John MacArthur: The Rapture Of The Church

[rockytopva]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzsBC2yiqG8

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

This is a good video. I have held the same views for over 25 years and never been convinced otherwise.

 

[neophyte]

I'd rather read the words of St.Peter from the Bible than believe the words of John MacArthur, he being just another false 'pope' of Protestants.

"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. . . . Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace" (2 Pet. 3:8–14).

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

neophyte

The Christians at the time of Peter were expecting Jesus to return at any moment and were impatient. They felt the Lord was being slow in his return.

Peter's reply was what may seem a long time to humans is a short time to God ..... eg: one day is as a thousand years.

Peter then goes on to say the heavens will be destroyed , earth will be laid bare ... but the Christian is to look forward to the new heavens and new earth .... it sounds like a joyful time (for the Christian) as opposed to the tragic time (for the rest of earth inhabitants)

If the Christian was to go through the wrath , we would certainly be warned and told what to do , as opposed to being told to look forward to The Day.

Verse 7 is quite clear about who the recipients are .....

[sup]7 [/sup]By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

The Christian is not the ungodly.

Best wishes in your studies.

Arnie

 

[neophyte]

Arnie, verse [ 7 ] yes, The Word of God , which called the world into being [ Gn 1; Ps 33,6 ] and destroyed it by the waters of a flood, will destroy it again by fire on the day of judgment [ 5-7 ]
The scoffers' objection [ 4 ] is refuted also by showing that delay of the Lord's second coming is not a failure to fulfill his word but rather a sign of his patience:
God is giving time for repentance before the final judgment [ cf Wis 11:23-26; Ex 18:23; 33:11 ] Taken from The New American Bible

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Arnie, verse [ 7 ] yes, The Word of God , which called the world into being [ Gn 1; Ps 33,6 ] and destroyed it by the waters of a flood, will destroy it again by fire on the day of judgment [ 5-7 ]
The scoffers' objection [ 4 ] is refuted also by showing that delay of the Lord's second coming is not a failure to fulfill his word but rather a sign of his patience:
God is giving time for repentance before the final judgment [ cf Wis 11:23-26; Ex 18:23; 33:11 ] Taken from The New American Bible

agreed .... another interesting thing in 2 Peter:3 is the clear distinction between the "two heavens and two earths"

(from verse 7) the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. ..... (I understand this to be the heaven and earth we are currently in)

(from verse 13) [sup].... [/sup]But in keeping with his promise we (Christians) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

Somehow , The Lord transfers us from this (present earth) to the new one some day in the future ..... we are not given many details ..... maybe it is the so called rapture or some other method ..... but it certainly indicates that the destruction by fire of our present earth does not include us.

For this reason folks like me tend toward a pre-wrath removal of the godly , then the ungodly are burned. Something like that.

I will also acknowledge that Peter warns not to fall from our secure position (in verse 17)

[sup]17 [/sup]Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.[sup]18 [/sup]But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So what is the error of the lawless one .... ? .... I feel that it refers to the scoffers who try to say The Lord will not come as promised ..... at least that appears to be the context of the chapter.

Interesting topic .... makes for some deep thinking.

 

[veteran]

He's not preaching The Word of God about our gathering to Christ Jesus. He's teaching an old doctrine of man that started in 1830's Great Britain with those like Edward Irving and John Darby. He's only trying to mask that old Pre-tribulational Secret Rapture doctrine with only using the word 'Rapture'.

 

[[email protected]]

I'd rather read the words of St.Peter from the Bible than believe the words of John MacArthur, he being just another false 'pope' of Protestants.

"But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. . . . Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace" (2 Pet. 3:8–14).

I agree there are too many little popes running around. Charisma, not spirit, is the guiding light for too many congregations. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this particular franchise. Can you give me a brief summary or outline of his pitch?

it's me, hollering from the choir loft..

