I'd like your answers to this only - I'll not be replying or debating

Status
Not open for further replies.
The same early fathers also decided canon - why wasn't the restrainer's identity included there if Paul told them?
To answer your question with a question: Do you really expect that the early Christians would openly speak about the fall of an Empire - namely, the fall of Pagan Rome that would then allow the rise of Papal Rome - when such talk, even in jest, was enough grounds for execution?
 
As I recall - Paul was executed. When I say every generation of believers, from the start, thought that Christ's 2nd coming would be in their earthly lifetimes, I meant everyone. Could they have mistaken seeing the 2nd coming in their earthly bodies with seeing it in their heavenly bodies? I dunno. The early Christians were already being brutally murdered without saying anything about a fallen empire. One of the links I gave (I think?) goes into the word apostatia (sp) and how that has been taken as a falling away from faith and I would have to look for a new link because it is dismissed in the link I did post. But the truth of the matter is that it was only taken as that when the Catholics and Protestants fell out. I think it refers to rapture.
 
I read your link if that's what you mean. It seems to me to be a cherry picked view of history.
Thank you for reading the link. You now know that there is simply no other ECF testimony other than their unanimous claims that Paul told them Pagan Rome was the Restrainer, so this cannot be a case of "cherry picking" because there is simply no other alternative ECF testimony from which to pick. The question then remains on the table:

Is it reasonable to believe that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer was the Holy Spirit, but these great, learned, devout, spirit-filled ECF were so lacking in basic listening and comprehension skills that when Paul told them "Holy Spirit", they somehow understood him to say "Pagan Roman Empire" and went on to record this "error" for posterity?
 
Tell, tell :).
I think Revelation was written, purposefully, so that each generation will think it is their own generation which will see the Second Coming. And each previous generation has been off on it. Except ours, of course. Ours fulfill the most criteria. (hehehe). But each generation of believer will see it.

God gives His truth to us in "PORTIONS" Silk. If He gave us everything there is all at one time our heads would explode and I for one am not cleaning up that mess.

Hebrews 1:1-2
"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 bin these last days has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

Really, the truth of the Rapture is located in the Bible. Paul wrote his letters appox. 1900 years ago. It has nothing to do with Ms. Macdonald, or Dr. Darby or Spuregon.

The teaching is right there for all to read and accept or reject. IT is not some kind of special secret that has a code to it. It is right there in the back and white for all to read.

The doctrine of GRACE was right there in the Scriptures until it was read and articulated in 1600 by Martin Luther. Do we reject it because it was promoted by Luther when all one now has to do is read for yourself and accept it or reject it.
 
Dear sister, you are evading the question. I'm not asking for arguments regarding the plausibility of Futurism, Preterism, or Historicism. I'm asking you to answer the question. :)

Dosent matter brother.......you are not going to accept anything outside of your thoughts process. We have done this already.
 
I find it amazing how much anti-rapture there is in the world today. Some call it "Second Coming Fatigue". Did you know this is a fulfillment of prophecy? Thank you.

You are so right. What I find to be disturbing is the level of animosity that comes with those who reject the Rapture. WI see we now have new member referring to those who believe in the Rapture as a Rapture CULT.
 
The restrainer is the entity, referred to as a "he" in II Thessalonians, that holds back the mystery of iniquity (read the spirit of the Antichrist). The early church held the restrainer to be a political power, most likely Rome (Acts 18:16), that restrained the Spirit of Antichrist that inhabited the Christ-rejecting nation of Judaea. The Rapture Cult, seeking to buttress their doctrine of the church's removal, developed the idea the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, who would then be removed with the church. Scripture never shows the Holy Ghost in a martial role, but the archangel Michael is frequently seen in the militant sort of spiritual warfare required to restrain the power inherent in the rejection of Christ (See Daniel 10).


Beware of hyperdispensationalist Thomas Ice and his dishonest tactics.

For example,

“Margaret Macdonald's handwritten account in 1830 of her pre-Antichrist (or pretribulation) rapture discovery was reproduced in two of the 19th century books written by Catholic Apostolic Church historian Robert Norton. Her statement has long been in the public domain. Following my discovery of Norton's works and my publication of her words, several persons in recent years have reprinted it.

But some, like militant pretrib rapture defender and diehard Thomas Ice, have had trouble reproducing it accurately. In addition to a total of 49 omitted words in different sections, Ice's 1989 reproduction had 12 added words plus errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation! Moreover, I discovered that Ice's version also included four distinctive errors that Hal Lindsey had made in his 1983 reproduction, and that Tim LaHaye's 1992 reproduction left behind the same 49 words that Ice had left behind three years earlier! I've found that pretrib rapture promoters would rather copy - and miscopy - each other than take time to locate primary research documents! (By the way, my margins pinpoint Ice's - and LaHaye's - missing words; e.g., "10W" = 10 words.)

