B
Benadam
Guest
I wonder what a martyr (sp) would say about a pretrib rapture…
- Status
M
Maccabees
Guest
I gotten eaten by a Lion what makes you think your better than me?
Reminds me of how St Ignatius of Antioch actually looked forward to martyrdom he’s basically says he wants to be chewed up by the lion and be made bread for the lord and obvious eucharistic reference. How different is that from the rapturist crowd. Amercian fundamentialist would never have last in the early church. They would be constantly looking to dissapear or for some miracles to allow them to escape if our Lord suffered a marytr’s death how can we expect to avoid it? The apsotles didn’t avoid it neither did the early church. They endured till the end. Something you won’t hear in a fundies church.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Okay, and all you’ve proved is that you like to argue, not the ability to prove an erroneous point.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Hello All;
Another good book on premillenialist dispensationalism and the “Rapture” is Carl Olson’s book “Will Catholics Be ‘Left Behind?’” It does a great job of explaining the history of premillenialism (pre, post, and mid-trib) then skewers the theory quite nicely, with many citations to both protestant and catholic apologists like Ryrie, etc.
Olson concludes his book with a very nice description of Catholic eschatology that is seamless and elegant, unlike the lurching and inconsistent doctrine of premillenialism.
I agree with Olson’s conclusion that a belief in the “Rapture” has, as its foundation, an extremely pessimistic view of humanity that encourages christians to disengage from the complete message of the Gospel. All that can really matter to a believer in the Rapture is that souls “get saved” before time runs out. In short, one aspect of the Gospel, evangelization, is taken well out of context and over-emphasized to the absurd. Thus, premillenialism is a heresy, pure and simple, and its effect on christianity is subtly terrible.
Also, it can be argued that the doctrine has elements of gnosticism, as it includes the belief that only a certain “initiated” group of persons will attain to salvation while the unwashed masses will be left behind to face God’s wrath.
It’s just not sound doctrine, biblically or logically.
Peace,
Another good book on premillenialist dispensationalism and the “Rapture” is Carl Olson’s book “Will Catholics Be ‘Left Behind?’” It does a great job of explaining the history of premillenialism (pre, post, and mid-trib) then skewers the theory quite nicely, with many citations to both protestant and catholic apologists like Ryrie, etc.
Olson concludes his book with a very nice description of Catholic eschatology that is seamless and elegant, unlike the lurching and inconsistent doctrine of premillenialism.
I agree with Olson’s conclusion that a belief in the “Rapture” has, as its foundation, an extremely pessimistic view of humanity that encourages christians to disengage from the complete message of the Gospel. All that can really matter to a believer in the Rapture is that souls “get saved” before time runs out. In short, one aspect of the Gospel, evangelization, is taken well out of context and over-emphasized to the absurd. Thus, premillenialism is a heresy, pure and simple, and its effect on christianity is subtly terrible.
Also, it can be argued that the doctrine has elements of gnosticism, as it includes the belief that only a certain “initiated” group of persons will attain to salvation while the unwashed masses will be left behind to face God’s wrath.
It’s just not sound doctrine, biblically or logically.
Peace,
O
Ozzie
Guest
You’re right, but in context that wasn’t the point I was making. The Scriptures I quoted made it VERY clear that God has not destined the Church, the Body of Christ, to experience the “wrath to come.” The “wrath to come” is a future event and believers who are living on earth at that time are not destined to experience it.
Wrong on both counts. First, where in my post did I even mention “Catholics,” or “Protestants?” The true Church has nothing to do with such labels. Second, at the Rapture the whole Church Christ has been building (Matt. 16:18, made up of all true believers since Pentecost) will be taken up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:14-18). First those who have died in Christ will be bodily resurrected and those who are living at that time in history will be translated from mortal to immortal.
But God never leaves Himself without witness on this earth. The Rapture of the Church is the end of this Church age, when the “fulness of the Gentiles has come in” (i.e., into the Church; Rom. 11:25), and then God shifts back to fulfill His prophetic program with national Israel (Rom. 11:26-29). The Bible always keeps God’s program for the Church and His prophetic program for national Israel separate. At that time God seals 144,000 Jewish believers to evangelize the world (Rev. 7:3-10; cf. Matt. 24:14). You’ll notice that in Matt. 24:14 that it is the “gospel of the Kingdom” that is preached throughout the world at the end of the age (cf. Matt 24:3). This Church age has ended and the message that Israel’s Messiah/King is about to return to Jerusalem will be herald throughout the world at that time (read Zech. 14). Who else should proclaim that good news but believing Jews?
