I've searched for this topic because I think it has been written before but I can't find it, so I'll start this new thread.
What are your guys' thoughts on the rapture?
From a book I'm reading entitled "The Rapture: A Question of Timing" by William Kimball, I read one of the arguments against the pre-trib view is that it has not been the traditionally held view of the church and has only come into existence since the early 1830's.
While it is true that there has always been the spirit of expectancy amongst Christians for the Lord's return, the teaching that Christ will return at any time, before the events of the tribulation, is a recent invention.
Also, in response to the argument of the imminence of the Lord's return, he states "Christ's exhortations to spiritual alertness are given to us not because of the guaranteed imminence of His coming, but because of the uncertainty in timing."
He then cites Matt 24:42-51.
I haven't looked at this passage or even the whole rapture issue very much since leaving the assembly, and now reading this passage it seems to me that the "thief in the night" illustration was not given to say that Christ will come in a secret manner. Rather, I see it is an analogy explaining the uncertainty of the timing of the return and therefore a call to diligence. First he states that if the owner of the house would have know the specific time of the thief’s arrival, he would have been watching at that time to prevent the damage done by the thief. Then he states that if the servant of the house is doing his master's work at the time of his master's return, he will get a reward and prevent getting punished. I agree with the author of the book that it is an illustration pointing out the fact that we will not know the specific time of Christ's return and therefore should always be ready.
When I was going to college, I had deadlines for my homework. I knew when my project was due. I had to work my tail off to finish the project or suffer the consequences of a bad grade. Unlike my homework, I do not know when Christ will return. Who of us knows when a thief is going to break into our home? No one does. Neither does any man know when Christ returns, so we need to be serving diligently at his tasks every day until he does.
Also unlike my homework which once completed I never had to work on again, this is a task that is ongoing, like cleaning a house or cooking meals--every day it has to be done, over and over again. If I decide to stop doing this assigned task, and then the master returns, it will be bad for me, but if I keep at it and do my duty every day, when he returns he will reward me.
Giving it some thought, it appears to me that the "at any moment" (imminence) teaching on this passage lends itself to an impulsive lifestyle, i.e. Christ is coming at any moment so I better sell everything I have and live off of locusts and wild honey, whereas, the "question of timing" teaching lends itself to a dutiful lifestyle. It's like the tortoise and the hare. The hare sprints with a burst of speed but then takes a nap and looses the race to the slowly but surely plodding tortoise. "Slow and steady wins the race" is the moral of the story.
And, I may be going out on a limb here, but branches of Christendom seem to fall along the same lines. One Sunday while attending an idependent church I heard a missionary candidly explaining his funding. He said that after you visit the Pentecostals they will give you a large lump sum love offering but then forget about you the next week, whereas the people in Reformed churches continually and faithfully send regular payments month after month, year after year. Perhaps one's view of end times affects how one lives his life today.
Arthur
Arthur,
A few thoughts. The argument that the pre-trib rapture was invented during the 1830's is popular in some circles. Particulary among the Semi-Reformed churches.
They usually claim that it was invented by Darby in response to some woman who "prophesied" among the Irvingites.
However, it suffers from a few weaknesses:
1. Imagine it is the year 326. The council of Nicea met last year and made certain declarations about the nature of the Trinity. The same accusation could be made against that doctrine. "For two centuries this teaching was not a test of orthodoxy. Now these Johnny-come-lately fanatics have foisted their nonsense on the Church. Its a shame. This is the doing of that crazy Athanasius. Spends too much time in the desert, that one. We need to return to the true apostolic teaching...and no apostle ever used the word "Trinity" in anything he wrote."
Does this convince you the doctrine of the Trinity is a mistake. I hope not. But it is the same argument as the one you describe. "Its new so its wrong."
The real question isn't "is it new?". It is, "is it true?"
2. Eschatology is probably the most interpretive of all doctrines. In fact, eschatology is heavily dependent on ecclesiology. One's understanding of the church effects the way you understand the prophecies of the future. One's doctrine of the church depends, in turn, upon the interpretive principles one uses when reading the Bible.
3. When Mr. Kimball wrote that the pre-trib view has not been the traditional view of the church, he is telling you the truth. However, he is only telling you part of the truth.
The other part is that it is quite easy to demonstrate that imminency was widely believed and taught in the
[early/i] church. After the first few centuries priestcraft, sacramentalism, and amillenialism took over. But imminency is mentioned in the very earliest of Christian writings that we have. It does not seem to have been worked out as to the details to the degree that it is today. But it is definitely there.
Blessings,
Thomas Maddux
