The Rapture

[executioner]

I know there are a number of different theories and beliefs about this out there and I'm wondering what everyone here is thinking. I believe the believers will be taken before the true tribulation starts. I do believe we are in some sort of pretribulation at this time.

[zak89]

I fall in the "pre-trib" camp as well.

I wonder if we have any "pre-wrath" folk on board? It was really popular it seemed a few years back but it seems to have lost its luster lately - a shame because I always found it a much more worthy (or perhaps "deep"?) position than "stock" post-trib.

I do believe we are in some sort of pretribulation at this time.

Not sure I follow that. Do you mean we are in a period of time prior to the Tribulation (no controversy there, I'd imagine)? Or do you refer to some specific prophetic timetable?

[CatNamedManny]

Also pre-trib.

And I think God would also consider this to be a sort of pretribulationary period. But that's because I think God considers the entire church age to be pretribulationary. Pretty sure that's also not a word.

No one's convinced me yet that the things often cited as reasons why Jesus is coming back "soon" are any different from the things that convinced the believers in Paul's day that Jesus was coming back soon enough for them to stop working.

[brent]

I am a pre-trib'r as well. There is no mention of the church after Rev 4.

Some people quote that believers are not reserved for the wrath of God. Tribulations are not the wrath per se. Believers and unbelievers alike have and will go through tribulations. Believers will come out of the Great Tribulation. There is also a bit of poetry that must be taken into consideration. The bible says that the Great Tribulation will be worse than anything seen or imagined. A global flood was pretty stickin' bad and global destruction is as bad as it gets. The flood was not a tribulation, but a judgment of wrath. Hell is the wrath of God.

So, I think there is enough room for the church to pass through part of it. The bible says that believers will be led away and will turn against God. Heck, that is happening now. That has happened since Jesus walked the planet.

[Rocksoup]

I'm "pan-trib" as I believe it will all pan out in the end. Don't ask me to back it up with scripture though.

[zak89]

One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding "pre-trib" is that its adherents believe that the Church is to be spared any hardship or persecution ("tribulation", if you wish). I hear this over and over again from post-trib/pre-wrath and (ironically) Reconstructionism/Dominion Theology advocates, and it is a sure sign that someone a: hasn't done their homework, or b (in the case of some big name tele-evangelists): is willfully misrepresenting the pre-trib position. "Pre-tribulation Rapture" means just that - the rapture occurs prior to the Tribulation - not that the church will never be forced to undergo tribulation. No one's argued that so far so I won't press that point... yet.

[zak89]

Heh - spoke too soon. I guess the message hasn't gotten out yet.

There's no way it's pre- what in Scripture makes you think God will spare His children any suffering or hardship?

Do you believe the tribulation is the ONLY time the church has/will undergo "suffering/hardship"? Really? I seem to recall a few episodes in Church history where times weren't all that pleasant. In fact, in some places of the world today Christians suffer persecution as bad as anything the Inquisitors cooked up!

The common though here is that it's somehow not "fair" for the "American/Western" Christians to "get off easy" by being raptured before the final global era of persecution. I don't have time to hash it all out right now but two points:

1. The theory that the church has "had it too easy" or must be "purified" prior to the Rapture falls flat, because it ignores the fact that many generations of Christians have come and gone without any major external persecution - so the "purification" only affect the generation unlucky enough to not die off prior to the "Trib". It doesn't make it any more "fair" - and there's no Biblical reason why it must be. Even in the book of Acts, we see some Christians pay the ultimate price for their faith, while others "get off easy" and are rescued, supernaturally or otherwise. Eternally speaking, those who do suffer for their faith will receive a greater reward - so you could just as well argue that the Western church will be punished for it's "lukewarmness" [or whatever ailment is your thing] by receiving no reward for undergoing tribulation! "You prove too much, and so prove nothing".

