The Iconoclastic Rapture

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Rapture theology teaches that Jesus comes not to redeem the earth but to destroy it. That is not scriptural.

I have been rubbing shoulders with believers in the rapture for well over sixty years, and have been a leader among them for more than forty of those years. And I have never, even once, heard ANY rapture believer say anything that even resembled that.

We teach that Jesus will come to take His own people home, and that then there will be a period of unparalleled trouble. Then, we teach, Jesus will return to destroy the wicked, (not the earth,) and to institute a long time reign of peace and unparalleled blessing throughout the earth.

And I am not aware of even one teacher of rapture doctrine that disagrees with this.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Pedra
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,486
3,322
✟858,457.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I rather think that raptura transliterates into rapture, rather than translates. But aside from that, I agree with what you said here. I was only conceding that the ENGLISH word rapture does not occur in our English Bibles.
I will fight against this idea because I think it is wrong headed and promotes a type of bullying scripture to erase things that isn't liked, not that I'm accusing you of that.

Rapture is actually an English word with an actual meaning outside of a spiritual context that matches the meaning of the text even if it's not used often. I would say that it's not transliterated but rather anglicized.

I can see why the KJV didn't use it because the word was new and not in common use. Today it carries too much controversy so translators would rather just stay away. But the word rapture is a good translation and it is not some invented word plus it's 400 years old now so it's time to grow up. I will also say the AMP does use the word, albeit in parenthesis.

Saying the word rapture is not in the bible is like saying the word trinity is not in the bible. The trinity is a concept of God that can be revealed through scripture but it is more implicit, however the word rapture, or in context "raptured", is not some abstract church invented word but rather explicitly and undeniably stated in scripture.

The fact that it is an anglicized version of the Latin which carries a like meaning to the Greek should point to a greater sincerity of the meaning of the word to point to a closer meaning to the original that early modern English couldn't fully capture. We have a load of words anglicized from latin/greek and it was quite a normal practice, if we discredit rapture then we should discredit words like Baptism too. It's just business as usual for language and rapture is a valid word and translation for this text.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Pedra
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Many of the modern denominations are have allowed in postmodernist views, new age, unbiblical beliefs and are not capable of teaching the full counsel of God, Christian theology & most definitely Bible prophecy.
And, unfortinately, many of these are Christian in name only, CHINO "churches."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pedra
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
Irenaeus described 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.' " (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1.)


Are you sure you are not reading into Irenaeus what you want to see? I think you got "caught up" in that Irenaeus used the words "caught up" and jumped to the conclusion Irenaeus was speaking of a rapture.





Irenaeus is NOT talking about the church or the elect or anyone else for that matter being raptured from off the earth to some heavenly place of safety while the rest of humanity suffers tribulation.





Irenaeus Was speaking of that which takes place according to Mt.24:21 which states.



for there will be distress then such as has not been since the beginning of the world, and can never be again.



Which has NOTHING to do with any so called rapture if read in context.



So let's look at the context.





Mt.24:15-22



15 And now, when you see that which the prophet Daniel called the abomination of desolation, set up in the holy place (let him who reads this, recognize what it means),[2] 16 then those who are in Judaea must take refuge in the mountains;17 not going down to carry away anything from the house, if they are on the house-top; 18 not going back to pick up a cloak, if they are in the fields. 19 It will go hard with women who are with child, or have children at the breast, in those days; 20 and you must pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on the sabbath day, 21 for there will be distress then such as has not been since the beginning of the world, and can never be again. 22 There would have been no hope left for any human creature, if the number of those days had not been cut short; but those days will be cut short, for the sake of the elect.





You will notice that the tribulation days will be cut short for the sake of the elect. Thus obviously the elect or church or whatever else you want to call it is still on earth during the tribulation.



Therefore what Irenaeus and Mt.24 is stating is for people not to get "caught up" in the tribulation but to escape and take refuge in the mountains.



In 2011 when the Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in the 7th game of the Stanley cup final many fans in Vancouver started a riot; while others not wishing to get "caught up" in the riot separated themselves from the riot areas.



Now this little scenario is far closer to what both Matthew and Irenaeus were talking about then some rapture from off of the earth.



In Fact what Irenaeus seems to be saying is for the church not to get "caught up" in the sins of the world but to separate themselves from those sins.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Note his wording in Matthew:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. (Mt 24:37-41)​

To illustrate his point, Jesus references Noah, who was righteous and who inherited the earth. When the rains came and flooded the land, the wicked were swept away and the righteous were left, not the other way around, as popular culture insists. .

Yes, this is the correct reading of this passage. I've heard Pr. Jordan Cooper has also discussed how this passage is not referring to a rapture.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Are you sure you are not reading into Irenaeus what you want to see? I think you got "caught up" in that Irenaeus used the words "caught up" and jumped to the conclusion Irenaeus was speaking of a rapture.





Irenaeus is NOT talking about the church or the elect or anyone else for that matter being raptured from off the earth to some heavenly place of safety while the rest of humanity suffers tribulation.





Irenaeus Was speaking of that which takes place according to Mt.24:21 which states.



for there will be distress then such as has not been since the beginning of the world, and can never be again.



