Thread: The rapture: unbiblical, illogical and... blasphemous? doctrine

After debating about the rapture in another forum I realized how illogical this doctrine is; but is it just an error of interpretation, a different point of view or a blasphemous doctrine that should be strongly rejected and confronted? help me decide

It is unbiblical

The very first problem with the doctrine of the Rapture is that it is completely unbiblical. Nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that there’s going to be a rapture that must be distinguished from the Second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Last day. The idea that there’s going to be a “Rapture Event” that is different and separate from the coming of the Lord is not established anywhere in The Bible. However, proponents of this doctrine, as they go through the different passages that deal with Christ’s return, say: “this passage is about the rapture, and this one is about the second coming”, and so on, assuming that there is a difference but we are never told where in the Scripture this is established as a doctrinal point. In other words, to believe in the rapture and to be able to “see” it in the Bible, one must assume first that there is such a rapture and then, we’ll be able to divide the passages in Rapture Passages and Second Coming Passages.

It is illogical

Not only the doctrine of the rapture is completely unbiblical, it also defies all human logic and natural use of language.

-The rapture is the coming of Christ but is not the coming of Christ.

In 1 Thes 4:15, the “rapture” passage, we are told: “…we who are alive, who are left until THE COMING OF THE LORD”. The Apostle Paul is clearly saying here that he is talking about “the coming of the Lord”, but the dispensationalist insist that this is not the visible coming of the Lord described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1. It is called the coming of the Lord, but is not His coming.

-The rapture is the SECOND coming of Christ, but it’s not the SECOND coming of Christ

If the rapture is the coming of the Lord, then it follows that it must be His SECOND coming, because He came already once, so if He is coming again to rapture His people, it must be His SECOND coming. But it’s not, they say, His second coming is when He comes back to stay, even though it happens in THIRD place, it’s still His SECOND coming, and the rapture, even though it happens in Second place, is not His second coming. Can somebody make any sense of this? But, wait! It gets better.

-The rapture is the Last Day but it’s not the Last Day.

In John 6 we are told four times that the resurrection will be ON THE LAST DAY, the rapture is the resurrection, so it must follow that the rapture happens on the Last Day; but, if it happens seven or three and a half years before the last day how is it the last day? Is it the last day or not?

-The rapture is the last trumpet but is not the last trumpet

In 1 Corinthians 15:52 that the resurrection will happen “at the last trumpet”, but if seven more trumpets are sounded after that, how is it the “last trumpet”? Are there two last trumpets? One that is last but it doesn’t happen last and then a last one that is actually the last one because it happens last? Does this make any sense?

-The rapture is the end of the world but is not the end of the world

In Matthew 28:20 the Lord Jesus said: “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”. By this, obviously He meant that He would be with us in the presence of the Holy Spirit until the end of this age, because after the rapture, we will continue to be with Him but in a different manner; that’s His promise uttered by Paul’s lips when he said: “and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:17). We deduct from this that, if this special and continual presence in the ministry and internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit will continue with us until the end of the world and this will change at the rapture when will enter into a different kind of presence, then the rapture must be “the end of the world”. But no! the world (this age) continues for seven years after that, and then it ends. So the rapture is the end of the world because Christ said that’s it when it would be, but is not the end of the world because the world doesn’t end until seven years later.

Is the rapture a blasphemous doctrine?

If there is really a rapture in a dispensational sense, what happens when, after the rapture, somebody reads a verse like this one?

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This promise of the Lord won’t be a true promise for somebody reading it after the rapture, because the last day and the end of the world would be a thing of the past. How can I look to the Son and believe in Him and be raised on the last day, if the last day already passed? And if Jesus said: “the heavens and the earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass” will He be found a liar, because His word passed BEFORE the heavens and the Earth passed, and some of His promises are no longer true for a poor soul seeking salvation in post-rapture times? Will His promised presence “until the end of the world” be gone and He won’t be with believers anymore? Will these “tribulation believers” need a new revelation from God, a “Newer Testament” so to speak with new promises different than the previous ones?

Does this doctrine make Jesus a liar? I’ll let you decide.

One thing that might be helpful in understanding this is that a rapture, of sorts, does occur at the second coming. That is, when all men, just and unjust, are raised to judgment.

A major tenet of dispensationalism, is that "the rapture" and "the Second Coming" are two separate events, with 1,000 years on man's calendar in between.

