Vine Abider

Thanks - your thoughts are noted. So you don't believe the man of sin will arise and do a treaty?

Interesting, and thanks for directly addressing this! So I believe I have scriptures for each of these things (a condensed, simpler version of events quoted from an earlier post): "Give a little background on Israel becoming a nation again, and that things there will reach a potentially very catastrophic level, but a charismatic leader will arise to make a 7 year treaty. And even though peace and good times appear to rule the day after the treaty, the lid will seriously come off in 3.5 years, and then before too long, the Lord will return to subdue the dire situation and set up His kingdom --> therefore sinner, turn to Him and be saved!"

Never thought about a differences between partial and multiple raptures. So what about the promise to the church in Philly, where the Lord tells them "if" (a conditional standard being placed), then He will keep them from the hour of trial (tribulation) - is that not a possible partial? (Of course, one may not think the vehicle for keeping this promise is a rapture . . .)

Oh, good point . . . I wasn't thinking about that. So if it gets moved, do others see where?

@Dennis1209 @seeking the lost @AnOrangeCat @AdHoc I've started a new thread here on this topic, so as not to derail this one completely:

On another thread, a few people seemed interested in talking again about the Partial Rapture Theory. (I say again, because we did a thread on this about 1.5 years ago that got to over 90 pages before George closed it!) Here's a few of the comments I thought to bring over from that other (current) thread: Below posted by me (as a response to @AnOrangeCat on that other current thread: We had quite the thread going on this over a year ago (actually may have been a couple threads) - I can see if I find them if you'd like. But the basics are this: many argue incessantly for either pre or post trib rapture, and some also for mid trib. I subscribe to the notion that there are some merits for all these in scripture, therefore multiple, partial raptures. There have been God's people who have been caught away at various points, so I don't understand why Christians insist on dogmatically staking claim to just one rapture at the end. To me, we are all saved equally, and He puts His Spirit of life into us to make us children. Therefore we are all on equal footing in that regards - saved by grace period. But then there is the matter of how we grow and what we do with this grace and life we've been given. The Bema Seat judgement will address this and differentiate between God's children. So why should the rapture idea be any different, that is, ones taken up according to how well they have allowed the seed of life in them to grow? Much more could be said, but after some digging I found this thread I started in December 2022. (FYI - there were over 90 pages to this thread and it was closed by George, but if you read a few of the beginning pages I think you'll get the idea.) Below posted by me responding to @Dennis1209 on that other current thread: I don't know much about what the anti-Nicene church fathers held regarding the rapture(s) . . . and I would defer to @AdHoc regarding any teachings from back then about multiple/partial reapings. And even if no church father source for the idea comes from that period, I would maintain that this, in and of itself, certainly does not negate the idea. I do agree that much of the partial rapture teaching did get promulgated by 19th century authors. Here's something from Wikipedia in an article on "Rapture" subsection "Partial pre-tribulation premillennialism": As stated by Ira David (a proponent of this view): “The saints will be raptured in groups during the tribulation as they are prepared to go.”[98] Some notable proponents of this theory are G. H. Lang, Robert Chapman, G. H. Pember, Robert Govett, D. M. Panton, Watchman Nee, Ira E. David, J. A. Seiss, Hudson Taylor, Anthony Norris Groves, John Wilkinson, G. Campbell Morgan, Otto Stockmayer and Rev. J. W. (Chip) White Jr. Found here - an interesting read on the whole matter of the rapture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture I am familiar with a number of these authors and many were in the 19th century. If anyone is interested, here is a website I found today that promotes Partial Rapture Theory (PRT): https://www.bible-prophecy.co/partial-rapture-theory/ I have just started to look through it, so I can't vouch for its veracity. UPDATE: Just realized this website is by an author whose book I have on my shelf: "The Partial Rapture and the Left Behind Church" by Paul Shoenbarger Below posted by @Dennis1209 as a response to me (on that other, current thread): To coin an old secular adage, “The closer to the bone, the sweeter the meat.” The closer we get to the source material and references, the more detail and accuracy. My point is: 1 Thes. 4: 15For 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. 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. 18 Wherefore lcomfort one another with these words. [emphasis mine] On scripture: I am not dogmatic, but I see nowhere in scripture that teaches a partial rapture. How could we comfort one another knowing some of our beloved brethren and loved ones missed the church age (age of Grace) Rapture and Resurrection? It seems the pronoun WE is all-encompassing and all-inclusive. I mentioned the early so-called church fathers. Polycarp was a personal friend and disciple of John the Revelator, studying under John, not to mention Irenaeus under Polycarp and all the other so-called Ante-Nicene fathers. None of them knew what is spouted today as partial raptures. Short of reverifying, I do not recall any Reformation leaders of the sixteenth century mentioning partial raptures. This doctrinal introduction is a product of the 19th century, which is very late in Biblical terms. It is not to say there will only be one rapture and one glorification. I believe those Tribulation martyrs (and ourselves) will return with Christ at His 2nd coming, then having their glorified bodies. And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled. (Revelation 6:11) The final resurrection is the Great White Throne judgment, where those not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life are bodily resurrected, condemned, and join the Antichrist and False Prophet in the Lake of Fire. I also would like @AdHoc to chime in. I consistently learn from you both, getting alternate views and thoughts.

