The Rapture!

[IRQ Conflict]

This seems to be a good study on the pre-tribulation type 'escapism' that i'm privy to.

What do you think jac3510? or anyone else? I've read it and It seems fine, but one person can easily miss stuff.

[puritan lad]

Here are 10 points…

1.) There is no mention of a “rapture” in any of the scriptures quoted.
2.) There is no mention of a “tribulation period” in any of the scriptures quoted.
3.) With that type of sloppy exegesis, one could just as easily invent some doctrine that the church will be destroyed before the tribulation.
4.) Noah and Lot were not “raptured” out of any judgment.
5.) Daniel's 70th week is over, unless one can explain where this imaginary 2,000 year gap comes from.
6.) Revelation 19 does not mention a rapture or a tribulation period.
7.) The First Century Church of Philadelphia was not raptured out of it's “tribulation”, but was instead exhorted to overcome (Rev. 3:12)
8.) There is nothing in the Bible about and “antichrist” signing any covenant.
9.) There is nothing in the Olivet Discourse about a rapture.
10.) There is nothing in 2 Peter 2 about a rapture or a tribulation period. The same can be said for John 14, Joel 2, and Zeph. 2.

Conclusion: There is no mention of a pre-trib rapture in the Bible.

[bizzt]

Here are 10 points…

1.) There is no mention of a “rapture” in any of the scriptures quoted.
2.) There is no mention of a “tribulation period” in any of the scriptures quoted.

PL

There is no Mention of Trinity in the Bible either as Fortigurn has said many times. Shall we deny that as well?

Anyways I just wanted to make sure 1 and 2 should not be a part of your points....

[puritan lad]

There is a big difference bizzt. The trinity can be inferred by the fact that God the father is God, Jesus Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that they are three distinct persons.

There is absolutely nothing that can infer a pre-trib rapture. Just look at how this doctrine is supposed to be "inferred" on the aforementioned site.

The church of Philadelphia is given a promise to escape from the tribulation and the church of Thyatira is warned that unless they repent, they will be thrown into the tribulation.

What does this have to do with a rapture? Was the Philadelphia church raptured?

Once again, this shows Noah was removed from judgement, Lot was removed from judgement, and the True Christians will be removed before the tribulation judgement.

Again, where is the rapture? Was Noah or Lot Raptured?

2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

What in the world does this have to do with any rapture?

There is more, but you should get the point. The Trinity Doctrine is based on things that the scriptures plainly tells us. Such is not the case with the pre-trib rapture. There is nothing that even hints at this in the scriptures. It is a doctrine that was invented by John Darby in the 1830's, promoted by the Scofield Reference Novel, and made popular by Hal Lindsey. It's just not in the Bible, plainly stated or inferred.

[Jac3510]

I'll run through it point by point later, IRQ, but based on what Puritan is quoting from the site, it doesn't sound like a very good defense of the position to me.

As for the general charge that the pre-trib. rapture was invented by Darby in the the 1830's, that on par with people who claim evolution can't be true because we still have monkeys with us today. It's just silly rhetoric with no basis whatsoever in reality. Check out Dr. Thomas Ice's aritcle in The Midnight Call (Jan. '06), p. 20-23, entitled "A Brief History of the Rapture." A few highlights worth mentioning from the article that should dispell that notion:

1. The Apostolic Fathers held to both the imminent return of Christ as well as a post-tribulational rapture theory. While these positions are self-contradictory, the fact that imminence was taught is very important, as it forms the irrefutable basis of pre-trib. rapture.

2. A sermon preched by a man referred to as Pseudo-Ephraem in the fourth to sixth century AD, entitled Sermon on The Last Times, The Antchrist, and The End of the World, contains the following:

• Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all of the world? . . . For all the saints of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins

3. It is believed that sects like the Albigenses, Lmbards, and the Waldenses were attracted to premillennialism . . . difficult to say much as the RCC (which was/is amill) destroyed their works whenever they found them.

