The Rapture?

OSV.com ^ | 04-29-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

The Rapture?

Q. Many of our Protestant brethren say that, before Jesus comes, there will be a rapture wherein all the faithful will be taken up, I guess, to meet Him in the sky. When I tell them that the Bible says we will “see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Mt 24:30) and “he will send his angels ... and they will gather his elect from the four winds” (Mt 24:31), and then ask them who will be left to “gather” if everyone has previously been “raptured,” they say it will be the Jews. What is the Church’s teaching on this? Will there even be such a thing as the rapture? I’m confused! Any light you can shed on the subject will be greatly appreciated!

Rich Willette, Springfield, Vt.

A. The notion of rapture (a Latin word that means to be snatched away) is a very novel concept among certain (not all) evangelicals. It is a notion less than 150 years old and finds no real support in the biblical text as you point out. Fundamentally, the theory asserts that before the final tribulations of the last times, faithful Christians will be snatched away. Rapture theorists disagree about the exact moment of the snatching. Some say it will be pre-tribulation, others midway through the tribulations, and some even say post-tribulation.

The root text for evangelicals who hold rapture theory is a text from the First Letter to the Thessalonians: “Indeed. we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore, console one another with these words” (4:15-18).

The context is the second coming of Christ. There are not two second comings taught in Scripture, but rapture theory posits two — the one described in First Thessalonians and another one, some 1,000 years later. Note, too, that in First Thessalonians there is no mention of some people being left behind. There is no mention of a 1,000-year reign. Nor does St. Paul indicate that what he is describing here is a different coming of Christ, distinct from other texts in the Gospel wherein Christ describes His own second coming.

Thus we are left with a text that simply does not support what rapture theorists say. They further strive to unnaturally stitch this account with other texts in the Book of Revelation. The result is a highly debatable account of the last days that even rapture theorists hotly debate in terms of the details. The whole enterprise amounts to an attempt to shoehorn biblical passages into rapture theory that more clearly call it into question. To say the “elect” are merely the Jews is speculative at best and fanciful and contrived at worst.

As for Catholic teaching on these matters, the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes it as follows: “Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers [see Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12]. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. [see 2 Thes 2:4-12; 1 Thes 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18-22]” (No. 675).

[CpnHook]

I guess there are people who can't learn, and people who won't.

Amen.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...and the majority of non-Catholics we encounter..."

2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Mend your ways, encourage one another, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you.

[ealgeone]

Context is always the key, verga.

[MHGinTN]

http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/imminency-and-any-moment-rapture

Had I perceived a discussion could happen this evening, I would have addressed the doctrine of imminency as taught by the early Church Fathers. The linked article might interest you ... or not.

[Seven_0]

Matt 24:29 says “gathers his elect”

Note that the elect are gathered from one end of heaven to the other. (verse 31) They are already in heaven.

So no this is not about the unrighteous being taken in judgement as you claim

Matthew 24:37 says it will be like the days of Noe. Verse 39 says they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

The ones taken away by the flood did not know that the judgment was coming. Thus Noah and his family represent the people that were left behind. This is the second coming of Christ and not the same event in 1 Thessalonians 4 where the righteous were taken to meet the Lord in the air.

[MHGinTN]

There is man-made tribulation (Nero, et al were very adept at that) ... and then there is the wrath of God, not ISIS.

The Revelation of John reveals The Wrath of God on unbelievers. Could there be any greater insult to God' Grace than to reject the gift of eternal life for believing on Him Whom God sent for our salvation?

[verga]

And it would be lovely if the anti-Catholics actually think about that when they make their comments about their perception of Catholic belief. But I am not holding my breath.

[Boogieman]

“Lazarus was not the first, there were a few in the Old Testament.”

Which just makes your logic all the more unsound.

“The point I make is that there is a physical resurrection of Christ and all who are in Christ are part of his resurrection.”

The physical resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous, also called the first resurrection, are two different events, that is made quite clear by Scripture.

“The second resurrection is a puzzle. Perhaps it happened already to Christ.”

It’s not a puzzle. Scripture explains very clearly that the second resurrection is the general resurrection of those who are not saved, and it is a resurrection to judgement, rather than to eternal life. It can never happen to Christ, because Christ is righteous, and besides, he was already resurrected. Nobody is resurrected twice, if you are part of one resurrection, you are not part of the other.

[ealgeone]

And it would be lovely if the anti-Catholics actually think about that when they make their comments about their perception of Catholic belief. But I am not holding my breath.

When catholics make up their mind on the issues that will help us.

[Seven_0]

The physical resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous, also called the first resurrection, are two different events, that is made quite clear by Scripture.

The order is important. First must come before all others, otherwise it is not first. Since the first resurrection in Revelation 20 comes after the resurrection of Christ, there must be some connection to make it fit.

The resurrection of the unjust is also physical and it happens before the second death. Can the second resurrection come before the second death? I don't think it is as simple as you say it is.

Another thing, when Christ died it says that he dismissed the spirit. Was that spiritual death?

[Just mythoughts]

There are two tribulations... The first one is 'deception'. Matthew 24:4; Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8. And the world is up to its eye-balls in deception. Paul says Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God,

that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12

For we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against *spiritual* wickedness in high places. ........

To escape the first tribulation one must know what the deception literally is.

[Boogieman]

“The order is important. First must come before all others, otherwise it is not first.”

What you are missing is that first resurrection and second resurrection are general resurrections (resurrections of great masses of humanity), and there are only two of those. The resurrection of Lazarus, Christ, etc are individual resurrections. You’re trying to connect apples with oranges and it is just leading you into confusion.

“Since the first resurrection in Revelation 20 comes after the resurrection of Christ, there must be some connection to make it fit.”

Why must there be? There’s no connection in Scripture, so you are just plucking this out of thin air, it seems to me. As far as Scripture is concerned, they are entirely seperate events, separated by millenia.

“Can the second resurrection come before the second death?”

Of course it does, Revelation states that plainly.

“Another thing, when Christ died it says that he dismissed the spirit. Was that spiritual death?”

Most translations say he “yielded the spirit”, which is just a euphemism for dying.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Hal Lindsay was a denier of the plain word of Yehova.

Yeshua’s return has never been “imminent.”

There are a list of things that must first come, and only part of them have come to be. We are at the end of the 5th seal, and all of the 6th seal lies ahead in the near future.

None of the 6th seal events will be pleasant to anyone. People will suffer and die, but it is all part of his plan.

He has told us the Biblical date when he will return (month, day) but Yehova’s calendar has little glitches in it. We can get close, but not exact as to the day the new moons will be visible, so the Roman calendar the world runs on is no help at all.

One literally has to watch for the new moon as the sun sets to know when Yehova’s month begins; there is no way to predict it exactly in advance, and every time someone tries they end up looking like a fool.

But those that constantly watch, every month, will know the year and the season, but just not the exact day and time.

[daniel1212]

Catholics have explained to you patiently and repeatedly the difference between veneration (honor) and worship (adoration) and yet you prove yourself un-teachable.

I spent some time explaining how the Trinity isn't three 'gods' but One True God,... I guess there are people who can't learn, and people who won't.

That is an invalid analogy, as one of the arguments for the Trinity is that to Christ are ascribed attributes, glory and "veneration" that only belong to God, but likewise are ascribed to the Mary of Catholicism. If Moses or a Muslim saw such they would just conclude Mary was deity. As said before,

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them in Heaven from earth.

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

>Words (I found) used for worship in the NT (KJV)

Proskyneō/Proskuneō — a masculine noun meaning to prostrate, almost always in worship. It occurs 60 times, mainly for worship of God, but sometimes for false gods, including images and demonic incarnations, which is idolatry. (Acts 7:43; Rv 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9; 16:2)

It is used twice for obeisance before men, once in forbidding a pious man to do so, before Peter no less, (Act 10:25) and another in compelling false brethren to show obeisance before the feet of true brethren. (Rv. 3:9)

Furthermore it is used once in reproving John for trying to worship an angel of Christ, telling him to worship (proskyneō) God instead. (Rv. 22:8,9)

Thus this act of prostration normatively denotes worship, only once being clearly used for less than that, and worship is always the case when proskyneō is used as a volitional activity, or in the context of supernatural beings.

Nowhere is the act of believers bowing down to believers sanctioned, much less bowing down before a statue of them in prayer, praise and adulation, and ascribing to them attributes which are only ascribed to God. And which is blasphemous, and outside of worship of God this manner of prostration and ascription is only seen in pagan worship, which is idolatry.

Proskunētēs — a masculine noun, which occurs just once (John 4:23) and describes those who worship God. Therefore latreia is not the only word that uniquely means worship, contrary to what many Catholics argue.

Sebō/Sebomai — A verb which occurs 10 times, denoting worship of God as well as false gods, and to describe devout persons.

Sebazomai. A verb occurring once (Rm. 1:25) in describing those who worshiped and served false gods.

Latreuō — service of worship. It occurs 21 times, mostly as "serve" in describing the activity of worship of God, and twice for service to false gods. (Acts 7:42; Rm. 1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped [sebazomai (G4573)] and served [latreuō (G1391)] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

It is never used for service to man, and is what we see Catholics giving to the Mary of Catholicism, to whom they ascribe Divine attributes and functions, and dedicate themselves to her.

Latreia — From latreuō; service of worship. Occurs 5 times as denoting service toward God, not any created being, yet it is corespondent to the dedicatory service of Catholics to their Mary.

