Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

@jeff_student_of_Jesus Could you please expound on your following quote bellow from a status update reply from you?

Quote

Most worldly religious people on earth, in the world's largest religion(s),  do not agree with Scripture.  Their made up ideas of rapture were derived or gotten or repeated from someplace other than Scripture.   i.e. for those worldly people, or for those in error,  "caught up together" as Scripture says is not the same at all as their mistaken thoughts and doctrines and all the dogmas associated with their thoughts.

I guess I'm asking if the rapture is "made up"  from worldly people then please expound on the verses in the Bible that talks about the church meeting Christ in the Air?

I'm not concerned about the Word Rapture, but rather the Rapture principle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)

This is a lot more confusing subject/ topic than I thought before the last 30 minutes.    Looking it up online,  to try and find what I was looking for resulted in finding nothing of what I was looking for - namely,  that I thought that some so-called 'principles' ,  most in fact,  were not from the followers of Jesus,  but from other religions, including Roman religion, before Jesus.

Now after searching for a half hour to an hour,  not finding what I sought,  I found more like these  (for examples only,  not for anything as if substantitive or to believe is truth from God nor from Scripture:

www . beliefnet . com / faiths/ christianity/what-youre-getting-wrong-about-the-rapture.aspx

beginningandend . com/ what-did-ancient-chrurch-f%thers-believe-about-the-rapture /        =======================================

Basically,  the world at large,  and over a billion in so-called (by name only) 'Christian' groups/churches/etc , 

have many "principles" not related to , not found in,  and not coming from either God or Scripture.

Those principles, truth, in and from Scripture,  all from God,  are found in only a few places (which did not turn up in the short time I searched).  

Thus, most earthlings find "other" voices to follow, to listen to, to believe, instead of Jesus and usually opposed to God and opposed to Scripture.

There is a lot of support for "other" principles in most people's lives, as they listen to , trust and rely on other voices/ family/ teachings that are popular and yet not found in Scripture.

I am not dedicated to one of the principles I found,  nor to any that is not directly in and from Scripture as revealed by the Father in heaven to all of His disciples, by Him.

 

Edited by jeff_student_of_Jesus
undo automatic urls
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
2 hours ago, jeff_student_of_Jesus said:

This is a lot more confusing subject/ topic than I thought before the last 30 minutes.    Looking it up online,  to try and find what I was looking for resulted in finding nothing of what I was looking for - namely,  that I thought that some so-called 'principles' ,  most in fact,  were not from the followers of Jesus,  but from other religions, including Roman religion, before Jesus.

Can I encourage you to look at Scripture for you to get your doctrine? In my personal opinion, the Bible is all that I care about as that is my final authority, not google.

Thank you for the links and I appreciate the time you tool to reply. I guess I was more interested in what your thoughts were and not someone else.

Let's start with 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. I'm curious to know what event you believe that is referring to, and why. Thank you, I'm currently doing a study on the end times so your input will be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

Can I encourage you to look at Scripture for you to get your doctrine? In my personal opinion, the Bible is all that I care about as that is my final authority, not google.

Thank you for the links and I appreciate the time you tool to reply. I guess I was more interested in what your thoughts were and not someone else.

"My thoughts" were that there are an abundance of false teachings/ doctrines about the term/word "rapture",  and then a multitude of associated false teachings and doctrines before, with, or after that, associated with it.

Ggle was never where I got (as if to learn, believe, or trust or follow) any doctrine, teaching , or authority.

Edited by jeff_student_of_Jesus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

It appears that if a label is attached,  it becomes more dividing or divisive instead of more edifying or uplifting.

However,  with these Scripture also: Philippians 3:20, Galatians 5:5, Hebrews 9:28, Romans 8:23, Romans 8:19, 2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Corinthians 1:7

I believe eagerly waiting for Jesus,

just as Simeon (King James Bible
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel )

and Anna (New King James Version
And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem. )

eagerly watching daily for Him Who Is The Redemption of Israel

is what all who are alive in Him are to do daily.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

My church is doing a week long revival with the topic of “prophecy”.  We have Brother Woodcock ( maybe some of you may know him) leading. We are premillennial pre tribulation church. 
 

With that being said, even while being hand held through this topic it is a difficult subject to grasp. So far my understanding is that rapture is the taking away in the air, and is at separate and before the the second coming.

I once was indoctrinated by Steven Anderson, and understood it horrible wrong. But it seems his ideas are no stranger from the history of the church, and it is actually an error that sprouts up like a weed through the church age. 
 

keeping tabs on this thread for further edification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I probably differ from most on this particular subject. Yes, I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is referring to the second coming of Christ. But I also believe that the second coming is in two parts. The first is when he comes in the air and we rise to meet Him. But I see that there is a second part where he returns at a later date and His feet are planted on the Mount of Olives and the mount is divided.

