| Author | Message | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 808 Registered: 7-2003  |
Skip, the SDAs I know claim the catholic priests came up with "the rapture" to keep them from looking like the beast. As I mentioned in my post, I was trying to clarify where the TERM rapture came from. I've never heard of this "false teaching" you mention above by that scottish person, and am very familiar with the SDA position against Dallas Theological Seminary because if you go far enough back through their history, someone somewhere was influenced by some catholic priest. My post was scripture only and merely an explanation of where the term itself came from using it's latin roots, not as Chris mentions, a discussion of "when" the catching away will happen. IF I have mis-represented scripture in any way, I'd like to see that explained. But trying to link what I wrote with someone else I never referenced seems like putting words in my mouth. To me, disputing the rapture is like saying the word "trinity" isn't in scripture. I guess it depends upon which language you're reading, in the case of the term "rapture". And if you can't use rapture, then you can't use baptism ...another transliterated word where the English meaning is "to immerse". I've never heard a similar argument against the term baptism. Yet, baptism is a greek word, not an english word. Yet we don't mind using baptism to reference immersion, but we have a problem with rapture to reference catching away? I'd be glad to be corrected, if you can show my error. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 241 Registered: 7-2004 |
The Adventists do believe in the Rapture, but don't know they believe in it. They have all of these lovely paintings of the second coming with people lifting off the ground being carried to the Saviour by the angels. That's the rapture, being snatched away from the earth! We believe that is the way the Christians will be transitioned from mortal earth to immortal heaven. I've yet to understand why we all have to fight over the rapture issue. Belva | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 242 Registered: 7-2004 |
Okay, we all believe in the mechanics of the rapture, our discussions all have to do with the "when" and "what happens next" of the issue. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1659 Registered: 12-2003  |
It's amazing (but probably shouldn't be) that Adventists have "demonized" the word "rapture" and speak disparagingly of it in their public lectures. (I've heard Doug Batchelor holding forth on the unbiblicalness of the rapture.) The rapture is a certainty. As Chris and Belva have said, it's just a matter of "when". This is another of those Adventist vocabulary issues. They've made a perfectly wonderful word a dirty word--and in so doing have besmirched the whole subject of Jesus' coming and the unanswered questions of "when". By making "rapture" a dirty word, they can clear out all other teaching but their own and teach "the second coming" using their warped Adventist escahtology. It's another point of dishonesty. But praise God for redeeming all these presuppositions we have and teaching us His word! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 345 Registered: 4-2000  |
Rapture theology, as taught by Tim Lahaye and others, came on the scene near the time of the Millerite Movement in the United States. It is not the word that is faulty, but rather the theology. For example, Dr. Paul Meier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University and president of the Lutheran Church (MS), states in an article titled, "The Bible and the End Times," the following: "Rapture theology is only a recent novelty when it comes to church history. A little Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald claimed a revelation in 1830, and a traveling evangelist named J. N. Darby took it as his own and marketed it successfully to the 19th century American church--to our detriment ever since, in my opinion. An American preacher, Cyrus Scofield, edited a Bible that amplified Darby's views, and millions of Evangelicals use it now. I guess they figure the church has had it all wrong during its first 18 centuries!" Dispensational premillennialism is about as complex as the SDA prophetic timelines. Popular fascination with the fictional LEFT BEHIND series brought this view to our attention as no other marketing strategy could have done. To his credit, Tim Lahaye says that he may be wrong after all his book sales. It can be argued that a novel approach can promote a theology that otherwise would have no chance to become widely known and/or accepted. It is important to remember that most Christians do not accept rapture theology. However, Christians agree on the second coming itself. My wife spent a good part of a year studying rapture theology. Her conclusion is that "it is too busy" akin to an art piece. As we have learned from Adventism, when views are less than orthodox they require alot of explanation. Additionally, the visions of the youthful Margaret MacDonald did not entice Sylvia's leanings toward the rapturist view. As former Adventists, we are no longer attracted to young visionaries. It is not unexpected that apologists of this view want to distance themselves from the claims of Margaret MacDonald. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Brenttn Registered user Username: Brenttn Post Number: 3 Registered: 2-2005 |
