Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 23: T.B. Baines

More from Baines,

“Jesus had told His disciples, that one of them might tarry till His return. Here the Holy Ghost intimates that believers then living might also remain to that time. He contrasts the "we which are alive" with "them which are asleep." What is the significance of the word "we" used in this manner? A speaker might say to his audience — "We who live to the end of this century." It would not mean that any of them must live till then, merely that they might. But it would be senseless to say — "We who live to the end of the next century." So, here, the Holy Ghost is not revealing the time of Christ's return, but, while leaving this indefinite, is urging the hope which God would have believers cherish. If He did not mean them to be looking for the Lord's coming during their own lifetime, the use of the first person would be not only meaningless but erroneous.”

There is no reasonable warrant to say that Paul’s use of “we” signifies a possibility, and then say “merely that they might”. Without the strength of “possibility”, Baines’ use of it as evidence is meaningless. We would all grant that the grammar in this portion of Thessalonians does not demand that Paul is insisting that at least one of his contemporaries would live until Christ return, but neither do Amillennialists suggest that Paul’s contemporaries nor Paul himself knew that the second coming was that far away—for all they knew with certainty, Christ could return immediately after Peter’s prophesied dead (assuming of course that all the other prophesied events occurred prior to that). In Baines’ time, as in our own, we know that Peter has died, and considering all the possible orthodox interpretations of end times events, the return of Christ in power and glory could basically happen at any time; the assumption that the second coming of Christ was far away from the first century is the erroneous one. Again, it is certain that God intends all believers to look for His return, so the charge Baines levels isn’t even applicable to the full preterist; in other words, the Amillennialist doesn’t say that Paul did not intend for those believers to look for the Lord’s return. Again, I cite contemporary Reformed Baptist (and defender of Amillennialism) Sam Waldron,

“1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, may be examined by means of the discussion of five exegetical issues. The first of these issues may be called the problem of the Thessalonians. The theme of this passage in general is clearly to comfort and encourage the Thessalonian believers concerning believing loved ones who had died. This is the theme with which it begins and with which it concludes (4:13, 18; 5:11). This raises the question: What precisely was the doctrinal problem that resulted in their `grieving like the rest who had no hope'? In answering this question, we must be careful not to twist the clear aspects of the passage to fit a speculative answer about the exact problem Paul now addresses. Nevertheless, if a clear picture of the misunderstanding that troubled the Thessalonians can be formed, it will certainly assist our understanding of the passage. Is it possible to form such a picture? If we examine carefully Paul's first and last statements in the passage, such a clear picture does emerge. According to verse 13, the problem centered on the condition of those believers who die before Christ's return. Paul's first words in verse 14 are to the effect that such will be brought with Christ, i.e., brought again from the dead at Christ's coming because of their union with Christ. Paul proceeds to assure the Thessalonians that so far from their death being a cause of grief, it is, if anything, a promotion (vvs. 15, 16). After digressing in the early verses of chapter 5, Paul returns to the opening theme of the passage in verse 10, where he repeats his assurance that whether we are awake or asleep at Christ's return resurrection-life with Christ will be ours. All this suggests that some doubt was entertained by the Thessalonians about the very resurrection of dead believers. It has seemed unlikely to some that the Thessalonian problem could center on the resurrection of believers. They reason, Surely such a fundamental doctrine could not have been doubted. There are, however, reasons to reject this reasoning and adopt the more natural understanding of Paul's terminology. (1) Paul's teaching at Thessalonica, though effective, was brief and violently interrupted (Acts 17:1ff.). (2) Any but the most clear teaching on this issue would be subject to misinterpretation or doubt because of the intellectual hostility of the Greek world to the idea of bodily resurrection (Acts 17:32). (3) As a matter of fact, Paul's word in 1 Thess. 4:13 rules out any minimizing of the problem. He says explicitly, "we do not want you to be uninformed that you may not grieve as do the rest who have no hope." This statement is unambiguous. In solving the Thessalonians' problem and supplying their lack of information, Paul makes clear that, while the coming (parousia) of Christ, the resurrection of dead Christians and the rapture of living believers occur in a definite order, they also occur in immediate succession. The second of these issues may be called the sounds of the descent. Every Pretribulationist believes, and must believe, that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 speaks of the Pretribulational rapture of the church. This rapture, so they say, is secret. If this is so, Paul certainly gives a misleading presentation of the subject in verse 16. The shout of the Lord, the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God seem more calculated to wake the dead than to encourage secrecy. Furthermore, when one examines the biblical backgrounds of these matters, more evidence for a posttribulational viewpoint accumulates.”

And a second quote of Dr. Waldron involves a clear teaching on the parousia of Christ.

“When a dignitary paid an official visit or parousia to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escorting him on the final stage of his journey was called the apantesis…”

Waldron continues with a citation from Robert Gundry’s work, “The Church and The Tribulation”,

“This connotation points toward our rising to meet Christ in order to escort Him immediately back to earth."12 This meaning of meeting (apantesis) is confirmed by its two other uses in the New Testament. Matt. 25:6 speaks of the ten virgins who were waiting to go out and meet the bridegroom and then return with him to the wedding feast. Even more clearly Acts 28:15 speaks of how the brethren came out to meet Paul and accompanied him on the final leg of his journey to Rome. If this is the meaning and implication of the word, then it is utterly inconsistent with the Pretribulational theory.”

To conclude my review of Baines coverage of the secret rapture, I must again point out that not every aspect of Christ’s second coming need be mentioned (power, glory and judgment, etc) in order for it to be in the New Testament author’s view. Additionally, there are no explicit remarks in any of the passages Baines mentions above that Christ’s coming would be anything but in glory, power, and in judgment. Moreover, there certainly is no positive indication to cause us to deduce that the return of Christ would be in secret; expectancy does not necessitate secrecy, nor does secrecy qualify expectancy more so than it would qualify triumph.