Neither Ice nor LaHaye has ever responded to my letters asking about their glaring omissions. Interestingly, if you look for the "Thomas Ice Collection" on websites including Rapture Ready's, you will find that "The Origin of the Pretrib Rapture - Part I" (the above Ice perversion was part of it) is glaringly missing, and the paper you're now reading demonstrates why! If your pharmacist or doctor or lawyer or mechanic would have the sloppiness that many pretrib rapture promoters have, would you still trust them?"

[source: “Thomas Ice (Bloopers)”]

Rest assured that God will never leave us or forsake us. (Heb. 13:5)

RAPTURE CULT???? What is the reason for such a comment????

Do you not think that is somewhat demeaning ???

What if I referred to you as "grasshopper"???? Would that be something that you would take offence to?

Listen grasshopper, the Rapture is right there in the Bible for all to read. It is not a secret!!! Because Ms. Macdonald penned the idea and Darby and Spurgeoon ran with it does not deter from the fact that I CAN OPEN MY BIBLE READ THE SAME WORDS AND COME TO A CONCLUSION.

I can read about the 2bd coming and I do not need anyone to explain the event to me. It is right there for me to read and accept or reject.

Because one accepts the written words of Scripture does not in any way make them a CULT member.

I read the doctrine of sin and depravity as found in the Bible. I accept it because it is true, not because someone else said it was.
I read the doctrine of grace as it is found in the Bible. I accept it because it is true, and not because someone else said it was.
 
Thank you for reading the link. You now know that there is simply no other ECF testimony other than their unanimous claims that Paul told them Pagan Rome was the Restrainer, so this cannot be a case of "cherry picking" because there is simply no other alternative ECF testimony from which to pick. The question then remains on the table:

Is it reasonable to believe that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer was the Holy Spirit, but these great, learned, devout, spirit-filled ECF were so lacking in basic listening and comprehension skills that when Paul told them "Holy Spirit", they somehow understood him to say "Pagan Roman Empire" and went on to record this "error" for posterity?

Or maybe they were so compromised and fearful by the authority and power and evilness of the Roman Empire they feared to speak truth plainly.

I think I remember that it was the Roman Empire that fed Christians to lions and had them killed in gladiator combat.
 
I agree, Major..we are given to know things in portions. At the time we can assimilate them. It reminds me of the picture of Christ in the snow - once you see it, you cannot not see it. http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/unexpected_faces/P7/ . Once you see the rapture in scripture and how it is tied to the restrainer and the rise of the antichrist, you cannot not see it. And I believe those portions of knowing things comes to groups during different ages as well.
 

LanceA

Inactive
RAPTURE CULT???? What is the reason for such a comment????

Do you not think that is somewhat demeaning ???

What if I referred to you as "grasshopper"???? Would that be something that you would take offence to?

Listen grasshopper, the Rapture is right there in the Bible for all to read. It is not a secret!!! Because Ms. Macdonald penned the idea and Darby and Spurgeoon ran with it does not deter from the fact that I CAN OPEN MY BIBLE READ THE SAME WORDS AND COME TO A CONCLUSION.

I can read about the 2bd coming and I do not need anyone to explain the event to me. It is right there for me to read and accept or reject.

Because one accepts the written words of Scripture does not in any way make them a CULT member.

I read the doctrine of sin and depravity as found in the Bible. I accept it because it is true, not because someone else said it was.
I read the doctrine of grace as it is found in the Bible. I accept it because it is true, and not because someone else said it was.
Don't worry Major, I reported his post.
 
One of my main arguments against pretrib rapture (Major will recall) was the fact that it seemed to have been invented and espoused by people, especially here in America, where folks went on to predict the actual (wrong) dates when it would occur, causing numbers of people to quit work, sell their property and wait in open fields for nothing. Thomas Ice of 1989 probably couldn't have convinced me. The one in 2014 did. I saw him, streaming, and it hasn't yet been released to youtube. I read all of the left behind books and didn't agree in that characterization of rapture either. I didn't see it in scripture either and that weighed my conclusions. Like (I think) all Christians, I certainly hoped for a pretrib rapture but I thought it was dangerous to expect one and none came. So that is what I prepared for. And only then did I see it in scripture. So I would have to say it is not easy to see. It is wefted throughout the bible.
 
