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

[stewstew03]

Above being the scope of heresy…

AmateurPianist - you went from defining heresy to assuming, ipso facto, that a tribulation view of the rapture is demonic? I wonder if you spent as much time reading the sources you cited as you did writing your reply…

The Church defines “reading comprehension” as… no, I’m just kidding, they don’t have a definition for reading comprehension. I admit, I can also get rather lazy when reading an article (particularly one on religion). But to read 4% of an article (one paragraph out of approximately 25) and use that as evidence to support an argument is like reading the first paragraph of the US Constitution and citing it as proof that it can’t be amended!

I’m no theologian, AP, but I’m rather certain (thanks to the Great Heresies article you provided) that the Church does not teach that a tribulation view of the rapture is demonic.

I am confident that if I want to spend more time I can find more sources along this line.

I’m quite confident in your ability to find sources; unfortunately, I’m not so confident that the sources you cite will actually support your arguments…

 

[patrick457]

That certainly fills in the blanks for the framework of Historic Premillinial, Amellinial, Postmillinial and the Millinialist of today…

As you can see, even the premillennialists in early Christianity believed that the faithful living in those days will undergo tribulation, not exempted from it, and that only at the coming of Christ at the last hour will they be caught up to meet Him and share in His glory by reigning with Him in the messianic kingdom before the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. In technical jargon, they are “post-tribbers”. Which kinda makes more sense to me than Christians being whisked away into safety while all the rest get afflicted with plague and whatnot; after all, didn’t St. Paul say, “If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him”?

I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

• St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 80

Note the way Justin writes about his view: it sounds rather highly defensive. While he first admits that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians” hold a different opinion than he does, he later stresses himself and others who hold the same opinion as he as being “right-minded Christians on all points” as well (going so far as to trace his beliefs to “John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place”) as if there were many who would hold that they were neither correct nor “right-minded.”

Mention is made earlier that St. Justin is slightly inconsistent in his eschatological views. Why is this? Because in some places, Justin seems to write as if the kingdom is now here, whereas as in the quote above, he thinks that the kingdom is yet to come. In Justin’s First Apology he laments the Romans’ misunderstanding of endtime expectations. The Romans had assumed that when Christians looked for a kingdom, they were looking for a physical one. Justin corrects this misunderstanding by saying: “For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect.” (First Apology 11.1-2; also Apol. 52; Dialogue 45.4; 113.3-5; 139.5)

 

[Little_Mary]

AmateurPianist - you went from defining heresy to assuming, ipso facto, that a tribulation view of the rapture is demonic? I wonder if you spent as much time reading the sources you cited as you did writing your reply…

The Church defines “reading comprehension” as… no, I’m just kidding, they don’t have a definition for reading comprehension. I admit, I can also get rather lazy when reading an article (particularly one on religion). But to read 4% of an article (one paragraph out of approximately 25) and use that as evidence to support an argument is like reading the first paragraph of the US Constitution and citing it as proof that it can’t be amended!

I’m no theologian, AP, but I’m rather certain (thanks to the Great Heresies article you provided) that the Church does not teach that a tribulation view of the rapture is demonic.

I’m quite confident in your ability to find sources; unfortunately, I’m not so confident that the sources you cite will actually support your arguments…

Thanks stewstew03, didn’t see AP’s post until just now and you beat me to it.

Do you think that if we used, oh, just any source, and only a small percentage of it, and even then super-impose our personal interpretation on it, to (attempt to) support some way out assumption, that we should expect everyone to accept it as truth? After all, that’s what AP does, and she does seem to have quite an air of confidence about her.

Just askin’…

 

[Izdaari]

Though the majority of my church (Assemblies of God) is probably pre-millennialist, pre-tribulationist, I am not. I don’t even begin to pretend to know which interpretation of the end-times prophecies is correct. Just call me a pan-millennialist, I suppose: just trust in Jesus and it will all **pan **out.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I’m no theologian, AP, but I’m rather certain (thanks to the Great Heresies article you provided) that the Church does not teach that a tribulation view of the rapture is demonic.

The Catholic church does believe that LB rapture is heresy does it not? If the LB rapture is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church, then I recant because it was my impression that it was. (If it is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church then why the debate here).

The church also believes heresy (objectively) is a mortal sin correct? (This is not address the full advice/consent part of what makes a sin mortal.) If it is not a mortal sin, then I recant because it is my impression that it is.

Does not the Catholic church believe that mortal sin is of the realm of Satan and the demonic?