Even someone who holds modern dispensational premillenialism will agree:

1) Christ will return
2) All men will be raised
3) All men will be judged

But the separated system dispensationalism imposes on Scripture, in effect, provides for a "secret" return for believers and then a "visible" return for nonbelievers, with an "earthly kingdom" limited to 1,000 years on man's calendar in-between. (There is some contorted reasoning with regard to those born during the 1,000 year interim). This part is not supported biblically.

I agree with you on the unbiblical part. Unless you already have the presupposition that a pre-trib rapture is biblical, you wouldn't derive the doctrine from Scripture. For all the talk about taking the bible literally, the dispensationalist must make a lot of leaps to get the pre-trib rapture.

I think just like most things an agenda is brought to the table when dispensationalist read the Bible. I have heard arguments for the rapture that seems pretty solid and then have heard arguments that completely blow the dispensationalist rapture view out of the water. The point is that sadly one can see whatever one wants to see in the Bible if it is chopped up and single verses used out of context to justify an idea.

That is why context is so important in reading the Bible and also knowing the history of how God interacts with believers in the past.

I wouldn't go so far as to use those kinds of terms. Trying to make those stick is trying to label Albert Mohler, Charles Ryrie, Walter Kaiser and John MacArthur as unbiblical, illogical and blasphemous.

Dispensationalism is biblical if you use a certain hermeneutic. I would say that the dispy uses a hermeneutic that is not consistent and therefore creates too many events that just aren't in the Bible. A dispy can demonstrate that the covenant theologian does the same.

I left dispensationalism because someone said the Left Behind scenario isn't in the Bible and they were right. In that respect, dispensationalism is not Biblical but good and godly men use a hermeneutic that they solidly believe is Biblical and I wouldn't dare to accuse them otherwise.

Who knows how many have turned in disgust from Christianity because of dispensational inanities?

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I wouldn't go so far as to use those kinds of terms. Trying to make those stick is trying to label Albert Mohler, Charles Ryrie, Walter Kaiser and John MacArthur as unbiblical, illogical and blasphemous.

Only insofar as what they teach is blasphemous, etc.

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

Dispensationalism is biblical if you use a certain hermeneutic. I would say that the dispy uses a hermeneutic that is not consistent and therefore creates too many events that just aren't in the Bible. A dispy can demonstrate that the covenant theologian does the same.

I left dispensationalism because someone said the Left Behind scenario isn't in the Bible and they were right. In that respect, dispensationalism is not Biblical but good and godly men use a hermeneutic that they solidly believe is Biblical and I wouldn't dare to accuse them otherwise.

Could not that be claimed for any false teaching? Even JW-ism is "biblical" according to their "hermeneutics".

Dispensationalism does to the body of Christ what JW-ism does to the Trinity; it divides in such a way that the result is not the recognizable teaching of the Scripture.

The JWs insert new 'scriptures' and change the text to fit. A dispy is using the same text we are and seek to honor Christ in all that they do. Error is error but most of our eschatology depends on implicit arguments from Scripture and not explicit. Dispys do not deny the Trinity.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Who knows how many have turned in disgust from Christianity because of dispensational inanities?

I would say none. God is sovereign and it is He who saves and He who keeps.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. John 10:27,28

If you want to get some responses to make your blood run cold, try what I've done. Say to pre tribbers that let's assume you are right, that we are going to be spared from the final wrath of God in the seals/bowls/trumpets of Revelation. Let us assume that unique judgements are coming that have never happened before in the history of mankind and the elect will be spared from them by this rapture.

So far they are nodding. Yup, God's wrath in judgement is not for his kids. Then ask them if it is possible that things that have been happening to Christians all over the world through all of history can happen to them. Famine, beheading, great suffering, plagues, economic collapse, prison for our faith. Can it happen here before the rapture? Not final unique wrath, but ordinary historical judgements and sufferings?

The majority in my experience say that no, America is different, we are a Christian nation blessed by God, and what has happened for thousands of years won't happen here, America is special.

I can tell you one thing for sure, I think the concept that America is God's chosen special nation is blasphemy.

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

The JWs insert new 'scriptures' and change the text to fit. A dispy is using the same text we are and seek to honor Christ in all that they do. Error is error but most of our eschatology depends on implicit arguments from Scripture and not explicit. Dispys do not deny the Trinity.