4. Brother Dolcino (1304) held to a pretribulational rapture, according to Francis Gumerlock. "[Dolcino taught that he and his followers would] be preserved unharmed from the persecution of the Antichrist."

5. Both Philip Doddridge's commentary on the NT (1738) and Gill's commentary on the NT (1748) teach the imminence of the rapture. "It is clear that these men believed that [the rapture] will precede Christ's descent to the earth and the time of judgment. The purpose was to preserve believers from the time of judgment."

6. James Macknight (1763) and Thomas Scott (1792) taught that the righteous will be carried to heaven, where they will be secure until the time of judgment is over.

7. Frank Marotta, not a pre-triber, believes that Thomas Collier in 1674 makes reference to a pretib rapture.

8. John Asgill wrote a book in 1700 discussing the possibility of translation without seeing death.

9. Baptist Morgan Edwards, founder of Brown University, apparently believed in a system comparable to modern day mid-trib rapture. He published his beliefs in 1744 saying,

• The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more--, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" . . . ; and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium . . . they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" . . ., and disappear during the foresaid period f time. The design of ths retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints.

In addition to all these, Dr. Ice mentions an individual who is currently compiling a list of pre-19th century references to the pre-trib. rapture from previously unpublished material. These should be released in the next few years.

Again, I'll walk through the article later in detail.

God bless

[bizzt]

There is a big difference bizzt. The trinity can be inferred by the fact that God the father is God, Jesus Christ is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that they are three distinct persons.

There is absolutely nothing that can infer a pre-trib rapture. Just look at how this doctrine is supposed to be "inferred" on the aforementioned site.

The church of Philadelphia is given a promise to escape from the tribulation and the church of Thyatira is warned that unless they repent, they will be thrown into the tribulation.

What does this have to do with a rapture? Was the Philadelphia church raptured?

Once again, this shows Noah was removed from judgement, Lot was removed from judgement, and the True Christians will be removed before the tribulation judgement.

Again, where is the rapture? Was Noah or Lot Raptured?

2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

What in the world does this have to do with any rapture?

There is more, but you should get the point. The Trinity Doctrine is based on things that the scriptures plainly tells us. Such is not the case with the pre-trib rapture. There is nothing that even hints at this in the scriptures. It is a doctrine that was invented by John Darby in the 1830's, promoted by the Scofield Reference Novel, and made popular by Hal Lindsey. It's just not in the Bible, plainly stated or inferred.

First of all the Rapture is inferred

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says IT

1Th 4:16 For3754 the3588 Lord2962 himself846 shall descend2597 from575 heaven3772 with1722 a shout,2752 with1722 the voice5456 of the archangel,743 and2532 with1722 the trump4536 of God:2316 and2532 the3588 dead3498 in1722 Christ5547 shall rise450 first:4412
1Th 4:17 Then1899 we2249 which are alive2198 and remain4035 shall be caught up726 together260 with4862 them846 in1722 the clouds3507 to meet1519, 529 the3588 Lord2962 in1519 the air:109 and2532 so3779 shall we ever3842 be2071 with4862 the Lord.2962

Whether you like it or not Rapture means a The transporting of a person from one place to another. Now if the above Verses does not give that example then I do not know what does

Whether it is POST, MID, PRE I don't care but it says at the TRUMP of God the Dead shall rise first then we that are alive shall be caught up together.



I think Jac will do a lot better explaining then I do as he can articulate his words better than I.

I will leave it at that

[puritan lad]

Sorry bizzt. If anything, 1 Thess. 4 teaches a "post-resurrection" rapture, not a "pre-trib" rapture. Since the resurrection takes place on the last day (Daniel 12:13, John 6:39, 40, 44), there cannot be a 7 year tribulation period after this event.

