Poll

I'm not willing to "throw down" on this one, I'll just say that I am a tentative pre-tribulationist.

Whatever the Bible says.

Of course - similar to most prophecy in the Old Testament: it was amazingly hidden and very very few Religious people got it or comprehended it.

For some reason people reject the rapture because it isn't stupidly obvious... well Duh?! It's God's game and glory.

The concept of a "rapture" has only existed for 150 years. This should bother people.

Guess what I voted for. ;-)

But then again: the mid tribulation theory is fascinating and horrific.

Amy wrote: "The concept of a "rapture" has only existed for 150 years. This should bother people."
This^
the Evangelical idea of the rapture, is certainly different from more traditional forms of Christianity.

I believe in the Pre Wrath Rapture position

If Darby taught it, and it was completely unheard of in Christian circles before him, you can bet I don't believe it, espouse it, or support it.

Ned wrote: "I'm not willing to "throw down" on this one, I'll just say that I am a tentative pre-tribulationist."

My response: LOL! For me...

I pray for the PRE...
...and prepare for the POST!

Amy wrote: "The concept of a "rapture" has only existed for 150 years. This should bother people."

1 Thessalonians 4:17 - "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

This concept is much older than 150 years.

Wade wrote: "I believe in the Pre Wrath Rapture position"

That is about where I am Wade!

When the Scripture uses the word "tribulation" it is in the context of God's people... "wrath" is in the context of God's enemies.

Erick wrote: "If Darby taught it, and it was completely unheard of in Christian circles before him, you can bet I don't believe it, espouse it, or support it."

Unheard of????

1 Thessalonians 4:17 - "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Robert wrote: "Erick wrote: "If Darby taught it, and it was completely unheard of in Christian circles before him, you can bet I don't believe it, espouse it, or support it."

Unheard of????

1 Thessalonians 4:17..."
I think this depends If you are catholic or not, I'm Anglo-Catholic.
"As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event (somewhat ironically, since the term "rapture" is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—"we will be caught up," [Latin: rapiemur]). "
~https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-ra...

This is the best book you will find on this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Rapture-Church...

Judah wrote: "Robert wrote: "1 Thessalonians 4:17..."
I think this depends If you are catholic or not, I'm Anglo-Catholic...."

My response: I did not say you had to agree with it... I am saying it is disingenuous to claim that it was unheard of prior to 150 years ago.

Robert wrote: ""Unheard of????...1 Thessalonians 4:17..."

Indeed. The Greek word for caught up is harpazon and is no where translated by the English word "rapture." That's a fact, Robert. Interestingly enough, though, Paul uses the same word in 2 Corinthians 12:2

2 I know a man in Christ who was taken up (harpazon) to the third heaven. This happened 14 years ago. I don’t know if the man was in his body or out of his body, but God knows.

Note that he says he doesn't know whether he was in the body or out. We must be consistent. If Thessalonians uses the same word, it does not necessitate a bodily rapture. Also, the whole tribulation bit is entirely absent from the verse. It's just inserted in there from some false interpretation somewhere else.

Judah wrote: "I think this depends If you are catholic or not, I'm Anglo-Catholic.
"As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. "

Well said, Judah. I am, in fact, Amillenial. I think Premillennialism is false doctrine, but especially the Dispensational variety.

Erick wrote: "Robert wrote: ""Unheard of????...1 Thessalonians 4:17..."

Indeed. The Greek word for caught up is harpazon and is no where translated by the English word "rapture." That's a fact, Robert. Interest..."

Absolutely NOT UNHEARD of!

The English word "rapture" is not used in the Bible... the concept is VERY CLEAR.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 - "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Erick wrote: "Note that he says he doesn't know whether he was in the body or out. We must be consistent..."

My response: If you seek consistency, why did you NOT review the other 16 times that 'harpazō' is used...

...where it does specify BODILY... Philip was PHYSICALLY caught away and PHYSICALLY showed up somewhere else.

Act 8:39 - "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."

