The Rapture!

[authentic]

you know, the word rapture is in the bible exactly ZERO times... why do people always try to add things to the bible?! like... mary is the mother of GOD, or what's this pergatory thing... people just keep making stuff up

sorry if i seem... i dunno, like a cry baby on alot of these posts... just very stressed.

i just dont see why so many "christians" are so dependant on something thats not even in the bible. i know the said "events" of the "rapture" are in there... but i think people might be either missing the point of the "rapture" theory or just not getting it at all. so someone is going to be talkin to Jesus and be like... "i knew the rapture would come..." and he'll be like "whats the rapture...???"

i dont know if im really getting out what im trying to say... it's been a long day.

Actually Mary is the Mother of GOD...
What is Rapture?
The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy.
An expression of ecstatic feeling. Often used in the plural.
The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven.

So if this is what Rapture means to us then how does the Bible Fit when we try to Describe Rapture.

Is Homosexual in the Bible? No however Homosexual is a Man lusting after a Man. Does the Bible talk about this? YES. Just because the Word was not created to describe something back in biblical times does not mean the Action that is attributed to that Word is not there.

I think he's correct, Mary is not the mother of God. If God is eternal, how does he have a mother? When was God ever born? This is the confusion of the Trinity. But i suppose since the thread is about the "rapture" it is clear that Christ will come at the end of the tribulation. Check Matthew 24!

[puritan lad]

IMHO - I do not think every Rapturist really believes all the world is a lost cause and PL - who is the guy you quoted that said this and in what context was it stated?

It was D.L. Moody who, when addressing Christianity in terms of social influence, said, "You don't polish the brass on a sinking ship". This mindset is still prominent in Rapturist circles. Ice, LaHaye, and others have echoed this same sentiment. (Oddly enough, LeHaye's wife is head of Concerned Women for America, a conservative, evangelical group trying to change our culture with the gospel.) Consider the following article from the wacky, NWO site Signs of the Times: So why bother? Not saying that all rapturists hold to this mindset, but the clear majority do.

Also, another question for the discussion - is the Preterist position - Dominionism or part Dominionism?

I like Chilton's answer, although I disagree with his strict theonomy:

"Biblical postmillennialism is not an absolute universalist; nor does it teach that at some future point in history absolutely everyone living will be converted. Ezekiel's prophecy of the River of Life suggests that some outlying areas of the world — the “swamps” and “marshes” — will not be healed, but will be “given over to salt,” remaining unrenewed by the living waters (Ezek. 47:11). To change the image: Although the Christian “wheat” will be dominant in world culture, both the wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest at the end of the world (Matt. 13:37-43)."

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I've supported my Pre-70 AD statement. Would you care to support this one?

It is important, then, that premillennialism was not only the position of the Apostolic Church, but also that it persisted in spite of supression!

I've done some searching through the Ante-Nicene fathers, and can find no evidence whatsoever to support this. Here is an article that seriously challenges your statement. Interestingly, it includes research by one of your own, Patrick Boyd, who did his Master's thesis on Dispensationalism at Dallas Theological Seminary Boyd actually set out to prove true the Dispensationalists' claim that history was on their side up through Justin Martyr. But what Boyd actually concluded was the claim that premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church is “historically invalid.”

See Eschatology in History

In any case, I would like for you to support your statement other than with the questionable evidence of Dispensational Scholars. Please give accurate quotes by the Apostolic Fathers that showed they were indeed Pre-millennial. (I have only found two references to an Millennium at all, and they are totally inconclusive).

With regard to imminence, it is a two-edged sword against Dispensationalism. On one hand, the writer spoke of an imminent "coming" prior to 70 AD, then he was more than likely referring to 70 AD, since this was the only "imminent" coming. On the other hand, if the writer was writing after 70 AD and was referring to the Second Advent as "imminent", then we would have to write him off as ill-informed, since 1900 years later, the Second Coming hasn't happened yet. Either way, with regards the historical argument, Dispensationalism loses.

[Jac3510]

NP, PL. For the recod, though, Sun-Tues are almost impossible days for me to respond with anything of any depth, as Mon and Tues I am at school from 8 AM to 9 PM. Sunday morning is church, of course, and Sunday night is spent finishing up assignments from the week.

