• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Rapture False doctrine

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by JM, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,584
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    So your not gonna answer the question.

    Hum...

    Fine.

    Was Enoch and Elijah not "raptured" out of this world by God Himself?

    Just because the word "rapture" isn't in the scriptures, and just because it wasn't taught prior to 1800 don't mean squat.

    Trinity, isn't in there either.

    Yet that doctrine wasn't setteled until AD 325 and it is the "cornerstone" of Christianity.

    When you quit calling what we believe a "false doctrine" I might stop.

    When you stop, I will. untill then...

    [​IMG]

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  2. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,973
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    lol, I can't top grumpy old men.
     
  3. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    JM and Dean,

    It seems to me that the eschatological differences you are having back and forth about could be related to the two major disagreements in evangelical theology over the details of future events surrounding Christ's return. These seem to be associated with:

    (1) Christ could return at any time. There are verses that indicate this (e.g. Matt 24:42-44, 50; 1 Cor 16:22; 1 Thess 5:2; Heb 10:25; James5:7-9; Rev 22:20), and

    (2) There are signs that precede Christ's return, one of which is that the Gospel must be preached to all nations (Mark 13:10. Other signs are in passages such as Mark 13:7-8; Matt 24:23-24; 2 Thess 2:1-10; 1 John 2:18.

    Are these two different approaches causing the disagreement or are there some other issues. If so, what are they?

    Oz
     
  4. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Even though you place in your lol category, it is still a personal putdown. I encourage you to be more constructive in your responses and address the issue at hand.

    Oz
     
  5. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,973
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Hey Oz,

    I would take time to be more constructive if the threads were not hijacked so often. This thread is about the history of the Rapture doctrine and not the 5 solas but if I don't give an answer for the 5 solas Dean's point maybe considered valid. Which it isn't.
    The Baptist tradition is so entrenched here that open conversation about our traditions (rapture doctrine is a tradition) is frowned upon so I prefer to post some helpful or useful links and be done with it.

    It is historically accurate to point out JND as the starting point for the dissemination of the PreTrib Rapture theory. I pointed that out. Darby, in his writings, also tells us that the idea came to him, not from scripture but from his hermeneutic. It really isn't that difficult to admit. Before JND the separation of the church and Israel, the Dispensational Rapture scheme was unheard of.

    I would ask that my fellow Baptist brethren take a long hard look at their/our traditions. Consider what I have posted.

    Till all are one! :)


    jm
     
  6. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,973
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Dean, that was a good one, I really did enjoy it and can't top it. :thumbsup:
     
  7. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Historically, there were others before J N Darby who promoted this view. Some say that Darby got the pre-trib rapture from Edward Irving (1792-1834). Others claim it could have come from Margaret MacDonald (ca. 1830). Still others go a wee bit further back to Emmanuel Lacunza (AD 1731-1901).

    However, post-tribulationist, premillennial, George Eldon Ladd wrote that
    Norman Geisler, who is a dispensational pretribulationist, claimed that those who object to pretribulationism as a late doctrine are committing the logical 'fallacy of chronological snobbery which wrongly argues that truth can be determined by time' (Systematic Theology, vol 4 2005, BethanyHouse, p. 631).

    His point was that time has no connection with truth as something can be new and true just as it is possible to have something that can be old and false.

    He claimed that the discovery of Ephraem of Syria's teaching (from ca. AD 306-373), it can be established that pretribulationism was taught in the early church. Earlier in this volume, Geisler established that premillennialism was taught in the early church shortly after the time of the apostles. His view is that the imminence of Christ's return was emphasised from the start of the church, that 'pretribulationism is based on a realistic concept of imminence', and that 'there is ample New Testament evidence to support pretribulationism' (Geisler 2005:632).

    Geisler covers such material in the 17th chapter of this volume, 'The Tribulation and the Rapture' (pp. 597-661).

    Therefore, I cannot be adamant that the pretribulation rapture was not taught in the early church. However, I have not been convinced to this point in time. However, I must admit that I have not pursued all of Geisler's material.

    Oz
     
  8. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,584
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Oz,

    With all due respect, in light of our disagreements in the past, you have shown a very valid point.

    I agree with you in Geisler's point on time.

    You quoted him saying:

    Just because the "rapture" theory wasn't proposed in the early church does not disqualify it.

    I am also a believer in "Progressive Revelation".

    Charles Hodge wrote:

    Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, Theology Proper, Chapter VI, The Trinity, Section 2, Biblical Form of Doctrine, The Progressive Character of Divine Revelation, p. 446

    Did all revelation stop with a few years of the ascention of Christ?

    God progressively revealed Himself over a period of about 4500 years to mankind until ultimately He was revealed in the God-man, Jesus Christ.

    If it took 4500 years for God to reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, why or what leads us to believe that God stopped all revelation after about AD 100 and the death of John?