Robert wrote: "Absolutely NOT UNHEARD of!

The English word "rapture" is not used in the Bible... the concept is VERY CLEAR."

Ok, Robert. You've quoted that verse before, and I addressed it. I reject the Premillennial Dispensational interpretation of the verse. Invariably, the word "rapture" is used in that context. Your poll included clear references to Dispensationalism; which I reject. I had no choice but to provide one answer.

Do I believe in the concept of Harpazon? Yes, but I do not know what that will entail. What it will not entail is Pretribulation/Midtribulation etc bodily rapture; nor will it include a literal thousand year kingdom; nor will it include the re-institution of Jewish OT practice in a Talmudic utopia. All those things are part and parcel of Darbyism; a system I think is very dangerous.

Robert wrote: "My response: If you seek consistency, why did you NOT review the other 16 times"

Once again, Robert, I state that Paul's use of the word, in very similar contexts, cannot be used as dogmatically as you are using it. That is my position.

Erick wrote: "Ok, Robert. You've quoted that verse before, and I addressed it. I reject the Premillennial Dispensational interpretation of the verse..."

Your REJECTION of Scripture does NOT prove it to be wrong.

By the way, I am NOT a dispensationalist.

Erick wrote: "All those things are part and parcel of Darbyism; a system I think is very dangerous..."

My response: I have NEVER studied Darby... my doctrine comes from and is tested against the Bible...

ONLY the Bible can change my beliefs.

Erick wrote: "Once again, Robert, I state that Paul's use of the word, in very similar contexts, cannot be used as dogmatically as you are using it. That is my position..."

My point is that you stressed consistency and then differentiated Paul being "caught up" into the third heaven and claimed that was inconsistent with the bodily "catching up" of the rapture.

So, it is you who appears to be "dogmatic" and "contrarian" to the possibility of the concept of the rapture...

Robert wrote: "Your REJECTION of Scripture does NOT prove it to be wrong."

Tsk tsk, Robert. You are attacking me for no reason and giving heated responses. Behave civilly, please. I am simply stating what is clear. I do not reject scripture; I only reject false interpretation of scripture.

Robert wrote: "By the way, I am NOT a dispensationalist... My response: I have NEVER study Darby... my doctrine comes from and is tested against the Bible..."

Like many Christians I've met who were either directly, or indirectly, brought up on Scofield, you subscribe to aspects of Darbyism without realizing that you are doing so. I must refute that this position is Biblical. It is not. You can say I'm attacking the Bible, or smear me with any other epithet, but it doesn't make YOUR position more Biblical.

Erick wrote: "Robert wrote: "Your REJECTION of Scripture does NOT prove it to be wrong."

Tsk tsk, Robert. You are attacking me for no reason and giving heated responses. Behave civilly, please. I am simply stat..."

My response: No attack... you claimed one thing and it was not true... just pointing out facts.

Erick wrote: "Like many Christians I've met who were either directly, or indirectly, brought up on Scofield, you subscribe to aspects of Darbyism without realizing that you are doing so...."

My response: WRONG! You are obviously NOT omniscient.

I'm a preterist and non-dispensationalist. Therefore, I believe a lot of what we call end-time events are events that have already occurred. And, there will be no rapture, but a resurrection of the saints (dead and alive). The rapture is 18th century Darbyism and escapist mentality.

Robert wrote: "My response: WRONG! You are obviously NOT omniscient."

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I never claimed to be so. You have provided plenty of clues to your position. I don't need to be omniscient; just perceptive to an obviously fallacious interpretational bent. The fact that you are becoming so caustic is proof enough that you are taking this personally. Seems like it's hitting pretty close to home.

You all might enjoy reading Raptureless or maybe you wont :)

https://www.amazon.com/Raptureless-Op...

Greg wrote: "I'm a preterist and non-dispensationalist. Therefore, I believe a lot of what we call end-time events are events that have already occurred. And, there will be no rapture, but a resurrection of the..."

