How the rapture theology may allow Christians an excuse....

[mkgal1]

The concept of "once saved, always saved" may also contribute to this rationale as I've heard some (capital E) Evangelical preachers claim that once we've accepted Jesus, there is absolutely *nothing* we can do to choose otherwise even if we want to. Once he has us, he has us no matter what we do.

It certainly helps to explain the destructiveness, relative cruelty, disdain for the poor and disenfranchised, and lack of empathy among some populations of Christians.

That's a good point about the "once saved, always saved" concept as well (which usually goes hand-in-hand with Rapture theology....doesn't it?).

I completely agree that helps to explain the destructiveness, relative cruelty, disdain for the poor and marginalized, and lack of empathy among some that call themselves "Christian".

 

[Paidiske]

That's a good point about the "once saved, always saved" concept as well (which usually goes hand-in-hand with Rapture theology....doesn't it?).

I thought OSAS was a Calvinist idea, and rapture theology was this sort of fringe American idea - much less broad than the Reformed tradition - but I could be wrong?

 

[bekkilyn]

I thought OSAS was a Calvinist idea, and rapture theology was this sort of fringe American idea - much less broad than the Reformed tradition - but I could be wrong?

OSAS for Calvinists is due to their belief in predestination. You are either chosen to be saved or you aren't and you don't have any free will in that matter. It's all already pre-determined by God.

Evangelicals usually believe that each person has a free-will choice whether or not to follow Jesus and thus reject the concept of predestination. It's just that when you've made that choice, that's it. God has you now and forever whether you like it or not and changing your mind later isn't going to change that. Many Evangelical churches also have written the Rapture belief directly into their church doctrine, as in Jesus comes and takes all the believers into heaven before the 7 year tribulation period of the anti-Christ.

So while they both tend to believe in a OSAS doctrine, it vastly differs on how it's implemented.

 

[Dave-W]

That's a good point about the "once saved, always saved" concept as well (which usually goes hand-in-hand with Rapture theology....doesn't it?).

Not in Methodist evangelical circles.

 

[Dave-W]

I thought OSAS was a Calvinist idea, and rapture theology was this sort of fringe American idea - much less broad than the Reformed tradition - but I could be wrong?

Rapture theory is pretty mainstream among non-mainline Protestant groups in the US.

OSAS is a Calvinist doctrine, and groups that hold to it like most Baptists are considered one point Calvinists.

 

[Dave-W]

(Just finished reading that "other" thread mentioned in the OP. Goodness, there were truly awful things being said and claimed there. Too much seeking validation for hard-line opinions already formed and much less willingness to be open for real discussion.)

There is a thread by Steve Peterson in theology/Christian Scriptures on the parable of the wine skins. The video in the OP may help explain why those positions are held so tightly.

 

[Paidiske]

Rapture theory is pretty mainstream among non-mainline Protestant groups in the US.

Maybe so, but from the point of view of the rest of the Christian world, non-mainline American Protestant groups often look a bit strange and "fringe" in what they consider normal or mainstream.

In Australia you'd be hard-pressed to find many Christians who believe in "the rapture,", I think. Certainly I view it as a misunderstanding of the text.

 

[Dave-W]

Paidiske, did you ever see the movie "A Thief in the Night?" Very scarey.

 

[Paidiske]

Ah, Dave, that movie is considerably older than I am...

 

[mkgal1]

Not in Methodist evangelical circles.

Are you saying Methodists don't affirm rapture theory theology or OSAS (or both)?

I'm only now beginning to understand the differences in denominations, but it seems like most Protestant churches around here promote OSAS theology. Like Bekkilyn had said....the American conservative Evangelicals hold to that belief, but some will refute they have anything to do with Calvin (like Calvary Chapels).

But, like I said, I'm only just beginning to learn about these divisions. It just seems to me that if one finds a church that's egalitarian and believes in the dignity and importance of ALL people.....you're not going to have theology like OSAS and the rapture (and a few other controversial topics we can't discuss here ).

 

[bekkilyn]

There is a thread by Steve Peterson in theology/Christian Scriptures on the parable of the wine skins. The video in the OP may help explain why those positions are held so tightly.

Going to have to look up that thread, thanks!