Thank you for reading the link. You now know that there is simply no other ECF testimony other than their unanimous claims that Paul told them Pagan Rome was the Restrainer, so this cannot be a case of "cherry picking" because there is simply no other alternative ECF testimony from which to pick. The question then remains on the table:

Is it reasonable to believe that Paul told the early church that the Restrainer was the Holy Spirit, but these great, learned, devout, spirit-filled ECF were so lacking in basic listening and comprehension skills that when Paul told them "Holy Spirit", they somehow understood him to say "Pagan Roman Empire" and went on to record this "error" for posterity?

I guess, one thing we could probably clarify here is that in the way it's presented, the question makes it sound like Paul revealed the identity of the "restrainer" to the Thessalonians, and then that identity was passed down by word of mouth over the generations until the "early church fathers" eventually wrote about it. Actually, if you examine the quotations of the individuals in question, we discover that there is ambiguity and debate on the issue. Early theologians do not seem to argue that the Roman Empire is the restrainer because "Paul told us it was," but because they believed the fall of Rome would immediately bring about the end of the world.

Let's take a look at some examples:

Tertullian

"'...he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.' What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?"

Note here that Tertullian doesn't say anything about Paul telling anyone about the restrainer's identity. Instead, he uses reasoning dependent on the presupposition that Daniel 7 is a prophecy about the fall of Rome ("scattered into ten kingdoms"), which would immediately bring about the "end of all things":

"There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration."

Chrysostrom

"ONE may naturally enquire, what is that which withholdeth, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede."

We see here that there was debate about the identity of "restrainer": "Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire"

As the quotation continues, Chrysostrum uses the same reasoning as Tertullian: that Daniel's prophecy is about the end of the world, that the end of Rome will be the end of the world, therefore the one thing that has to happen before the Antichrist appears is the fall of Rome.

It seemed to be a common belief that the end of Rome would be end of the entire world, as Jerome writes,
"... We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves..."

The view among the early church that the restrainer=Rome is an argument from reasoning based on a particular conclusion about other prophecies, it does not seem to be a claim that the identity of the restrainer was passed down from word of mouth directly from Paul.

Augustine

"For what does he [Paul] mean by "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?" [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. ... However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, "Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way," refer to the Roman empire..."

Augustine also doesn't say that Paul told them the identity of the restrainer, but says that he doesn't know what Paul means, and "it is not absurd to believe..." He hardly seems confident in stating a definite conclusion.

So some of the early church fathers may have believed that Paul told the Thessalonians that the restrainer=Rome, but they do not seem to claim this knowledge was passed down to them. Their arguments are based on reasoning, following an assumption that they were living in the end times, and the fall of Rome would be the end of this world. In context of this information, questions about Paul "telling" the early church, or whether or not they were "lying" that Paul told them, are difficult to answer, since they don't seem to have made such a claim.
 
Last edited:
Folks remember that before 1948 those that believed Israel would return as a nation were laughed at and called a cult I'm sure. Then when Israel was born they said it didn't matter because it was just the deception of the devil - how ironic. Now as the appointed time approaches more naysayers appear. Don't think for an instance this is a coincidence. Even after the rapture occurs they'll deny it even happened. Let them.

Many quote, erroneously, that The Rapture doctrine, was the invention of the Plymouth Brethren led by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). But the truth is this, Iranaeus of Lyons, (130 A.D. – 202 AD) was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, 'There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.' For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption."
Then there's Cyprian (200 AD – 258 AD) – Cyprian was Bishop of the church in Carthage. In Treatises of Cyprian he wrote in describing the end times Great Tribulation:

"We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom."​

Next we have Ephraim (306 AD – 373 AD) was made a deacon in the church in Syria in 338 and later became the bishop of Nisibis. In his work, On The Last Times 2, he wrote:

"Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect 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. And so, brothers most dear to me, it is the eleventh hour, and the end of the world comes to the harvest, and angels, armed and prepared, hold sickles in their hands, awaiting the empire of the Lord."​

Although the rapture did not happen as he thought, his belief in 373 AD was that of the rapture then the start of the tribulation. Now on to more modern commentators, yet before the 1800's as the "birth" of the "false" teaching of the "rapture".

