|
|
Post by kjvsteve on Mar 17, 2009 16:05:01 GMT -5
Ok, I've seen the subject of rapture appear on these boards a few times, and I'd just like to get your thoughts on a few points that I have come across that go against pre-trib rapture theory. If I may, I'd like to quote from a book on the subject; [I'm trying to keep this short, but will gladly type up more if required] "I declare here and now that the word "rapture" is not in the bible. Now a rapturist will respond 'that's not true! I know the word IS in the bible!' and in a twisted way of looking at things, he's right. Let me illustrate.
In 1 Thess 4:17 we see that "...we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together...in the clouds."
In this verse, the Greek word that Paul originally used when he wrote 1 Thessalonians was 'harpazo'. This word means to be caught up, or snatched up violently. When Catholic scholars produced early translations of the new testament, they wrote in Latin. In those translations, they used the word 'rapere' as their equivalent for 'harpazo'. This word rapere is the root word and the origin of the English word rapture. The root has other words associated with it - including our word 'raptor', which describes a destructive bird. The book also looks at some dates regarding the history of the rapture doctrine, and looks at the arguments of an author named 'D H Babies'. Pretribulationism really begins in 1830, when a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald had "a vision" that indicated to her the concept of a pre trib rapture. She was involved in a shadowy group that mixed occultic practices with the study of the bible.
Shortly after that, a British sect led by Edward Irving, adopted the view. Evidence shows Irving was exposed to MacDonalds teaching. Later, another British church led by John Darby picked up the doctrine as well.
In a series of stateside tours, Darby brought the doctrine to America, where it flourished ever since. On Dr Babies... Dr Babies then goes on to commit the time honored tactic: putting forth the proposition that the rapture was taught by great church leaders throughout the ages. He writes "Great bible scholars throughout history have always believed in the rapture : Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, Torrey..."
This apparent pathological liar never offers any quotations, because there aren't any.
The fact is, no preacher before 1830 ever heard of a pre-trib rapture. Thus Luther, Calvin, Edwards et al could never believe in 'the rapture' because it was never conceived of before that time. Ok, that's all for now. Any thoughts? Bro. Steve |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2009 0:25:15 GMT -5
Brother Steve,
I don't have a lot of thoughts at this point, but here are some quotes I've gathered...... as follows...
Irenaeus (130-200) and his disciple Hippolytus (170-236)— describes their views as "undoubtedly the forerunners of the modern dispensational interpreters of the Seventy Weeks."
. . . we may say that Irenaeus presented the seed of an idea that found its full growth in the writings of Hippolytus. In the works of these fathers, we can find most of the basic concepts of the modern futuristic view of the seventieth week of Daniel ix. That they were dependent to some extent upon earlier material is no doubt true. Certainly we can see the influence of pre-Christian Jewish exegesis at times, but, by and large, we must regard them as the founders of a school of interpretation, and in this lies their significance for the history of exegesis.
Thus, it is clear "that in Irenaeus and Hippolytus we have the originators of that method of interpretation that places the seventieth week of Daniel at the time of the consummation."
For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world.
Eusebius (270-340), the father of church history, teaches an historical view,
In regards to the last week, we have some rather distinct views in Eusebius. We must recall that the last week does not follow immediately upon the sixty-ninth, but comes after the ‘indeterminate space of time’ in which the events of vs. 26 are being fulfilled. This last week, then, covers a period of seven years that extend from three and one-half years before the crucifixion to three and one-half years after it.
Conclusion
In one sense it does not matter what others who have come before our current generation think on an issue, since in reality a matter rises or falls upon whether it squares with God’s Word. However, in another sense it does matter what others have thought down through church history, since if something is taught in the Bible then it may be legitimate to ask why others have not understood a particular teaching. While there are a number of doctrines that have gone well over a thousand years before members of Christ’s church have come to realize what was there in Scripture all along, the necessary gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel is not one of those late teachings. Why opponents of a future seventieth week of Daniel want to make matters worse for themselves by saying that we do not have ancient historical precedent is beyond me. It is obvious that our futurist view was found early and often throughout the early church, and only became scarce when premillennialism was banded from the medieval church as a result of the influence of Augustine and Jerome. "But the saints shall never possess an earthly kingdom," declares Jerome, "but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable about a millennium!" With Jerome’s banishment of early premillennialism went the literal interpretation of prophecy. History would have to wait more than a thousand years for the revival of a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy and the literal approach to the seventieth week of Daniel. Maranatha! End of quote.
It has been said “Augustine was the first to treat the concept of vision, and his approach to the theme has colored theological elaborations of the subject ever since.”
The preterist believes most, if not all prophecy is already fulfilled. Most often this is in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
The amillennial believes much of the current church age fulfills the tribulation period, skirting specific events by the belief that timing is not indicated but teach great truths.
The futurist believes most prophetic events will not occur in the current church age, but will take place in the future tribulation, second coming, or during the millennium.
I doesn't seem reasonable to claim a literal interpretation without a pre-trib view, but maybe I'm missing something. More later.
In Christian Love.....
Bro Eldon
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Mar 18, 2009 10:12:44 GMT -5
Brother Eldon, you have given us quotes from Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius and a number of other men. However I don't see anything Bible in your post. Personally I don't care what any of these men have to say. Tell me what does Almighty God have to say? The words of men will fail us every time.
I know there is a lot of discussion in this area as there is discussion and different view points concerning end times things. However when I study my Bible if there is an area that causes me difficulties I pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. I don't have the time to read these books from these other people because there is entirely too much I need to learn about God's Holy Word.
(1Co 14:33) For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Ah, look there! If there is confusion on a subject it is not authored by God. If it is not authored by God there can only be two sources. It is either my flesh, my mind, will and emotions or it is the enemy. That is why the prayer when I study my Bible. I pray until I am peace with a subject, then I know that answer is from the Lord. My word, I will even sit in Church and shuffle through my Bible to check and make sure that what my Pastor says is what the Bible says.
Relying on the words of men is such a large way is dangerous at best.
In Christ,
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Mar 19, 2009 12:06:38 GMT -5
Regardless to a pre, mid, or post trib view, the Revelation is to be taken in a literal sense when it makes sense, and then seek no other sense. For example, if we take the Revelation in "strictly" a literal sense, then there is going to be a woman, a child, and a dragon, fighting as in Rev. 12, but when we see it is not literal, but symbolic, we see Israel, Christ, and Satan at war (as some interpret that passage.)
Scripture has a majority of evidence that Christ is coming back before the millenium. Since there is discussion to be had (in a civil manner) in the body of Christ as to "when" the rapture will occur, we can agree that the literal sense of scripture indicates that we are premillennial regarding the when of his official coming.
The accurate stating of the above quote would go like this:
It doesn't seem reasonable to claim a literal interpretation without a premillennial view...
Bro. Ben
|
|
