Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Pre-trib rapture proof.
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Pre-trib rapture proof. whocansatisfy
You asked for Scripture so here it is. (Not that it will do any good)

The problem some people have is confusing two events as being one. The rapture of the Church is NOT a part of the Second coming and does not take place at the Second coming. The “proof” is in the 24th chapter of Matt and I Thessalonians 2:7.

First, Matthew does not say that the church is taken out or even mentions the church in any way. Some have postulated that the “gathering the elect” refers to the rapture of the church. That is not the case. The elect referred to in Matt 24 refers to Israel. Now you can accept that or not. If you do, you can begin to see the whole picture. If not, that’s fine too. Just don’t try to tell us that Matt 24 proves that it is dealing with the rapture, much less the church. Yes, you can declare, till you are blue in the face, that these verses do not “prove” it’s talking about Israel. But on the same token, you cannot prove otherwise either. So let’s be real.

Why do I believe that Matt 24 deals with Israel? For the following reasons.
1. When Jesus talks about many claiming to be Christ (vs. 23-26), He is talking about false Messiah’s. Christ means “the anointed.” This can only refer to Messiah and Messiah is a Jewish term. When you talk about Messiah the Jews fully understand what you are referring to.
2. Verse 9 refers to anti-semitism. He’s not talking about the church. He is talking about a nation. He is saying, “You, Nation of Israel, will be delivered up to be afflicted and you shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.”
3. Verse 15 can only refer to Israel because of the abomination of their new Temple. What some of you seem to miss or ignore is the following written in parentheses. (whoso readeth, let him understand.) Understand what? The prophecy of Daniel of course and the last 7 years of God’s dealing with Israel as a nation.
4. Verse 20 refers to the Sabbath. Now if you want to throw out this explanation of Matt referring to Israel and not the Church, then you have to account for this. If Matt 24 concerns the church and its subsequent rapture, then you also have to make the claim that we should be honoring the Sabbath according to Jewish tradition. Therefore, if you truly believe what you claim, then you are in violation of the Word by having church on Sunday and ignoring Saturday altogether. So, do you disobey the Word concerning the Sabbath, or does this chapter deal with Israel only? You cannot have it both ways.
5. The last thing I will deal with, because of time, is that the Church will already be gone according to II Thess. 2:7 during the timing of Matt 24. In fact, the rapture of the Church is one of the greatest “signs” of the Second Coming of the Lord to earth.
II Thess 2:7 refers to the hinderer of lawlessness being removed before the anti-christ is revealed. What is the hinderer of lawlessness today? Government? That would not be possible as anti-christ will rule over many governments. Could it be the Holy Spirit as some claim? No, simply because the Holy Spirit will continue to work salvation during the tribulation. The only other possibility is that it is the church. Think about it. What has kept this world from being completely overrun by evil? It’s the presence of the Church. The weaker the Church, the greater the evil. Once the Church is removed, anti-christ will be unhindered and therefore he will be revealed.
Before you start telling me that the Church cannot be the hinderer of lawlessness because it is the Bride of Christ and referred to by feminine pronouns, think again. The Church is not referred to by feminine pronouns anywhere in Scripture. It is neither symbolized by a woman and it is NEVER called the bride of Christ. (We know the bride of Christ is New Jerusalem according to Rev. and the church makes up only a portion of that great city)

So from Scripture we know that the church is referred to as the body of Christ. Therefore it would be improper to refer to the church in the feminine. So it is not hard to comprehend that since the church is not a woman, a lady, a virgin, etc., and since the church is called a man AND the body of Christ, the church is easily referred to as “he.”

Therefore, this Scripture is proof that the church will continue to hinder lawlessness until the rapture, THEN the anti-christ will be revealed. This will happen before Daniel’s 70th week and the tribulation.

Now, some asked for Scriptures and I have given them. These are just a few but they are sufficient and prove the point of a pre-trib rapture just as well, if not better, than a post-trib rapture. If you have something substantial to counter what I’ve offered, I’m listening. But don’t come bringing the same old garbage of inference, etc. I’ve not seen anything yet on this board that has proven conclusively any other point without inference on your part if not just plain fantasy.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 2:03 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The PH Bullet
Peter Zefo wrote:
Darby, Scofield and Dake would be proud


ROFLMHO...and don't forget Clarence Larkin Zefo. He's the guy who did all those charts.

B
_________________
Shootin 'em straight,
groupin 'em tight.
The PH Bullet
2817 posts on Acts Original
Acts-celerater
Posts: 914
1/26/07 8:18 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Link
WhoCanSatisfy

You have not offered a lick of scriptural proof that the rapture will be pre-trib.

What you have done is argued that there are ways to interpret passages to fit with a pre-trib rapture, but not proof that the rapture is pre-trib to begin with. What is the scripture that LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HTE RAPTURE IS PRE-TRIB IN THE FIRST PLACE. You need to have some scripture that leads you to believe this in order to justify trying to interpret the rapture through the pre-trib lense.

Your 'proof' is that you postulate, without evidence, that that which restrains the man of sin is the church. Since I don't believe that that which restrains the man of sin is the church, I don't see that as proof. Your argument is circular reasoning. If you don't first assume the pre-trib rapture position, there is no way you will see the church as that which restrains the man of sin.

Also, there seem to be plenty of 'saints' around in Revelation when all this stuff is going on.

What I am looking for is the actual scripture that indicates that the rapture is pre-trib.

Revelation has the resurrection occuring at the end of the book. Paul shows us that the resurrection and rapture occur at the same time. I just don't see how that fits with a pre-trib rapture scenario at all. Paul tells the Thessalonians that they will recieve rest/relief at Christ's coming. If the saints are either raptured or resurrected at the actual second coming, this makes sense. What kind of rest will we get if we already have our glorified bodies seven years prior to this event? It makes no sense.