I'll deal with Ice's hoaxes above later. This will require me to dig up some stuff in my archives

[bizzt]

Sorry bizzt. If anything, 1 Thess. 4 teaches a "post-resurrection" rapture, not a "pre-trib" rapture. Since the resurrection takes place on the last day (Daniel 12:13, John 6:39, 40, 44), there cannot be a 7 year tribulation period after this event.

I'll deal with Ice's hoaxes above later. This will require me to dig up some stuff in my archives

However if you read my post IT still deals with a Rapture! Like I said I do not care if it is Post mid or Pre it deals with the Rapture... And you in turn have to come from where you say there is no Rapture and agree that there is a Rapture... The rest I will leave it to Jac...

[puritan lad]

However if you read my post IT still deals with a Rapture! Like I said I do not care if it is Post mid or Pre it deals with the Rapture... And you in turn have to come from where you say there is no Rapture and agree that there is a Rapture... The rest I will leave it to Jac...

As currently defined? No bizzt. Nice try. There is no secret snatching away of saints into heaven to avoid some future judgment. I see trumpets, a resurrection, and, when Christ returns, history ends. Plus, the "great tribulation" is history.

[puritan lad]

1. The Apostolic Fathers held to both the imminent return of Christ as well as a post-tribulational rapture theory. While these positions are self-contradictory, the fact that imminence was taught is very important, as it forms the irrefutable basis of pre-trib. rapture.

Really? How so?

2. A sermon preched by a man referred to as Pseudo-Ephraem in the fourth to sixth century AD, entitled Sermon on The Last Times, The Antchrist, and The End of the World, contains the following:
Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all of the world? . . . For all the saints of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.

See http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/deceived.html concerning Pseudo-Ephraem and Morgan Edwards (#9).

3. It is believed that sects like the Albigenses, Lmbards, and the Waldenses were attracted to premillennialism . . . difficult to say much as the RCC (which was/is amill) destroyed their works whenever they found them.

I didn't say that Darby invented premillennialism. I said he invented the Pre-trib rapture. Premillennialism has been around for a long time in different forms. It is Dispensationalism that is the new kid on the eschatological block.

4. Brother Dolcino (1304) held to a pretribulational rapture, according to Francis Gumerlock. "[Dolcino taught that he and his followers would] be preserved unharmed from the persecution of the Antichrist."

Here is Gary DeMar's reply.

“Ice confronted me after our debate at BIOLA (February 2002) about Francis X. Gumerlock's statement in his The Day and the Hour (2000), a book published by American Vision and edited by me, that "The Dolcinites held to a pre-tribulation rapture theory similar to that of modern dispensationalism" (Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites as proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an end note (the English translation is Gumerlock's): "Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the said three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into this world at the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, Dolcino himself, and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and Elijah are, and they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist; and then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend to earth to confront the Antichrist, then they would be killed by him; or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign again for many days. 'Once Antichrist is truly dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true faith of Jesus Christ" (91—92).”

Ice is right. He sounds exactly like Hal Lindsey. :)

5. Both Philip Doddridge's commentary on the NT (1738) and Gill's commentary on the NT (1748) teach the imminence of the rapture. "It is clear that these men believed that [the rapture] will precede Christ's descent to the earth and the time of judgment. The purpose was to preserve believers from the time of judgment."

The commentaries of these men are both pretty good size. Would you care to show me exactly where they taught this? Both, at best, were historical premills with very heavy preterist leanings. Both viewed the Olivet Discourse as being fulfilled, and neither taught a pre-trib rapture as far as I can tell. I am open to correction on the last statement. Here are some commentaries on the Olivet Discourse.

