Are You Sure You Don't Want To Be Left Behind?

[Raven]

Millions in merchandising have been made by the creators of the "Left Behind" series. If you grew up in Pentecost, as I have, you can remember revivals, youth camps, and conferences, where altars were full of crying young people and the smell of brimstone was almost real. Perhaps an evangelist had screamed into a mike that the trumpet was about to sound and many were going to be left behind. Or you walked into an unexpectedly quiet house after school and panicked when Mom couldn't be found. Left behind! You missed the Rapture! You lived in fear of being left behind.
Perhaps it is time to take a new look at some old things. I'm not here to discuss Rapture, Pre- Mid- or Post, but to examin the scripture that was used to propagate the "left behind" doctrine. Are you sure you don't want to be left behind?
Matthew 24:37-41
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

It is obvious, with some examination, that the ones "taken" are taken in judgment and that Noah was "left" behind. Whatever one believes about the "Rapture", you certainly, from this scripture, want to be left behind!
Raven

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Raven

Millions in merchandising have been made by the creators of the "Left Behind" series. If you grew up in Pentecost, as I have, you can remember revivals, youth camps, and conferences, where altars were full of crying young people and the smell of brimstone was almost real. Perhaps an evangelist had screamed into a mike that the trumpet was about to sound and many were going to be left behind. Or you walked into an unexpectedly quiet house after school and panicked when Mom couldn't be found. Left behind! You missed the Rapture! You lived in fear of being left behind.
Perhaps it is time to take a new look at some old things. I'm not here to discuss Rapture, Pre- Mid- or Post, but to examin the scripture that was used to propagate the "left behind" doctrine. Are you sure you don't want to be left behind?
Matthew 24:37-41
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

It is obvious, with some examination, that the ones "taken" are taken in judgment and that Noah was "left" behind. Whatever one believes about the "Rapture", you certainly, from this scripture, want to be left behind!
Raven

That is very interesting. I am sure since it goes against what we were taught,
it will be hard to see how you can interpret this passage the way you presented it.
It does seem to be worth considering to see if it is what is really said or implied here or if our teachings on this passage was not the intention of the writer. (St. Matthew)

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Bowas

That is very interesting. I am sure since it goes against what we were taught,
it will be hard to see how you can interpret this passage the way you presented it.
It does seem to be worth considering to see if it is what is really said or implied here or if our teachings on this passage was not the intention of the writer. (St. Matthew)

Back in the late 1980's (remember the "87 Reasons", then the "88 Reasons" ...?) I went around asking many of our brethren about this very passage. Dallas Theological Seminary's Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" was a standard text book on eschatology and he discusses this apparent "flip-flop" of interpretation.

Nobody I asked even wanted to discuss it. They were all afraid of being either being wrong or being quoted. There's some real disconnects when it comes to some of our pet doctrines and the Bible. John 3:5 is another example. Acts 2:15 is a doozy.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Back in the late 1980's (remember the "87 Reasons", then the "88 Reasons" ...?) I went around asking many of our brethren about this very passage. Dallas Theological Seminary's Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" was a standard text book on eschatology and he discusses this apparent "flip-flop" of interpretation.

Nobody I asked even wanted to discuss it. They were all afraid of being either being wrong or being quoted. There's some real disconnects when it comes to some of our pet doctrines and the Bible. John 3:5 is another example. Acts 2:15 is a doozy.

Well, if we are truely Apostolics as we claim to be, we MUST follow the scriptures wherever they lead us, even to unpopular conclusions. The trinity comes to mind and Jesus name baptism.
An Apostolic is one that teaches ONLY what the Apostles believed and taught, as Jesus instructed them.
If God opens my understanding in my search for more truth, then I, as an Apostolic will follow Him.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Back in the late 1980's (remember the "87 Reasons", then the "88 Reasons" ...?) I went around asking many of our brethren about this very passage. Dallas Theological Seminary's Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" was a standard text book on eschatology and he discusses this apparent "flip-flop" of interpretation.

Nobody I asked even wanted to discuss it. They were all afraid of being either being wrong or being quoted. There's some real disconnects when it comes to some of our pet doctrines and the Bible. John 3:5 is another example. Acts 2:15 is a doozy.

Pelathais
You are correct! There are some real disconnects in some of the scripture versus our "pet doctrines'. I've got a list that I'm going to go through for the next few days and see if we can't bring some honesty to our positions. I don't want to seem presumptuous but some time ago I declared war on ignorance! I'm weary of blind, unquestioning, people who refuse to think.
Raven

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Back in the late 1980's (remember the "87 Reasons", then the "88 Reasons" ...?) I went around asking many of our brethren about this very passage. Dallas Theological Seminary's Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" was a standard text book on eschatology and he discusses this apparent "flip-flop" of interpretation.

Nobody I asked even wanted to discuss it. They were all afraid of being either being wrong or being quoted. There's some real disconnects when it comes to some of our pet doctrines and the Bible. John 3:5 is another example. Acts 2:15 is a doozy.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

[SDG]

Thanks Raven for dispelling another myth ... I feel stupid.

Pela what's the deal w/ Acts 2:15???

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Thanks Raven for dispelling another myth ... I feel stupid.

Pela what's the deal w/ Acts 2:15???

I think the issue is that he didn't say they weren't drunk because they didn't drink ever...

he said they weren't drunk because it was too early in the morning for them to be drunk...

[DividedThigh]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

I think the issue is that he didn't say they weren't drunk because they didn't drink ever...

he said they weren't drunk because it was too early in the morning for them to be drunk...

i agree redcyn that the scripture you mention is being interpreted wrong by many people, no doubt, but there are a ton of reasons to preach and teach against drinking without misusing this passage, dt

[Esther]

Raven some interesting insight!

Thanks for sharing.