With you bro!

Robert wrote: "So, it is you who appears to be "dogmatic" and "contrarian" to the possibility of the concept of the rapture..."

Pretty silly assertion. I stated quite clearly that I do not know what "the being caught up" will entail. On the other hand, you insist on it being a bodily rapture and you throw in concepts like pre-trib and mid-trib which are components of Darbyism. Please show me where mid-trib/pre-trib bodily rapture was taught before Darby. I'd love to see it--in orthodox sources that is. I've seen the concept in gnostic works.

Touchy topic. But fun.

We must not obviously trust historic theology from the church on all issues. Why?
Because for 1900 years there was no Israel. Every scholar read the Bible poorly assuming there never would be one again. Then one day they all had to eat humble pie and realize God wasn't done...
Most theologians are still clueless to this fact.

I agree with Robert partially: the Bible hasn't changed in 1900 years. Prophecy is prophecy.

Of course: God can be sneaky. 99% of Jews didn't comprehend Jesus the Messiah. Most still don't - and yet it's right there in black and white.

Robert wrote: "Erick wrote: "Like many Christians I've met who were either directly, or indirectly, brought up on Scofield, you subscribe to aspects of Darbyism without realizing that you are doing so...."

My re..."

Well that was handled maturely. What was the point of making this poll? Was it to lecture us all?
You do realize that capitalizing is considered shouting in text.
"Regardless of our disagreements, we will show Christian Charity and Liberty to all those we engage in discussion with".



Robert wrote: "Judah wrote: "Robert wrote: "1 Thessalonians 4:17..."
I think this depends If you are catholic or not, I'm Anglo-Catholic...."

My response: I did not say you had to agree with it... I am saying it..."
The modern idea of the rapture? Most common ideas from it, are pretty modern.

Rod,

The only thing that affords a relationship with God is Jesus Christ. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6).

1 John 2:22-23
"22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. "

No one can have a relationship with God unless they accept that Jesus is the Messiah. Those who deny that Jesus is the Messiah are servants of Anti-Christ according to John.

Erick wrote: "Robert wrote: "My response: WRONG! You are obviously NOT omniscient." Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I never claimed to be so. You have provided plenty of clues to your position. I don't ..."

My response: You are obviously NOT GOOD at deciphering clues either. You THINK you know what I believe... yet it is a position I am cognitively in opposition to.

Erick wrote: "Pretty silly assertion. I stated quite clearly that I do not know what "the being caught up" will entail..."

My response: Yet you DOGMATICALLY state your knowledge of what WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Robert wrote: "Erick wrote: "Pretty silly assertion. I stated quite clearly that I do not know what "the being caught up" will entail..."

My response: Yet you DOGMATICALLY state your knowledge of what WILL NOT H..."

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, please!
Robert, you're breathing fire as a Mod, which I'm starting to get concerned about. You of all people should keep civil. The point of this poll was exactly that: a poll. In the end, none of us are going to be convinced of anything by arguing online, and if we can all agree to the Nicene Creed, then we aren't so much in error that our souls are in danger. I suggest we rest the conversation until everyone has a chance to cool down.

Judah wrote: "Robert, you're breathing fire as a Mod, which I'm starting to get concerned about..."

My response: And how would you have me respond to false doctrine?

Robert wrote: "Judah wrote: "Robert, you're breathing fire as a Mod, which I'm starting to get concerned about..."

My response: And how would you have me respond to false doctrine?"

Since this group has no theological boundaries, what's heresy or heterodox differs depending on individual creed. The point of being a moderator is to moderate discussion without bias. A debate is permitted, but certainly shouldn't be under a poll like this. It probably wasn't your intention, but you're coming across as rather dogged about your theological positions, and these polls are starting to seem like traps set so you may assault people. You must mean well, but there's a delicacy to exchanging ideas. This group isn't for evangelizing, as anyone who's joined it certainly would need to have a passing knowledge of Christianity to even bother posting, but rather exchanging ideas and discussion.