Jesus said that if He went away He would 'come again and recieve you unto Myself, that where I am, ye may be also.' This verse indicates that Christ will receive the saints unto Himself when He comes again, not seven years prior. I Thessalonians has the Lord descending at the rapture, not seven years after.

Another point,

The OT 'church' in the wilderness is a part of the church. So why would the 'church' only be a part of the bride.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
1/26/07 9:00 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Thanks Link, here's your answer whocansatisfy
Link wrote:
WhoCanSatisfy

You have not offered a lick of scriptural proof that the rapture will be pre-trib.

What you have done is argued that there are ways to interpret passages to fit with a pre-trib rapture, but not proof that the rapture is pre-trib to begin with. What is the scripture that LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HTE RAPTURE IS PRE-TRIB IN THE FIRST PLACE. You need to have some scripture that leads you to believe this in order to justify trying to interpret the rapture through the pre-trib lense.

Your 'proof' is that you postulate, without evidence, that that which restrains the man of sin is the church. Since I don't believe that that which restrains the man of sin is the church, I don't see that as proof. Your argument is circular reasoning. If you don't first assume the pre-trib rapture position, there is no way you will see the church as that which restrains the man of sin.

Also, there seem to be plenty of 'saints' around in Revelation when all this stuff is going on.

What I am looking for is the actual scripture that indicates that the rapture is pre-trib.

Revelation has the resurrection occuring at the end of the book. Paul shows us that the resurrection and rapture occur at the same time. I just don't see how that fits with a pre-trib rapture scenario at all. Paul tells the Thessalonians that they will receive rest/relief at Christ's coming. If the saints are either raptured or resurrected at the actual second coming, this makes sense. What kind of rest will we get if we already have our glorified bodies seven years prior to this event? It makes no sense.

Jesus said that if He went away He would 'come again and recieve you unto Myself, that where I am, ye may be also.' This verse indicates that Christ will receive the saints unto Himself when He comes again, not seven years prior. I Thessalonians has the Lord descending at the rapture, not seven years after.

Another point,

The OT 'church' in the wilderness is a part of the church. So why would the 'church' only be a part of the bride.


And what is the Scripture that you offer to prove otherwise? What do you “believe” is restraining the man of sin today and will be removed before tribulation? Give your scripture reference rather than say, “I don’t believe it.”

The fact that there are saints around does not discount a pre-trib rapture as saints can refer to many different people, otherwise you have to “postulate” that saints can only refer to the church.

I have given you some of the Scripture that indicates a pre-trib rapture, but you want to dismiss it because of what? You just don’t believe it? Give Scriptural references that allow you to discount such.

As for resurrection, careful study will indicate that there will be more than one, each one for different groups. If you want to hold to one resurrection, then you have to stop at Christ for He has already resurrected and there could not possibly be another. You will also have to throw out the two witnesses unless you want to tie their resurrection into the rapture and final resurrection of the martyred saints of tribulation. The problem you guys have is that you read something and “postulate” that it is the same as another similar reference in Scripture. That is dangerous and leads to confusion. For instance, some of you have talked about the “last trump” when the church is raptured. But you have given no scripture to support that. The reference in Thess. says “The trump of God.” This is NOT the same as the 7 trumpets of revelation.

You claim that I Thess has the Lord descending at the rapture, not seven years after. I take this to mean that you emphatically believe that the “descending” refers to the Second coming, when He comes to earth? Where does it say that? You have absolutely no proof. In fact, the verse in I Thess tells us otherwise if you are careful to notice it. Let’s look at it. Chapter 4:16 says that the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven. How does this mean that He comes all the way to earth? It doesn’t and the next verse makes it clear that He doesn’t. It says in vs. 17, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be “caught up together.” With who? With those in the clouds to MEET the Lord where? IN THE AIR. Now all of you who say there is no proof for pre-trib, prove where it says He comes to earth at this time! It doesn’t. Prove where it says that this is the same incident referred to in Rev. You and I know you can’t.

You then mentioned the OT church in the wilderness, asking why the “church” only would be a part of the bride. Well, once again you have not read carefully for the very word I used you also used. “PART.” The church is “part” of the bride. It is not “all” of the bride or the bride only. All the redeemed from Adam to the end of the age will make up the “bride.” The church is only a part of that. Again, the point made is that the church is not referred to as a woman, ie., bride. Everywhere in Scripture the church is referred to as the body of Christ. So whether you accept that the church is the “he” referred to or not by Paul, you have not given any reason to discount it or tell us who you believe “he” is.

In fact, many of you have scoffed at Dake, Scofield, etc., because of their teachings. How absurd is that? I’m sure that each of those individuals were better versed in Scripture than any of us, yet you toss out their ideas as rubbish without offering ANYTHING to replace it. You claim that we have to accept a pre-trib viewpoint to make things fit, but fail to realize that you have done the same thing in reverse. You have not offered ANY evidence that would support your thinking. In fact, the more you use Scripture, the more you show yourself to be scripturally inept by looking at different events and making them one, again without any Scriptural proof.

So I challenge YOU. Show me the scripture. Show me who the hinderer of lawlessness is. Show me that the trumpet of Thess is the same as the 7 trumpets of Revelation. Show me where there is only one resurrection and one rapture for that matter.


BTW, you wrote: What I am looking for is the actual scripture that indicates that the rapture is pre-trib.