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

I could be wrong and this may refer to this happening on the same day at a different time, but it would still be His second coning in two parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
6 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I probably differ from most on this particular subject. Yes, I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is referring to the second coming of Christ. But I also believe that the second coming is in two parts. The first is when he comes in the air and we rise to meet Him. But I see that there is a second part where he returns at a later date and His feet are planted on the Mount of Olives and the mount is divided.

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

I could be wrong and this may refer to this happening on the same day at a different time, but it would still be His second coning in two parts.

Well, I would say that the first is the removal of the church, and the second is the actual second coming, because in the former, He only is in the air, while the latter, he actually descends to earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Well, I would say that the first is the removal of the church, and the second is the actual second coming, because in the former, He only is in the air, while the latter, he actually descends to earth.

That would be my view as well. Would it be considered a second coming if He's not on the earth? The first event we (the church) meet him in the air (A term with we call rapture) and then Israel will be dealt with, and the Second He actually comes to the earth (touches) with hosts. The event where we meet Him in the air the church sees, and the second coming the world sees. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Buuuut...at His second coming the trump shall sound and the dead in Christ shall rise first, sorta sounds like part of the second coming to me. But I have been wrong before.   🙄

Not sure why His feet would have to touch the ground.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 (KJV) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Second Coming 

Two phases: 

1) Rapture of the church - the harvest. 

2) Rapture of Israel/Tribulation saints - the gleanings.

The rapture of Tribulation saints is covered in Isaiah 26:30,31.

This is the passage that is popular with mid-trib rapture of the church teachers for example Marvin Rosenthal but the passage has to do with the nation of Israel not the body of Christ.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Not sure why His feet would have to touch the ground

Jesus said He would come again. During the rapture, He doesn't come to earth, he meets us in the clouds in the atmosphere. If I was at your house and said I would come again, you would not say that I would have come again if I met you half way. 

The important point is that In 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 is referring to two different events. I call it the rapture and Second coming, and you call it both two different events of second coming. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
2 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

Jesus said He would come again. During the rapture, He doesn't come to earth, he meets us in the clouds in the atmosphere. If I was at your house and said I would come again, you would not say that I would have come again if I met you half way. 

The important point is that In 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 is referring to two different events. I call it the rapture and Second coming, and you call it both two different events of second coming. 

You are right in what I call it BroMatt. that is why I said I view this differently than most. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I use the term Rapture (even though the word rapture is not in the Bible, well...neither is the word Bible lol ) because of what the word means. The principle of being carried away and meeting Him in the air is literally what will take place. From my perspective, it's a great way of differencing between the two events that will take place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Thanks for the reply BroMatt. I do know that yours is the preferred way to look at it for many.

I still hold with what I said, even though I did not list every reason for holding to it. One main reason that I did not list was the fact that at His coming for us (The Rapture), He is coming from a spiritual realm to an earthly one, which for me, makes the Rapture the first part of what I call a two part second coming.

In any event, I am all for it regardless of what I, or anyone else chooses to call it.  😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I doubt any of our theology on this subject are absolutely correct-the Bible says actually quite a bit, but things like timing, and time periods between events, are very vague. I hold to the post-trib/pre-wrath rapture position, and have quite a few reasons for it, but I'm not dogmatic about it, either, because the Bile doesn't really lay out the timing clearly, so I have never considered it a 'fundamental', timing-wise, nor anything to separate over, though I know some who do separate over the timing of the rapture. 

By the way, I don't hold to it due to any Anderson teachings, as I have never heard his teaching on it.   I think the fact that it WILL occur is abundantly clear, and that it is yet future, but as for much more than that, all we can reasonably do is speculate, maybe strongly, but still, I give myself space to be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
4 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Jim, I appreciate your thoughts. I love this subject and very fond of hearing peoples views even if they differ from my own.

Brother Jim, does your belief not have the idea that Christ would lead us into heaven? And thus he entering back into this spiritual realm? 

Yes, I do have that belief; but coupled with it is the fact that in 1Thess. when He comes for us, He in fact "comes". That, to me, is a part of His "coming".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Yes, I do have that belief; but coupled with it is the fact that in 1Thess. when He comes for us, He in fact "comes". That, to me, is a part of His "coming".

I see. Thank you for your response.

