Posted on 03/18/2009 10:27:27 PM PDT by Star Traveler
Bookmark
Re: The 2012 movie. Saw this on a billboard yesterday.
Some kind of subliminal message there perhaps. That something will happen in 2012 that will change everyone's ideas about religion?
2nd place was the Disney movie Christmas Carol, I think.
I became a Christian after reading Hal Lindsey’s book, “The 1980’s, countdown to Armageddon”. I also became a strong pre-tribulationist and joined my local Assembly of God Church, where I attended for 18 years. In that time I played in the orchestra for 17 years and drove the “church bus” to pick up kids pretty much every weekend for 10 years.
Eventually, however, as I read more and more prophesy, I started questioning what I believed from the beginning. At the beginning I believed with no scriptural background, but simply because someone that seemed to know what he was talking about said.
Hal Lindsey did go a long way in popularizing the idea of the Pretribulational Rapture with the general public and that did contribute to a lot of people becoming Christians as a result of it, and their further study in the Bible and hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, unto salvation.
I recall Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries saying that, too (check out the MP3 archive of radio programs). And I've heard quite a few others say that.
But also keep in mind that apart from Hal Lindsey, this is something that is supported by countless other scholars and seminary professors, teachers and everyday Bible-teaching pastors in the pulpit. This does have widespread support.
Of course, there are the detractors, who don't even believe in the rapture in the first place. We see them on the "open threads" where they hammer incessantly against it. If one wants a discussion with the naysayers, all they have to do is open up a thread about the rapture, and they will show up and whack you around... LOL...
But, I do understand that you're not one of those and that you're coming at it from another position within the "rapture ranks" and that's what we can discuss here.
I just wanted you to know that this idea of the Pretribulational Rapture doesn't rise, stand or fall on Hal Lindsey. It stands on the Bible and countless other pastors, preachers, teachers and/or scholars who have studied the Bible and the history of the church, over the decades -- even going back into its history back in the beginning centuries. It's there, too.
However, feel free to discuss the ideas presented and we'll see how the discussion goes.
Thanks for contributing.
Thanks for the ping. The author of the above post makes a fundamental mistake and, unfortunately, it diminishes the whole scholarship of the article.
While I think she nailed on it a few things, she is absolutely incorrect that Paul thought the rapture was immanent.
Paul predicted his own death:
2 Tim 4:6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
Paul KNEW he wasn’t going to make the Rapture. Peter also predicted his own death:
2 Peter 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
The idea...the “teaching”...that the Rapture was ALWAYS immanent is easily defeated and is no friend to those who believe in a Pre-Trib rapture. Scripture simply doesn’t support this teaching.
(Please note that I am “pre-trib”, but “the Rapture was ALWAYS immanent” teaching is something that is not helpful to Pre-Trib believers, for this is easily defeated with plain Scipture.)
"The Rapture will occur suddenly. And countless thousands will vanish from the earth. Swept up to heaven to live with Jesus and escape the torment of the Tribulation, the others will be left behind." — The Dead Sea Scrolls
I haven't seen this before, does anyone have a source to double check this. Also, isn't the term Rapture a later word that was used top describe the event?
Thanks for posting the link. I'll check it out.
FWIW, I attend a large non-denominational church (very Baptistic) and we have a large pastoral staff. It breaks about 50/50 among them pre-trib, mid-trib. I'm still not certain, but lean towards pre-trib.
FWIW, most of them are from churches that emerged during the Reformation. It's often thought that the Reformation churches made a clean break from the Roman church, but they took a lot with them and their eschatological views are just one example.
My experience has been when discussing eschatology with the Reformed is if you can get them to recognize God is not done with the Jews, but has a plan for them after He is done with the Gentiles most will reconsider their thinking.
>>I just wanted you to know that this idea of the Pretribulational Rapture doesn’t rise, stand or fall on Hal Lindsey.<<
I apologize for giving that impression. I really didn’t equate him with it at all.