How about you showing me actual scripture that says there will be a rapture? You accept a rapture, that is never mentioned in the Bible, but discount the timing of said rapture because you can't find the exact Scripture that says it plainly. Talk about straining at a gnat...
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 10:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Not all aspects of Dispensational Theology are bad.... stp89
Not every aspect of dispensational theology is bad. Certainly cessationism and other errors taint the classic dispy position, but it does have some merits. Can anyone argue that God deals with humanity in different ways at different times? The bible says that before the law, sin was not imputed. The thief on the cross didn't have an opportunity to receive the baptism with the Holy Ghost. We no longer cast lots or use Urim and Thummim, for big decisions (although we might come up with better results than some of our poor choices).

Paul clearly teaches the Romans some aspects of dispensational theology in Romans 9-11. He says the fulness of the Gentiles will come in and then all Israel will be saved. If that does not signal to anyone that a dispensational change is taking place, I don't know what will. Paul told the Ephesians that in the "dispensation of the fulness of time" he would gather together Jew and Gentile and everyone in heaven and on the earth.

Furthermore, when Paul explained the "rapture" (or whatever you want to call it- the doctrine is there just like the Trinity) to the Corinthians- he told them it was a "mystery." (I Cor 15:51) I know we have a lot of theologians here, but for those armchair theologians like myself, I think that the word "mystery" implies something that was not revealed prior. In other words, Jesus may have made reference or alluded to the rapture in the Olivet discourse but at that time it was still a mystery! (and according to this thread it is still a mystery to many of us Laughing )

I continue to read these demands of proof from the post-trib gang, but this is my last effort to offer proof. Please explain to me what Jesus meant when He spoke these words:

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1248
1/26/07 10:54 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Strange doctrine for a GOG minister. whocansatisfy
There are some who would have you believe that Matt 24 proves that the rapture does not take place until the end of the age. Anyone with average reading skills could tell you differently. They continue to spew out their nonsense about the elect still being on earth. Of course it is. The elect Jesus is referring to is Israel.

As I began this thread, I have pointed out the evidence in Matt 24 concerning its relation to Israel and not the church. So far no one has offered anything intellectual to counter such a claim. All we get is the "gathering" comes at the end. Well, there is no debate there, its just that they are mistaken on who they are talking about. It's no different than harvesting apples and oranges. Do they harvest at the same time? Of course not. Neither can you compare God's dealings with the Church with that of Israel. He did not reject Israel for nearly 2000 only to deal with them and the church at the same time. God has a specific timetable to take care of Israel and it has little to do with his dealings with the church.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 2:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post "proof" theophorus
I'm not sure why I'm responding here because I know it will mean nothing.

Let me throw a couple of logs on the fire.

1 - "whocansatisfy" presupposes several opinions and interpretations of scripture are indeed facts. While he seems to have spent plenty of time researching these interpretations and opinions, just because he believes them doesn't make them true.

Truth is not tethered nor dependent on someone else's belief to make them authentic. I also do not have to offer reasons for my disbelief in your theories. I have studied the texts mentioned and I just think you're wrong. And yes, I have my own presuppositions to worry about.

2 - Vocabulary words for the day "proof texting". It's the idea that we are certain to find all the "proof" we need to back up any argument we want if we keep looking long enough and pull enough scriptures out of context. Hey we've all done, no shame there.

The Bible has been used to prove that slavery is OK, women shouldn't speak in church and currently the Bible is being used to teach that homosexuality is acceptable in our cultural context. I'm sure phrases like "it's plain to see" and "the bible clearly states" have been used to rationalize all manner of belief systems. (I'm not equating predispensational theology to homosexual theology, simply making a point.)

Stop interpreting the Bible, let it interpret you.

Let the return of Christ be your hope not a point of division.
Friendly Face
Posts: 210
1/26/07 6:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Theophorus whocansatisfy
You are entitled to believe what you will concerning this subject and that is fine by me. But the "logs" you have thrown on the fire do not amount to much in defense of your belief. You are correct in that you have your own presuppositions to deal with. You are the first here to admit as much.

All I am looking for in this debate is someone with more than their belief as well. I have shown why I believe what I do and no one has since refuted it with something of substance. Believe me, if you can, I am listening. But let's deal with the same things and not twist it around never getting to the truth. The Scriptures and interpretations I have offered are on the table. If you don't believe them, then explain why. What Scriptural authority leads you to discount them? What I have given here is more than just opinion or interpretation.

If you truly want to help someone deal with this subject and come to the same conclusion as you, you are going to have to do something with the material I have raised. Explain how that all the references by Christ in Matt 24 are linked with Israel. No one has done that yet and I'm still interested in hearing something of substance. All anyone has done is say they gave up pre-trib a long time ago, but have done a poor job of explaining why. To do that you have to get to the context of Scriptures we have used.

On a final note, I have one more thing to add to this debate. Those who use Matt 24 as their "beacon for the cause," need to explain something else. Jesus clearly states that those who endure till the end shall be saved. If He IS talking to the church in this passage, and the end does not come until after tribulation, how do you get around Paul's writings and Jesus own words concerning our escaping this? Why doesn't he use the same type of message in Matt 24 as He does in Luke? In Luke 21:36 He tells us to "watch and pray that we might be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass." But in Matt 24 He says there is no escaping this tribulation. Only that He will be coming back afterward.

I would also have to add that according to Luke 21 and other passages I won't get into, we are given the admonition to watch and pray until He comes. Other passages talk about "looking for His appearing," etc. My question here is this, are you watching for His appearing now? Truly? Do you believe the Lord could come back at any moment and you are watching eagerly everyday for His return? I have to say that if you do not believe in a pre-trib rapture, then you have no need to be watching for Him, right? I mean, if we know He's not coming back until after the tribulation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, then we don't have to start looking for Him until it begins! I'm curious if anyone who espouses the post-trib viewpoint will be man enough to admit that they are not looking for Him right now. In light of all the Scripture we have to warn us about the fact that He's coming back for only those who are watching and waiting, I'm really curious how you answer that.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 8:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post who can? only jesus! Bro Bob
I like your nom de' plume.

