06 Apr 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Badwater======================================
There are many definitions of rapture. From a literal viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a supernatural viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a Christological viewpoint I don't see it as existing.
If that isn't good enough for you then tough cookies.
There are many definitions of rapture. From a literal viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a supernatural viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a Christological viewpoint I don't see it as existing.
If that isn't good enough for you then tough cookies.
==========================================
So you're just ignorant of the Scriptures. That is all you've told me.
You said exactly nothing about Enoch (Gen. 5:22-25) where I told you to start. Looks like the "tough cookies" are with you, too tough for you to back up your concept with a coherent argument.
Other than "O there are so many definitions. And I don't see any raptures" you have nothing to present. That's pretty poor.
So let's probe the depth of your profound objection just a little.
What happened to Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24? When it says "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him."
What does that mean to you ? Where did God take Enoch ?
Why does that not qualify to be a "rapture" of a man of God?
Do you think Enoch was in a state of happiness or do you think God took him away kicking and screaming ?
I think he may have well have been ecstatic (ie. in rapture). He walked with God daily. And one day the God whom he walked with carried him away somewhere.
So tell me now how you can't see that as a rapture in the typical sense as Christians speak, Or is that too "tough cookies" for you to handle ?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillI'm not ignorant of the Scriptures, not by a long shot. My interpretation, my theology, my Christology is quite different from yours; that's all.
======================================
There are many definitions of rapture. From a literal viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a supernatural viewpoint I don't see it as existing. From a Christological viewpoint I don't see it as existing.
If that isn't good enough for you then tough cookies.
==========================================
So you're just ignorant of the Scriptures. That is all you've told me.
...[/b]
06 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterSo rapture is there in Scripture with Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24, but you just don't believe it ?
I'm not ignorant of the Scriptures, not by a long shot. My interpretation, my theology, my Christology is quite different from yours; that's all.
Your theology doesn't accept Enoch's experience as being a truthful account ?
I am getting the feeling that you don't really want to talk about this. Maybe you just want to blow off some bluster.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywillNo, I do not believe in the literal account of Enoch being lifted up in the firmament known as the heavens of thousands of years ago. I do not believe that he, or Jesus, literally ascended into the icy cold atmosphere to freeze their tushes off. I do not believe there is, physically and literally, anywhere for them to go to.
So rapture is there in Scripture with [b]Enoch in Genesis 5:22-24, but you just don't believe it ?
Your theology doesn't accept Enoch's experience as being a truthful account ?
I am getting the feeling that you don't really want to talk about this. Maybe you just want to blow off some bluster.[/b]
I understand it as a metaphor for Enoch's closeness to God. I can do something with that. I can't do anything with physical impossibilities.
06 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Badwater================================
No, I do not believe in the literal account of Enoch being lifted up in the firmament known as the heavens of thousands of years ago. I do not believe that he, or Jesus, literally ascended into the icy cold atmosphere to freeze their tushes off. I do not believe there is, physically and literally, anywhere for them to go to.
I understand it as a metaphor eness to God. I can do something with that. I can't do anything with physical impossibilities.
No, I do not believe in the literal account of Enoch being lifted up in the firmament known as the heavens of thousands of years ago.
=================================
It just says "and he was not, for God took him" (Gen 5:24)
It doesn't really say how high or where does it?
In fact "God took him" doesn't even specify a direction, does it ?
And all the other people in the chapter died - "and he died ... and he died ... and he died ... and he died ... and he died ...etc."
But Enoch was taken. If this just means that he died close to God why does it not just say so ?
============================
I do not believe that he, or Jesus, literally ascended into the icy cold atmosphere to freeze their tushes off.
===========================
I don't have a problem like this. The only way I could have this problem would be to blank out all the physically miraculous events of the Bible. That would render the book largely sensless.
In fact the very first sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" lays a firm foundation for the fact in God being Almighty in every realm including the physical.
Furthermore, a so-called de- miraculous Bible renders God's salvation limited to only the spiritual part of man. But I believe that He is not only "the God of the spirits of all flesh" but "the God of all flesh" as well.
Your theology, I think, dehumanizes man by suggesting that God only cares for one component of man, his spiritual component. But man is "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess. 5:23). And the Bible does not teach your extremely scanted and narrow view of His saving work. But it reveals His salvation of man's physical body as well and of the whole environment of man.
I find your theology very stinted.
===============================
I do not believe there is, physically and literally, anywhere for them to go to.
==================================
In this day and age of modern physics since Einstien this doesn't bother me at all.
With such discoveries as time dilation, the idea of worm holes, tunnels in space, multiple dimensions etc, I think it is easier today to believe that God has unusual places to transport people to or through than 400 years ago.