Maybe so, but from the point of view of the rest of the Christian world, non-mainline American Protestant groups often look a bit strange and "fringe" in what they consider normal or mainstream.

In Australia you'd be hard-pressed to find many Christians who believe in "the rapture,", I think. Certainly I view it as a misunderstanding of the text.

You bring to mind what I've heard many conservative Evangelicals stating about Europe, U.K., and probably Australia and other places. It goes something like, "At least the U.S. is still a Christian nation unlike --insert countries here--who have all fallen away from Christianity to liberal paganism, so we need to make sure we don't similarly decline as we are the only ones left still keeping the true Christian faith alive."

 

[FireDragon76]

The inaguration eschatology has tended to be the mainline consensus of biblical scholars and theologians since the post-WWII era. It tends to be resisted by fundamentalists who like the gnosticizing tendencies found in their "older" understanding in their churches. It fits right in with the religion's polemicism, mistrust, and hostility.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even though "rapture theology" was only invented less than 200 years ago the attitude of superiority and rigid legalism has been Christian since the early days.

People couldn't deal with Paul's message so his followers (who probably wrote some of the pastoral epistles) gradually started adding in more and more law to his grace message. Even Paul did not fully comprehend the revelation in Jesus, and at times backtracks from his own premises.

By the middle ages the canons of the Church were so extensive they regulated every facet of a persons life, down to what direction they urinated.

 

[JackRT]

By the middle ages the canons of the Church were so extensive they regulated every facet of a persons life, down to what direction they urinated.

You are quite correct in that. Through the confessors a person's sex life was regulated right down to frequency and allowed positions. The degree of regulation is detailed In Uta Ranke Hieneman's "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God".

 

[Paidiske]

You bring to mind what I've heard many conservative Evangelicals stating about Europe, U.K., and probably Australia and other places. It goes something like, "At least the U.S. is still a Christian nation unlike --insert countries here--who have all fallen away from Christianity to liberal paganism, so we need to make sure we don't similarly decline as we are the only ones left still keeping the true Christian faith alive."

A point of view I regard with some amusement, given the lack of perspective about Christian history, at least, which it seems to exemplify.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are quite correct in that. Through the confessors a person's sex life was regulated right down to frequency and allowed positions. The degree of regulation is detailed In Uta Ranke Hieneman's "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God".

I guess that's why I tended to gravitate towards Lutheranism. Because I believe Luther was essentially correct in seeing a falling away from the clarity of the Gospel. Anybody that confronts the Rudder of the Orthodox Church is bound to come up with that sort of skepticism, that the Church rendered Christianity impossible, for the purposes of manipulating peoples consciences and controlling them.

Other church traditions, even Protestant ones, have really just glanced over the issue. Calvin thought he could create a better Church 2.0 by insisting on stricter discipline and removing the outward trappings of the old religion. Luther was actually more radical, he imagined a non-religion smuggled in under religion. Imperfectly perhaps, but he got the ball rolling.

 

[Dave-W]

Are you saying Methodists don't affirm rapture theory theology or OSAS (or bot

I cannot speak to the United Methodists, but the Nazarenes, Wesleyans, and other Methodist based denoms like Assy of God hold to a pre-trib rapture but will fire any pastor who teaches OSAS.

 

[FireDragon76]

Pre-trib rapture is pretty much unheard of in United Methodism. Maybe some laity believe it but clergy do not preach it.

 

[Dave-W]

the American conservative Evangelicals hold to that belief, but some will refute they have anything to do with Calvin (like Calvary Chapels).

Calvary Chapel is a good example of what I said. They broke off of Foursquare Gospel church, a denom very similar to Assy of God, also with Methodist roots and solidly Arminian rather than Calvinist.

 

[Dave-W]

Pre-trib rapture is pretty much unheard of in United Methodism. Maybe some laity believe it but clergy do not preach it.

Good. Even though I grew up with it, I abandoned it 40+ years ago. It is actually quite scarey, especially the Arminian variety. If you happened to sin right before it occurs, you get left behind and any hope of salvation is lost. The Holy Spirit who has restrained antichrist is removed so no one can be saved from that point on.

Imagine coming home from grade school to find your house empty, looking like they left in a hurry. No note. Food on the table. The immediate thought was they got raptured and you got left behind. It sent many of us into serious panics.