Five Myths About the Rapture

Crisis Magazine ^ | November 2003 | Carl E. Olson

[marbren]

It is my understanding that this refers to the coming Millennial Kingdom (literal and future). As such it is still a relevant prayer.

I agree. Catholics and Lutherans would not.

[drstevej]

***Catholics and Lutherans would not.***

Among others.

[Cvengr]

MYTH 2 —“Catholic beliefs about the end times are quite similar to those of Fundamentalists such as Tim LaHaye.”

In fairness, here is a link to the position of Tim LaHaye, which even if disagree with provides a nice listing of pertinent Scriptural references on the topic.

http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/articles/rapture.html

[Cvengr]

From LaHaye's article:

Rapture Passages
John 14:1-3 1Thessalonians 1:10 Hebrews 9:28
Romans 8:19 1 Thessalonians 2:19 James 5:7-9
1 Corinthians 1:7-8 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 1 Peter 1:7. 13
1 Corinthians 15:51-53 1 Thessalonians 5:9.23 1 Peter 5:4
1 Corinthians 16:22 2 Thessalonians 2:1 1 John 2:28-3:2
Philippians 3:20-21 1 Timothy 6:14 Jude 1:21
Philippians 4:5 2 Timothy 4:1.8 Revelation 2:25
Colossians 3:4 Titus 2: 13 Revelation 2:25


Second Coming Passages
Daniel 2:44-45 Mark 13:14-27 1 Peter 4:12-13
Daniel 7:9-14 Mark 14: 62 2 Peter 3:1-14
Daniel 12:1-3 Luke 21:25-28 Jude 1:14-15
Zechariah 12:10 Acts 1:9-11 Revelation 1:7
Zechariah 14:1.15 Acts 3:19-21 Revelation 19:11-20:6
Matthew 13:41 1 Thessalonians 3:13 Revelation 22:7,12,20
Matthew 24:15-31 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
Matthew 26:64 2 Thessalonians 2:8

[Cvengr]

Who says modern day Christians will get off any easier than early Christians? Other than us having more blessings today than any previous generation, I read no passage which indicates we will be so saved from worldly or fleshly or evil in the world. I do understand and find the theologic doctrine that the Rapture removes His believers from His wrath.

The mechanics of how the Rapture occurs may be scant. I've heard one theory wherein all Christians would be gathered together in concentration camps and nuked, then they would be caught up in the air with Christ similar to how Christ also led Shadrach. Mishach, and Abendigo out of the firey furnace. Perhaps too much speculation in such a theory, but I don't find that much in it to contradict the scriptural position on the Rapture.

[Conservative til I die]

Believe me, I'm not trying to attack the people that believe in these theologies. I reserve my wrath for the charlatans and self-appointed prophets that espouse them, usually with a dollar sign attached.

But nonetheless, even if the people that believe these theories are nice and well meaning, the theology is still bunk and I can't call it anything but.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Nope. Hal attended Dallas Seminary but was never a professor. In fact, he did not have an undergraduate degree prior to DTS and was admitted as a special student. I think he was a riverboat captain prior to seminary.

i can't remember the particular book, but the bio paragraph refers to Lindsey as a Professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary...it was an early book.

BTW CtId, for a real hoot, read the first edition of The Late, Great Planet Earth to see all of the things that Lindsey removed in subsequent editions, when his "prophetic [profitic?] instincts" didn't pan out.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Then you should not get upset when people call you communion host things like "cookie" "wafer" "cracker" right? I don't do that and have corrected people when they do, because so many catholics get "offended when NC call the host by names like that. I think you are one that would be offended, correct me if I'm wrong:), but what is the difference between that and calling my beliefs "gutter theology"?

I only am pushing this point because I find it puzzleing why catholics get offended by what NC say about catholic beliefs, even when the NC is polite enough to use nice terms. Why disagreeing with a catholic belief makes one a basher, hater, bigot??? I don't get that. And I've seen you do that and then turn around and use terms like gutter and bunk. Can you explain that?

My definition of basher, hater, and bigot would be towards someone who said I should be imprisoned or forbidden or killed because of my beliefs. Someone who disagrees with my beliefs politley is not a hater, basher or bigot, someone who calls my beliefs by non-polite terms is just a childish person who can't carry on an adult discussion. What ya think?