All I really mean is that science has shown us that the universe is not only queerer than we imagined. It may be queerer than we CAN imagine. So I am not that bothered by Christ ascending before His disciples in a cloud upwards.
If you eliminate the details you render the account pretty incoherent and sensless.
==============================
I understand it as a metaphor for Enoch's closeness to God. I can do something with that. I can't do anything with physical impossibilities.
===============================
Once again. If the account simply means that Enoch died like the rest, only closer to God, then WHY could they not find him ?
Reading your theology into the passage doesn't make too much sense.
So God for you is limited and not Almighty ? You theology is of God who did not preserve Daniel in the lion's den, or keep the Hebrew boys from being burned alive in the fire ?
You extract all the physical impossibilites from the accounts of the Bible to arrive at your theology.
I think this probably means you do not believe in the resurrection of Christ.
I'm lest concerned for a frozen tush than for a frozen heart.
07 Apr 10
Before 1830 all Scripture references like 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 were considered resurrection verses and nothing more. A PRE-TRIBULATION, secret catching up of the church was unheard of at that time. There is not a single document on earth that will say otherwise now, nor has there ever been one.
A charismatic woman named, Margaret MacDonald had a vision, which basically interpreted into a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints. John Nelson Darby took the dream very seriously and began to espouse it as a teaching of the church. Darby further added the notion of a secret rapture and a two-stage second coming of the Lord. To be sure, Darby influenced many other prominent churchmen of his era, like D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield and C. Larkin.
C. I. Scofield, who was known for writing footnotes for a reference Bible, apparently never gave up his membership in the Masonic Lodge, which could explain some of his spurious footnotes in Revelation. Larkin used a Revised Version instead of the King James Bible to prove his point.
http://christiansalert.org/raptureteaching.htm
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
07 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI think I already covered this:
================================
No, I do not believe in the literal account of Enoch being lifted up in the firmament known as the heavens of thousands of years ago.
=================================
It just says "and he was not, for God took him" (Gen 5:24)
It doesn't really say how high or where does it?
In fact " t.
I'm lest concerned for a frozen tush than for a frozen heart.
...My interpretation, my theology, my Christology is quite different from yours; that's all.
07 Apr 10
5 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon=======================================
Before 1830 all Scripture references like 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 were considered resurrection verses and nothing more. A PRE-TRIBULATION, secret catching up of the church was unheard of at that time. There is not a single document on earth that will say otherwise now, nor has there ever been one.
A charismatic woman named, [b]Margaret MacDonald ha ...[text shortened]... ad of the King James Bible to prove his point.
http://christiansalert.org/raptureteaching.htm
Before 1830 all Scripture references like 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 were considered resurrection verses and nothing more. A PRE-TRIBULATION, secret catching up of the church was unheard of at that time.
====================================== [/b]
You are assuming that the only belief in rapture is a "PRE-TRIBULATION secret catching up of the church".
Have you heard of "selective rapture"?
Have you heard of "partial rapture"?
You cannot so easily dismiss the passages on a catching up.
Warnings about not knowing the day or hour of the Lord's coming suggest that the entire church would not be caught up pre-tribulation simply because some will watch and some will not.
If it was automatic that every saint in the church was prudent and watching then there would really be no need for the Lord to caution them.
So I have to regard you objection similar to Badwater's. It is a presumptous one that amounts really to a strawman argument.
Secondly, it is not terribly significant to me that "before 1830 all referenes like 1 Thess 4:13-18 were considered reusrrection verses and nothing more"
This is hard to verify. I am not opposed to looking into that. However, it also carries an assumption that I think is faulty. Namely, "What the church knew before 1830 is all there is to be known. The Holy Spirit has absolutely NO more truth to recover. And as the time of Christ's coming perhaps draws near, what the Holy Spirit reveals in Scripture is ONLY what He ALWAYS has revealed."
As I read through God's dealing with His people through the Bible, I see no reason to assume that the Spirit of God could not emphasize neglected truths of His word. This is not the discovery of "new" truth. It is the recovery of neglected truth.
Perhaps before the Babylonian captivity no one paid attention to Jeremiah's saying that 70 years was the time they would be in exile. When the need arose these passages of Scripture were taken seriously by Daniel.
You have to do better than this for a good reason not to understand some kind of catching away by the Lord of at least some of His watching and prudent saints on the earth.
=============================
There is not a single document on earth that will say otherwise now, nor has there ever been one.
==============================
As said before that is not a decisive issue. And though I am will to consider it, I don't know that this proves your point at all. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence of the understanding.
