Dispensational Logic Lessons

As it has happened, the last two evenings I have been in the car when a particular half-hour radio program has been on. Now, most of the time, I quickly turn the station to something a little more substantial--sports talk--but the last two days I've stuck around to listen. What caught my ear was this particular evangelical, fundamentalist, premillennial dispensationalist explaining the first three chapters of the book of Revelation. Tonight, he argued for why the 'radical change' between chapters 3 and 4 prove the doctrine of the rapture. What boggles my mind is the number of fallacies involved in the argument for a secret rapture of the church. Question begging, argument from silence, ad hominem, are just a few of the numerous hiccups to be found in such an argument.

My favorite bad argument:

(1) The word 'church' is not mentioned in chapters 4 through 19.
(2) If a word is not mentioned, the concept does not exist.
(3) Therefore, the church is raptured.

Now, it should be clear that this is a really bad argument. In the first place, this is an argument from silence. It doesn't immediately follow that because something isn't mentioned, it doesn't exist. Moreoever, (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). All that follows is that the concept of the church doesn't exist between chapters 4 and 19. Unless you assume the doctrine of the rapture at the outset there is no reason to think there is a 'radical change' (i.e., a rapture) between chapters 3 and 4. But, thirdly, the real problem is the assumption that makes up (2). It is never actually stated, but it must be the assumption driving the argument. But it proves too much. The word 'God' never occurs in the book of Esther. It would follow from this assumption that God is not in the book of Esther. But this is absurd. The reason Esther in in the Canon is because God is The Chief Actor in the book. By His might and providence, He preserves His people and destroys His and their enemies. If follows from this that (2) is false and hence, the argument is a bad one.

Yesterday, he argued, as is typical, that each of the seven churches represents seven epochs in the life of the Church. Two things struck me. First, the church at Sardis is that age which corresponds to the time of the Reformation. Now what Christ says to that church is that she is dead. What this teacher claimed is that while it is true Martin Luther did a good thing by talking about justification by faith, he didn't do enough. What didn't he do? Why was the Reformation-era church a dead church? Why identify Sardis with the Reformation? Because...the Reformers didn't talk about a pretribulational rapture. That's right folks. Calvin said nothing about a Rapture, therefore, the age in which he wrote and worked was dead and under Christ's admonishment. (Oh, and there was the small detail that churches descending from the Reformers, that is, those who weren't of the Anabaptist tradition, are just hold overs from the paganism and ritualism that came out of the Roman Church). The next age, however, was lauded and magnified. Why? Because Charles Finney preached. That's right. Charles Finney. He (in part) is what maked the Philadelphian age a good one for the Church. Calvin, no. Finney, yes. SHEESH.

Now, if I every write a logic text, it will include in the section of informal fallacies, as examples, the arguments coming from those who hold to the rapture.