My Take on the Rapture

May 21st has come and gone for Jerusalem. That means that the "bible prediction" announced by Harold Camping, that the rapture was going to happen at 6:00 p.m. Jerusalem time, was wrong. Sure, there were a few people that took him seriously in his proclamation, but the vast majority of evangelicals failed to fall under his teaching. Now there are many different reasons why Christians dismiss Camping and his kooky predictions. I will talk about two of them in this post and discuss on which side I fall concerning my dismissal of the May 21st rapture.


The first category of Christians who deny Camping's prophecy are one's that do believe in the rapture. The vast majority of these people are adherents to a system of theology known as Dispensationalism, though they may not be familiar with this title. As I grew up in the south, in a Southern Baptist church, I was taught the system of Dispensationalism from an early age. I was told that Israel was and still is God's chosen people and that "bible prophecy" was being fulfilled concerning them today as evidenced by all the turmoil in the middle east. Because of this, I was told, we are in the end times, which entail a rapture, seven years of tribulation, the Anti-Christ, sacrificial systems being restored, Jesus ruling for a literal millennium after His second coming, and then judgement day. This teaching is prevalent in the south, particularly in "conservative" Baptist and Methodist churches.


This camp asked this question: "Will the rapture happen when Camping says it will?" This is the question they had to answer for Camping is himself a Dispensationalist- a radical Dispensationalist, but a Dispensationalist nonetheless.


In order to answer this question as to whether or not Camping is correct in his prediction, the Dispensationalist, as I have seen them do, will appeal to the Olivet Discourse's teaching on the matter, which states, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows... but the Father only" (Matt. 24:36, cf. Mark 13:32). Camping is wrong, therefore, because no one can know when these things will come about according to Scripture. 


Their reasoning and usage of Scripture is sound; because of what Scripture says concerning the knowledge of the end in the Olivet Discourse, Camping couldn't be said to know these things definitively. Now, of course, the Dispensationalist must grant that there was a possibility for the rapture to happen on the 21st of May even though Camping had no ground of proof for it. However, completely ruling out the possibility for the rapture happening on the 21st for the Dispensationalist (at least the pre-tribulation rapture Dispensationalists) would be self contradictory for the "no one" in Matthew 24:36 applies to them as well. According to their system, God, at any time, could cause the rapture to happen. Therefore, to say definitively that the rapture could not have happened on the 21st would be against their own understanding of Matthew 24:36.


But there is another camp that did not believe Camping's prophecy: those who are not Dispensationalists. This is where I fall personally; as to why I fall on this side of the boundary line will be discussed later in the post. Of course there are different subcategories in this camp; my personal belief is that of Amillennial Covenantalism. I will display this camp's basic eschatological views in juxtaposition to the one shown forth by Dispensationalism. We believe that God's chosen people are those who believe in Christ; it does not matter what nationality you are, if you believe in Christ, you are included into the metaphorical Israel, Abraham's offspring, the Church (John 1:13; Romans 4:16; Romans 9:6; Romans 11:1ff; Galatians 3:28). We believe that Christ rules over His Kingdom, the Church, now through the Spirit (Matthew 4:17, Matthew 28:18; Luke 17:19,20, Acts 1:7,7). We believe that there will not be a literal millennium in which Christ will reign but that He is reigning now in a metaphorical millennium as it has been nearly 2000 years since the beginning of Christ's reign on earth in His Church. We believe that there will be no "secret rapture" or seven year tribulation. Tribulation is metaphorical and is something that the Church militant will have to endure until Christ returns to judge the living and the dead. Considering that this view lacks a rapture and seven year tribulation, the "Anti-Christ" is not some political player that will unify the world but is viewed as anyone who denies and teaches against Christ (1 John 2:18). One will find this teaching within Reformed, Reformed Baptist, and Presbyterian churches mostly. 


The ground for our disbelief in Camping's "Bible prophecy" concerning the rapture was not based upon the Olivet Discourse statement, that no one knows the day or the hour. Instead, we do not believe in the rapture at all as we believe that it is not biblical and is nothing more than a form of escapism with hints of Platonism mixed in, hence why I felt as though I could joke about it freely without worry about not only Camping's false teaching but also the false teaching that is Dispensationalism.