If any of these three assumptions are incorrect, let me know and I will recant these statements. I am willing to learn. But if these assumptions are correct, then my statements stand.

But in the light of these assumptions, my only point in what I said was that the two quotes I mentioned earlier are reasonable given the Catholic church teachings on heresy and mortal sin.

If the left behind takes you away from the truth then it is a lie that you are being drawn to. To be drawn to a lie suggests that it was espoused by a liar. If espoused by a liar then the origin of all lies is demonic. I would disagree.

The spirit which motivated the “Left Behind” series is either God’s Holy Spirit, or a spirit of this world. There is no other choice.

If these quotes do not reflect Catholic teaching given the Catholic teachings concerning heresy and mortal sin, then you do not have an issue with me; instead you have an issue with fellow Catholics on this thread.

 

[Nicea325]

Nothing a TV Evangelist says is bizarre. It’s all true. Isn’t it?

:whacky: Oh yeah…it is all true.

 

[Telstar]

The Catholic church does believe that LB rapture is heresy does it not? If the LB rapture is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church, then I recant because it was my impression that it was. (If it is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church then why the debate here).

The ‘rapture’ as portrayed by the LB series, is a misinterpretation of Scripture that even some Catholics are confused about. As far as I know, there is no Catholic Dogma on how the ‘rapture’ is defined by the Church, so the debate is over the different interpretations of it, and has nothing to do with any Dogma.

The church also believes heresy (objectively) is a mortal sin correct? (This is not address the full advice/consent part of what makes a sin mortal.) If it is not a mortal sin, then I recant because it is my impression that it is.

Does not the Catholic church believe that mortal sin is of the realm of Satan and the demonic?

Heresy is a mortal sin for Catholics. I believe there is a distinction made in the Catechism between those who are Catholics that embrace heretical views and leave the Church, and those that are born into a ‘heretical sect’ that were never actually Catholics, first. All forms of sin are inspired by the devil, because they go against God’s teachings. So, if something doesn’t come from the inspiration of God, where else did it originate? There really isn’t any ‘middle ground’ as far as where any sin originates. It’s always evil.

If any of these three assumptions are incorrect, let me know and I will recant these statements. I am willing to learn. But if these assumptions are correct, then my statements stand.

But in the light of these assumptions, my only point in what I said was that the two quotes I mentioned earlier are reasonable given the Catholic church teachings on heresy and mortal sin.

You do realize what happens when we assume, right?

If these quotes do not reflect Catholic teaching given the Catholic teachings concerning heresy and mortal sin, then you do not have an issue with me; instead you have an issue with fellow Catholics on this thread.

Like I said, heresy and mortal sin depends on the individuals involved, as far as their culpability goes. Since a false interpretation usually comes from our failure to follow the correct sources of interpretation, then it is sinful to take interpretation upon ourselves. The only true authority on the interpretation of Scripture is the Catholic Church (we wrote the Book), so all other interpretations that are contrary to Her teachings, is a sin. The seriousness of that sin depends on what we choose to interpret for ourselves. If we’re talking about interpreting that Jesus is not God, then that would likely be considered a mortal sin. But, the subject of the ‘rapture’ is not as serious, because how we interpret it doesn’t directly effect our salvation. I would tend to think it’s a venial sin, but even then, it’s still inspired by the devil, so both of those statements are correct.

 

[CopticChristian]

The Catholic church does believe that LB rapture is heresy does it not? If the LB rapture is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church, then I recant because it was my impression that it was. (If it is not contrary to the dogma of the Catholic church then why the debate here).

The church also believes heresy (objectively) is a mortal sin correct? (This is not address the full advice/consent part of what makes a sin mortal.) If it is not a mortal sin, then I recant because it is my impression that it is.

Does not the Catholic church believe that mortal sin is of the realm of Satan and the demonic?

If any of these three assumptions are incorrect, let me know and I will recant these statements. I am willing to learn. But if these assumptions are correct, then my statements stand.

But in the light of these assumptions, my only point in what I said was that the two quotes I mentioned earlier are reasonable given the Catholic church teachings on heresy and mortal sin.

If these quotes do not reflect Catholic teaching given the Catholic teachings concerning heresy and mortal sin, then you do not have an issue with me; instead you have an issue with fellow Catholics on this thread.

I anticipate that you will get lots of answers on this. I like to take the simplistic approach. I believe that your questions may seem to imply a complicated understanding.

