Is being gay a choice?

In order to answer this question, we need to separate the feelings from the act. By "feelings" I mean the emotions of same-sex attraction, and by "act" I mean the actual physical act of intercourse. A person may not necessarily choose to feel a certain way. And there may be environmental factors for why a person is attracted to the same sex, but that is another topic. There are people who don't want to be attracted to the same sex and legitimately struggle with it. That tells us people don't always get to choose how they feel. But feelings are just that, feelings. And Feelings are never the bases for determining what is right and wrong. Having same-sex attraction in itself does not make one gay nor is it a sin

To use a crude analogy, think of it this way. If a person is thinking about robbing a bank, that does not him in a criminal nor does it break any laws. But once the person robs a bank he is a criminal and does break laws. It is the same way with homosexuality.

**I also believe it is environmental\behavioral. I would agree that "feelings" are not always a choice, tho feelings in themselves are never a basis for determining what is right or wrong. I like to separate the feelings from the act, which is where the choice lies. I don't believe feeling a certain way makes one gay no more than thinking about robbing a bank makes someone a criminal, it's only our actions that define us.**

What is a sin is the "act" of homosexuality, because this is where the choice lies. A person chooses to have same-sex relationships and chooses to engage in homosexuality.

Pseudo-Ephraem DOES teach the Rapture!

"For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." -Pseudo-Ephraem

This is in response to Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach the Rapture! I would like to address some of the statements made by this website.

"The false teachers who believe pre-tribulation Rapture theology desperately misuse an ancient document called, "Pseudo-Ephraem" as proof that someone before 1830 AD believed it."

I first want to take issue with calling those who teach the pre-tribulation rapture "false teachers". The Bible defines a false teacher as 1)One who denies Jesus is Christ (1Jo 2:22), 2)one who preaches a different gospel, which is defined as the good news concerning Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, according to the Scriptures (Gal 1:19), and 3)Exhibits qualities that are unbecoming of a Christian (i.e. greed, pride, rebellion) (Mat 8:15-20). Just because someone has a different view or difference of opinion regarding the rapture does NOT make them a false teacher.

"The Syraic text of Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach Rapture theology since the saints suffer and die during the tribulation"

There are various texts attributed to Pseudo-Ephraem. The two Prominent texts are "Sermon Of Pseudo-Ephraem On The End Of The World   (Syriac text)" and "On the Last Times, the Anti-Christ, and the End of the World A Sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem (Latin text)"

The mistake is assuming the Syriac text and the Latin text were written by the same

Pseudo-Ephraem, they were not. They are two radically different sermons, written in two different languages, translated from substantially different underlying texts, and likely by two different individuals. The Latin text is dated between the 4th and 8th century, and unlike the Syraic text, borrows from Pseudo-Methodius. Because they are so radically different the Syriac text can't be used as context for the Latin text. Therefore the focus should solely be on the Latin text which contains the rapture quote in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Pseudo-Ephraem

"The Latin text of Pseudo-Ephraem does not teach Rapture theology since the saints suffer and die during the tribulation:

1.      "In those days [during the tribulation] people shall not be buried, neither Christian, nor heretic, neither Jew, nor pagan, because of fear and dread there is not one who buries them; because all people, while they are fleeing, ignore them. (Section 4)"

2.      "Then, when this inevitability has overwhelmed all people, just and unjust, the just, so that they may be found good by their Lord; and indeed the unjust, so that they may be damned forever with their author the Devil (Section 9)"

This is not a problem for pretribulationists since they believe the saints mentioned in Revelation will be converts to Christianity after the rapture.

"The Latin Pseudo-Ephraem teaches the resurrection of Christians at the second coming when the devil will be destroyed, not the rapture: "Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever. (Section 10)"

Two points, a resurrection isn't explicitly mentioned in the text and second, it is an assumption that the "sleeping ones" are connected to the unburied Christians mentioned in Section 4. Regardless, Pretribulationists also believe in a resurrection of tribulation saints at the end of the tribulation.

Regarding the "first resurrection", it is not one event but a series of events. We know this because after Jesus was raised from the dead so to were the saints with him (Mat 27:52-53), also the two witnesses will die and be resurrected (Rev 11:11-12). So we will all share in the first resurrection of Christ (Col 1:18). 

"1.      This is the one sentence that Rapture advocates say teaches the rapture. In fact we learn from the Syriac text that these saints escape the tribulation by death not rapture! "For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

As noted above the Syriac text is incomparable with the Latin text and should be excluded. "Taken to the Lord" can't imply death because if they are already dead there would be no need for them to be "gathered" and "taken to the Lord" if they are already in Heaven. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death.

