Does Your Church Teach About the Rapture(Catching up) Heaven, Hell, Prophecy?

[Enoch111]

I do agree that there is no such thing as a rapture. I've never been able to find this in the N.T.

Since I gave you the words of Christ which say that there is such a thing as the rapture, you cannot say any longer (in good conscience) that you have never been able to find it in the NT. "I will come again and receive you unto myself" = "You will be raptured".

Just because the word "rapture" is not in the Bible you don't believe this doctrine? Neither is the word "trinity", nor the phrase "the eternal security of the believer", nor some of the other truths which have to be expressed in words not found in the Bible.

The Latin Vulgate has the term "rapiemur" for the phrase "caught up together" in 1 Thess 4:17. And "rapture" is derived from this. The Greek has harpagesometha, so Christians could either keep saying "caught up together" or use the shorthand "rapture". It makes no difference. Bible truth is Bible truth, and just as Enoch was "translated" believers will be "translated", or "raptured" or "caught up together" when Christ returns for his saints.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5).

Why do so many hate the doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture and try to *prove* that J. N. Darby is responsible? Because it overturns all their false eschatology which began with Augustine, and continued within the Roman Catholic Church, and then in the Protestant Churches. No one stopped to question whether Augustine was in error. No one stopped to consider that it was Christ Himself who spelled out the Rapture before He was crucified.

 

[aspen]

I am not in favor of putting doctrine before people. Augustine and Calvin come to mind, however so does conservative Catholicism.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since I gave you the words of Christ which say that there is such a thing as the rapture, you cannot say any longer (in good conscience) that you have never been able to find it in the NT. "I will come again and receive you unto myself" = "You will be raptured".

Just because the word "rapture" is not in the Bible you don't believe this doctrine? Neither is the word "trinity", nor the phrase "the eternal security of the believer", nor some of the other truths which have to be expressed in words not found in the Bible.

The Latin Vulgate has the term "rapiemur" for the phrase "caught up together" in 1 Thess 4:17. And "rapture" is derived from this. The Greek has harpagesometha, so Christians could either keep saying "caught up together" or use the shorthand "rapture". It makes no difference. Bible truth is Bible truth, and just as Enoch was "translated" believers will be "translated", or "raptured" or "caught up together" when Christ returns for his saints.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb 11:5).

Why do so many hate the doctrine of the pre-tribulation Rapture and try to *prove* that J. N. Darby is responsible? Because it overturns all their false eschatology which began with Augustine, and continued within the Roman Catholic Church, and then in the Protestant Churches. No one stopped to question whether Augustine was in error. No one stopped to consider that it was Christ Himself who spelled out the Rapture before He was crucified.

If by rapture you mean that we will meet Jesus in "the air" on the last day, then I can agree.

It's this pre-trib stuff that I don't understand.
Jesus is coming back one time. If the pre-trib idea is true, He'd have to come back two times.

I've just started reading about this and I can't offer scripture at this point, but when I read through it, it did seem to me that Jesus is coming back once.

What did Augustine believe, BTW?
And could you give me the verses where Jesus spelled out this rapture?

Is it where He says that two will be in the field and one will be taken and one will be left?

 

[Enoch111]

I've just started reading about this and I can't offer scripture at this point, but when I read through it, it did seem to me that Jesus is coming back once.

Yes, Jesus is coming back TO EARTH once (Rev 1:7). But at the Rapture He does NOT come back to earth. Instead the saints rise supernaturally to meet the Lord IN THE AIR (which could be miles above the earth). This is not the Second Coming by any means.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, Jesus is coming back TO EARTH once (Rev 1:7). But at the Rapture He does NOT come back to earth. Instead the saints rise supernaturally to meet the Lord IN THE AIR (which could be miles above the earth). This is not the Second Coming by any means.

No wonder I never cared for eschatology!!
If Jesus comes back in the air once and on earth once, that makes TWO times.
I'll be reading up on this more...

 

[Nancy]

Of course even some protestants like him.
He invented predestination.
He invented election.

He was brilliant, but his gnostic and manechaen days must have had some influence on him.

I don't care for him. And I don't understand why he was such a big influence on the church...even original sin came from him and thus, infant baptism.

If I recall correctly he also had something to do with the rise of Calvinism..

 

[GodsGrace]

If I recall correctly he also had something to do with the rise of Calvinism..

The theology of calvinism - the nature of God as they see it - was never believed by any of the early church theologians, except for Augustine. He came up with predestination. So Calvin got the idea from him and expounded on it.
So we have nothing to thank Augustine for.
He invented original sin --- sin that is imputed to us from Adam, rather than the idea that we suffer from the effects of Adam falling and that we are all born with the sin nature now.