Evolution. You can believe in Evolution if you like. I can believe in Evolution if I like. The Church says that I can. I am amused at the Protestants that contrast belief in evolution and a belief in their form of Christianity as polar opposites. The Church says I can believe in evolution as long as I do not deny Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there is no one for Christ to redeem. I am steeped in Evolution. I have a BS in Zoology where I had to learn and regurgitate evolution. It is only a theory and it never caused me to doubt my faith. It is not the boogy man.

Take the Creed and all elements. I cannot deny those. These elements were incorporated 1700 years ago to protect the flock from wrong theaching. I am grateful for that. Anytime something comes along that does not coincide with the Creed I have surety that Mother Church has provided a guide for me.

I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is an element of the Creed. I believe that. Now, there is a difference between Covenental Theology and Dispensational theology. Covenants are sacred family bonds. The Dispensational thought is new although professed to be old. Here is the rub. If you accept Dispensational theology in its wholeness, you accept that God had plan A and plan B. He offered salvation to the Jews, they rejected it, Plan A. So plan B goes into effect “church age” until all Israel is saved. There are some truths to that however the issue is why it cannot be accepted. It denies one element of the Creed. The “Church” becomes the “church”. This equates to a denial of the OHCAC. This is why I see it as dangerous to those that accept this stuff.

You can believe in dispensational thought, argue about it, talk about it, write about it and do anything you want with it…as long as you do not deny " I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church"…it is like evolution…just a theory…

Ok.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The ‘rapture’ as portrayed by the LB series, is a misinterpretation of Scripture that even some Catholics are confused about. As far as I know, there is no Catholic Dogma on how the ‘rapture’ is defined by the Church, so the debate is over the different interpretations of it, and has nothing to do with any Dogma.

So the Left Behind version of the rapture is not heretical per Catholic dogma? If I were Catholic, would I be free to choose to believe it if I honestly believed it to be true? That would be news to me, but I learn stuff.

If it is not heretical then why the debate here on it.

Heresy is a mortal sin for Catholics. I believe there is a distinction made in the Catechism between those who are Catholics that embrace heretical views and leave the Church, and those that are born into a ‘heretical sect’ that were never actually Catholics, first. All forms of sin are inspired by the devil, because they go against God’s teachings. So, if something doesn’t come from the inspiration of God, where else did it originate? There really isn’t any ‘middle ground’ as far as where any sin originates. It’s always evil.

Right. That was the logic I was using.

You do realize what happens when we assume, right?

Assume can be a logical term. Even mathematics has a small set of assumptions that can not be proven. Anyway…

Like I said, heresy and mortal sin depends on the individuals involved, as far as their culpability goes.

Yup. Technically I guess one would call it a grave sin, which is one of the conditions that make it mortal. This condition is objective. The other conditions deal with culpability and these are subjective.

Since a false interpretation usually comes from our failure to follow the correct sources of interpretation, then it is sinful to take interpretation upon ourselves. The only true authority on the interpretation of Scripture is the Catholic Church (we wrote the Book), so all other interpretations that are contrary to Her teachings, is a sin. The seriousness of that sin depends on what we choose to interpret for ourselves. If we’re talking about interpreting that Jesus is not God, then that would likely be considered a mortal sin. But, the subject of the ‘rapture’ is not as serious, because how we interpret it doesn’t directly effect our salvation. I would tend to think it’s a venial sin, but even then, it’s still inspired by the devil, so both of those statements are correct.

Now I am confused.

If the Left Behind rapture is not heresy (meaning not contrary to Catholic dogma) then on what basis can you say it is objectively wrong…outside of it being your opinion.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets simmer down and stop throwing the ‘demonic’ word around.

 

[CopticChristian]

So the Left Behind version of the rapture is not heretical per Catholic dogma? If I were Catholic, would I be free to choose to believe it if I honestly believed it to be true? That would be news to me, but I learn stuff.

If it is not heretical then why the debate here on it.

Right. That was the logic I was using.

Assume can be a logical term. Even mathematics has a small set of assumptions that can not be proven. Anyway…

Yup. Technically I guess one would call it a grave sin, which is one of the conditions that make it mortal. This condition is objective. The other conditions deal with culpability and these are subjective.

Now I am confused.

If the Left Behind rapture is not heresy (meaning not contrary to Catholic dogma) then on what basis can you say it is objectively wrong…outside of it being your opinion.