O
Ozzie
Guest
The Margaret McDonald story is propagated by many anti-Dispenstionalists only to discredit it. But every scholar (Dispensational and non-Dispensational) of any integrity rejects this slanderous tale. The fact that you even bring it up reveals that you have done little, if any, true research into the “truth” behind the slander. All you’ve done is enter into their lie.
It is true it was popularized by Scofield, but that doesn’t discredit it. Of course it’s not found in the writings of the early Church. The early, persecuted Church formulated no doctrinal views. But the prophet Daniel is told something very revealing:
DAN 12:6 "And one said to the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be until the end of these wonders?”
DAN 12:7 “And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.”
DAN 12:8 "As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?”
DAN 12:9 "And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.”
But for the first 400 years the Church was Premillennial, as evidenced by the writing of Justin Martyr. That is, it believed, based on what it was taught, that Christ would come back and set up a literal, political Kingdom on this earth for 1000 years, and after that God would create a new heavens and earth. But because of the fall of the western Empire to Germanic tribes (410 A.D.) and antisemitic sentiments, the Church adopted Augustine’s spiritual view of the Kingdom (expressed in his very popular literary work, “The City of God”) and lost sight of God’s prophetic Word regarding the Davidic Kingdom and national Israel. His prophetic and unconditional Covenant promises to that nation are clearly revealed in His written Word, both Old and New Testaments.
But now in these latter days of this Church age there has been a resurgence of prophetic truth. Certainly not all will believe God’s prophetic Word (RC’ism & various Protestant groups)) but, nevertheless, God’s Word is immutable and He is watching over it to perform it (Jer. 1:12). God doesn’t answer to us, neither Pope, Prelate, Priest or Pastor.
O
Ozzie
Guest
I guess you’re in need of a quick lesson in geography and history. In my post I quoted what Paul wrote to the Church at Thessalonica, which was in ancient Greece. In 1 Thess. 1:10 and 5:9 he tells them that God has not destined us (believers) for wrath. The “wrath” he was referring to could have nothing to do with what took place in 70 A.D. since what took place in 70 A.D. was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus. What Titus did to Jerusalem in 70 A.D. had absolutely no relevance, nor could it have, on the Gentile believers Paul was writing to in Thessalonica, Greece. Obviously, Paul was not referring to something that would take place in Jerusalem, hundreds of miles from the city in which these he was writing to were living. Why would the Thessalonians need to be told they would not endure the coming destruction of Jerusalem? A little common sense is needed here.
Also, the prophetic Book of Revelation was penned after 70 A.D., and in context of the breaking of the “seals” in chapter six, it is said, “for the great day of their wrath has come; and who is able to stand” (Rev. 6:17). The Book goes on to describe world wide catastrophes (trumpet and bowls judgments) which can not fit into the limited 70 A.D. event of the destruction of Jerusalem anyway.
Let me ask you again, Maggie, what books have you actually read/studied on this subject? Besides internet articles which agree with YOUR preconceived prejudices?
M
MBS1
Guest
Rev 7:9-10 - "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all the tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!”
Rev 7:13-14 - "Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come? I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation…”
Seems that a whole lot of “saved” Christians are going through the tribulation, like it or not!!
MBS1
Rev 7:13-14 - "Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come? I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation…”
Seems that a whole lot of “saved” Christians are going through the tribulation, like it or not!!
MBS1
M
Maccabees
Guest
Ok which is it? Your trying to have it both ways here the early church was on the run therefor it didn’t leave a rapture doctrine.
On the other hand the earyly church left us evidence that they were premillenial?
Your contradicitng yourself here and have all your facts mixed up.
The early church certainly left us clues of what they beleived as you yourself admit later Justin Martyr left us a clue he was not a PreMilliniast as you say but he was Milliniast a Post Milliniast.
Far before Augustine the church tarught amillinialist theology the church of Alexandria who producec Clement of Alexandria and Origen taught this shortly after the writings of Justin. Justin admits in in his writings that there are other opinions than his concerning the millinium.
These were the theories of the early church a rapturist scenario is nowhere to be found here. And by the way Justin didn’t believe in the rapture either. No one did in the early church.
“He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostacy, who speaks strange things against the most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on earth against us Christians, who have learned the true worship of God from the law, and the word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostle of Jesus.” Christ "shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by his angelic hosts, when also he shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality. (Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho)
K
Katholikos
Guest
Let us thank the hero of Protestantism, Martin Luther, for these ugly words. He wrote them and they’ve been spit at the Church by every Catholic-hater for the last 487 years. May God have mercy on Luther and LaHaye and all the enemies of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.Dumspirospero wrote: I read a few of his [Tim LaHaye’s] books when I was a huh, huh Protestant
and I remember him making references to the Pope possibly being the Anti-Christ and the Catholic Church as the whore of babylon…so he was probably secretly hoping he would pass on.
JMJ Jay
O
Ozzie
Guest
They’re in Heaven, and yes, they came out of the great Tribulation. That is, they died during that terrible time on earth. They’re believers but they’re NOT part of the Church (the true Church), the Bride of Christ, that was taken up to be with the Lord before the Tribulation period began.Rev 7:9-10 - "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all the tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!”
Rev 7:13-14 - "Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and whence have they come? I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation…”
Seems that a whole lot of “saved” Christians are going through the tribulation, like it or not!!
MBS1
M
Maccabees
Guest
And where exactly are these christians in heaven? I see no scripture in Revelation for escapee christians in heaven. The only end time christians we see are those who suffered.
B
Benadam
Guest
Does your pretrib view hinge on the concept that God wouldn’t make His believers suffer His wrath?
D
davy39
Guest
Hey Maggie, the whole crazy idea sure has sold lots of books. They have made a couple of guys millionaires.
S
SusanG
Guest
Please cite your evidence that this is a second group of faithful.
This is a question that I asked of my church leaders on many occasions when a protestant…believe it or not they cited “mystery” and accepting the precept on faith…**because there was no scriptural evidence **to support the dogma.
Blessings.
O
Ozzie
Guest
So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm (Premillennialism) perpetuated, that Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld it. Justin’s language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec.2); for after stating the Chiliastic (Premillennial) doctrine, he asserts:
“it to be thoroughly proved that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other hand, that many – even those of that race of Christians who follow no godly and pure doctrine – do not acknowledge it. For I have demonstrated to thee, that these are indeed called Christians; but are atheists and impious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous, and ungodly, and unsound…”
He adds:
“But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65:17) ‘Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people to rejoice,’ etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil a thousand years at Jerusalem; and after that the general, and, in a word, the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made the sons of the resurrection of God.”
Justin did not have a pleasant opinion of those who taught differently from the Premillennial view. Origin and the school of Alexandria adopted the allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture and taught many bizarre, mystical, doctines.
O
Ozzie
Guest
Lewis Sperry Chafer writes:
There have always been those, as Justin Martyr testifies with regard to his day, who oppose the plain teaching of the Bible on the millennial question. Modern denials move in one of three directions. They belittle the Scriptures bearing on the theme; they belittle the subject itself; or they belittle the scholarship of those who defend chiliasm. Some modern writers seem to realize but little that chiliasm or premillennialism was the all-but-universal belief of the early church, or the extent of that conviction in all centuries when any truth has been received at all. It is hardly worthy of any scholar to assert that this is a modern departure, or, if held in the early centuries, was looked upon as a heresy. It has been conceded that it was “lost,” along with other vital truths, at the end of the third century and remained hidden until the Reformation. It, like other truths, has had to be rediscovered and restated, all of which requires much time and study.
