From: jfb@macsch.com (John Baskette)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Rapture Question (also Challenge to Dispensationalists)
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:09:31 GMT
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.

In article <Sep.24.00.03.00.1992.3474@athos.rutgers.edu> baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes:
>
>I do not speak for Chuck, but for myself, I believe the partial 
>rapture to be a pernicious and divisive doctrine - I do not see
>any criteria in Scripture that should divide Christians into
>"overcomers" and "non-overcomers" WE ARE ALL OVERCOMERS !! as
>John writes WHOEVER is born of God overcomes the world ...
>who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believes that 
>Jesus is the son of God" (1 John 5.4-5). Let there be a spirit
>of unity and love and not division as we seek to understand
>these things concerning the last days.
>

"Pernicious" seems a bit too strong of a word (IMO).  The Plymouth 
brethren types that I know who hold this teaching I find to be 
good people.  I agree that it is divisive.  

Your post is great.  You have some wonderful verses.  I'll need to
remember them.  I appreciate what you say because you show that 
you have given serious thought to what you believe and why.  You
give what seems to me to be an excellent summary of the main 
arguments used to justify the pre-tribulation rapture.

>>
>>Show either by a clear scriptural reference or by a succinct set of 
>>arguments that the Rapture (the event described in I Thess 4:13-18) will
>>definitely occur at some time prior to the second advent of Christ as 
>>described in II Thess 1:7,8 or Rev 19.
>
>1. If you accept that the time of God's wrath, as referred to in eg
>Rev 6.17, 14.10 15.7, 16.1,19 is a definite period (the great
>tribulation of Mt 24, the hour of God's judgement Rev 14.7) 
>preceding the return of our Lord, then we are told
>in 1 Thess 1.10 and Titus 2.11-14 that we will be delivered from
>it. We are always told to await his appearing, and never that we
>will endure the day of wrath first. 

My current opinion is that it is likely that the tribulation
period of Matt 24 and perhaps much of Revelation may have 
been fulfilled in historic times, but I will accept for the sake
of discussion a great tribulation of 7 years just before the 
second advent and a futurist interpretation of Revelation.

The argument stated here is not complete.  I accept that believers 
will be delivered from the wrath of God, just as saints of all
dispensations (Noah, Lot, Israel in Egypt) have been delivered.
It does not follow, however, that the rapture causing the removal
of all Christians from the earth is required to do this.  In fact
the 144,000 servants of God are sealed on their foreheads to do
just that while they do there work on the earth during the 
tribulation period. 

>2. We are told that there is a restrainer at work currently -
>whom I hold to be God the Holy Spirit restraining evil. Since
>His ministry of restraint will finish at a particular point
>before the man of sin is revealed, I do not see how the church -
>who is the temple of the Holy Spirit - will still be here
>once the Holy Spirit is removed.
>The word 'apostastia' is used in the passage I refer to (2Thess
>2.3), and can be taken to mean departure (cf Acts 15.38, where a
>physical departure, with spiritual overtones is implied), and
>thus refer to the departure (rapture) of the church.

There are other possibilities for the identity of the restrainer.
If the restrainer is the Holy Spirit working through the church
(the salt and light of the world) then it is possible to remove
the Spirit's influence by reducing the church to a small
remnant through a great apostasy or departure from the faith.
(I think that is a more likely interpretation of 2Thess 2.3).
In fact if 'apostastia' is interpreted in this way, then the 
passage is a powerful argument against the pre-trib rapture by
its conspicuous absence.

>3. The doctrine of imminency demands a pre-tribulation
>rapture. We believe that the Lord can return at any time. 

The doctrine of imminency only demands a pre-trib rapture if  
1.)  It is the rapture itself that is imminent, meaning that it
can occur at any instant and that 2.) there therefore can be no
events that must necessarily precede the rapture.