John Gill On Matthew 24:15, The Abomination of Desolation
Ver. 15. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,.] From signs, Christ proceeds to the immediate cause of the destruction of Jerusalem; which was, "the abomination of desolation", or the desolating abomination; or that abominable thing, which threatened and brought desolation upon the city, temple, and nation: by which is meant, not any statue placed in the temple by the Romans, or their order; not the golden eagle which Herod set upon the temple gate, for that was before Christ said these words; nor the image of Tiberius Caesar, which Pilate is said to bring into the temple; for this, if true, must be about this time; whereas Christ cannot be thought to refer to anything so near at hand; much less the statue of Adrian, set in the most holy place, which was an hundred and thirty years and upwards, after the destruction of the city and temple; nor the statue of Titus, who destroyed both, which does not appear: ever to be set up, or attempted; nor of Caligula, which, though ordered, was prevented being placed there: but the Roman army is designed; see #Lu 21:20 which was "the wing", or "army of abominations making desolate", #Da 9:27. Armies are called wings, #Isa 8:8 and the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination; not only because they consisted of Heathen men, and uncircumcised persons, but chiefly because of the images of their gods, which were upon their ensigns: for images and idols were always an abomination to them; so the "filthiness" which Hezekiah ordered to be carried out of the holy place, #2Ch 29:5 is by the Targum called, aqwxyr, "an abomination"; and this, by the Jewish writers {w}, is said to be an idol, which Ahaz had placed upon the altar; and such was the abomination of desolation, which Antiochus caused to be set upon the altar:

``Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side;'' (1 Maccabees 1:54)

And so the Talmudic writers, by the abomination that makes desolate, in #Da 12:11 9:27 to which Christ here refers, understand an image, which they say {x} one Apostomus, a Grecian general, who burnt their law, set up in the temple. Now our Lord observes, that when they should see the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem, with their ensigns flying, and these abominations on them, they might conclude its desolation was near at hand; and he does not so much mean his apostles, who would be most of them dead, or in other countries, when this would come to pass; but any of his disciples and followers, or any persons whatever, by whom should be seen this desolating abomination,

spoken of by Daniel the prophet: not in #Da 11:31 which is spoken of the abomination in the times of Antiochus; but either in #Da 12:11 or rather in #Da 9:27 since this desolating abomination is that, which should follow the cutting off of the Messiah, and the ceasing of the daily sacrifice. It is to be observed, that Daniel is here called a prophet, contrary to what the Jewish writers say {y}, who deny him to be one; though one of {z} no inconsiderable note among them affirms, that he attained to the end, "of the prophetic border", or the ultimate degree of prophecy: when therefore this that Daniel, under a spirit of prophecy, spoke of should be seen,

standing in the holy place; near the walls, and round about the holy city Jerusalem, so called from the sanctuary and worship of God in it; and which, in process of time, stood in the midst of it, and in the holy temple, and destroyed both; then

whoso readeth, let him understand: that is, whoever then reads the prophecy of Daniel; will easily understand the meaning of it, and will see and know for certain, that now it is accomplished; and will consider how to escape the desolating judgment, unless he is given up to a judicial blindness and hardness of heart; which was the case of the greater part of the nation.

{w} R. David Kimchi, & R. Sol. ben Melech, in 2 Chron. xxix. 5.
{x} T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 28. 2. & Gloss. in ib.
{y} T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. & Megilla, fol. 3. 1. & Tzeror Ham, mor, fol. 46. 4. Zohar in Num. fol. 61. 1.
{z} Jacchiades in Dan. i. 17.

Phillip Doddridge on Matthew 24
“Christian writers have always with great reason represented Josephus's History of the Jewish war as the best commentary on this chapter; and many have justly remarked it as a wonderful instance of the care of Providence for the Christian church, that he, and eye-witness, and in these things of so great credit, should (especially in such an extraordinary manner) be preserved, to transmit to us a collection of important facts, which so exactly illustrate this noble prophecy in almost every circumstance." (Doddridge, An Exposition of the Gospels, I:267, note.)

6. James Macknight (1763) and Thomas Scott (1792) taught that the righteous will be carried to heaven, where they will be secure until the time of judgment is over.

Please show proof. Like Gill and Doddridge, both were historical premills with very heavy preterist leanings.

