In Case of Rapture…

Have you ever seen that bumper sticker that says, “In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned…”? It’s based on the belief that at some point in the future, before the second coming of Christ, Jesus will stop by for a brief visit, and take all his favorite people back to heaven with him. Rapture theology goes on to say that there will be a lot of people who thought they were Christians, but they will be… “left behind.”

Once I even saw a painting, in which the artist was trying to depict the moment after the rapture, when all these cars and planes were crashing because apparently the drivers and pilots had all been “real” Christians. (If you check google, you can find some interesting images.)

In my book, The Wedding of the Lamb, I go into detail about why the concept of the rapture is not biblical, but for this week’s blog, the point I want to make gets to the heart of the matter behind this concept.

The real issue in rapture theology is that there are at least two classes of Christians (a concept invented by ancient heretics called Gnostics, by the way). There are the real Christians, who pass some test of authenticity so that when Jesus comes by for his pre-parousia pick-up, these folks have a seat on the bus to heaven. But then there are the others – those who thought they were Christians, but were not, presumably because they did not measure up to some standard of commitment. They are the Christians in name only, who never really accepted Christ. They do not have a seat on the bus, and they will have to wait for the next bus to come along, and hope that this other bus isn’t taking them to hell. In the time between the two busses, their task is to try again and get it right.

There are two main problems with rapture theology. The first is that, in terms of the interpretation of Scripture, it creates more problems than it solves. People who believe in the rapture can’t agree on when it will come (before a future tribulation, during this tribulation, after the tribulation, etc.), and while they all agree that Jesus will have to make two trips to accomplish his second coming, they all apparently don’t realize that by inserting this concept into the book of Revelation, they are calling down on themselves the curse of Revelation 22:18, “If anyone adds to [the words of this prophecy] God will add to that person the plagues that are written in this scroll.”

But the second, and perhaps more insidious, problem with rapture theology is that those who believe it presume to know that everyone’s experience of Christianity must be like their own. In other words, if you haven’t had the same kind of conversion experience, in which you have “accepted Jesus as your Savior,” then you will be “left behind.” The truth is, none of us can say that one person’s experience of God in Christ must be same as another’s. To do so is to limit the Holy Spirit.

However, I would not go to the other extreme and say that there is nothing that can be said to be normative for the Christian faith. The Christians of the early centuries worked very hard to define the Church, and Christianity itself, and so I would say that there are some boundaries, outside of which one cannot properly be called a Christian. But the test of authenticity for the Christian faith is not found in experience. In fact, as I said in Spiritual Blueprint, there are no two experiences of God that are the same, because God created us so that there are no two personalities that are the same. No, the test of authenticity is not so much in the individual, but it is more in the community.

What I mean by that is this: If a person was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and affirms the Nicene Creed, then that person is a Christian. One is initiated into the Body of Christ by water baptism, and then one remains in Christ (John 15:1-8) through the other sacraments, especially the Eucharist (or Holy Communion).

Evangelical Protestants are often heard asking Catholics if they have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. The correct answer is: every week, when Jesus Christ is accepted in the Eucharist. What else is a person doing when he or she receives communion, but receiving Christ, who said, “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…”?

The concept of the rapture is simply not biblical. What is biblical (and what is consistent with two millennia of tradition) is identification with Jesus Christ by baptism in the name of the Trinity. We become Christians through baptism, but while baptism may be a clean slate, it is not a free ride. So we remain Christians by remaining in Christ through the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Peace,

Jim Papandrea

www.JimPapandrea.com

Advertisements

About Jim Papandrea

Jim Papandrea is an author, educator, and singer/songwriter. Visit his website at: www.JimPapandrea.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to In Case of Rapture…

  1. Irv says:

    Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture !

    Many assert that the “rapture” promoted by evangelicals was first taught, at least seminally, by a Jesuit Catholic priest named Francisco Ribera in his 16th century commentary on the book of Revelation.
    To see what is claimed, Google “Francisco Ribera taught a rapture 45 days before the end of Antichrist’s future reign.” (Oddly, many claimants are anti-Catholic and merely use Ribera in order to “find” much earlier support for their rapture which actually isn’t found in any official Christian theology or organized church before 1830!)
    After seeing this claim repeated endlessly without even one sentence from Ribera offered as proof, one widely known church historian decided to go over every page in Ribera’s 640-page work published in Latin in 1593.
    After laboriously searching for the Latin equivalent of “45 days” (“quadraginta quinque dies”), “rapture” (“raptu,” “raptio,” “rapiemur,” etc.) and other related expressions, the same scholar revealed that he couldn’t find anything in Ribera’s work even remotely resembling a prior rapture! (Since the same scholar plans to publish his complete findings, I won’t disclose his name.)
    Are you curious about the real beginnings of this evangelical belief (a.k.a. the “pre-tribulation rapture”) merchandised by Darby, Scofield, Lindsey, Falwell, LaHaye, Ice, Van Impe, Hagee and many others?
    Google “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “Pretrib Rapture Diehards,” “X-Raying Margaret,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “Walvoord Melts Ice,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Wily Jeffrey,” “Deceiving and Being Deceived” by D.M., “The Real Manuel Lacunza,” “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism,” “Pretrib Rapture Politics,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” “Famous Rapture Watchers,” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” – most of these by the author of the 300-page nonfiction book “The Rapture Plot,” the highly endorsed and most accurate documentation on the long hidden historical facts of the 182-year-old pre-tribulation rapture theory imported from Britain during the late 19th century.

    • That’s very interesting – thanks for posting this. I did not know that anyone had said a Catholic came up with the idea of the rapture. As you can see from my own book, I don’t believe the rapture is biblical.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s