Do "rapture" believers realize it isn't part of consistent Christian tradition?

[mark_a]

but what i find interesting is that the catholic church is perfectly willing to make dogma out of the Assumption of Mary (she is taken up into heaven )(caught up)(i.e. raptured)

I’ve made the same comparison from the Catholic side of the fence on numerous occasions, i.e. rapturists deny the Assumption of Jesus’ Mother and think they are “special” enough to be removed from Earthly suffering exclusive of everyone who doesn’t belive in a rapture.

 

[zz912]

Actually, there are three views about the the rapture: Pre-trib, Mid-Trib, Post-trib,

I’ve studied all 3 of these beliefs thoroughly. I finally came to the conclusion that all three are valid. It all depends on our faith. Which one we are taken up in is the one we believe it to be. Post-tribbers will be ‘Taken Up’ after the Tribulation, Mid-tribbers will be ‘Taken Up’ at the middle of the tribulation, and pre-tribbers will be ‘Taken Up’ before the Tribulation,

Lucky for me I just happen to be a pre-tribber.

What will be is what will be, no sense fretting over the future. We have things to do today.

So Christ is a vending machine for you and YOU direct HIM in how His plan for salvation will work?!?!?!?!

I don’t know what religion you believe, but it isn’t the Christian Faith.

 

[zz912]

I did not give the impression that Jesus or the Apostles taught or allowed a variety of beliefs, doctrines, or Faiths.

I gave the impression that people and different groups of people, have a variety of beliefs. Even among Catholics there are a variety of beliefs. And I know, and have many friends who are Catholic.

My question to you is:

Are we saved because our knowledge is perfect, we completely understand God and His scriptures perfectly?

Let me rephrase that,

Are we saved because of what God has done in us and has chosen us, or did we save ourselves?

Strawman argument much? Is it a sign that your argument is weak and you need to redirect the discussion?

 

[joe370]

I know the Catholic Church does not believe in it. It seems (or seemed, not sure what the climate of it is now) like a trend popularized by fiction. I don’t see it anywhere in the early church.

Thanks

Fiction would probably be the right characterization in most cases. The word rapture comes from the Latin translation of the Greek, meaning: “caught up” - derived from1 Thessalonians 4:17 and the CC certainly teaches that the event of our gathering together to be with Jesus will take place, but the CC doesn’t generally use the word “rapture” to refer to this event, which is rather ironic considering the fact that the term “rapture” is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17 - “we will be caught up.”

Things get all confusing and discombobulated when the whole “thousand years” and the “tribulation” are tossed around with their myriad interpretations. The position of the CC historically, leans toward the “amillennial” - although the CC doesn’t actually use this term, nor has the CC officially defined it.

 

[po18guy]

All I did was provide the Biblical scriptures defining what the ‘rapture’ means by those who seriously use that word. Of course, there are always those people who know the word ‘rapture’ and in their mind make up their own meanings. But this happens with a lot of words and/or ideas. Such is the world we live in.

BTW, I did not give any private interpretation.

I do not think that you have privately interpreted anything. What I mean is that the “rapture” concept is the result of private interpretation. The rapture, as I understand it, is the “secret” return of Jesus to collect true Christians to Him so that they avoid the tribulation. That is a 100% invention from the 19th century.

 

[po18guy]

well as a former protestant I’ll tell you this they consider their interpretation as given by the Holy Spirit and so they dont consider it as their interpretation but they consider it of God

Funny, isn’t it, that when one reads about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in scripture, not one of them is “interpretation of scripture”? From Nehemiah 8:1-12 and Acts 8:26-35, we see that scripture must be interpreted by those in authority. Apparently, the mere possession of a bible now gives one that ‘authority’ Looking at my assortment of bibles, I must have an amazing amount of authority.

 

[Georgia]

In some circles, yes, every Christian has an amazing amount of authority. People in my former church, Fundamentalist independent Baptist, felt perfectly comfortable in dismissing what any other person believed or taught if it disagreed with a personal interpretation. I often heard lines like “Well, he hasn’t read Whateverbook 14:3.” The only authority other than our verse slinging was saying the preacher didn’t believe that way. If we disagreed with out pastor, finding a verse to support our position was not too hard. You can prove pretty much anything if you use quotes absent context.

I suppose the ultimate proof is in how we hired pastors. An advertisement would be placed in a publication geared toward people with our belief system. A selection committee would invite finalists to preach on successive Sunday mornings. The committee would pick one to whom an offer would be made. If he accepted, the church would vote to ratify the hiring. Even though we were nominally Baptist, any potential pastor crossing the invisible lines of our own interpretation, even though it may fit with other Baptist churches, could forget hearing from the committee.

