Theological Question: Is the Rapture a sound Doctrine?

I Thessalonians 4: 13-18 says,

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In the late 19th century this passage was lifted up by some Christians to support what was then a relatively new idea of the "rapture".

Christians have always believed that Jesus will return to earth and usher in the Kingdom of God. The book of the Revelation talks about such a time and other passages from both the Old and New Testaments speak about the "End of Times" It is variously described as "Judgement Day", the "Day of the Lord", and other ways. But the Thessalonians passage I quote above being pushed into the Revelation account giving us what is, in modern times, called the "Rapture" is relatively new and not universally supported.

A more mainline doctrine would be live in permanant expectation that Jesus WILL return and always live, work, be in that expectantancy.

The kind of reading of the Bible as a code book and "discovering" some hidden mathmatetical formula is roundly dissmissed and , in my opinion, actually harmful. It blocks a plain reading of the text for what it actually says.

Hope this helps.

Is the rapture a part of pre millennialism, post millennialism or Amillennialism?

D: None of the above or maybe E: all of the above. All the forms of Millennialism arise from a reading of Revealation. But the "Rapture" is in Thessalonians. One has to shoehorn it into the Revealation formula (if there is such a thing) and one can put it in a variety of places. Hence it could be any or none of the above.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

D: None of the above or maybe E: all of the above. All the forms of Millennialism arise from a reading of Revealation. But the "Rapture" is in Thessalonians. One has to shoehorn it into the Revealation formula (if there is such a thing) and one can put it in a variety of places. Hence it could be any or none of the above.

Hmm, disagree OhioP, the Rapture theory is part and parcel of two of those theological views (?)

A millenialism believes the Apocalypse has already occured and the entire book merely deals with Rome and the Roman Empires and Emperors of the time it was written.

The Millenium is a reading of Revealation which speaks af a time of trial for the world before/after Christians have been removed. How that removal happens, i.e. the rapture, is "described" in the Thessalonians text. That is what I was trying to say. Probably said it badly writing in haste.

Lutherans went through a long millenialist controversy in the late 19th and early 20th century. Largely we don't talk about it at all anymore.

For me, the coming again of Christ is a given. It will occur when God choses. We should all at all times live in that expectancy.

OhioP, the millennium was the concept of a 1,000 reign of Christ, on Earth, not a time of trial Bro, that comes afterwards.

Isn't that were the A/pre/post comes from?

One event or two
Some Dispensationalist Premillennialists (including many Evangelicals) hold the return of Christ to be two distinct events, or one Second Coming in two stages. 1 Thessalonians 4:15–7 is seen to be a description of a preliminary event to the return described in Matthew 24:29–31. Although both describe a return of Jesus, these are seen to be separated in time by more than a brief period. The first event may or may not be seen (which is not a primary issue), and is called the Rapture, when the saved are to be 'caught up,' from whence the term "Rapture" is taken. The "Second Coming" is a public event, wherein Christ's presence is prophesied to be clearly seen by all, as he returns to end a battle staged at Armageddon, though possibly fought at the Valley of Jehoshaphat. The majority of Dispensationalists hold that the first event precedes the period of Tribulation, even if not immediately (see chart for additional Dispensationalist timing views);
Amillennialists deny the interpretation of a literal 1,000-year rule of Christ, and as such Amillennialism does not necessarily imply much difference between itself and other forms of millennialism besides that denial. However, there is considerable overlap in the beliefs of Amillenialists (including most Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans), Postmillennialists (including Presbyterians), and Historic Premillennialists (including some Calvinistic Baptists, among others) with those who hold that the return of Christ will be a single, public event. Those who identify the Rapture with the Second Coming are likely to emphasize mutual similarities between passages of scripture where clouds, angels or the archangel, resurrection, and gathering are mentioned. Although some (particularly some Amillennialists) may take the Rapture to be figurative, rather than literal, these three groups are likely to maintain that the passages regarding the return of Christ describe a single event. Some also claim that the “word of the Lord” cited by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15–7 is the Olivet Discourse which Matthew separately describes in Matthew 24:29-31. Although the doctrinal relationship between the Rapture and the Second Coming is the same in these three groups, Historic Premillennialists are more likely to use the term "Rapture" to clarify their position in distinction from Dispensationalists.