Becky

[Uri’el-2012]

SoothingDave;snerkel
SD>Can you provide an example of this, I didn't see any ad hominem. Thanks.

s>An example: "LaHaye has not only revealed himself to be an anti-Catholic polemicist but a theologian with a seriously skewed view of God?s salvific work." {found in the 7th paragraph of The 5th Myth}

SD>The rest of your post is irredeemable.

s>Now that comment was a perfect example of a ad hom. It is as if you are stating, "I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment."

80 posted on 12/20/2003 8:15:21 AM MST by snerkel

Thank you answering Sooth-saying Dave.

I don't answer him when he can not pause to read and understand what is patently in front of him.

I also don't answer him when he indulges in condescending ad hominem statements
while avoiding an intellectual discussion of the thoughts and concepts at hand.

He clearly does not think he is indulging in ad hominem arguments
since he is blindly aligned with any argument by a member of the roman church.

Pray, one day Dave will learn to follow Y'shua HaMashiach and His Holy Word and not mere men.

Until then I find Dave "an occasion of Sin" and I avoid Sin.

a bondslave to the Christ

chuck

[fidelis]

"The main thing I got out of the books was that they showed the danger of believing in "the Church" more than in God. Some Catholics take this to mean the RCC. In the books, after the rapture (and the Pope at the time was raptured, BTW),..."


It should be noted that in the book, the Pope was ratured AFTER he embraced Evangelical theological positions, implication being an orthodox Catholic Pope cannot be saved.

Anyone who doubts that LaHaye is a devout anti-Catholic need only read his non-fiction books on almost any topic. They speak for themselves and show what underlies his theology.
















'

[fidelis]

(Sorry about the white-space in the previous post. Just call me butter-fingers)

[SoothingDave]

don't answer him when he can not pause to read and understand what is patently in front of him. I also don't answer him when he indulges in condescending ad hominem statements while avoiding an intellectual discussion of the thoughts and concepts at hand. He clearly does not think he is indulging in ad hominem arguments since he is blindly aligned with any argument by a member of the roman church.

You don't think that is ad hominem? Heal thyself. I already explained to you that my comments were not "attacking" you, but rather recognizing that you hold your beliefs strongly and can not be swayed by any argumentation.

If you can't take a compliment then fah foo to you.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Can you provide an example of this, I didn't see any ad hominem. Thanks.

An example: "LaHaye has not only revealed himself to be an anti-Catholic polemicist but a theologian with a seriously skewed view of God’s salvific work." {found in the 7th paragraph of The 5th Myth}

Calling a spade a spade is not a baseless attack.

The rest of your post is irredeemable.

Now that comment was a perfect example of a ad hom. It is as if you are stating, "I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment."

I already explained this comment and what I meant by it. If you won't read what is plainly in front of you, and wish to take umbrage vicariously for a compliment, please do so quietly without any further embarrassment to yourself.

SD

[snerkel]

I already explained this comment and what I meant by it. If you won't read what is plainly in front of you, and wish to take umbrage vicariously for a compliment, please do so quietly without any further embarrassment to yourself.

Excuse you? A compliment? Maybe you should invest in a Dictionary.

[SoothingDave]

A compliment?

Yes, a compliment. Chuck and I have a history. I know he won't be swayed. So I called his comments "irredeemable" in that context. that there was nothing I could do to make his comments "correct," cause they were from a 180-degree polar opposite of mine.

SD

[snerkel]

I've never read your beliefs on this subject. Would you be willing to enlighten me? (If you have posted them in this thread, I apologize. I don't have time to read each and every post during the day.)

[SoothingDave]

I've never read your beliefs on this subject. Would you be willing to enlighten me?

On the Rapture?

The idea that all believers will be whisked away in secret before any "tribulations" is an historical novelty. The Lord is coming again, yes, but the Kingdom is already here. It will be fully revealed when He comes, but it is already in existence.

We are living in the Millennium.

SD

[xzins]

we are living in the millennium

If this is the millennium, then it looks nothing like that described by the bible. It's laughable.

Methinks someone has forced an interpretation upon reality.

[snerkel]

The idea that all believers will be whisked away in secret before any "tribulations" is an historical novelty. The Lord is coming again, yes, but the Kingdom is already here. It will be fully revealed when He comes, but it is already in existence.

Secret? Not to sound sarcastic, but if the rapture is such a secret why is it discussed openly?

We are living in the Millennium.

When did the Millennium begin?

[dangus]

Well, that certainly is a very different scenario than "Left Behind," which is what prompted the thread.