The terms go hand in hand. You guys are arguing sort of off the point. Apocalypse in modern times has gradually come to mean End Times and often is used interchangeably, despite its academic differences. You can believe in End Times without the Rapture, but not vice versa I wouldn't think.
The Rapture is just the Kick Off of the game as I understand it, when the saints get the best seats in the house to watch the rest of us play out a very nasty game on the field-- the Four Horsemen leading the charge, the Beast wearing his 666 jersey slouching to Bethlehem, the tribulation, the millenium. I'm getting really out of my depth here in eschatological theory and symbolism here (as if you couldn't tell), but JOhn Darby, the Plymouth Brethren guy, came up with the Rapture interpretation and this is the one that predicts very specific stages (dispensations) heading into the End Times, thus avoiding getting screwed by a wrong date as the Millerites did in the 19th century.
In fact, the Rapture expectation means you have to always be ready, but you have no idea as to when- tomorrow or next generation--, which means making good decisions in the here and now and preparing, so maybe there's an argument for Bush NOT being a believer.
Our friend, a normal attorney by day, is a superman Bible scholar of scary depth. I'll have to ask him what he thinks of the pop LaHaye stuff. |
