In which our regular
writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Not too long ago a major news and commentary website
complained about “evangelicals’ toxic obsession with the end times”. That sort
of thing is to be expected from unbelievers. But more and more, I am
seeing the same kind of dismissive language used by Christians.
Tom:
“Rapture” is not a term we find in the Bible, but it may be reasonably applied to the events to which the apostle Paul refers in
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Matthew Henry, whose eschatology was neither
Pre-Millennial nor Pre-Tribulation, used the word “rapture” in his commentary
on Thessalonians back in the early 1700s, long before J.N. Darby or others
who articulated the Pre-Trib position in their own generations. For most
critics of Pre-Tribulationism, the argument is not so much about whether the church will be “snatched
up”, but when.
But whatever we may call it, Immanuel Can, it’s my sense that
the teaching about a return of Christ for the church prior to the Great
Tribulation has never been in greater disrepute among God’s people. Does that
seem a fair statement?
Disrepute or Indifference?
Immanuel Can: Is it disrepute or is it just indifference, Tom? What I mean is that it seems
to me the concept of the Rapture is not so much disparaged as ignored, shunted
aside, deliberately avoided. And this, if I can judge aright, is because
it represents a contention point with the theologies of the broader evangelical
communities at a time when every effort is being exerted to blur over
distinctions and merge groups in the name of unity.
Tom: Well, indifference is certainly one possible response, but it’s not one I’ve really
registered. And you’re right about the doctrine being a contention point within
evangelicalism, definitely. No, I’m talking about active hostility toward the
doctrine and even toward those who hold it, as if we represent a sort of threat
to the integrity of those who are screwing up their courage to go through the
Great Tribulation. We are talking about a “way out” instead of a “way through”,
and that seems like a cop-out to some.
IC: I honestly have to say that I’ve seen the former, but hardly any of the latter.
Furthermore, I’ve noted that all the particulars of the future are nowadays only
talked about in vague terms.
At present, all evangelicals seem to agree that at some
point, there’s a Second Coming of Christ. But evangelical churches have generally given up any thought of being
more precise than that. As I say, I suspect the motive is simply to escape
the controversy, and to avoid appearing “divisive”.
Tom: I’m surprised to have to make the case, but maybe that’s a product of the different
sort of churches with which each of us fellowships. If your church has an Amillennialist
pastor, it makes sense that he would avoid raising the issue from the platform
so as to avoid causing friction internally. But when you are an outsider, as
I am, talking to Amillennialists and Post-Millennialists from other
churches online and reading what they say to one another, the gloves are off
and the punches are flying. Almost nobody is concerned about avoiding
controversy, and some are quite happy to create it.
The “Secret Rapture Heresy”
But I can show you numerous internet references to the
“secret Rapture heresy”.
Here Darby and Scofield are said to be “in error”. That’s the very politest it gets.
Here it’s implied that Pre-Trib folks lack the courage to honestly examine the evidence against their position.
Here it comes from the “imaginations of men” and not the word of God.
Here the “false Pre-Tribulation doctrine teaches you NOT to believe what Jesus himself taught!”
Here the teaching about the Rapture is “a menacing doctrine that perverts the plain language of the text of the New Testament”. Ouch.
And there’s plenty more of the same where that came from.
IC: This is new
to me. I’ve visited a few different evangelical churches in the last couple of
years, and have not encountered it at all. You’re going to have to lead off on
this one, Tom.
Tom: No prob. The first time I encountered it was a bit of a shock too. Then it kept coming,
until eventually I came to the conclusion that we Pre-Tribbers are very
much in the minority among evangelicals these days, and that there is probably
some value in setting out for others the merits of a position I thought
were patently obvious.
Preaching Escapism
First of all, how do you feel about the argument that
believers in a Pre-Trib Rapture are simply preaching escapism?
IC: It’s irrelevant. It’s of absolutely no weight either way what we would prefer to believe …
all that matters is what’s true. So that’s a very poor way to argue.
Tom: Quite true. For me, the
issue boils down to how we think about the Great Tribulation. Pre-Tribbers
believe the Great Tribulation is the manifestation of the wrath of God against
sinners both within the nation of Israel and in the world at large. We get this
from the book of Revelation, among other places, where God’s “wrath” is
referred to at least fifteen times. We read about the “wrath of the Lamb”, the
“wrath of God” and the “great day of his wrath” in association with things like
the opening of the sixth seal, which causes a great earthquake, the darkening
of the sun, a moon like blood, and every mountain and island being removed from
its place.
