The questionable Pretribulation Rapture

So basically you're saying you don't hold Scripture as inerrant and infallible and to be understood as literally written. You hold to liberal reformed approach of interpretation based on symbolism and alleghory where you make it say what you need it to, to support your position.

In Christ
Joe

 

No, I'm saying that I take scripture to be inerrant and infallible. I take scripture to be literal unless scripture itself gives me reason to think otherwise.

Whenever scripture uses obvious simile, metaphor, other poetic languge, parables, etc., I take those to be simile, metaphor, other poetic language and parables. These are all easily recognized. The text comes right out and tells you when something is a parable. The language identifies a simile (something is like something), and so on.

I'm not the one twisting scripture -- in fact, you have to deny what scripture says to make these things (simile, metaphor, parables) literal. You have to pretend the "like" is not there. You have to ignore the fact that Jesus identified a story as a parable. This is what you've done.

 

Ah, so even though Christ explained His parables and they aligned with doctrinal issues, traditional issues and doctrinal concepts, by your account we are to take them only as stories and not a timeless method of understanding truth in a means humans can comprehend. In essence because something can be simply understood, it shouldn't be?

In Christ
Joe

 

Are you suggesting that you hold that Revelation, which is Scripture, is to be interpreted literally and not as apocalyptic?

In the love of Christ,
Tim </font>[/QUOTE]This is how I see it, the "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.

So to answer your question, yes I do. If it's symbolic in nature look to Scripture for it's definition for there you will find it. Simple.

In Christ
Joe

 

OK, let's start with the first two...and the problems with post trib:

Yes WE will too....HOWEVER that doesn't answer the question. Take a look in Isaiah when he's describing the conditions of life during the Millennium...if someone dies at 100 they are still a babe, this implies there will be people during the millennium in their natural bodies(you know, the survivors of the Tribulation). Hmmm...can a saint in a glorified body die? Don't think so. If everyone is raptured at the end of the Tribulation and everyone gets a glorified body, the post-trib position has a problem...the prophecy in Isaiah is then false. Furthermore, what does it say in Matthew about marriage and thereby procreation? We will be like the angels who don't do that. So the glorified saints during the millennium WON'T be re-populating the earth as it requires a natural body. Furthermore you run into the issue of the final rebellion at the end of the 1000 years...

1. Rapture Is Not in the Bible


The first lie is the assertion that the rapture is not really in the Bible. Some-body will always bring up the argument, “If you look up the word ‘rapture’ in the concordance, it isn’t there.” So, they conclude that the Bible really doesn’t teach the idea of the rapture.


Remember that a concept can be taught in the Bible without the word actually appearing. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible — the Triune God, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But there is no reference to the word “Trinity” in the Bible. The same is true of the word “Sunday,” which is referred to as “the Lord’s Day.”


The idea of the rapture is clearly taught in Scripture. In I Thessalonians 4:13-17, the Scripture says, “The dead in Christ will be raised up, and we that are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” The term “caught up” is a reference to the rapture. In the original language of the Greek New Testament, it is the word harpazo. Harpazo means to be “caught away” or “snatched away” — to literally disappear. That word is used in the Bible for the rapture. The English word “rapture” comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word harpazo as rapere or rapto in Latin. It refers to the same idea, the catching away of the people that are part of the Bride of Christ.


The concept of the rapture is clearly taught in the Bible. It does not matter what your view of eschatology is; at some point you have to include the rapture. You might differ as to whether you think it is pre-, mid-, or post-tribulational. But there has to be a rapture. I Thessalonians 4 says there must be a time when the dead in Christ, a unique term for the Bride of Christ, the Church, are raised, and we who are alive and remain are caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

(from an article by Dr Hindson).

In Christ
Joe

 

Okay, you're beginning to drive me batty with your misrepresentation of the issues. I hope it is not intentional misrepresentation and you are simply misled, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is no less irritating.

To use your example of the sheep and goats. You ask, why would Jesus have to separate the sheep from the goats if they've already been separated at the rapture? The question makes no sense whatsoever, and we can see that by looking at the passage with some of the context:

First of all, didn't you see the word "as"? Again, this is a simile. It says, "as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats". Why make the comparison? Well, ask yourself: why does a shepard separate the sheep from the goats? Because the shepard has different intentions for the goats than for the sheep. So the "separation" only illustrates that some of them are destined for one purpose, and the others are destined for another purpose. So Jesus gave you the clue as to the intended meaning by using the simile. That's what similes are for.

Second, the parable starts with "When the Son of Man comes in his glory ... he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him..."

