False Doctrine of the "Secret Rapture".

[Hobie]

Then who is on earth coming through the great tribulation?

Revelation 7:13-14
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

People who have washed their robes in the blood of the lamb come out of the great tribulation. How can that be if unless the "taken up" happens after that tribulation?

Note also Revelation chapter 20 states, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds." Not all of the dead are in Hades. Some are in the sea. If Hades and Death and the sea are all the same then why make distinctions? What leads you to conclude the sea's dead, Death's dead, and Hades' dead are all not saints? That giving up of the dead and their subsequent judgment are both post-millennial!

They are the saints in heaven at the throne of God...

 

[Josheb]

They are the saints in heaven at the throne of God...

They were believers who went through the great tribulation. That is the salient point.

 

[Hodgie]

I have tried to put my premil viewpoint into graph form. I know people who are Amil will not agree with it but someone who is premil and believes in the secret rapture may come to a new understanding when looking at the graph and the corresponding verses.

 

[Hobie]

They were believers who went through the great tribulation. That is the salient point.

Which we see in history to say the least..

 

[CrowCross]

Many Churches have picked up the false Doctrine of the "Secret Rapture", and give the people the idea that if you are a real Christian you will be caught up in the secret rapture to be with Christ.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by a "secret" rapture....Does that mean no one knows the day or hour...or perhaps no one will know the christians were "caught up"? Or some other meaning?

Anyway we can learn from the bible Jesus comes back TWICE. Not once.
1) In the air at the rapture of the church.... 1 Thes 4:16-17
2) To do battle against the beast and the kings of the earth...Rev 19:11-16.....19

In the book of Acts chapter 1 Luke tells us....He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. Then the two men dressed in white said..."This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

Question....did Jesus leave on a white horse like He returns on in Rev? I say no. If Jesus left on a white horse I think Luke would have mentioned it.

The simple conclusion...Jesus returns twice. Once near the beginning of the tribulation then a second time at the end of the tribulation.

 

[Josheb]

Which we see in history to say the least..

Which we see happened in past history, to say the least.

 

[CrowCross]

Which we see happened in past history, to say the least.

I don't believe history has shown a rapture of the saints. Maybe with Elijah and Enoch...but not the church.

 

[Josheb]

I don't believe history has shown a rapture of the saints. Maybe with Elijah and Enoch...but not the church.

Crow, try to follow the conversation. @Hobie and I were discussing the great tribulation, not the rapture. You just changed the topic; moved the goalposts. You just got done telling me (in another thread) you don't like it when I say something clearly irrational is irrational. If you don't like it when I call the irrational what it is, then don't post that way. It is irrational to change the topic, expect the change not to be noticed, and further expect anyone to collaborate.

In some eschatological views the tribulation and the rapture are tied together chronologically, but that is not what was being addressed in Post 26.

 

[CrowCross]

Crow, try to follow the conversation. @Hobie and I were discussing the great tribulation, not the rapture. You just changed the topic; moved the goalposts. You just got done telling me (in another thread) you don't like it when I say something clearly irrational is irrational. If you don't like it when I call the irrational what it is, then don't post that way. It is irrational to change the topic, expect the change not to be noticed, and further expect anyone to collaborate.

In some eschatological views the tribulation and the rapture are tied together chronologically, but that is not what was being addressed in Post 26.

I suggest you drop your pius attitude...My reply was about the definition of what a "secret rapture" is.

My second response was ME providing information as to what I thought of the rapture...and a means to increase discussion on the topic.
Now, if it doesn't fit your tight regulation of how far YOU think I should deviate...then I'm sorry.

 

[Josheb]

I suggest you drop your pius attitude...My reply was about the definition of what a "secret rapture" is.

My second response was ME providing information as to what I thought of the rapture...and a means to increase discussion on the topic.
Now, if it doesn't fit your tight regulation of how far YOU think I should deviate...

None of which is relevant to what Hobie and I were discussing.

then I'm sorry.

Yep.

 

[Arial]

I'm not quite sure what is meant by a "secret" rapture....Does that mean no one knows the day or hour...or perhaps no one will know the christians were "caught up"? Or some other meaning?

Anyway we can learn from the bible Jesus comes back TWICE. Not once.
1) In the air at the rapture of the church.... 1 Thes 4:16-17
2) To do battle against the beast and the kings of the earth...Rev 19:11-16.....19

In the book of Acts chapter 1 Luke tells us....He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight. Then the two men dressed in white said..."This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven.”

Question....did Jesus leave on a white horse like He returns on in Rev? I say no. If Jesus left on a white horse I think Luke would have mentioned it.

The simple conclusion...Jesus returns twice. Once near the beginning of the tribulation then a second time at the end of the tribulation.

 

[CrowCross]

If I get a chance I'll watch it later. Though I do like RC, I don't agree with him 100%.

 

[Arial]

If I get a chance I'll watch it later. Though I do like RC, I don't agree with him 100%.