Now, that last sentence used some strong words against Dispensationalism and, by implication, its eschatological teaching; allow me to make a statement toward the end clarification. I do not believe that adherence to Dispensational systematic theology/eschatology will nullify salvation in Christ. This is not a damnable heresy like Trinitarian or Christological heresy. I hope those who might read this who are Dispensationalists feel the same way towards me and other adherents to Amillennial, Covenantal theology. If we agree on the Gospel then let that be enough ground upon which we can address each other as brother or sister and view these things as secondary.


However, a teaching that is wrong should be addressed. As many have not been taught anything other than Dispensational theology, these statements may come as a shock, but as one who has seen both sides of the eschatological coin, I shall now point to the reasons why I do not view Dispensational as a valid system of Scripture interpretation and why I find some of their doctrines lacking. First are some statement concerning its history.


The method of biblical interpretation known as Dispensationalism and all the doctrines that arise out of that method can be traced to one individual for the most part. His name was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Prior to Darby and his teaching in the United Kingdom, no one spoke of a "secret rapture," that one day Christians will disappear and the unbelievers will be left behind or spoke of Jewish people as still God's chosen people. C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) popularized this teaching in the United States through his published Bible notes. In later years, Tim LeHay has furthered the teaching through his Left Behind series, bringing Dispensationalism into the hands of laymen by means of fiction. From a historical perspective, Dispensationalism is very weak. Why has no one in church history prior to Darby spoken of the rapture or the nation of Israel being God's chosen people after Christ's incarnation? One can only have two conclusions: either everyone in church history prior to Darby could not see these things or Darby is wrong. Here, evidence seems to go against Dispensationalism.


Secondly, I want to talk about the misuse of genre in the Dispensational eschatological hermeneutic. Now, they must be praised for their view of Scripture in some regard for they viewed it as the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God. That is something with which I will agree. However, where they err is when they say that they want to interpret some parts of the Bible literally when they should not; when this is done, harm is done to the meaning of the text. Let me explain. When one reads a history textbook they are to read it as a history textbook; when one reads poetry, one is to read it as poetry. To extract the intended meaning out of a chapter in the history text one cannot read it as poetry, i.e. by searching for literary devices, focusing on meter, etc. To do so would be absurd. Likewise, one should not read poetry as one would a history textbook, as factual prose intended to be taken literally. One will miss the entire meaning of the poem if this is done. This is exactly what the Dispensationalist goes wrong, reading one genre in a way in which the genre should not be read. This becomes a problem because much of what Dispensationalists base their system of eschatology on is found in the books of Daniel and Revelation, which are examples of Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature uses vivid imagery and heavy symbolism to convey a simple message and should not be read in the same way that narrative, history, or even prophecy is read. Using all of the symbols of the book of Revelation as if they have a one-to-one relationship with something in the future was not the intention John when he wrote it. The symbolism and imagery is meant to convey this simple theme: the Church must persevere through hardship for many will seek to over throw her, but Christ the Lord shall prevail over all the Church's foes when He comes again in judgement.


Thirdly, Dispensational teaching states that Israel, i.e. the Jewish people, is God's chosen people even into the New Covenant era. This, however, establishes a two fold covenant by which God works, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, though Paul seems pretty adamant about abolishing the Jew/Gentile distinction concerning admittance into the one Covenant that is entered into by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). With that said, it should be noted that Israel is God's chosen people, but Israel understood in light of the New Covenant is the Church of Christ. In other words, I am Christian, therefore, I have been granted the covenant promises reserved for Israel in the Old Covenant and am metaphorically an Israelite. This is why Paul, writing to Gentiles and Jews, states in Romans 4:11,16 that Abraham is the father of all those who believe in Christ. Bloodline does not matter; nationality does not matter; Christ matters and breaks down the Jew/Gentile covenantal distinction. If a Jewish person believes in Christ, he is proven to be one of God's chosen people; if a Jewish person does not believe in Christ, he is proven not to be one of God's chosen people (Romans 9:6). Also see Romans 11 showing the ingrafting of Gentiles into Israel.


Fourthly, along with the teaching of Israel, Dispensationalism proclaims that the last days, the faithful Jews will reestablish the sacrificial system that will continue even after the establishment the millennial kingdom. This makes no sense for Hebrews 10 clearly exclaims that Christ has fulfilled the sacrificial system through His once for all sacrifice. To say that the sacrificial system must be re-instituted in the millennial kingdom implies that Christ's sacrifice was not enough for those chosen by the Father.