I was not trying to make a statement on moral equivalency. I was simply pointing out the argument that these guys are “biblical if you use a certain hermeneutic [sic]“ is flawed because it is subjective. Of course everyone believes their hermeneutics is the correct one. That doesn’t make it so. Dispensationalists borrow from an orthodox hermeneutical system to arrive at doctrines like the trinity, soteriology (to a certain degree), etc. But they adopt (or claim to) a different system when they get to matters of eschatology, and they end up utterly destroying the unity of God’s people, the body of Christ.

If everyone is right in their own eyes how do we arrive at the truth?

When we see Christ, we will finally understand all things eschatological. Until then, I am going to walk as the Holy Spirit leads, and continue in His strength the walk of a believer. If there is a rapture, great. If not, I want to see Him when my final breath exits me and I go to Him.

I don't equate doctrine with True truth. On this board we recognize several very similar confessions but with some important doctrinal differences. Which one is true? Which one is Biblical? Which one is illogical or even blasphemous?

I'm just saying that the language goes too far and expresses more of an emotional response that can stop the 'iron sharpening iron' type of debate that strengthens the church.

I would call dispensationalism an inconsistent hermeneutic. (Sorry, I can't spell that word the same way twice.)

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

If everyone is right in their own eyes how do we arrive at the truth?

Originally Posted by Manuel

After debating about the rapture in another forum I realized how illogical this doctrine is; but is it just an error of interpretation, a different point of view or a blasphemous doctrine that should be strongly rejected and confronted? help me decide

As a reformed dispy/pre-trib guy, I can tell you it's not blasphemous; unless you want to accuse men like John MacArthur and others as blasphemers. Furthermore, when seen in its proper hermeneutical framework, it makes perfect sense.

As with any logical argument, more often than not, the soundness of the argument is dependent on the veracity of its starting premises. The foundational premise for dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church. When you start with that as your logical foundation, the dispensational framework makes a (weird) kind of sense. The Dispys would say the same about our covenant hermeneutic.

To me the whole dispensational system reminds me of Geocentrism. Because early philosophers and astronomers believed in geocentrism, they had to concoct elaborate explanations to account for the movement of the celestial bodies. But when you look at celestial movement from a heliocentric perspective, the patterns of movement simplify to elliptical orbits. The same can be said of dispensationalism. If you hold to a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel, then you have to account for all of the unfulfilled promises God made to Israel. This causes dispys to double almost everything:

• Two "Second" Comings
• Two "Final" battles
• Two Resurrections
• Two Judgments

When looked at from a covenant perspective, everything simplifies.

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I wouldn't go so far as to use those kinds of terms. Trying to make those stick is trying to label Albert Mohler, Charles Ryrie, Walter Kaiser and John MacArthur as unbiblical, illogical and blasphemous. . . .

Off topic:
I agree with your sentiment, Bob, but I don't think Mohler and Kaiser are dispensationalists. I think Mohler is historic premill and would liken himself to G.E. Ladd, or Mr. Spurgeon. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Manuel

Is the rapture a blasphemous doctrine?

If there is really a rapture in a dispensational sense, what happens when, after the rapture, somebody reads a verse like this one?

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This promise of the Lord won’t be a true promise for somebody reading it after the rapture, because the last day and the end of the world would be a thing of the past. How can I look to the Son and believe in Him and be raised on the last day, if the last day already passed? And if Jesus said: “the heavens and the earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass” will He be found a liar, because His word passed BEFORE the heavens and the Earth passed, and some of His promises are no longer true for a poor soul seeking salvation in post-rapture times? Will His promised presence “until the end of the world” be gone and He won’t be with believers anymore? Will these “tribulation believers” need a new revelation from God, a “Newer Testament” so to speak with new promises different than the previous ones?

Does this doctrine make Jesus a liar? I’ll let you decide.

First of all, I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture but I used to and having come out of all that, your objection above would be answered with 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

Not saying that they are right, but that is what they will say. Also, they don't believe the rapture is the "last day." The last day to them is judgment day which is after the rapture and the millennium. So if that is the case the verse still applies. And it also depends on who you talk to because some of them believe only Jews can be saved after the "rapture" (the 144,000). I will stop now because I am starting to confuse myself because I have tried to block all of this old thought out of my head.

Acknowledging differing hermeneutics, I personally do not find the scriptural evidence for the rapture. So, I would have to answer that I do believe it to be unbiblical based on my studies. However, there are brilliant men of God who believe in the rapture, so I do not want to belittle their studies.

As far as illogical, I do also find reason to call it that as well. My reasoning is simply due to my view of the covenant. I believe the blessing and ministry of the Gospel is mine but I also plan for it to be my children's children's, for many generations. My long view is one of the Kingdom victoriously subduing sin in all nations in preparation for the return of the King. I find it illogical to embrace a rescue/rapture mentality when we as the Church are already victorious.

