Refuting Partial Rapture

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

monoergon

Puritan Board Freshman
Dear brothers and sisters,
I would like to ask you to pin point me to academic sources that, preferably, specifically refute the following two theological heresies:

1. Partial Rapture
It basically teaches that Christians that were faithful to God and had performed good deeds, will be raptured before the reign of the antichrist. Carnal Christians will not be raptured.

1.1 Millennial Exclusion/Kingdom Exclusion
It basically teaches that after the death of the carnal Christians that were not raptured, God will send them to the "outer darkness", which is interpreted as hell. Such Christians will spend a literal 1,000 years being chastised (disciplined) by God.

Reason: In the peripheries of Brazil, I have friends and colleagues that are being taught the two heresies mentioned above and that are dogmatically believing in them. I am having trouble finding refutations to both theological heresies. Any sources you might direct me to will be helpful. They could be free articles, paid theological articles from academic journals, books etc.

It is worth mentioning that such heresies are still taught in the U.S. as well. For example, see J.D. Faust's book on this source.

In Christ,
Nathan
 
The simplest thing is that none of this 'rapture' junk is found in Scripture. Ask them to prove that and their subsequent doctrinal reformulations of it.
Ask them where is this cleansing millennium they talk about or that those who performed good deeds (who does deeds that are wholely good? Who shall stand?) are only those raptured aside from proving there is a rapture.
 
Hi Nathan

I went to your link and had a good chuckle.
(check out chapter seven)


CHAPTER 7 Page 57
MILLENNIAL COUNTERFEITS Page 57
The Premillennial Truth Page 59
The Amillennial Error Page 60
The Postmillennial Error Page 61
How the lights went out Page 62

How anyone could ever manage to refute the Amill and Postmill positions in one single page, already speaks volumes on the kind of exegesis you can expect from this dispensational nonsense. (I can't believe I actually used to read stuff like this)

My advice would be similar to Trent's but if you are looking for a good critique of the Dispensationalist viewpont.

A Case For Amillennialism (has plenty of stuff in it and is easy to read)

A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

And here is a link to a free book by Gary North from a post mill perspective.

Rapture Fever

I haven't read North's book but he's always fun to read.

Blessings in Christ on your further studies :)
 
I think it might be profitable to go to the root of where all this garbage comes from. These are just some bad fruit of fundamentally wrong theology. It almost certainly comes from something often known as the Free Grace movement.* The Free Grace Evangelical Society is one organization that seems pretty well-known pushing this type of theology. Zane Hodges, Earl Radamacher, and more recently Bob Wilkins seem to be the ringleaders. The two issues you bring up are their way of avoiding verses that are problematic to their overall theological system. The core of their belief is that, since the Bible is clear salvation is by grace and no works, it must be obtainable through no works whatsoever, aside from some level of belief. Repentance, loving God, perseverance, bearing fruit are optional.

Here's my take on where it came from. Around a century ago, a number of demoninations were solidly Calvinistic and taught the doctrines of Grace. As theology became less popular, eternal security gradually replaced Perseverance, solidly Arminian teaching crept in under the guise of moderate Calvinism, and people in those churches gradually considered themselves N-point Calvinists (where N = 1-4). Theology was sufficiently poorly grasped that it didn't occur to them it doesn't make any logical sense to be (say) a 3-point Calvinist. I grew up in such an environment.

Then, intelligent people immersed in this system started noticing that a number of verses didn't fit with the theology they had been taught. Their concept of eternal security was rather hard to reconcile with a number of verses. They started to try to develop a theology that fit with what they had understood to be true their whole lives. Reading their books is rather interesting. They are constantly having to figure out for the first time how significant parts of the Bible work. New discoveries abound! But I digress.

Anyway, trying to approach the Bible with whatever parts of Calvinism they don't find offensive integrated (with bailing twine and duct tape) into an Arminian system, they are confronted with a number of verses that challenge their theology. Some of Jesus parables suggest individuals who, at one point, believed, are cast into outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus obviously couldn't mean that they eternally condemned as they were eternally secure. So, Jesus must have instead meant they would be in outer darkness during the millennial reign. Kinda like purgatory, but probably different somehow. But they still get to go to heaven afterwards. I suppose Christ's atonement only mostly covered their sins. Anyway, that's where the millennial exclusion you mention in the second point comes from. They don't believe it for it's own sake, but because it is necessary to keep verses elsewhere from saying what they clearly say. I hadn't heard the partial rapture one, but I would bet it comes up for similar reasons.

Again, I wouldn't focus on the oddities they believe that you mention above; kill the root which is likely something resembling Free Grace theology. There is an excellent and accurate description of it on Monergism as well as good sets of verses that show the problems with the theology.

Response to the "Free Grace" Movement by Phillip L Simpson

Hope that helps.
 
Thank you Paul1976, you nailed the root of the heresy. Thank you all for taking the time to recommend these valuable sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top