A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
New Life said:
You aren't going to find one church father who believed in the rapture, especially when combined with other late heresies like dispensationalism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
rapture is - irresponsible christians!
- Thread starter darkpenguin
- Start date
You aren't going to find one church father who believed in the rapture, especially when combined with other late heresies like dispensationalism.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
I'm sorry, but this is patently nonsense. The largest church is the RCC at about 1.1 billion. They don't believe in the Rapture. The next largest is us (the Orthodox Church) at 220+ million. We don't believe in the Rapture. Nor do the Oriental Orthodox. Nor, for that matter, does a large subsection of the Protestant world, I'd say probably the majority. It should be obvious, then, that the Rapture is actually only believed by a minuscule minority of Christians. And we're not talking about when, but whether, it will be.New Life said:
I see no hint of the Rapture in any of your quotes or even in all of them taken together, I'm afraid. Of course, the fact that you hint at a belief in both sola scriptura and Biblical inerrancy (both recent doctrines themselves) goes some way towards explaining the logical gymnastics you apear to be going through to try to make Scripture 'make sense'. I find it completely unnecessary.
As you can see, I find your conclusions unwarranted to say the least. I see no mention whatsoever of any possibility of a Third Coming in Scripture (in fact I can see no possible room for such a belief) and yet it appears to be essential to your making sense of the Bible.
James
Smoke
Done here.
Pseudo-Ephrem, who can certainly not be dated anywhere near as early as 347, didn't teach the Rapture, though it might seem that way to someone who approaches his sermon with the Rapture in mind, just as they imagine 1Thessalonians teaches the same thing. He did teach, however, that the world must necessarily come to an end at the end of the Roman Empire. Morgan Edwards did teach a Rapture, but hardly the same as the one being taught today. Edwards taught a mid-trib Rapture, 3½ years before the start of the Millenium and 1003½ years before the Second Coming.New Life said:
You can find anything in the Bible if you go to the Bible determined to find it.New Life said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Smoke
Done here.
Your acquaintance with Christianity is very sadly limited. For Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, the Rapture is heresy. Large numbers of Protestants also reject the doctrine of the Rapture, which is peculiar to Dispensationalists. Dispensationalism is, unfortunately, very popular among a certain type of Christian, but Dispensationalists are very far indeed from including "nearly every Christian."New Life said:
EDIT: I see James said it first, and -- as usual -- said it better.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
MidnightBlue said:
In my opinion dispensationalism has nothing to do with Christianity at all. That system of thought is hardly recognizable as Christianity in the first place - let alone the "majority" view.
Smoke
Done here.
I'm not interested in sorting out the "true" Christians from the "false" Christians, but there's no doubt that Dispensationalism is a distinctly unhealthy form of Christianity, which was unknown 200 years ago and bears little resemblance to any previously-known form of Christian doctrine. I wouldn't blame you at all if you call it a completely different religion.angellous_evangellous said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
MidnightBlue said:
That is precisely my view.
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
You've already highlighted the we's, thanks. Notice who is writing this, Paul. It seems very clear from his use of we that he expected to be among the living when Christ returned.New Life said:
That was 2000 years ago, isn't it about time people stopped waiting?
Don't count on it.angellous_evangellous said:
Rev 20:16 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Not a merciful guy by the looks of it. But wait, i can't rely on a single quote to justfy such a statement;
Deut 31:17-18 On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?' And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
Yeah, not too forgiving a fellow.:sad:
d.
_______
Halcyon said:Look up the descriptions Leviathan and Behemoth in the bible.
Actually, i'll do it for you;
Book of Job 41:1-34
Book of Job 40:15-24
There you go, dinosaurs in the bible. Enjoy!
or why not the nephilim?
darkpenguin
Charismatic Enigma
angellous_evangellous said:
Then why in the documentary were there church fathers interviewed that saw the acceleration of the 'rapture' not to be a problem?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
darkpenguin said:
I don't think that we're talking about the same church fathers. By "church fathers" I mean the extant writings from early church leaders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_fathers
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Halcyon said:
That isn't the basket that all my eggs are in.
Isaiah 42.1-3
1Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
2He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
3a bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Halcyon said:
IMO, Revelation should never have made it into the canon. Nobody understands it, and several splinter groups have made way too much out of it.