There are people in this group who I would consider heretics, and probably others that think the same of me (I keep the saints, big whoop) but the point is to talk out our perspectives, and certainly not SHOUT them. You win more flies with honey than with vinegar, and certainly, we should all vigorously apply the forum rules in a debate using the Christian Fathers as models.

I think only those who violate the Nicene Creed extensively should be warranted of the sort of stings you've been trying to deliver, and I do believe that should be done by David or one of the other long-term admins.

"IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY, IN ALL THINGS CHARITY."~St. Augustine of Hippo.

A small video I did on John Nelson Darby a few years ago.
https://vimeo.com/76657516

Kyle wrote: "A small video I did on John Nelson Darby a few years ago.
https://vimeo.com/76657516"

How fascinating. Thank you! I'm watching this now.

Kyle, since Darby is a completely new person to me, would you be gracious enough to give me a quick breakdown of his idea? You touch on it in the video, but since I'm looking back, It'll be helpful if someone points out the "root" so to speak.

Judah wrote: "Kyle wrote: "A small video I did on John Nelson Darby a few years ago.
https://vimeo.com/76657516"

How fascinating. Thank you! I'm watching this now.

Kyle, since Darby is a completely new person ..."


Hi Judah, It my boys 18th so I am busy but here are a few points.
Derby was the architect of the theology called dispensationalism.
Which would see history divided up into periods. The church age would be divided into seven period, based on the seven churches of the book of Revelation.
He also saw a restoration of the nation of Israel as a fulfilment of prophecy.
He also believed in a secret rapture of the church before the tribulation.
He also saw the church as becoming lukewarm in the last days in noneffective.
Much more but these are a few of the main ones.
I live only 15 minutes from where I did the video. Lots of history here.
Google him :)
We are all learning!

Robert wrote: "My response: You are obviously NOT GOOD at deciphering clues either. You THINK you know what I believe... yet it is a position I am cognitively in opposition to."

Fair enough, Robert. I suppose you just happen to state positions that are in line with Dispensational theology. You said this early on:

"I pray for the PRE... ...and prepare for the POST."

As I've already made clear, these terms are part and parcel of Dispensationalism. That's great that you reject some aspects of Dispensationalism. If you believe you reject all of it, you are much mistaken. Please, I ask again, to show me in Christian tradition these terms being used before Darby. Prove to me I'm wrong. Attacking me is not going to win you much concession in Biblical discussions with me.

Robert wrote: "My response: Yet you DOGMATICALLY state your knowledge of what WILL NOT HAPPEN. "

I go by what the Bible says and I don't assume things it doesn't address. You insert ideas into it that are not there. There is nothing about tribulation anywhere in that verse in Thessalonians. That's a fact. You are simply espousing (Darbyist) views from others. These views are on flimsy Biblical ground.

Continue to use caps and continue to be caustic, Robert. As I said, your disposition suggests even more than your theological claims, that you are offended when anyone questions this erroneous interpretation of Thessalonians. If you had been more civil, I would have been more easily convinced that you are not influenced by Darbyism.

Robert wrote: "My response: And how would you have me respond to false doctrine?"

Be as patient with it as I am with your errors.

Yes, it is accurate to say that 1 Thess. 4:17 is older than 150 years. It is also accurate to say that no one in the history of the Church interpreted it as speaking of a secret snatching away of believers. So the traditional Dispensational view, in my opinion, should be viewed with skepticism.

I don't see this as a make or break question. It's possible for us to disagree and all still belong to Christ, LOL

That said the only "catching up I see" is at the "Trump of God" sometimes translated last trump. It seems to be at Christ's return not a catching up before the Tribulation begins.

However I go with Steve Brown, "if I'm wrong about the time I belong to Christ so I'll see you on the way up."

:)

It would be a whole different discussion if we were to get into the question of exactly how many resurrections there are to be. If it's a last trump, one would think Thessalonians only knows of one.

No, it only mentions one.