I don't agree with anyone 100% and I think the majority of people would say the same. But disagreeing with someone does not make either party right or wrong. Sproul's video teachings are detailed as to backing up what he says and yet clear. I do agree with him on the pre-trib rapture as I find it consistent with the rest of the Bible and the likely intent of the book of Rev. But again, what I agree with is immaterial. My main reason for posting the video is to point out that there are other views of the things in Rev that are valid possibilities. We can all have our opinions, but no one knows to the degree that they can say with absoluteness---"This is the truth." Although that is what we do all the time and particularly among the pre-trib dispensationalists. The view is stated as fact, no questions asked. A hill they are willing to die on.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't agree with anyone 100% and I think the majority of people would say the same. But disagreeing with someone does not make either party right or wrong. Sproul's video teachings are detailed as to backing up what he says and yet clear. I do agree with him on the pre-trib rapture as I find it consistent with the rest of the Bible and the likely intent of the book of Rev. But again, what I agree with is immaterial. My main reason for posting the video is to point out that there are other views of the things in Rev that are valid possibilities. We can all have our opinions, but no one knows to the degree that they can say with absoluteness---"This is the truth." Although that is what we do all the time and particularly among the pre-trib dispensationalists. The view is stated as fact, no questions asked. A hill they are willing to die on.

Thanks for the video...I got a chance to watch it. Yes, there are several views.
Personally I'll stick with the pre-trib rapture view as I see that as consistent with the rest of the bible and don't adhere to RC's returning from battle Roman association. I see the return aligning with the Jewish wedding process.

Am I willing to die on that hill? Not really. I could be wrong but I don't think I am. There are in my studied opinion too many things that would need to be changed for me to switch my rapture timing. keeping in mind I respect others opinions on this subject...funny thing is I find I can make the same statement for the post trib crowd..."The view is stated as fact, no questions asked. A hill they are willing to die on."

One thing we know for sure is that the correct rapture timing doesn't determine ones salvation.

 

[Arial]

There are in my studied opinion too many things that would need to be changed for me to switch my rapture timing. keeping in mind I respect others opinions on this subject...funny thing is I find I can make the same statement for the post trib crowd..."The view is stated as fact, no questions asked. A hill they are willing to die on."

Too many things in what you have been thinking concerning interpretations of the OT eschatologically. I began my Christian walk as a dispensationalist pre trib. It was the only thing I ever heard, the only view ever given, and one can make it make sense. It took me awhile and study and checking and double checking again, before I could even see the possibility of amil and covenant theology and the rapture as viewed in those two things---what Sproul said. I do not attempt to fully decipher all the visions in Rev anymore as it is very hard to get around doing that and simply get the message and purpose of Rev, though children often get it when the book is read to them. They tend to hear it as a picture book, not a jigsaw puzzle. "We win!" was the cry of one ten year old boy when the final scene concluded. And I do not begin to think that my way of viewing it is THE way.

It will unfold as God purposes.

In truth none of the views have it all right or all wrong. I tend to think the purpose of the letter, and the purpose of it being in our Bible, is for encouragement in times of trouble and temptation and persecution. The Rock we stand on, even unto death, as we await the promise. Kept by our God, our High Tower into which we run.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I see that as consistent with the rest of the bible and don't adhere to RC's returning from battle Roman association. I see the return aligning with the Jewish wedding process.

I listened to this entire RC Sproul video also, and as you have said, I also do not agree that Paul's rapture language in 1 Thess. 4 was intended to align with a Roman practice of a triumph procession. Paul was a native-born Israelite with strict religious training - "a Hebrew of the Hebrews" - and his language would more likely have been intended to align with the Jewish wedding process. The bride would ultimately have been taken to her husband's dwelling - she would not have returned to her own family's dwelling.

RC Sproul was presuming that a first-century, fulfilled-rapture view MUST believe that this was only a spiritual rapture of sorts, and did not involve the dead physical body forms of the saints being changed at that time. He was wrong on this. A fulfilled rapture in AD 70 DID involve the physical bodies of the saints and a physical body return of Christ to the Mount of Olives, as predicted for that first-century generation.

RC Sproul also presumes that the voice of the archangel and the trump of God would be audible for all humanity to hear. Not necessarily so. It was going to be the DEAD believers who would hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that heard would come to life again in a bodily resurrection process. The trumpet of God was for the DEAD saints to hear and respond. Job had predicted this call from God for the DEAD to hear, back in Job 14:14-15, "If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee..."

 

[CrowCross]

Too many things in what you have been thinking concerning interpretations of the OT eschatologically. I began my Christian walk as a dispensationalist pre trib. It was the only thing I ever heard, the only view ever given, and one can make it make sense. It took me awhile and study and checking and double checking again, before I could even see the possibility of amil and covenant theology and the rapture as viewed in those two things---what Sproul said. I do not attempt to fully decipher all the visions in Rev anymore as it is very hard to get around doing that and simply get the message and purpose of Rev, though children often get it when the book is read to them. They tend to hear it as a picture book, not a jigsaw puzzle. "We win!" was the cry of one ten year old boy when the final scene concluded. And I do not begin to think that my way of viewing it is THE way.