2. Read through Revelation again - it's not primarily a time of persecution, as the "post-tribbers" say. It's a time of God's judgement on sinful, rebellious man. Now I don't agree completely with the idea that the Church "must" be raptured to avoid judgement - we see Biblical examples of God's judgement affecting His people (but often, He does provide shelter of some sort). But it's incorrect to regard the Tribulation as a time of persecution in order to purify the Church - it's a time of judgement to force the unbelievers (and the Devil) into submission.

(sorry for the lack of references - it's late and I need sleep...)

[brent]

First of all, the reason the rapture was not mentioned by name was because it comes from the Latin. The trinity is nowhere in scripture either, but we use the word to describe something that is.

Second, the Apostles and the other witnesses around Jesus did not and could not understand the bible the way that we can now, because we have thousands of years of hindsight and history. They were living in the "now" of their day, with their limited knowledge, having not scene future prophetic events come to pass. Until certain events transpired, even the church of the 1900s could not conceive or believe and hence be able to finally interpret scripture of some events. Just as the first church believers could not realize and understand the full meaning of the end days, neither can we. We have people selling books and videos, getting rich from their interpretations. There is a nut job predicting the end in March (IIRC). This guy has named dates before and been wrong obviously. I think that since Jesus did not even know the time of his return, that God is laughing at the stupidity of the evil false prophets.

What people need to understand is that Jesus told the people in Mathew about the destruction of his temple body and the temple itself. That happened in 70 AD. His return cannot be confused with those events. This is the big thing that people get confused. People did not ask Jesus "When is the great taking away of the saints you spoke of?" They asked Jesus about his return and the establishment of the Kingdom.

[zak89]

I most certainly do not think tribulation is the ONLY time the church will suffer. I know Church history well enough to know that suffering is common enough (even today). I also know Church history well enough to know that no one talks about rapture or future tribulation until the 1800s. Again, it's not in the Creeds. Yet people are shocked if you say you don't believe in the rapture.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_F ... apture.htm

Personally, I don't feel obligated to limit myself to ancient creeds - we have the source in our hands, and that's where I look to settle this issue. Creeds, writings of the early Church fathers are fine and interesting from a historical perspective, or for gaining insight as to how others understood various issues, and that's about it. In fact, if you consider the various political/theological movements of the middle age church (which is as far as most records go), the loss of the Rapture in church teaching is quite understandble - most (underground) Christians thought the Pope (or the RCC in general) was the Antichrist, which rules out the rapture outright. The RCC taught a form of Amillenialism to combat this "error" - another view that eliminates the Rapture.

But if one wishes to be swayed by how early something has been taught, there is incidental evidence that the Rapture may not be as "new" idea as though previously. I'm in bed now (not sleeping well!), but I'll dig up the quote later - IIRC it's a legal case where a fellow (contemporary with John Bunyan) who was accused of teaching the premillenial (including the Rapture) viewpoint - the court refers to this heresy as having been stamped out over a thousand years ago. Very interesting. Again, I'll dig it up later.

[separateunion]

I'm currently a partial preterist/post-millenialist. I grew up going to churches that were pre-mil and dispensational, but I quickly moved away from those once I realized that the pre-trib construct has only been around for about 150 years and dispensationalism requires a complete misreading of Scripture.

I wouldn't have a problem being amillenialist either. Pretty much anything other than pre-mil makes sense.

[separateunion]

First of all, the reason the rapture was not mentioned by name was because it comes from the Latin. The trinity is nowhere in scripture either, but we use the word to describe something that is.

No, it's not mentioned because Christians didn't believe in any kind of pre-mil model prior to the 1800s. Some of the creeds were in Latin, yet they don't discuss a pre-mil end times.

[brent]

Where is the proof that the pre trib rapture was never discussed? I get a kick when people assume that the only conversations and teachings of the early church were the ones documented in written form. The bible doesn't even include all conversations and activities of Jesus Christ.

The bible can be made to say many things by interpretation. There is more truth to the bible than applying it literally for sure. Jesus had to make things simple for those in his time to understand. Still, they could not get it. Even those closest to him could not grasp some of it. Imagine if John were alive today and received his Revelation, knowing what we know now. It might read a bit differently, being able to describe things in words we could understand directly as they relate to our culture now.

