Understanding Partial Rapture

I don't know anything about Troy, but I am a Baptist preacher who teaches a split/partial rapture. (My timing is a bit different than Troy's but I am intrigued and will consider it.) If you like, I could provide a list of Baptists and Brethren who taught/teach a partial rapture in some form.

Brother Bob, I cannot believe anyone could call a particular theology - specifically dealing with eschatology - "non-Baptist". We all should be Bereans, and studying. There is more to the last times than Darby and Scofield found. You ought to try studying a different set of "baptist" books every once in a while.

Lacy

 

With all due respect I would make the following observations:
I would be very suspect concerning the salvation and/or spiritual life of one who bases their spiritual life on experience, such as: seeing a light that takes them into the "third heaven" and remaining there for about half an hour and not wanting to come back.
I would be very suspect of a person who bases much or most of their theology on Watchman Nee. He was messed up in a lot of areas, especially in the doctrine of ecclesiology.
I would be very suspect of any person who says that a believer never has to "join" a local church. This is directly contrary to the teaching of God's Word. Even in Acts 2, there were 3,000 added to the church. In Acts 1 it is recorded in verse 15: "(the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)." That seems to indicate a membership roll, or at least the possibility that the names were written down.

I would be very suspect of anyone who says:

This is hero-worship, and borders on blasphemy.

Troy, please post in the other religions forum. You will find the topics (and perhaps the posters) more to your liking. This is a Baptist Only Forum. Any further posts of yours will be deleted.
DHK

 

With all due respect I would make the following observations:
I would be very suspect concerning the salvation and/or spiritual life of one who bases their spiritual life on experience, such as: seeing a light that takes them into the "third heaven" and remaining there for about half an hour and not wanting to come back. </font>[/QUOTE]I would be suspect of a person who calls himself a Christian who says someone saw a light when they never said they did. The accuser probably himself saw a light and mistook that for thinking the person he falsely accuses as seeing a light. How we need to be humble. Isn't the evil spirit deceitful in his accusations? Indeed. I would be suspect of a person as being a Christian also who needs to twist the truth this way also as an accuser of an experience in Christ in God's children accusing them of going to third heaven when that child never said they went to third heaven. This is like literally accusing Paul of what happened to him when he said He knew a man (speaking of himself) who went to third heaven but could not be certain or like John's wonderful taking up in the spirit on the island at Patmos in which he was certain. I would be very leary of accusers like this. They may call themselves baptists but that is further proof that something is wrong since they need to hang their hat on some doctrinal issue which divides the body from its only requirement in dividing, and that is by locality to prevent denominationalizing based on people, doctrine, country, etc. These false accusers will try to take away the faith of God's children but they always fail in their efforts because their lives are so shallow as we have seen in how they misread, even accusing God's children of placing experience before the Word of God. Satan accuses day and night. That is all he does and that is all he gets his followers to do. It really doesn't matter what experience a child of God has, the accuser will accuse profusely. He is one with his father.</font>[/QUOTE]

I did not misrepresent you neither falsely accuse you.

You place experience before the Word of God, and do not have the beliefs of a Baptist, in which forum you are posting.
DHK

 

Dr. Bob Griffin,

You say:

Correct. I agree with you.

In fact, most baptists claim, they do not believe in partial rapture. Most of them do not claim that they are partial rapturist. I respect them very well. I believe what they saying.

Early Church does not teaching on partial rapture, because it was not yet exist in their time in the first of 19 Centuries.

Early Church taught there is the only one future coming of Christ. None of them teach on split comings or two phases or more of Christ's coming.

In year 1830, a teenager Maraget MacDonald claims, she had a vision of Christ's coming while she was very ill. She said, she saw Christ descend from heaven with a shout of trumpet and to gathering the saints up in the air to meet Christ. Then, she said, she saw the saints go through the fiery trials under the Antichrist. Also, she said, she saw Christ descend from heaven to gathering the saints together.

Her vision was a very obivously partial rapture. She was a member at Edwards Irving's church.