That said, any member of our church would think nothing of getting out a Scofield Bible, following the references, and thinking himself fully capable of discerning the full span of Christian faith.We never once heard a sermon about the origin of the Bible, so there was no fall-back on authority.

Going to Sunday School, Sunday morning preaching, Training Union, Sunday night service, Wednesday night service, and even to jail services, I never once thought about the origin of the Bible until I started talking to a priest. It was sort of a given that the Bible had been around since day one and that private interpretation was totally valid.

If you operate that way, with the Bible independent of its background, you really don’t know what has been believed past your own experiences. Truly, I had no idea how limited rapture theory is until I crossed the Tiber.

All my friends and relatives in my home town are at least culturally attached to the church where I grew up. If the topic of the end times comes up when I visit, some are very much surprised to hear that rapture theory is a historically recent development. They have never once heard that there is an alternative to that belief.

 

[JRRTFAN]

How popular is this believe now? Was it mostly just a fad while the Left Behind series was popular. Is/was it mostly limited to the US?

I think it remains a very popular, perhaps growing, phenomena in the protestant community. I know many Southern Baptists who profess the rapture (which is certainly an innovation for that community).

When you think about the whole Evangelical theology, rapture makes perfect sense. Follow the logic: One accepts Jesus as personal savior with sincerity and repentence > one is then saved, all past, present, future sins are forgiven at that instant > therefore a judgment of the person’s soul is completely irrelevant > the bible does not provide for anyone on earth escaping a final judgment - but if one is saved there is nothing to judge, it’s irrelevant.

So, what to do - you grab an obscure verse out of Thes. and create a rapture theory where you’re not there when the judgment comes and voila!

It’s unrealistic, non-historical and, most of all, unscriptural. But it makes Evangelical theology work - after a fashion.

 

[Miriam1947]

Georgia, I would love to hear how you became Catholic.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

I think it remains a very popular, perhaps growing, phenomena in the protestant community. I know many Southern Baptists who profess the rapture (which is certainly an innovation for that community).

When you think about the whole Evangelical theology, rapture makes perfect sense. Follow the logic: One accepts Jesus as personal savior with sincerity and repentence > one is then saved, all past, present, future sins are forgiven at that instant > therefore a judgment of the person’s soul is completely irrelevant > the bible does not provide for anyone on earth escaping a final judgment - but if one is saved there is nothing to judge, it’s irrelevant.

So, what to do - you grab an obscure verse out of Thes. and create a rapture theory where you’re not there when the judgment comes and voila!

It’s unrealistic, non-historical and, most of all, unscriptural. But it makes Evangelical theology work - after a fashion.

The fruits of Sola Scriptura.
Scripture+Tradition+Papal Authority are things I really admire about Catholicism. As it spreads, disagreement will arise in the Protestant/Evangelical/NonCatholic sects, more denominations will rise, some will cease to exist, etc. Might hit the 50K mark.

 

[Telestia]

A Catholic by definition is one who believes what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church teaches only what she received from Christ and the Apostles. If your friends hold beliefs contrary to the teaching of the Church, they have put themselves in jeopardy. There is only one Truth.

[Deletions]

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant, Happy Catholic

And a Christian by definition is one who obeys God and who believes what God requires of us through His Bible what He, as revealed through the Holy Spirit whom dwells in us, given to us who genuinely seek Him, believes Him, and abides in Him.

I’m glad you are a happy catholic, but you have no right to judge me so negatively.

 

[Telestia]

Your post gives the impression that Jesus or the Apostles taught or allowed a variety of beliefs, doctrines, or faiths. The NT letters over and over teach one faith, and repeatedly correct errant beliefs. As to your question about your salvation, I have no idea about your salvation. Jesus is the judge of that. But there are many things you can do to lose your salvation. Willful rejection of the New Covenant will cause you to lose your salvation.

Christ and the Father are one. Just as we are to be one. Teaching multiple faiths, teaching multiple doctrines and dogmas, allowing all kinds of errors is NOT being one.

Your first sentence is not true. And yes, you are right, Jesus will be the judge of me, my salvation is in God’s hand, and not yours, and He will accomplish in me to do the good that He created us to do, and it will not be a burden to do, but rather be our natural nature for us to do so.