As for blashpemous, I have to stop short on that and defer to wiser men. I can only say that those who I've heard embrace the rapture would be those who would drop any doctrine if it indeed were proven to be blasphemous; such is their love of the Word.

You are correct brother. I was typing faster than the speed of thought and went with my assumptions. I was wrong, however, someone correct me if I was right.

Originally Posted by Jimmy the Greek

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

I wouldn't go so far as to use those kinds of terms. Trying to make those stick is trying to label Albert Mohler, Charles Ryrie, Walter Kaiser and John MacArthur as unbiblical, illogical and blasphemous. . . .

Off topic:
I agree with your sentiment, Bob, but I don't think Mohler and Kaiser are dispensationalists. I think Mohler is historic premill and would liken himself to G.E. Ladd, or Mr. Spurgeon. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

The temptation within dispensationalism is to elevate the "Rapture" and "Israel" too idol worship. Don't think we Reformed are immune to idol temptations ,i.e., we can be tempted to idolize knowledge.

I came out of the "Pre-Trib" system (in fact, I was reformed in my eschatology before my soteriology.) I would not call it blasphemous, but it is an error. Most evangelicals (those who are devout Christians) have never even been exposed to other forms of eschatology. My experience with them is that most are very open to reconsidering the rapture when a solid alternative is offered up.

However, anyone who holds that Christ must return to earth for the purpose of adding to his "once for all" redemptive work (for Jews or anyone else) is on dangerous ground.

Of course, if you run across an Arminian Dispensationalist, you can always ask if the antichrist can be saved, or if he is predestined to Hell. That gets some wheels spinning.

Thanks, everybody, for your answers. I would not call it blasphemous either, but I will stick with the unbiblical and illogical part. It is unbiblical for two reasons:

1-There will not be a rapture (in a dispensational sense)
2-The hermeneutic system used to prove the rapture has to assume first that there will be a rapture, but never establishes the fact biblically. I come froma a dispensational background and I was taught the rapture as a dogma, so to speak, then you go to the Bible and divide the passages that teach the coming of the Lord in "rapture passage" and "Second Coming Passage"; similar to what the Roman Catholics do with the doctrine of purgatory, or like the charismatics with the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues

I don't think that by labeling the DOCTRINE as unbiblical, I'm labeling the people who believe in it as unbiblical. We are human and we are fallible and none of us have the whole truth. When Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos speak, they noticed that some of his doctrine was unbiblical, and they told him.

One of the problems with this doctrine is that it uses a hermeneutic that pretty much opens the door for many other errors. I can use the same hermeneutic that they use to prove bizarre things from the Bible. I can invent a doctrine right now and prove it from the Bible using their hermeneutic system, and what if somebody believes it and starts teaching it and 20 years from now a lot of renowned scholars believe this doctrine that I invented as a joke or to prove a point, does that make it Biblical?

One of the most cogent objections to dispy premil and premil generally is that Christ will return to live in an unrenewed or partially renewed Earth, with - in some scenarios - unbelievers on that Earth.

When one understands the doctrine of Christ's humiliation and exaltation properly, this re-humiliation or partial re-humiliation of Christ is theologically incongruous and unacceptable.

The above - as much as anything else - rules out premil as an eschatology for me.

Sorry, the whole "different hermeneutic" bit sort of sticks in my craw.

Arminians use a different hermeneutic and the same Bible.

They're still heretics.

How does that one work?

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Sorry, the whole "different hermeneutic" bit sort of sticks in my craw.

Arminians use a different hermeneutic and the same Bible.

They're still heretics.

How does that one work?

I think dispensationalism is much akin to Covenant Theology wherein the whole bible is read through its lens. I agree with Bob that it is a hermeneutic in the sense of a hermeneutic framework that works in a deductive sense towards biblical text.

Arminianism derives itself from purely incorrect inductive exegesis to begin with. It's logical conclusion elevates man to a status we are never meant to have and strips God of the glory that belongs to Him. Dispensationalism on the other hand, could still derive and maintain a Christ centered-ness (think MacArthur).

Funny thing is, dispensationalism in my opinion, is the cause of many problems today. Like Horton said "so many errors could be avoided if men only knew and taught Covenant Theology" (rough quote from memory).

Hit the jackpot there.

