9 Reasons We Can Be Confident Christians Won’t Be Raptured Before The Tribulation

Nicholas cage in a left behind movie! Hollywood is getting really desperate.

The support for the rapture, and the Great Tribulation being a literal period of trial for Israel alone, is much greater than some critics are willing to admit. Dispensationalism has been done a disservice by the Left Behind series, which seems to be the common point of ridicule whenever this topic is brought up. This is not a laughing matter, and the Biblical case is quite strong. Walvoord, Ryrie and Pentecost did the heavy lifting quite some time ago. It is a shame they are not consulted more often by critics.

wave on my way up. :D

(No, I realize this is not an argument… for that I refer readers to Whitcomb, Ryrie, Walvoord, et. al.)

“Ye shall be my witnesses……” The commission to the church to preach the Gospel is never usurped in the NT record. Miraculously the Holy Spirit, angels, and even the resurrected Christ (Acts 9) intervened in getting individuals to the Gospel, but they ALWAYS left the Gospel in the hands of witnesses. ALWAYS!

Paul makes it abundantly clear throughout his epistles that a primary purpose of the church is to preach the Gospel—it is what it is here for.

Yet throughout the detailed picture of the tribulation period given in the Book of Revelation you see the Gospel proclaimed by angels and a group of specially raised up witnesses that, evidently, have no connection to the NT church? And NEVER by the believing church that is supposedly still there, functioning under intense persecution?

I’m not buying it. The church is gone and a merciful God still gives the everlasting Gospel to a lost world.

I agree with Tyler that the Left Behind Series and things like it have really undermined Dispensationalism. Unfortunately that seems to be the thing most people associate with it. I rarely meet a Covenantal person that has made a thorough study of Dispensationalism. They are out there but they seem to be pretty rare.

It pains me in general to see people criticizing ideas they may not have even really studied. Dispensationalism, as I said, has not been flourishing lately, mostly because the only men publishing are either (1) fringe weirdos, or (2) they’re writing for a popular audience (e.g. Left Behind). How many amillennialists or covenant premillennialists who sneer at the rapture have actually read Walvoord’s The Rapture Question, Ryrie’s The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, or Pentecost’s Things to Come?

I’m a premillennialist, and I have Allis’ Prophesy and the Church, Gundry’s Church and the Tribulation and Ladd’s The Presence of the Future. I didn’t have to buy them; I decided to buy them to see what the other side has to say. Dispensational eschatalogy and ecclesiology go far beyond the Left Behind series. I wonder how many of the critics can honestly say they’ve gotten out the highlighter and actually read a scholarly dispensationalist book and can interact with the real arguments?

[josh p]

I agree with Tyler that the Left Behind Series and things like it have really undermined Dispensationalism. Unfortunately that seems to be the thing most people associate with it. I rarely meet a Covenantal person that has made a thorough study of Dispensationalism. They are out there but they seem to be pretty rare.

Truly, but I’ve rarely met a Dispensationalist that made a thorough study of Covenant Theology.

Todd, it is certainly true going either direction but since there seems to be such a proliferation of Covenant theology lately it seems to be less true. Although still dispensationalists are probably mostly reading popular level works on covenant theology.

[TylerR] I wonder how many of the critics can honestly say they’ve gotten out the highlighter and actually read a scholarly dispensationalist book and can interact with the real arguments?

Of course, they would respond there are no “scholarly” dispensational books, and therein lies one of the reasons they are not dispensationalists. ;)

I’m quasi-dispensational myself, meaning I believe in the church/Israel distinction, prefer a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, but hold a historic premil view of eschatology. I have little use for Left Behind, Clarence Larkin, or arguments about the number of dispensations.

That being said, I am an MDiv student at a seminary where dispensationalism is taught and promoted. As it pertains to dispensational eschatology, I’ve found that there are two main perspectives: the academic view and the popular view. In addition, there are so many differences within each perspective that at the end of the day I find them all pretty much grasping at straws.

I’ve been back and forth on this for many years. I’m not sure what I was taught at BJ undergrad, probably a mix, and didn’t leave much of an impression (although I appreciated Mr. Jessie Boyd on the covenants). My MDiv was at a solidly classic dispensational seminary which started leaning progressive dispy after I left. I received another master’s degree at Reformed Seminary with a heavy amil emphasis, and my DMin at Trinity with historic premil leanings.

After all that I am pretty solidly non-committed eschatologically to a sure and fast “position” since none of the labels seem to fit. At least for now. Ask me next week.

Yet I unwaveringly affirm the literal return of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead, the resurrection of the body, and the establishment of his eternal kingdom (which may be preceded by a literal 1000 earthly kingdom but I won’t die on that rock). Of course I believe to be true much more than that but on many of the details I would not insist that they must be fulfilled in the way I see them. These details are not unimportant but as I often say I think we will all be surprised at the unfolding of God’s plan. I firmly believe that God can do what he wants and we are still trying to piece together the picture.