Which has NOTHING to do with any so called rapture if read in context.



So let's look at the context.





Mt.24:15-22



15 And now, when you see that which the prophet Daniel called the abomination of desolation, set up in the holy place (let him who reads this, recognize what it means),[2] 16 then those who are in Judaea must take refuge in the mountains;17 not going down to carry away anything from the house, if they are on the house-top; 18 not going back to pick up a cloak, if they are in the fields. 19 It will go hard with women who are with child, or have children at the breast, in those days; 20 and you must pray that your flight may not be in the winter, or on the sabbath day, 21 for there will be distress then such as has not been since the beginning of the world, and can never be again. 22 There would have been no hope left for any human creature, if the number of those days had not been cut short; but those days will be cut short, for the sake of the elect.





You will notice that the tribulation days will be cut short for the sake of the elect. Thus obviously the elect or church or whatever else you want to call it is still on earth during the tribulation.



Therefore what Irenaeus and Mt.24 is stating is for people not to get "caught up" in the tribulation but to escape and take refuge in the mountains.



In 2011 when the Vancouver Canucks lost to the Boston Bruins in the 7th game of the Stanley cup final many fans in Vancouver started a riot; while others not wishing to get "caught up" in the riot separated themselves from the riot areas.



Now this little scenario is far closer to what both Matthew and Irenaeus were talking about then some rapture from off of the earth.



In Fact what Irenaeus seems to be saying is for the church not to get "caught up" in the sins of the world but to separate themselves from those sins.
Actually, Irenaeus changed the proniuns he was using at that point in the scenario he foresaw. Up to that point, he always called the people whom he described as going through that time as "the church," "we" or "us," and he described their possessions as "ours." But after that time he always called them "they," "them," or "those," and he described their possessions as "theirs."

This clearly shows that he really meant what he actually said, that the church would be "suddenly caught up," and that "when" that happened (that is, beginning at that time) "there shall be great tribulation."

You can argue all around this. But that is what he said.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
Actually, Irenaeus changed the proniuns he was using at that point in the scenario he foresaw. Up to that point, he always called the people whom he described as going through that time as "the church," "we" or "us," and he described their possessions as "ours." But after that time he always called them "they," "them," or "those," and he described their possessions as "theirs."

This clearly shows that he really meant what he actually said, that the church would be "suddenly caught up," and that "when" that happened (that is, beginning at that time) "there shall be great tribulation."

You can argue all around this. But that is what he said.


Like I said you are simply reading into Irenaeus what you want to see.

As I show via the scripture (MT.24) that Irenaeus was referring to; the ELECT are still on the earth during this time. And you have not refuted that point. And as I pointed out "caught up" according to the scriptures Irenaeus was referring to was telling the church not to be suddenly "caught up" with the sins of the world.

Thus in context it has nothing to do with a rapture.
If a rapture please explain the presence of the ELECT.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Like I said you are simply reading into Irenaeus what you want to see.

As I show via the scripture (MT.24) that Irenaeus was referring to; the ELECT are still on the earth during this time. And you have not refuted that point. And as I pointed out "caught up" according to the scriptures Irenaeus was referring to was telling the church not to be suddenly "caught up" with the sins of the world.

Thus in context it has nothing to do with a rapture.
If a rapture please explain the presence of the ELECT.

You are the one who is reading your own interpretation of scripture into what Irenaeus said. You have not cited a single statement by Irenaeus to back up your imagination that Irenaeus interpreted Matthew 24 the same way you do. Actually you cannot do this, because he did not interpret it this way.

But as to your interpretation of Matthew 24, The scriptures indeed use the term "the elect" in reference to "the church." But they also use that same term in reference to Israel. So your argument lacks merit.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
You are the one who is reading your own interpretation of scripture into what Irenaeus said. You have not cited a single statement by Irenaeus to back up your imagination that Irenaeus interpreted Matthew 24 the same way you do. Actually you cannot do this, because he did not interpret it this way.

But as to your interpretation of Matthew 24, The scriptures indeed use the term "the elect" in reference to "the church." But they also use that same term in reference to Israel. So your argument lacks merit.

Huh! you are the one making the claim that Irenaeus used the term "caught up" to mean a rapture but have supplied no backing for your assumption. Whereas I gave the scripture Irenaeus was referring to and showed by it your understanding of what Irenaeus said was in error.

So unless you can show something other then your opinion to prove Irenaeus meant a rapture then all you got is nothing more then your preconceived opinion. Where is your evidence?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
But as to your interpretation of Matthew 24, The scriptures indeed use the term "the elect" in reference to "the church." But they also use that same term in reference to Israel. So your argument lacks merit.

While all you have to do is read the context and you would easily see it is speaking of the church.
Jesus is talking to His disciples in verse 9 He states

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Obviously this is not speaking of natural Israel as they do not believe in Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
You are the one who is reading your own interpretation of scripture into what Irenaeus said. You have not cited a single statement by Irenaeus to back up your imagination that Irenaeus interpreted Matthew 24 the same way you do. Actually you cannot do this, because he did not interpret it this way.

While lets see.