"Milligan writes: "To me at least it seems perfectly obvious that the Apostle refers here to a day that was then very near at hand: a day that was about to come on that generation, and try the faith of many. And hence I am constrained to think with Macknight, Scott, Stuart, and others, that the reference is most likely to the day of Jerusalem's overthrow" (Commentary on Hebrews, p. 284)." (That Day" and forsaking the assembly )

7. Frank Marotta, not a pre-triber, believes that Thomas Collier in 1674 makes reference to a pretib rapture.

Good for Frank. Did he provide any proof?

8. John Asgill wrote a book in 1700 discussing the possibility of translation without seeing death.

Not familiar with this guy at all. Can you give a direct quote?

9. Baptist Morgan Edwards, founder of Brown University, apparently believed in a system comparable to modern day mid-trib rapture. He published his beliefs in 1744 saying,
The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more--, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" . . . ; and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium . . . they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" . . ., and disappear during the foresaid period f time. The design of ths retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints.

See Article posted above. And you wonder why I don't like referring to Dispensationalist Study Material. Very sloppy Jac (and Mr. Ice.)

In addition to all these, Dr. Ice mentions an individual who is currently compiling a list of pre-19th century references to the pre-trib. rapture from previously unpublished material. These should be released in the next few years.

Can't wait to see it, though I must say, it sure has been tough finding this doctrine in church history, hasn't it? Maybe it's because it's just not there (as well as not in the Bible).

[Jac3510]

I'm at work, I'll walk you through each of these later. In the meantime, Puritan, are you familiar with the doctrine of immenance as it relates to the rapture vs. the second coming? I assume you must be. Could you please explain your understanding of the subject for me?

edit: Actually, to clarify, it's not YOUR understanding of the doctrine I want. It's the understanding of the pretrib position, which you would probably disagree with.

[puritan lad]

Sure Jac, although it really isn't related to the above topic. I hold none of the people referred to by Dr. Ice taught a pre-trib rapture, (with the exception of the wierd Dolicino cultists), as least as it compares to the Left Behind stuff today. I would hope, at least, the Dispensationalists can be as honest about their origins as 7th Day Adventists are. If the above historical defense of the doctrine is the best Ice can offer, given the thousands of volumes of work out there, I'll say that the view has no historical merit before 1830.

The "imminence" referred to in the Bible, I hold, was not speaking about the "end of the world". This is an important point, because the credibility of the Bible is at stake. To suggest that the apostle's wrote the Christ's Second Advent was "imminent" would be to suggest that they were wrong (and thus an indictment against the One who inspired these words). Let's examine a few scriptures.

Rom. 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand."

1 Cor. 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away."

1 Cor. 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have come."

Phil. 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."

James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand. ... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."

1 Peter 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."

1 John 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that it is the last hour."

If, as futurists suggest, these scriptures are referring to the Second Advent, then one has to conclude that the “inspired” writers of the NT Canon were wrong, (not to mention Christ himself in Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34, etc.).

Most of the men that Ice attributed “pre-trib” quotes to in your list were historical Premills, therefore they could hardly have been “pre-trib”, since they viewed the tribulation as a long period covering the history of the church, and the “rapture” had not yet happened. Also, as I pointed out, the great majority of them believed that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled, so they were clearly preterists in some ways. (I've shown pretty conclusive evidence in another thread that the Book of Revelation is simply John's extended version of the Olivet Discourse). I'm not sure, but I believe that Thomas Collier (mentioned by Ice) was actually post-mill, but don't hold me to that.

The “pre-tribbers” certainly do not have a monopoly with regard to “imminence”. You'll find that the Puritans, who were almost exclusively postmillennial (historicists to a degree), also held to imminence. (Of course, the fact that a God can cut off a person's life at any time makes the “imminence” of End times views irrelevant). The Puritan Hope still viewed a coming Golden Age (not necessarily a literal 1,000 years), when the conversion of Judaists to the faith would result in even greater blessings for the Gentiles, per Romans 11. They did not view imminence as contradicting the view of unfulfilled prophecy that had to take place before the Second Advent. In any case, Christians have, throughout history, always taught a Second Advent, not a Third. Like it or not, the Dispensational view requires at least a Third Advent. This is simply not biblical.