So, yes, you're right. Augustine had a lot to do with calvinism.

 

[Nancy]

The theology of calvinism - the nature of God as they see it - was never believed by any of the early church theologians, except for Augustine. He came up with predestination. So Calvin got the idea from him and expounded on it.
So we have nothing to thank Augustine for.
He invented original sin --- sin that is imputed to us from Adam, rather than the idea that we suffer from the effects of Adam falling and that we are all born with the sin nature now.

So, yes, you're right. Augustine had a lot to do with calvinism.

Calvinism is a lie from the pit of hell IMO...the very thing that had me walking away from God back in the 90's. I can only imagine how many souls their "doctrine" has lead AWAY from Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

Calvinism is a lie from the pit of hell IMO...the very thing that had me walking away from God back in the 90's. I can only imagine how many souls their "doctrine" has lead AWAY from Jesus.

You won't get an argument from me!

God is a God of Love.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The theology of calvinism - the nature of God as they see it - was never believed by any of the early church theologians, except for Augustine. He came up with predestination. So Calvin got the idea from him and expounded on it.
So we have nothing to thank Augustine for.
He invented original sin --- sin that is imputed to us from Adam, rather than the idea that we suffer from the effects of Adam falling and that we are all born with the sin nature now.

So, yes, you're right. Augustine had a lot to do with calvinism.

Augustine's my favorite.
Here's a favorite quote by him;
"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."

 

[Nancy]

You won't get an argument from me!

God is a God of Love.

️ The of ☮

 

[GodsGrace]

Augustine's my favorite.
Here's a favorite quote by him;
"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."

Well, that's one.
I think that's it.

In between the truth, lie many untruths.

 

[Nancy]

Well, that's one.
I think that's it.

In between the truth, lie many untruths.

Galatians 5:8-9 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. ?

 

[GodsGrace]

Galatians 5:8-9 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. ?

I believe you're referring to the acceptance of this man.
Sure. This is true.
But there were so many church fathers before him...
He must have been very charismatic.

 

[Naomi25]

Does Your Church Teach About the Rapture(Catching up) Heaven, Hell, Prophecy,Last Days?? Or is your church little more than a semi-private social club? When was the last Sunday you heard a sermon about the Rapture(Catching up) Heaven, Hell, Prophecy,.Last Days?? Or does your church teach lets all just be happy and we are all OK and I am OK so no worries??

Hi! Our Church has just started going through Revelation, which is interesting, I think. People in the Church speak of Christ's return, of course, but not with the detail that would narrow down point of view, so to speak. Which...you know...is disappointing.
However...while I could stand to hear more of it from the pulpit and the congregation, you do make it sound like that if a Church doesn't teach on it, then they are almost a "why bother" Church...sort of like caffeine free, sugar free Coke. While I agree that our Lord's return is certainly worth spending considerable time on, it isn't the only thing that makes a Church "saved". There are many other topics in scripture to teach and focus on. And...if it's in scripture, it can't be knocked!

That's John 14, not John 12. And it is not about the Second Coming ("his return") but about the Rapture ("I will come again and receive you unto myself").

Do you know the difference between Christ coming FOR His saints (at th Rapture) and Christ coming WITH His saints (at the Second Coming)? Kindly take some time to study the matter thorougly before responding.

I've always wondered about this. It seems to be one of the heavy "proofs" that "pre-trib" believers use to back up their ideas, and I honestly think that the passages they base it on are ambiguous.
Yes, Jesus might be coming back FOR Saints at one point...and he might be coming back WITH Saints in another passage. But...there are Saints up there now even as there are ones down here now. There is nowhere that specifically says that these two events must be unconnected. Jesus could, at a single point in time, return with those who are now in heaven, to collect those who are now on Earth. A meeting in the middle, shall we say?
I'm not saying the Pre-tribbers are dead wrong, and I'm dead right, but I think there's a question there, and I don't feel much weight can be put on it, really. I can be read either way.

 

[Enoch111]

Jesus might be coming back FOR Saints at one point...and he might be coming back WITH Saints in another passage. But...there are Saints up there now even as there are ones down here now.

One needs to be perfectly clear that the Rapture is actually the Resurrection/Rapture.

The souls and spirits of deceased saints from Heaven are brought by Christ to be joined with their immortal and glorious bodies. At the same time the living saints are transformed, perfected, glorified, and translated to Heaven. Please study 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15.

But this is not the same Christ coming with all His glorified saints and angels at the Second Coming, and they give the appearance of clouds surrounding Him.