I recently did a (for me, an armchair theologian) pretty thorough study on this topic.

Frankly, I had assumed pre-trib so much that I thought it was ingrained in Church of God doctrine.

Actually, it isn't.

We believe in a pre-millennium 2nd coming.

Apparently, we don't agree on much else.

I have a Brother in my Sunday School class who is a good man, and he believed post-trib, provided me with some study materials, and asked me to give it a go.

I had no problem with that.

I started with his materials, and Matthew 24 was the heart of it.

But Matthew 24 ( and it's first cousin, Luke 21 ) gave me some trouble. I couldn't get it to truly add up either way.

The disciples are in the temple, and they point out its wonders to Christ. This is Herod's temple, of course, not Solomon's.

Christ makes a startling statement. Folks, I'm telling you, not one stone shall be left upon the other.

Wow.

Time-out. The wailing wall. It surrounded that Temple, and it still stands today. So was Christ wrong?

LOL, sure he was.

OF COURSE not! He made no prophesy about the wall, he prophesied about the temple.

Ok, so let's get back to the story.

After they have left the temple, and gotten away from the crowd, they press him on the issue.

3 questions.


When?

What?

How?

When shall these things be.

We know the answer, because this part of prophesy has already come true. It happened in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and scattered the Jews, who would never again be a nation unto themselves until May 14, 1948.

But he didn't say that, instead he said stuff that people today think refer to the 2nd coming.

What shall be a sign of thy coming?

I won't push my understanding of it further. But if you will study it for yourself , in the light of what whocansatisy has already well stated, you will see what Matt 24 is about.

........................

Now, that doesn't settle one thing about pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib.

To do your OWN study, you must approach the question analytically.

First and foremost, admit that TWO events are described in scripture, the CATCHING AWAY, and the 2ND COMING.

Be honest. They MAY occur at the same time, or one may precede the other.

But proof that they are not the identical same event is very easy to arrive at.

Ask yourself some questions,

I'll get you started.

Compare the Warnings earth, and men will receive prior to each.

Catching Away Warning? NONE Nada. Zip. ( I will provide scripture references if you cannot find them yourself.)

2ND COMING WARNINGS? Well, actually , yeah.

*For one thing there will be the revealing of the anti-Christ.
*There will be a 7 year tribulation. 3-1/2 peaceful under covenant with Israel, this will likely make CNN, you'll probably notice it.
*Midway thru the covenant will be broken, and Israel will be trodden under foot. That too will get plenty of video coverage.
*Then, at the very end of the Tribulation, many things that take much longer than the "twinkling of an eye" will happen.

1) Sun darkened.
2) Moon gives no light
3) Stars fall
4) Heavens shaken
5) Sign of son of man appears in heaven! ( getting good isn't it? )
6) Tribes of earth mourn. Reckon how long this takes?
7) See the Son of Man coming in clouds in great glory
Cool Angels sent to gather Israel from 4 winds ( told you they were over-run and trodden under foot ) and one end of Heaven to the other.

....................................

Now that just deals with the differences as regard the warning given for each of these two very different events. Here is my list of other comparisons wherein stark contrast occurs.

You decide.

1) Warning ( did this one for you)
2) How fast does each occur? Simple question, from it's start to it's finish, how long does it take?
3) What things must come to pass from this moment forward, BEFORE each event can occur? (Hint: I know of not one thing that would keep those graves from bursting open before I click " submit".)
4) Who will accompany Christ, (he makes an appearing at each of the two separate events.) ? Who will be with him? (Hint, it's not the same bunch)
5) This one may sound simple, but it is none-the-less relevant when you figure out there is no way the two events are the same event, nor can they happen at the same time, so ask yourself an easy one: Does Christ actually touch his foot upon the Earth at BOTH events? IF not, Why not?

.............................

Now, NONE of that made a case for "pre-trib".

None.

All it did was prove two-separate events.

NOW it is time to read ALL of II Thessalonians. Why was the letter written? What was Paul telling them?

He tells you.

He makes it plain to people who thought they had missed Christ's return, and the REASON they thought they missed it was because they were being persecuted so terribly. ( Kinda assumes THEY assumed they weren't supposed to be part of the persecution that Christ had told them, 'it ain't never been this bad on Earth before, and it won't ever be this bad again.')

He scolds them, " I told you this when I was with you, remember? Now, you Thessalonians, I do not care WHO comes teaching you some other non-sense, I don't care if it is a letter that is supposedly from ME! I don't care if an ANGEL tells you something else, NONE OF THIS will happen until that man of perdition is revealed, and he will NOT be revealed until that thing ( he) that is stopping him is " TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY ".

..................

If you are still reading, I am almost done.

Go read Genesis chapter 18. I GUARANTEE it doesn't say what you think it says.

When you get down to an ever bolder Abraham, bargaining with God Almighty. LISTEN TO ABRAHAM!

Follow the case he makes with God. READ god's answer!

NOW ask yourself if the Spirit filled, Spirit empowered CHURCH, that God himself gave his very own life for, that has remained true and faithful to him to the very end, is going to have to say here on Earth, and endure the very same destruction as the wicked???

That be far from thee! Will not the Judge of all the Earth.......





...... DO RIGHT?

