pre-trib rapture?

[robh59]

I am undecided as to what happens to us immediately upon death. I've studied it a little and have not yet settled on a belief. I lean towards the pre-trib rapture.

On the one hand, the martyrs in John's Revelations are in heaven as the seals are being broken and are asking to be avenged. They are described as "under the alter"(a phrase that can mean buried in Israel according to Gill) around the breaking of the 5th or 6th seal. I suppose martyrs could be the exception. Christ tells the new convert on the cross that they will both be in heaven that day, the graves opened when CHRIST was resurrected days later. And then there is the misplaced comma theory which I don't ascribe to. Lazarus doesn't appear to be in his grave. Luke 16:22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried." The next verse has the rich man in Hades. Luke 16:26 shows a chasm between Lazarus and the rich man that can't be crossed.

On the other hand, Samuel was called back from his rest by the medium. The graves opened after CHRIST's death on the cross. And of course there is 1Th 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
1Th 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.



Can anyone give me some more examples of what happens to saved people immediately upon death. Verses that support pre-trib rapture and any that don't. I'm aware that some interpret the examples I've given differently than others. I welcome the different interpretations, but what I'm really wanting is additional scripture references either way.

GOD bless all !

 

[stenerson]

Our soul goes to the presence of God. Our body dies, decays.. This death of the body of believers is described in the NT as sleeping. Well, at least that's how I understand it.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Our soul goes to the presence of God. Our body dies, decays.. This death of the body of believers is described in the NT as sleeping. Well, at least that's how I understand it.

Here's some scripture to go with that thought:

1 Corinthians 15:12-28 (ESV)

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[c] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

Christ was the first group to be raised from the dead (I'm guessing Lazarus was a special case, and not a final resurrection).

Verse 23: at Christ's return, those who belong to Christ are raised.

Verse 26: Death, itself, is abolished.

During this time, many of the believers were heavily affected by Greek thought, which held the Platonic view that the body is an evil prison to the ideal soul. The Gnostic heresy that formed under Marcion was a prime example of this. Paul, I'm sure, had an uphill battle trying to convince people that Christ would bring about a literal, physical resurrection, like the one that Jesus had. Many Christians, even today, think that Christ only came back in spirit form, but that would not have been a resurrection. However, the next question is what happens in the meantime?

Luke 23:42,43 (ESV)
42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

This is what Jesus said to the fellow victim on the cross, the one who repented and believed, and this is the verse which is most often cited as proof of what happens to a believer immediately after death. Hence, I would argue that scripture seems to indicate that our souls go to Heaven to be with the Lord until the return of Christ, because his return will mean the death of death and the redesigning of the very nature of the universe, in which the final resurrection can take place and last forever.

Verses that support pre-trib rapture and any that don't.

Well, just based on the verses you quoted, plus these, wouldn't it seem that the rapture won't take place until the very moment that Christ returns? Eschatology is my weakest subject, despite studying it fixedly since I was about four years old, when I learned to read. You also might try reading Revelation 20, and we'll see what you think of it. So far, all of the Calvinistic types I've met elsewhere have been Amillennialist, so it will be interesting to see what we have here.

 

[robh59]

What is hardest about eschatology for me is determining the chronological order things take place. Old testament prophesies cover such a wide range of eras. I've put off studying it in depth and likely won't get very far on my own. It seems pretty pathetic to me that I don't really know for certain where I go immediately upon my death - to the grave to await the 2nd coming or to heaven. I guess I'm waiting for someone who is confident in their version to give me their scriptural evidence and refute or explain the verses that seem to support the opposing version. Read Rev 20 yesterday. It is definitely post trib and after the 1000 years that come before satan is loosed again. The anti-Christ is already dead at that point. John calls it the 1st resurrection, but surely he means the first of that time period since the one at CHRIST's resurrection obviously came before. So it doesn't disprove a resurrection at the 2nd coming. Thanks for you reply.

 

[hedrick]

One possibility is that the thief was with Christ without a body. However you might also consider the possibility that once we get away from human history, time may not be so linear. Thus the thief might have gone directly to the final resurrection at death.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have not posted here in a very long time.

Partially because even though I was educated in Reformed theology, I disagree with Presbyterians on some points.

But, nevertheless, I have studied "eschatology" for the better part of 30 years.