I think that the verses declaring that the Lord's coming is at 
hand and comes quickly can be interpreted to mean that the 
end time events, when they do occur, will unfold rapidly.  Those
who are not prepared for the Lord's return will be caught unaware
and taken by surprise like the coming of a thief in the night.
This means that it is the second advent that is imminent or at
hand because these events could unfold rapidly and could happen
soon within our lifetimes.  Or maybe not -- only the Father knows.

Problems with imminency.  Doesn't the gospel have to be preached 
to all nations? (Matt 24:14).  If the rapture was imminent when
Peter preached the gospel, then how is it that Jesus predicted that
Peter would die a martyr's death in hid old age? (John 21:18-19)
What about prophecy of future events such as those given to Paul
(as in Acts 21) or by Paul (as II Timothy 3)?  Don't these prove 
that certain events must precede the rapture and thereby show that 
the rapture itself is not an at-any-moment-warn-the-unsaved-
passenger-in-your-car event? 

>4. We are told to comfort one another (1Thess 4.18) with the
>knowledge that we will meet in the air. Enduring the hour of
>God's judgement is no comfort.

The comforting is of grieving people who have lost their loved
ones.  This is a valuable present comfort even if we think 
that we on the earth are to be preserved through a period of 
judgment on a sinful world.

>5. No signs - we are told to look for the coming of the Lord.
>(Jesus told of wars, and rumours of wars)
>Conversely where is the evidence that the church will go through
>the tribulation? The argument that the word 'saints' is used in
>the parts of Revelation describing the tribulation referring to
>the church falls down when we note that the word is used of all
>believers.

In the light of Galatians 3:28 and Romans 10:17ff there does not 
seem to me to be any justification for viewing any believer of 
any age as being anywhere other than in the body of Christ which
is the church.  In Matt 24, Jesus speaks to his disciples about 
what they should do during the great tribulation (I am accepting
for the moment that these events are future although Matt. 24:34
makes this approach problematic).  Presumably, Jesus knew that 
his disciples would be founding his church.  If the events are
far in the future then Jesus must be talking corporately to the
group that his audience represents -- the church.  

>>My belief is that there is no warrant for separating the Rapture from the
>>second advent.  I believe that the burden of proof to show that the
>>Rapture is not just one aspect of the second advent and must necessarily
>>precede other aspects of the second advent by some period of time like 
>>seven years is on those who assert the same.
>
>Perhaps you can answer me a question - as a fellow premillenialist. 
>We believe that the Lord will return with His church, ie we will
>accompany Him (Jude 14). But if we are to instantaneously return
>after being caught up - who are the believers to be judged upon
>his return if we are raptured then? There is noone left!
>There needs to be a sufficient time-lag for new believers to be
>converted (such as a 7 year period allows). Also if we all have
>new resurrection bodies, who will be the believers who are to
>people the earth during the millenium?

There does not seem to me to be any warrant to separate the various
judgements (Matt 25, the judgement seat of Christ, the Great White
Throne judgment) into separate eschatological events.  In Rev. 20:4, the 
believing dead of both the old and new testament are resurrected 
(i.e. raptured after the tribulation) and reign with Christ a
thousand years (and thus fulfill the old testament promises of the
future earthly kingdom on the mountains of Israel).  Any survivors 
on the earth continue into the millennium and are not judged at this 
time. The rest of the dead are not raised until the end of the thousand   
years.  At the end of the thousand years, all the dead get judged. 
Everyone is judged according to their works.  All believers have 
their names in the book of Life and so by the grace of God are not
thrown into the lake of fire  (Many of their works maybe 
burned up (I Cor. 2:15)).  

I realize that part of the problem with defending dispensationalism
is that there is a groundwork that must be laid upon which the basic 
arguments must be built.  This groundwork may answer some of my objections.
What I am hoping to see someone post is a really succinct set of 
arguments with as few premises as possible to which few good objections
can be raised.  I admit that I would have a difficult time doing this 
for what I believe.  In fact I am not sure what I believe right now.
You seem to do at least a reasonable job.  Thanks.