Speaking of the great tribulation in book V and 28 Irenaeus states

4. And therefore throughout all time, man, having been moulded at the beginning by the hands of God, that is, of the Son and of the Spirit, is made after the image and likeness of God: the chaff, indeed, which is the apostasy, being cast away; but the wheat, that is, those who bring forth fruit to God in faith, being gathered into the barn. And for this cause tribulation is necessary for those who are saved, that having been after a manner broken up, and rendered fine, and sprinkled over by the patience of the Word of God, and set on fire [for purification], they may be fitted for the royal banquet. As a certain man of ours said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts because of his testimony with respect to God: I am the wheat of Christ, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.

Thus showing not only does the church go through the tribulation; Irenaeus believed that the tribulation was necessary for those who were saved as a refining fire.

Thus it is then obvious that your understanding of what Irenaeus meant by being caught up is in error.
 
Upvote 0

Pneuma3

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,637
382
✟54,054.00
Faith
Christian
You are the one who is reading your own interpretation of scripture into what Irenaeus said. You have not cited a single statement by Irenaeus to back up your imagination that Irenaeus interpreted Matthew 24 the same way you do. Actually you cannot do this, because he did not interpret it this way.

But as to your interpretation of Matthew 24, The scriptures indeed use the term "the elect" in reference to "the church." But they also use that same term in reference to Israel. So your argument lacks merit.

I just found this on another forum by a poster going by the handle Origen.
He backs up what I initially said only he does a far better job.

The problem in regard to the Church Fathers is that isolated quotes are not understood within the context of their respective theologies as a whole or even within the immediate context of the passage. It seem that very often that someone will latch on to something (i.e. a word. phrase, sentence) that person thinks supports the same view, but careful reading and study of the passage reveals that is not the case.

That is basically what I said you had done, so lets see If I was correct.

Lets examine the whole context of Against the Heresies Book 5 Chapter 29, Section 2:

In the previous books I have set forth the causes for which God permitted these things to be made, and have pointed out that all such have been created for the benefit of that human nature which is saved, ripening for immortality that which is [possessed] of its own free will and its own power, and preparing and rendering it more adapted for eternal subjection to God. And therefore the creation is suited to [the wants of] man; for man was not made for its sake, but creation for the sake of man. Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons "as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance-in fact, as nothing;" so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold.



The first part of this passage contains a flow of thought that is relevant to the second part.

(a) All creation was made for the benefit of man.

(b) However the nations did not turn to God in spite of this fact.

(c) Nevertheless they are still useful and serviceable.

(d) Because they serve as a means to refine gold.

Now lets examine the second part of the same passage.

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.


There are several important points concerning what this passage does and does not say that need to be addressed.



(1) The phrase "caught up" is one of those terms that is latch on to because of it relationship to 1 Thess. 4. However, this is merely an appearance of simulatity.



In the Latin text of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies the verb used is assumo. In the Latin N.T. (1 Thess. 4:17) the verb is rapio. Clearly it is not the same verb. Moreover, the Latin N.T. never used the verb assumo to translate the Greek word.



Thus Irenaeus is not referring to a rapture. If that were the case, it is inexplicable why the key word used to support the rapture is not found there nor does it explain why the verb assumo is never used to translate the Greek word in the Latin N.T.

Therefore, since (a) none of the key phrases found in 1 Thess. 4 are found in this section of Irenaeus, (b) the fact that the key verb used to support the rapture is not present (i.e. rapio) and (c) the verb assumo is never used in the Latin N.T. to translated the Greek word, it is clear that the whole case is based English translations of Irenaeus and the N.T. but has no support from the actual texts themselves.



In other words, someone said: look this English text says "caught up" and this other English text says "caught up," they must talking about the same thing. Not really an argument at all but just a poor and mistaken assumption based on the English.



(2) The first part has a clear flow of thought. If the Church was raptured, the first part simply makes no sense given the context.



(a) All creation was made for the benefit of man.

(b) However the nations did not turn to God in spite of this fact.

(c) Nevertheless they are still useful and serviceable.

(d) Because they sever as a means to refine gold.



Where would the Church fit into this flow? Irenaeus whole point was it does not matter what the evil nations do, because they are still useful and serviceable as a means to refine the people of God. His point was not that, while the evil nation are useful and serviceable to refine gold, don't worry about it because that won't be a problem for the Church because you won't be here.



(3) The last point concerns "the righteous" who "overcome" and "are crowned with incorruption."



So who are "the righteous"? There is only one other group in this passage which is referred to with a collective noun and that is "the Church." "The righteous" cannot refer to the 12 tribes, or Israel, for there is nothing in the passage to even suggest such a thing. Furthermore, the link between the two collective nouns makes sense given the flow of Irenaeus' thought in regard to tribulation "when they [i.e. righteous = the Church] overcome they are crowned with incorruption."

(4) Lastly, Irenaeus is very clear that he thinks that God has rejected the Jews and given the kingdom to the Gentiles.

For inasmuch as the former [i.e. the Jews] have rejected the Son of God, and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him, God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation. (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 36, Section 2)

Thus in light of the evidence against your view you might want to edit your book.
 
Upvote 0