The "rapture" or even the notion of a "pre-trib" rapture sparks often heated debate.

Some hold to it, others vehemently reject it.

I by no means, know it all. I probably know less than most here.

But I have seen a lot in my time here.

I have even seen some here use Mt. 25, where it speaks of two women, and two men, one taken, the other left behind used to advocate that in the end, the wicked will be "raptured" out.

After careful consideration, I have a simple explanation.

In Acts 1:9-11, we have Jesus' ascension. As they watch Jesus rise up, what we assume are two angels appear, and tell the disciples that "as you saw Him leave, He will return in the same manner."

Both Paul and John the Revelator have accounts recorded in scripture of Jesus' return.

Paul describes Jesus as returning "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God." (cf. 2 Thes. 1:7-8)

John the Revelator records that Jesus' return will be on a white horse, leading heavens army to defeat Satan. (Rev. 19:11-21)

Both 1 Cor. 15: 52-54 and 1 Thes. 4:16-18 practically describe the same event.

The textbook definition of an "angel" is messenger.

And if indeed these two in Acts 1 are angels, then they cannot lie.

So show me in scripture where Jesus ascended up into heaven "in flaming fire taking vengeance" or where He ascended up into heaven riding upon a white horse?

Now I admit, Rev. 19 and 2 Thes 1 may be describing the same event, but it does not match what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15 or 1 Thes 4.

I was taught that in simple terms, the book of Revelations is basically God's wrath being poured out on an unrepentant world.

Remember what Paul wrote in 1 Thes 1:10?

"And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

We, Christians, are not meant to endure God's wrath as it is spelled out in Revelation.

Also, just one more point. I don't even believe we'll see the seven seals being broken.

Seal number four:

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." -Rev. 6:7-8 (KJV)

Notice well that when it is broken, the pale horse, and it rider, Death, are set loose to kill one quarter of the world!

Last time I looked, the worlds population was just over 6 billion.

Do the math. If it happened right now, at this very minute, 1.2 billion would be given a "death sentence".

That equates to roughly 7/8's of the population of India, or 2/3's of the population of China. The population of the United States five times over.

Will Christians endure half (mid-trib rule) or none of the wrath of God (pre-trib rule)?

I believe Christians will be taken out before that happens.

Just my .02 worth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

John calls it the 1st resurrection, but surely he means the first of that time period since the one at CHRIST's resurrection obviously came before. So it doesn't disprove a resurrection at the 2nd coming. Thanks for you reply.

You do realize that one resurrection has already taken place?

When Jesus died, the graves opened up and the dead saints arose and was seen in Jerusalem. (cf. Mt. 27:50-53)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So show me in scripture where Jesus ascended up into heaven "in flaming fire taking vengeance" or where He ascended up into heaven riding upon a white horse?

Well, I think that the point was more that he would descend upon the earth from the sky. It stands in contrast to many of the false Christs that have walked the Earth lately, who appear in the more conventional fashion, by being born.

Seal number four:

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." -Rev. 6:7-8 (KJV)

Notice well that when it is broken, the pale horse, and it rider, Death, are set loose to kill one quarter of the world!

One interesting explanation that I only recently encountered suggested that Christ was the first rider, the one on the white horse, because that is the imagery generally associated with him. Each of the other four riders represent other sociopolitical movements since him. The second rider would be Islam, the religion that causes men to kill each other. The third was Communism, the political movement that sets the prices of commodities. The fourth, then, would be the last sociopolitical movement before Christ returns. That one hasn't happened yet, but we might be on the cusp of it. I don't think the wrath that God rains down from Heaven is the same as the devastation that will be wreaked by this fourth movement. Rather, I think God's wrath will be directed at this movement and its leadership.

But, again, eschatology is a weak subject for me, and I hold no disrespect for many other views. I understand that it's a very confusing subject.

 

[robh59]

You do realize that one resurrection has already taken place?

When Jesus died, the graves opened up and the dead saints arose and was seen in Jerusalem. (cf. Mt. 27:50-53)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yes, I do realize it. That very resurrection occurred on the same day as Christ's resurrection...as I mentioned.