Stay for the show if you want, I'm outa here and I don't care if it's 3-1/2 years, 7 years on the nose, or if it's 50 years. I'd rather be at a nice Banquet with some folks I haven't seen in a while. Y'all coming?
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
1/26/07 9:46 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Rapture theophorus
i don't necessarily agree with Mr. Zefo that ones particular belief in rapture doctrines makes no difference in their relationship with Christ.

A quick look at Azusa St. and history of the early pentecostal movement and one is reminded that the imminent return of Christ was the driving force behind their very active evangelistic missionary endeavors. Pentecostals are called to be "Eschatologial Missionary Communities" (S.J. Land). Our eschatology is the fuel for the evangelistic motor of the Church.

As far "building my case", I have no interest in "convincing" you of my position. I'm OK with you holding your position and me holding mine. I'm comfortable with letting God straighten us out.

I'm not sure why you want a "debate". When you approach the issue with a confrontive/defensive attitude, it doesn't sound you like you're interested in hearing what someone else has to say except as "evidence" to be used against them.

I just reread Matthew 24. It's exciting. I can't wait for the fullness of His kingdom to come.
Friendly Face
Posts: 210
1/26/07 9:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Peter whocansatisfy
Peter Zefo wrote:
Question for whocansatisfy (and this is not meant to be malicious!):

Why should I (or anyone) have to explain my position on the rapture to another Christian? Is not our agreement on the Way, the Truth and the Life enough?

These arguments really do nobody any good. You can believe whatever you want about the rapture and it makes ZERO difference in your relationship with Christ. Yes, ZERO!

If there is a rapture, great, I'm ready for it. Can your faith handle the possibility that there may not be a rapture? Seriously! Could you see the seals, trumpets and bowls of God's wrath be poured out on the earth and maintain your faith in an all-loving, all-powerful God?


I only want someone who has attacked me and those of us who have defended ourselves to answer these questions. They have done nothing but belittle us for our belief and said that it is nothing but a damnable lie, as one poster put it. Others have declared that we offer nothing to make our case but remain silent. Well, I'm not silent here but they have shut up pretty much. Nothing to refute what I have spelled out. Nothing but mockery and contempt.

As for your question about whether I'd be ready if He didn't come until the end, absolutely. However, I would have to tell you that I would probably be dead by the time He comes to earth as I would not take the mark of the beast. In fact, all of those who are sincere Christians will be dead as well since they will end up losing their heads, so it's highly unlikely any Christians will be alive to be raptured at that time. Hmmmm.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 10:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Rapture whocansatisfy
theophorus wrote:
i don't necessarily agree with Mr. Zefo that ones particular belief in rapture doctrines makes no difference in their relationship with Christ.

A quick look at Azusa St. and history of the early pentecostal movement and one is reminded that the imminent return of Christ was the driving force behind their very active evangelistic missionary endeavors. Pentecostals are called to be "Eschatologial Missionary Communities" (S.J. Land). Our eschatology is the fuel for the evangelistic motor of the Church.

As far "building my case", I have no interest in "convincing" you of my position. I'm OK with you holding your position and me holding mine. I'm comfortable with letting God straighten us out.

I'm not sure why you want a "debate". When you approach the issue with a confrontive/defensive attitude, it doesn't sound you like you're interested in hearing what someone else has to say except as "evidence" to be used against them.

I just reread Matthew 24. It's exciting. I can't wait for the fullness of His kingdom to come.


I'm not interested in debate Theo. I was challenged to provide text for my belief and I have done so. Those that challenged me have yet to provide anything to refute it. I'm sorry if I came off as confrontive/defensive. That has spilled over with my dealings with a few others. My apologies.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 10:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Thanks Bob whocansatisfy
Nice work Bro Bob. Thanks for your input. Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/26/07 10:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The Jews are the "ELECT" ? The strict Constructionis
Quote:
9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations FOR MY NAME'S SAKE. Matthew 24:9


If Matthew 24 is referring to the Jews, since when are Jews persecuted for their faith in the Name of Jesus? They are the ones PERSECUTING the Name of Jesus!

The ELECT are HIS disciples, US. WE are the ones persecuted for His Name.
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4295
1/26/07 10:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Whocansatisfy wrote

Quote:

I have given you some of the Scripture that indicates a pre-trib rapture, but you want to dismiss it because of what? You just don’t believe it? Give Scriptural references that allow you to discount such.


On the contrary, you have not given any scriptural evidence at all to support the pre-tribulational rapture.

You argued that Matthew 24 is about Israel. So what? Even if you interpret the passage as being about Israel, that says absolutely nothing about the rapture being before the tribulation. All you are doing is trying to dismiss theological arguments that the rapture is post-trib. Your Matthew 24 argument contributes absolutely nothing to the pre-trib position. Maybe there is something about Matthew 24 that you did not go into. So far, you have just tried to give reasons why the passage could be interpreted so as not to be post-trib. But you haven’t shown a pre-trib rapture in the passage. So this is not evidence for your position.

I see you spend a lot of space trying to argue why this or that passage does not argue in favor of a post trib rapture. But where is the scripture that gives you the idea that the rapture is pre-trib in the first place, to motivate you to have to fit everything into the pre-trib mold. You haven’t shown that scripture.

Also, on Matthew 24, Jesus is talking to a group of people who are both ‘church’ and Israel. The apostles were both. If Israelites believe in Christ and are saved they are ‘church.’ If they reject Christ, they are not ‘elect.’ The closest thing we have resembling the rapture here is the gathering together of the elect. Notice the passage does not specify the Israeli elect, and even mentions the Gospel being preached to all nations. The passage says that he ‘elect’ will be gathered, not he elect among Israel. So even if you insist the passage is about Israel in general, there is no reason to reject the idea that Gentiles can be among the elect. Do you believe that all the tribulational saints will be Hebrews and that none will be Gentiles?