In revelation we see John called up in spirit. Revelation chapter 4 Verse 1-2. With this, what do you say? 
Also, isn’t the second coming specific to the idea of him setting up his kingdom? 
In your view, your leave no room for a 7 year tribulation. And that puzzles me, for that is a requirement in the prophecy to Daniel.
 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 4/19/2021 at 8:33 AM, PastorMatt said:

Thank you for your reply. Like I mentioned in the earlier post I care more about what Scripture says than terminology, that's why I was interested in knowing what event you believe 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is talking about.

Brother, are you saying that this passage is about the "Rapture" of the church? I've heard it preached as that, and I've heard it preached as the Second Advent (Coming) of Christ to the earth. I thought that the rapture was supposed to be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye...not loud with the shout and the trump of God. I have studied this subject for years, and I have to say, I know many of both persuasions concerning this passage. I know that in Bible college at Maranatha many of us students who were studying eschatology by ourselves in a study group were ostracized by many, and were literally invaded by some of the college professors to confiscate materials. I had mine taken away and was told if I had any questions about the subject I needed to go to Dr. Cedarholm, Dr. Weeks or to Dr. Hollowood. I was somewhat shaken that a Bible college, a place of learning and study wouldn't want us to study this subject. At that time, many of us were leaning towards a mid-trib/pre-wrath position. I have since become a "whenever it happens it happens" since the Bible says that nobody knows the day or the hour except the Father in heaven. I know that the apostles all believed that the time was near then. Of course, I know that it's closer today than it was then, but I'm still studying the position. Maybe you could open a thread on it and give us a complete doctrinal study on it...just a suggestion. I know you're a busy man. I know what all my doctrinal books from MBBC and Fellowship Baptist College when it was in E. Peoria, IL say. They are all dispensationalist, pre-tribulation positions. But, some of the crossing of the verses into both categories make me question the validity of the position. I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but I am saying that it's a difficult thing to study, and too many positions with Scripture to fit each one! 🙂 Clear as mud, eh? LOL

Blessings.

Bro. T

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
On 4/20/2021 at 6:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

I doubt any of our theology on this subject are absolutely correct-the Bible says actually quite a bit, but things like timing, and time periods between events, are very vague. I hold to the post-trib/pre-wrath rapture position, and have quite a few reasons for it, but I'm not dogmatic about it, either, because the Bile doesn't really lay out the timing clearly, so I have never considered it a 'fundamental', timing-wise, nor anything to separate over, though I know some who do separate over the timing of the rapture. 

By the way, I don't hold to it due to any Anderson teachings, as I have never heard his teaching on it.   I think the fact that it WILL occur is abundantly clear, and that it is yet future, but as for much more than that, all we can reasonably do is speculate, maybe strongly, but still, I give myself space to be wrong.

Much of what you've stated I'm beginning to lean toward. Also something you hinted at was a difference between tribulation (or great tribulation) and God's day of wrath. I do believe there is a scriptural difference in the two and it helps me to understand some of the Bible passages. Like you, I'm willing to be wrong on this and I agree with another comment that we won't know for sure until we're with the Lord in glory. It isn't a separation issue for me. I enjoy learning from and learning with others and being like an Acts 17:11 Berean.

 

Edited by 1Timothy115
Forgot a sentence :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
14 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

@Jim_Alaska I'm just curious to why you do not use the term "Rapture" to describe the first part of the second coming of Christ. 

No particular reason BroMatt. We were talking about the Rapture so I guess I just got more focused on speaking to the issue of His "coming" and that He would actually come both times.

I have no problem with calling the event in Thess. a Rapture, even though the Bible doesn't call it that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
7 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

No particular reason BroMatt. We were talking about the Rapture so I guess I just got more focused on speaking to the issue of His "coming" and that He would actually come both times.

I have no problem with calling the event in Thess. a Rapture, even though the Bible doesn't call it that.

Thank you Brother, I see no error in how you view the event in 1 Thess., as the terminology is more of a preferential difference.  If I'm going to use the the the words Trinity and Bible (They are not called those names in the Word of God), then I see no reason why I should not use the word Rapture.  I appreciate your explanation.

13 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Brother, are you saying that this passage is about the "Rapture" of the church?

I am, I believe that is the clearest answer in Scripture. I'm getting ready to start work now so I really cant explain in detail. Hopefully this weekend. Have a great day. 

Like was already mentioned earlier, we all have preferences on this subject, to me the important aspect is the fact that He IS coming back like He promised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)

The difficulty on whether there is a pre, mid or post Trib rapture rests on discerning whether the nation of Israel will be restored as a separate group with the OT promises literally fulfilled to them or if they will just become part of the Church as Jews who get saved do now and all the OT promises have been fulfilled in the Church. I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

The Tribulation is a period of Jacob's trouble and the emphasis is on their restoration though many Gentiles will get saved. As I stated before Isaiah 26, that those verses, which in context are about the Tribulation and Second Coming, apply to Israel but I'm not immoveable from this position. 