Anywho, the Rapture Theory itself in it's modern form is based on:

In port Glasgow, Scotland, in the Spring of the year A.D. 1830, a bedridden woman had a revelation on her sick bed, supposedly from God, in where she was shown what has become to be known as "The Rapture Of The Church." Prior to this day, the concept of an 'at any moment, fly away doctrine' (Rapture) was unknown. Within the first few paragraphs of her monumental Scripture-riddled statement. Ms. Macdonald makes an ominous statement about her vision, in that at first, at the time of the vision, it felt as though there was "Great darkness"

Thanks goodness for spell check though, otherwise the whole "millennium" is not going to be spelled properly..:lol:

You are correct of course, my bad. Like I say, this is a bit out of my normal area of work.

Well...he's 0 for 2 now. ;)

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

You are correct of course, my bad. Like I say, this is a bit out of my normal area of work.

Hehe, spent plenty of time with Evangelical Christians ..:lol:

For me, did not really buy into the rapture as a theological paradigm, it seemed somehow..wimpy?

The early Church knew all about martyrdom, being a fact of life, it could happen, so where would the ideal that "oh no, you are going to be haridzo'd" out of the Earth come from?

To me, it lacked the sort of "if you do X, the Y will happen" reliance on even the verbal tradition of what Christ taught.

"Pagan wrote:

Well...he's 0 for 2 now. ;)

And nowhere to be seen.

Padre, fundamentalist Christians absolutely kill me with their misconceptions about rapture and "the end of the world". Remember, every true scripture has a three fold meaning: material, mental, and spiritual. Too often the "end of the world" is taken literally and its meaning lost.

So let me give you a different angle to think about it from Hinduism where the same misconception is propogated by the worshipers of Shiva. Shiva is known as the "destroyer of worlds", taken literally, as many devotees often do, a vision of worldly death and destruction ensue. This is not the case. The meaning is that in deep meditation one destroys the world around oneself as all of the five senses are cut off and the consciousness is directed inward in a passage into a preliminary state of an absolute, dark void; thereby destroying the world to one's individual consciousness. Then, after having successfully entered this void, referred to as the negative state of peace, the devotee is encouraged to push past this calm into a deeper, ever new, blissful state of consciousness.
I don't want to go into it any deeper,as I'm afraid I will water it down for you. However, if you are interested, I would recommend "The Second Coming of Christ" by Paramahansa Yogananda.

There is certainly a tension within Christianity and perhaps within all religious systems which have sacred texts. On one side is the desire to read everything so literally that one loses the deeper nuances and symbolic values of a writing. On the other is the pull to read something so "spiritually" that one loses the plain meaning of a text. Finding the "middle road" in balance is always difficult.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

There is certainly a tension within Christianity and perhaps within all religious systems which have sacred texts. On one side is the desire to read everything so literally that one loses the deeper nuances and symbolic values of a writing. On the other is the pull to read something so "spiritually" that one loses the plain meaning of a text. Finding the "middle road" in balance is always difficult.

Well, to me the plain meaning is sort of the issue OHp, it is a contest between truth or opinion, which animates the discussion somethings have no middle ground, and for a reason.

For myself, "no one knows the day or the hour" is as true for Camping as for anyone else, it boils down to God's Will and no one elses so to speak.

No pad, I agree with you. I was making a general statement that sometimes a plain reading is to be understood, such as "No one knows the day..." or that Jesus died, rose, etc. While these have Spiritual meanings we should start from a plain reading. In this case my problem with Camping is that he reads scripture as a code book and not with a plain reading of the text. I think we are in agreement here?