 

[Telestia]

Strawman argument much? Is it a sign that your argument is weak and you need to redirect the discussion?

I hope you do not mind, I will let God be the judge of that.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please

 

[graceandglory]

Just as Seventh Day Adventist foundress Ellen Gould White suffered severe head trauma and alleged mercury poisoning before she received her “visions”. Do you see any kind of pattern here?

FYI: Richard Bennet, former Catholic priest, now raging anti-Catholic evangelist (berean beacondot com) also suffered from severe head trauma. He will not explain that to his readers/listeners. I have insider information.

 

[graceandglory]

FYI: Richard Bennet, former Catholic priest, now raging anti-Catholic evangelist (berean beacon dot com) also suffered from severe head trauma. He will not explain that to his readers/listeners. I have insider information.

 

[JustaServant]

If you operate that way, with the Bible independent of its background, you really don’t know what has been believed past your own experiences. Truly, I had no idea how limited rapture theory is until I crossed the Tiber.

As a former IFB, I concur. When the rapture is explained to people outside of the fundamentalist island, you get very strange looks. Years ago one guy looked at me and said “So God’s gonna torture mankind for seven years (which dispensationalism teaches), knowing they will not repent, while ya’ll look on in some ivory tower in Heaven”…
The man was not a Christian at all, but the words he said started the wheels turning in my head as to the illogic and ridiculousness of dispensational theology.

 

[JHow]

As a former IFB, I concur. When the rapture is explained to people outside of the fundamentalist island, you get very strange looks. Years ago one guy looked at me and said “So God’s gonna torture mankind for seven years (which dispensationalism teaches), knowing they will not repent, while ya’ll look on in some ivory tower in Heaven”…
The man was not a Christian at all, but the words he said started the wheels turning in my head as to the illogic and ridiculousness of dispensational theology.

I would add that fundamentalist belief in the rapture may be more limited than might be imagined here at CAF. For example, my Campbellite family tend to a “post-millenialist” stance, so, even though they could be described as fairly close to an evangelical and fundamentalist outlook, they are not really dispensationalists. “No man knows the hour…” about summed it up for them.

 

[JustaServant]

I would add that fundamentalist belief in the rapture may be more limited than might be imagined here at CAF. For example, my Campbellite family tend to a “post-millenialist” stance, so, even though they could be described as fairly close to an evangelical and fundamentalist outlook, they are not really dispensationalists. “No man knows the hour…” about summed it up for them.

I knew one preacher who created his own theory he called the “popcorn” theory of the rapture. He said during the tribulation, every time a person repents they will be instantly raptured into Heaven.
Reminded me of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’.
Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings.

 

[po18guy]

In some circles, yes, every Christian has an amazing amount of authority. People in my former church, Fundamentalist independent Baptist, felt perfectly comfortable in dismissing what any other person believed or taught if it disagreed with a personal interpretation. I often heard lines like “Well, he hasn’t read Whateverbook 14:3.” The only authority other than our verse slinging was saying the preacher didn’t believe that way. If we disagreed with out pastor, finding a verse to support our position was not too hard. You can prove pretty much anything if you use quotes absent context.

I suppose the ultimate proof is in how we hired pastors. An advertisement would be placed in a publication geared toward people with our belief system. A selection committee would invite finalists to preach on successive Sunday mornings. The committee would pick one to whom an offer would be made. If he accepted, the church would vote to ratify the hiring. Even though we were nominally Baptist, any potential pastor crossing the invisible lines of our own interpretation, even though it may fit with other Baptist churches, could forget hearing from the committee.

That said, any member of our church would think nothing of getting out a Scofield Bible, following the references, and thinking himself fully capable of discerning the full span of Christian faith.We never once heard a sermon about the origin of the Bible, so there was no fall-back on authority.

Going to Sunday School, Sunday morning preaching, Training Union, Sunday night service, Wednesday night service, and even to jail services, I never once thought about the origin of the Bible until I started talking to a priest. It was sort of a given that the Bible had been around since day one and that private interpretation was totally valid.

If you operate that way, with the Bible independent of its background, you really don’t know what has been believed past your own experiences. Truly, I had no idea how limited rapture theory is until I crossed the Tiber.

All my friends and relatives in my home town are at least culturally attached to the church where I grew up. If the topic of the end times comes up when I visit, some are very much surprised to hear that rapture theory is a historically recent development. They have never once heard that there is an alternative to that belief.

I had to chuckle when I read your post. I can only imagine what it would be like trying to convince one of them that their interpretation is off.