Irving liked her vision. He did shared of her vision with John Darby.

But, Maraget MacDonald does not invent partial rapture, she just claim on it.

John Darby was the mostly influence on pretribulation rapture doctrine during 19th Century.

Most baptists in America do not believe in partial rapture. Also, they saying that they are not partial rapturist.

But, most baptists are pretrib, many of them saying rapture is NOT the second coming. It is another phase of the second advent.

If suppose partial rapture is correct, then that mean Christ would have to descend from the heaven often and often like as yo-yo's, huh??

The Bible does not teaching us, that Christ would have to descend from the heaven often and often like as yo-yo's.

Very simple what Acts 1:9-11 tell us, when Christ ascended into heaven, the two angels appeared in the midst of the disciples while they stared up in the clouds. The two angels asked them, why stare up in the clouds? They told them, this same person -Jesus, which is taken up in the sky, in the SAME way, as he shall come again, they speak of the only ONE future coming.

No doubt, many Christians in the past centuries understood Acts 1:11 speaks of the only ONE future coming.

Partial rapturism have much of guesswork on their own logicals to interpreting the Bible, it cause people into confusion, because of much complex.

I believe that the Bible teaching us very simple and plain.

Same with Jesus taught the parables, He always taught on them with illustration, and also, He taught them very simple and plain. He does not give them much complex to people.

Pretribulation is also guesswork too. Sorry to saying it. Because, it teaches there is two phases of the second coming or split coming. The Bible never teach on split coming.

I do notice some pretribbers teaching on partial rapture.

Dr. Peter Ruckman believes there will be three raptures. Obivously, his teaching is partial rapture. Dr. Ruckman does not claim that he is partial rapturist. Dr. Ruckman obivously claim that he is pretrib. But yet he teaches on partial rapture, huh??

When I was a student at Midwestern Baptist College. I took New Testament Survey class. I won't given the name of the teacher. I am sure that probably some of you at baptistboard might know who the teacher is. I rather not given the name of the teacher. Whilst I was pretrib myself as I took classes at Midwestern Baptist College. One day, the teacher taught on the book of Revelation. He says, many saints will be killed during tribulation period, many will be rapture DURING(emphasis added mine) tribulation period. He means that there will be many raptures during tribulation period. I was shocked, and told to the interpreter during the class, "No! No! I do not agree with him!" He tried to telling me shh, (not talking while teacher is lecturing).

Midwestern Baptist College is pretribulation. Yet, I notice one teacher teaches partial rapture. Huh??

I do not believe in split coming or two phases of the second coming accord to pretribulation doctrine. Because the Bible does not teaching on split coming or two phases of the second coming.

In fact, early church never teaching on it, it was not yet exist in their time.

I rather follow the Bible, what it saying than what men saying - Colossians 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20-Amen!

 

As I said, there are many "Old" Baptists who taught it. It is historically as orthodox as any view. This is easily demonstratable.

I certainly meant no disrespect, my brother. I hate it when folks come off as condescending. I was only making a suggestion. Which Baptist teachers have you read who taught a partial/selective rapture? Just curious.

Do you always pull the "devisive" card when folks disagree with you? I have noticed that you do it alot. How can a view-point which (in my opinion) reconciles the positions of already divided camps of post/pre tribbers possibly be considered divisive?

To say the position is not "historic baptist doctrine" is a mis-statement. You are simply wrong. But even if you were right, then let God be true and every Baptist a liar!

Lacy

 

I wonder if Dr. Bob considers Spurgeon to be one of those "historic Baptist".

 

So eschatological views determine one's salvation? Silly me. I thought all along that it was the blood of Christ which saves a person. I am quite sure you will now try to argue that only those who believe your particular brand of eschatology are saved. Rather convenient for you, don't you think?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Troy,

Now you have my head spinning. Which is the eschological view that has the highest percentage of genuinely saved people? What makes this so? Where in the Scripture anywhere does it state that a persons view of eschatology determines their salvation?

Bro Tony

 

Where did Troy's post go? Mine now seems out of place.