Afraid You’ll be Left Behind? The Rapture Trap.

In 1980, I was 13 years old, and someone had given me a copy of Hal Lindsey's mega-selling The Late Great Planet Earth to read. The Soviets were in Afghanistan, the American hostages were in Tehran, I had become fixated on the fear of nuclear war and — suddenly, thanks to Late Great, the chaos all made sense. There was no need to be afraid. This was all part of God's plan. Accept Jesus as your personal savior, and you wouldn't have to suffer through the worst of what was to come, for you would be spirited away in the Rapture. And if you didn't — well, too bad for you when the Antichrist comes knocking.

The premillenial Rapture is the belief, held by many Protestant Christians, that believers will, "in the twinkling of an eye," be taken body and soul into heaven to meet Jesus Christ — this, just as the world is on the brink of seven years of unprecedented suffering and strife, preceding the Second Coming and the end of history. If you think the end of the world is upon us, it's easy to see why believing you won't have to suffer the worst of it would be calming. On the other hand, you might exchange one set of fears for another. When I was in Late Great's grip, I would wake up every morning in a mild state of panic, wondering if the Rapture had happened while you were sleeping, and I'd been … left behind!

I don't believe in the premillenial Rapture anymore, but it's easy to see why so many people want to. For Christians and others whose religious beliefs predict an apocalyptic final act (even Islam and the New Age have their own versions), these days are unusually anxious. It isn't difficult to find in today's headlines — wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters, plagues, religious strife and technology run amok — evidence for the belief that history is quickening toward some sort of climax.

No wonder, then, that the same sensational theological teachings that excited believers in the 1970s and earlier are more popular than ever. The Left Behind fiction series, whose title refers to those who weren't raptured before the Apocalypse, may well be the best-selling Christian books of all time, not counting the Bible.

Given the amount of popular publicity given to the Rapture and its attendant doctrines, it may surprise (and disappoint) many Christians to learn that this set of beliefs, generally called "dispensationalism," is not explicitly taught by the Bible, nor has ever been widely held by Christians.

In fact, neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy, which together include most of the world's Christians who live now and who have ever lived, profess dispensationalist eschatology (which means the study of the End Times). The Rapture is also alien to the historical Protestant confessions (as this story from a Baptist newspaper makes clear). Martin Luther had never heard of such a thing, nor had John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, or any other Protestant divine until a pair of 19th-century British small-sect pastors developed the notion apparently independent of each other. One of the men, John Nelson Darby, traveled widely in North America between 1859 and 1874, where his dispensationalist teachings spread like wildfire. (For a more detailed explanation of this theology from a dispensationalist viewpoint, go here and here)

Given world events, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, the dispensationalist fire continues to roar among Christians, who understandably want to know if today's headlines can be explained and tomorrow's headlines can be predicted from ancient Scripture. Unfortunately, many Christians are under the impression that dispensationalist teaching — on Christianity's theological fringe, historically speaking — is the first and last word on the matter. Most Catholic priests, as well as their mainline Protestant counterparts, downplay or ignore their congregations' natural — and sociologically predictable — interest in the End Times, leaving lay believers open to instruction by those who, however misguided, take it seriously. That's why Paul Thigpen, a Yale-trained religious historian and Catholic convert, wrote The Rapture Trap.

"I began to see so many Catholics taken in by this Left Behind stuff, because they've had no religious instruction in eschatology," Thigpen tells NRO. "In so many parishes the homilies are like, 'Love your neighbor, be nice.' If priests never get around to talking about who Jesus is, there's no way they're ever going to get around to talking about the Second Coming."

Though he writes from a Catholic perspective, Thigpen, an ex-Pentecostal and former editor of Charisma magazine, takes care to demonstrate in the book how none of the leaders of the Reformation believed in the Rapture. He says the "historical myopia" of American culture leaves people vulnerable to those who can exploit ignorance of the past with convincing presentations of vivid theologies. Besides, America has always been fertile ground for apocalyptic religion.

"In the early days, the Puritans thought the Kingdom of God would start in North America, in their colony," Thigpen says. "We have several large denominations in America, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who owe their existence to millennial fervor."

Eschatalogically-focused expressions of faith have swelled in popularity during times of social distress and dislocation, such as after the Civil War, and during the period of rapid industrialization and immigration. There was another great surge of it following World War II, says Thigpen, and again in the 1970s, as a reaction to countercultural upheaval. The dispensationalist apologetic The Late Great Planet Earth was the best-selling nonfiction book of the decade, and though he has never apologized for his erroneous predictions in that book, author Hal Lindsey continues to be considered by many an authority on Biblical prophecy. Being a dispensationalist evangelist means never having to say you're sorry.