John Gill (1697 - 1771) says of 1 Thess 4:17:

"Then we which are alive and remain,....

shall be caught up; suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with force and power; by the power of Christ, and by the ministry and means of the holy angels; and to which rapture will contribute, the agility which the bodies both of the raised and changed saints will have: and this rapture of the living saints will be

together with them; with the dead in Christ, that will then be raised; so that the one will not come before the other, or the one be sooner with Christ than the other; but the one being raised and the other changed, they will be joined in one company and general assembly, and be caught up together:

in the clouds; the same clouds perhaps in which Christ will come, will be let down to take them up; these will be the chariots, in which they will be carried up to him; and thus, as at our Lord's ascension a cloud received him, and in it he was carried up out of the sight of men, so at this time will all the saints ride up in the clouds of heaven:

to meet the Lord in the air; whither he will descend, and will then clear the regions of the air of Satan, and his posse of devils, which now rove about there, watching all opportunities, and taking all advantages to do mischief on earth; these shall then fall like lightning from heaven, and be bound and shut up in the bottomless pit, till the thousand years are ended: here Christ will stop, and will be visible to all, and as easily discerned by all, good and bad, as the body of the sun at noonday; as yet he will not descend on earth, because it is not fit to receive him; but when that and its works are burnt up, and it is purged and purified by fire, and become a new earth, he will descend upon it, and dwell with his saints in it: and this suggests another reason why he will stay in the air, and his saints shall meet him there, and whom he will take up with him into the third heaven, till the general conflagration and burning of the world is over, and to preserve them from it; and then shall all the elect of God descend from heaven as a bride adorned for her husband, and he with them, and the tabernacle of God shall be with men; see Re 21:1. The resurrection by the Mahometans is called לקא אללה, "a meeting of God", or a going to meet God:

and so shall we ever be with the Lord; now the saints are with him at times, and have communion with him, but not always; but then they shall be ever with him; wherever he is; first in the air, where they shall meet him; then in the third heaven, where they shall go up with him; then on earth, where they shall descend and reign with him a thousand years; and then in the ultimate glory to all eternity: and this will be the issue and accomplishment of the counsel and covenant of grace, of the sufferings and death of Christ, and of his preparations and prayers."​

Next you have Matthew Poole, (1624 - 1679) who stated in his commentary on 1 Thess 4:17:

"Christ will have a church to the end of the world, and some will be found alive at his coming, and will be

caught up, or snatched up, to denote its suddenness, it may be in the arms of angels, or by some immediate attractive power of Christ; and it will be

together with them that are now raised from the dead; they shall all ascend in one great body, and it will be

in the clouds; as Christ himself ascended in a cloud, Act 1:9, and so will return again, Mat 24:30, he making the clouds his chariots, Psa 104:3.

To meet the Lord in the air:

1. To congratulate his coming, when others shall flee and tremble.

2. To put honour upon him; as the angels will also attend him for that end.

3. To receive their final discharge.

4. To be visibly joined to their Head.

5. To be assistants with him in judging of the world, and to reign with him upon earth.

And whether the last judgment will be upon the earth, or in the air, I shall not determine; but after this Christ and his saints shall never part. Their first meeting shall be in the air, and their continuance will be with him while he is in this lower world, and after that they shall ascend with him into heaven, and so be for ever with him. Augustine imagined that the saints that are found alive shall in their rapture die, and then immediately revive, because it is appointed to all men once to die; but the apostle saith expressly: We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed, 1Co 15:51. "​

So if these people choose to believe what they believe, let them. Anyone who says those that believe it is a CULT will receive 5 warning points from me for breaking rules 2 and 3. I'm not saying you must believe in the rapture, but accusing others as being part of a cult is arrogant, self righteous, and nothing more than stirring up strife. Those that point fingers I remind you that you have three pointing back at yourselves and obviously you do not even know the meaning of the word cult. To remove your ignorance, I continue with the definition:

1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.​
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.

Stop living in the internet and live in the Spirit!
 
FINALLY! In the midst of all the deflective arguments in defense of Jesuit Futurism, ROADS stepped up to answer the question! He is correct that the ECF examples found in the link do not specifically say Paul told them personally that the Restrainer was Pagan Rome, but the evidence is still strong enough to conclude that this is precisely the case:
  • Should a mere assumption on our part - that the Thessalonians and the ECF were incapable of passing down to succeeding generations exactly what Paul says he made so completely clear to the early church concerning the identity of the Restrainer - be grounds for relegating their testimony to the realm of speculation?
  • Should we attribute the remarkable unanimity of the ECF testimony to anything other than what is so painfully obvious: that Paul so clearly revealed the Restrainer's identity to the early church that no occasion for confusion could arise (that is until post-Reformation era Protestants stopped protesting and began to embrace the "Organized Believers in the Non-Biblical Rapture" of Jesuit Futurism)?
  • Should we ignore the fact that not a single - I repeat with utmost emphasis - not a single ECF claimed that Paul identified the Restrainer as the Holy Spirit, which we should expect to fill the pages of ECF testimony far and wide if Paul had done so?
  • Should we ignore the fact that Paul had every reason to be forthcoming in identifying the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer of the Antichrist, if such thing were true, so as to encourage the faithful of the omnipotent power of God in such times of persecution and hopelessness?
  • Should we ignore the fact that Paul had every reason to be secretive in his identification of the Restrainer as Pagan Rome which he said was to be "taken out of the way", in a time when speaking above one's breath of the fall of an empire was grounds for execution?
  • Should we ignore the fact that the early church was so convinced that Pagan Rome was in fact restraining the rise of Antichrist that they prayed for the continuation of it, despite its cruelty and hatred toward Christians?

