[CS-FSLUG] Rapture argument.

[Ed Hurst]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Fred A. Miller wrote:

> We don't need to rely on someone else's opinion about what the early
> Church Fathers believed because they wrote extensively about their
> beliefs and their writings are collected in the ten volumes of "The
> Ante-Nicene Fathers." Blue cites another dispensationalist's opinion
> because that's the only support he could find for his theory--the
> early Church Fathers did NOT believe in the "rapture" theory or
> "dispensationalism," which is very clear from their condemnation of
> the heresy of "millenialism" at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
> and their statement of belief at the Councel of Nicea in 325 A.D.,
> which is known as the Nicene Creed:

I haven't had a chance to read the previous links and postings, but I
strongly support this statement. The works of the early scholars of the
Church aren't too hard to grasp, and they didn't believe in a literal
millenium -- that came from Zoroastrianism. Even as late as the
Reformation, the mainstream of Protestants believed the Pope was
Antichrist, and Revelation was about the Church in Rome.  I'm not
echoing that particular belief, but showing the thread of
dispensationalism is easily traced to fairly recent writers. I posted a
link here long ago to an excellent examination of the doctrine,
"planted" by a zealous RC priest seeking to deflect such teaching about
the Pope. This priest wrote under a pseudonym, claiming to be a
converted Jew.

Ed Hurst
-----------
Applied Bible -- http://users.tconline.net/~softedges/
Plain & Simple Computer Help -- http://ed.asisaid.com/
Plain Package blog -- http://ed.asisaid.com/blog/