Fifthly, the Dispensational understanding of the "secret rapture" adds to the teaching of the second coming of Christ. According to the teaching of the "secret rapture" in pre-tribulation, pre-millennialism Dispensationalism, Christ will come again to first call the dead saints and then will secretly "rapture" (from the Latin "raptare" which means "to snach" or "to seize") the living saints prior to the seven year tribulation. After that period of seven years, Jesus will come back to judge. Now, if Christ comes back for the secret rapture and then comes back again to judge, would that not mean that there are two returnings of Christ? I do believe that if Christ will come back to earth twice that the Scriptures would declare that He will do so; however, only one return is evidenced in Scripture. Also, there are no Scriptures that teach the "secret rapture" of the saints. The ones that supposedly do are taken out of context, such as Matthew 24:31-44, or are not understood in light of the Roman cultural analogies that are instituted in the text, 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff. Scripture tells us that Christ will come to judge, not that He will come to take us a way to Heaven for a little while and then come again to judge.


Fundamentally, this is what I do believe. Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. Christ will give all of His saints, dead and living, who are united to Him by faith, glorified bodies and will continue His reign of the His Kingdom, the Church, physically when He does come back. The wicked shall be cast into Hell. Most of all, God will be glorified in all of these things, in salvation and in judgement.

"’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest."

 "The Churches One Foundation" by Samuel J. Stone

SDG

The Scientific Method, Reason, and the Self-Authenticating Source

The term "science" has an interesting usage in today's modern/postmodern culture. Its original usage finds it's roots in the Latin word scientia and was used to denote any sort of knowledge that is gained. One begins to see a shift in the usage of the term after the division between deductive and inductive reasoning, the modes of inquiry instituted within Rationalism and Empiricism respectively. With Rationalism, one can know something through reason alone, through the means of theoretical, abstract thought with logic as their guide. With Empiricism (at least in justificatory Empiricism), one can only know something through sensation, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc. Of these two schools of thought concerning how one can know something indubitably, i.e. without doubt, the latter, justificatory Empiricism, has won the most esteemed position in the modern era. This, at least by today's understanding, is what constitutes as "real Science" (with a capital "s"). Thus, when ever one takes a "Science" class or hears of someone who is a "Scientist," this is the underlying presupposition upon which those words are built: to know anything indubitably, one must use empirical experimentation to find out what is factual, what is the truth.


Because of the claim that if one is a "Scientist" or studies and believes in what "Science" tells them that they are professors and believers in what is True (with a capital "t"), the term "science" finds a new usage; it has become a badge of credibility. In academia, if a department wants to be viewed highly, "Science" better be in the title. That is why you do not find "Biology" departments anymore but "Biological Sciences" departments. Also, one does not merely study politics or government but "Political Science." Or what of the dominating trump card that some may pull out in argumentation: "You should agree with me. I'm a Scientist!" Other examples can be given, but the main point is this: the connotative meaning of "Science" has traveled a long way from it's humble beginnings as scientia.


Now, of course, I do not mean this in a spiteful way toward Science and it's practitioners; this is purely observational. However, I do not like the fact that Science has a monopoly on "truth" (not that it does, it merely claims this). Furthermore, I am not here to say that theology and Science are enemies against one another, like parties on both sides of the battle line have declared. What I am here to address is the foundation of method in Science from a epistemological, theological level. 


As the reader may know, Science would not have it's seemingly heavy handed grasp over objective truth if it was not for it's method. As the Scientist wants to know what is true, there must be something that connects the subject to the object. This connector has been given a name in academia and even the honor of being capitalized: the Scientific Method (SM). Now, there are those who believe that this method is a valid means of finding the truth; I am of this persuasion. I believe that the SM, within the limits placed upon it by it's being a form of induction, is a means through which we can know the truth. However, there is a large difference between my position and that of what can only be properly called "Scientism." Scientism should be understood as the belief that the SM is not only a valid means of determining the truth, but is the only means of determining the truth. One can believe the results sensory experimentation alone. If one can not observe something, then that something cannot have veristic qualities because it cannot be observed and tested empirically. 


Of course this understanding within Scientism is completely contrary to belief in the existence of God. God is spirit (John 4:24), i.e. He can not be observed through sense perception. As this is the case, one cannot possibly believe in His existence and hold to Scientism. This would be a blatant contradiction: "I believe that only that which is empirically observable can be deemed as true, and I believe in the existence of Him Who cannot be empirically observed to be true." Now, of course, some might say that His existence is evident from His handiwork; after all "the heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalm 19:1). Yet, as God, normally yet not always, works mediately in moving and sustaining the cosmos, i.e. through the use of means, secondary causes, and not through immediate, observable ways, Scientism is not satisfied. Even if such an immediate, spectacular act of God happens, such as a supernatural healing or the like, the believer in Scientism, having ruled out the possibility of the existence of God on the basis of SM, will work upon that ruling presupposition that there is no God and seek an empirically valid explanation for the unexplainable occurrence.


It is this understanding of the SM, the view of Scientism, that I shall address in the remainder of this post. Indeed, I hope to show that such a view of the SM is completely absurd and that the SM must lean upon firmer foundations based outside of the realm of justificatory Empiricism, namely logic and, ultimately, the existence God Himself. In conclusion, I will attempt to point out some necessary consequences of denying what can be called the epistemo-Theological foundation of truth, i.e. that God is the source of all truth.


I first want to make the claim that when arguing for the source of truth, circularity within the argument will necessarily come about. One has undoubtedly heard of the typical, strawman circular argument attributed to the divine origin of the Bible. When one asks a Christian why they believe the Bible to be the holy Word of God they answer, "Because God wrote it." When asked further as to how they know that God wrote it, they answer, "Because the Bible said that He did." Such an argument is fallacious according to the majority; any argument that makes this move is automatically invalid without checking the truth claims of the premises for the source of the truth claim is found within the premise one is trying to prove to be true. 


Generally, the only way that validity can be had in proving something, especially concerning the source of truth claims, is if one appeals to something higher, i.e. more authoritative, than that for which is being argued. If one has done any sort of academic writing then one has seen this principle enacted. If I state an obscure or little known fact within, my essay my authority is not sufficient enough in order to elicit approval from my professor. However, if I appeal to a higher authority, i.e. a scholar that has dealt at length with the subject matter of my essay, through citation, then the obscure or little known fact is given validity.


However, I propose that there is a way in which one can use such a circular argument and get away with it. One can institute a self-authenticating source in order to justify the circularity of the argument. If a premise is self-justifying, then it needs no other qualification to make it valid. 


For example, the modus ponens argument "if A then B. A; Therefore, B" (A⊃B/A//B) shows that the truth value of B depends upon the truth value of A. The source of B's truthfulness is A. But what about A's truth value? The answer to the question of A's truth value is one of four possibilities: 1.) A's truth value depends on something else, 2.) it's truth value is false by default (at worst) because it cannot be proven to be true, 3.) it's truth value depends upon itself making it susceptible to circular reasoning (meaning that A could be true that fact cannot be known), or 4.) it's truth value depends upon upon itself and it is a self-authenticating source of truth. 1.) Let us suppose that there is nothing higher to which A can appeal. 2.) If A is false because one needs full justification for it's truth value, then it cannot be used in the prior argument (A⊃B/A//B). Also, further arguments, such as "if B then C" would have a negative truth value because the argument ultimately depends upon the truth of A. In other words "not A" (~A). 3.) If A can only be justified by circularity, it would look like this: "if A then A. A; Therefore, A" (A⊃A/A//A). Because of that tiny, nearly insignificant word "if", A cannot be trusted as true. A paralyzing skepticism of the truth value of A, as it cannot be verified or proven false, must come. 4.) If A is intrinsically true then no justification is needed; it is a self-authenticating source of truth. It needs no justification; the argument is simply "A" with a positive truth value as the only possibility and unquestionable validity. Indeed, option four is the only way in which one can escape logical nihilism or complete, debilitating skepticism if A is the last possible source of truth, the end of the road for inquiry unless one believes that the source of truth goes ad infinitum.


