I WAS curioous abotu a theological matter, and its improtance to some Christians not of the Apostolic Churches. Notabely Evangelical Protestants. (Let us not debate if they are real Churhces or not, for this is not my point.)

It has been a logn while sicne I posted here, and I did not post much when I did, so I hope htis is not an intrusion.

There is much tlak amongst the Evangelical Christians about the Raptue of the Church. THis Doctirne teaches that JEsus will cme, and gather his Church ( all Beleivers who have put their trust in him for Salvation) to himself, and gather them in the clouds.

It is accompanied by the beelif in a Great Tribulaiton period, of Seven years, in which the Anti-Christ Reigns.

Three previalign views of the Rapture exist. One in which the Rapture occures before the Tribulaiton, one in which it occures in the middle of it, an done in which it happens just at the end.

Nevertheless, the Rapture theory is tied with the TRibulaiton and rule of the Anti-Christ.

It has further become a promenant beelif amongst North American Christians, notabely those callign themselves Evangelicals. It is also a major theme amonsgt Baptists of today.


I do not beelive int he Rapture theory, or the Triulaiton theory that acocmpanies it, both fo which where derived form Dispensaitonalism.

Tfor this, I was called a Preterest, well this and sayign the 70th week fo Daneil was fulfilled at the firts Advent of our Lord, and denyign that God went through weks 1-69 then haulted the 70th week, for Scripture doesnt say he woudl delay it.

I am of ocrus ento a Preterest or partial preterest. I simply follow the Historical teachings of the CHurhc which preclude the Rapture and Tribulaiton.

I was even Banned off of a message baord, "Christianity.com", which is shared by numerpus Evangelcial Protestant sites, for not limiting myself to the PReterest thread (they allwo rpeterest donly one thread, whilst allowign rapturisyts numerous threads.)

I have also been called ignorant of scripture, and dilusional, for my rejeciton of it. One even went oso far as to say I denied the resusrection fot he dead, therefore I denied Jesuss ressureciton and was not a true Christain.


I wa sismply wonderign why the Rapture had beocme such a promenant, in fact integral, aspect of Evangelical Protestant beleifs?

The current trend dates to the mid/late 1800s. Many of the points of dispensationalism were taught as fact at the church I attended.

I was uncomfortable at blindly accepting the teaching. In one bible class at church, I had a very difficult time understanding how our teacher placed such a high confidence in his interpretation of unfulfilled biblical prophesy. I read Isaiah and Jeremiah and they speak or hint of false prophets, and he would say things and teach on the Book of Revelation as if he were a prophet, though he would not look at it that way. If I were to raise my hand and ask a question he would have told me to read the passage again until I discovered how obvious it was. There are more critical readings of the passages among Protestants, but the interpretations have become dogma for the people who embrace dispensationalism.

Why is it popular? I can only guess that it provides a simple narrative to demystify the Book of Revelation which also gives its followers a sense of urgency in their faith. Many Protestants develop a strong fear of God because of their eschatology. That prompt them to action in order to "save souls".

Terry

I'll also add that dispensationalism is very pro-Zionist and usually pro-USA. I was raised on dispensationalist theology as well.

Joe

I grew up in the Churches of Christ. THey do not teach Dispensationalism, and i had no idea what the Rapture wa suntil my ealry 20's.

Then again, I was otld the Churches of Christ are a CUlt, for they say one needs Baptism for Salvation, and they do not teach oen is saved by Faith Alone.


( I also chuckle at Baptism, as the same folsk who tell me that I grw up in a cult also praise Luther, who insisted that Baptism was nessesary.)

The enture End-times concept was compeltley forgun to me when I firts hard it, and I coudl find no trace of it in scripture. The scriptures htey cite ot rpove it are picked form different palces int he Bible, and out of context, all designed ot uspport the theory.

I simply wonder why its such a promenant idea.

Dispensationalism was the faith of the traveling evangelists and today's televangelists, so it had a large microphone. Historically, similar movements caught fire several times in church history, especially at the turn of the first millenium, the Black Death, and the Protestant Reformation. Even the founding of the United States was founded, in part, by Puritans who wanted to evangelize American Indians; they believed these were lost Israelites and had to be evangelized "to oppose the kingdom of Satan the Jesuits are now laboring to heap up there." (!)

The CoC is "partial preterist" and post-trib rapture. Generally, there seem to be fewer doctrinal issues for CoC members who become Orthodox than there are from, say, a Southern Baptist or Presbyterian family.

----------
Western Orthodoxy Blog

I am afraid you ar emistaken.