Now of course that doesn’t mean the Great Tribulation is the only expression of the wrath of God we find in scripture, but it
certainly means it is one of them, and a very prominent one.
So when we read in 1 Thessalonians that Christians “wait for [God’s] Son from heaven ... Jesus
who delivers us from the wrath to come,” it doesn’t seem strange to me to think that might mean something a little different than simply granting believers a pass from final judgment at the great white
throne. “God has not destined us for wrath,” says the apostle, “but to
obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.” This is the very same language as we find in chapter 4 where the apostle
speaks of believers being “caught up”.
To me, it is the person who argues that Christians will experience the wrath of God who
needs to provide a logical and scriptural defense of his position, because
Thessalonians explicitly says we won’t.
The Wrath of God
IC: I don’t find that the evangelical churches talk at all about “the wrath of God”, except with
some reluctance, as a description of going to hell. They certainly do not speak
at all about it as referring to a period of time, the Tribulation, so they
never get so far as the question of who goes through it, or what purpose it
serves in the plans of God. They just act as though it doesn’t exist. For them, it seems, there simply is no
“Tribulation”.
Tom: Well, the final judgment is certainly the ultimate expression of God’s wrath, but the use
of the term in scripture is not by any means limited to that. Quite the
opposite. The word “wrath” is even associated in the gospels with the judgment of the Jews that already took place in AD70.
So all I can say is that folks who don’t associate the Great
Tribulation with God’s wrath need to grab a concordance or Google the Greek
words orgē and thymos. There are numerous biblical
references to expressions of God’s wrath on this earth in connection with coming geopolitical turmoil, plagues and
disasters unleashed on humanity with a view to bringing men and women to
repentance. When mystic Babylon falls, it says God “make[s] her drain the cup
of the wine of the fury of his wrath.” But that is not by any means part of the final judgment. Then there are the
vial judgments of chapter 16, which are called the “wrath of God”. All these are only preliminary displays of God’s anger which take place during
human history.
Deafening Silence
IC: Well, this would be my question to all those folks who think we can just ignore Revelation: at what
point do you suppose these events are to take place? But since they’re not
talking about any such things right now, I suspect the silence
would be deafening.
Tom: Many of the critics of dispensational Pre-Tribulationism would say that much of Revelation was
fulfilled in AD70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. But nobody says everything in Revelation was fulfilled
then, so the question then becomes how to figure out which prophecies belong to
the past and which belong to the future.
But these are technical matters to be decided by comparing scripture with
scripture. They hardly merit accusations of heresy or ill-intent on the part of
those who teach contrary views. Certainly, some of the things that are said
about Darby and people like Cyrus Scofield could be expressed with a little
more reserve.
I would love to see more discussion about of Bible prophecy. I think we’re
missing something important when we relegate that conversation to the internet
rather than the local church.
Speaking Cautiously and Failing to Speak
IC: Yes, I agree. Since much of what is written about the future is couched in symbolism, we do
well to speak cautiously, of course; but to speak cautiously does not mean to
fail to speak.
Tom: It’s worth the time to get a dialogue going. I’ve been exchanging emails with a former
dispensationalist who strongly disagrees with the notion of a pre-Trib return
of Christ for the church, but he’s highly intelligent and interested in truth,
so we got along fine once we started actually conversing rather than just
throwing around the standard Post-Trib/Pre-Trib talking points. Our exchanges
have been a great exercise for me, and very confirming. I don’t know that
I’m going to ever change his mind, but that’s not the primary objective. If we
can have a respectful exchange and both come out of it learning something, that’s
worthwhile. And it’s been excellent having to deal with actual arguments rather
than straw men.
IC: Yes, that’s the real way to have a debate … the productive way, the Christian way,
both civil and serious, both gentle and reverent, and truth-speaking. I fear
much of our discourse in Christianity of late has been (a) highly
conventional, recycled from others, and (b) evasive of complex, real-world
issues. It’s almost as though we feel that if we get talking about something
that actually puts truth at stake that we think we’ll lose our way — as if
we think the Spirit has stopped leading into truth.
No comments :
Post a Comment