If you think that Christ is going to come back to earth and live in Jerusalem for a thousand years while priest makes sacrifices then that is pretty close to something real bad. We could use a few stronger leaders in the Christian world.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

If you think that Christ is going to come back to earth and live in Jerusalem for a thousand years while priest makes sacrifices then that is pretty close to something real bad. We could use a few stronger leaders in the Christian world.

Amen!

That right there (the "Millennial sacrifices" thing) points out how blasphemous Dispensationalism really is.

I heard that such a notion was fictionally depicted in the final volume of the Left Behind series. Considering the vast popularity of those books, and their purpose of indoctrinating people into Dispensationalism, I hope the mention of supposed continued animal sacrifices (offered in the Temple by Christ Himself!) disturbed enough people for them to truly consider the eschatology they're being spoon-fed.

I don't equate doctrine with True truth. On this board we recognize several very similar confessions but with some important doctrinal differences. Which one is true? Which one is Biblical?

Why, the one I hold to right now, of course!

Is that true? The Lord offers sacrifice in the last book? That would be blasphemous. Is that a common belief among dispys?

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

If you think that Christ is going to come back to earth and live in Jerusalem for a thousand years while priest makes sacrifices then that is pretty close to something real bad. We could use a few stronger leaders in the Christian world.

Amen!

That right there (the "Millennial sacrifices" thing) points out how blasphemous Dispensationalism really is.

I heard that such a notion was fictionally depicted in the final volume of the Left Behind series. Considering the vast popularity of those books, and their purpose of indoctrinating people into Dispensationalism, I hope the mention of supposed continued animal sacrifices (offered in the Temple by Christ Himself!) disturbed enough people for them to truly consider the eschatology they're being spoon-fed.

The passage most commonly mentioned in discussions of the difficulty presented by dispensational literalism is Ezekiel's temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage.9 Dispensationalists are careful to specify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ's death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord's Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel's vision refers to these sacrifices as literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20; Hebrew: kaphar, atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were done away forever by Christ's once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is "theological interpretation" and "reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament," two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize.

And another source:

Dispensationalism's Most Egregious Error :: a.k.a. fitzage

I didn't read too much else besides relevant quotes, so these guys may both be wing nuts. (Maybe a closet dispy on the board could comment on this... )

My old baptist pastor told me that the sacrifices would resume for 1000 years to complete the promises made to the nation of Israel. He also taught and believed in two brides of God. The new testament church was the bride of Christ and the nation of Israel was the bride of Jehovah.

If it walks like a duck...

This is from the Pre-Trib Research Center

Pre-Trib Research Center: Why Sacrifices in The Millennium

Why a Temple andSacrifices?

The purpose for a Temple throughout Scripture has been to establish a location upon earth-which is under the curse of sin-for the presence of God that reveals through its ritual God's great holiness. God's plan for Israel includes a relation to them through a Temple since He wants to dwell in the midst of His people. Currently the church is God's spiritual Temple made of living stones (1Cor. 3:16-17; Eph. 2:19-22). The millennium will return history to a time when Israel will be God's mediatory people but will also continue to be a time in which sin will be present upon the earth. Thus, God will include a new Temple, a new priesthood, a new Law, etc., at this future time because He will be present in Israel and still desires to teach that holiness is required to approach Him. This is contrasted with the fact that no Temple will exist in eternity (Rev. 21:22) because God and the Lamb are the Temple since there will be no sin in heaven,thus no need for ritual cleansing.

The painstaking detail in Ezekiel 40-48 is similar to the instruction given to Moses for building of the Tabernacle and then to others for building the Solomonic Temple. Such detail is meaningless unless taken literally as were the Tabernacle and first two Temples. If the detail was intended to be symbolic, the symbols are never explained, as is usually the case with genuine biblical symbolism. Because no textual basis exists for a non-literal interpretation, those attempting such explanations become subjective in their many and various guesses about the meaning of the passage.

It must be remembered that the Levitical sacrifices of the Mosaic system are said by the Bible to "make atonement" as well (for example, Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35, etc.). If these sacrifices in the past actually atoned for the people's sins, which, of course, they did not, then they would be equally blasphemous in light of Christ's perfect sacrifice. Hebrews 10:4 says, "it is impossiblefor the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Furthermore, there would have been no need for Christ's once and for all atoning sacrifice if these past acts did the job.