    Now don't misunderstand me and say I'm supporting the same "Progressive Revelation" doctrine that such groups as the JW's, LDS, and others do, I simply mean that since scriptures tell us the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth, why does that stop after the early church period?

    Just because the "rapture" may be a realitively "new" theory at 200 years, that does not disqualify it.

    It took 1500 years for the doctrines of the Reformation to cumilate into the Five Solas.

    These are only 500 years old, should we disqualify them because they also are realitively new?

    Should we disqualify the teachings of Calvin, Arminus, Wesley, and others just because they are not 2000 years old?

    How many thousands and thousands of years was it heald that the earth was the center of the universe? A position that is still debated to day in the issue of Geocentrcism?

    And did not Galileo disprove it after thousands of years?

    Age is not always the litmus test.

    Just because it is old, does not always make it right.

    Just because it is new, does not make it wrong either.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
  9. Michael Snow

    Michael Snow Guest

    +0
    But that is not the topic being discussed here, but, rather, the 'secret rapture' doctrine.

    This is a common mistake made in discussons on this topic. All proponents of the secret rapture are pre-millennial. But many, who believe in the pre-millenial return of Christ, reject the secret rapture and the subsequent 3rd Coming.

    Though you find Chiliasm in the early writings, you do NOT find the secret rapture.

    And this rapture doctrine results not from exegesis of Scripture but from eisegesis.

    Enoch and Elijah were taken by God. But that has nothing to do with 'secret rapture' of the Church and the eisegesis of New Testament Scripture that was used to invent that mistaken doctrine.

    The topic of the thread was to show the origin and history of the rapture doctrine. The only thing missing [unless I overlooked it] is that Darby's idea had it origiin in the dream/vision of the McDonald girl:

    On one particular evening, the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret Macdonald while she was ill at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under the “power” of the spirit) for several successive hours she experienced manifestations of “mingled prophecy and vision.” She found her mind in an altered state and began to experience considerable visionary activity.

    The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His Second Advent, and not a single occasion as most all people formerly believed. The spirit emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to those who look for Him and again later in a final stage when every eye would see Him. This visionary experience of Miss Macdonald represented the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson reveals.

    Chapter 17: The Rapture Theory - Its Surprising Origin
     
  10. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Michael,

    If you read my post at #47 above, you would see that I provided evidence that is contrary to your point. I wrote that with
    See 'Ephraem the Syrian", but on the www there have been some questions about the legitimacy of this person, some saying that it is by pseudo-Ephraem. See, 'Strong Delusion'.

    I am uncertain about the legitimacy of Ephraem's writings and his support of pretrib rapture.

    Oz
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  11. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Dean,

    Thanks for your response.

    The lateness of preparing an exposition of a doctrine (in this case pretrib rapture) does not disqualify it from consideration.

    However, the doctrine does seem to swing on one's interpretation of 1 Thess 4:13-18 and especially v. 17 and the parallels or otherwise with other eschatological material.

    Oz


     
  12. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,584
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Again, with all due respect, I must add that even in the scriptures, there is evidence of several arrivals of Christ.
    1. On the clouds
    2. In flaming fire
    3. Riding upon a white horse
    I still, after 30 years have not found any evidence to lead me to believe these are "one-in-the-same" events.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  13. JM

    JM Absolute Predestinarian Supporter

    +1,973
    Canada
    Protestant
    Married
    CA-Others
    Hey folks, I'll respond as soon as I get some free time. I'll try to respond without sarcasm but I have to admit it is very difficult to do so.

    jm
     
  14. phoenixdem

    phoenixdem Newbie

    +32
    Baptist
    Married
    why is sarcasm necessary? Many of us think that the rapture is quite plain in the Sciptures. Others don't. So be it.
     
  15. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,584
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Exactly!

    Jusr because something wasn't taught a little over 2000 years ago, does not make it wrong.

    But according to some, it does.

    You know, in GT calling the "rapture" a "false doctine" would result in something good not happening.

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7572165/

    But here, it is perfectly acceptable.

    Go figure.

    Since I'm the bad guy here, I will gracefully bow out of this conversation.

    Call me a heretic, spreading false doctrine all you wish.

    That's fine by me.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  16. phoenixdem

    phoenixdem Newbie

    +32
    Baptist
    Married
    I know exactly what you mean. We are supposed to stand up to defend the gospel. We do try, but, there are many people who just want to argue. There comes a time when you have to let people believe what they will.
     
  17. JackSparrow

    JackSparrow Active Member

    653
    +1
    Christian
    Private
    Why 'secret rapture' ???

    It is the 'sercet' bit I am questioning.


    Why not the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Are you affirming that the rapture doctrine is part of the Gospel?

    Oz
     
  19. phoenixdem

    phoenixdem Newbie

    +32
    Baptist
    Married
    Yes.
     
  20. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +613
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Please demonstrate that from the Scriptures for me!

    Oz
     
Loading...