Dispensationalism is riddled with many other numerous inconsistencies (not just on the end times). For example, In order to justify adding a 2,000 year gap in Daniel's 70 week prophecy, they will falsely claim that the Old Testament prophets did not see the “church age” (They most certainly did, and looked forward to it - Acts 2:16-21; Acts 3:24-26; Acts 15:14-18; Galatians 3:8). Thus, they will claim, God's “prophecy clock” is on hold until the “rapture”. Then, in the same breath, they will claim that the return to Israel in 1948 was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Well, which is it? Is God's prophecy clock on hold or not? You can't have it both ways.

The worst part of the Dispensational view of the endtimes is that belief that there will be a return to “weak and beggarly elements”, ie. animal sacrifices in the Jewish temple!!??? So much for the finished work of Christ.

I, for one, do not hold to the “imminent” return of Christ, although I need to keep my garments in case of my imminent death (Psalm 139:16) as I am but “grass”. My hope lies in the fact that, one day, “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” This was the hope that founded America, and that began all of the historical missionary societies in Scotland and England. The gospel, in the puritan view, could not fail. It would succeed in making disciples of all nations. This was the puritan hope, and the view of the Scriptures. You should really seek out a copy of Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope, which does an excellent job of defending the postmillennial view as well as “imminence”. You can get it used for less than six bucks. Also check out Kenneth Gentry's article on “The Meaning of the Millennium”.

God Bless,

PL.

PS. If you want to read a scathing rebuke of Dispensationalism referring to the way it treats the Old Testament, then check out A.W. Pink's “A Study of Dispensationalism”. However, be forewarned that you don't want to read this if you are a Dispie and are thin-skinned. (Pink doesn't mince words, and I won't be held responsible if he offends you.)

[Jac3510]

Still at work, but thanks for the link. I'll be sure to read it, and don't worry about offending me. You have to have thick skin if you aren't a Calvinist. I don't think they make you guys in polite models yet.

edit: for the record, I can probably glean your what you take the doctrine of imminence to be for pretribers, but . . . PL . . . why can't you ever just answer a simple question? Why can't you ever just answer a simple argument? I said specifically it wasn't your understanding of the doctrine I was interested in, but rather your understanding of the pretrib understanding I wanted to see.

First you accuse me of universal election, which I flatly deny, now this . . .

[puritan lad]

My sincerest apologies Jac. Your clarification was anything but clear.

edit: Actually, to clarify, it's not YOUR understanding of the doctrine I want. It's the understanding of the pretrib position, which you would probably disagree with.

As I understand the pre-trib rapture view of imminence, they believe that Christ will remove all Christians from planet earth, and that this could happen at any moment (although the great majority were convinced that it would happen before 1988 - their first attempt to redefine "this generation".) Does that answer your question? What else specifically do you wish to know?

[Jac3510]

Good, good . . . now, I assume that by "this could happen at any moment " you recognize the notion that the doctrine of imminence is, first and foremost, grounded in the notion that nothing else has to happen. Thus, by extension, we see that there can be no signs for Rapture.

There are signs for the second coming, so if we see those, we know the rapture has to be getting close, but that distinction is, and will be, of vital importance. That's the first big thing I want to make sure that you, and our readers, understand.

Secondly, I'm glad you brought up "this generation." It's the issue that separates me from many dispensationalists, so far as their "end time clock" goes. I'll detail my own view later, but for now, let me say that for my part I recognize that "this generation" has absolutely zero bearing on "a sign of the endtimes." Again, we'll flesh the idea out later, but I can't even see how it could!

Work, work, work . . . that's all I do these days