I am aware that a lot of bible scholars fall on every side of this issue. That is why I decided to read their arguments and make up my own mind. I’ve argued this issue with people for decades (from both sides) and when I found that site to which I linked I found that it would save a LOT of time to just link to his site and I don’t have to do a lot of retyping, mainly because he so closely aligns with my perspective.
On a side note, I discovered he lives within 10 miles of me. I meant to try to meet up with him but never did. I should try again.
I haven't seen this before, does anyone have a source to double check this. Also, isn't the term Rapture a later word that was used top describe the event?
The article referenced wasn't my article, and even if I were to have originally presented it, I still wouldn't know about the research that was done by the author of the article.
The source is mentioned and so, I would guess that someone would have to go back to that original source and track it down. And I did a little bit of googling with the names given and didn't find too much.
However, I did find where the information was apparently "spread" in prophecy circles. It apparently came from a Jack van Impe video.
The following is what I find in a discussion forum about it, and this says to me that van Impe was the source for widely disseminating the information, although not the "original source" -- but that's apparently given in the video.
Rapture Message Found in the Dead Sea Scrolls - Prophecy Fellowship Forums
A little history on this subject and why I'm posting this is in order. On the Jack Impe show aired last June 2005 Jack said that a newly discovered Dead Sea Scroll reveals the RAPTURE. When uncovered it revealed who would be left behind in the rapture. Dr. William Harold (may be misspelled) Prof. of Canon Law at the theological seminary in Great Britain who went to the holy land. This is a quote they had on the air.
[ ... ]
I am currently watching a new video produced by Jack Van Impe called "Left Behind? What Now? There it was again 28 minutes 30 seconds into the video, the dead sea scroll / rapture quote. It was this video that has prompted my research into this. By the way, this 2 hour video is WORTH HAVING in your library.
Now, if this article (up above that you're referencing here) gave this reference, alone, and says that this is where it came from, it seems to me that this means they saw the original source.
HOWEVER they are referencing this information from Jack van Impe Ministries, and so this means (to me) that they saw the same video that the above "forum reference" (that I gave) saw it from, too.
Therefore, this means that you're probably going to have to go to Jack van Impe Ministries to try and get the source materials, or else do some library research and get the source materials that way.
It would be worth it for us all to have this documented more thoroughly.
Write Van Impe. Or search his site.
He ought to be willing to provide the ref and quote.
Thx.
Write Van Impe. Or search his site.
He ought to be willing to provide the ref and quote.
Okay..., I just did a Google search of this website, and did it two ways. One way was searching for the name "William Harold". And then the other way was doing a search for the specific phrase "dead sea scrolls" along with the word "rapture".
And in neither one of those two searches did it turn up anything. Now, perhaps he doesn't have any written material on it and it's only in video format. If that's the case, then it wouldn't show up in a Google search (for those words).
The only other thing I can suggest is to write to his ministry and ask specifically for the original source reference for that stated fact in his presentation.
I would like to find it, but it appears to not be used at all -- anywhere on the web.
Is there an email addy on Van Impe’s website?
I can ask Holly to write him, if you think it would take that?
The idea...the “teaching”...that the Rapture was ALWAYS immanent is easily defeated and is no friend to those who believe in a Pre-Trib rapture. Scripture simply doesn’t support this teaching.
This may be of interest to you then, as it's a studied consideration of this issue that you raise. I think the Doctrine of Immenence in connection with the Pre-Tribulational Rapture is viable, Biblical and defendable.
See what you think...
That the New Testament teaches Christ could return at any moment is a strong doctrine supporting the Pretrib Rapture doctrine (see 1 Corinthians 1:7; 16:22; Philippians 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 9:28; James 5:7–9; 1 Peter 1:13; Jude 21: Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 17, 20). Pretribulationists call this the doctrine of imminence.