So what do both past and future sacrifices accomplish if they don't actually remove sin? These sacrifices provide ritual cleansing of the priests, sanctuary, and utensils. Only Christ's sacrifice on the cross actually removes one's sin. Jerry Hullinger provides asolution that:


. . . deals honestly with the text of Ezekiel,and in no way demeans the work Christ did on the cross. This study suggests that animal sacrifices during the millennium will serve primarily to remove ceremonial uncleanness and prevent defilement from polluting the temple envisioned by Ezekiel. This will be necessary because the glorious presence of Yahweh will once again be dwelling on earth inthe midst of a sinful and unclean people.

Because of God's promise to dwell on earth during the millennium (as stated in the NewCovenant), it is necessary that He protect His presence through sacrifice . . .It should further be added that this sacrificial system will be a temporary one in that the millennium (with its partial population of unglorified humanity)will last only one thousand years.


Critics of future millennial sacrifices seem to assume that all sacrifices, past and future,always depict Christ's final sacrifice for sin. They do not! There were various purposes for sacrifice in the Bible. Many of the sacrifices under the Mosaic system were purification rituals. This is why atonement can be said in the past to be effective, yet still need Christ's future sacrifice, because many of the sacrifices did atone ceremonially, cleansing participants and objects in Temple ritual. In Ezekiel 43:20 and 26, the atonementis specifically directed at cleansing the altar in order to make it ritually clean. The other uses of atonement also refer to cleansing objects so that ritual purity may be maintained for proper worship(Ezek. 45:15, 17, 20).

The presence and purpose of millennial sacrifices neither diminish the finished work of Christ,nor violates the literal interpretation of these prophetic passages. Nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 conflicts withthe death of Christ or New Testament teaching at any point. The supposed contradictions between a literal understanding of Ezekiel and New Testament doctrine evaporate when examined specifically and harmonized. Although there will be millennial sacrifices, the focus of all worship will remain on the person and work of the Savior. The millennial Temple and its ritual will serve as a daily reminder of fallen man's need before a Holy God and lessons about how this same God lovingly works to remove the obstacle of human sin for those who trust Him. Maranatha!

Sorry, Dr. Ice, I'm not convinced.

How big exactly and literally is Ezekiel's temple in feet and inches, and do the dispys want it to be literally that size? If not, why not?

the millennium (with its partial population of unglorified humanity)will last only one thousand years.

How is Christ meant to tolerate the presence of unglorified humanity (and unsaved humanity?) and how are they meant tolerate His Presence.

He is not to suffer even a partial state of humiliation again.

To drag Christ down to live in this fallen and cursed world again, with fallen and cursed, people, is Christological confusion.

No temple of Eziekiel could change the fact that Christ has returned to earth before it and its inhabitants have been made new, and before He has finished His heavenly work.

No temple of Ezekiel could protect rebels against Christ and His Father from the wrath of the Lamb.

Despite the erudition of Dr. Ice and his website, the arguments for the pre-trib view are ultimately unpersuasive to me. Listening to the Riddlebarger MP3s again has reminded me how convincing the arguments for the basic Amil view really are . . . http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/

Anyway the Rapture is a very curious notion . . .



At least, my jogging shorts help me to remember . . .

Always enjoy your posts! ^^^

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

One of the most cogent objections to dispy premil and premil generally is that Christ will return to live in an unrenewed or partially renewed Earth, with - in some scenarios - unbelievers on that Earth.

When one understands the doctrine of Christ's humiliation and exaltation properly, this re-humiliation or partial re-humiliation of Christ is theologically incongruous and unacceptable.

The above - as much as anything else - rules out premil as an eschatology for me.

And in spite of the fact that Christ allegedly rules "with a rod of iron" over the nations during this “thousand years”, He is still apparently powerless at the end when Satan is released, since it takes “fire from heaven” (intervention of the Father) to defeat those coming up against the “camp of the saints.”

This does not seem to be an issue for just dispensationalists, but for premillinarians in general.

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 08:06:27 EST-----

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

This is from the Pre-Trib Research Center

Pre-Trib Research Center: Why Sacrifices in The Millennium

Why a Temple andSacrifices?

…

Critics of future millennial sacrifices seem to assume that all sacrifices, past and future,always depict Christ's final sacrifice for sin. They do not! There were various purposes for sacrifice in the Bible. Many of the sacrifices under the Mosaic system were purification rituals. This is why atonement can be said in the past to be effective, yet still need Christ's future sacrifice, because many of the sacrifices did atone ceremonially, cleansing participants and objects in Temple ritual. In Ezekiel 43:20 and 26, the atonementis specifically directed at cleansing the altar in order to make it ritually clean. The other uses of atonement also refer to cleansing objects so that ritual purity may be maintained for proper worship(Ezek. 45:15, 17, 20.)

