No, Christians Should Not Believe in 'Left Behind's' Rapture Theology, Says Prominent Baptist

Christian post ^ | 26 June 2019 | Morgan Lee

[MHGinTN]

Um, perhaps you missed the point. JESUS tells His disciples that if they have seen Him they have seen the Father. My explanation is that the dimensional limits of the disciples could only perceive The Father where HE, God, intersects their limits AS JESUS.

[ravenwolf]

I think what Jesus is saying is that my father and I are one in spirit, Jesus does the will of his father, like father, like son.

[ravenwolf]

By the way I forget to ask you if
you are cathLic or protestant, not that it
really matters because I do not choose
one over the other but there is a question I
would ask you if you are protestant.

[MHGinTN]

I would identify as non=Catholic, simply a Christian in the Body of Believers, ex-Episcopalian, ex=Baptist. The ex is more involved than simply no longer attending.

[boatbums]

Why do you boatbums, accept it and not the Shepherd of Hermas, say? I repeat again, I disagree with bookshelf and I think the book of the Apocalypse is relevant to theology, but note that the Assyrian Church rejects it as canonical Eusebius in the 330s AD wrote that it was accepted by some and rejected by some The Council of Laodicea (363) omits it as a canonical book
Err.. no -- there were other texts considered divinely revealed in the 2nd century like the Shepherd of Hermas, but it was not added to the Bible as the author was known and wasn't an apostle.

I accept the Revelation of John as inspired Holy Scripture because the Holy Spirit is the author and has led Christians to accept it as so in the same way that ALL of the Old Testament books were as well as the Gospels and Epistles - it is our authoritative rule of faith (what the word "canon" means). We hear the voice of God through them and they attest as being the word of God. The Shepherd of Hermas is a late second century allegorical story much like Pilgrim's Progress. The author(s) is/are not established, it couldn't have had Apostolic authorization because of its late date, the writer never claims to be a prophet of the Lord and it teaches false doctrine in some parts (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html).

Ironically, WRT this thread, I read:

“The Shepherd of Hermas" is also significant in that some of its visions definitely seem to subscribe to a premillennial understanding of the end times. Some scholars even see hints of pretribulationism in the "Shepherd of Hermas." The existence of premillennial thinking in a Christian work from the second or third century gives credence to premillennial theologians’ arguments against the idea that amillennialism was the universally held belief in the early church. (https://www.gotquestions.org/Shepherd-of-Hermas.html)

The Biblical canon is NOT made up of 73 books but 66 (39 OT and 27 NT) especially if as you yourself claim they are understood as "was this divinely inspired and written by an Apostle". Holy Spirit inspired writings have authority BECAUSE they come from God and not because men decided they came from God. Did the Lord ever let men off the hook for obeying His commands if they didn't accept what His prophets told them? No, he didn't. The book of Revelation is far more than "relevant to theology", it is Almighty God warning mankind that though judgment may be delayed, it WILL happen. And we are comforted in knowing that:

He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more nor mourning nor crying nor pain; they will be no more, because the former things have passed away." (Rev. 21:4)

[ravenwolf]

I guess I can say about the same although I have
I have never belinged to any denomination.

The Catholics believe Jesus is actually God and they
believe Mary is the mother of God, and as I have said
I am not convinced however it makes perfectly good sense.

If you believe Jesus is God why wouldn’t you believe
Mary to be the mother of God,?

And like I said I don’t know but many Protestants also
believe that Jesus is God but deny that Mary is the mother
of God.

This completely blows my mind.

[boatbums]

Amen!

"And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more nor mourning nor crying nor pain; they will be no more, because the former things have passed away."

[Cronos]

Good link - it agrees with the biblical viewpoint of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as the focal point of the book of the Apocalypse chapter to 11

[Cronos]

Yes, of course ... prophetic postponement is weaved all throughout the OT. For example, the two-phased coming of Christ. Not understood in the OT prophets ... but after the first advent, it is well understood that there is also a second coming of Christ.