And even Daniel Witby, the father of postmillennianlism writes:
“The doctrine of the Millennium, or the reign of saints on earth for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants; and yet it passed among the best Christians, for two hundred and fifty years, for a tradition apostolical; and, as such, is delivered by many Fathers of the second and third century, who speak of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apostles, and of all the ancients who lived before them; who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were then so interpreted; and say that it was held by all Christians that were exactly orthodox.” “It was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church, by Papias (in Phyrgia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Irenaeus (in Gaul), Nepos (in Egypt), Apollinaris, Methodius (in the West and South), Cyprian, Victorinus (in Germany), by Tertullian (in Africa), Lactantius (in Italy), and Severus, and by the Council of Nice” (about A.D. 323). Even in his Treatise on the Millennium, in which he endeavors to set aside the ancient faith by his substitution of “a new hypothesis,” he acknowledges, according to Justin and Irenaeus, that (ch. 1, p.61) there were “three sorts of men: (1) The Heretics, denying the resurrection of the flesh and the Millennium. (2) The exactly orthodox, asserting both the resurrection and the Kingdom of Christ on earth. (3) The believers, who consented with the just, and yet endeavored to allegorize and turn into a metaphor all those Scriptures produced for a proper reign of Christ, and who had sentiments rather agreeing with those heretics who denied, than those exactly orthodox who maintained, this reign of Christ on earth.” (Vol. IV, Chpt. XIV, General Features Of Eschatology, A Brief Survey of the History of Chiliasm, pg. 264)
There have always been those, as Justin Martyr testifies with regard to his day, who oppose the plain teaching of the Bible on the millennial question. Modern denials move in one of three directions. They belittle the Scriptures bearing on the theme; they belittle the subject itself; or they belittle the scholarship of those who defend chiliasm. Some modern writers seem to realize but little that chiliasm or premillennialism was the all-but-universal belief of the early church, or the extent of that conviction in all centuries when any truth has been received at all. It is hardly worthy of any scholar to assert that this is a modern departure, or, if held in the early centuries, was looked upon as a heresy. It has been conceded that it was “lost,” along with other vital truths, at the end of the third century and remained hidden until the Reformation. It, like other truths, has had to be rediscovered and restated, all of which requires much time and study.
And even Daniel Witby, the father of postmillennianlism writes:
“The doctrine of the Millennium, or the reign of saints on earth for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants; and yet it passed among the best Christians, for two hundred and fifty years, for a tradition apostolical; and, as such, is delivered by many Fathers of the second and third century, who speak of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apostles, and of all the ancients who lived before them; who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were then so interpreted; and say that it was held by all Christians that were exactly orthodox.” “It was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church, by Papias (in Phyrgia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Irenaeus (in Gaul), Nepos (in Egypt), Apollinaris, Methodius (in the West and South), Cyprian, Victorinus (in Germany), by Tertullian (in Africa), Lactantius (in Italy), and Severus, and by the Council of Nice” (about A.D. 323). Even in his Treatise on the Millennium, in which he endeavors to set aside the ancient faith by his substitution of “a new hypothesis,” he acknowledges, according to Justin and Irenaeus, that (ch. 1, p.61) there were “three sorts of men: (1) The Heretics, denying the resurrection of the flesh and the Millennium. (2) The exactly orthodox, asserting both the resurrection and the Kingdom of Christ on earth. (3) The believers, who consented with the just, and yet endeavored to allegorize and turn into a metaphor all those Scriptures produced for a proper reign of Christ, and who had sentiments rather agreeing with those heretics who denied, than those exactly orthodox who maintained, this reign of Christ on earth.” (Vol. IV, Chpt. XIV, General Features Of Eschatology, A Brief Survey of the History of Chiliasm, pg. 264)
A
A_Chaoidh
Guest
For simple and powerful terms, one need only look to the Apostle’s Creed:
“…inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos”…
(Credo in) “…carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam…”
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
(I believe) in the resurrection of the body, life everlasting.
“…inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos”…
(Credo in) “…carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam…”
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
(I believe) in the resurrection of the body, life everlasting.
F
Faustina
Guest
Ok, I’m confused. How many times does Christ came back?
C
catsrus
Guest
My grandaughter, who is R.C.I.A., due for Baptism, Confirmation and 1st Eucharist at the Easter vigil on March 26th, came to me today with the following:
She was raised with no religion and stumbled to Catholicism through “the door” (fundie group) and reading all the “left behind” books. She deserves better than she’s getting but she is too shy to speak up and ask these questions.
How many Catholics do not understand Catholic teaching on the last days and what happens after death? Seems like many from what I’m reading and hearing.
Guess we’d better get busy catechizing ourselves and each other!
- Please explain the doctrine of Purgatory
- Why has Satan not been mentioned once since I’ve been in R.C.I.A?
- Do Catholics believe in Satan?
- Where do we go when we die?
She was raised with no religion and stumbled to Catholicism through “the door” (fundie group) and reading all the “left behind” books. She deserves better than she’s getting but she is too shy to speak up and ask these questions.
How many Catholics do not understand Catholic teaching on the last days and what happens after death? Seems like many from what I’m reading and hearing.
Guess we’d better get busy catechizing ourselves and each other!
- Status