Whatever we choose to believe, I sincerely hope that we will all remain willing to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads and if we should find ourselves being prompted by Him to abandon cherished beliefs, especially those which originate from the greatest enemy of both Scripture and those who hold Scripture as the ultimate authority and sole bond of union, we will be humble enough to follow His prompts. :)
 
Last edited:
I agree, Major..we are given to know things in portions. At the time we can assimilate them. It reminds me of the picture of Christ in the snow - once you see it, you cannot not see it. http://www.rejesus.co.uk/site/module/unexpected_faces/P7/ . Once you see the rapture in scripture and how it is tied to the restrainer and the rise of the antichrist, you cannot not see it. And I believe those portions of knowing things comes to groups during different ages as well.

Agreed!

I mean that it is right there for anyone to read and when that is done anyone can say I do not believe that. End of conversation or debate.

All this arguing over someone who started something is just ridiculous to me.
 
One of my main arguments against pretrib rapture (Major will recall) was the fact that it seemed to have been invented and espoused by people, especially here in America, where folks went on to predict the actual (wrong) dates when it would occur, causing numbers of people to quit work, sell their property and wait in open fields for nothing. Thomas Ice of 1989 probably couldn't have convinced me. The one in 2014 did. I saw him, streaming, and it hasn't yet been released to youtube. I read all of the left behind books and didn't agree in that characterization of rapture either. I didn't see it in scripture either and that weighed my conclusions. Like (I think) all Christians, I certainly hoped for a pretrib rapture but I thought it was dangerous to expect one and none came. So that is what I prepared for. And only then did I see it in scripture. So I would have to say it is not easy to see. It is wefted throughout the bible.

That is correct sister.
 
FINALLY! In the midst of all the deflective arguments in defense of Jesuit Futurism, ROADS stepped up to answer the question! He is correct that the ECF examples found in the link do not specifically say Paul told them personally that the Restrainer was Pagan Rome, but the evidence is still strong enough to conclude that this is precisely the case:
  • Should a mere assumption on our part - that the Thessalonians and the ECF were incapable of passing down to succeeding generations exactly what Paul says he made so completely clear to the early church concerning the identity of the Restrainer - be grounds for relegating their testimony to the realm of speculation?
  • Should we attribute the remarkable unanimity of the ECF testimony to anything other than what is so painfully obvious: that Paul so clearly revealed the Restrainer's identity to the early church that no occasion for confusion could arise (that is until post-Reformation era Protestants stopped protesting and began to embrace the "Organized Believers in the Non-Biblical Rapture" of Jesuit Futurism)?
  • Should we ignore the fact that not a single - I repeat with utmost emphasis - not a single ECF claimed that Paul identified the Restrainer as the Holy Spirit, which we should expect to fill the pages of ECF testimony far and wide if Paul had done so?
  • Should we ignore the fact that Paul had every reason to be forthcoming in identifying the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer of the Antichrist, if such thing were true, so as to encourage the faithful of the omnipotent power of God in such times of persecution and hopelessness?
  • Should we ignore the fact that Paul had every reason to be secretive in his identification of the Restrainer as Pagan Rome which he said was to be "taken out of the way", in a time when speaking above one's breath of the fall of an empire was grounds for execution?
  • Should we ignore the fact that the early church was so convinced that Pagan Rome was in fact restraining the rise of Antichrist that they prayed for the continuation of it, despite its cruelty and hatred toward Christians?

Whatever we choose to believe, I sincerely hope that we will all remain willing to follow the Holy Spirit wherever He leads and if we should find ourselves being prompted by Him to abandon cherished beliefs, especially those which originate from the greatest enemy of both Scripture and those who hold Scripture as the ultimate authority and sole bond of union, we will be humble enough to follow His prompts. :)

Agreed!. If you do not want to believe in a Rapture.....Wonderful!
If you want to read the Scriptures and believe in a Rapture....Wonderful!

We just need to remember that we are all people with our own thoughts and we are not enemies but brothers and sisters in the Army of God pulling together for the cause of Christ which is to get lost people saved and not to have combat with each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top