Quote:

And what is the Scripture that you offer to prove otherwise? What do you “believe” is restraining the man of sin today and will be removed before tribulation? Give your scripture reference rather than say, “I don’t believe it.”


Honestly, I haven’t figured that passage out yet. But I can give you a reason that argues against it being the church. If Paul writes to a Christian audience that the man of sin will stand in the temple of God, and that this is a sign that will be fulfilled before what the Thessalonians are concerned about takes place. Notice the context the coming of the Lord and our gathering unto him (i.e. rapture) , then it stands to reason that the church will be around to see the man of sin.

The passage has the man of sin being around before the rapture. You have the church restraining him, keeping him from being revealed. But Paul says the church won’t be gathered up until the man be revealed. So if the church is restraining the man of sin, it will still be around before it starts restraining him.

And you are missing the point. Your reasoning is circular.

Consider the circular reasoning below:

“I believe in a pre-trib rapture. Therefore, I believe that that which restrains the anti-Christ is the church. Therefore, that which restrains the anti-Christ is the church.

Look at all the scriptural proof for the pre-trib rapture, because that which restrains the anti-Christ is the church.”

Let’s suppose I invented a new doctrine. I said that that which restrains the anti-Christ is the big green zipper. I write my book about a big green zipper coming out of the sky. After someone figures out how to unzip the big green zipper, the anti-Christ is unrestrainted and can come to power.

I show you this verse, II Thess 2:6
“And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.”

“See, there is my proof.” I tell you. “There it is, proof of the big green zipper doctrine. Because the big green zipper is what withholds him.”

You would then ask me for my basis for thinking that the big green zipper is what withholds—for the scripture that mentions the big green zipper in the first place. And I will do the same for you. If I understand you right and you think the rapture of the church is what withholds the man of sin, then what is your scriptural basis for mentioning the rapture occurring before the tribulation in the first place.

What I see is all the scripture indicates a rapture at the second coming. I don’t see any hint of a pre trib rapture in the New Testament at all. So I don’t see any more reason to read it into this verse than I do for reading the zipper idea into the passage. There has to be some kind of reason for you to think the rapture is pre-trib in the first place to justify reading it into this passage. Otherwise, your interpretation is just as unreasonable as my big green zipper idea—especially if the scripture we do have seems to tie the rapture so closely together with the second coming.

Quote:

The fact that there are saints around does not discount a pre-trib rapture as saints can refer to many different people, otherwise you have to “postulate” that saints can only refer to the church.


The Bible calls the Old Testament congregation ‘church.’

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

It is hard to get away from the idea that Old Testament saints are part of the ‘church’ as well.

Hebrews
12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things that that of Abel.

Won’t Old Testament saints like Abraham be a part of this church, this heavenly city?

11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Who are the spirits of just men made perfect, associated with the ‘church’ in Hebrews 12? Consider the following passage about OT saints.

Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

I find it difficult to see how you can try to argue the tribulational saints out of being the ‘church.’ Won’t they be a part of our assembly (church) or will God make them just stay by themselves and not interact with the rest of us throughout all eternity?


Quote:

As for resurrection, careful study will indicate that there will be more than one, each one for different groups. If you want to hold to one resurrection, then you have to stop at Christ for He has already resurrected and there could not possibly be another. You will also have to throw out the two witnesses unless you want to tie their resurrection into the rapture and final resurrection of the martyred saints of tribulation.



And so this gives you the right to make up a new resurrection not hinted at in scripture? Why doesn’t Revelation say that there will be a mass resurrection before the tribulation? Why doesn’t any scripture mention it. The problem here is one of inventing doctrine out of hole cloth. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that there will be a resurrection at the beginning of the Tribulation. Why don’t we interpret scripture based on what we DO SEE in scripture, instead of making something up and then trying to argue why all the verses that seem to contradict the made-up doctrine don’t really contradict it.

And I have one-upped you on this. There isn’t any verse of scripture that seems to argue against the idea of a giant green zipper falling down out of the sky. There are a number of scriptures that indicate the rapture will happen at the Second Coming.

Quote:

The problem you guys have is that you read something and “postulate” that it is the same as another similar reference in Scripture. That is dangerous and leads to confusion. For instance, some of you have talked about the “last trump” when the church is raptured. But you have given no scripture to support that. The reference in Thess. says “The trump of God.” This is NOT the same as the 7 trumpets of revelation.


Two things.

First of all, drawing correlations between passages like this is a whole lot better than just inventing a doctrine. There is no indication of a pre-trib rapture or resurrection at all. It makes more sense to try to tie two passages about trumpet blasts together than it does to invent a resurrection and put it on your time line. This is what I am looking for when I ask for scriptural evidence.

Where is the passage that indicates that there will be a resurrection of the dead and rapture before the tribulation? I am not asking for you to show me all the passages you read this idea into. I am not asking you to give me arguments for why X, Y, and Z passage do not necessarily contradict the idea of a pre-trib rapture. No, I am looking for the actual passage that indicates that there will be a pre-trib rapture/resurrection.


Secondly, I do not promote the idea that the last trump of that passage in Revelation is the trump of God in Thessalonians. That would seem to be a mid-trib viewpoint. That is, unless one does not read Revelation as chronological.
Quote:

You claim that I Thess has the Lord descending at the rapture, not seven years after. I take this to mean that you emphatically believe that the “descending” refers to the Second coming, when He comes to earth? Where does it say that? You have absolutely no proof. In fact, the verse in I Thess tells us otherwise if you are careful to notice it. Let’s look at it. Chapter 4:16 says that the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven. How does this mean that He comes all the way to earth? It doesn’t and the next verse makes it clear that He doesn’t. It says in vs. 17, “Then we which are alive and remain shall be “caught up together.” With who? With those in the clouds to MEET the Lord where? IN THE AIR. Now all of you who say there is no proof for pre-trib, prove where it says He comes to earth at this time! It doesn’t.


