Hello friends,
I got a little delayed by life, but today we're picking back up on our current thread of defense of the dispensational pre-trib rapture view. In case I haven't made it clear, my purpose here is not so much to persuade anyone who disagrees with these views (I'm happy to disagree – I don't believe your views on this matter affects your salvation one whit, nor do I believe that not believing in the rapture will prevent you from being included in said rapture, if indeed you belong to Christ) as it is to encourage those who are looking up and watching for our “blessed hope,” to arm you with information that will help you know WHY you believe what you believe and why you have excellent reason to do so, so that you won't be easily persuaded or discouraged by arguments that sound good on the surface, but don't hold up under close examination.
In this series I'll be delving into Church history, what the early Church believed regarding the rapture, when and why that changed, and how rapture doctrine was not recently “invented,” as so many claim, but was actually recovered. But today I'm going to lay some more groundwork for all of that by explaining a principle called “progress of dogma” and a few of the logical fallacies you're likely to run into. So let's get to it.
Progress of Dogma
One of the biggest criticisms of both dispensationalism and of pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is that they are supposedly recent. We'll deal with how that's fallacious reasoning in a bit, but for now I want to cover why it should come as no surprise to anyone that matters dealing with the end times should be settled late in the career of the Church. One of those reasons is what theologian James Orr referred to as the progress of dogma. This refers to the way orthodox Christian doctrines have progressively developed throughout Church history.
For example, the early Church leaders focused on battling heresies by nailing down what, exactly, defines the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Once that was settled, early theologians moved on to more nitty-gritty topics like Christology – doctrines pertaining to the person, nature and works of Christ. By the time of the Reformation, the focus turned to soteriology – the doctrine of salvation – and debates raged for a good long while over what is involved in salvation and how one becomes saved.
Most books on systematic theology end there. But once the doctrine of salvation was more or less settled and entered into Protestant orthodoxy, many theologians turned their attention to the one category of theology and Bible interpretation that had yet to be thoroughly examined and systematically worked out – the study of end times prophecy, also known by the fancier term, eschatology.
It shouldn't come as a huge surprise that study of the end times would be saved for last. After all, God told Daniel to seal up his end-times prophecies until the time of the end, because they weren't intended for the people of his own time. It makes sense (at least, to me) that, the closer we get to the end of the Church age and of the world as we know it, we would gain more clarity on prophecies regarding the times we're both living in and fast approaching. It also makes sense that more urgent doctrines like what it means to be a Christian and how to be saved would take precedence to earlier generations of believers, while those living in times of massive social change and upheaval, such as were brought about by the Enlightenment and the introduction of modern secular humanist thought, would be moved to gain a better understanding of what the Bible has to say about the end of the age and Christ's return.
Which brings me to...
Logical Fallacies
As mentioned earlier, one line of fallacious reasoning you often encounter from critics of both dispensationalism and rapture doctrine is the appeal to tradition – the assertion that these views are illegitimate because they're relatively recent and go against established tradition. Leaving aside the fact that the pre-trib rapture was taught by some of the earliest of the Church Fathers (not to mention how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees regarding the emphasis they placed on their traditions over scripture), I've already shown you some valid reasons why these are more recent developments, and I'll show you more when we delve deeper into Church history.
But the assumption that because a doctrine is new means it's automatically illegitimate fails to take into consideration new data or new developments that shed more light on a topic that should prompt a re-examination. It also fails to pause, step back, and and examine whether said tradition is actually a correct interpretation of scripture, automatically assuming that the traditional understanding is the correct one.
This argument also conveniently ignores the fact that both Reformation and Covenant theology – both of which are typically held to by opponents of the rapture and/or a literal second coming and thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth – are also relatively recent theological developments in the span of Church history, and that this is the very argument the Catholic Church used to discredit Protestantism.
(In fact, Covenant theology only precedes dispensationalism by about 50 years.)
All of this is closely related to the genetic fallacy – judging an argument or information based solely on its source rather than on its content. You see this fallacy come up a lot in the (erroneous) claims that both dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture were invented by John Darby, usually followed by attempts to discredit his character with ad hominem attacks and false accusations.
Another logical fallacy that rears its ugly head a lot in the rapture debate is the straw man fallacy. This is when a debater constructs an argument that is not used by the other side, yet attributes it to the other side, only so the debater can knock it down. Opponents of both dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture view often attribute arguments, teachings and beliefs to the proponents of these views that the proponents don't actually hold, and then argue against those fabricated teachings and beliefs instead of addressing the other side’s actual arguments or evidence.
A good example of this is Matthew 24. Often, someone attempting to “debunk” the pre-trib rapture will say that the verses that seem to be about the rapture are taken out of context and that they don't actually teach the rapture. When pressed as to which verses, often they'll cite Matthew 24:40-41, in which Jesus mentions two pairs of people, warning that unexpectedly one will be taken and the other left.
The implication here is that those who argue for the rapture are relying on these verses to support their argument (and apparently only those verses – I've never encountered anyone trying to make the “out of context” argument for the actual rapture passages, which are often conveniently overlooked).
The problem is, while I can't say for certain that nobody, nowhere, ever uses these verses to try and support the rapture view, the vast majority of dispensationalists would agree that to do so would indeed be taking those verses out of context and misusing them. The dispensational reading of Matthew 24 is that Jesus is speaking exclusively about what will happen to the Jews during the Tribulation, and that the Church is nowhere in view in this passage.
In other words, most rapture proponents think that Matthew 24 has nothing whatsoever to do with the rapture and would never refer to that passage to support their rapture views. So this is a classic example of a straw man argument.
This is just a few of the logical fallacies you’re likely to encounter in the rapture debate. It’s good to be aware, so you can spot them and know how to respond. Or at least so that you’ll know better than to be swayed by them.
Next time, we’ll have a lesson on the history of the early Church. In the mean time, you might want to listen to this podcast, which outlines pre-trib rapture teaching in the early Church and throughout its history.
Until next time,
Jean
I have become a " pan-tribber", I believe things will pan out as GOD ordains not how humans desire.
That said, after comparing Ezekiel, Zechariah, Zephaniah, Joel, Jeremiah with the Apocalypse of John, my thought is that the rapture occurs when Messiah returns, to the place he left from, the MT of Olives splits and He walks through the Eastern Gate. That is when I think that the gathering together occurs. I note that the Church is Not appointed to wrath, GODs wrath, we are however, not greater than our Master, Yeshua. We are appointed to tribulation and persecution.
Of course, I realize that I am only a man seeing things through a glass darkly, thus my understanding is limited and subject to error.
Thus, I simply Trust GOD and look for HIM daily.