Posted on 10/21/2008 10:34:15 AM PDT by Gamecock
Rapture, the Doctrine of
Lat. raptus, “to take” or “to seize”
The doctrine of the rapture describes the belief among many Christians that Christ will return for the Church prior to a time of judgment called the tribulation. Upon Christ’s return, Christ will take all those who are his to heaven while he judges those who remain on the earth for seven years. The primary passage which adherent refer to is 1 Thess. 4:17, “We who are alive and remain shall be caught up [Lat. raptus] together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” Those who subscribe to this doctrine can be divided into three groups: Pre-tribulationalist, Mid-tribulationalist, and Pre-wrath. Many Christians do not ascribe to this doctrine believing that all references to Christ’s return are to his second coming which immediately precedes judgment. They would also argue that the doctrine of the Rapture is too novel to be orthodox since it was virtually unknown until the nineteenth century.
TWOTD Ping
The TWOTD Ping list is published daily, except weekends. If you would like on or off of the TWOTD Ping List please FReepmail me.
I’m a “pre-wrath” guy in those categories, possibly a “mid-tribulation”.
Sorry folks but I believe we’re going to be here through the tribulation. If we weren’t there wouldn’t be a fight and thus no tribulation.
Should be prepared and not just assume God is going to gather us all up before the SHTF.
This reminds me of a story that happened to me at a church I went to in college. I told the pastor I was a postmillenialist, and he just couldn’t believe it. “Are you sure you don’t mean post-tribulationist?” Nope, postmillenialist. I was apparently the first postmillenialist he’d met, ever.
In all subjects which, do not directly address our salvation, we can hold different ideas without losing our anchor; Jesus the Christ?
When speaking about rapture, or it's timing in God's glorious plan of salvation, I can't hold a position which ignores the value of early church father's writings. They were forced to respond to the many heresies of that time.
For example, the Arminian's denied the deity of Jesus. This is a issue which does mater! When bishops tell their congregation many unfortunate lies, they expose their flock to eternal damnation until their lies are struck down.
Bishop's from all over the world were forced to spend ten years (on the Emperor Constantine's dime) outlining our current Biblical Canon. Which works are of vital importance to the faith and which are actually God breathed inspiration.
Issues which were of basic centrality or, orthodoxy include The Council of Nicea which the church was forced to write. Confrontation over the nature of the Holy Spirit, was first described for us by the three Great Cappadocian Bishops.
Nothing much was said that addressed the status of individual saint during the Tribulation because, unlike people living today early Christians understood that worship is all about God, not about the individual
The status of the followers of Jesus before, during or after the Tribulation was written and preached by second century church father Bishop Pseudo-Epthriam. Separated from Jesus by two or three generations, he was a accurate reporter of church canon law. His sermon can be found in the writings circulated among the church Bishops in the process of establishing a sense of common themes and acceptable doctrine. >Many Christians do not ascribe to this doctrine believing that all references to Christ’s return are to his second coming which immediately precedes judgment. They would also argue that the doctrine of the Rapture is too novel to be orthodox since it was virtually unknown until the nineteenth century.
This doesn't mater much because, the sermon of Psuedo-Epthraim is posted on-line in many places. I first read it back in 1997 while doing research for an early church history class. Looking Up for My Jesus, Agape Love,
A lot of inaccuracies here. The first sentence said this:
“The doctrine of the rapture describes the belief among many Christians that Christ will return for the Church prior to a time of judgment called the tribulation.”
Now, were it to say this:
The doctrine of the PRE-TRIB rapture describes the belief among many Christians that Christ will return for the Church prior to a time of judgment called the tribulation.
It would be true.
The doctrine of the rapture is the doctrine of the catching-up of true Christians at the second coming of Jesus Christ. Whether this takes place before (pre-trib), in the middle (mid-trib), prior to the outpouring of the vials of wrath (pre-wrath), or at the end of the tribulation (post-trib), is a different issue altogether. Pre, mid, prewrath, and post rapturists all believe in the rapture.
As to the verse cited, 1 Thess. 4:17 gives no support to a pre-trib rapture, it proves the rapture per se, but does not address whether it occurs before, during, or after the tribulation.
This statement in incorrect:
“Those who subscribe to this doctrine can be divided into three groups: Pre-tribulationalist, Mid-tribulationalist, and Pre-wrath.”
You left out Post-trib. Why?
Then you said this:
“Many Christians do not ascribe to this doctrine believing that all references to Christ’s return are to his second coming which immediately precedes judgment.”
This is assuming the pretrib belief that the judgments in a seven year endtime tribulation period constitute the Biblical “day of the Lord,” or the wrath of God. Pretribs are the only ones who hold this view, mid, prewrath, nor post-tribs see this differently.
“They would also argue that the doctrine of the Rapture is too novel to be orthodox since it was virtually unknown until the nineteenth century.”
Yes, mid, prewrath, and post-tribs do say this. And they are correct, for a pre-tribulation rapture is not to be found in church history until the nineteenth century. It is a modern innovation.
I hold to the post-trib belief, by the way.
You seem to be incredibly confused. Arminianism is not a christology, but a soteriology. Arminians do not deny the deity of Jesus. They hold, in opposition to Calvinists, that Christ died for the whole world (and not just the elect only), and that predestination is not absolute and unconditional.
A form of ecstasy, one that is sudden and violent. This violent motion cannot, as a rule be resisted, whereas in the case of simple ecstasy, resistance is possible, at least at the outset.
Revealed truth that the present world of space and tome will come to an end. It will be on the day when the dead will rise from the grave and Christ will appear in his majesty to judge the human race. As to the manner of the world's destruction or its time, nothing definite can be said whether from natural science or from the Christian faith. The idea of destruction by fire (II Peter 3:7; 10, 12) can be taken simply as a current mode of expression to state that the present world will be dissolved and a new world will come into existence.
I think he just mis-typed. He probably wasn't speaking of the Arminians (followers of Jacobus Arminius), but instead of Arianism (followers of Arius, whose philosophy was more or less what he described. Arius is the guy who got slapped by Saint Nicholas at the Council of Nicaea, and you probably have to be a pretty vile human being to have Santa Claus want to beat you up).
lol. Hopefully not the last.
LOL !!!
I love the way you phrase that. Consider also the end of Arius. He was on his way to take over the position of an orthodox pastor. The godly man prayed fervently, asking God to kill either him or Arius, so that he would not live to see his pulpit polluted. W - E - L - L .... as the triumphal parade headed on down the road, Arius had an urgent call of nature. Entered the Port-a-potty at a local construction site. And stayed. And stayed. When his sycophants broke in, they found that the heresiarch had suffered a stroke, fallen in, and drowned in feces.
May all Thy enemies thus perish, O Lord!
Agape,
DrMike
Not really. Prior to 1830, Christ's return was simply referred to as the Second Coming. The term "rapture" was invented to put a particular spin on the futurist dispensational interpretation of 1 Thess. 4:16,17.
There is no reason for a post-tribber to use the term "rapture". Pre-tribber, mid-tribber, pre-wrath, yes. They need to make the artificial distinction.
Actually, the writings attributed to Pseudo-Ephraem are probably closer to the sixth or seventh centuries.
The status of the followers of Jesus before, during or after the Tribulation was written and preached by second century church father Bishop Pseudo-Epthriam.
Not sure what you are claiming. Pseudo-Ephraem says nothing about a "rapture" separate and distinct from the Second Coming. In fact quite the opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.