I challenge you to find a pre-trib scenario where the raptured saints have to be separated from the unsaved in heaven, and explain why this parable must therefore describe a pre-trib scenario. You can't, because the parable has nothing whatsoever to do with the timing of the rapture. Either way, you've got saved and unsaved in heaven together. When they got there is irrelevant.

The fact is, point of this passage has nothing to do with the chronology of the end times. The point of this parable is illlustrated clearly in the remainder of the text...

 

Here is the crux of your misunderstanding, if I understand your intent correctly.

You are placing this judgment of the nations in heaven and not on earth where it belongs. The throne upon which Christ is sitting is David's throne as promised in the Old Testament. In heavenly glory...self explanitory...remember the transfiguration? Was that not "heavenly glory"?

The people being separated during the separation of the sheep and goats (as a shepherd would) Christ is separating those who were faithful through the Tribulation (those who will populate the millennium) from those who took the mark etc. That's the separation being spoken of. Remember, the Raptured saints RETURNED with Christ. IF the rapture occured at the end of the Tribulation there's no one to separate, they already had been, plus then there's the sticky problem about who populates the millenium.

In Christ
Joe

 

Yo, Joe! Right on the money, dude!

Sorry, but I am just about sick of the whole thing. I know what I believe, and why I believe it, but I'm tired of the endless nit-picking. It's like a guy in high school (oh so long ago) who would take anything you say and try to make an arguement about it.

Rminds me of some Scripture...
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I judge that De Haan is a prophet for profit.
I am not. So i trust my reading of
the scripture over his. In fact, i'd rather trust
in Brother Tim_too's understanding of the
scripture than De Haan.
I can always hope Brother Tim_too understands
the scripture better than De Haan

 

Now here is an ironic twist if ever I saw one -- especially after you suggested that I do not respect the inerrancy of the Bible.

The text says...

Now, I see this as the beginning of the parable, so I don't expect the illustration to be an exact representations of what happens. But you seem to want it to be absolutely literal, so according to you, this text demands that the sheep and goats are brought before Jesus on His throne in heaven, and separated to the left and right of Jesus on His throne in heaven. Not separated to the left and right hemispheres of the earth, but to His left and right.

But according to you, this is taking place on earth (even though it doesn't say that), and what this really means is that Jesus is separating the people who were raptured from the people who took the mark of the beast. Now, the text doesn't even hint at any of these "details" and your assertion that it takes place on earth directly contradicts the text.

So, here's the end result: The crux of "my misunderstanding" is that I read the text exactly as it is written. Obviously, according to you, this means my view must be wrong because I didn't agree with all the extra stuff you changed in the text and added to the text.

 

Sorry, I meant to say "people who were faithful through the tribulation vs. etc..." not people who were raptured. Either way, the text doesn't suggest any such details.

 

How so np? Christ returns WITH His saints (Rev 19:11)...destroys satan and crew...assumes the throne of David (remember...OT promise and prophecy)...by the way you need to remember He's now here on earth (Second Coming), he's sitting on his throne in heavenly glory (can you picture Christ after the Second Coming any other way) and then he judges the nations. Exactly the same order of the text, in context. You have Him being a yo-yo....down to earth for the second coming...back up to his throne to judge...back to earth to rule...yikes!

In Christ
Joe

 

Hi Tim, no problem. Give me a bit to go over it and write a proper rebuttal/refutation of those claims instead of a hasty one. Those seven points are very easy to show the real deal.

In Christ
Joe

 

Are you trying to imply something brother Trotter?


It is a slippery slope to start down, implying that people are false teachers just because their theology doesn't match or questions yours.

In the love of Christ,
Tim </font>[/QUOTE]That is right Brother Tim_too!

If we Christians don't love each other,
nobody else will.

Reminds me of a joke.
A Jumper Cable goes into a bar.
Says the Barkeeper: "All right,
i'll serve you -- But don't you
start something!"

 

Brother Npetreley: would you
please explaine the concepts and/or principles
illustrated by the "Parable of the
Sheep and Goats"? Thank you.
This teaching, which you might
call the "Parable of
the Sheep and Goats" is found in Matthew 24:31-48.

Brother TFCDR: thank you for the drive-by pot shots
at the KJVo-you-knows
WE do have an unwritten rule here I like to call
NO BURNING STRAWEMEN
Anyway, here we just argue and/or discuss those points
brought out by others. We don't bring in strawmen
from outside even though we can burn them
real nicely.

And welcome Brother TFCDR to the Baptist Board (BB)!

 

Tim too: "Finally, which position would be
most to Satan’s advantage?"

Bad question. The truth is the truth
no matter if it helps or hurts Satan.