On the Newness of the Rapture Doctrine

Several wise Christians have advocated an argument against the rapture doctrine that goes something like this: Ever since St. Augustine, the church has been generally post-millennial or even amillennial. It is only since the 1830s that the idea of a rapture has been introduced. Therefore, since the idea of the rapture is “new,” it cannot be true. This idea was postulated by a reader of my blog recently when I discussed the parable of the ten virgins. Not one shred of evidence has been brought forth to suggest that any of the church fathers thought that the rapture was imminent, and as such, it is highly unlikely that the doctrine was ever a serious thought of either our Lord or his immediate followers who wrote the scriptures.

I grant that this is a good objection to the doctrine of the rapture. Considering the fact that doctrines such as the Trinity, salvation, etc, were all decided a long time ago, it would be problematic to suddenly come up with a new idea.

In order to present a sort of defense on this issue, I offer the following thoughts:

1. The concept of Sola Scriptura would allow for a new concept to become doctrine regardless of when it came to be. While sola scriptura mostly surrounds the issue of salvation, it can also infer any doctrine we discuss. If we are to assume the tradition alone dictates whether we believe something in the Bible are not, then we have missed the point of sola scriptura. Besides, if a person requires that a doctrine be around for a significant period of time before is acceptable, then he or she must decide what the line of demarcation. Furthermore, should the Lord tarry for another thousand years, would that suddenly make the doctrine of the rapture more relevant? If 200 years is not long enough for doctrine to be acceptable, how about 1200 years? As you can see, establishing a line in the sand regarding church tradition as it relates to the Bible doctrines is a tricky business indeed.

2. If the doctrine of the rapture is completely baseless, I submit that it would never have become popular in the first place. Are we to assume that God is so powerless that he cannot prevent bad doctrines from coming into form? I would only assume that it would be a case of cultic activity that the doctrine of the rapture would've come into being outside of God's will. Doing so would equate the doctrine of the rapture with cultic device. Do we really want to equate believers in the rapture with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.? I certainly hope not!

As you can see, the relative youth of the doctrine of the rapture is not necessarily enough to force it's rejection. That must be done through Scripture interpretation and common sense alone in accordance with the concept of sola scriptura. I believe that there's evidence in the Bible of a rapture event, and believe that I can prove it as time goes on.

A Rebuttal to Matthew 25

Dave Zelenka, at his blog Lamp of the Body, wrote on a rapture post of mine that I was wrong about Matthew 25; that the parable of the wise and foolish virgins was not about the rapture. He is in the process of going through Christ's parables on his blog, so I visited it and read his case. I am going to respond to him via this post in the hopes that he will be interested in my side.

Here's the bottom line: Zelenka turns a serious parable with a serious context into a flowery message about doing good works to get to know Jesus better. I don't know Zelenka from a hole in the wall. For all I know he's a great guy. One thing is for certain...he has little desire to prove a serious student of the Bible. Countless scholars who have problems with the idea of the rapture have given serious rebuttals to the parable of the virgins. Zelenka, unfortunately, seems to mock it by creating imagery that almost creates a second story on top of the first.

First, about falling asleep. It's as easy to see Zelenka's presupposition as it is to see mine. Just like I see the reason they fell asleep as being because the rapture has been a long time coming, and the church stopped looking (which by in large it has), so Zelenka has his amillennial view right up front. He sees the falling asleep as death. Others have tried to use this argument in John 14:6. It is not new, but it is wrong. I addressed this in a paper I wrote, which has not yet been accepted for peer review, but is in the process.

It is true that we “fall asleep” when we die (I Thess 4:13-18, etc). However, it is not always the case that when the Bible speaks of sleeping that it means death. Sometimes when someone in the Bible sleeps, they just sleep (Mark 4:35-38, etc).

Similarly, when discussing the oil, Zelenka wants to find a meaning behind the oil, as if it's not enough that it's just oil. They didn't have refining like we do now, or even in America's early history. Israelites didn't have kerosene lamps. They used oil to light their way at night. What was the oil and lamp used for? Zelenka believes that Jesus was really talking about good works; that we can find Jesus and get closer to him in every day life by doing good deeds. Again, he's forcing it. While light does often mean something else in the Bible, it is almost always explained, not inferred (Psalm 119:105).

While I can't be 100% sure that this passage is talking about the rapture, watching Zelenka recreate the parable brings me no closer to believing his viewpoint either. In Zelenka's worldview, the lamps are not lamps, the oil isn't oil, and the light isn't light, and sleeping isn't sleeping. It just doesn't add up.

To his point about doing good works, I generally agree. Of course doing good works brings us in line with what God wants from us. We are told that specifically in Ephesians 2:10. It's not rocket science, but it is important to deal with the Bible correctly and in context. I do not believe that Zelenka does this.

Further work on the Concept of the Rapture

I am the last guy who should be defending the rapture. My theological pedigree is non-existent (MAR from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary). I have submitted a paper to a Christian theological journal, but I don't know if it's going to find a home. I'm from a simple church family in Kansas. None of my family have PhD adorning their name, though my brother is a candidate at Kansas University (education).