 

[michaelvpardo]

Just my two cents:
I hold John MacArthur in very high esteem for his scholarly contributions and approach to the study of the scripture, but I've differed with him on a few points, not the least of which is his teaching on the rapture of the church. While I don't agree with him, I don't doubt his sincerity or his zeal for Christ, and have no problem calling him a brother in the Lord. I haven't watched MacArthur's video, but listen to his podcasts from the "Grace to you" radio show.
My own study of such doctrine pretty much ended when the Lord opened my eyes to the following verses from the book of the revelation:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for thousand years.5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Revelation 20:4-6
John MacArthur tries to explain away the verses by saying that the 1st resurrection refers to a "class" of persons, so to speak, those who are justified by faith in Christ, and that this event doesn't have to be at one point in time. However this doesn't explain Revelation 20:4-6 as these verses refer to those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus, etc. The verse includes those who had not received the mark of the beast. Pre-trib adherents generally say that the verses refer to Jewish tribulation saints and not to the Church, yet these Jewish tribulation saints are identified as those who live and reign together with Christ during the millenium. The pre trib adherents would not generally identify the "Jewish tribulation saints" as being the Church or part of the Church, yet they are to live and reign with Christ during the millenium? Woops, but I thought the church was supposed to live and reign with Christ during the millenium. How could that be? Let's just say, wishful thinking and anti-semitic thought processes.
The big objection that I've heard from the pre-trib camp is "why would the Lord yank the church out of here just to bring them right back? I think that the point of the verses about which the rapture doctrine is built, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, is simply that there really will be a bodily resurrection, but the resurrected body will not be a corruptible body, and there is no need to think that those who died in Christ have somehow missed the boat for the millenial kingdom. I've heard one particularly goofy radio personality call the rapture our blessed hope, while it has always been the resurrection which is referred to as our blessed hope. A get out of tribulation free card is attractive to our fleshly nature, but the hope of Christians is supposed to be to live with Christ forever. If there is no resurrection, then there isn't any life in the sense in which we define our lives. Clearly there were people in Corinth and Thessalonica who, like the Jewish Saudacees, didn't believe in a resurection from the dead, and I'm quite sure that there were also those who thought that anyone who'd died wouldn't live again until the judgment, as the Pharisees had believed. So why would Christ take us away, just to bring us back? The point of the verses is not the removal of the Church, but the changing of the Church, from corruptible to incorruptible: 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 1 Corinthians 15:50
This isn't rocket science or high energy physics. It's extremely simple and straight forward. The Bible says what it says and men say what they say. You can believe men, or you can trust the scripture, "the prophetic word confirmed." Believing in a pre-trib rapture doctrine isn't condemning, but it isn't mature either and we are called to maturity. It's hard for spiritual children to understand the bondage that comes with fleshly doctrines, but that doesn't make such bondage less real, and it was for freedom that Christ set us free.

 

[LambOfChrist]

Well put Michael.

I was just saying to my wife after reading half of the above post that what Christians are missing is that there is a reason for the going up and coming back down. I thought you too had missed it but, alas, you got it.

Jesus rose from the grave and met Mary. He said don't touch me for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Then he went up and shortly thereafter was with them eating fish on the shore. We are corruptible but will be made incorruptible only when we have ascended to the presence of Christ. Then we can come back down.

That being said, I find evidence for a pre tribulation rapture but find no evidence for a 7 year tribulation. I do see 2 raptures, but let us put them in place where scripture places them. The reason many scriptures seam confusing is because we are missing the keys to unlock them. For this reason few nonbelievers read the bible and get saved, not that it doesn't happen. Many read one thing that seems to obviously contradict another not realizing that the two speak of 2 different things that look like the same.

Before one can understand the rapture we must first understand the tribulation. What does the word say? There is no where that the tribulation period is called “The” great tribulation or the “7 year” tribulation. Am I mincing words? No, I am trying to point out a fact.

Great tribulation comes after the abomination is set up in Mathew 24:15. It only occurs in Israel and is over when the Jews are successfully removed from the Holy Land. This may take 6 months to a year but likely not much longer. It is only after this that they cry peace and safety because the gentiles control Israel. Right after the tribulation of those days an asteroid hits. The asteroid hit is not even called great tribulation. It comes after the great tribulation.

Every other teaching on the great tribulation is built on the imagination of man and is stretched to the limit at 7 years. Revelation 3 tells that faithful Christians will be kept from that hour so they “must” be removed before the great tribulation starts. However, it is after the great tribulation and the asteroid hits that the Lord comes with the sound of a great trumpet and gathers the elect from one end of heaven to the other. If that is not a rapture what is it?

There is a great trumpet in Mathew 31, a last trumpet in 1[sup]st[/sup] Corinthians 15 and a trumpet in 2[sup]nd[/sup] Thessalonians 4. The description in Corinthians and in Thessalonians is too close to be different and the last trumpet can’t sound before the great trumpet of Matthew 24. I learned that in grade 2. These are all one and the same event and Mathew puts them after the short great tribulation and the asteroid hit.

