Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This may not be exactly 'small scale' but it seems like the best place for it.
I attend a Calvary chapel church, and I'm being considered for a teaching role, and potentially looking towards taking over when the pastor retires. Lots to consider about this, but one thing that's a sticking point for me: Calvary chapel dogmatically teaches a pre-trib rapture, and I'm not convinced.
So, my questions, for anyone who has thoughts on them:
Do any of y'all believe in pre-trib rapture, or more generally dispensationalism, and how would you steel-man the case for it? Or for others, how would you argue against it?
What are your thoughts on having to teach a doctrine you're not confident in?
The pre-trib rapture seems to be based on a misunderstanding of one of Jesus' parables:
So there will be people who are taken, raptured, right? Except what was the context of this:
So the people "taken" are taken by the flood. Being "taken" doesn't seem to be a good thing here. It seems to be saying that people will die suddenly.
So you think that the people "taken" are going to judgement? That seems much less in line with everything else the Bible teaches. Why would only the damned be taken, if they're going to the throne of God to be judged - doesn't the Bible clearly say that all will go to judgement at the same time? What's more, it's pretty clear that the Church will go up to meet Jesus, but here you're arguing the Church will just be left in the field or at a hand mill.
I don't think most pre-trib rapture advocates actually rely on these verses, but your interpretation of them just seems backwards. The use of the word 'taken' does not imply the same as dying in a flood - 'the flood came and took them' is not the same.
The flood came and Took them all away. Then Jesus uses the word taken again. Taken means dead.
We have this cultural idea of the Second Coming and then look for passages that might pertain to it. However, if you strip away a lot of the cultural baggage and try to read the words in the way they would have been written a different picture emerges.
We live in the Age to Come already, we have been experiencing two thousand years of birthing pains, the Son of Man has come, Jesus' prophecy in Matthew refers to the fall of the Second Temple and might also refer to the inauguration of the New Heavens and New Earth we all await. The parable definitely refers to each of our individual deaths whenever they might happen.
It would not be a bad thing to be on Earth when Jesus comes to make all things New. We will have glorified resurrected bodies and live an embodied existence serving our purpose as God's image and likeness in material form.
This is a weak argument. They're not the same word in Greek. The flood 'took' (ἦρεν) them away, but the man in the field will 'be taken' (παραλαμβάνεται). The words are not etymologically related. The first has, among many meanings: 'to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence'. The second does not have that meaning at all, but does have this meaning: 'to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self' - which is how we would understand the pre-trib rapture, Jesus taking his Church to be with him. If Jesus meant it to be a parallel use of the word 'take' he would have used the same word.
I think you're doing a good job convincing me the rapture is legit!
Hooray then! Dilemma solved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link