[Fortigurn]

Jac,

I've supported my Pre-70 AD statement. Would you care to support this one?

It is important, then, that premillennialism was not only the position of the Apostolic Church, but also that it persisted in spite of supression!

I've done some searching through the Ante-Nicene fathers, and can find no evidence whatsoever to support this. Here is an article that seriously challenges your statement. Interestingly, it includes research by one of your own, Patrick Boyd, who did his Master's thesis on Dispensationalism at Dallas Theological Seminary Boyd actually set out to prove true the Dispensationalists' claim that history was on their side up through Justin Martyr. But what Boyd actually concluded was the claim that premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church is “historically invalid.”

See Eschatology in History

That's astonishing. He quotes a single source (Eusebius). That's it? That's all the proof? That's not very convincing.

Here's the list of Premillennialists I've turned up, mainly using information from Amillennialist websites:

115 Papias
110-165 Justin Martyr
180 Irenaeus
c.163 Aviricius Marcellus
185 Tertullian
194 (b.) Clement
200 Hippolytus
280 Methodius
280 Nepos
300 Victorinus
305 Commodianus
306 Lactantius
c. 347 Cyril
c. 350 Aphrahat
315-386 Cyprian
401 Severus
407 John Chrysostom
c. 450 Theodoret

[IRQ Conflict]

Not saying that all rapturists hold to this mindset, but the clear majority do.

I find this hard to believe. I have yet to come across anyone who believes in the rapture of the church thinking we can walk through life without oil for our lamps. Where is this proof of "the clear majority"? Are you saying this is integral to the rapturist doctrine?

[puritan lad]

That's not what I said IRQ. The Rapture mindset is that the world is a lost cause, and that the important thing is to save as many souls as we can before the rapture takes place. In other words, the Great Commission will fail in this age.

Fortigurn,

Can you give me exact quotes from a few of these (I'm already familiar with Papias and Justin Martyr)? In any case, the list hardly leads one to conclude that "premillennialism was ... the position of the Apostolic Church". In fact, a number of Apostolic Fathers held that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, and were, at best, amillennial. Very few even addressed a 1,000 year reign, and those few who believed in a literal millennial reign were considered to be "very limited in ... comprehension", given to "strange parables", and came by these beliefs through "oral traditions".

And despite all this talk about "seeds", I still hold that the pre-trib rapture theory was the invention of the Plymouth Brethren in the early 1800's.

[puritan lad]

Fortigurn,

I'm particularly interested in the following on your list. What makes you say that these fathers were premillennial?

Tertullian, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled both the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70th week.

Clement of Alexandria, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled both the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70th week.

Hippolytus, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse.

Cyprian, who wrote Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews and believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse.

Severus, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled Daniel's 70 Week Prophecy.

John Chrysostom, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse, (especially the “great tribulation”.)

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

Can you give me exact quotes from a few of these (I'm already familiar with Papias and Justin Martyr)?

Irenaeus:

3. The blessing of Isaac with which he blessed his younger son Jacob has the same meaning, when he says, "Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a full field which the Lord has blessed." But "the field is the world." And therefore he added, "God give to thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, plenty of corn and wine. And let the nations serve thee, and kings bow down to thee; and be thou lord over thy brother, and thy father's sons shall bow down to thee: cursed shall be he who shall curse thee, and blessed shall be he who shall bless thee." If any one, then, does not accept these things as referring to the appointed kingdom, he must fall into much contradiction and contrariety, as is the case with the Jews, who are involved in absolute perplexity.

For not only did not the nations in this life serve this Jacob; but even after he had received the blessing, he himself going forth [from his home], served his uncle Laban the Syrian for twenty years; and not only was he not made lord of his brother, but he did himself bow down before his brother Esau, upon his return from Mesopotamia to his father, and offered many gifts to him. Moreover, in what way did he inherit much corn and wine here, he who emigrated to Egypt because of the famine which possessed the land in which he was dwelling, and became Subject to Pharaoh, who was then ruling over Egypt?

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand dusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine.

And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.

Against Heresies, Book 5, chapter 33, section 3

Lactantius:

Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says "In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day."

And as God laboured during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labour during these six thousand years, while wickedness prevails and bears rule. And again, since God, having finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness reign for a thousand years; and there must be tranquillity and rest from the labours which the world now has long endured.