Then there are the 2 witnesses of Revelation 11. Notice that there are 7 trumpets and the 7[sup]th[/sup] one, that is coincidently the last trumpet in scripture, brings the rapture of the 2 witnesses and then the kingdoms of the earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and savior. Now that is a great trumpet.

I really don’t see what is so confusing about that.

It is not at the end of the 7 year covenant but it is after the asteroid hits. Following this is Armageddon.

So where is the other rapture? By the way the word rapture means to be wrapped up and caught away so why argue about it?

It is the child of Revelation 12. We have all heard that this is Jesus or that this is the Church etc, but what does it say to prove who it is?

First ask “If the rapture took place today, would every believer be taken? What about Galatians list of the sins of the flesh? We are told clearly that those who practice such things will by no means inherit the kingdom of heaven. It is obvious that many would be left behind.
The woman here is not Israel though it is partly Israel. She is clothed in the sun with the moon under her feet and a crown of 12 stars. Peter tells us that we should study prophecy as light that shines in a dark place until the morning star arises in our hearts. Does this woman understand the prophecies?

The moon is the ruler of night. Satan is the prince of darkness. Is this woman walking in sin?

The twelve apostles will one day rule the twelve tribes of Israel. They are the first born of the dead. They are our teachers and the for-runners of the church. They are the crown of twelve stars and the woman is the church walking in religious pride and sinful ways she will not be raptured with the child.

The child too is the church, but only the obedient. Revelation 2 tells us that if we overcome the spirit of Jezebel we will be given the morning star and will rule the nation with a rod of iron just as Jesus does. There are believers coming out of every denomination because they hate the religion. Many of these and even a few in the churches and even a few leaders are the child.

Notice that the remainder of the woman’s seed have the testimony of Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy and they keep the commandments of God. The child is the seed of the woman and these are the remainder of her seed. They are brethren in Christ.

The child will go first because they overcame by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony. After the asteroid hits the woman will come out of the wilderness as a power house in Christ. Purified and holy she will bring deliverance to anyone who calls on the name of the Lord. She will learn this in the wilderness.

The child is kept from the hour of temptation that comes upon the world, but the woman and her seed must endure to the end. The earth will swallow up the flood of accusations that Babylon pours after the woman. She will be hidden but the rest of her seed will be persecuted, some to the death, for their witness. Blessed is he who waits and comes to the 1335 days.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

There is no where that the tribulation period is called “The” great tribulation or the “7 year” tribulation. Am I mincing words? No, I am trying to point out a fact...

I think it comes from Matt 24:21 .....== For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, nor ever shall be.

I understand in the original Greek it is singular (Thee great One) .... plus it mentions no other (tribulations) are like it , nor shall ever be like it. In other words it appears a unique singular tribulation being spoken about.

We make a leap to Daniel based on Jesus saying in vs 15 .... ==[sup] [/sup]When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place,

Daniel tells us the length of time (7 years) (and to make it even more explicit it is also counted as 1260 days)

Most scholars tend to go for a 7 year period (of tribulation) .... I do too .... but I acknowledge that the real nasty stuff is actually only 3 1/2 years (great wrath) .... so maybe we are all saying the same thing with different terms .... ie: a 7 year "event" with only 3 1/2 years being "thee (great) tribulation". Bottom line there definitely is a 7 year "event" in Daniel .Just some thoughts.

Your take on the asteroid portion is interesting. There will be such an event .... but I never heard it presented like you have. Will give it some thought during the next few days. Thanks.

My own study of such doctrine pretty much ended when the Lord opened my eyes to the following verses from the book of the revelation: .......... I think that the point of the verses about which the rapture doctrine is built, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, is simply that there really will be a bodily resurrection, but the resurrected body will not be a corruptible body, and there is no need to think that those who died in Christ have somehow missed the boat for the millenial kingdom.

I roughly snipped parts of your post ..... and do not disagree entirely with all you said ..... I have come to those snags as well .... but I differ slightly on one thing....

Keep in mind I am trying to be an apologist for pre-wrath rapture doctrine

My "different take" is that (at the rapture) the dead in Christ are raised first ... then the living are translated ..... it says raised .... not resurrected.

ie: "Raised to meet the Lord in the air."