What I think all should avoid are statements like “it is so clear,” “all the evidence points,” and so on or imagine that if others really gave themselves the time to study scholarly works on any side of the question, then they would affirm another position. I thought our position should be based on the Bible and besides who has time to read all the sides with all their variations. And if it was that clear we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ridicule toward any position is not an argument for one’s position.

Although I am not a dispensationalist I do not consider myself anti-dispensationalist. I have too much respect for many who hold to that view. I will not argue that it is wrong solely because it is novel and minority view and seems in some respects to be found mostly in the American church and in other places by those who have exported it in their missionary endeavors. I’m glad to discuss it with friends but am not going to fight or separate over it. I allow that some texts can be interpreted in such a way to depict a pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib rapture, a pre-mil, amil, post-mil (nah, can’t see post-mil) second coming, a re-established or re-imagined Israel in an earthly millennial kingdom, etc. I also allow that many passages are interpreted in different ways because of presuppositions, conscious or unconscious. I think Dispensationalism is a legitimate system. That I do not find the system convincing does not make it wrong or unscholarly.

So I won’t be drawn into a fruitless debate on the merits of such and such system of eschatology. Yes, I know that some hold everything they believe with the same level of certitude and because they believe it others should. I cannot be as certain on future aspects of God’s program in the second coming of Christ as I am on what Christ has accomplished at his first coming. Others may. I cannot. I am convinced that I will be content with how God actually does it whether it fits with my understanding or not. And he will! It will be glorious!

I find it interesting that many new church plants avoid the timing of the tribulation issue altogether in their doctrinal statements. Instead: something like … we believe in the literal 2nd coming of Christ

Perhaps there is wisdom in that?!

I’m pre-trib by the way. At my age and condition dieing is an imminent as the rapture. Either one could happen at any time.

• For those who don’t think that dispensationalists study Covenant Theology or who suppose that dispensationalism is historically (and thus theologically) irrelevant - or if you are just looking for some dispensational red meat, I recommend these lectures by Dr. Thomas Ice:

http://deanbible.org/index.php/completed-studies-menu/new-testament-stu…

http://deanbible.org/index.php/completed-studies-menu/new-testament-stu…

• At my dispensational seminary, Berkhof and Erickson were two of the main theology texts. How many CT seminaries expose their students to Ryrie, McCune, etc.?
  
• Re. Left Behind: I have heard far more consternation from dispensationalists who think it will harm their reputation with CT‘ers, as if that should be our main concern, than I have consternation from CT‘ers. Actually, many non-dispensationalists seem to take the Left Behind phenomenon pretty seriously.
  
• Finally, the post referred to reminds me of why I am not a John Piper fan. This is weak exegesis wrapped in arguments long-ago refuted, and presented as if it is the greatest thing since peanut butter.

I think it’s pretty ridiculous to bring up “Left Behind” as if it’s a definitive work on dispensationalism. It’s a work of fiction, people! Yes, it may be predicated on LaHaye’s views, but it’s not an attempt to be a theological work. Now, if you want to critique LaHaye’s commentary on Revelation, then that’s a different matter. Although I have read that work, I’m not a theologian, and it’s been long enough in the past that I don’t really remember any specific points of disagreement, and since I am mostly a dispensationalist, I don’t remember anything sticking out that made immediately discount everything in the commentary.

I would say that my views of eschatology in general are a lot like what Steve Davis just wrote — we know a few facts that we can stand on, and I believe we will be quite surprised at how it all plays out.

If anyone is pointing at “Left Behind” as the reason they don’t consider dispensationalism, then they are the ones with serious issues. To me, it would be a lot like writing off biblical narratives because what is in them must be similar to “Noah” or even “The Prince of Egypt.”

I read Robert Reymond’s entire eschatology. He routinely criticized dispensationalists and was outlandishly pejorative while he did it:

“Into this wasteland of views created by these critical scholars in the first half of the twentieth century swept the eschatological views of dispensationalism. Ready for anything that sounded biblical and taught that Christ was indeed going to come again someday, the evangelical church in Britain and the United States welcomed the pretribulation, premillennial view of this new school of prophetic interpretation … (985).”

He presented his OT eschatology in two pages (986-988). He relied on Ladd to represent what dispensationalists actually believed. The only source material for dispensational eschatology he consulted was the Scofield Reference Bible. He cited it once. One. Single. Time.

His contempt for dispensationalist eschatology seems representative of the opposite camp. This is not scholarship; it is embarrassing. He relied on second-hand characterizations from other like-minded scholars instead of looking at source material. He should have been ashamed to put his section on eschatology into print. I don’t care if someone disagrees, but at least interact with the other side. If I wrote a systematic theology, and the extent of my interaction with amillennialist eschatology was one single quote from the Reformation Study Bible, I would be ashamed …

“I find it interesting that many new church plants avoid the timing of the tribulation issue altogether in their doctrinal statements. Instead: something like … we believe in the literal 2nd coming of Christ”

So what happens when one Sunday School teacher at the church plant teaches pre-trib and another teaches pre-wrath?

Is this wisdom - or confusion in the making? Or perhaps a sign that theology is not ultimate in such a church (?)