Doug Van Pelt

S-ka-tology

I have a sneaking suspicion that a few of my friends that have bought into the Amillennial eschatology view (I probably got that label wrong) have really only rejected the pre-millennial pre-tribulation rapture theory that they believed earlier. Maybe they just heard a good argument against the pre-trib rapture theory (like its origins being less than 100 years old, as opposed to the other theories). I think they discredit the pre-trib rapture theory by not taking a second look at it, though. It's a pretty thorough biblical exegesis of the Old and New Testaments. I don't exactly prescribe to it, but I can see its validity as an argument.

The criticism I hear slams that theory and describes John the Revelator's writings as cryptic anti-Rome statements meant to encourage the persecuted church. I can see valid points in that theory, but reading the words of Jesus in Matthew seems to ruin that for me. I'm all over the map with my eschatology and; frankly, I don't care which theory is correct. I mean, I have some concern and passion for the different theories (I probably lean towards a post-trib rapture), but in the big picture, it's trivial to me. If my family gets tortured for Christ in front of me from some fascists police, it won't seem trivial then; but now it's about as important an argument as whether speaking in tongues is valid, necessary, or gone. When I read Daniel, I kinda think in terms of mid-trib... 1 Thessalonians, pre-trib; and Matthew, post.

There. That's what came to mind when installing some Ikea shelves. Go figure.