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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 Dispensationalists 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 . . .

time_rapture_ovaloffice.jpg


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

leftbehindshort_300.gif
 
One of the most cogent objections to Dispensational 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-----

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.
 
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 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/Dispensational. 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.
 
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/Dispensational. 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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top