The Rapture
- 73 views
I understand that the Rapture is an important teaching in Dispensationalism. I fail to see that it is a major doctrine in Scripture. When did that happen?
Steve, that was my thought, too. A major doctrine? 1 Thess 4:13-18, which is what everyone reaches for, is not really about the rapture at all. It’s a message of hope to believers that they’ll see their loved ones again. It isn’t, strictly speaking, about the rapture at all. That’s not Paul’s point.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Labeling the rapture as a major doctrine may be another reason why many of the younger generation aren’t embracing dispensationalism (or as one of them said dispen-“sensationalism”.) Hal Lindsay, Tim LeHaye, and Nicholas Cage didn’t do the position any favors either. Some of us are still bearing the trauma of A Thief in the Night and “I Wish We’d All Been Ready”. Add to that the seeming historical absence of any mention of the doctrine and trying to make imminence equal rapture.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Did you mean absolutely a questionable opinionated conviction?
[Steve Davis]Did you mean absolutely a questionable opinionated conviction?
Yes like ... total abstinence
Various sites on the internet define the term. Here is Dictionary.com
the Rapture, Theology. the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth.
Here is what 1 Thessalonians says:
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
So it seems that the Bible describes Christians meeting the Lord in the air. Perhaps. I could be wrong, but I think I’m pretty sure that’s what these words mean: “meet the Lord in the air”
Do you believe that is true or not?
Again, according to the secular Dictionary.com,
the Rapture, Theology. the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth.
It seems that the secular Dictionary.com understands the words in the same way I understand the words.
If you don’t believe that Christians will meet the Lord in the air, what exactly will happen differently when the Lord “will descend from heaven with a shout”? Are you going to hang around here and tell him, no, you will have to come meet me down here? You aren’t supposed to call me up into the air? No Rapture for me?
If you believe the Bible, you believe in the Rapture.
You may not agree on the timing of the Rapture, but you must believe in the Rapture.
So spare me the harumphing and triumphalizing. The Rapture itself is a major component of eschatology. If you deny it, you have serious problems with your orthodoxy, I’d say.
Yes, we can disagree on the timing. That part is not so clear. But we can’t disagree on the fact. That part is crystal clear.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I agree with Don. Surely every Bible-believing Christian believes in the rapture. What many question is the Pre-Tribulation timing of the rapture according to traditional Dispensational theology.
G. N. Barkman
Here is what 1 Thessalonians says:
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
This sounds like the Second Coming to some people who are just asking questions and who fail to see this event followed by a U-Turn to heaven and a repeat performance 7 years later.
I’m not harumphing. I’ve just been asked questions like this for years and have chosen to listen and try to answer instead of just telling them to stop questioning the “major doctrine” of a rapture that, according to dispensationalism, must occur before the 7 year tribulation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Don & GNB,
Welcome to the discussion. The secular dictionary agrees with Don, or vice versa. Internet settles the question. Except… I think we could all agree that all Christians believe in the Rapture IF by that the Second Coming was meant. All here believe that Jesus is coming again in power and glory and await his glorious appearance. However, the article makes it clear that the Rapture and the Second Coming are not the same. The Rapture as described in the article (you did read it?) is a phase of the Second Coming, for the Church only, before the Tribulation and the second phase, second resurrection for Jewish saints at the end of the Tribulation, then millennium followed by third resurrection of the unjust (and any believers who entered the Millennium from the Tribulation and died?).
This scenario is a theological novelty and essential to dispensational theology. That does not mean it is untrue. It is a “we will see.” But it has never been a “major doctrine.” And it has nothing to do with timing. It has everything to do with its nature. If someone uses the word “Rapture,” whether pre-, or mid-trib, they almost always hold to a distinction between that event for the Church and the Second Coming, discontinuity between Israel and the Church, etc. Someone who says “I believe in the Second Coming” is not necessarily saying “I believe in the Rapture.” Someone who says “I believe in the Rapture” is saying “I believe in the Second Coming with phases.”
So Don, your comments on orthodoxy and those who have a problem with it, while not surprising, are defensive/offensive, but lack any real biblical support. Denying the Rapture as presented in the article (or being agnostic) has nothing to do with orthodoxy except in some minds (and maybe the authority of dictionary.com).
Jesus is coming again.There will be a resurrection of the just and unjust. He will reign forever. That is orthodoxy as found in the creeds and confessions throughout the ages. That there might be phases of his coming or multiple resurrections, that is interpretation, much more speculative, and open for debate (without accusing others of unorthodoxy). It might be correct interpretation. It is not orthodoxy.