But how that will come to pass I will explain in its order. We have often said that lesser things and things of small importance are figures and previous shadowings forth of great things; as this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great clay to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits.

Divine Institutes, Book 7, chapter 14

See chapter 19 for further detail (a lot, including the premillennial return of Christ, with resurrection and judgment at his return).

Nepos (in Eusebius):

'He taught that the promises given to holy men in the scriptures should be understood more as the Jews understood them, and supposed that there would be a certain Millennium of sensual luxury on this earth: thinking, therefore, that he could establish his own opinion by the Revelation of John...

He asserts that there will be an earthly reign of Christ.'

Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, chapter 23

Tertullian:

But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above;" and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven.

This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. And the word of the new prophecy which is a part of our belief, attests how it foretold that there would be for a sign a picture of this very city exhibited. to view previous to its manifestation. This prophecy, indeed, has been very lately fulfilled in an expedition to the East. For it is evident from the testimony of even heathen witnesses, that in Judaea there was suspended in the sky a city early every morning for forty days.

As the day advanced, the entire figure of its walls would wane gradually, and sometimes it would vanish instantly. We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the world we have either despised or lost; since it is both just and God-worthy that His servants should have their joy in the place where they have also suffered affliction for His name's sake. Of the heavenly kingdom this is the process.

After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their deserts there will ensue the destruction of the world and the conflagration of all things at the judgment: we shall then be changed in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven of which we have now been treating, just as if it had not been predicted by the Creator, and as if it were proving Christ to belong to the other god and as if he were the first and sole revealer of it.

Against Marcion, chapter 25

Commodianus:

From heaven will descend the city in the first resurrection; this is what we may tell of such a celestial fabric. We shall arise again to Him, who have been devoted to Him. And they shall be incorruptible, even already living without death. And neither will there be any grief nor any groaning in that city. They shall come also who overcame cruel martydom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.

There are prepared all the revenues of the earth, because the earth renewed without end pours forth abundantly. Therein are no rains; no cold comes into the golden camp. No sieges as now, nor rapines, nor does that city crave the light of a lamp. It shines from its Founder.

Moreover, Him it obeys; in breadth 12,000 furlongs and length and depth. It levels its foundation in the earth, but it raises its head to heaven. In the city before the doors, moreover, sun and moon shall shine; he who is evil is hedged up in torment, for the sake of the nourishment of the righteous. But from the thousand years God will destroy all those evils.

Instructions In Favour Of Christian Discipline, chapter 44

There are other chapters with more.

Hippolytus:

'For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works."'

'For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." [Hippolytus' misquotes here — this phrase does not appear in Revelation, but in 2 Peter 3:8]

Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.'

Commentary on Daniel, part 2, section 4,

It's getting late here, and I have to get up early, but I can finish this off later.

In any case, the list hardly leads one to conclude that "premillennialism was ... the position of the Apostolic Church".

No, we turn to the Bible for that.

In fact, a number of Apostolic Fathers held that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70, and were, at best, amillennial. Very few even addressed a 1,000 year reign, and those few who believed in a literal millennial reign were considered to be "very limited in ... comprehension", given to "strange parables", and came by these beliefs through "oral traditions".

You mean the post-Apostolic fathers. I need to see support for the claims you make here.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Nevertheless, a large number of Christians of the post-Apostolic era, particularly in Asia Minor, yielded so far to Jewish apocalyptic as to put a literal meaning into these descriptions of St. John's Apocalypse; the result was that millenarianism spread and gained staunch advocates not only among the heretics but among the Catholic Christians as well.

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

I'm particularly interested in the following on your list. What makes you say that these fathers were premillennial?

The fact that they believed Christ still hadn't returned, but would return prior to the resurrection, judgment, and millennial reign.

Tertullian, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled both the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70th week.

Clement of Alexandria, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled both the Olivet Discourse and Daniel's 70th week.

Hippolytus, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse.

Cyprian, who wrote Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews and believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse.

Severus, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled Daniel's 70 Week Prophecy.

John Chrysostom, who believed that 70 AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse, (especially the “great tribulation”.)

Really?

I think you have to be careful here. Certainly most of the Early Fathers believed that the 70 weeks prophecy and the Olivet prophecy were largely fulfilled in the 1st century, but they also believed that the last part of the Olivet prophecy referred to the return of Christ, and would not be fulfilled until then. Chrysostom is particularly good here.