Why should any of this matter? As I wrote this past summer, apocalyptic beliefs dictate the behavior of many true believers. American dispensationalists were early non-Jewish supporters of Zionism, believing that the ingathering of diaspora Jews to their Biblical homeland was a necessary precursor for the return of Christ. Though many Evangelicals and other Christians support Israel today for other reasons, no small number of them do so because their end-times belief mandates it. Thigpen is not so much worried that Rapture-expecting Christians will blow up Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock to hasten Armageddon as he is concerned about the spiritual harm that may result from acceptance of dispensationalist beliefs.

"When times look tough and threatening, perhaps people find a comfort in believing in the Rapture, that God will help them escape events before they become too bad," Thigpen says. "Ideas have consequences. One, the Rapture doctrine ignores the redemptive power of suffering, which is a powerful Christian theme. Two, the Bible also shows that God chastises His people as well as their enemies; believers share in suffering as well. Three, if people wrongly believe Christians won't be around for the persecution that Scripture tells us will precede the Second Coming, they won't prepare themselves spiritually or otherwise."

Just because Catholicism doesn't teach the Rapture or focus on end-times prophecy doesn't mean the Catholic world has escaped popular apocalypticism. The particularly Catholic version comes as a mania for apocalypse-centered apparitions and private revelations claimed by contemporary visionaries. The Rapture Trap writes of the spiritual danger of uncritically accepting such claims, and offers discernment guidelines drawn from Catholicism's conservative tradition.

"What we're dealing with are people who are scared and confused by what's going on in the world today, and who aren't getting the information they need to separate what's real from what's vain and even harmful speculation," Thigpen says. "As Christians, we believe Jesus is coming back, and we have to be ready for that to happen at any moment. But this game of 'plug the headline into the Scripture verse,' or into the latest message from a supposed apparition, is a losing proposition."

He was standing in his human body when he saId "this is my body" was it his physical body or not?

Hmmm, oh yeah. You must have forgot He is God. He can rise from the dead. He can walk on water. He can change water into wine. He can judge the living and the dead. He can do anything He wants to do. He says exactly what he means.

What's your point, Mom? Election? Don't keep me guessing! My point was fairly clear. It quoted only two of many of the sources from the early fathers that attest to the belief in the transubstantiated (real presence) Eucharist. You show me any references that explicitly refute it and support your interpretation of the scriptures.

Most of the fathers I've read. (front to back) I certainly don't consider Luther a father of the Church. He was a heretic.

If you're trying to prove Calvinist predestination and no free will from the fathers, you won't get me to buy it. These quotes are wrenched out of context. You place Augustine in a predestination definition he never gave and make him a Calvinist, which he never was.

I see the fathers as a whole, not from a predetermined Protestant bias. Fourteen years ago I set out to become either a good catholic or a good protestant. I read the scriptures and then the fathers to see what that was. They always came up as Catholic. That's why I have to reject the newer innovations of the so-called reformers.

The reason it is important when it became doctrine is before that time it was the option of the Catholic to believe it or not..after that date if you were a Catholic you were bound to believe it..So the early church was not of one voice on that ...and that is significant

BTW I do not think that believing one way or another is a matter of salvation..but you seem to think it is??

Then it was NOT his real flesh and blood (as he was using it) but a spiritual flesh and blood?

My point is that you quoted a couple of men that says it was actual body of Christ..and you want me to accept the doctrine based on that ?? I can present proof that the early church believed in predestinated election..but you reject that

Either EVERYTHING the fathers said was absolutley true or they were subject to error ..which is it?

Twenty six years ago I asked God to show me who He was, and who Jesus was...and instead He showed me who I was..a totally unregenerate filthy piece of junk..and when I saw that I fell at His feet ...and said Lord how can you love one such as I?...And in His grace and mercy he saved me. He washed me and justified me and adopted me , He santified me and in His time He will glorify me..

No "church Fathers". The word of God and His Grace..

So now I ask you..How did the apostles eat the physical flesh and blood of Jesus when he was using it?

He kissed it ..the same mouth that takes communion and is supposed to preach the word of God kissed the work of a demon..I do not think that was pleasing to God to honor the work of a devil do you?

Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me

There are men (yes like Spurgeon) that I believe would cut their tongue out before doing that ..That kiss grew out of a spiritual confusion and a human desire to be loved and respected of men

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts." (I Thessalonians 2:3-4)

Yes I accept alot on faith.."By faith are saved, and that not of ourselves ,but a gift of God"

Des I do not think one is saved or damned by their doctrine on Eucharist..but it is a major difference between the Protestants and Catholics..

I believe it is a spiritual meeting with Christ..and that was what He was teaching .

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...so He must have meant it was. So I need to clarify why it would be necessary for Him to say it with words when it was clear to the apostles it could not have been His actual flesh..

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)

I can present proof that the early church believed in predestinated election..but you reject that

You presented no proof...but rather texts wrenched out of context to formulate your Calvinist version of election. I believe in unconditional election, albeit the Thomistic understanding...however, I don't duy the double predestination that you try to sell. And that is what is not in the early fathers.

But lets get back to the Eucharist. Show me the fathers that rejected the real presence and upheld your theology.

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)

Would you expand this thought, please.

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...so He must have meant it was. So I need to clarify why it would be necessary for Him to say it with words when it was clear to the apostles it could not have been His actual flesh..

Jesus is God. If He says it's His Flesh, it's His Flesh. Who are we to contradict Him?

All faith is not equal Des..there is a saving faith and non saving faith..so faith is not the "test" correct faith is:>)
Would you expand this thought, please.

Faith is the vehicle that takes you to the destination. Faith in and of itself does not save..it is the object of the faith that saves

We would both agree that the hindi is not saved by his faith in a cow..he has a non saving faith..

The kind of faith that saves is a gift of God

In English we have two words, "faith" and "belief," "Belief" is assent to testimony; "faith" includes both assent and trust.But it must be belief and trust in the correct "thing". or it doesn't save..it is an empty faith..

Earlier Colleen said Jesus never said he did not mean it was His actual body ...

Huh? I know I confuse myself, but please don't help me by mangling my words!

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate! He can do anything! He can create human beings! He can hear the prayers of billions of people at the same time - in different languages yet! When He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples and said "This is my body, which WILL be given up for you; do this in memory of me" - I believe Him.

I think where we all seem to be parting ways is what constitutes the "correct" person(s) in which to have faith.

And whether or not to accept mysteries on faith.

It's all a matter of faith, and how we practice that faith. And as Jesus said that it is not faith alone that which saves, I cannot accept that faith and acceptence of Christ as savior ALONE brings salvation. And we cannot know on earth whether or not we have achieved this.

Then it was NOT his real flesh and blood (as he was using it) but a spiritual flesh and blood?

No, that is what you interpret His words as meaning. I take His words at face value. He says what He means, nothing more, nothing less. He was talking to you when He said "It is the Spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail" - meaning, understand my words in the [Holy] Spirit, not with your human mind.

What about St. Paul? He took His Saviour's words at face value as well.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 says "Brothers and sisters: the cup of blessing we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?".
1 Corinthians 10:29 says "...because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation".
St. Paul also wrote: "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord" How can someone be guilty if these are only symbols?

Strong words for something that is only a symbol.

Jesus is God. If He says it's His Flesh, it's His Flesh. Who are we to contradict Him?

As I told Colleen , He also says He is the vine, the door , and living waters..are we to doubt that ?

Jesus taught in words and pictures that the Jews understood

They knew manna.., they knew of the OT teachings of the false shepherds, they understood the principle of the sheep door, They understood thirst..and that water was necessary for life..they knew that the vine was a symbol of Israel...Jesus taught from their common knowlege and culture

So when he taught in John 6 , He was telling them in words they would understand that He was God

At the Last Supper he was repeating that, but with a special twist

When the Jews, from the time of Abraham cut a covenant (where we get cut a deal from) , they slayed an animal and then both parties walked through the divided animals with the understanding that if either broke the covenant that is what would happen to the breaker..it was a kind of holy warning ,sealed in the blood of the animal. After that ceremony they sat and broke bread together to seal the covenant.

The last supper was such a ceremony .It was to mark the covenant....Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

We are still all waiting to dirnk that final cup with Him..

Well, as Christianity is a matter of free will, you are free to think what you want, but theologians, far more educated and knowledgible than me have said otherwise. I concur with them.

I do not understand your point..would you explain it?? I was not talking about Theology I was talking about personal faith ..how does what you say apply?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.