrath is orge. "save us through our Lord Jesus Christ" is "to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." The NLT reversed the order of the phrases (which is not always wrong). It simply misses the point of the context. Which is that God has not appointed us for the wrath that Paul is talking about in context but rather for to obtain salvation through Jesus Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So wrath is eternal punishment. Period. The Scriptures put it plain and clear. No hidden things to look for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above uses of orge (wrath) that clearly do not refer to eternal punishment. If you use a Greek concordance (or follow the strong's numbers in your English one) you will see that many times in Scripture wrath is something that we are supposed to put aside. I don't think we have any eternal punishment to put aside. In determining the meaning of wrath in context. It is necessary to read the context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>contextisimusitis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have used this "word" twice. What in the world does it mean?

The question you need to address is how the tribulation period through which these people are living (according to you) can be considered a time of "Peace and safety." That is the context.

 

Great, appropriate article, Eschaton or Escape? Paul's Two Ages Vs. Plato's Two Worlds by Michael S. Horton
©1999, 2000 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr99/1999.01.JanFeb/mr9901.msh.eschaton.html

 

Pastor Larry:

The unconverted, those who worship the beast, are those who insanely think that there is "peace and safety." They think there is peace and safety because their Antichrist is still in charge despite what is happening all around them.

Rev 9:20 "The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshipping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts."

The unconverted, those who have the mark of the beast, are saying, "Our Antichrist is in control. There is nothing to fear. Thus, we continue in our old ways and sin more! So you see, nothing else is new. We will eat, we will drink, and we will exchange marriage partners (Matthew 24:37-38)"

Theirs is a false peace and a false safety. The fact that they continue in their sinful ways shows that they aren't the least bothered by what is happening all around them.

Sorry, no hint of a secret rapture here.

(Contextisimusitis means applying something out of context to prove something which is nonsense.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The question you need to address is how the tribulation period through which these people are living (according to you) can be considered a time of "Peace and safety." That is the context.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do murders and thefts constitutes peace and safety in any world you live in?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that they continue in their sinful ways shows that they aren't the least bothered by what is happening all around them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why are they running into the mountains to hide and crying for the rocks to fall on them (Rom 6:16-17)?

Furthermore, you failed to show why, out of the all the options for wrath, you chose the most unlikely based on context in this situation. You have here resorted to making "peace and safety" stand on its head. They will believe the lie of antichrist, but even the most deceived among us can recognize destruction, death, famine, and war. We might think it has ultimately a good outcome, but we do not ignore it and we certainly don't run to the mountains to hide from peace and safety.

Why don't you take a minute and explain 2 Thess 2 where it seems clear that the confusion is because the believers did not expect to be there during the Tribulation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(Contextisimusitis means applying something out of context to prove something which is nonsense.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This word sounds made up.