That is the Historicist view (remember, we believe that the 70 weeks were fulfilled in the 1st century).

A handful of them had some almost Futurist views on parts of the Olivet prophecy, but not many.

[puritan lad]

Fortigurn,

I would agree here, as I stated earlier, there is no consensus on eschatology in the early church. That is contrary to Jac's view "that premillennialism was ... the position of the Apostolic Church". In fact, it is quite clear that the Apostolic Church held views that are contrary to Dispensationalism, especially with regard to Israel. Chrysostom clearly believed that the "great tribulation" was a past event. So much for the "seeds" of a pre-trib rapture.

Oh the way, Justin Martyr was amillennial. Here are a few quotes:

Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)

"Chiliasm (millenialism) found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed," (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn,

I would agree here, as I stated earlier, there is no consensus on eschatology in the early church. That is contrary to Jac's view "that premillennialism was ... the position of the Apostolic Church".

It does appear, however, to have been the majority position until the 4th century, when the 'church 'decided they would much rather grab power on earth than wait for the Kingdom of God. Why bother waiting for the rule of Christ, when you can gain political power right now? After all, the reign of Christ wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

In fact, it is quite clear that the Apostolic Church held views that are contrary to Dispensationalism, especially with regard to Israel.

I agree with that.

Chrysostom clearly believed that the "great tribulation" was a past event. So much for the "seeds" of a pre-trib rapture.

Oh the way, Justin Martyr was amillennial. Here are a few quotes:

Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)

That says he wasn't looking for a human kingdom, not that he was an amillennialist.

Here's another quote from Martyr:

I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged.'

Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80

That doesn't look very amillennial.

"Chiliasm (millenialism) found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed," (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).

I don't know where you found that quote, but I can assure you that Justin Martry never said that. I've already demonstrated that attempting to ignore the significant witness of the Early Fathers with weasel words like 'no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers' (who defines 'the best'?), is pointless in the face of the actual evidence.

[Jac3510]

That is contrary to Jac's view "that premillennialism was ... the position of the Apostolic Church".

You know what, PL . . .

Just forget it. I don't wish any evil on you, but I'm finished with our discussions. I just can't handle your misrepresentation of me and my beliefs any longer. Maybe in the near future I'll be able to look back through these discussions and see that I went wrong in my explanations, but as of right now, all I see is me making clear statements and you ignoring and/or twisting my arguments. I said early on with you that I have absolutely zero interest in changing your mind. That isn't going to happen. My only interest is in clarity, and that is not happening, so you and I have no common ground to work from.

PL, it's not Calvinists. It's you. I had a massive debate with two thoroughly reformed guys today. They get what I'm saying. They don't try to twist my position. In fact, they are actually trying to understand rather than just argue. It hasn't clicked yet, but it will. And, when it does, they'll decide for themselves what they believe. That's all I'm after, is understanding. You and I aren't getting that. I've tried. I've done my very best, and it's not been enough.

So, God bless and best of luck

[puritan lad]

Jac, Here is the exactly quote from you, in full.

It is important, then, that premillennialism was not only the position of the Apostolic Church, but also that it persisted in spite of supression! Where there is pretribulationalism, there is imminence, and where there is imminence, there is the seed of the doctrine of the pre-trib Rapture.

Pray tell me where I misrepresented your position here. Did you no clearly say that premillennialism was the position of the Apostolic Church? You have offered no proof for this assertion, and have offered only Thomas Ice's weak and irresponsible arguments for the historic validity of the rapture, which have been throughly refuted.

The fact is that your "seeds" come from, at best, historical premills, which do NOT hold to a pre-trib rapture. This is also true of the majority of the sources Ice quoted, save Dolcino. If you want Dolcino as one of your own, you can have him.

Now if you wish to scrap the historical debate and go straight for Sola Scriptura, I'm game. I have yet to find, in the Bible, a pre-trib rapture, a third Jewish Temple, a future tribulation period, a Russian Invasion of Israel, or any of the other Dispensational mainstays. And you have yet to outline your refined Dispensational timeline.

[IRQ Conflict]

Quick question here guy's.

Does the belief in pre tribulation rapture require a 3rd comming of Christ?