Is it possible in our haste to put distance between ourselves and EGW, we forget that Acts 2 references the fact that in the last days Old people will dream Dreams and young people will have visions from God? Are we in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? It seems obvious to me that the movement of the Holy Spirit in the last days is something that we can only conjecture about until the Holy Spirit manifests in our day to day walk with Christ. Never would the HS lead us against the written word (LOGOS), so we have a responsibility as we cry out to God to pour out the Holy Spirit to test the message that He gives to us. | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 274 Registered: 3-2004  |
Brenttn, are you saying that you feel Margaret MacDonald's visions were from God and that pretrib rapture is correct theologically speaking? Just curious as to whether you were speaking to that or to the larger issues of being led by walking in the Spirit. Praise God... | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 777 Registered: 7-2003  |
Brent, notice that Peter says, "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but THIS is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:15,16 emphasis mine) Peter is saying the Joel's prophecy was fulfilled AT Pentacost, not at some time in the distant future. Several times in the Bible we see the NT writers referring to their time (post cross) as the last days. They had already entered the last days in the first century A.D. Peter clearly applies Joel's prophecy to the what was happening on the day of Pentacost. Does this mean that this activity couldn't continue throughout the church age? Not necessarily, although that is a point of debate in the Church. In this post I am not debating cessationist vs. charismatic theology, I am just pointing out that within the context of Acts 2, there is no contextual warrant for applying Joel's prophecy to something other than what the apostle Peter applied it to. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 480 Registered: 10-2004  |
I admit that I have not researched the claims of either side regarding MacDonald, etc., myself, but just thought I would post that for some balance. Jeremy | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 246 Registered: 7-2004 |
I have a book somewhere (I recently moved and all of my books are in storage) that indicates there have been hints of rapture theology since the very early church (I think Origin was one of the first to mention it). I can't say anything more about it now because I don't have the reference text with me. I agree with Brenttn that we shouldn't be too hasty about throwing this particular bit of theology on the scrap heap! Belva | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1667 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris is right when he states that the Joel 2:28 prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost--and, I believe we are safe in saying, continues to be fulfilled in the body of Christ which is composed of new creations with spirits brought to life by the Holy Spirit. The passages which discuss the gifts of the Spirit, particularly 1 Cor. 12 and Romans 12, are very clear that the gifts are given according to the will of God. They are also given for the edification of the body of Christ. Therefore, it should not suprise us if dreams and visions are more rare in certain cultures than in others. One thing we can know for sure, though, is that no vision or dream will add to salvation or the Scripture. If it is from God, it will be be completely consonant with the Bible. Hebrews 1:2 clarifies that in the past God made His will known through prophets, but in these last days His revelation is through Jesus Christ. We can be quite sure that we will not be receiving new doctrines through anyone's dreams or visions. Any dreams or visions which may come from God will be for the purpose of revealing Christ, edifying the church according to Biblical standards, etc. There are many things the Bible leaves unclear. I believe that they are unclear because God wants them to be unclear. While it is not wrong to wrestle with these issues and even to arrive at conclusions about them--even when they differ among members of the body--I do not believe we can expect any new doctrines to be forthcoming from visions. For decades the church has not been in agreement about the details of eschatology. That disagreement does not make anyone less a follower of Christ than another. Likewise, people differ about whether or not the gifts of theh Spirit were only for the apostolic age or for the church. While I personally believe they are for the church--with the exception of apostles who founded the church--that doesn't mean I might not be wrong. My caution about dreams and visions is not that I believe people won't have them; I believe that God has revealed His will to individuals through these means in various times and places since Pentecost. My caution is that we find ourselves confused and begin accepting new doctrinal interpretations based on dreams or visions. What we need to know for life and godliness and doctrinal purity is revealed through Scripture, and with the teaching of the Holy Spirit, we can learn God's will and God's truth through Scripture. Prophetic messages will be for speaking the truth about God and revealing the truth about Jesus, not about new doctrines or practices for salvation. Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 219 Registered: 7-2004  |
Dennis, I loved your post about your wife's comment.