The Churches of CHrist arne't Post-Tribulation Rapture. Growing up, I was always told that the Seocnd COming woudl be on Judgement day, and that at this event, all woudl be resusrected, be they good or evil.

There was no Rapture of the Church. Nor was there mention of the Seven Years from which the Anti-Christ woudl reing. In fact, the whole Tribulaiton idea was itsself new to me when I learnes of it from other osruces otuside of the CoC years later.

So I'm not sure why you thinkt he CoC is Post-Tribulation Rapture.

Nor Partial PReterest, sicne it affirms the basic understanding of the End as do the Orthodox.

IN FACT, one can ask, how can the Churches of Christ be Post-Tribulaiton Rapture, when they don't affirm either the Trinulaiton, or even the Millineal Reign of Christ int eh future?

The Churches of Christ are Amillenial in beleif. THey do not look forward to a future reign of CHrist on earht for 1000 years, with Jesus as Kign fo the Earth, rulign from Jerusalem Physiclaly. Instead, the Churches of Christ have always taught that Jesus rules now, via his Kingdom, the Church, and hat Jeuss is not a Future King, but a preasent one.


Given that the Churches of Christ do ot forsee the establishment of a Physical and Earhtly Kingdom of CHrist Jesus on Earht other than the Church, which is affirmed ot be Israel continued and the Kigndom of Jesus now, the whole concept of the Churches of CHrist as Post-Tribulation Rapture beocmes a bit silly.


The Churches of CHrust do not afifrm the Future Millineal Rieng, but think he ruels now, and reject the idea of a Seven Year Tribulaiton Period, an dinsist that the Second COmign can happen at any time.

From the mouth of an opponant of the Churhces of CHrist.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Church%20of%20Christ/church_of_christ_heresies.htm

And, from CHurhces of Christ themselves.


http://www.lgchurchofchrist.com/

http://taylorschurch.com/rapture_fact_or_fiction.php


http://www.salisburychurch.org/articles/r001.html


No, the Churches of CHrist are Amillenial, not Post-Trib Rapture.

The whole notion of Rapture is a man-made idea which came from some Scottish dude in the 1800's. Off hand I can't think of his name.
Shows you about how much relevance it is to me to keep a heretical idea in my head, not even worth remembering the person that invented it.

Darby?

Hmmm.... If we forget Terry, do we get left behind?

John Nelson Darby is Credited with the foundation of the Rapture theory. He was an American of Irish Decent, who traveled to Scotland to meet a yougn girl who had had a dream abou th eocmin g of the Lord and purportedly worked miralces and had visions. ( After a Fever I shoudl add.)

Anyway he later went back to the states ocnvenced the girl wa sonto somehtign and took to studyign Bible prophecy and stitched togather the Rapture thery.

This is its oriigns, in Brief.


And for Orthodox roxy, sinc emost Evangleicals have no idea where the Rapture theory originated, forgettign the informaiton won't actulaly cause you to be left behind. But soem thin rejectign the Rapture thory will elad you to be left behind.

"But soem thin rejectign the Rapture thory will elad you to be left behind."

Hence they are urged to "save souls". This can partially explain why it is popular. If it were only a matter of opinion, a point which two good Christians could disagree about, then it would not be seen as important as some take it to be.

Terry

Most Evangelicals though would argue that it is not an issue nessisary for Salvation, and equate begn saved with being Raptured when the Rapture hits.

So its not a full explanaiton.

I do wonder why it is seen as something of a test of true Christianity, and a proof of ones orthodoxy, amongst Evangelicals. It seems queastionign the Rapture proves oen is Heretical to them. I am not sure why this is so.

Nor am I sure why it grew in popularity since it enjoys no historical support, nor does it relaly have a strogn scriptural basis.

The last bit is contested, but hwen I am shown the Raptures proof texts, it seems rather like they took a pair of scissors and cut away verses form different parts of the Bible, an when hey where free of their original context, sewed them togather along the lines of the pre-detemiend doctirnal theory, and told us the "Correct" interpretation.


I coudl never udnerstand the Rapture theor when I was told it, and nwo that I do understnd it I see how shallow it is and how little support the theory has in scripture.

As I noted, though, I didn't grow up on the Rapture of the CHurch and never expected it to happen. I have always been Amillenial, so this may explain my initial lack of understandign of it.

As to the Oriigns of the Rapture, I have this article to share.

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d760201.htm

I hope this clarifies its History and hwo it emerged.

Ah the rapture...

I hope I'm taken up before I get scolded for this next comment, but I'm an English teacher and I'm grading essays.

Zarove, I keep reading that you're "editing your posts"... I assume that's for content only.