The Rapture is not Biblical, False Doctrine? But accepted?

During my first year of studying the Bible, when I read the NT and all the relevant chapters/verses that contain blanket statements and hints concerning the Rapture/taken away/caught up event, I clearly saw a Post-Tribulation rapture ... and that was before I even knew of all the varying terminologies and theories.

Just before the 7th trumpet (and thus the 7 vials/bowls of God's Wrath) begins, the dead in Christ rises, and the rest of us Saints are caught up (raptured) to meet our Lord in the air.

As hard as I try (and I've read all the arguments over the last few years), I can't see a Pre-Tribulation rapture at all. It's just not there.

I do tend to believe that Satan is behind the Pre-Tribulation rapture theory because it does condition Christians to be less vigilant and ... darn, know what I want to say, but can't find the words ... they just thinking they won't go through hard times = the Tribulation. All that makes for a lukewarm church ... which Jesus said he hated in the letters to the churches in Revelation.

I would add in all the relevant verses, but I am running out of time as I need to get ready for work and also I'm trying to get over an annoying chest cold that has been aggravating my asthma to no end and I'm coughing all the time. I just don't have the energy for research at this time (I know, a poor excuse for defending our God's Word). Please forgive me on that point.

ADisciple said:

During my first year of studying the Bible, when I read the NT and all the relevant chapters/verses that contain blanket statements and hints concerning the Rapture/taken away/caught up event, I clearly saw a Post-Tribulation rapture ... and that was before I even knew of all the varying terminologies and theories.

...

Click to expand...

Hello,

To you, also, I would recommend Rosenthal's book. (See one of my previous posts in this thread). I think it would confirm what you have seen, but also allow you to understand where others are coming from. And I do pray your cold gets better soon.

Frank Lo said:

The Rapture is not Biblical, False Doctrine?

But accepted?

Can't find the word rapture in my bible only accepted by a lot Christian circles, why?

Does Satan wants to deceive us and make us lose hope, be afraid?

Does anybody has a Biblical answer?

Click to expand...

Nice hornets nest to open, a rapture debate. As mentioned before, the word 'rapture' isn't in the scripture, because the main english translations have translated straight from the original languages, using the word harpazo. In contrast, the word rapture is an anglicized version of a middle age French word, derived from an even older Latin translation of harpazo. Funny how we get some of our words, but there it is.

As far as if it's true, I believe beyond any doubt that it is. That said, I don't care if others believe it or not, therefore I don't argue the point. there will be plenty of time to figure out how the detractors got it all wrong after the event takes place.

Don't forget, Jesus explained the signs of the coming Tribulation then told us to pray always that we might be worthy to escape all those things and stand before Him. Yes, the rapture is an escape and one we are told to pray for.

SeventyOne said:

...

Don't forget, Jesus explained the signs of the coming Tribulation then told us to pray always that we might be worthy to escape all those things and stand before Him. Yes, the rapture is an escape and one we are told to pray for.

Click to expand...

So let me ask you, when you read the Book of Revelation, do you see one time of 'wrath', or two? And if you see two, there is now the question of which did God promised escape from? Do you agree?

DingDing said:

Hello,

To you, also, I would recommend Rosenthal's book. (See one of my previous posts in this thread). I think it would confirm what you have seen, but also allow you to understand where others are coming from. And I do pray your cold gets better soon.

Click to expand...

I have added that book to the list of ones I want to get. Thanks for the recommendation! And thank you for your prayer. My battered and bruised chest can use all the help it can get. hehe

Last thought. I know there are a million threads on numerous boards about the Rapture ... post, pre, mid, whatever. But in each thread I have read, I have picked up something new on all sides of the debate. It's interesting what people find in their researches on the topic.

ADisciple said:

I have added that book to the list of ones I want to get. Thanks for the recommendation! And thank you for your prayer. My battered and bruised chest can use all the help it can get. hehe

...

Click to expand...

Okay, I would love to see what you think of it, and to see your comments about it. That may take several weeks or more, though, depending upon when you read the book. (So please read it soon; I am anxious for responses.)

DingDing said:

So let me ask you, when you read the Book of Revelation, do you see one time of 'wrath', or two? And if you see two, there is now the question of which did God promised escape from? Do you agree?

Click to expand...

I see a lot of the book as overlapping accounts of the same timeframe of events, from differing perspectives.

JackRT said:

Rapture theology originated about 1830 with Charles Nelson Darby. It seems to be cobbled together from quite a number of different scriptural sources each of which have alternate interpretations that are legitimately possible. Nowhere in scripture is there a single clear and comprehensive explanation of the theory. There is also considerable debate between rapture proponents as to what are the correct interpretations with the result that there are several different rapture theories in use.

I do not subscribe to any of the rapture theories and regard it as unimportant to Christian belief or practice. I believe it to be intellectually, emotionally and spiritually unhealthy to live your life in constant expectation of the "end times". It is far better to live your life in such a way as to make this a better world, not just today but into the far distant future.

Click to expand...

This claim, though widely reported, is completely and totally false.

The doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation was clearly taught in the very oldest Christian commentary on end time prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day. This was the last twelve chapters of the vary famous work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies," which is believed to have been published between the years 186 and 188 A.D.

In this work, Irenaeus commented about the wickedness of the world in general terms, and then said, "And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.'For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption'" (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, Chapter XXIX, section 2.)

Many have argued that Irenaeus could not have been teaching a pre-tribulation rapture, because he clearly aid that the church would be put to flight by the Antichrist. But a careful study of the entire twelve chapters he wrote shows several things.

First, Irenasus set the timing of this sudden catching away as after the Antichist rose to power, but before the beginning of what he saw as the Antichrist's systematic destruction of the world.

And second, at that time in his account, Irenaeus distinctly changed the nouns and pronouns he used to refer to those passing through that time. Up to that point in his account he always used words such as "the church," "we," or "us." But from that point in his account, on to its very end he again always used words such as "they," them," or "those."

This change in his use of nuns and pronouns is proof positive that Irenaeus really meant what he said, that "in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up" before the great tribulation.


Among the ancients, Irenaeus was not alone in his views. This concept was also clearly taught by Victorinus of Pettau, who wrote near the end of the third century. And in the late fourth century, John Crysostom wrote that some in his day were teaching that the restrainer who was preventing the appearance of the Antichrist was "the Spirit of grace." As this is a critical part of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, this is evidence that it was still being taught at that time.

Again, there was another document whose age and writer are unknown. As some of the copies of this document say it was written by Ephraem, its unknown writer is called pseudo-Ephraem. From events the document speaks of as impending, various scholars have estimated its date from as early as 363 A.D. to as late as 627 A.D.. But regardless of when it was actually written, church library records show that it was alredy in church libraries before the year 800, A.D., that is, a full thousand years before Darby was born.

This document says:

“Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: ‘Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!’ For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” (“On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” author unknown but called Pseudo-Ephraem, section 2.)

In this short article, I have only mentioned truly ancient writers who taught this doctrine. But there are many others who have also taught it, including during the middle ages, as well as in the 1500s, in the 1600s, in the 1700s, and in the early 1800s, well before 1830.

DingDing said:

So let me ask you, when you read the Book of Revelation, do you see one time of 'wrath', or two? And if you see two, there is now the question of which did God promised escape from? Do you agree?

Click to expand...

SeventyOne said:

I see a lot of the book as overlapping accounts of the same timeframe of events, from differing perspectives.

Click to expand...

So then, since you see all these things, what is your answer to my post above?

DingDing said:

So then, since you see all these things, what is your answer to my post above?

Click to expand...

I just answered that, but I'll make it more plain, one.

Almost all arguments against the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture are based on an assumption that the Lord is only returning one time. This is based on the actual fact that the scriptures about His return always speak of it in the singular.

To these people this argument is conclusive. But they are forgetting two things. One of these is the grand principle that what the Bible does not say is often as important as what it does say. And it is also hard fact, that no scripture anywhere says that the Lord is only returning once.

Te other thing that these people are forgetting is that in the Old Testament, there was not even one statement that the Messiah would come more than a single time. You can search the entire Old Testament from end to end, and until you are old and weary, but you will never find even one such statement. For there is no such statement. It is not until the time of the New Testament that it was revealed that, even as He came in the past, He will also come in the future.

But although the Old Testament never said that Messiah would come more than just once, it revealed that fact. For many of the prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament said things that appeared to directly contradict things that other prophecies about the Messiah said. Some of them spoke of Him as a humble, suffering, servant. And others spoke of Him as a mighty conquering warrior.

The Bible scholars of New Testament times loved the prophecies about a mighty conquering Messiah, so they concentrated on them, while largely ignoring the prophecies about a humble, suffering Messiah. This failure to consider all of what God had said caused them to fail to recognize their Messiah when He came as a suffering servant.

Sadly, the people that imagine that our Lord is only returning once, fail to notice similar apparent contradictions in the prophecies about His return. They simply miss the fact that details of some of the prophecies are such that they cannot even possibly take place at the same time as the details contained in other prophecies about His return.

Thus, although the New testament never said the Lord would return more than once, it revealed that fact. And it revealed it in the same way that the Old Testament revealed that Messiah would come more than once, even though it never said that.

SeventyOne said:

I just answered that, but I'll make it more plain, one.

Click to expand...

Please, try to answer plainly, rather than beat around the bush as if you have already answered. So, are there two 'wraths' spoken of in the Book of Revelation? If so, can you describe them? And if the church is promised escape from 'wrath', which one and why?

I was raised believing in this rapture/premillenial dispensationalism business. The evidence of the effects of premillenial dispensationalism on many people is far from good (i.e. anxiety, worry, and depression). I've been there. You convince yourself it's practically pointless to do anything because the 'rapture' will happen soon.

1) We're told in Matthew, I believe, to not worry.
2) Live in the moment- do not constantly live in the future- as that is no life. Persevere in the faith. Take each day as it comes. Plan for the future, but don't obsess over it.
3) No matter what this life may bring us, God will give us a way through it. Do not despair.
4) Fear doesn't come from God. If you're being taught things that cause you to fear (and the 'rapture' doctrine causes much fear and worry in a lot of people), then you need to question whether you're being taught correctly. Some groups take a grain of truth and warp it beyond recognition.