[zak89]

First of all, the reason the rapture was not mentioned by name was because it comes from the Latin. The trinity is nowhere in scripture either, but we use the word to describe something that is.

No, it's not mentioned because Christians didn't believe in any kind of pre-mil model prior to the 1800s. Some of the creeds were in Latin, yet they don't discuss a pre-mil end times.

As I said before, the above argument is irrelevant for several reasons, and is likely untrue.

As promised, here is my quote, although I admit it has more to do with separateunion's assertion than my original point (though it is worth noting that "pre-trib" was universally accepted in premillennial circles at first - post-trib (and pre-wrath) variants are the true newcomers). I know of no position that holds the literal millennium and denies the Rapture (which would be inconsistent, since the truthfulness of one goes hand and hand with the other).

Recent attempts by Replacement Theologians, Amillennialists, and Preterists to discredit premillennialism have sought to portray the doctrine as something unheard of until John Darby. Here is what a review in The Sword and the Trowel (October, 1891, p. 581) had to say.]
"One of [John] Bunyan's contemporaries, Benjamin Keach, an illustrious predecessor  of Spurgeon in the pastorate, has left a very full confession of his views on this point. He was brought to trial Oct. 8th, 1664, on two charges of Anabaptism and Millenarianism. As he stood before Lord Chief justice Hide, the representative of the [Church of England], he was summoned first to answer for his 'damnable doctrine' concerning baptism; which, being disposed of, the second article of indictment was teken up, viz., that heheld 'that the saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years.' The judge pronounced this 'an old heresy, which was cast out of the church a thousand years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance five years afer, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this rascal hath revived it.' He was condemned and sent to the pillory

[separateunion]

Where is the proof that the pre trib rapture was never discussed?

This is an insane question that doesn't make your case any better. Where is the evidence that it was ever discussed? You had previously pointed out that the trinity is not named in the Bible. This is true. However, we can go back to the very beginning of the church, and this is a doctrine that is not only widely believed, but is a necessary truth that is taught from the very beginning of the church. Rapture theology is found nowhere in church history until the 1800s. If it was a serious claim at anytime before this, the church would have discussed it.

From a logical standpoint, rapture theology fails to acknowledge Christ's victory on the cross. It accepts a view that Satan still rules the earth and won't be conquered until Christ returns a second time. It also implies that our call to spread the gospel is going to be ineffectual because evil will rule until Christ returns to establish his kingdom. Seems like kind of a worthless endeavor, and a pessimistic view, to me.

The bible can be made to say many things by interpretation.

It can, but that applies both ways.

[separateunion]

No, it's not mentioned because Christians didn't believe in any kind of pre-mil model prior to the 1800s. Some of the creeds were in Latin, yet they don't discuss a pre-mil end times.

As I said before, the above argument is irrelevant for several reasons, and is likely untrue.

Except, it's not.

Recent attempts by Replacement Theologians, Amillennialists, and Preterists to discredit premillennialism have sought to portray the doctrine as something unheard of until John Darby. Here is what a review in The Sword and the Trowel (October, 1891, p. 581) had to say.]
"One of [John] Bunyan's contemporaries, Benjamin Keach, an illustrious predecessor  of Spurgeon in the pastorate, has left a very full confession of his views on this point. He was brought to trial Oct. 8th, 1664, on two charges of Anabaptism and Millenarianism. As he stood before Lord Chief justice Hide, the representative of the [Church of England], he was summoned first to answer for his 'damnable doctrine' concerning baptism; which, being disposed of, the second article of indictment was teken up, viz., that heheld 'that the saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years.' The judge pronounced this 'an old heresy, which was cast out of the church a thousand years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance five years afer, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this rascal hath revived it.' He was condemned and sent to the pillory

So, your argument is that one guy who was on trial for heresy somehow substantiates rapture theology? Yikes.