"Secret" Rapture?

[Teflon93]

Well, you post “Darby” and"unknown before Darby" in your blog. So to the casual reader, this looks like some kooky idea. But you fail to inform that belief of the rapture of Messiah’s bride is linked to the coming of Messiah to restore Israel, nationally and spiritually, and he will judge all nations for what they did to Israel. Which is prophesied of in scripture over and over. You don’t explain that the Kingdom prophesied and promised to Israel under Messiah, which he himself said will be a 1000 years, is not so. But actually the 1000 years is now.

And which part of rapture theology precisely is presented pre-Darby in the 1830s as such?

The sleight of hand here is the insertion of a gap into prophecy, mid-sentence as it were, an innovation not established until the 19th century.

David Currie’s book demolishes this notion soundly, and demonstrates precisely where the sleight of hand occurs.

And last I looked, responding to the OP didn’t require believing in any of the various strains of Darbyism.

 

[Lev23]

David Currie’s book demolishes this notion soundly, and demonstrates precisely where the sleight of hand occurs.

Anyone who believes Israel is actually the Church can play fast and loose with whatever scripture they want, and “demolish” any notion to their hearts content.

“Sleight of hand”, give me a break!

 

[Teflon93]

Anyone who believes Israel is actually the Church can play fast and loose with whatever scripture they want, and “demolish” any notion to their hearts content.

“Sleight of hand”, give me a break!

Inserting a 2,000 year gap mid-sentence into prophecy is bad sleight-of-hand, but sleight-of hand nonetheless.

Where does Currie claim Israel to be the Church?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

When those who hold “Rapture theology” say that they beleive there is going to be a secret Rapture of all believers, what do they base this upon? Why must it be a *secret *Rapture, and where do they supposedly find this in the Bible? Thanks.

Ah, Secret Rapture is a strawman arguement. I have never read in any Dispensationalist work that the rapture will be secret. Those arguing aganist the rapture have claimed that Dispensationalists believe in a secret rapture.

In fact, I think it was a SDA book that first used this strawman arguement called The Secret Rapture.

 

[Fidelis]

I think it has everything to do what you are asking. First off, you knew what answer you were looking for before you even started this thread. Its obvious this is another cute snicker at the idea that Jesus will call his bride together to meet with him to prepare for the wedding of the Lamb…

**Again, it’s hard to believe you were really “looking” for inside info from “what one verse in scripture” pre-trib rapture believers use. **Why do I mention this? You yourself post numerous links to articles and products teaching against this belief everytime a “rapture” thread is made.

Mr. Undercover you are not.

I never claimed to be, and I never claimed to not already have an opinion are whether the “Rapture theology” as a whole is tenable, or a load of hooey. I obviously hold to the second opinion.

If you are through trying to read my mind and assign motives to me, believe me when I tell you that I was sincerely looking for an answer to this one question. Or don’t believe me. It’s up to you.

Now this is where your hangup is because you do not believe leading up to Jesus’ second coming, Israel will be in so much distress, that they will all finally turn back to their God.

Shows what you know. In fact I do beleive this, because the Church teaches it. And the Church teaches it because it is in the Bible (Romans 11) – unlike a secret, seperate Rapture independent of the Second Coming by about 1007 years.

 

[Church_Militant]

Well, you post “Darby” and"unknown before Darby" in your blog. So to the casual reader, this looks like some recent, kooky idea.

Because it is. You cannot locate a single early church father that taught the rapture as it is taught today.

But you fail to inform that belief of the rapture of Messiah’s bride is linked to the coming of Messiah to restore Israel, nationally and spiritually, and he will judge all nations for what they did to Israel. Which is prophesied of in scripture over and over, which was foretold aaaLLOOOnnng time ago.

Easily explained since until modern times (Post J.N . Darby) such interpretations were non-existent as currently presented.

You don’t explain that the Kingdom prophesied and promised to Israel under Messiah, which he himself said will be a 1000 years, is not so.

I don’t have to. This is not something that faithful Catholics oppose, just something that the n-C proponents of map out in greater detail than the Word of God actually teaches. I have read so much of this stuff that one’s head starts to hurt sooner or later and the fact is that there are about as many variants of these teachings and there are n-C proponents of them.

But actually the 1000 years is now.

Oh …really? :dts:

 

[Lev23]

“But actually the 1000 years is now.”

Oh …really? :dts:

For clarification, this is not what I believe, but what is said on this forum often. Is this or is it not what is taught in catholicism, that the 1000 years is now?

 

[Church_Militant]

“But actually the 1000 years is now.”

For clarification, this is not what I believe, but what is said on this forum often. Is this or is it not what is taught in catholicism, that the 1000 years is now?

What’s the Catholic Position?

As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been “amillennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676). In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism “cannot safely be taught,” though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, though they do not generally use the word “rapture” to refer to this event (somewhat ironically, since the term “rapture” is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—“we will be caught up,” [Latin: rapiemur]).

scripturecatholic.com/second_coming.html

Not that I am aware of…

 

[lak611]

Because it is. You cannot locate a single early church father that taught the rapture as it is taught today.Easily explained since until modern times (Post J.N . Darby) such interpretations were non-existent as currently presented.

This rapture thing is the product of J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield. Nobody before them ever taught such a thing.

 

[ryanoneil]

“But actually the 1000 years is now.”

For clarification, this is not what I believe, but what is said on this forum often. Is this or is it not what is taught in catholicism, that the 1000 years is now?

St. John describes the “Church age” in Rev 20:1-6. This age started with the birth of the Church at Christ’s Passion, when Satan was defeated. Satan was publicly chained when the Temple in Jerusalem fell.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Church_Militant]

This rapture thing is the product of J.N. Darby and C.I. Scofield. Nobody before them ever taught such a thing.