I'm not so sure about these things as I used to because there are a lot of godly, God fearing, bible believing brethren on all sides of the debate which makes me think we all may be a little right and a little wrong in our positions. From my experience that is usually the case.

One thing is for sure is that our Lord will return, until that time we are to occupy for him, spread the gospel, live holy lives, edify the saints, do good to the unsaved, watch for his return, that we will be "raptured" aka caught up to meet him in the clouds when he does return and that "all Israel shall be saved".

 

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
59 minutes ago, SureWord said:

 I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

Yep, me too! My Jewish blood component came through a grafting in process. 

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" [Titus 2:13]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 4/23/2021 at 6:12 AM, SureWord said:

The difficulty on whether there is a pre, mid or post Trib rapture rests on discerning whether the nation of Israel will be restored as a separate group with the OT promises literally fulfilled to them or if they will just become part of the Church as Jews who get saved do now and all the OT promises have been fulfilled in the Church. I'm always leary of the position that we have replaced Israel.

The Tribulation is a period of Jacob's trouble and the emphasis is on their restoration though many Gentiles will get saved. As I stated before Isaiah 26, that those verses, which in context are about the Tribulation and Second Coming, apply to Israel but I'm not immoveable from this position. 

I'm not so sure about these things as I used to because there are a lot of godly, God fearing, bible believing brethren on all sides of the debate which makes me think we all may be a little right and a little wrong in our positions. From my experience that is usually the case.

One thing is for sure is that our Lord will return, until that time we are to occupy for him, spread the gospel, live holy lives, edify the saints, do good to the unsaved, watch for his return, that we will be "raptured" aka caught up to meet him in the clouds when he does return and that "all Israel shall be saved".

 

Well, Zechariah seems to say that Israel, in general, will be saved when they actually witness Christ return at the end of the falling of God's wrath: those Jews who were born again prior to that will be part of the church, these will, it seems, enter into the kingdom of Christ in the flesh. Jesus referred to them as the virgins awaiting the bridegroom, but not as the bride, itself. I admit that it is somewhat confusing to me exactly what position they will hold-I don't believe the church has taken their place, but of course, I also am not sure that the church is actually the bride, as it is the New Jerusalem we see ascending from heaven adorned as a bride for her Husband. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 4/27/2021 at 9:52 AM, Ukulelemike said:

Well, Zechariah seems to say that Israel, in general, will be saved when they actually witness Christ return at the end of the falling of God's wrath: those Jews who were born again prior to that will be part of the church, these will, it seems, enter into the kingdom of Christ in the flesh. Jesus referred to them as the virgins awaiting the bridegroom, but not as the bride, itself. I admit that it is somewhat confusing to me exactly what position they will hold-I don't believe the church has taken their place, but of course, I also am not sure that the church is actually the bride, as it is the New Jerusalem we see ascending from heaven adorned as a bride for her Husband. 

The Church does not take the place of Israel, covenant theology is heresy. Not all Jews will be saved either, only 144,000 during the tribulation 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

The Church does not take the place of Israel, covenant theology is heresy. Not all Jews will be saved either, only 144,000 during the tribulation 

 

 

1: I never said the church has taken the place of Israel-they remain in their place.

2: never said all Jews will be saved, however, more than the 144,000 will be saved. After all, who do you think they are witnessing to? As well, the events of Zechariah tell a different story, in that Jesus will return bodily to Jerusalem and those alive in the city will believe and be saved. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ukulelemike said:

1: I never said the church has taken the place of Israel-they remain in their place.

2: never said all Jews will be saved, however, more than the 144,000 will be saved. After all, who do you think they are witnessing to? As well, the events of Zechariah tell a different story, in that Jesus will return bodily to Jerusalem and those alive in the city will believe and be saved. 

 

I know you weren’t. The 144,000 are witnessing the Lord to the world, how ever only 144,000 of the Jews will be believers. I believe the others will die away as unbelievers before Jesus returns to Jerusalem.

( also where does it say ALL of Israel will be believers ? Not all of Israel is even Jewish at this time) 

Edited by Hugh_Flower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Romans 11:26 (KJV) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All means all, and that is all that all means.

I can't agree this is the sense of this one scripture, alone by itself.  I believe 1 Corinthians 1:21-25 and Romans 10:1-4 are to the contrary.  

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. [Matthew 10:33] Far too many Jews denied Christ. 

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. [Romans 11:17-21] emphasis added

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...