It will unfold as God purposes.

In truth none of the views have it all right or all wrong. I tend to think the purpose of the letter, and the purpose of it being in our Bible, is for encouragement in times of trouble and temptation and persecution. The Rock we stand on, even unto death, as we await the promise. Kept by our God, our High Tower into which we run.

The tribulation promises times of trouble, temptation and persecution for the tribulation saints. It appears that the odds of a tribulation believer making it through the trib is slim to none.

Personally I don't think as a Christ follower I am destined for the wrath of the tribulation...whether it be Satans wrath or God wrath. 1 Thes 5:9.
Rev 3:10 tell us we will not be part of the trial coming to the entire world.
The tribulation is the time of Jacobs trouble...Jacob is Israel....and Revelation is for the restoration of Israel not Christians.
The Church is not mentioned after chapter 5.
Jesus comes back twice....once as He left during His ascension then a second time riding a white horse.
Jesus said He will go and prepare a place for us...then return for us. John 14:12-13
The Jewish wedding parallels the pre-trib rapture.
...+ more reasons not mentioned

.....So, there is reasons why I and others have chosen the pre-trib view...and to be honest if we are of that generation I don't want to be wrong.

 

[CrowCross]

I listened to this entire RC Sproul video also, and as you have said, I also do not agree that Paul's rapture language in 1 Thess. 4 was intended to align with a Roman practice of a triumph procession. Paul was a native-born Israelite with strict religious training - "a Hebrew of the Hebrews" - and his language would more likely have been intended to align with the Jewish wedding process. The bride would ultimately have been taken to her husband's dwelling - she would not have returned to her own family's dwelling.

RC Sproul was presuming that a first-century, fulfilled-rapture view MUST believe that this was only a spiritual rapture of sorts, and did not involve the dead physical body forms of the saints being changed at that time. He was wrong on this. A fulfilled rapture in AD 70 DID involve the physical bodies of the saints and a physical body return of Christ to the Mount of Olives, as predicted for that first-century generation.

I'm not buying the AD 70 Jesus returned story. In fact I have no reason to even consider it more than knowing some people think it happened.

RC Sproul also presumes that the voice of the archangel and the trump of God would be audible for all humanity to hear. Not necessarily so. It was going to be the DEAD believers who would hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that heard would come to life again in a bodily resurrection process. The trumpet of God was for the DEAD saints to hear and respond. Job had predicted this call from God for the DEAD to hear, back in Job 14:14-15, "If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee..."

 

[Arial]

The tribulation promises times of trouble, temptation and persecution for the tribulation saints. It appears that the odds of a tribulation believer making it through the trib is slim to none.

Personally I don't think as a Christ follower I am destined for the wrath of the tribulation...whether it be Satans wrath or God wrath. 1 Thes 5:9.
Rev 3:10 tell us we will not be part of the trial coming to the entire world.
The tribulation is the time of Jacobs trouble...Jacob is Israel....and Revelation is for the restoration of Israel not Christians.
The Church is not mentioned after chapter 5.
Jesus comes back twice....once as He left during His ascension then a second time riding a white horse.
Jesus said He will go and prepare a place for us...then return for us. John 14:12-13
The Jewish wedding parallels the pre-trib rapture.
...+ more reasons not mentioned

.....So, there is reasons why I and others have chosen the pre-trib view...and to be honest if we are of that generation I don't want to be wrong.

The Bible does not say He will come back twice. And there is no reason to assume the "rapture" is parallelling a Jewish wedding. Sprouls view makes more sense in fact, because it is a victory, not a wedding. I am not a dispensationalist and viewing the Bible through that lens changes a lot of things, even some pertaining to salvation and the work and purpose of Christ. One for national Israel and another for Gentiles, when Scripture clearly tells us that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in His house, but one new man. IMO it also has redemption backtracking to the OT covenant of works, even their form of worship with animal sacrifices. That is abhorrent to me, crucifying Christ again and trampling on His blood.

I have no more to say on the subject. I particularly dislike eschatological opinion stated as irrefutable fact, when no one can know for an absolute certainty. As for the church not being mentioned after chapter 5, that is because there is no need for it to be. The entire book is a letter to the churches. DIspensationalism imo ignores quite a lot of even historical FACT, let alone scripture.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I'm not buying the AD 70 Jesus returned story. In fact I have no reason to even consider it more than knowing some people think it happened.

Fortunately, none of us are eternally saved by our level of knowledge of historical events, or even of our level of knowledge of the scriptures.

And there is no reason to assume the "rapture" is parallelling a Jewish wedding. Sprouls view makes more sense in fact, because it is a victory, not a wedding.

Then why do you think John was given a vision of the New Jerusalem prepared as a bride for her husband? That was a wedding feast "marriage supper of the Lamb" prepared for the saints.

However, it was also a feast called "the supper of the Great God" in Rev. 19 of dead people consumed by the birds, which multitudes were killed by the army of the returning Christ.

Two entirely different suppers, but no victory march mentioned.