If Christ can return at any moment, without the necessity of intervening signs or events, then it renders pretribulationism most likely and posttribulationism impossible. Imminence in relation to the Rapture has been defined as consisting of three elements: “the certainty that He may come at any moment, the uncertainty of the time of that arrival, and the fact that no prophesied event stands between the believer and that hour.” 1
CHRIST CANNOT RETURN AT ANY MOMENT?
This application of imminence by pretribulationists to the Rapture has drawn strong fire from opponents. American Robert Cameron in 1922 wrote a book against pretribulationism that centered his attack against the doctrine of imminence.2 Early in his book he penned a chapter that asked: “Could Christ Have Come At Any Moment?”3 Throughout Cameron’s lengthy chapter4 he cites what he believes are items that would have to take place before any return by Christ, thus nullifying, in his mind, the any-moment doctrine of imminency as advocated by pretribulationists. Cameron believes that imminency “is opposed to the whole of the New Testament.”5
Cameron’s specific objections primarily consist of various items that he believes have to take place either during the lifetime of the apostles or before the return of Christ could occur. For example, Cameron says that the coming of the promised Holy Spirit by Christ in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13–17) meant that many events had to take place in the lives of the apostles and since these were promised, Christ could not return while these events were being fulfilled in the lives of the disciples.6 Further, Cameron contends that Jesus promised Peter that he would live till he became an old man (John 21:18–19), therefore, Christ could not return until after Peter lived to old age.7 Paul wrote to the church at Rome of “a visit he proposed making to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, and after that to Spain" (Romans 15:22–25, and 30–31). If he had any thought of Christ coming immediately, could he have written this?8 “It is gladly conceded that the next great, direct interference from heaven with the affairs of men will be the Coming of our Lord,” declares Cameron. “But then there are so many intervening events predicted that the word ‘imminent,’ so commonly used at the present day, is certainly inadmissible.”9
WHY CHRIST CAN RETURN AT ANY MOMENT
Look at these verses stating that Christ could return at any moment, without warning. In their specific contexts, they instruct believers to wait and look for the Lord’s coming at any moment. Thus, these passages teach the doctrine of imminence.
It is significant that all of the above passages relate to the Rapture and speak of the Lord’s coming as something that could occur at any moment, that it is imminent. These passages could only be true if the New Testament is teaching an imminent return. This is why believers are waiting for a person — Jesus Christ — not just an event or series of events such as those related to the Tribulation leading up to Christ’s Second Advent in which He returns to the earth and remains for His millennial reign. In contrast, Second Coming passages are often accompanied by events that must take place before the return. This is never the case with Rapture passages. Always, it is Christ Himself who could come at any moment. Gerald Stanton offers this insight: “The posttribulational view robs every generation of an imminent, and consequently of a comforting and purifying hope. It argues that, because the Rapture was not imminent in the first century, it is not imminent in any century, and it cannot be imminent now. The Antichrist and the Great Tribulation are ahead, and there is no basis for expecting Christ to come before such clearly scheduled events.”10
JESUS’ PROMISE TO PETER
New Testament teaches imminence deal with Cameron’s charge that Jesus promised Peter that he would live to an old age, so that Christ could not return before Peter became old?11 The passage from which this charge is derived is John 21:18–19, which says, “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.’ Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, ‘Follow Me!’”
