Moreover in the parallel passage in Luke 17, it is clear that being taken is a good thing, and that the disciples shouldn’t look back like Lot’s wife when Lot left behind Sodom. There is simply no lexical, contextual, or parallel support for the idea that those taken are the unrighteous.

But to say these verses don’t support the rapture is not to make them “contradict” the verses that you say do — it just makes them about something else.

“These verses have been employed to support the idea that God will one day evacuate, or “rapture,” all the righteous people, leaving behind an evil world destined for annihilation. [...] But a closer look at the context reveals…”

I realize his greater point is not about the rapture, but that Christians ought not live as escapists. But to get there he argues against a rapture because it supposedly fosters an escapist attitude. Whereas for the apostle Peter, it’s the opposite: the coming destruction of the world is the incentive to live holy and godly lives (2 Peter 3:11), which in the context of his letter can mean nothing short of brotherly kindness and love.

I follow you up to the word “not.” Why not both? What’s the exegetical/contextual reason for denying that it’s talking about the difference between who is taken and who is left in the sudden “deluge”?

I’m not deeply committed on this one either way — that just seems like a blithe assertion for which I don’t readily see the basis.

If by “skewering” you meant “effective calling-out of shameful practices”, then I agree that the article did very well. But a premil evangelical could read this article, repent, and still be a premil. This article didn’t strike at the root of the problem: faulty exegesis.

-Wm

Matt 24:31

Did he not read the chapter? The context of that verse is the return of the Son of Man. In either case, there is no possible justification: if the unbelievers are taken in that passage, its to judgement, and it’s not good:

“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn…”

Matt 24:30

Nothing about that passage has anything to do with regaining the earth, and even so, it would be criminal not to focus saving on souls, because the Earth can’t be damned to hell.

I’ll check out the book, but that’s not a good start at least in my opinion.

If you look at the history of this doctrine as it entered the U.S. in the late 1800s, it is anything but escapist. Maybe in the world of ideal forms in which the “logical” conclusion of a doctrine always indicates how individuals act, this is how it functions, but most individuals don’t live in that world.

If TT really wants to engage the doctrine as it relates to engaging the world, he will ask how many pentecostals can still hold the doctrine and also remain one of the fastest growing segments of Christianity with over 500 million in the world and counting. Does this seem escapist?

I have to confess that I am wearied by these text-based approaches that fail to look at actual Christian practices, and this from one who does not hold theologically to the “Left Behind” position.

His argument is _useless_ when applied to the text. In the two latter passages the ones taken are said to be “paralambanetai” (received unto a person), while in the former passage the ones taken are said to be “Eren” (lifted), and this lifting is said to apply to “all”, so it’s not clear that it’s talking about leaving anyone behind (we could say that a rising flood lifts all, boats or no boats). So the three passages cannot be said to imply that the good are left while the evil are taken; nor do they even use the same verb to discuss the taking. The first one might even imply that ALL are taken.
I’m still post-premillenial, of course. My study here has confirmed my decision in that. But this argument doesn’t hold up to the text.

Then again, its always easier to attack than to understand, isn’t it?