‘Descend’, by itself, is not absolute, hard proof of my position. But at least it is something. The most plain understanding of the passage, taken with other scripture, would seem to be that the Lord is descending because he is coming back, not because he is coming half-way back. There is no reason NOT to think that he is descending because this is the Second Coming. Scripture says nothing about Christ almost coming back, hanging around in the air for a time, and then going away. If we tie this in to any other scripture, the closest thing I can see is Christ talking about the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. And here we read about Christ’s ‘coming.’

At least I have some scripture. At least I have something to go with here. You are presenting nothing at all. You are reading pre-trib into a passage, like my facetious green zipper doctrine above.

And when you look at all the other scripture, it sure makes the most sense to intepret the Lord’s descent as the Second Coming.

I would consider this passage to be much closer to ‘proof’ of the rapture at the Second Coming.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Notice Jesus said, ‘Come again’. We see that He receives the saints unto Himself when He comes again, not when He almost comes back, but then goes back up in the sky.


Quote:
You then mentioned the OT church in the wilderness, asking why the “church” only would be a part of the bride. Well, once again you have not read carefully for the very word I used you also used. “PART.” The church is “part” of the bride. It is not “all” of the bride or the bride only. All the redeemed from Adam to the end of the age will make up the “bride.”


Show me scripture to back up your definition of the ‘bride.’ Not that I disagree with it. It is just that you have a double standard. Why would you assume the OT saints are in the ‘bride’ but then say they are not in the ‘church.’ I think I have presented stronger proof for the idea of the church including the OT saints.

And again, all of this has little bearing on the issue at hand. Even if you do not accept that the OT saints are part of the ‘church’, this still does not argue in any way in favor of the rapture taking place pre-trib.







[quote] Show me that the trumpet of Thess is the same as the 7 trumpets of Revelation. Show me where there is only one resurrection and one rapture for that matter. [quote]

1. I do not argue that the trumpets are the same. Get your posters straight.
2. I am not arguing that there is only one resurrection.


[quote]
How about you showing me actual scripture that says there will be a rapture? You accept a rapture, that is never mentioned in the Bible, but discount the timing of said rapture because you can't find the exact Scripture that says it plainly. Talk about straining at a gnat...[quote]

Sure I can. I Thessalonians 4:17
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds…

‘Rapture’ is a fancy word that comes from Latin that refers to ‘catching up.’ We will be ‘raptured’ to meet the Lord in the air. It is right there in that verse.

Quote:

You have not offered ANY evidence that would support your thinking. In fact, the more you use Scripture, the more you show yourself to be scripturally inept by looking at different events and making them one, again without any Scriptural proof.


Reading things into scripture with no scriptural reason to do so is more inept than considering similar scriptures to be talking about the same thing. Besides, I think you are talking about Yo Dude’s mid-trib stance. Keep your posters straight.

I have shown evidence for my thinking. See John 14, above. I would appreciate your comments on it. I posted it earlier.

Quote:

In fact, many of you have scoffed at Dake, Scofield, etc., because of their teachings. How absurd is that? I’m sure that each of those individuals were better versed in Scripture than any of us, yet you toss out their ideas as rubbish without offering ANYTHING to replace it.


I don’t recall commenting on either of these guys writings. And these guys are not the issue. The issue is what the Bible actually teaches. The fact is, historically, there is no evidence of anyone believing in a pre-trib rapture before a Roman Catholic priest writing an alternate view to certain Reformation doctrines (pope as man of sin, etc.. Part of the Plymouth Brethren picked up on this (though some were post-trib.) From there, Darby spread the idea. Schofield, Dake, and other promoters have promoted this doctrine.

Historically, there is no indication that the apostles, historical church figures, etc. held to a pre-trib idea until after the Reformation. There is no indication of a pre-trib rapture in the scripture. So far, you have shown any evidence, only eisegesis (reading an idea into a passage) and reasons for why a certain passage could be interpreted in a way other than post-trib.

I haven’t seen anyone else on Actscelerate present any evidence for a pre-trib rapture either, and I am still waiting.

I used to believe in pre-trib because that is what I was taught. Whenever I asked anyone about it, all I got was presuppositions, eisegesis, circular reasoning, but never anything in scripture that even hinted of the rapture occurring before the Lord’s return. But when I realized that it is based on absolutely no scripture at all, I had to let go of it and rethink what the Bible teaches. It seems pretty clear from Jesus’ words and Paul’s writings that the rapture occurs at the Second Coming.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
1/26/07 11:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Bob

I thought the wailing was was part of the wall around the temple compound, and not the temple itself.

Quote:

NOW ask yourself if the Spirit filled, Spirit empowered CHURCH, that God himself gave his very own life for, that has remained true and faithful to him to the very end, is going to have to say here on Earth, and endure the very same destruction as the wicked???

That be far from thee! Will not the Judge of all the Earth.......


Israel was still in Egypt when God sent all those plagues, some of them similar to the book of Revelation. Maybe it was a type. Notice that the wrath did not fall on the Israelites, at least not if they were obedient. I don't think the Bble tells us of any Israelites who disregarded the instructions about Passover sacrifice and not sprinkling their doorways as instructed.

Again, take a look at II Thessalonians 2

1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


Here we see several things. God lets the saints suffer tribulation. It is a part of His plan. Saints are _counted worthy_ to suffer, even.