First, John’s gospel account was not written until decades after Peter’s death when it would no longer be an issue one way or the other. “As far as the church at large was concerned,” notes John Walvoord, “the information given to... Peter did not deter their belief in imminency because on a given day few would know whether... Peter was still alive, and most of them were not informed about the predictions.”12
Second, the first book in the New Testament canon is James, which appeared around A.D. 50. “By this time, Peter was in old age and his own death was conceivably imminent.”13 Marshall Hawkins provides an excellent explanation as follows:
Time for this gap between Peter’s middle age and his old age is allowed for by the progress of revelation. It was not until the book of James (written just about A.D. 50), and then later in Paul’s writings that the imminence of the rapture is revealed. Twenty years would have elapsed between the prophecy and the writing of James — enough time for Peter to have aged sufficiently... By this time imminence was a viable doctrine for most of the church since they would have no idea whether Peter was alive at any one moment or not... For those accompanying Peter at this time, the rapture was also imminent because Peter may have been seized and martyred at any time, making the rapture possible immediately afterward.14
Hawkins concludes as follows:
It must be kept in mind that any attack on imminence due to the prophecy of Peter’s death must also take into account the passage in James chapter 5. Imminence must be disproved first before a persuasive argument against imminence can be maintained here. There are enough doubts about Peter’s age, about the time of the revelation of the doctrine of imminence, about how old Peter had to be before his death became imminent, and about when the prophecy of his death became known, to make the posttribulational case insecure. As long as the passage in James stands, imminence can be correlated with the prophecy in John chapter 21.15
We will find as we diffuse the many land mines set against pretribulationism that nothing in the New Testament stands in the way of Christ’s any-moment return. It is truly a blessed hope to realize that the Rapture is indeed imminent. Maranatha!
ENDNOTES
1 Gerald B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour: Biblical Evidence for the Pretribulational Return of Christ, 4th. edition (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Co., [1956], 991), p. 108.
2 Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth About The Lord’s Return (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1922).
3 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 21.
4 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, pp. 21-69.
5 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 21.
6 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, pp. 21-23.
7 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, pp. 23-24.
8 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 41.
9 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 68.
10 Stanton, Kept from the Hour, p. 123.
11 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, pp. 23-24.
12 John F.Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and The Tribulation: A Historical and Biblical Study of Posttribulationism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 73.
13 Steven L. McAvoy, “A Critique of Robert Gundry’s Posttribulationism” (Unpublished ThD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986), p. 83.
14 Marshall Hawkins, “Rebuttal of the Posttribulational Denial of Imminence” (Unpublished ThM thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1979), p. 45. Cited in McAvoy, “Critique,” p. 83.
15 Hawkins, “Rebuttal,” pp. 45–46. Cited in McAvoy, “Critique,” p. 84.
(To Be Continued...)
A number of arguments against the doctrine of imminence were put forth by pre-trib critic Robert Cameron in his book entitled Scriptural Truth About The Lord’s Return.1 Cameron contends that a proper understanding of the New Testament meant that Christ could not have come at any moment.2 In this issue, I will further evaluate more of Cameron’s arguments, which pre-trib opponents through the years have established as standard objections against imminence. Cameron attempts to disprove the New Testament doctrine of imminency by showing that certain events must take place either during the lifetime of the apostles or before the return of Christ could occur.
THE PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Cameron argues that the coming of the Holy Spirit, which Christ promised in the Upper Room Discourse (John 13—17), meant that many events had to take place in the lives of the apostles. Christ could not return while these events were being fulfilled in the lives of the disciples.3 This is a rather trivial argument and I wonder why Cameron would even make it, since it can easily be dismissed.
The Church was founded on the Day of Pentecost, the day Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled. How could Christ return for His Church before the Church was founded, as Cameron implies? How could the fulfillment of this predicted event possibly be a legitimate obstruction to the apostles and their belief in Christ’s imminent return? Gerald Stanton notes:
Actually, Pentecost took place a mere ten days after the ascension of Christ. It must constantly be kept in mind throughout this discussion that imminent does not mean immediate, and the fact that there was a brief interval before Pentecost does not prove that it formed any barrier to the disciples’ faith in the Lord’s soon return.4
PREDICTED EVENTS IN PAUL’S LIFE
Cameron writes that Paul wrote to the Church at Rome of “a visit he proposed making to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, and after that to Spain” (Romans 15:22–25, and 30–31). If he had any thought of Christ coming immediately, could he have written this?”5 “For this reason I have often been hindered from coming to you; but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while—but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints” (Romans 15:22–25). “Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints; so that I may come to you in joy by the will of God and find refreshing rest in your company” (Romans 15:30–32). A similar passage is also cited against imminency in Acts 9:15–16: “But the Lord said to him, ‘Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.’”