Eusebeō — to be pious, reverent as in the only place it occurs in describing worship of unknown God. .(Acts 17:23)

Conclusion: From this brief study we can see that any assurance the Catholics are not engaging in worship in their "hyperdulia" of Mary, crossing the invisible line into latreia, is plainly specious. For just as souls were quite obviously engaging in worship described as proskyneō or latreuō or sebazomai, even if latreia was not used to describe them, so also can Catholics.

While sometimes the words for worship can be used in regards to obeisance toward men, yet as with the words for praise, they are never used in regards to created beings being bowed or prostrated to (much less before representative statues) beings in adulation and praise and prayed to as unseen beings having supernatural abilities in the heavenly realm, including the ability to hear corporate, even mental prayer in Heaven from those on earth, and engaging in making sacrificial offerings to them.

And in Scripture constitutes worship, with such activity and ascriptions being unseen toward anyone but God, and otherwise it belongs in the pagan world.

And thus by engaging in such towards Mary, it is evidenced that many Catholics are materially engaging in worship, or at the least blasphemy (if a difference can be made), even if unawares.

In response some Catholics argue that one cannot engage in worship if that is not intended in the persons heart. However, this is not the case, for one can easily be unaware of what constitutes worship, including of money, and in any case one can deny they are engaging in such, even taking the mark of the Beast but denying it represents worship of him.

Moreover, idolaters are described as being such, not based upon their hearts, but their dedicatory actions and ascriptions.

See link for verses and more, by God's grace. But no doubt being able to speak Greek means that engaging in the manner of "veneration" only given to God or by pagans to false gods, and ascribing attributes that are only ascribed to God or by pagans to false gods, does not constitute worship when Catholics do so toward created beings.

[daniel1212]

FReeper Daniel1212 called him on it, and said "Asserting something like Pope Benedict didn't believe in the Resurrection seems pretty absurd to me. " http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3431022/posts?page=132#132 Daniel1212 certainly opposes distinctive Catholic doctrines, but endeavors to do so, I think, without misrepresentation and without snide-issimus personalis.

I do seek to only argue what i know can be substantiated, and to avoid actual misrepresentation, and i have corrected some things when i found out that i was misinformed (while a couple RCs have tried to charge me with misrepresentation when i did not). Like as "dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour," (Ecclesiastes 10:1) so can an invalid argument to a position that is otherwise correct. However, there is some much that is substantiated from Catholic sources that there is no polemical need to use misrepresentation in exposing her errors.

[daniel1212]

If the RCC has not refuted these apparitions, and I don't believe they have, they're advocating an acceptance of these as doctrine.

No: silence at best would mean they do not see it as detrimental and warranting censure, or that the magisterium has failed to protect their flock if it is, while at worst silence could infer implicit sanction, but not as doctrine.

[ealgeone]

No: silence at best would mean they do not see it as detrimental and warranting censure, or that the magisterium has failed to protect their flock if it is, while at worst silence could infer implicit sanction, but not as doctrine.

Would not silence mean consent to agreement? In effect, consent is allowing doctrine to be formed.

[free_life]

Matt 24 also deals with those living as in the day of Noah but the unsaved are not caught up into the air to the Lord, nor do the instructions “stay awake and be ready” make any sense if this is referring to the those who are already asleep (spiritually dead) and have never been ready. Read the scripture for what it is saying instead of trying to fit doctrine into the Word.

[MHGinTN]

A point of difference between the Matt 24: 31 gathering and the 1 Thessalonians 4 gathering is that the gathering in Matt 24: 31 appears to be preparatory to the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matt 25:31), and that judgment is preparatory to beginning the kingdom.

There are many verses between Matt 24:31 and 25:31, they are parables speaking primarily about the need for readiness at the return of the Lord. Chronologically, there is no indication that the events of Matt 25:31 come long after Matt 24:31. The Matt 24:31 gathering seems to precede the judgment of the nations. On the other hand, the gathering to the Lord mentioned in the clear rapture passages does not say this event is preparatory to the judgment of the sheep and goats or to the start of the kingdom. It could be the prelude to those events, but no passages say it does. And, if not connected with the rapture timing, then it is likely that Matt 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4 speak of different times and different events.

[CpnHook]

Had I perceived a discussion could happen this evening, I would have addressed the doctrine of imminency as taught by the early Church Fathers.

The ECF's didn't teach a pre-trib rapture. They taught that the Church was the "New Israel" -- the heir of the promises and covenants given to OT Israel which attain their most complete fulfillment in the Church. They didn't teach that there will come a point where the Church is taken away from the earth while God once again deals exclusively with the Jewish nation and such others that remain. To the contrary, the ECF's speak of how the Church will be persecuted during the Tribulation!

The linked article might interest you ... or not.

Since the linked article doesn't discuss Patristic thought in the least, it's merely a distraction consistent with my opening premise that you will come up short on evidence that the ECF's taught of a pre-trib rapture.