Thread: Is Sovereign election a death blow to the dispy interpretation of the Rapture?

A close Christian friend of mine subscribes to reformed theology with the exception of him being a pre-mil dispy and being an agreement with the essentials of "Left Behind". I think this is due to his first in-depth study (about 30 years ago) being in Revelation and taught from a dispy perspective.

FWIW, I am amil, but not too familiar with other eschatological interpretations.

I asked him how or why would God leave his elect behind post-Rapture (assuming some/many would come to faith in Christ during the reign of the anti-Christ).

My friend is a professing 5 point Calvinist and cannot account for this. I don't believe people are "unelect" until a certain point in their lives when they come to faith through regeneration of the Holy Spirit (demonstrating election).

So, it Divine election really a death blow to the dispy rapture theory?

It appears so.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Although we are elect from the foundation of the world, we are not regenerated from the foundation of the world. Perhaps your friend could make the argument that only those who have already been regenerated will be raptured.

The simple answer is no. There are those who adhere to the Doctrines of Grace who also hold to dispensational premillenialism on the basis of sovereign election. Specifically the argument is that the promises to Abraham and to national Israel were unconditional and that we can no more dispense with those promises than we can with the unconditional election of the believer. That was John MacArthur's thesis in his controversial Shepherd's Conf. message in 2007, and other premillenialists like Barry Horner as well as historic premillenialists like Horatius Bonar, J.C. Ryle and C.H. Spurgeon have made similar arguments for the restoration of national Israel to the land, if not for the pretrib rapture.

I think Kim has made a good point as well. We want to avoid the teaching of "eternal justification" which is a fountainhead of hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, not evangelizing, etc. The elect are elect from the foundation of the world, but the reality or manifestation of it plays out in space and time history and typically through the application of what are called the means of grace, especially the preaching of the Word. "Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near." Isa 55:6 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

NewKidontheBlogg just wrote about the problems of the Rapture from G.E. Ladd's Historical Premillennium perspective in this blog:

Millennial Dreams

Who is to say the theory of the Rapture is biblical? I for one see too many problems with Dispensational Premillennialism.

If you read the Holman Bible Dictionary's post about Dispensationalism/its' origin, thats enough to discredit it (in my opinion).

Originally Posted by MMasztal

A close Christian friend of mine subscribes to reformed theology with the exception of him being a pre-mil dispy and being an agreement with the essentials of "Left Behind". I think this is due to his first in-depth study (about 30 years ago) being in Revelation and taught from a dispy perspective.

FWIW, I am amil, but not too familiar with other eschatological interpretations.

I asked him how or why would God leave his elect behind post-Rapture (assuming some/many would come to faith in Christ during the reign of the anti-Christ).

My friend is a professing 5 point Calvinist and cannot account for this. I don't believe people are "unelect" until a certain point in their lives when they come to faith through regeneration of the Holy Spirit (demonstrating election).

So, it Divine election really a death blow to the dispy rapture theory?

It appears so.

Thanks in advance for your input.

God could guarantee that all of His elect will come to faith in Christ before the Rapture.

Originally Posted by cih1355

God could guarantee that all of His elect will come to faith in Christ before the Rapture.

That's what Dispensational Calvinists believe from Romans 11:25 until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in

Lewis Sperry Chafer the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, was another example of an hybrid theologian, meaning he was a Calvinist, being also a strong Premillennial and Pretribulational Dispensationalist, to the point of opposing covenant theology, while being Presbyterian in Ecclesiological structure.

Of course that way he believed in Sovereign election, the Church being a dispensational window, a parentheses for the Gentiles, and with the rapture of the Church (re) starting the dispensation of national Israel.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

The simple answer is no. There are those who adhere to the Doctrines of Grace who also hold to dispensational premillenialism on the basis of sovereign election. Specifically the argument is that the promises to Abraham and to national Israel were unconditional and that we can no more dispense with those promises than we can with the unconditional election of the believer. That was John MacArthur's thesis in his controversial Shepherd's Conf. message in 2007, and other premillenialists like Barry Horner as well as historic premillenialists like Horatius Bonar, J.C. Ryle and C.H. Spurgeon have made similar arguments for the restoration of national Israel to the land, if not for the pretrib rapture.

I think Kim has made a good point as well. We want to avoid the teaching of "eternal justification" which is a fountainhead of hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, not evangelizing, etc. The elect are elect from the foundation of the world, but the reality or manifestation of it plays out in space and time history and typically through the application of what are called the means of grace, especially the preaching of the Word. "Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near." Isa 55:6 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." Matt 11:28

As an off-topic note, "eternal justification" can be a little more complex than that. Goodwin uses the term, and is cited as support by John Gill, but has a very nuanced take on it.