Skip to comments.The Rapture
Posted on 01/15/2011 10:44:22 AM PST by topcat54
In the past one-hundred and fifty years or so, some Christians have argued that there will actually be two comings of Christ. Believers from the dispensational tradition have said that there will be a secret rapture of Christ a few years before His visible return. While even those who confess a secret rapture disagree about its timing, the idea basically says that at some point, the church will be removed from the world by Jesus in order that it might escape an ensuing tribulation. Jesus will then make His physical return some time later, usually three and one-half to seven years after the rapture.
The problem with this idea is that there are no passages of Scripture that clearly teach this view. In fact, the idea that believers are guaranteed a safe haven is hard to find in the pages of Scripture. From the faithful remnant that went into exile with the nation of Israel to Jesus promise that the days of suffering will be shortened for the sake of the elect (Matt. 24:22), Scripture makes it clear that believers can and will face tribulation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ligonier.org ...
No, I haven’t. I’m not much into the “Left Behind” series.
I’ve never read it. But I’m fairly acquainted with The Bible.
Exactly, I agree. It could be(and Scripture somewhat bears this out) that those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior will be protected from the horrors, but will still be present on the Earth, as in this part of The Revelation, Chapter 9. Verse 4 speaks of those with the Seal of God on their foreheads as still being present on the Earth.
“The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. 2When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. 3And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5They were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.”
This is the high water mark of deception. Not the single coming of Jesus Christ, I believe in that, I’m not a pretrib rapturist, what is so deceptive is both R.C. Sproul and topcat are Preterists. They’d both be better off as dispensationalists, what they are is far worse.
Typical of Preterists, they come out attacking the dispensationalists while never telling you what they are.
Now, both Sproul and topcat are “partial” preterists, that is they believe all of Jesus’ Olivet discourse plus the whole of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70 - except for the second coming...which topcat places AFTER the millennial in Rev. 20. Of which there is not a shred of evidence for.
About as preposterous, and cowardly, a doctrine as ever devised by the mind of man. Prophecy bothers their poor timed and cowardly souls, the opt instead for a complete prophetic vacuum. Only the most timid and cowardly soul falls for such a scheme.
So called “partial” preterist is about as credible as being partial pregnant.
A Sad response. Please don’t bother answering me. You might be wrong about something, then you’d be a false prophet.
Re: my statememt, So called partial preterist is about as credible as being partial pregnant.
To elaborate, the so called “full” preterists see the inconsistency of the “partials,” they correctly realize you can’t divorce the second coming of Matt. 24:29-31 from the tribulation that precede it. They correctly understand that Christ comes “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” You can’t claim the tribulation of those verses for AD 67-70, and not the coming which comes immediately after it. The “full” preterists, therefore have the coming of Christ having taken place in 70 AD also. At least they are honest and consistent.
The “fulls” claim “this generation” to be the generation that saw ALL of the Olivet discourse, including the second coming, fulfilled in 70 AD. The “partials,” running from the reproach of having Christ already come, try to distance themselves from it by conjuring up a second coming at the end of the millennial. Of which the Bible has no such thing.
I actually have more respect for the “fulls” than the partial pregnant types like Sproul and topcat. Like I said, at least they are consistent.
To elaborate on preterists being timid and cowardly.
Admittedly, those of us who believe “the tribulation of those days,” and the astronomical signs that announce the second coming, haven’t happened yet, have to man up, prophecy is a rough and tumble affair, it’s not for timid and cowardly.
The timid and cowardly don’t have the stomach for “prophecy wars” nor for the actual and real fulfullment of all these things in Matt. 24 and the Revelation. They aren’t man enough to “man up.” They opt instead for such devises as partial and full preterism.
To clarify timid and cowardly. Prophecy is not for the timid and cowardly, those afraid of controversy. The kind of controversy and ridicule that naturally accompanies endtime prophecy. Which all people like topcat know how to do - ridicule. Rather than man up, they ridicule.
I went to your link. I listened to the audio about a third of the way, and I agree with what he said about on singular coming, but perhaps you could cut to the chase and tell me whether or not he is a preterist. As I have tried to point out on this thread, preterists like Sproul and topcat make the same claim. The singular second coming is true, but the preterism that most of them hide from view, is not.
Whoops, sorry. Honestly I didn’t know RC Sproul was a preterist. I only joined in regarding the rapture issue, my oops.
To the chase then, William Lane Craig is NOT a preterist as he discusses that slant of the various views on the end times in another audio of that series. Actually one or two files later I think.
I’m glad to hear that...and it goes along with his general theme “Reasonable Faith.” Both preterism and multiple second comings are unreasonable.
The gimmick preterist use is to attack pretribs and dispensationalists, mean while hiding what they are. And then after they get the pretribs coming their way, they introduce them to, what they present as the only other alternative to pretrib and dispy - their preterist or postmill scheme. Very sneaky.
Oops, post 33 was supposed to be addressed to you.
The Bible minus the Westminster Catechism equals preterism, tradition, straw man arguments, mischaracterizations and falsehoods.
P.S. I feel for your confused current location... You are very similar to my two pastors and many ofthe elders in my church...I’ll be praying for you and for them...
I didnt know RC Sproul was a preterist.
For most of his ministering life Sproul was not, it is only in recent years that he came out for preterism. The preterists showcase him like the movie stars democrats and repubs showcase at their conventions. He is one of their biggest heroes. I used to like his stuff pretty much, I see him now as an apostate.
I don't get it.
You know you’re talking to yourself? And not saying anything?
You have some red letter version of the Bible? For Israel vs For the Church? Or is this just a manifestation of the dispensational error?
how can you be an “apostate” if you don’t believe a doctrine no one ever believed or heard of before the 19th century????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.