In recent years, Bauder did a multi-part sermon series on the Rapture at Central (you can find the videos on their site), and Paul Henebury did a long written discussion on it. I personally believe in the pre-trib rapture, but it’s not nearly as strong as its most zealous advocates want to make it out to be. In short, my own position is that the pre-trib rapture is the best bad option out there, when it comes to this eschatological question. It isn’t the focus of any didactic, deliberate teaching in Scripture. It’s a valid inference from a whole host of passages, none of which are explicitly discussing the doctrine.
For that reason, I hold to the pre-trib rapture somewhat loosely … to paraphrase the band .38 Special.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
The Rapture is when we go up
The Second Coming is when He comes down
if you believe we will go up, you believe in the rapture
if you don’t believe we will go up, you don’t believe the Bible
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I get your passion. My point is that we should be big enough to acknowledge the following:
- The pretribulational rapture is not the subject of any deliberate teaching in Scripture. You cannot make the case that Paul’s point in 1 Thess 4:13-18 is to teach the rapture.
- It has dubious historical weight. I’ve read the journal articles which try, desperately, to find some glimmering of hope for this doctrine historically. They have some good points to make, but much of it is rather desperate.
- A survey of historic creeds and confessions will show this is not a doctrine that has been emphasized or taught throughout church history. It hardly qualifies as a “major doctrine.” For example, the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith (my favorite) reads thus (Article 18):
Of the World to Come. We believe that the end of the world is approaching; that at the last day Christ will descend from heaven, and raise the dead from the grave to final retribution; that a solemn separation will then take place; that the wicked will be adjudged to endless punishment, and the righteous to endless joy; and that this judgment will fix forever the final state of men in heaven or hell, on principles of righteousness.”
- Some Christians like to be dogmatic and iron clad about everything. I believe the intricacies of the eschatological timetable, especially a timetable as complicated and fickle as the dispensational one, deserve a bit more caution, and a lot less bombast than this article shows. But, I get that David Levy was writing for his base.
If Christians re-allocated 1/10 of the time they spend on eschatological musings to, say, the doctrines of Christ, God, salvation, sanctification (etc.), they’d have much richer lives for the Lord.
The best thing I’ve read on the rapture remains Walvoord’s book. The very last sermon series I’d ever do would be on the pretribulational rapture. It’s just not important to me. Another, recent Israel, My Glory article discussed why the pre-trib rapture isn’t emphasized in many conservative churches anymore. The writer observed:
Maybe. Speaking for myself, I’ve gone away from emphasizing it strongly because:
- It’s not a major doctrine
- It’s not specifically and deliberately taught; it’s an inference, not a didactic teaching
- The evidence for this position is slight; it deserves more humility and caution than proponents from two generations ago want to give it
- It’s not nearly as important as other doctrines. I’d rather discuss the doctrine of Christ, than argue about “the time of Jacob’s trouble” or discuss whether there is an implied rapture between Revelation 3 and 4.
In short, I believe I am treating it with the seriousness it deserves …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I never said the pretribulation rapture was a major doctrine. The rapture itself is.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]I never said the pretribulation rapture was a major doctrine. The rapture itself is.
I guess this makes sense to you but I don’t really see your point in the context of the article under discussion. So I’m writing for readers for whom this may not make sense either.
Although the Rapture may be pre-, or mid-, it is generally in reference to the Church and excludes OT believers. If you hold to post-trib return of Chirst and want to call that the Rapture where all believers of all ages are raptured and resurrected you are closer to correct. However, I think we both know that the article was dealing with the pre-trib Rapture and the Church. Rapture may used for the post-trib Second Coming where believers meet Jesus in the air and return immediately to earth. In that case, that is the Second Coming but I don’t think that’s the Rapture you’re defending.
When people speak of the Rapture they are generally speaking of the Rapture of the Church and resurrection of only NT believers, meeting Jesus in the air then going to heaven until phase two of the Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation when Jesus returns with NT saints and OT believers are resurrected. It’s interesting to me that in some of the foreign languages in which I’m conversant the word “Rapture” is always used as the “Rapture of the Church.” Otherwise the word makes no sense as a snatching or even kidnapping. English has chosen to transliterate the Latin word. So yes, you can use Rapture for any event where someone is going up even if they are different groups at different time. But I believe your Rapture has only Christians going up. So no, it’s not a major doctrine.
Discussion