I pointed out to you that accepting and believing Dispensationalism equates to rejecting
“I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”…it is not the theory that is an issue but what it leads to. If you accept it as true to the full extent that you understand it then you deny the OHCAC. If you accept elements of it as theory then all you are doing is regarding it as such and not doctrine to be believed or dogma…

 

[Telstar]

So the Left Behind version of the rapture is not heretical per Catholic dogma? If I were Catholic, would I be free to choose to believe it if I honestly believed it to be true? That would be news to me, but I learn stuff.

There is no Dogma related to the interpretation of the ‘rapture’. Dogma is a definition of absolute truths like the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus and other absolutes, that are non-negotiable because their interpretation directly affects our salvation. The nature and timing of the ‘rapture’ is not an absolute truth, because it isn’t seen as a deal breaker for our salvation. Dispensational theology is a different story, but, they’re separate issues.

You can choose to believe whatever you like as a Catholic, as long as you realize that if you refuse to believe the things that are non-negotiable (Dogma), you will put your soul in serious jeopardy. We all sin in some things, even if we don’t realize it’s a sin. That’s why the Sacrament of Penance is such a blessing, because we can confess our sins and be absolved by the Priest, as long as we are truly sorry and try to avoid those sins in the future. Absolution will cover the small things that we forget about or don’t realize are sinful. That doesn’t mean that we won’t have to spend some time in Purgatory for them, though.

If it is not heretical then why the debate here on it.

I already said it was because of the variety of interpretations of what the Second Coming actually means, and when it will happen. Catholics in general believe it will happen at the final Judgement, when Jesus comes back and the general resurrection of the dead occurs. The LB version is a different interpretation. It teaches that some ‘special’ Christians will be removed from the earth, so they won’t have to suffer during the tribulation. That interpretation hasn’t really been part of Christian thought for as long as many of it’s believers think it has. That was the point of the thread. It was a passing ‘fad’ that some believed in the early church, but that all but disappeared until someone decided to take it back up, a few years ago (relatively speaking).

Right. That was the logic I was using.

But, you were trying to apply the teaching of it being a mortal sin to non-Catholics. That might not necessarily be true, depending on their particular circumstances, even though it’s still a sin to follow faulty interpretations of the Bible.

Assume can be a logical term. Even mathematics has a small set of assumptions that can not be proven. Anyway…

I was actually referring to the Odd Couple definition of what happens when we assume. Just a little touch of humor.

Yup. Technically I guess one would call it a grave sin, which is one of the conditions that make it mortal. This condition is objective. The other conditions deal with culpability and these are subjective.

A mortal sin is a grave sin, or what the Bible calls a “sin unto death”. But, a venial sin is less serious and will not necessarily send us to hell, if that’s the worst sins we ever commit.

Now I am confused.

If the Left Behind rapture is not heresy (meaning not contrary to Catholic dogma) then on what basis can you say it is objectively wrong…outside of it being your opinion.

I was contrasting mortal and venial sins, as well as saying that following any false interpretations is always sinful. If the LB series is based on Dispesational theology, then it is more likely to be a false interpretation, thus it could be sinful. Since the Church teaches that the Second Coming (rapture) will happen after the tribulation, at the resurrection (even though not as Dogma), anyone that teaches otherwise is incorrect. I hope that clears it up, and I didn’t make it even more confusing.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I hope that clears it up, and I didn’t make it even more confusing.

I now am more confused than ever. Let me back up.

What has the Catholic church infallibly stated concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[MontChevalier]

I think I need to correct people on something here:

The Rapture is not a 19th century invention, but a 17th century invention. The concept of the rapture, in connection with premillennialism, was expressed by the 17th-century American Puritan father and son Increase and Cotton Mather. They held to the idea that believers would be caught up in the air, followed by judgments on the Earth, and then the millennium. The term rapture was used by Philip Doddridge and John Gill in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the Earth and Jesus’ second coming.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture#Doctrinal_history (Not the best, but it’s better than nothing).

-MontChevalier

 

[stewstew03]

Evolution. You can believe in Evolution if you like. I can believe in Evolution if I like. The Church says that I can. I am amused at the Protestants that contrast belief in evolution and a belief in their form of Christianity as polar opposites. The Church says I can believe in evolution as long as I do not deny Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve there is no one for Christ to redeem. I am steeped in Evolution. I have a BS in Zoology where I had to learn and regurgitate evolution. It is only a theory and it never caused me to doubt my faith. It is not the boogy man.

Great points CC. I was going to bring up the topic of “animals/pets in heaven” as an example, but the topic of evolution is a more salient point.