I find it a reasonable principle of Biblical interpretation that the more "explanation of what the text really means" that is needed, the less likely the resulting truth will be meaningful. | ||
| Brenttn Registered user Username: Brenttn Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2005 |
PG, I was not endorsing Margaret MacDonald's visions, neither was I endorsing a pretrib theology, rather, as you suggested, I was trying to point out that I would not want to stifle what God may try to do through the Holy Spirit because I have taken a theological position of cesationism as a backlash reaction to EGW. Colleen, I think I am actually on the same page as you, I don't see the prophetic in the last days as defining theology, but rather for the exhortation and building up of the body of Christ. I have heard it said recently that personal prophecy is really opening your ears, eyes and heart to the Holy Spirit and passing on the encouraging words that you sense are for someone else. In essence it is communicating Jesus' great love for the recipient, and perhaps providing a word in due season that lifts them up and bolsters their faith in a difficult situation. I have been in churches recently where a person felt like God wanted them to speak out to a certain issue, and in that church it is accepted in an orderly manner, and the words that this person spoke were extremely relevant to the situation that my wife and I were facing. It provided confirmation that what we felt God was leading us to do was indeed on the right track. Again, it was not a matter of choosing right or wrong, nor was it an issue of doctrinal clarity or anything like that. It was just a life decision that most families have to make on a regular basis, we knew what scriptures the holy spirit was illuminating as relevant for our decison process and it was just a nice confirmation to what we already knew to have prophetic word (word of knowledge?) given. With that said, I will not be surprised if we find that Joel 2 is a dual prophecy that has relevance and fulfillment not only at Pentecost, but also in the last days of this earth's history. Paul said to COVET to prophecy,
I do not believe that he only meant for his time, the NT was given to help us live our lives and so I take him literally. After all he wasn't even at pentecost. It is not because I want to be a prophet, but because I want to let God use me to be a blessing to others speaking words of encouragement that He "lays on my heart" or shows me in some snapshot image, or speaks in my ear, or however He chooses to reveal Himself. A prophet's path is a lonely path, read Jeremiah, or Hosea, or Isaiah!!! No, that is not what I would choose for myself. And yet even as Jeremiah said, "Here am I lord, send Me!" Oh, one parting thought for this evening  As Adventists we were taught about the "remnant church" having the "spirit of prophecy" Of course then we were taught that EGW was the spirit of prophecy. But I would submit that the spirit of prophecy is more like what king Saul experienced in 1 Samuel 19:20-24 where when he came into the presence of the company of prophets he started to prophecy along with them! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1674 Registered: 12-2003 |
Great points, Brent! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 350 Registered: 4-2000 |
FAITH'S FUTURE The notion of a rapture in which Christ comes unseen to take believers away secretly, and only later comes back again for everyone else publicly--this whole approach is quite new to the Christian church. It was almost unheard of until John Nelson Darby formulated it in the 1800s as part of a new approach to the Bible, sometimes called "dispensationalism." But before Darby and Scofield, few churches taught of a secret rapture, and few Christians believed it. Through many centuries of proclaiming the Bible's message, Christian churches taught that Christ would return just once, publicly, for all to see, that he would then raise the dead, and that he would confirm his verdict of eternal life for his people and eternal punishment for all who reject him. This has been the teaching of the historic Christian faith, and it is still the best way to understand what the Bible is saying. The whole world will know when King Jesus has arrived. The whole world will see bodies rise from graves, living believers transformed into a glorified state, and all of them rushing upward to meet their Savior. Those who don't rise up to meet Jesus will be left to face his fire. But whether a person is delighted or terrified, each one will know the King has come. The Bible makes clear that the rapture (being caught up) will be part of something NOISY ENOUGH for all to hear and OBVIOUS ENOUGH for all to see (see 1 Thess. 4:16-17). Now, if this rapture, being caught up to meet the Lord in the air, is preceded by a loud command from the Almighty, the thunderous voice of the greatest angel, and the trumpet call of God, how can it be hidden or secret? Jesus' appearance on the scene would be enough in itself to devastate all enemies. And Jesus won't be alone. Angel armies will be with him, millions of heavenly warriors, each angel strong enough to devastate hosts of humans. Joining those armies will be all God's people from every age. You may wonder why Jesus' followers will rise up to meet him in the air. The answer is found in the overwhelming nature of Jesus coming; believers will be so overwhelmed with joy that they want to meet him as he comes, and earth will be so overwhelmed with fiery judgment that believers will need to be evacuated before the fire hits. Believers will be overwhelmed with joy when they hear the voice of the Son of God and see him coming. This is like a busy father returning