============================================
A charismatic woman named, Margaret MacDonald had a vision, which basically interpreted into a pre-tribulation rapture of the saints.
=========================================
I personally, do not care that much about someone's vision. I am much more impressed with a reasonable expounding of the word of God, the healthy teaching.
===========================================
John Nelson Darby took the dream very seriously and began to espouse it as a teaching of the church.
===================================
The name of John Darby does get my attention. However, that would not be because of his regard for someone's dreams. I would consider Darby's understanding of the Scripture to be worth a study.
Do we have an understanding about that ?
==================================
Darby further added the notion of a secret rapture and a two-stage second coming of the Lord. To be sure, Darby influenced many other prominent churchmen of his era, like D. L. Moody, C. I. Scofield and C. Larkin.
===================================
I know that Darby and Newton had a falling out about the rapture teaching which broke the Brethren into two camps. I regard both of them as only partially correct.
Of the first school pf total church pre-tribulation rapture you have such names as Darby, William Kelly, R.A. Torrey (who latter changed to a post tribulation position), Phillips Brooks, James Gray, Arno C. Gaebelein, J.A. Seiss, and C.I. Scofield among others.
Of the second main post trib school you have such names as George Muller (who first believed in pre-tribulation rapture), A.J. Gordon of Boston, A.B. Simpson, W.J. Erdman, W.G. Moorehead, Henry Frost of Canada, James Wright, and Benjamin Newton among others.
The understanding that I fall into would be better represented by Hudson Taylor, Robert Chapman, Robert Govett, G.H. Pember, D. M. Panton, Watchman Nee, Witness Lee.
I don't think you would be able to debunk my careful explanation of the rapture from the view of these teachers. I have never seen it done. And it brings out the fact that both Darby and Newton were partially right but neither was completely right.
==============================
C. I. Scofield, who was known for writing footnotes for a reference Bible, apparently never gave up his membership in the Masonic Lodge, which could explain some of his spurious footnotes in Revelation. Larkin used a Revised Version instead of the King James Bible to prove his point.
=====================
I would recommend D.M. Panton's The Rapture for a reasonably brief but well grounded study.
Watchman Nee's book "The King and the Kingdom of the Heavens" also has an excellent chapter on Rapture that I do not think you could refute.
But, I do not let this matter become so devisive as to turn brothers from fellowship and oneness. You are welcomed to disagree with me on your understanding of Christ's second coming. I can only present my reasons for believing as I do and accept a few constructive challenges to test it.
Rapture, really means a kind of ecstatic happiness. So regardless of our views I hope that we are both often in a real happiness with being with the Lord Jesus, regardless.
This is safe and unifying in the Body of Christ. We should not divide the church over different understandings of the rapture or even of its existence. We Christians generally believe that Jesus will come again, in SOME manner.
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by jaywill"I personally, do not care that much about someone's vision."-jaywill
[b]=======================================
Before 1830 all Scripture references like 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 were considered resurrection verses and nothing more. A PRE-TRIBULATION, secret catching up of the church was unheard of at that time.
====================================== [/b]
You are assuming that the only belief in raptur ...[text shortened]... istians generally believe that Jesus will come again, in SOME manner.[/b]
This is the whole premise for the teaching. If you discount the vision how can you except all the teachings on the rapture that all started from here? I don't see the logic.
"This is hard to verify. I am not opposed to looking into that. However, it also carries an assumption that I think is faulty. Namely, "What the church knew before 1830 is all there is to be known. The Holy Spirit has absolutely NO more truth to recover. And as the time of Christ's coming perhaps draws near, what the Holy Spirit reveals in Scripture is ONLY what He ALWAYS has revealed."-jaywill
Then what of the "revelations" that resulted in the Mormons? And the book of Mormon ( "a new testament of Jesus Christ" ).Were these from the Holy Spirit, as well?
There is a myriad of examples of "christian" groups who claimed to have new revelations from God.
As far as Wathman Nee,Clarence Larkin,Schofield,etc. I have read their material extensevily and actually use to believe in the pre-trib rapture for years when I was younger.
These days I am not a advocate of it. I am skeptical of new revelations by anybody claiming God showed me this or God said that.
"I know that Darby and Newton had a falling out about the rapture teaching which broke the Brethren into two camps. I regard both of them as only partially correct."-jaywill
This is where a red flag goes up for me too. That a rift was caused in the brethern as a result of this teaching makes me wonder if it was truly God who was the source of this revelation.
The same goes for the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" in the modern church. Such as speaking in tongues,being slain in the Spirit,faith healing, snake handling,etc.
