Eschatology is not settled doctrine in the Christian Church. The "rapture" is by no means settled doctrine, either.
This means we are free to "explore" the possibilities within the confines of Scripture (of course). It does not allow us to use dishonest scholarship to prove "our point", though.
I have several disputes with the author's article. (Well, to be fair, I'm not criticizing the conclusion the author makes, only some of his reasoning.)
I thoroughly disagree with his use of Daniel 12:1-2 as a proof of OT Saints being resurrected AFTER the tribulation. This is easily disproved because it implies a "secondary way to God withOUT Jesus Christ." Jesus said that no man cometh to the Father but by ME.
The OT Saints were saved the same way we are.
(I'll have more in another post.)
I do agree that we are open to discussing these things having to do with the Rapture. But, as in all things in this world — while the the Rapture may be disputed by some (or even a whole crowd that one may gather for that purpose) — here we are composed of those who are settled that the Rapture *is* taught in the Bible as a real event, which *will happen*.
So, sure, some may disagree that the Rapture is a real event taught in the Bible, just like some disagree that the world is round, and some disagree that we actually sent men to the moon. But for the posters on this particular caucus thread, we are all here because we see that the Bible *does teach* that there is such a thing as the Rapture and it is going to be a very real event.
The differences that you’ll have with the particular posters here — is not in whether the Rapture is a real event taught by the Bible (that’s a *settled issue here*) — for these posters, it’s about the timing and some of the events surrounding the rapture. And for that, we’re open for discussion. The thing we’re not open for discussion about is “if” the Rapture is not a real event at all — we’re way past that point, with all these posters... :-)
So, just remember, we (on this caucus thread) do see the Rapture (in being a real and future event) as a settled doctrinal issue (which is the reason we’ve got this caucus thread in the first place...).
Please do feel free to add whatever may be of value in understanding the Rapture more clearly as that future and coming event.
As a follow-up here...
You were saying — “It does not allow us to use dishonest scholarship to prove “our point”, though.”
—
And here, I would say, that yes, indeed — it’s possible, as you say, to have some reasoning or scholarship that one uses to “prove the point” which may not really be valid after all. That isn’t changing the point, but just saying that this particular scholarship (whatever it is — and in the opinion of the poster) is not good enough or is actually about something else, other than the Rapture.
So, this is not meant to take away from the Rapture being a real and future event — but rather (hopefully so...) to bring together real solid support and scholarship for the Rapture and for any points that pertain to the Rapture.
But, even so — we all *still have to remember* that there are still going to be disagreements on the basis of the different views of pre-trib, mid-trib and pre-wrath. So, what one person would say is “not valid scholarship” — may actually be simply another person’s different “viewpoint” regarding the timing of the Rapture. We don’t want to hammer very hard on others who do believe in the Rapture, just because they have a different view of the timing.
However, having said that, I would still like to know how others do support their positions in the different “timing” of the Rapture, as they believe it to be.