The presence and purpose of millennial sacrifices neither diminish the finished work of Christ,nor violates the literal interpretation of these prophetic passages. Nothing in Ezekiel 40-48 conflicts withthe death of Christ or New Testament teaching at any point. The supposed contradictions between a literal understanding of Ezekiel and New Testament doctrine evaporate when examined specifically and harmonized. Although there will be millennial sacrifices, the focus of all worship will remain on the person and work of the Savior. The millennial Temple and its ritual will serve as a daily reminder of fallen man's need before a Holy God and lessons about how this same God lovingly works to remove the obstacle of human sin for those who trust Him. Maranatha!

Sorry, Dr. Ice, I'm not convinced.

Not to mention that fact that he is misrepresenting Ezekiel to support his errant theory.

15 And one lamb shall be given from a flock of two hundred, from the rich pastures of Israel. These shall be for grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement for them," says the Lord God. 16 "All the people of the land shall give this offering for the prince in Israel. 17 Then it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel." (Ezekiel 45)

The text in question does not, by its context, indicate temple cleansing, etc. These are the atonement offerings for the people (cf. Ex. 20:24).

Sometime I wonder if these dispie authors don’t expect any “fact checking” by their readers in order to get away with this stuff.

[quote=tcalbrecht;710180]

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Sometime I wonder if these dispie authors don’t expect any “fact checking” by their readers in order to get away with this stuff.

Nope. I'd say they exploit the ignorance of their audience in order to sell more books.

I left the SBC due to it's rampant dispensational insanity.
It's not heresy, it's not blasphemy, it's just such an incorrect hermeneutic it drove me nuts to keep hearing it.
The church I left taught the pre-trib Rapture, the Church is gonna be OK no matter what happens type stuff. It also taught the 2 plans to salvation (The Church, and the Jews) fallicy.
It makes for a very lax attitude within the Church because from personal experience, fellow Christians believe that despite our earthly troubles, in the end they will not suffer with the unbelievers.
To me that's just a very troubling sentiment that makes it sound like the Church is high and mighty over the rest of the planet.
The bible never states that as fact as dispensational Christians think it does.

Originally Posted by NRB

I left the SBC due to it's rampant dispensational insanity.
It's not heresy, it's not blasphemy, it's just such an incorrect hermeneutic it drove me nuts to keep hearing it.
The church I left taught the pre-trib Rapture, the Church is gonna be OK no matter what happens type stuff. It also taught the 2 plans to salvation (The Church, and the Jews) fallicy.
It makes for a very lax attitude within the Church because from personal experience, fellow Christians believe that despite our earthly troubles, in the end they will not suffer with the unbelievers.
To me that's just a very troubling sentiment that makes it sound like the Church is high and mighty over the rest of the planet.
The bible never states that as fact as dispensational Christians think it does.

I come from AG which is notably pre-trib/pre-mil/dispy. Strangely enough, we never heard any of those things through the pulpit. In the confessions of faith and the doctrine classes sure, but every Sunday it was the "gospel." Well, arminianistic gospel, but "gospel" nonetheless.

Surprised that a church will continually teach its eschatological position.

Originally Posted by ewenlin

Originally Posted by NRB

I left the SBC due to it's rampant dispensational insanity.
It's not heresy, it's not blasphemy, it's just such an incorrect hermeneutic it drove me nuts to keep hearing it.
The church I left taught the pre-trib Rapture, the Church is gonna be OK no matter what happens type stuff. It also taught the 2 plans to salvation (The Church, and the Jews) fallicy.
It makes for a very lax attitude within the Church because from personal experience, fellow Christians believe that despite our earthly troubles, in the end they will not suffer with the unbelievers.
To me that's just a very troubling sentiment that makes it sound like the Church is high and mighty over the rest of the planet.
The bible never states that as fact as dispensational Christians think it does.

I come from AG which is notably pre-trib/pre-mil/dispy. Strangely enough, we never heard any of those things through the pulpit. In the confessions of faith and the doctrine classes sure, but every Sunday it was the "gospel." Well, arminianistic gospel, but "gospel" nonetheless.

Surprised that a church will continually teach its eschatological position.