The rapture is a convoluted doctrine invented in the 19th century and made popular in America with the advent of the Scofield Study Bible- while the second coming is a straightforward thing mentioned in scripture that all Christians believe. They are NOT the same thing.

Generally, in churches that speak explicitly of the 'rapture', they consider that a separate event from the Second Coming of Christ. The rapture is this secret event where Christians are whisked away, escaping things while the world goes to pot. So, you essentially have the secret Second Coming of Christ and the visible Second Second Coming of Christ according to most 'rapture' believers.

This is not a view that is accepted by historical Christianity. We call it dispensationalism- and most adhere to the premillenialist variety- and it is commonly attributed to John Nelson Darby- and has only really become popular since his time. The majority of the world's Christians don't believe this and never have historically.

If you think all of that is confusing- you're not alone. I was raised with that view- and I'm pretty sure I still don't understand it. Reading the scriptures used to justify said belief and looking at all the various charts out there (they used to and probably still make confusing flow chart looking things to explain this) doesn't really help. I only think it makes things more confusing.

People confuse the 'rapture' doctrine with the Second Coming all the time- and the difference needs to be pointed out for the sake of clarity. Half the time in these threads- there isn't a lot of distinction made- but a whole lot of confusion. To reject the 'rapture' is not to necessarily reject the other. BTW, how can you call something the Second Coming- when it is really the third (according to the premill view) anyway?

Let's be honest- when most people think or talk about the 'rapture' they don't mean the Second Coming of Christ (which all Christians believe). 'Rapture' is code for premillenial dispensationalism. If you're a Christian who thinks 'rapture' theology is only referring to the Second Coming- then you're taking on language that doesn't really mean what you think it means.

DingDing said:

Please, try to answer plainly, rather than beat around the bush as if you have already answered. So, are there two 'wraths' spoken of in the Book of Revelation? If so, can you describe them? And if the church is promised escape from 'wrath', which one and why?

Click to expand...

Well, I thought it was quite plain that I had answered. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Rather than asking me leading questions, please just come out and say what you are wanting to say and save us both a lot of time.

Frank Lo said:

The Rapture is not Biblical, False Doctrine?

But accepted?

Can't find the word rapture in my bible only accepted by a lot Christian circles, why?

Does Satan wants to deceive us and make us lose hope, be afraid?

Does anybody has a Biblical answer?

Click to expand...

I agree that the rapture doctrine is not Biblical. It is instructive to note that belief in a "rapture" developed only about 200 years ago. Without getting into the details, I suggest belief in a rapture arose due to misunderstanding key Biblical / culture-specific images. For example, I believe the scholars will tell us that the concept of meeting a returning king "in the air" actually referred to the people coming out from behind the city walls and greeting the king "in the open air of the fields outside the city".

SeventyOne said:

Well, I thought it was quite plain that I had answered. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Rather than asking me leading questions, please just come out and say what you are wanting to say and save us both a lot of time.

Click to expand...

What I am 'saying' is that I put up a post with questions that you never answered, but then afterwards you claimed to have answered. I strongly suspect, based upon what I have seen so far, that you don't want to attempt an honest answer, and it is perhaps because you don't have one. But if you will, could you please take my questions to your calvary chapel superiors, and come back and post their answers. I would really like to see what they would have to say in answer to my questions.

DingDing said:

What I am 'saying' is that I put up a post with questions that you never answered, but then afterwards you claimed to have answered. I strongly suspect, based upon what I have seen so far, that you don't want to attempt an honest answer, and it is perhaps because you don't have one. But if you will, could you please take my questions to your calvary chapel superiors, and come back and post their answers. I would really like to see what they would have to say in answer to my questions.

Click to expand...

I'm really not in the mood for this today. I answered, there is no other way I can say it, so you'll have to choose to take it or leave it. I really don't care which option you choose.

Have a good day.

SeventyOne said:

I'm really not in the mood for this today. I answered, there is no other way I can say it, so you'll have to choose to take it or leave it. I really don't care which option you choose.

Have a good day.

Click to expand...

No answer given means means no answer. But if you want to be the seeker-of-truth you might think yourself to be, go to your leadership and show them our exchange (all of it), and ask them to provide their answers to my questions for you. I can accept the fact that you don't want to answer my questions (or don't know the answers), but can they? (I rather suspect that they won't want to respond openly either.)

/nvm

vinsight4u said:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Thessalonians 1:10 shows what?
The church is not appointed to wrath that begins after salvation. Salvation comes at the end of our faith. This means those dying in the Lord in Rev. 14 must come in slain before salvation will come for the church.

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.

Click to expand...

But how does this answer the questions in my earlier post?

It is apparent to me, from previous experience, that many people have no answer to such questions.

DingDing said:

Please, try to answer plainly, rather than beat around the bush as if you have already answered. So, are there two 'wraths' spoken of in the Book of Revelation? If so, can you describe them? And if the church is promised escape from 'wrath', which one and why?

Click to expand...