These passages do not contradict the doctrine of imminency. In the Romans 15:22–25 passage, Paul explains why he has not yet been able to visit them, but for many years he has desired to see them. Paul further explains in verses 30–32 that Roman believers should pray that he might be released from the circumstances preventing him from coming to visit them in Rome “by the will of God.” Nothing in the passage above indicates that Paul’s desire to visit is not controlled by the will of God. Nothing in this passage says that Paul would absolutely, by the will of God, come to Rome. Paul was seeking the will of God and proper timing for his long desire on this matter. Stanton writes:
All of his plans, including these proposed journeys, were contingent on the Lord’s leading and the further revelation of God’s will for his life. Thus it was that he conditioned his promise to the Ephesians, ‘But I will return again unto you, if God will’ (Acts 18:21). To the Christians at Rome he expressed his desire that ‘I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come to you.’ Often he had purposed to come unto them but had been hindered (Romans 1:9,10,13). He wrote plainly to the Corinthians: ‘But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will’ (I Corinthians 4:19).6
It is clear that statements like those noted above that appear in the New Testament are under the control of the will of God. The timing of the prophetic events are also under the control of God’s will, as noted in Acts 1:7, which says, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.” It is reasonable to believe that God will coordinate His plan for history in a way that will not bring into conflict events in the lives of his apostles with the events already scheduled to occur in His prophetic plan. Every indication in the New Testament is that Paul lived in such a way as to seek God’s will and direction for his life while at the same time knowing that the Rapture could occur at any moment, which would leave undone some of the plans he might have had to spread the message to which he had been commissioned.
In a similar way, Paul’s example shows us that we should plan to follow the will of God, but at the same time we must recognize that Christ could, at any moment, interrupt our plans with the Rapture. Hey, I sure would not complain if that glorious event were to interrupt the long-range plans I have. The doctrine of imminence implies the possibility of an any-moment, sign-less coming by Christ at the Rapture. Since it is sign-less, there are no indicators of when it will occur; thus, we should plan to live as if we will die, but at the same time we are to be waiting for Himsince He could come today. This is the example provided by Paul.
INTERVENING EVENTS
“It is gladly conceded that the next great, direct interference from heaven with the affairs of men will be the Coming of our Lord,” declares Cameron. “But then there are so many intervening events predicted that the word ‘imminent,’ so commonly used at the present day, is certainly inadmissible.”7 Posttribulationists say that prophesied events like the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:29—24:2; Mark 13:1–2; Luke 19:41–44; 21:20–24) had to happen before Christ’s return could occur. They are both right and wrong! Nothing must take place before our Lord’s return in the clouds at the Rapture; but, on the other hand, hundreds of events must take place before the Second Coming of Jesus to planet Earth.
Posttribulationists like Cameron believe that there will be a single return of Christ in the future. They note the many events that must occur before His return. Pretribulationists believe many events are scheduled to occur before Christ’s return to the earth, and they will take place before His Advent—during the Tribulation, but after the Rapture. The post-tribbers simply ignore the many passages listed in my previous article indicating that Christ could come at any moment, without any signs preceding His coming, as if they were not in the New Testament. They then emphasize the many events that the Bible does say will lead up to Christ’s return.
For example, Matthew 24:29–30 says, “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.” This passage describes all the events of the Tribulation and the darkening of heavenly luminaries; then the sign of the Son of Man will occur before the coming of the Son of Man (the Second Advent). Pretribulationists agree that signs precede the Second Coming, but we believe the Rapture is a separate event that is not preceded by signs, and thus, the posttribulational argument has no traction since there are two events and not one.