Yep that disturbed me a bit. The pastor was expositional so he went for a continuous study of Revelation(took about a year), but after talking to him about this...my former pastor stated simply that it was obvious to preach the pre-trib rapture during the teaching of the book of the Revelation, but he also had to touch on it when he preached other books of the bible due to their proof of it's fact.
That worried me due to the simple fact that dispensational hermeneutic was prevelant in his teaching overall throught the new testament.

Originally Posted by Manuel

After debating about the rapture in another forum I realized how illogical this doctrine is; but is it just an error of interpretation, a different point of view or a blasphemous doctrine that should be strongly rejected and confronted? help me decide

It is unbiblical

The very first problem with the doctrine of the Rapture is that it is completely unbiblical. Nowhere in the Scriptures are we told that there’s going to be a rapture that must be distinguished from the Second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Last day. The idea that there’s going to be a “Rapture Event” that is different and separate from the coming of the Lord is not established anywhere in The Bible. However, proponents of this doctrine, as they go through the different passages that deal with Christ’s return, say: “this passage is about the rapture, and this one is about the second coming”, and so on, assuming that there is a difference but we are never told where in the Scripture this is established as a doctrinal point. In other words, to believe in the rapture and to be able to “see” it in the Bible, one must assume first that there is such a rapture and then, we’ll be able to divide the passages in Rapture Passages and Second Coming Passages.

It is illogical

Not only the doctrine of the rapture is completely unbiblical, it also defies all human logic and natural use of language.

-The rapture is the coming of Christ but is not the coming of Christ.

In 1 Thes 4:15, the “rapture” passage, we are told: “…we who are alive, who are left until THE COMING OF THE LORD”. The Apostle Paul is clearly saying here that he is talking about “the coming of the Lord”, but the dispensationalist insist that this is not the visible coming of the Lord described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1. It is called the coming of the Lord, but is not His coming.

-The rapture is the SECOND coming of Christ, but it’s not the SECOND coming of Christ

If the rapture is the coming of the Lord, then it follows that it must be His SECOND coming, because He came already once, so if He is coming again to rapture His people, it must be His SECOND coming. But it’s not, they say, His second coming is when He comes back to stay, even though it happens in THIRD place, it’s still His SECOND coming, and the rapture, even though it happens in Second place, is not His second coming. Can somebody make any sense of this? But, wait! It gets better.

-The rapture is the Last Day but it’s not the Last Day.

In John 6 we are told four times that the resurrection will be ON THE LAST DAY, the rapture is the resurrection, so it must follow that the rapture happens on the Last Day; but, if it happens seven or three and a half years before the last day how is it the last day? Is it the last day or not?

-The rapture is the last trumpet but is not the last trumpet

In 1 Corinthians 15:52 that the resurrection will happen “at the last trumpet”, but if seven more trumpets are sounded after that, how is it the “last trumpet”? Are there two last trumpets? One that is last but it doesn’t happen last and then a last one that is actually the last one because it happens last? Does this make any sense?

-The rapture is the end of the world but is not the end of the world

In Matthew 28:20 the Lord Jesus said: “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”. By this, obviously He meant that He would be with us in the presence of the Holy Spirit until the end of this age, because after the rapture, we will continue to be with Him but in a different manner; that’s His promise uttered by Paul’s lips when he said: “and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:17). We deduct from this that, if this special and continual presence in the ministry and internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit will continue with us until the end of the world and this will change at the rapture when will enter into a different kind of presence, then the rapture must be “the end of the world”. But no! the world (this age) continues for seven years after that, and then it ends. So the rapture is the end of the world because Christ said that’s it when it would be, but is not the end of the world because the world doesn’t end until seven years later.

Is the rapture a blasphemous doctrine?

If there is really a rapture in a dispensational sense, what happens when, after the rapture, somebody reads a verse like this one?

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

This promise of the Lord won’t be a true promise for somebody reading it after the rapture, because the last day and the end of the world would be a thing of the past. How can I look to the Son and believe in Him and be raised on the last day, if the last day already passed? And if Jesus said: “the heavens and the earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass” will He be found a liar, because His word passed BEFORE the heavens and the Earth passed, and some of His promises are no longer true for a poor soul seeking salvation in post-rapture times? Will His promised presence “until the end of the world” be gone and He won’t be with believers anymore? Will these “tribulation believers” need a new revelation from God, a “Newer Testament” so to speak with new promises different than the previous ones?

Does this doctrine make Jesus a liar? I’ll let you decide.

The Rapture is far from the only doctrine that is taught without any explicit Biblical quotations.
I would certainly not call it blasphemous but it may be unbiblical.