Could this be a different event than the actual bodily resurrection we expect ?

I know I am splitting hairs ...

Years ago another snag I encountered had to do with sorting out "the last trump" and the "final trumpets" issue.

Hal Lindsey laboriously differentiated between the last trump (at the rapture) and the last trumpets (at the very end) .... I started out as a skeptic but he convinced me otherwise .... today I still lean to a pre-wrath rapture but my mind is not closed to correction.

======================================================

Ain't technology great !!!!! sometimes not !!!!

Why is it that when I make two separate posts to two different members ..... an hour apart ..... forum software combines them into one post ..... ?????

Sometimes "new and improved" software is a leap backwards into the pit..

I have been a member for many years , and had to re-register because back then "new software" screwed everything up.

When we tried to quote someone .... the forum made it look like we were saying it ourselves ..... which was the exact opposite of what was intended.

The original V-bulletin software was great. Changes bring screw-ups.

I feel much better now I got that off my chest.
=====================================================
edit .... now I see it did it again ...... I think I will quit this forum. this is bull.

 

[rockytopva]

 

[michaelvpardo]

My "different take" is that (at the rapture) the dead in Christ are raised first ... then the living are translated ..... it says raised .... not resurrected.

ie: "Raised to meet the Lord in the air."

Could this be a different event than the actual bodily resurrection we e</p>The scripture also says that not all will die, that those that are alive at the return of Christ will be caught up and changed. If they never died then they are never resurrected in the strictest sense, and once changed they will be with Christ forever (and never die). This doesn't mean that the event doesn't include a resurrection (the dead in Christ) and if you separate the event from "the resurrection of the just," then you have three resurrections instead of the two described in the book of the Revelation. The doctrine doesn't work without alot of mental gymnastics, but our fleshly nature is willing to ignore what the scripture says in favor of this imaginative concoction that promises a delivery from unpleasantness.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

The scripture also says that not all will die, that those that are alive at the return of Christ will be caught up and changed. If they never died then they are never resurrected in the strictest sense, and once changed they will be with Christ forever (and never die).

This doesn't mean that the event doesn't include a resurrection (the dead in Christ) and if you separate the event from "the resurrection of the just," then you have three resurrections instead of the two described in the book of the Revelation. The doctrine doesn't work without alot of mental gymnastics, but our fleshly nature is willing to ignore what the scripture says in favor of this imaginative concoction that promises a delivery from unpleasantness.

Good points .... I agree

 

[LambOfChrist]

Arnie Manitoba My point was not that great tribulation was not mentioned but that the great tribulation is not mentioned. The emphysis is on the word the which gives it a name or a person as in a thing. This great tribulation is not an event like some show. What it is is a time of great tribulation. It is at the very most 2 years in length and I would doubt it is more than one year.


7 years is not 1260 days and though the covenant is a 7 year covenant, this does not mean that it all ends after 7 years. The abomination is set up after 2300 days and this starts the final 1260 days. The word says so.

I wonder sometimes if Christians pray beforethey seek understanding orif they just keep reading it over until they give up and accept one confusion that sound good. If it doesn't make sense or it is against the word it is wrong. It doesn't matter how many believe and teach and follow it, a lie is still a lie. I don't mean that to be rude, I mean it to help wake up the reader.

The thing about truth is it will always be truth otherwise it never waqs truth and so it was a lie and not the truth in the first place.

Truth cannot help but reighn supreme. It doesn't have to labour at it. God just is, period.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

7 years is not 1260 days and though the covenant is a 7 year covenant, this does not mean that it all ends after 7 years. The abomination is set up after 2300 days and this starts the final 1260 days. The word says so.

Correction ..... Hebrew Calendar is 360 days . The 7 year trib is 2520 days and is broken up in two parts of 3,5 years each.

3.5 years is 1260 days as per the prophecy.

Also it is described as 42 months ie: Jewish calendar is 30 days per month X 42 = 1260 days.

Interesting that about 3 years ago NASA refined the length of a day more precisely than ever before .... using the 483 year prophecy in Daniel and the modern calculated length of a day .... put Jesus riding into Jerusalem at 5 pm the exact day predicted .

More proof of the accuracy of scripture.

