CatNamedManny wrote:Heck, if we can't even say with certainty who wrote the book of Hebrews, I'm not sure how the absence of recorded conversation in the ancient church about other topics of interest to the modern church can signify anything other than exactly what it is: an absence of recorded conversation.
That's an excellent way of putting that, Manny.
Also, what one must remember is that from about 400 AD on, the church's views on eschatology were influenced by one single, overriding factor which made it very difficult for them to imagine a miraculous, supernatural view of the church's catching away and the millennial reign of Christ.
The Emperor Constantine had publicly converted to Christianity, or at least some version of it, and openly and publicly favored professed Christians for spots as advisors and high public officals. It is easy to see how this would have been a corrupting influence right from the start.
But the true culprit was the Emperor Theodosius I, who in 391 AD declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire and effectively banned all other religions. This was the mightiest blow satan (who's name I simply
will not capitalize) had ever struck against the church. For years he had tried and failed to destroy the church from without. But now, he had the chance to
corrupt it from within.
Besides the obvious corrupting influence wrought by multitudes of pagans merely pretending to convert and join the church to avoid the emperor's wrath, there was a far more sinister way in which this event affected church theology.
In the eyes of those living at the time, Christianity had conquered the Roman Empire!! The Emperor was a Christian! The church wielded true power. The Bishops were, for all practical purposes, heads of state. There was not even a hint of the very modern (and yet very correct) concept of "separation of church and state". It appeared to them that the Christ's 1,000 year reign was upon them, that it had been brought about through the organized, Imperial Church.
So, that is one major reason you have few extant records of a belief in a supernatural "catching away" of the church from a time before the Protestant Reformation. Before that, the mere suggestion that the "Church Age" was
not the fulfillment of all eschatological prophecy was not only punishable as heresy, but in their defense, seemed to go against all logic and common sense.
Some living at the time might have asked, "Can you not clearly see that the prophecy has been fulfilled in the Church itself?!?! Is it not obvious? How could even a child not see this?"
A similar phenomenon was to be found amongst the eschatologists of the early 20th century. "Replacement Theology", in which "The Church" is substituted for House of Israel in prophecy, seemed to be a no-brainer. Israel was
gone ... it was no more!! How could any prophecy still refer to Israel in any
literal sense? The idea was just absurd.
And then, in the 1940's, practically overnight, the Nation of Israel began to exist again. In an instant ... "in the twinkling of an eye" ... there was a literal Israel once more. You can imagine the consternation among those who had been preaching replacement theology for so long. All of the sudden, it wasn't such a no-brainer. All of the sudden, it was possible, just possible, that these prophecies could literally refer to Israel once again!
Some still preach Replacement Theology, but whether one agrees with it or not, it must be acknowledged that the case is not as cut and dried as it seemed in the early 1900's.
The same is true of eschatology during the height of the Imperial Church's power. It seemed cut and dried. Clearly, to the people living at the time, this very age was what the prophecies had meant. No other explanation seemed logical or worth the time to even consider.
Now, of course, that the Imperial Church no longer wields the power it once did, it opens up the possibility that other interpretations of eschatology may be correct.
As far as "lost doctrines" go, do remember that "justification by grace through faith" was once a "lost doctrine".
seperateunion wrote:So, your argument is that one guy who was on trial for heresy somehow substantiates rapture theology?
Your point is well taken. We should certainly reject theologies put forth by people who were on trial for heresy ... people such as Martin Luther, John Huss, William Tyndale, etc . Gotta watch those "heretics". (The "heresies" for which Keach was put on trial were beliefs currently held by the Southern Baptist Convention, BTW.)
The point of this record is that the ideas of the rapture were not at all new as of the 1800's, but were merely disapproved of by the Imperial Church, who's power would obviously be threatened if it's eschatological views were rejected. To believe that this doctrine was merely "invented" in the 1800's requires one to ignore some rather obvious historical documents.
Even John Wesley, in his notes on 1 Thessalonians 4 makes it quite clear that he believed in a literal catching way of the church (though he did not use the word "Rapture"). Eschatology was not a subject on which Wesley spent much time, choosing instead to focus on how we should be serving God now. His notes do, however, prove that the doctrine was well-known before the 1800's.
So, this whole idea of appealing to the "Early Church" or the "Church Fathers" to discredit the rapture ... or any other eschalotogical belief, simply isn't going to fly with modern
Sola Scriptura protestants. The fact that the Imperial Church disagrees with any particular doctrine is for, such people, often a point in that doctrine's favor.
If we are going to discuss the validity of such a doctrine, then we will have to discuss it from a
Sola Scriptura basis or we will simply be spinning our wheels.
(The aforementioned Imperial Church no longer exists in it's original form, having been split into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church ... officially in 1054 but for all practical purposes well before that.)