The point is obvious: There are more intelligent and astute men who could defend the rapture. Yet because I am fond of the doctrine, and because three challenges have come up before me, I am choosing to engage the scriptures (and the doctrine's detractors) in discussion. 

In the relative near future, I will discuss these two direct arguments against my writings on the rapture: 

1.  Matthew 13, which my friend Boilt Frog says is that this is where premillinialism goes to die. I may need some time to research this.

2.  A man blogging over at Lamp of the Body has suggested that the parable of the Ten Virgins does not refer to the rapture, but to finding Jesus in every day life. I will explore this as best I can.

A third argument comes from my research on the rapture. It comes from Gary Shogran's commentary on I and II Thessalonians. In it he suggests that I Thess 4 doesn't describe a separate coming, which comes before the 2nd Coming, but a singular event. He brings up some excellent points that I want to confront. I used his commentary on my journal submission. He is against the rapture, though. Good points are good points, and I enjoyed what he had to write.

I hope to write about at least one of these points this weekend and go from there.

Nicholas Wolterstorff Lecture 1: The Project

Nicholas Wolterstorff to give Kantzer Lectures in Revealed Theology

Lecture 1: The Project (review)

I had never heard of Nicholas Wolterstorff before, but I am glad to have heard of him now. After listening to his first lecture in the Kantzer Lectures and Revealed Theology series, I have discovered that I agree with many of the things he says. He will be giving several lecturers over the course of this week and I will attempt to observe as many of them as I can. I hope to attend a couple of them in person and hear the rest via online streaming. After hearing or observing the lecture, I will attempt to provide some of my thoughts on the matter via my blog.

First things first: I am certainly not of the theological caliber as Dr. Wolterstorff. I do not pretend to be able to observe the things he talks about at the same level that he does. These views, to the train scholar, will undoubtedly seem very surface. I ask that you forgive me for my lack of understanding and do your best to appreciate where I am coming from. Long time readers of my blog will know that I come from a Baptist background and that I attend the Evangelical Free Church in Libertyville which is called Crosslife Evangelical free Church. The lecture series deals with liturgy, which is not a common topic for a Baptist to deal with. Having said that I have learned a great deal already in the first lecture. Here are some of my thoughts in more detail:

Dr. Wolterstorff talks about correctness rules for various forms of liturgy, depending on what background you are talking about (Orthodox, Catholic, Reformed, Episcopalian, etc). He then says that there are no correctness rules for Baptist Liturgy, but there are certain traditions. All liturgies run according to some sort of script. This would be argued by Baptists, but while our script is loose, it is actual. Anyone would know the general order of service a baptist setting. We know that it includes an opening song, announcements/welcome, a few more songs, an offering, and then the sermon and a closing song.

I had never heard of a Baptist liturgy until tonight. I would venture to say that very few, if any, Baptist believe that they ever take part in liturgy. At first, I rejected it as well. While the definition of liturgy focuses on the higher forms of worship, it is actually, simply, defined as a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or observances. Does the word liturgy fully encompass the order of worship for Baptist? Probably not. However, as we have seen in the previous paragraph it does represent a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or observances. Therefore, I would have to agree with the Dr. Wolterstorff that the term liturgy applies to us us as well.

Another interesting concept that he brought up tonight is that through the liturgy, the church actualizes herself, though it is not the only way that happens. He went on to explain that while the church actualizes itself also through ministry caring for the poor and other ways, warship is a key proponent. So worship is one of the ways that the church actualizes herself, but she is to be actualized in all ways. I could not agree with this more! Especially in higher forms of worship, the congregation becomes part of the process of warship and does involve itself through each member. I don't know that that really happens in the evangelical services. Aside from joining the worship band or organist and singing the songs, there is not a great deal of give-and-take between the congregation and the leadership.

He also suggested that no liturgy has been started from scratch. Being built on previous versions, it is impossible to know all of the theological understanding of the composer. Liturgy is essentially theology in code.

Liturgy does not replace the sola scriptura principle. It enhances it. I have wondered about this myself in the past. Therefore, I am grateful that he brought it up. It seemed to me, particularly in Catholic circles, that liturgy and confessions relieved he can confess her of the need for the gospel message in the Bible. In particular, I felt that it allows the confessor to avoid seeing directly what the Bible says about an issue. Therefore, I was glad that he addressed the issue and did much to put my mind at ease. I'm not completely ready to jump ship, as it were, and join a high worship church, but he did make me more comfortable with the concept.

Why not evangelical liturgy? Dr. Wolterstorff asked rhetorically. It is weakened...not confession of sin by the congregation, just a praise band, a prayer, and a sermon. Wow I believe that this does make a form of energy, I have to agree with the professor that Evangelical forms of liturgy black in-depth theology. Most of that for the Evangelical service is included in the sermon, or embeded in the songs that we saying (though I would highly doubt some of the songs we sing enjoy any theology at all). At any rate, it is clear that studying the theological concepts of evangelical liturgy, as defined by the professor, would be a less-than-productive use of time.

Overall, I enjoyed the lecture very much. I look forward to listening and on foreseeing in person the rest of the series. If you are able to stream online, click this link and see the lectures. For a schedule, click here.