from a business trip. His little ones fly out the door to meet him. They don't just sit around waiting for him to come into the house; they rush outside, even though they know he is on his way toward the house. Why do they do this? Because they love their daddy, they're delighted to see him after he's been away, and they're eager to welcome him back. They know that there will be hugging, playing tag, reading stories, and doing things they enjoy. For a similar reason, believers will rush upward to meet the Lord Jesus. His return is the moment they've been waiting for, the time for them to be with the One they love and to enjoy him. Importantly to note, unlike a thief, he won't sneak in and out secretly; but, like a thief, he will come suddenly and unexpectedly. All in all, the rapture will be public, overwhelming, sudden, and FINAL. Anyone who is not caught up to meet the Lord will never be saved. There will be no second chance for mankind. Jesus' coming isn't a topic for speculation and novel mind games. It's the ultimate horror for all who are not right with God. But it's the ultimate hope for all who know the Lord. Scripture speaks of it as "the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). In the "blessed hope," Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Bob Registered user Username: Bob Post Number: 152 Registered: 7-2000  |
Dennis, thank you for your articulate and inspiring post above. For me, a key verse on this subject is 2 Thessalonians 2:1. There, Paul refers to the return of Jesus by using BOTH Greek words, parousia [public, visible revelation] and episunagoges [gathering together to Him, or "rapture"] to refer to the SAME event! In the broader context of verses 1 through 12, it seems clear to me that Paul is using both of these words to describe ONE return of Jesus as King. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1687 Registered: 12-2003 |
Thank you, Dennis and Bob. I agree; I don't see any clear evidence to support multiple returns of Christ. I'm admitting there are issues of the millennial kingdom I'm not clear about--Rev. 20 certainly sounds as if the millennium occurs before the resurrection of the wicked--but I see only one coming of Christ. The Bible doesn't really give any precedent for the idea that God removes His people from persecution. He never leaves them, it's true; yet God does allow His people to suffer. Again, I'm happy to be able to live without understanding exactly how it will happen. I think sometimes about how the Jews, who had all the law, ceremonies, psalms, and prophecies, missed Jesus nevertheless. Sometimes I just ask Him to keep me from being deceived and to help me to know the truth and to recognize Him and His will as events unfold. Colleen | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 282 Registered: 3-2004 |
Unfortunately I live in a part of the country where it just seems to be almost an accepted fact that you believe in the pretrib rapture. I have heard countless sermons on the rapture, well put together ones with video clips from movies etc. Dramas, you name it. Yet I agree with Dennis' wife especially, that it's just too "busy" of a belief and you've got to do all that twisting like we did in Adventism to make it look right. I have no problem with believers who want to be Dispensationalists (most are around here) but when it's promoted as doctrine, it is slowing me down on finding a church home. The mainline churches around here I have attended are really quite dead. A couple of weeks ago I went to a beautiful sanctuary building. Only a few scattered people around. There was just a blanket of oppression over the place. But doctrinally, I could have done well there. Today I'm attending an Easter Cantata for church service this morning. I'm even taking my SDA husband with me. Praise God... | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1689 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dear Praise God, You might find it's not all that bad to attend a church where you know the Bible is honored, Christ is exalted, the Holy Spirit is present, but some of their exchatology is different from yours. Our preaching pastor and his wife are both graduates of Dallas Seminary (so is Chuck Swindoll, by the way), and it is known to be a dispensationalist, pre-trib-teaching school. In spite of our pastor's pre-trib bias (he was raised in the tradition and leans toward it as his interpretation of coming events in spite of publicly stating that the more he studies, the more questions he has about the pre-trib rapture), still he is the best Bible teacher/expositor I've ever heard. I can live with his (seldom stated) pre-trib bias and also Elizabeth's because they are alive in Christ, they honor Jesus and are true to the Bible. His sermons always take us to Christ, and the worship in our church is reverent and spirit-filled. It is an alive and healthy church. I would much rather worship there than at a cold or dead or otherwise un-alive church where I might agree with every point of eschatology. I can hold my own questions and opinions and study on my own and still be blessed and grow under the Inrig's teaching. Just a thought. How did your husband respond to the Easter Cantata, by the way? Colleen | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 827 Registered: 7-2003 |
I'm curious how many people would echo your sentiments, Colleen. For some reason, it seems some judge the validity of one's entire Christian experience based upon how they view end-time events. DTS seems to get a lot of negative press as well when the only thing people know about it is that it has a dispensationalist view. I know some wonderful people who were educated there. And as you've noticed, they're genuine Christ followers. |