I have seen entire congregations destroyed over these heated debates.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by utherpendragon===============================
"I personally, do not care that much about someone's vision."-jaywill
[b]This is the whole premise for the teaching. If you discount the vision how can you except all the teachings on the rapture that all started from here? I don't see the logic.
"This is hard to verify. I am not opposed to looking into that. However, it also carries an ass ...[text shortened]... rinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,[/i][/b][/b]
I personally, do not care that much about someone's vision."-jaywill
This is the whole premise for the teaching. If you discount the vision how can you except all the teachings on the rapture that all started from here? I don't see the logic.
===================================
utherpendragon, with all due respect, let's talk about the what the Bible says. That is what counts here.
Here is one way we could go about it: I gave you three major schools of opinion. Each has its strong points and its weak points.
We could discuss School 1's strong points and then their weak points - that's pretribulation rapture of the entire chuch.
Then we could discuss School 2's strong points and their weak points - that is post tribulation rapture of the entire church.
Then we could discuss my view of selective rapture which I think is the proper view. But this could also be followed by possible weaknesses of this view as well.
I don't think these views can completely ignore each other. Darby and Newton the Brethren's champions of pre-trib and post-trib repectively, each did have some good points.
This is just a suggestion to a well balanced and fair approach to the subject.
If instead you want to propose that there is NO rapture/s at all in any way, we can discuss that too. I don't agree. But I'll ask you not to jump to conclusions about my beliefs pre-maturely.
==================================
"This is hard to verify. I am not opposed to looking into that. However, it also carries an assumption that I think is faulty. Namely, "What the church knew before 1830 is all there is to be known. The Holy Spirit has absolutely NO more truth to recover. And as the time of Christ's coming perhaps draws near, what the Holy Spirit reveals in Scripture is ONLY what He ALWAYS has revealed."-jaywill
Then what of the "revelations" that resulted in the Mormons? And the book of Mormon ( "a new testament of Jesus Christ" ).Were these from the Holy Spirit, as well?
====================================
Hold on. No need to push to an extreme. No need to jump to a conclusion. I spoke of recovered truth. I did not say EVERYBODY who claims to have a vision or be a prophet is being used by God to recover some truth.
===============================
There is a myriad of examples of "christian" groups who claimed to have new revelations from God.
===============================
Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the reaction of some of us.
===============================
As far as Wathman Nee,Clarence Larkin,Schofield,etc. I have read their material extensevily and actually use to believe in the pre-trib rapture for years when I was younger.
========================
Watchman Nee taught as D.M. Panton and G.H. Pember NOT as Scoffield. Nee taught of a partial rapture pre-tribulation.
I think his view is correct and I don't think anyone can refute a careful presentation of it. And even if he was not correct, I think it is spiritually the healtheist view.
I think one has nothing to loose by a partial pre-tribulation view. In fact I think to be vigilant and ready for the Lord's coming, John said causes a Christian to purify himself. You have nothing to lose, if you're a Christian and follow Watchman Nee's teaching on the rapture. You have everything to gain even if he was wrong.
But I would say that if you mistake Nee of Scoffield then you didn't understand someone well.
================================
These days I am not a advocate of it. I am skeptical of new revelations by anybody claiming God showed me this or God said that.
==================================
It is good to be cautious. But our caution should be based on the word of God. I think we should have the attitude of a Berean.
And I did not speak of "new revelation". I spoke of "recovered" truth. What Luther saw of justification by faith was not "new revelation". The passages were always there. He was used by God to recover what had been lost of the truth.
==========================
"I know that Darby and Newton had a falling out about the rapture teaching which broke the Brethren into two camps. I regard both of them as only partially correct."-jaywill
This is where a red flag goes up for me too. That a rift was caused in the brethern as a result of this teaching makes me wonder if it was truly God who was the source of this revelation.
===============================
It is true, that the excessive doctrinal disputes caused the Brethren to divide.
Often times the doctrines are only the surface problem. It is often the lack of humility. Someone does not want to play "secod fiddle" to someone else.
Dividing up into different kinds of "churches" based on understandings of the second coming of Christ is fleshly.
=================================
The same goes for the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" in the modern church. Such as speaking in tongues,being slain in the Spirit,faith healing, snake handling,etc.
I have seen entire congregations destroyed over these heated debates.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace,
======================================
I have no disagreement with you about this last paragraph.
Let me come back to the matter of rapture. I would ask you how you feel about this statement:
To be raptured pre-tribulation is actually an act of obedience to the Lord's command. To be alive and miss a pre-tribulation rapture should it come in our life time, is probably a sign of disobedience to the command of the Lord Jesus.
What do you think about this ? To be raptured is the response of obediance to the Lord's command to His disciples.