 

[BryanW92]

One interesting explanation that I only recently encountered suggested that Christ was the first rider, the one on the white horse, because that is the imagery generally associated with him. Each of the other four riders represent other sociopolitical movements since him. The second rider would be Islam, the religion that causes men to kill each other. The third was Communism, the political movement that sets the prices of commodities. The fourth, then, would be the last sociopolitical movement before Christ returns. That one hasn't happened yet, but we might be on the cusp of it. I don't think the wrath that God rains down from Heaven is the same as the devastation that will be wreaked by this fourth movement. Rather, I think God's wrath will be directed at this movement and its leadership.

.

Thats a very interesting theory. I've never thought of it that way, but it does make sense. Where did you encounter it? I'd like to read more.

We always think of the four horsemen as coming in phases and then each going away before the next arrives. But, if this idea is true, then we see that we now live in a world that is shared by the first three: Christ, the religion of death and murder, and the political movement of famine and corruption. I'm not looking forward to seeing the fourth added to the mix.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, I do realize it. That very resurrection occurred on the same day as Christ's resurrection...as I mentioned.

No, scripture says the first ressurection happened the moment Christ died.

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose," -Mt. 27:50-52 (KJV)

They did not arise when He did, rather scripture says they arose when He died.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, I think that the point was more that he would descend upon the earth from the sky. It stands in contrast to many of the false Christs that have walked the Earth lately, who appear in the more conventional fashion, by being born.



One interesting explanation that I only recently encountered suggested that Christ was the first rider, the one on the white horse, because that is the imagery generally associated with him. Each of the other four riders represent other sociopolitical movements since him. The second rider would be Islam, the religion that causes men to kill each other. The third was Communism, the political movement that sets the prices of commodities. The fourth, then, would be the last sociopolitical movement before Christ returns. That one hasn't happened yet, but we might be on the cusp of it. I don't think the wrath that God rains down from Heaven is the same as the devastation that will be wreaked by this fourth movement. Rather, I think God's wrath will be directed at this movement and its leadership.

But, again, eschatology is a weak subject for me, and I hold no disrespect for many other views. I understand that it's a very confusing subject.

So, from reading this, you don't accept Revelation, especially the chapters on the seven seals as telling actual, factual events?

That is the position of Catholicism. The book of Revelation should be taken as a complete allegory.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Thats a very interesting theory. I've never thought of it that way, but it does make sense. Where did you encounter it? I'd like to read more.

Man, this forum is really buggy, today.

What I originally wrote, before the forum swallowed my post whole, was that the horsemen might be compared to the four beasts of Daniel 7:1-8. Take note of the first and last beasts. The first one could be seen as the Lion of Judah, who puts aside his heavenly place (symbolized by the loss of wings), rises from the earth (the grave), and takes a human form (God become man). The last beast is Death, again.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

(see below)

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

My mistake, DeaconDean. I was in a hurry and didn't realize which part of the quote you were responding to. I don't take the entire book of Revelation as an allegory. I know that's the position of Amillennialists, which is also a view that was started by the Catholic church. I do, however, see quite a lot of symbolism used here and there all throughout the book. It would be hard to take the whole thing literally, with no account for the symbolism, but when it becomes necessary to explain it as a symbol of a symbol, such as some people do, then I think we've taken it too far.

 

[JM]

I don't take the entire book of Revelation as an allegory. I know that's the position of Amillennialists, which is also a view that was started by the Catholic church.

The Roman Church has a different view that has often been lumped together with the biblical Protestant view called Amillennialism. Rome believes the Kingdom of God was founded in the Roman magisterium. Protestants believe the Kingdom of God within the church on earth but not tied to a denomination, rather, the preaching of the Gospel and the celebration of the ordinances. The millennial period is a symbolic period of time where God gathers His people into the church and defeats Satan.

The Roman Church did not start Amillennialism but it is often repeated rhetoric with little actual fact behind it. The truth is much simpler than that. Amil exist in the early church along with other views such as Premil. Premil was popular with the church in Asia Minor and we still have a good record of their beliefs from early writings. These early writings also provide reasons for why the church ultimately rejected Premillennialism for about 1500 years. They held to Premil based on a faulty of idea of where the soul went after death. Premil experienced a revival among the Anabaptists and other “enthusiasts.”

For a complete outline of the hermeneutics behind Amil read the first chapter of Kingdom Come for free here:

http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781781911327.pdf

I do, however, see quite a lot of symbolism used here and there all throughout the book. It would be hard to take the whole thing literally, with no account for the symbolism, but when it becomes necessary to explain it as a symbol of a symbol, such as some people do, then I think we've taken it too far.