"Pseudo-Ephraem is a forgery: There was a Christian named Ephrem or Ephraim who died in 373 AD. Pseudo-Ephraem is an 8th century or later pseudepigrapha falsely claiming to be written by the real Ephrem or Ephraim who had been dead for 400 years."

Correct, however Pseudo-Ephraem was no doubt greatly influenced by the actual work of Ephraem. The point that cannot be missed however is that it represents an early version of the pre-trib rapture at least as far back as the 8th century.

"False teachers of the Rapture will have to keep looking for any scrap of evidence that any Christian believed this heresy before it was invented by John Darby in 1830 AD."

Actually, Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) taught a pretrib rapture some 86 years before Darby. Edwards wrote:

“II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties  Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).

While it's possible to find elements of every rapture position in the writings of the early Church fathers, they did not have a codified doctrine\consensus regarding the rapture.  All rapture positions are fairly modern, for example:

Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison.

Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church".

There are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:

Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)

Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)

Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)

Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)

Rather your pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib they were all conceived during the last two-centuries. However age in itself is not a determining factor is something is wrong or not. This should be remembered before bashing someone else rapture beliefs. For more of my thoughts on this see "Defending the pretrib rapture".

Defending the pretrib rapture

There are many accusations against the pre-tribulation rapture, everything from people calling it lies to heretical. Some even going so far to say that if someone believe in the pretrib they are not saved. This is nonsense. It appears to me this sort of venom is directed almost exclusively towards pre-trib believers and is unbecoming of how Christians should behave toward one another.

One common accusation is that John Darby got his ideas from a vision of a 15 year old Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Let's put this myth to rest once and for all. Firstly Morgan Edwards suggested a pre-trib rapture some 86 years before Darby*. If you want to go back further, Pseudo-Ephraim made a pre-trib statement in the 4th to 8th century**. The concept of imminency, a crucial feature of pretribulationism, was spoken of by many Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Second, John Darby coalesced his ideas about the rapture in a period of from December 1827 through January 1828, some three years before MacDonald's vision in 1830. If one actually read's MacDonald's vision it doesn't sound like a pre-trib rapture at all. In anything it sounds like a post-trib statement. She specifically says, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist." and "This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus." That is not pretrib, moreover Darby considered MacDonald's vision to be demonic in nature.

Another accusation is that the pre-trib rapture is new. Well the reality is the early church did not have a defined doctrine or census regarding the rapture of the Church. Sure, you can find elements from every rapture position in their writings, from pre to post, but elements does not a doctrine make. The truth is all rapture positions are modern. For example:

 Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison. Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". And there are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)

So as you can see, they were all conceived in the last century or two. I believe there are several reasons for this. It comes down to literacy and availability. For one, bibles weren't readily available to the lay person for much of Church history. The printing press wasn't even invented until 15th century, even then there were times they were prohibited from translating the bible into different languages. John Wycliffe was posthumously condemned and William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the bible into English. Illiteracy was high and even when they had access to bibles they weren't always permitted from reading it. One of the reasons the Pilgrims came to America was because public reading of the bible was prohibited in England. So it wasn’t until the translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages in the 16th century did Bibles become readily available. It was only then that ideas about the rapture were able to get fleshed out.

Second sometimes doctrine can take centuries to develop such as the trinity, which took a couple of hundred years after Christ to become an established Church doctrine. Things are never revealed to us all at once but in increments.

Lastly interest of the end-times didn’t really begin until the 19th century and really took off in the 20th century after for formation of Israel in 1948. I do believe God is allowing us insights into the end-times the closer we get to it. When the angel gave Daniel the scroll, he couldn’t understand it. The angel told him it to seal it up until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). Daniel’s generation couldn’t understand these things but we are gaining insights that they did not have. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. The point of mentioning all this is that age should not be a determining factor is something is true or not.

One a final note, the rapture is a non-essential doctrine. Rather one is pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, pos-trib or no-trib, it should not matter because it is NOT a salvation issue. It should not be a divisive issue for the Church. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

*Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) was a Welsh historian of religion, Baptist pastor, and notable for his teaching on the 'rapture' before its popularization by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Edwards

Edwards wrote, “II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties  Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).

**Pseudo-Ephraim, not to be confused with Ephraim the Syrian, wrote, “Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”

Rather “taken to the Lord” implies death or a rapture is open to debate. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death. Pseudo-Ephraim’s statement may not contain all the elements of modern pretribulationism, but it does represent an early version of it and well before any of the other rapture positions.