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14,15)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Rev 1:7)

 

[Naomi25]

One needs to be perfectly clear that the Rapture is actually the Resurrection/Rapture.

The souls and spirits of deceased saints from Heaven are brought by Christ to be joined with their immortal and glorious bodies. At the same time the living saints are transformed, perfected, glorified, and translated to Heaven. Please study 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15.

But this is not the same Christ coming with all His glorified saints and angels at the Second Coming, and they give the appearance of clouds surrounding Him.

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14,15)

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Rev 1:7)

I understand this is how you, and others like you see this...and please understand...I'm not planting my flag on a hill and saying I believe you are definitely wrong. Indeed, you may be right in this matter. I do hold a different opinion, but am open to lean should the Spirit guide me.
My point is, when the instant that those souls receive their glorified bodies, and those translated from the ground do so as well in the air....is that not the same as Christ being surrounded and glorified by his Saints?

1 Thess 4 tells us that the dead will rise first, then we who are alive will also meet Christ in the air...where we will both receive our new bodies.
1 Cor 15 tells us of the moment when those alive shall be caught up into the air and given new bodies. This, to me, is the same event of 1 Thess 4. But neither of them give us leave to paint two separate events...one before, one after.
Is is more of a case of perspective, I would argue...as is the two verses you've posted. Is it correct to say Christ comes twice...once for the just, and then again to punish those left behind? We have verses speaking of Jesus gathering his elect, but then verses speaking of him coming in judgement. It sounds like two different comings, right? It depends what side of the fence you're sitting on. For Christians, Christ's return will be glorious, his angels will surround him, as will his Saints...it will be wondrous! For sinners, his return will be one of judgement. It will be wrathful...it will be terrifying. But it doesn't have to be separate events to be experienced separately.

Look...I'm not trying to tear away at your end times view. It's okay for you to see it this way, because, let's be honest...while it doesn't outright say two events...it doesn't say it won't be! I think I'm more trying to explain how it is that some people arrive at a position different to yours, and that doing so doesn't necessarily means we're dissing you, or scripture. I worry sometimes that conversations on End Times gets so heated. I know it's an important topic, and I love talking about it, but I do wish we could discuss our differences more agreeably! (Not talking about you here, just in general!)

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi! Our Church has just started going through Revelation, which is interesting, I think. People in the Church speak of Christ's return, of course, but not with the detail that would narrow down point of view, so to speak. Which...you know...is disappointing.
However...while I could stand to hear more of it from the pulpit and the congregation, you do make it sound like that if a Church doesn't teach on it, then they are almost a "why bother" Church...sort of like caffeine free, sugar free Coke. While I agree that our Lord's return is certainly worth spending considerable time on, it isn't the only thing that makes a Church "saved". There are many other topics in scripture to teach and focus on. And...if it's in scripture, it can't be knocked!

I've always wondered about this. It seems to be one of the heavy "proofs" that "pre-trib" believers use to back up their ideas, and I honestly think that the passages they base it on are ambiguous.
Yes, Jesus might be coming back FOR Saints at one point...and he might be coming back WITH Saints in another passage. But...there are Saints up there now even as there are ones down here now. There is nowhere that specifically says that these two events must be unconnected. Jesus could, at a single point in time, return with those who are now in heaven, to collect those who are now on Earth. A meeting in the middle, shall we say?
I'm not saying the Pre-tribbers are dead wrong, and I'm dead right, but I think there's a question there, and I don't feel much weight can be put on it, really. I can be read either way.

I also am just starting to become interested in this and you're observation above is a very good one!

Jesus comes WITH His saints (already in heaven)
FOR His saints (on earth).

Makes sense.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I also am just starting to become interested in this and you're observation above is a very good one!

Jesus comes WITH His saints (already in heaven)
FOR His saints (on earth).

Makes sense.

Can you really explain that Scripturally so that it makes sense?
I can't.

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you really explain that Scripturally so that it makes sense?
I can't.

I don't know about scripturally -- I don't have much scripture on this rapture thingy just yet. @Naomi25 seems to know a lot and I tend to agree with her.

BUT, this I know for sure:
All Christians are God's saints, set apart from the rest of the world.

Some saints are already in heaven.
Some saints are still here on earth.

So when Jesus comes back, ONE TIME, He will be bringing with Him the saints that are already in heaven,,,and He'll be coming to get His saints still on earth.

So this may sound like two comings, but really is only one.
Naomi25 hit it on the head.

Jesus comes WITH His saints (the ones in heaven)
FOR His saints (the ones still alive and on earth at the end of times).