But this is not what the pdf states namely The Old Testament did not clearly foresee how its own prophecies were to be fulfilled -- no, that's false. The prophets saw what would happen - they described it in prophetic language. It wasn't that the OT didn't foresee. What you can say is that people misinterpreted it or didn't understand it, not that the OT didn't foresee.

[Cronos]

The authors that espouse all of my views are varied -

John

Matthew

Paul

Luke

Peter

James

the desert fathers

Athanasiu

Augustine of Hippo

Clement of Alexandria

Eusebius

Gregory of Nyssa

Irenaeus

Jerome

and others -- i'm not going to claim that I remotely understand all of them, leave alone some of it.

Thing is I don't have some bunch of seminary journals that I would quote - but if you ask me what particularly my position is, I am happy to elaborate it out for you and put in references for each of the points I hold to

[Cronos]

I am no ‘teacher’ - however you are making an assumption of af as “being hell-bent to deny” — Jesus didn’t teach the “left behind” philosophy.

It’s a 19th century philosophy that is anti-biblical in many ways.

You may not realize it, but discernment is not something you can fabricate, it is a gift from His Spirit. You make a strenuous effort to get others to agree with your denials of what Jesus taught regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the New Jerusalem - Christianity with the New Temple that is Christ Himself?

Have you asked yourself why this issue is so important that you seek to lead others to accept your denials? What has bewitched you?

[Cronos]

“I accept the Revelation of John as inspired Holy Scripture because the Holy Spirit is the author and has led Christians to accept it” — the Ethiopian Christians since 300 AD have also accepted others (I’ve not read them) - this is the list

1. Matthew
2. Mark
3. Luke
4. John
5. The Acts
6. Romans
7. I Corinthians
8. II Corinthians
9. Galatians
10. Ephesians
11. Philippians
12. Colossians
13. I Thessalonians
14. II Thessalonians
15. I Timothy
16. II Timothy
17. Titus
18. Philemon
19. Hebrews
20. I Peter
21. II Peter
22. I John
23. II John
24. III John
25. James
26. Jude
27. Revelation
28. Sirate Tsion (the book of order)
29. Tizaz (the book of Herald)
30. Gitsew
31. Abtilis
32. The I book of Dominos
33. The II book of Dominos
34. The book of Clement
35. Didascalia

Do you also accept these books?

[Cronos]

The Bible is made up of 73 books that are inspired Holy Scripture because the Holy Spirit is the author and have led Christians to accept it as so in the same way that ALL of the Old Testament books were as well as the Gospels and Epistles - it is our authoritative rule of faith (what the word “canon” means).

[ShadowAce]

So you believe we should just go with what ever takes our fancy?

I never said that, nor implied it.

Once again you are reading things into what is actually written that are not there.

[MHGinTN]

“It’s a 19th century philosophy that is anti-biblical in many ways.” You are categorically wrong, but sadly not open to correction. Why are you so insistent upon denying The Rapture?

[MHGinTN]

The Revelation of John given by Jesus to His last living disciple is not aimed at AD70. There was no abomination of desolation standing up in the Holy of Holies, for one thing.

Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in His Temple Discourse found in Luke. If you read the Luke passage you would notice the phrase 'the end is not yet.

Again I ask you who has bewitched you? Why are you so insistent upon denying the truth that Jesus opened the Rapture issue first in John 14. He then expanded the data on the issue through Paul's letters and teaching to the new believers in Thessaloniki. There are many references to the event found even in the ECFs. But of course a denier cannot see the truth of that because it crumbles the lie that the Rapture issue was started in the teaching of a recent theologian. I would direct you to the website 'Pretrib.org', but you would not go there because you are a denier not a seeker of truth.

