Key Scriptures Taken from Context for Rapture Theory

[Michael Snow]

The significant group of American Evangelicals who teach the Rapture theory are mostly unaware what a small minority position that is in the world wide Body of Christ.
Expositions of key Scriptures taken from context to advance the Rapture teaching are linked at the bottom of this article.
The Rapture Teaching vs. The New Testament

 

[Clare73]

The significant group of American Evangelicals who teach the Rapture theory are mostly unaware what a small minority position that is in the world wide Body of Christ.
Expositions of key Scriptures taken from context to advance the Rapture teaching are linked at the bottom of this article.
The Rapture Teaching vs. The New Testament

The rapture is not a theory, it is NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17).

It seems the link is addressing the popular and erroneous understanding of the harpazo (catching up) of believers to meet the Lord in the air at the resurrection of all mankind (1 Th 4:16-17), that error being the incorrect time of its occurrence, due to personal interpretation of prophetic riddles in contradiction to that NT apostolic teaching.

 

[The Liturgist]

The rapture is not a theory, it is NT apostolic teaching

Curious then that no one actually taught this doctrine as it is understood by contemporary dispensationalist evangelicals and dramatized in the melodrama Left Behind, prior to John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.

I only accept doctrines that can be traced to the Early Church, and the pre-tribulation rapture, which is what it is evident that @Michael Snow is referring to, which is to say, the doctrine as understood by contemporary futurist premillenial dispensationalists, lacks that crucial feature.

Now on the other hand, if you simply mean what is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 , which is not the ornate pre-millenial pre-tribulation rapture theology advanced by Darby and accepted uncritically by a great many due to its inclusion in the widely distributed Scofield Reference Bible and other sources, such as the “KJV Study Bible”, which is ironically named considering it excludes a large chunk of the original KJV for arbitrary dogmatic reasons (namely the so-called Apocrypha), then such a position would not be objectionable. But I think it is clear that @Michael Snow is not referring to that.

 

[Clare73]

Curious then that no one actually taught this doctrine

Well, there is the Biblical doctrine of Paul, and then
there is the travesty advanced by Darby with which the evangelical church today is besotted.

as it is understood by contemporary dispensationalist evangelicals and dramatized in the melodrama Left Behind, prior to John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.
I only accept doctrines that can be traced to the Early Church, and the pre-tribulation rapture, which is what it is evident that @Michael Snow is referring to, which is to say, the doctrine as understood by contemporary futurist premillenial dispensationalists, lacks that crucial feature.

Now on the other hand, if you simply mean what is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 , which is not the ornate pre-millenial pre-tribulation rapture theology advanced by Darby and accepted uncritically by a great many due to its inclusion in the widely distributed Scofield Reference Bible and other sources, such as the “KJV Study Bible”, which is ironically named considering it excludes a large chunk of the original KJV for arbitrary dogmatic reasons (namely the so-called Apocrypha), then such a position would not be objectionable. But I think it is clear that @Michael Snow is not referring to that.

Well, for starters, "rapture" is from the Latin.
In the Greek, it is the "catching up."

I will not let the NT doctrine of the "catching up" be hi-jacked by such a contra-NT doctrine as the dispensational rapture.
I will start out by defending the NT "catching up," and then exposing the contra-NT personal interpretation of prophetic riddles by which dispensationalists arrive at this preposterous scenario of the Latin "rapture."

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, there is the Biblical doctrine of Paul, and then
there is the travesty advanced by Darby with which the evangelical church today is besotted.


Well, for starters, "rapture" is from the Latin.
In the Greek, it is the "catching up."

I will not let the NT doctrine of the "catching up" be hi-jacked by such a contra-NT doctrine as the dispensational rapture.
I will start out by defending the NT "catching up," and then exposing the contra-NT personal interpretation of prophetic riddles by which dispensationalists arrive at this preposterous scenario of the Latin rapture.

Very good, this is doctrinally orthodox and we are of one accord. Forgive me for the earlier post, because I did not know if you were referring to the doctrine handed down to us in the Pauline and Patristic paradosis or the Darbyite dogma that has displaced it in doctrinaire Dispensationalism.

 

[The Liturgist]

So the good news then @Clare73 and @Michael Snow is that the three of us are on the same page, since it is clear we are rejecting the premillenial dispensationalist pretribulation-futurist doctrine they call “the rapture” as opposed to the actual rapture as defined in Sacred Scripture.

I am pleasantly surprised no one of Premillenial Dispensationalist eschatology has popped up to defend that doctrine as of yet. Perhaps belief in that error is waning, which would be good. Usually someone will pop up to challenge Patristic-Apostolic posts such as that of @Michael Snow representing contemporary beliefs with greater speed and reflexivity.

 

[Clare73]

Very good, this is doctrinally orthodox and we are of one accord. Forgive me for the earlier post, because I did not know if you were referring to the doctrine handed down to us in the Pauline and Patristic paradosis or the Darbyite dogma that has displaced it in doctrinaire Dispensationalism.

I understand. . .you probably won't find us disagreeing on anything Biblical.