 

[LambOfChrist]

Arnie Manitoba
I understand you thinking but why is it not possible that the word midst in Daniel 9:27 should not mean midst, as in somewhere within but not necessarily the middle?
There is no reason that the word could not mean midst. And if so then Daniel 8:14 makes perfect sense. 2300 days after the abomination is set up by the little horn, the covenant is broken and the court is given over to the gentiles for 42 months.
The Lord doesn’t have to come back at the end of the 7 years to fulfill scripture. He only has to come back after the 42 months.
Daniel 8:17 tells us this verse concerns the time of the end. If taken literally Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 8:13 to 17 flow together. Separating the two causes confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[veteran]

My "different take" is that (at the rapture) the dead in Christ are raised first ... then the living are translated ..... it says raised .... not resurrected.

ie: "Raised to meet the Lord in the air."

Could this be a different event than the actual bodily resurrection we e</p>The scripture also says that not all will die, that those that are alive at the return of Christ will be caught up and changed. If they never died then they are never resurrected in the strictest sense, and once changed they will be with Christ forever (and never die). This doesn't mean that the event doesn't include a resurrection (the dead in Christ) and if you separate the event from "the resurrection of the just," then you have three resurrections instead of the two described in the book of the Revelation. The doctrine doesn't work without alot of mental gymnastics, but our fleshly nature is willing to ignore what the scripture says in favor of this imaginative concoction that promises a delivery from unpleasantness.

Let's look...

1Thes 4:13-17
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

The subject: "them which are asleep", i.e., the saints that have already died.


14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.

Our Lord Jesus brings those asleep saints with Him when He returns. By that Paul shows they are coming with Jesus.


15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

That word "prevent" is actually the Greek word for 'precede' (phthano). Those of us still alive on earth when Jesus comes cannot 'precede' the asleep saints that have already died. In the Matt.24 and Mark 13 Scriptures about the time of Christ's coming and gathering of the saints, you'll find one example reveals a gathering from one end of heaven to the other, and another gathering from the uttermost part of earth. So even with that we're shown our Lord Jesus gathers His saints from two specific locations, the asleep saints from heaven He brings with Him, and the alive saints still on earth.


16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
(KJV)

The asleep saints are thus resurrected, then the alive saints are changed and gathered with them (1 Cor.15; Isaiah 25).

 

[revturmoil]

I have no use for John MacArthur. He's a Catholic hating pretribulationist and as offensive as they come!
Anyone having anything to do with BJU I throw out the window!

 

[michaelvpardo]

I have no use for John MacArthur. He's a Catholic hating pretribulationist and as offensive as they come!
Anyone having anything to do with BJU I throw out the window!

I've been accused of being a catholic hater myself, even though I was raised and confirmed in that church at the age of 13. I left it behind as my first decision of manhood, having read much of the scripture and found that church, organizatioanlly, to be rather unbiblical and somewhat hypocritical. I had known Catholics that were sincere in their faith and I believe to have been born again back then, though not mature, and I'm quite convinced that I know catholics now who are born again, but struggle doctrinally because they are often fed pap or outright distortions of the truth. I don't know John MacArthur's feelings on members of the catholic church (or rather the Roman Catholic church as the term catholic is actually supposed to apply to the church universal,) but perhaps he, like myself, has a real problem with an organized religion that makes the claim to be the only legitimate church and up until a few centuries ago was known to torture and execute those who believed differently. MacArthur has a great zeal for the Word of God, while many of the RC denomination instead demonstrate a great zeal for "holy mother" the church, a title which itself is more than a little questionable and borders on the blasphemous, but no more than the title "holy father" when applied to a man.My own mother was inclined to make excuses for the priesthood and the more arcane practices within the RC church, but I don't need a man to be God's interpreter for me, when I have the Holy Spirit in residence as my teacher, nor do I need a man to be my priest, when I have the Son of God as my advocate. You may choose not to have anything to do with a teacher like John MacArther, but your choices may prove to be to your detriment and I think that the Lord has better things in mind for you, plans for your good and not for evil. Place your trust in Him alone and not in some organization ruled by men. God alone saves, not the church, "protestant" or "catholic."I am curious though, what exactly is BJU? Does it have anything to do with the Masons? I've never been very thrilled with that group myself, but they've had a pervasive permeative presence in the organized church (and everything else) for quite a few centuries and their predecessors for even longer. I'm inclined to believe that they've done more damage to the peace than any other organization known to man (has something to do with the motto "order out of chaos.") I'm not a big believer in conspiracies, but I know that the adversary of God is behind them all.