There is no necessity for signs before the Rapture since the New Testament teaches that we are to wait for Jesus, who could come at any moment. The posttribulationist wrongly insists that there is but a single event in the future, which is preceded by signs. Therefore, the more that one recognizes the New Testament teaching of two future events (one imminent and the other not), then, they are able to harmonize properly the two sets of passages. Maranatha!
ENDNOTES
1 Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth About The Lord’s Return (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1922).
2 The title of a chapter against imminence in his book: Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 21.
3 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, pp. 21-23.
4 Gerald B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour: Biblical Evidence for the Pretribulational Return of Christ, 4th. edition (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing Co., [1956], 1991), p. 112.
5 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 41.
6 Stanton, Kept from the Hour, p. 121.
7 Cameron, Scriptural Truth, p. 68.
I can ask Holly to write him, if you think it would take that?
That might be a good idea. I'm not sure how good of a result you will get from an e-mail though, as I suspect the ministry will get a lot of them and they might not get the attention you need.
Perhaps a phone call to them might do it.
I would make a point of the fact that this was a reference that they used in their own video and that you would like to find the documentation for it and where they got it from.
If they try to refer you back to the video, itself, I would again make the point that you're trying to find the "source material" -- and thus "where they got it from..." to be able to use it in the video at all...
Good points.
I’ll try and phone sometime this week.
Good stuff recently from Quix and Star Traveler
Freepmail me if you want to be on or off the list.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the Ping!
Happy and a Blessed Thanksgiving to you and your’s!
Come soon LORD JESUS!
The subject of the Rapture never gets old, it's never stale, it's been read about in the Bible for almost 2,000 years now, and Christians are expectantly awaiting the return of the Lord, first for His church (to take them home with Him) and then for Him to return back to this earth, to set up the one-world government, in which He rules and reigns over all the nations of the world.
So, we can come back to this time and time again, and it never gets old... :-)
BUT... to make sure that any new poster is "up-to-speed" on the rules for the Rapture Caucus, I post that here again.
In short they say, "post here in this thread if you support the Pre-trib, Mid-trib and/or Pre-wrath Rapture [not Post-trib]. Otherwise, if you don't -- don't post here.
The Religion Moderator's home page ...
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
[Threads listed are "Prayer", "Devotional", "Caucus" and "Ecumenical"; included here is the "Caucus" definition.]
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited
What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus
What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.
Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.
Now, back to my own comments...
Some FReepers may have gotten jumped on (in other threads) for posting their belief in the Rapture, from what the Bible says. But -- here -- we're in support of the Rapture.
You are a member of this RAPTURE CAUCUS if you are in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture, as a separate event from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which is to establish the Kingdom on earth). This is defined per Post #78 (the Religion Moderator) and Post #79 (my affirmation of the same), which says we are talking about a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath Rapture, and not a Post-Trib Rapture (which happens at the same time as the return of Jesus Christ to the earth, i.e., His Second Coming).
Those who await the Rapture, are looking for that "Blessed Hope", Jesus Christ coming in the clouds, for His Bride, the Church.
So, feel free to join in the discussion -- in support of the Rapture -- as we talk about what information you have from the Bible, seminaries, church, pastors, books, friends and so on.
We can discuss the pertinent Bible verses, who are the pastors and/or churches who support it, what books are good to read, what is the purpose of the Rapture, the reason you find some compelling, or whatever else may be enlightening and helpful to the rest of us, in regards to edifying, exhorting and comforting one another, in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture.
Also, another "given" here is the Inspiration of Scripture from God, an inerrant and infallible Word from Him. Please refer to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" for a fuller explation of it. Although we can discuss what other pastors, preachers, teachers, churches, people, etc. explanations are, it all does come back to the final authority of the Word of God and not writers, pastors, theologians, churches or any other temporal entity (although we do use those for some help and understanding, just not the final authority on the matter). Remember, all these others are also appealing to the Word of God, in their explanations and understandings.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
[this part gives guidelines for interpretating the Word of God]
Great post and topic.
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.