Rapture False doctrine

DeaconDean · Jan 24, 2013

JM said:
Can the rapture be found in church history? No. You responded by attacking the basic tenets of the faith.

Fine. Enough with the rabbit trails. Can the rapture be found in church history before 1800? Didn’t think so.

I gave you a chapter to look at. You ignored it and wrote, “Here again, I provided the Parts and Chapters to "The Cause of God And Truth" by John Gill as you quoted.” Just read Gill’s intro to the work.

The basics of Reformed theology and you have decided it is easier to ‘rapture’ or remove (lol) the bulk of his argument and reduce it to the 5 points of Calvinism. Do you think the 5 points exist without the 5 solas? Are you really trying to say that?

And how is that contrary to what I posted? Did you even read the fathers I posted?

Yes, that’s right. The 5 solas can be found in the early church but NOT THE RAPTURE! NOT AT ALL.

Already posted…the 5 solas as formulated by the Reformers were presented in a nice and tidy scholastic package. It was not an invention, as you are suggesting, of the Reformers.

I did. Even posted quotes from the fathers. But what you are suggesting is just ludicrous. To say the 5 solas was the invention of the Reformers ignores the very quote you posted, “are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation…” Instead of admitting the Rapture doctrine cannot be found in history before 1800 you decide to attack the 5 solas and say, “see they were invented by the Reformers,” no, your source agreed that the Reformers formatted a response to the false teaching of the Catholic church.

And its funny,

Click to expand...

No, it isn’t. Your obsession with the Rapture and defending isn’t funny at all.

You are ignoring the fact, Rapture was invented by John Darby, that’s a fact.

I can only lead a horse to water, I can’t make him drink, I’m not doing all your homework for you. You are attempting to hijack the thread and make it about the 5 solas? Really?

Well, I’m not going to copy something straight out of a book or website without giving credit and pass it off as my own work or research. That would be dishonest.

I can only do what time allows and you are still trying to side track this thread.

Its about the RAPTURE. John Darby invented it.

This sentence doesn’t make much sense. Did they or did they not teach the solas? Are you now taking the foot out of your mouth? Remember what you wrote, "While you may have shown that a few of the ECF's taught doctrines similar to the five Sola's"

So, your faith was the invention of the Reformers, and has no connection to the early church whatsoever? Rapture talk please.

You are being dishonest I wrote, “You may have John Gill's works but it seems you haven't read them. It is very clear in Cause of God and Truth that Gill demolishes the Arminian notion of freewill and works religion by reference the classic theological framework know as the Five Solas. He doesn't refer to them outright but they are clearly there on almost every page.”

Remember what you wrote, "While you may have shown that a few of the ECF's taught doctrines similar to the five Sola's"

Gill makes that clear. Every defence of the TULIP has a thread of the 5 solas running through it.

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...

Let the games begin

God Bless

Till all are one.

JM · Jan 24, 2013

lol, I can't top grumpy old men.

OzSpen · Jan 24, 2013

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

OzSpen · Jan 24, 2013

JM said:
lol, I can't top grumpy old men.

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

JM · Jan 24, 2013

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

JM · Jan 24, 2013

JM said:
lol, I can't top grumpy old men.

Dean, that was a good one, I really did enjoy it and can't top it.

OzSpen · Jan 24, 2013

JM said:
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.

jm

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

We can find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church; and no modern pretribulationist has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church fathers or students of the Word before the nineteenth century (The Blessed Hope 1956. Eerdmans, p. 31).

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

DeaconDean · Jan 25, 2013

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:

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.

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:

The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. .. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its fulness.

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.

Michael Snow · Jan 26, 2013

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.

DeaconDean said:
Again sir, what of Enoch and Elijah?...

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

OzSpen · Jan 26, 2013

Michael Snow said:
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.

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

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.

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

OzSpen · Jan 26, 2013

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

DeaconDean said:
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.

DeaconDean · Jan 26, 2013

OzSpen said:
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

Again, with all due respect, I must add that even in the scriptures, there is evidence of several arrivals of Christ.

On the clouds
In flaming fire
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.

JM · Jan 26, 2013

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

phoenixdem · Jan 27, 2013

JM said:
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

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

DeaconDean · Jan 29, 2013

phoenixdem said:
why is sarcasm necessary? Many of us think that the rapture is quite plain in the Sciptures. Others don't. So be it.

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.

It is permissible to discuss biblical/historical topics that may include inflammatory words or phrases as long as the usage of these words does not specifically flame any CF recognized Nicene group or denomination or insinuate that they are not Christians. Please use these words and phrases with caution. *see examples below*

Examples of inflammatory words/phrases (including but not limited to): idolaters, false/different/other gospel, false prophet, false doctrine, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God, antichrists, Antichrist, cannibalism/cannibal (concerning Eucharist), Judaizer.

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.

phoenixdem · Jan 29, 2013

DeaconDean said:
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.

[/list]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.

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.

JackSparrow · Jan 29, 2013

Michael Snow said:
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.

Why 'secret rapture' ???

It is the 'sercet' bit I am questioning.

Why not the one mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

OzSpen · Jan 29, 2013

phoenixdem said:
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.

Are you affirming that the rapture doctrine is part of the Gospel?

Oz

phoenixdem · Jan 29, 2013

OzSpen said:
Are you affirming that the rapture doctrine is part of the Gospel?

Oz

Yes.

OzSpen · Jan 29, 2013

phoenixdem said:
Yes.

Please demonstrate that from the Scriptures for me!

Oz

Rapture False doctrine

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Confessional Free Catholic

Regular Member

Regular Member

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Regular Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Michael Snow

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Confessional Free Catholic

Newbie

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency