A Case for the Rapture

I) Surprise
My main focus is on Jesus' description of the Day of the Lord coming “as a thief in the night” (Matt 24:42, Luke 12:40 – there is no reference in Mark or John; Jesus refers to it again in Rev 16:15).

The apostles continue using this phrase in 1 Thes 5:2, and 2 Pet 3:10.  (2 Thes 2 also talks some about the Coming of our Lord.)

Matthew says "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come" (Luke is similar in content).

It might be argued from 1 Thes 5:4 that Christians can know the hour (that it is non-Christians who are taken by surprise), but verse 6 still calls for us to be watchful – there is no mention of any events for us to look for which would signal the Second Coming.

We see the opposite in 2 Thes 2.  Apparently, some false teachers told the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord was upon them (v2, they had been in effect “left behind”).  Here Paul proves to them they are not in the last days, as there would be several very clear signs.

The other possible counterpoint is Rev 3:3 (letter to Sardis).  Here the context is not the Day of the Lord; but related – judgment against a local church.

II) The Fullness of Wrath in Judgment
This is counterbalanced by the giving of several very specific time frames for events during the Great Tribulation, as God's wrath is poured out through many specific, supernatural signs.

For example:
Rev 9:5  - 5 months
Rev 11:3 - 1260 days
Rev 13:5 - 42 months

Additionally, there are the events of the 21 judgments which are played out sequentially.  Many charts have been drawn up which detail much of this period, and which could be used to reliably determine the coming of Jesus.

III) Contradiction?
So then, we have an apparent contradiction – Jesus comes as a thief in the night, totally unexpected.  Yet, we have Jesus' coming preceded by very specific, well-timed events (of unmistakeably supernatural proportions).

How can we resolve this contradiction?

The Rapture comes as a thief in the night, where we are “gathered unto Him” for we are “not appointed unto wrath”, and at some point after, the well-timed events begin their march to the close of history.  The wrath of God poured out unto judgment.

The Baptism Problem

(I've meant to write on this for some time, since my original posts on baptism. A recent post on Internet Monk makes this a good a time as any.)

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19

This is Jesus' direct command for us to baptize people. Apparently a tiny minority of people believe that baptism is no longer necessary, but the vast majority of Christians believe baptism is for today.

However, there is much disagreement about the how (or mode) and why of baptism. I have little concern for the mode (because of the why).

I am going to group everyone into one of two categories by "why":

1. Paedo-baptists (literally "child baptizers"): those who teach some form of baptism for children (especially infants), for whatever reason
2. Credo-baptists (literally "creed baptizers"): those who teach only those who can declare allegiance to some creed should be baptized

Interestingly, the New Testament only gives examples of adult converts to Christianity. There are no teachings for what to do about children. This makes it very hard to determine the best doctrine.

Tradition is certainly on the side of paedo-baptists. By about 400, paedo-baptism was the norm. This continued until the radical reformers (anabaptists), who were disliked even by the other reformers (Calvin and Luther).

An interesting note from Wikipedia:

'Although there is some modern controversy about the form of baptism, there is overwhelming evidence, and an impressive consensus, that the early Christian baptism was by immersion, and only for those old enough to make a profession of faith.' (North, 'A History of the Church: From Pentecost to present', 1983), p. 26

Against Pietism

I previously wrote on the tension between Legalism and Antimonialism.

There is a similar tension between extreme Pietism and Antimonialism.

The legalist forms a codified set of rules which must be obeyed to demonstrate one's salvation.

The pietist has no such set of rules. Rather, they look for trends of outward behavior (usually framed as "separation from the world" or "sanctification").

Of course, this is much worse.

At least you know where you stand with a legalist (you have violated Section 21.36.14b through g, and Sections 131 through 135).

The pietist can simply say, "You haven't improved enough" or "You're of the world".

Everything you enjoy, is "of the world", and must be done away with, "for your spiritual well-being". Any enjoyment of things from before conversion, is "reversion" or, worse, "sin".


The disproof of this stand is easy enough. It focuses on judging our brothers, rather than helping them. Also, it allows for the identification of tares - which is explicitly forbidden by Matthew 13:25-30.

The real irony is that the pietist is no better than his brother. It's a classic case of Matthew 7. Of course, if you try to point this out - or worse, to point out your brother's sin, the pietist has a long list of your "sins" to hold against you - while ignoring his own.

On Pietism

(this is different, but related to the religious movement Pietism, related to Methodism)
I previously wrote on the tension between Legalism and Antimonialism.

There is a similar tension between Pietism and Antimonialism.

The pietist looks for outward signs of conversion (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Rom 6).

Piety is a good thing. As Christians (new men) we should show the effects of this new-ness. We should strive to be good examples (ambassadors) of our Lord (Col 3:17).

There should be something in our daily living which leads people to ask "the reason for the hope in us" (1 Peter 3:15).

Similarly, a nation of Christians should show it. The "Protestant Work Ethic" should be more than tradition or a drive to get more for ourselves. It should be driven by theology.

Sabbath Keeping

I have been intentionally avoiding this topic, but this bizarre news from France deserves comment.

First a little history: France has been historically dominated by the Catholic Church. There was a brief time during the Reformation, when French Calvinists (called Huguenots) attempted to become dominant. Protestantism was basically illegal, until just before the French Revolution (which was basically atheistic). After the end of the Revolution, modernism was in full swing, and it is hard to imagine religion of any kind having much hold.

Which brings us to a bizarre law from 1906 which "forbids Sunday trading in all but the largest cities".

Even more bizarre is the opposition to lifting the ban, although it is stemming from labor unions and socialists for economic and political reasons, rather than religious.

Two questions then:

1. Are Christians required to keep the Sabbath?
2. Is Sunday the Sabbath day?

I'll take the second question first, because it is easier - no. "Sabbath" means rest, and Saturday (the seventh day) is the day of rest, instituted by God at Creation (before the Fall, before Moses gave the Ten Commandments). It hasn't changed, and cannot be changed.

Okay, so why do I go to church on Sunday - and why am I not in an Adventist church? - essentially, the first question.

The Sabbath is a shadow, a sign pointing forward.

Jesus Christ is our rest.

I "keep the Sabbath" by keeping in Jesus Christ.

The Danger of Continualism

iMonk is always beset by Catholics trying to convert him. I have my occasional running battle with atheists.

Over at Pyromaniacs, they fight with anyone who isn't strictly orthodox - although there seems to be a trend towards emergents and continualists (the opposite of cessationist).

Of course, this leads to more polemical posts against them, and additional reading of books (to explore the state of the church).

Digging through my archives, I found this interesting post (from April).

This really captures the dangerous aspects of this theology. I can attest that the dangers Dan speaks of here are real - there are people who are being negatively impacted by this dangerous theology.

God's Will vs. Free Will

How do we reconcile an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God with the evil in the world? How does our free will compete with God's omnipotence?

Some people like to refer to different types of God's will (using words like "decretive", "preceptive", and "permissive"; or "perfect", "providential", and "permissive"). I prefer to talk about "God's will" and "God's plan".

God's will is what God wants. God wants for us to be perfect, just as He is perfect. God also wants to glorify Himself, and that is going to happen. God's will may or may not come to pass (this includes "decretive" [decreed - what God says happens] and part of "preceptive" [precept, commanded]).

God's plan is what happens (The rest of "preceptive" and all of "permissive"). This includes good things (which are in God's will) and bad things (which God permits to happen).

God permits us our free will. Even when it contradicts His will. But God is in control. He can use bad events to bring people to Him. These bad things remind us that the world is fallen. That we need God.

Legalism vs. Antimonialism

Antimonialism is an old word you don't hear very often. Literally, it is "against the law". It is characterized by people who believe they do not need to change their lives as a Christian. These people deny the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and live in sin, contradicting their statements of faith.

Legalism is the opposite extreme. A legalist raises our works (actions) to the point of salvation. In other words, "follow our rules or you're not saved". We are all born under the crushing weight of the Law. A burden which we cannot carry, which ultimately leads to death. When we are saved, we are released from this burden. The legalist returns to this burden.


The Bible makes it clear the proper course is through the middle. Our lives are too complicated to be governed by a set of rules. As Christians, we have freedom. But not everything is good for us. And we must not use our freedom to cause others to stumble or to keep people from hearing the Good News. At the same time, we must place God's will first. We know His will by being steeped in His Word, and applying Biblical principles. We should not be breaking the Ten Commandments. We should be loving others.

New Tag: Tension

This tag will be similar to "Controversy". In a controversy, one side is right and one is wrong, but we can't tell right now. Tension represents a situation with two extremes, where one must maintain the middle road.

Arminianism vs. Calvinism

On a thread at the helives blog, I mentioned Arminianism vs. Calvinism in a discussion with David W. I am providing more detail here, since it is off topic for that thread.

The Arminianism / Calvinism debate stems from the tension between our self will and God's authority in salvation.

The hyper-Arminian (extreme case) believes that salvation is a choice entirely up to us. That God offers salvation to all, and some choose God, and some choose themselves. The choice of self leads to an enternity separated from God, which is described as Hell.

The hyper-Calvinist believes God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation. Our own choices play no part. Some could go as far as to say that evangelism is just a symbolic ritual, as those who would be saved, will be.

In reality, everyone falls somewhere in between. I spent a lot of time close to the hyper-Arminian position. It was only recently, upon deeper investigation of scripture, that I have adopted a fairly well-seated Calvinist position. This shows up some in my post, "Why the Gospel does not make sense".