Let me just say that, as interesting as it is, much further discussion of the rapture should probably be done in a separate thread, as the topic has the propensity to take off!

Sometimes . . . as I'm lead.

I don't know much about what the anti-Nicene church fathers held regarding the rapture(s) . . . and I would defer to @AdHoc regarding any teachings from back then about multiple/partial reapings. And even if no church father source for the idea comes from that period, I would maintain that this, in and of itself, certainly does not negate the idea. I do agree that much of the partial rapture teaching did get promulgated by 19th century authors. Here's something from Wikipedia in an article on "Rapture" subsection "Partial pre-tribulation premillennialism": As stated by Ira David (a proponent of this view): “The saints will be raptured in groups during the tribulation as they are prepared to go.”[98] Some notable proponents of this theory are G. H. Lang, Robert Chapman, G. H. Pember, Robert Govett, D. M. Panton, Watchman Nee, Ira E. David, J. A. Seiss, Hudson Taylor, Anthony Norris Groves, John Wilkinson, G. Campbell Morgan, Otto Stockmayer and Rev. J. W. (Chip) White Jr. Found here - an interesting read on the whole matter of the rapture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture I am familiar with a number of these authors and many were in the 19th century. If anyone is interested, here is a website I found today that promotes Partial Rapture Theory (PRT): https://www.bible-prophecy.co/partial-rapture-theory/ I have just started to look through it, so I can't vouch for its veracity. UPDATE: Just realized this website is by an author whose book I have on my shelf: "The Partial Rapture and the Left Behind Church" by Paul Shoenbarger

We had quite the thread going on this over a year ago (actually may have been a couple threads) - I can see if I find them if you'd like. But the basics are this: many argue incessantly for either pre or post trib rapture, and some also for mid trib. I subscribe to the notion that there are some merits for all these in scripture, therefore multiple, partial raptures. There have been God's people who have been caught away at various points, so I don't understand why Christians insist on dogmatically staking claim to just one rapture at the end. To me, we are all saved equally, and He puts His Spirit of life into us to make us children. Therefore we are all on equal footing in that regards - saved by grace period. But then there is the matter of how we grow and what we do with this grace and life we've been given. The Bema Seat judgement will address this and differentiate between God's children. So why should the rapture idea be any different, that is, ones taken up according to how well they have allowed the seed of life in them to grow? Much more could be said, but after some digging I found this thread I started in December 2022. (FYI - there were over 90 pages to this thread and it was closed by George, but if you read a few of the beginning pages I think you'll get the idea.)

I just pray the Lord gives them wisdom and that His guiding hand is on them . . .

Perhaps. But, as I've said before, the time could be ripe in the US for a 3rd party candidate to do well and even win - there are that many who are dissatisfied with our current two choices IMHO.

But if the RNC sees he can't win the general, can't they do something, or is it a lock with the delegates no matter what? And I'm seeing reports Trump is also loosing a lot - swing voters, etc. . . .

OK, I hinted at it, but I think there's good reason to expect that Trump won't prevail in the legal arena and will be forced out. What happens then? Is there a conservative plan "B"?

That was a good article!