It's a good reason to hope that God, who has the power of life and death in His hands, is merciful. If there is a God, and this God is not mericiful, then we're all in trouble as we head into the awful choas of God's mad wrath.
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
darkpenguin said:
Sorry, but you can't interview a Church Father. It doesn't simply mean a priest (and the sort of pastor who believes in the Rapture is hardly likely to be referred to as either priest or Father). A Church Father is one of a subset of the saints (who by definition have passed on) whose teachings are considered vital to the Holy Tradition of the Church. Such people would include St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom etc. The people I would call Fathers are different to some, because we have a rather narrow definition - for us it's roughly equivalent to a Roman Catholic Doctor of the Church (though we have a different list - Bl. Augustine of Hippo is considerted a Doctor by the RCC but not a Father by us) which means that it cannot include heretics like Origen or Tertullian. Protestants and some RCs, however, viewing Church Father as meaning simply early Christian writer (and ours aren't necessarily all early either) do tend to include such figures. MidnightBlue is quite right - there is not one single Father, on anyone's list, who taught the Rapture, which is a doctrine which has only been around for about 2 centuries.
James
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
angellous_evangellous said:
I can't agree with that. It's nowhere near as dangerous (though still very difficult) when read according to the Tradition of the Church that accepted it. Of course, that same Tradition also made it so that the Apocalypse could not be read in public during the Liturgy or, as a result, preached on. It is, however, a valuable and important book when treated correctly.
It's not the book itself that has caused the strange interpretations and dangerous sects but rather the Reformation's rejection of Tradition, which included certain safeguards with regards to the Apocalypse as well as how it ought to be interpreted. Couple this rejection with the idolisation of Scripture by the doctrines of sola scriptura and Biblical inerrancy then, it's true that you have a recipe for doomsday cults and the like. I'd blame the Reformers, not the Apocalypse.
James
*Paul*
Jesus loves you
Maybe not bu they were expecting the imminent return of Jesus Christ, that is the central poin to the rapture, what would follow would be their/our bodies being changed to be like Jesus':
1Jn 3v2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
We are also able to take the bible a lot more literally now thean hundreds of years agao, take what Jesus said about the possibility of all flesh being destroyed unless the days were cut short, that was a statement that would take us right up until the modern day to make literal sense. Israel being brough back to her promised land certainly maade the way a lot of people view the bible change, and some earlier dispensationalsits predicted it.
How is dispensationalism heresy? What basic tenets of the faith does it deny?
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Maybe they are. The only way, though, that you could say virtually all Christians believe in the Rapture is to define as Christian those churches which teach the doctrine. That's circular reasoning and worse than useless. Care to explain to me on what criteria you judge that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Angicans (amongst others) are not Christians? None of these churches teach the Rapture and nor have they ever done so and at least three can show an unbroken succession from the Apostles, which you clearly could not.New Life said:
Nor does your seeing them mean they are there. It's not exactly unusual for supposedly sola scriptura Protestants to read meanings into the text that are not there. But what is more reasonable? The idea that they are there but all Christians missed them for 1800 years, or the idea that they are not but that the heirs of the Plymouth Brethren (and Darby didn't even claim that he found the idea in Scripture - it was a personal revelation) read them into the text? I know which I'd go with.
Show me the Scripture that says that either Scripture is all-sufficient or that it is inerrant. While you're at it tell me how you know what is or is not Scripture (again, use Scripture alone to do this, just to be consistent with your beliefs) and what Scripture is referred to by whichever passage of Scripture you choose (I can guess which passage that will be and I think you're kidding yourself if you believe you take it seriously - ever read the Maccabees?). Then we'll see who's doing mental gymnastics, the sola scripturalist who claims Biblical inerrancy, or the Christian who holds to neither of these Reformation era doctrines but accepts that the Scriptures come from the pens of God-inspired but fallible men, and not the mouth of God Himself.
.
Drop your entirely unscriptural insistence on Biblical inerrancy, understand that the Word is not a Book but was Incarnate as man, and accept that each of the many authors of the Bible brought themselves as well as God to the text and all the apparent contradictions, and the need for mental contortions, will simply melt away. Do that, though, and you'll no longer be a sola scripturalist (I've been there, so I know).
James