So- I'm reading Left Behind

[st. Worm]

'Fair enough, they have a lot of info which is very debateable, but for pure acceptance of Christ and basic repentence of sins teaching they are spot on, and in my view can do no harm to an unbeliever to read them to help them overcome the

misconceptions and maybe even help them take the first steps to becoming a Christian."

I just can't go there with you. Bad doctrine = sin. People make the same arguments about the snake oil salesmen like Hinn and Dollar on TBN. It is the power of the gospel and God's Word that converts sinners, not cheesy movies based on bad theology or clever heretics like the two I named.

[apothanein kerdos]

Wow people. It's one thing to say you disagree with pre-trib....it's entirely another to call it "bad doctrine" and "sinful." It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue.

[IslandRose]

Wow people. It's one thing to say you disagree with pre-trib....it's entirely another to call it "bad doctrine" and "sinful." It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue.

[Pax]

Wow people. It's one thing to say you disagree with pre-trib....it's entirely another to call it "bad doctrine" and "sinful." It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue.

AK,

I wouldn't go as far as calling the Rapture "sinful", simply because many people who believe in this theory are convinced that it is the truth. One can't commit a sin if they don't know it is a sin. Now if a person knows the truth concerning the rapture theory and continues to push it as sound theology, purposely misleading people, than this could be considered a sin. I would disagree with you that the best minds in Christianity disagree on this issue. The Rapture theory is easily disproven and is not sound theology. Any serious thoelogian either Catholic, or Protestant will tell you that. You seem to be a reader so check out Paul Thigpins book titled "The Rapture Trap." His arguments are solid against the Rapture. He even uses the Bible to prove why the Rapture is wishful thinking. It is an easy read and is not very long.

[apothanein kerdos]

I know some brilliant men who still believe in the rapture, and can justify it quite well. I, on the other hand, am Post-Tribulation...I believe the evidence leans that way. However, I think it is impossible to say that the rapture is outright true or outright false because we simply don't know. Again, they were wrong the first time He came, why will be be right the second time around?

[eric]

I know some brilliant men who still believe in the rapture, and can justify it quite well. I, on the other hand, am Post-Tribulation...I believe the evidence leans that way. However, I think it is impossible to say that the rapture is outright true or outright false because we simply don't know. Again, they were wrong the first time He came, why will be be right the second time around?

eric

[st. Worm]

"It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue."

Sorry guys, but I know of no one who could be considered a great mind or a great theologian that believes in pre-trib dispensationalism. Please enlighten me with a list. Now if you start calling Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, and Tim LeHaye "the best minds in Christianity" we definitely will have to have another discussion.

Edited January 15, 2006 by st. Worm

[Irish_Graham]

'Fair enough, they have a lot of info which is very debateable, but for pure acceptance of Christ and basic repentence of sins teaching they are spot on, and in my view can do no harm to an unbeliever to read them to help them overcome the

misconceptions and maybe even help them take the first steps to becoming a Christian."

I just can't go there with you. Bad doctrine = sin. People make the same arguments about the snake oil salesmen like Hinn and Dollar on TBN. It is the power of the gospel and God's Word that converts sinners, not cheesy movies based on bad theology or clever heretics like the two I named.

I think the Left Behind series was designed to wake up non-believers and backslidden Christians and get them to (re)-establish their relationship with Jesus, and the subject of the rapture was just the vessel used as it was controversial, exciting to read and intriguing, so for me the argument around these novels shouldnt be the interpretation of an upcoming event which is hugely debateable within the Christian community, but more if the basic moral and aim of the books were achieved ie. did it wake people up to the choice they have to make, this world. vs our Lord.

Think about it, the whole series is like one giant apologetic lecture and it answers a lot of questions the lost non-believer may have throughout the stories, it just uses the rapture angle to put these apologetic points across in a way in which more people would read them then if they were just in a standard theological essay, so for that I wholly endorse them for non-believers. They can come back later and debate the pre/post trib debate, but they are a great intro to the faith in my view.

[apothanein kerdos]

"It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue."

Sorry guys, but I know of no one who could be considered a great mind or a great theologian that believes in pre-trib dispensationalism. Please enlighten me with a list. Now if you start calling Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, and Tim LeHaye "the best minds in Christianity" we definitely will have to have another discussion.

Um, Charles Stanley and Chuck Swindoll are both very intelligent men. As I said, it's absurd and arrogant of you to assert, "If you eblieve this you aren't smart." I had a professor that held three doctorates (Ancient Biblical languages, theology, philosophy) and he believed in Pre-Trib. Are you arrogant enough to assert you are more intelligent than him? If so, I must question the salvation of a man so arrogant.

[mrs]

"It's quite arrogant when the best minds in Christianity still disagree on this issue."

Sorry guys, but I know of no one who could be considered a great mind or a great theologian that believes in pre-trib dispensationalism. Please enlighten me with a list. Now if you start calling Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, and Tim LeHaye "the best minds in Christianity" we definitely will have to have another discussion.

Um, Charles Stanley and Chuck Swindoll are both very intelligent men. As I said, it's absurd and arrogant of you to assert, "If you eblieve this you aren't smart." I had a professor that held three doctorates (Ancient Biblical languages, theology, philosophy) and he believed in Pre-Trib. Are you arrogant enough to assert you are more intelligent than him? If so, I must question the salvation of a man so arrogant.

Just a thought,I dont think these doctrines have much to do with how 'intelligent' someone is.Spiritual things are taught by the Holy Spirit, not by education.Someone can go to university and learn everything about God and the Bible, yet still not know God Himself.If it was all based on intelligence then why dont all Christians believe the same? Does that make some smarter than others? No. It just means that they are all seeing it differently.