Also, notice what happens here. When Jesus returns 'ye' receive rest, along with Paul and his coworkers. Maybe Paul wrote thsi because he expected them to be alive at the time. Or maybe he also had in mind that if his coworkers or his readers were dead, they would receive 'rest' by being resurrection from the dead, since we are not complete until the resurrection.

But look at the itme table. This takes place when Christ returns with His holy angels. The wicked are punished.

Why don't we just interpret all those allegorical visions in line with the plaine, straightforward passages of scripture?
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
1/26/07 11:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Bob, another thought:
Quote:

NOW ask yourself if the Spirit filled, Spirit empowered CHURCH, that God himself gave his very own life for, that has remained true and faithful to him to the very end, is going to have to say here on Earth, and endure the very same destruction as the wicked???


Let me ask you a question.

Will God allow the 144,000 who have not defiled themselves to face the tribulation?

Will he allow the tribulational saints who do not take the mark of the beast or worship him, to endure the tribulation?

One of the arguments for pre-trib is 'God has not appointed us unto wrath."

But God hasn't appointed the tribulational saints unto wrath, either, has He? If he le'ts them endure the tribulation, why wouldn't he allow us.

If we think about it that way, then maybe some of us will live long enough to be tribulational saints if Jesus tarries.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
1/26/07 11:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post TheoloJohn
The tribulation saints, while subjected to the wrath of Satan (just like saints throughout the Church Age) are expressly protected from the wrath of God during the tribulation:

Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Rev 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
_________________
"Of course we are concerned about people voting if they are dead," George Stanton, chief information officer for the New York State Board of Elections. Poughkeepsie Journal, October 29, 2006
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2160
1/27/07 12:27 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link Bro Bob
No hostility to you my brother.

Before the Overseer dissolved our council this past Sunday night, I had already been trying to recruit this same brother I mentioned ( who shares your understanding) to take my place. I was truly looking forward to a rest from my work, and have such confidence not only in his life, and walk with God, but also confidence that if someone became jealous of the respect and confidence the church had placed in him, and said things about him that were not true so as to bring him down to the same low opinion they had of themselves... he would be strong enough to withstand it.

I apologize. I just haven't been able to concentrate on much else these past few days and endless nights.

This pre-trib is NOT a major issue to me.

I am fine with anyone who has studied as diligently as you obviously have and come to another understanding.

I know that 11 of the 12 apostles were given the gift of martyrdom.

I know that the persecution of the early church is universally accepted as what spread the gospel to the entire world.

But we are talking about a judgement upon the whole earth.

We have Sodom and Gomorrah as a fine example, " if there be 5 righteous? If there are 5 righteous I will spare the whole city for the sake of the 5 righteous."

When the flood came, the preacher gave the warning for 120 years.

Everyone who was ready was on the boat.

Before God would destroy Ninneveh, he would send it a Jonah to warn it, and when they repented, he spared the whole place. Did they all repent?

But I cannot get away from Abraham's bravery. Will you also destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee.

This is not a persecution of the righteous for the sake of the kingdom, this is a punishment upon the wicked from a righteous God.

Perhaps a fourth of the world will perish, but none of the righteous will be among them. And then another third of what remains. ( A total of half, now ) and the righteous will again be spared.

Seems that would have been mentioned.

But no matter the time line for whether or not the catching away and the 2nd coming is exactly 7 years apart or any other, they are never mentioned interchangably, they have totally different attributes and descriptions and can not ( to me ) possibly be the same, or even part of the same event.

I CAN predict when the nail scarred foot of Christ will touch upon the Mount of Olives, and it will split in two.

It will be after 7 years of anti-christ rule. It will be 3-1/2 years after Israel is overrun.

I can NOT tell you when the catching away will happen, we will have no time line to follow, we will have no warning. It will be in such an hour as ye think not.

.................

This I can assure you absolutely:

If I have it wrong, and the thing gets underway, God won't call a time-out and make sure he is doing it exactly as Bro Bob understood it.

I'll be the delighted brother with the big grin on his face going, "oops".

See you on the other side, it isn't that big a deal to me how it goes down.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3945
1/27/07 12:43 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
The post you responded to was not only to you but others as well. I may have addressed it to you, (don't remember at this point) but once I began I spoke to all the things that I have been dealing with on this subject. So, no, I haven't gotten my posters mixed up and do not claim you wrote everything to which I responded.

I simply won't take the time to deal with this any further as you have proven my point. Your claim against what I have offered is "circular reasoning." That is fine. Unfortunately, that is all you have based your own theory on as well. As I said, I won't waste anymore time pointing that out as anyone with a modicum of intellect can see it for themselves in your post.

I am with Bob Hodo on this one. It doesn't really matter what you believe concerning the rapture. I've said it before, Jesus made it clear that it was not an issue for us to worry about. My beginning this post was in answer to the skeptics, which have remained silent, that have asked for Scripture and reasons why we believe. They, like yourself, can only debunk this theory with "circular reasoning," while claiming that the Scripture is CLEAR about the rapture is post-trib. Once again I will say, you, and no one else, has made that clear with any Scripture you have written. To come to your conclusion, you have to "pretend" that other Scriptures don't mean what they say, and that others are tied together when putting them together brings other problems that none of you have been able to deal with.

Believe what you will. It doesn't matter, UNLESS, in your comfortable position of waiting for all the signs to manifest themselves you are not looking for Him to appear if He comes before then. In that case, I don't think any of you have a leg to stand on to declare that you will make it in the rapture as the Scripture is CLEAR that He will only come back for those who are watching and waiting.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
1/27/07 12:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.