So true. Even the early monks, Bible commentators, Protestants, Puritans, etc. all used a similar Historicist method to interpret Revelation. Revelation 1.1 should help us out, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” Revelation of Jesus Christ to John was to “signify.” The meaning of the Greek word according to Strong’s “to give a sign, to signify, indicate to make known”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The Roman Church did not start Amillennialism but it is often repeated rhetoric with little actual fact behind it. The truth is much simpler than that. Amil exist in the early church along with other views such as Premil. Premil was popular with the church in Asia Minor and we still have a good record of their beliefs from early writings. These early writings also provide reasons for why the church ultimately rejected Premillennialism for about 1500 years.

Well, I know it's not one of those disagreements that can realistically be resolved, here. You tell me one thing and my college professors told me another. I don't think it's any coincidence, however, that the church's rejection of Premillennialism took place about the same time that the Catholic church came into power, and I don't think it's any coincidence that this rejection lasted until a little while after that church's power was broken by the Reformation. The Catholic church may not have been the original inventors of their amillennial idea, but they certainly were the first to really spread it. I understand that Catholic amillennialism is different than protestant amillennialism, in the sense that the Catholic version actually resembles a sort of Dominionism, but, other than that, it's just a matter of how you define the church.

For the record, I don't identify with either premillennial or amillennial thought. I've bounced back and forth between the two enough to know that both sides have their share of problems. Amillennialism is just highly allegorical, whether it's Roman Catholic or protestant, and I can't seem to get through the Apocalypse with an amillennialist without somehow getting entangled in some obscure symbol of a symbol. We would get stuck with wars that weren't wars, in locations that weren't locations, involving nations from places that were not really those places, led by a beast who wasn't really a beast, against God's nation, which wasn't really a nation, covering a stated period of time that wasn't really a specific period of time. At the end of the day, after wading through all of that, I realized that if I were to be amillennialist, then I really knew nothing at all regarding the final prophecies, and they could mean almost anything at all.

 

[DeaconDean]

the church's rejection of Premillennialism took place about the same time that the Catholic church came into power,

That right there should give you a clue.

Oh well, I added my .02 worth, I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[stenerson]

Well, I know it's not one of those disagreements that can realistically be resolved, here. You tell me one thing and my college professors told me another. I don't think it's any coincidence, however, that the church's rejection of Premillennialism took place about the same time that the Catholic church came into power, and I don't think it's any coincidence that this rejection lasted until a little while after that church's power was broken by the Reformation. The Catholic church may not have been the original inventors of their amillennial idea, but they certainly were the first to really spread it. I understand that Catholic amillennialism is different than protestant amillennialism, in the sense that the Catholic version actually resembles a sort of Dominionism, but, other than that, it's just a matter of how you define the church.

hmm? interesting. I hear the same conspiracy theory used concerning all three views. Anyhow, I understand the 1st resurrection to represent regeneration. I believe Jesus and the Apostles are quite clear that this is the last days, the last age.. There won't be a 2nd, 3rd, 4th coming of Jesus. He will return, every eye shall see Him and it will be game over.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

There won't be a 2nd, 3rd, 4th coming of Jesus. He will return, every eye shall see Him and it will be game over.

(emphasis added)

You don't believe in a second coming? Really? You're saying he won't return at all.

Actually, I don't think I've heard of any view that believes in more than one return of Christ. Some premillennialist views hold that he will meet us in the sky, unbeknownst to the world, but that isn't considered a return of Christ. Whether a person believes in one return and then a millennial reign, or one return and then the end (both have pretty convincing scripture to back them up, actually), either way there's only one return.

The reasoning behind the Catholic acceptance of amillennialism is worth knowing. It's not a condemnation of amillennialism, necessarily, but it speaks volumes about the Catholic church. It was really convenient for the papacy to claim that they were Christ's millennial reign on Earth. Hence, the Pope was to be thought of as a sort of virtual Christ. When the first millennium expired, it created a bit of havoc among those who thought that the millennium was a literal thousand years. They did some things that I'm sure they later regretted, thinking that the end was about to happen. Current amillennialism makes it a figurative thousand years, but they also take everything else quite figuratively, for that matter.