AmateurPianist - I think you’re using the term “dogma” too loosely. If you’re going to explore Catholicism while on your journey, though I get the impression you have a somewhat pessimistic view of it, then start with “dogma” - what it is, and what it isn’t.

 

[CopticChristian]

I now am more confused than ever. Let me back up.

What has the Catholic church infallibly stated concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Every Sunday as part of Worship in the Liturgy as we profess our mystery of Faith…it is said…

Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again…

youtube.com/watch?v=r4F3xbvKg6Q

When you consider that all Protestant thought for the most part comes from the OHCAC it should come as no surprise that there is some notion of the return of Christ…I believe leaving it as a mystery is appropriate…

Every Sunday when I go to Mass to worship…our Priest asks…How is everyone…How was your week…How did you love and serve the Lord this week?

At the end of Mass the priest always says…go now to love and serve the Lord…

Faith, Hope and Charity…the greatest of these is Charity…what we believe about eschatology or speak of in eschatology is summed up in our mystery of faith…go and be Charitable…This whole Rapture/Dispensational thing has become the entire worship service treating it like it is no mystery and the Darbiests have it all figured out…go be Charitable…it is a mystery.

 

[sallybutler]

CopticChristian has it right, we believe in the 2nd Coming.

However, I was taught that Jesus didn’t know the time. So if He choose not to tell us, and even to suggest by the manner in which He said it, that it was not something anyone should spend a lot of time worrying about, I’ve decided that is the approach to take. I believe that also happens to be the Church’s opinion.

 

[Telstar]

I now am more confused than ever. Let me back up.

What has the Catholic church infallibly stated concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I think the only thing that is an ‘infallible’ teaching (Dogma) is that Jesus “will come again, to Judge the living and the dead”. That is the essence of the Second Coming that is clearly stated in the Creed, and is one of those non-negotiable points that I mentioned before. The other events leading up to that point, are not as well defined, but they’re things that are considered to be certain to happen, but there’s no firm determination about the details. There’s a pretty good summary of the other related events concerning the Second Coming (General Judgement), here.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Every Sunday as part of Worship in the Liturgy as we profess our mystery of Faith…it is said…

Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again…

youtube.com/watch?v=r4F3xbvKg6Q

When you consider that all Protestant thought for the most part comes from the OHCAC it should come as no surprise that there is some notion of the return of Christ…I believe leaving it as a mystery is appropriate…

Every Sunday when I go to Mass to worship…our Priest asks…How is everyone…How was your week…How did you love and serve the Lord this week?

At the end of Mass the priest always says…go now to love and serve the Lord…

Faith, Hope and Charity…the greatest of these is Charity…what we believe about eschatology or speak of in eschatology is summed up in our mystery of faith…go and be Charitable…This whole Rapture/Dispensational thing has become the entire worship service treating it like it is no mystery and the Darbiests have it all figured out…go be Charitable…it is a mystery.

OK I think I get the picture.

So in this thread when the claim is made that the LB rapture is wrong, it is not directly based on any infallible pronouncement from the pope.

So whatever the merits of these claims are (and btw I believe they do have merit) they are in the end fallible, and thus it is possible that they are incorrect per Catholicism.

Which is pretty much the way I see it. When I open my Bible, I am sorry but it just doesn’t read to me like the Late Great Planet Earth. And from my not-so-expert knowledge of history I just don’t see the Late Great Planet Earth there either. But who knows, maybe I am missing something somewhere.

Still I for one don’t get it.

 

[sallybutler]

OK I think I get the picture.

So in this thread when the claim is made that the LB rapture is wrong, it is not directly based on any infallible pronouncement from the pope.

So whatever the merits of these claims are (and btw I believe they do have merit) they are in the end fallible, and thus it is possible that they are incorrect per Catholicism.

Which is pretty much the way I see it. When I open my Bible, I am sorry but it just doesn’t read to me like the Late Great Planet Earth. And from my not-so-expert knowledge of history I just don’t see the Late Great Planet Earth there either. But who knows, maybe I am missing something somewhere.

Still I for one don’t get it.

I suspect that if you read the books all the way thru, you’d come across some rather debatable theology. I also suspect some people forget that it is fiction. I don’t know who the current anti-christ is (generally, whoever is the current president of the US seems to be the favorite choice of the week), nor which institution is really bad (world bank, UN, CC, masons, etc), but it often seems like it is a conspiracy theory using Revelation as the basis instead of the grassy knoll.

I also don’t get it.