[Cronos]

The revelation given by Jesus to John and written down by him in the book of the Apocalypse of John of Patmos is aimed at AD 70 and the destruction of the 2nd Temple

you say There was no abomination of desolation standing up in the Holy of Holies, for one thing. -- yet, According to Roman historian Cassius Dio, after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD the Temple Mount was covered over with rubble and a pagan temple dedicated to Jupiter was built when Hadrian became Caesar (117 - 138 AD).

Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke and in Matthew 24

The book of Revelation teaches us to see the true nature of Christ's kingdom of priests - the church, all Christians.

The book of the apocalypse is the climax for the whole bible, recounting God the Father's saving plan to bring us to our true goal - heavenly life with Him.

This is why we have Jesus, the True Temple - and this new Temple, the body of Jesus, comes after the physical 2nd temple is destroyed.

The New Jerusalem is Christianity.

Why would you deny Jesus words? Who has bewitched you to believe in the non-biblical left-behind rapture?

John 14 talks of the time between the crucifixion and the destruction of the 2nd temple when the adversary's bonds were loosened. Yet the adversary loses and lost in AD 69-70.

But of course a denier cannot see the truth of that because it crumbles the lie that the entire left-behind rapture with its secret rapture then necessitates a split covenant. The errors of Darby were compounded by J Dwight Pentecost who wrote "There are two new covenants presented in teh New Testament: the first with Israel in reaffirmation of the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 and the second made with the church in this age. This .. would divide the references to the new covenant in the New Testament into two groups"

This idea then leads to the false rapturist belief that most of the teachings of the Jesus (as per the rapturists) do not apply to present-day Christians.

Clarence Lakin for example told all that the Sermon on the Mount has "no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law" -- htat is to those Jews who will come back to God during the TRibulation --> this is close to blasphemy.

The Scofield Bible led to the numerous end-times predictions from 1933 to even the great Billy Graham in 1950 US News and World Report saying "Two years and it's all going to be over" -- and guess what, we're beyong 1952.

Then you have the fake The Late Great planet Earth - and Chuck Smith in 1978 saying "The Lord is coming for His church before the end of 1981"

In 1978 edition of Christianity Today another one of your rapturists, Gary Wilburn wrote "The World must end within one generation from the birth of the state of Israel. Any opinion of world affairs that does not dovetail with this prophecy is dismissed" --> guess what, 1988 came and went.

you had another rapturist Edgar C. Whisenant publishing 88 reasons why the rapture will be in 1988 - when the world was to end in September 1988.

But then a year later Wisenant wrote 89 reasons why the rapture will be in 1989 -- wow.

And again a failure.

The rapture-happy folks like the Jehovah's witnesses said "oh now, when Jerusalem was reunified in 1967, so 40 years, the end of the world is 2007"

[Cronos]

Why are you so categorical upon agreeing to the non-biblical, in fact anti-biblical idea of the secret, left-behind rapture?

[ravenwolf]

That is the whole point, i wrote into what you said as if you had said
It, it is no different than putting our own words in scripture.

You said just because Jesus was at the right hand of God does not mean
that he could not be every where else and I agree but the scripture does
not say that he came back more than once.

People only assume Jesus came back more than once based on other scriptures.
Paul said we who are alive and remain will meet the Lord in the air so they
will say that Jesus had to come back more than once.

They are putting more credibility on the one line of scripture than than
all the other scriptures put to gather.

[MHGinTN]

LOL, do you actually believe your calling the Rapture a "non-biblical, in fact anti-biblical idea of the secret, left-behind rapture" will make it go away? LOL

Ask yourself, if what Jesus told His disciples in John 14 happens, what would you call the ones not taken to the Father's House but left upon the earth to the wrath poured out on the planet? I'd say they are 'the left behinds'. If you want to be one of those, God will not stop you. Just don't accept the mark which will be commanded to you should you survive the death of one-fourth of the world's population.

During the Tribulation period, if you will call out to Jesus He will bring you to Heaven by His Holy Spirit when you too die. Don't accept the mark of the beast to gain a few more weeks of life in the body you now occupy.