Now, enough of the propositional mumbo jumbo. How does one apply this to Scientism and it's usage of the SM as the only means through which one can obtain truth? Well, the truth value of their claim that the SM is the only means to acquire truth must be challenged. Is it true that the SM is the exclusive means to gaining truth? How does one prove such a claim? Of course, if the SM is the singular method of gaining truth, then it must fall under it's own scrutiny, i.e. one must use the SM to test itself. This, of course, assumes that the SM is a valid method prior to the knowledge of it's truthfulness and thus begs the question of it's truth value. As there is nothing that can validate the SM but it's own empirical method, the SM 1 must be false because there is no higher level of truth by which one can justify it, 2 must be deemed as having an unverifiable truth value which rightfully warrants skepticism, or 3 is a self-authenticating source of truth. The logical conclusion, for the adherent of Scientism who cannot believe in the positive truth value of something unless it is confirmed by the empirical process of the SM, is 2. If they conclude that it is true that God cannot exist because they can not use experimentation in order to prove His existence, i.e. the truth of His existence lacks justification, then, if they are consistent, they must deny the truthfulness of the SM as it too cannot be verified through experimentation. Notice, too, that if the SM is the only means to gain knowledge and they deny it as valid, then no means to gain knowledge is available. Thus one is left with epistemological nihilism; we can know nothing. 3 could work; however, they must change their view of God from a definitive, atheistic position to an agnostic position in order to be consistent, saying, "We don't know if the SM can give us a knowledge of the truth, and we do not know if it is true that God exists." Their presupposition about the gaining of truth must fundamentally change their understanding about the truthfulness about God's existence. 4 seems improbable; of course, though, by doing this, they would have to conclude that there is a God, a self-authenticating source, and that God is the SM. They become theists, ultimately, for the SM is "the way, the truth, and the life."

But to avoid these problems, 1 must suffice for it is doubtful that the pride of the Scientism believer will allow 2-4 to become their doctrine concerning the SM. Yet, by doing this, they fundamentally deny their basic premise, that the SM is the only means to gain a knowledge of the truth for they have to rely on a higher authority than the SM itself. Ultimately, through merely looking at the logical outcomes of the possibilities, Scientisms must change it's beliefs in some way to be consistent.

Choosing option 1, then, requires one to find a higher source of truth by which to judge the SM. In the end, one must turn to reason, i.e. theoretical reason/logic, to give redeem the SM. As the SM cannot stand by itself, logic then must now take it's place. In other words, the six centuries of division between Rationalists and justificatory Empiricists was for nothing because justificatory Empiricists must ultimately work with borrowed equipment. The reductio ad absurdum of justificatory Empiricism leads Rationalism, epistemological nihilism, epistemological agnosticism, or a belief in a deity, a self-authenticating source of truth.

But what about logic? It, too, come under the same scrutiny as did the SM. Can logic prove that logic is a means by which one can know the truth? Can one write a syllogism in order to prove this without question? I'm afraid that it will fall on its own as well, just as the SM. Indeed, if using the same reason as above, one must come to the same conclusion as one did with SM; however, there is a slight difference. To what can logic appeal in order to gain verification? It obviously cannot appeal to the SM for that would only make the circular argument larger for the SM needs reason to be true.

2 would have to lead in the denial of objective truth leading to a world of despair, absurdity, and complete nothingness. One would have to fall into the camp of Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, and Kafka where subjectivity is all that there is. Indeed, not only is ethics lost but also Science itself. Nothingness. Bare nothingness.

3 would not be very satisfactory either. No definitive truth claim could be made because reason is bound by the conjunction "if." "There could be truth, but we can't know for sure." Once again, the objectivity of truth is lost, not because of the dismissal of truth itself, but because of ignorance concerning it's existence or lack thereof. Once again, such can only to an absurdity much like that found in 2.

4 would bring one into a Aristotelian mindset. Logic is God, the self-authenticating source. Yet this, too, does not seem satisfactory for the nature of Aristotle's God doesn't seem to qualify here.

But what if the truthfulness of reason did appeal to something outside itself for truth verification? What if there was a possibility for 1 to be the answer for logic as it was for SM? What if truth was transcendent above, not a free floating abstraction, but a Person (or Persons), the self-authenticating Source, the God who is there? The great "I AM" whose very name declares His own sufficiency (Exodus 3:14)? Who revealed Himself through His Son who is "the truth" (John 14:6)? Who is God, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:5-7)?

The fact of the matter is that there are only two options for all people, even those in Scientism: absurdity found within either the disbelief in or the skepticism against truth or objective truth found only in belief in the existence of God, particularly the God who declares Himself to be the fountain of truth, who fits perfectly within the schema of inquiry, the God of the Christian Scriptures. One cannot logically believe in logic without His existence, and one cannot know ultimate truth without knowing Him.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum


Soli Deo Gloria