Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib.....Where Are You, and Why?

[billwald]

People in every generation go through tribulation. For the people who are hurting it is immaterial if some one else on the other side of the world is hurting.

One Christian to another Christian waiting to get tossed into Saddam's tree chopper, "You think this is bad, wait for the Great Tribulation."

What does anyone think Evangelical Christians - if there are any left - will be preaching about this topic in the year 4010 or 6010?

 

[steaver]

People in every generation go through tribulation. For the people who are hurting it is immaterial if some one else on the other side of the world is hurting.

One Christian to another Christian waiting to get tossed into Saddam's tree chopper, "You think this is bad, wait for the Great Tribulation."

What does anyone think Evangelical Christians - if there are any left - will be preaching about this topic in the year 4010 or 6010?

They will be preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of sins. Believe this and be saved.

 

[jaigner]

I, too, believe in a post-trib, pre-mil position. The pre-trib rapture is a recent construction that was made popular by Scofield and some others. I am just not convinced.

The language of the passages suggests the custom of the expecting party meeting the arriving party and escorting them back.

This is my position, but being honest, it's not something that we can predict with absolute certainty.

 

[steaver]

I, too, believe in a post-trib, pre-mil position. The pre-trib rapture is a recent construction that was made popular by Scofield and some others. I am just not convinced.

The language of the passages suggests the custom of the expecting party meeting the arriving party and escorting them back.

This is my position, but being honest, it's not something that we can predict with absolute certainty.

This topic makes for interesting spare time bible study, but it matters not if it is pre, mid or post as to how we live in Christ here and now. Like I said earlier, I see pretrib in the scriptures but I cannot devote much time to trying to convince anyone of it. To many more important works to be done.

 

[jaigner]

This topic makes for interesting spare time bible study, but it matters not if it is pre, mid or post as to how we live in Christ here and now. Like I said earlier, I see pretrib in the scriptures but I cannot devote much time to trying to convince anyone of it. To many more important works to be done.

This is correct.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Both sides of the debate should find this site of interest.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello,

Both sides of the debate should find this site of interest.

Looked at most of the book, and it is not very convincing.

It is filled with false assumptions about rapture believers (this rapture believer, anyway).

For instance:

That the Day of the Lord is the entire 7 year period of the tribulation...I believe the Day of the Lord is contained in the wrath of the tribulation, but within the seven year period, only the last three and a half years are considered "Great Tribulation".

That the Day of the Lord includes the Millennial Reign.

That the description of the Day of the Lord doesn't line up with the tribulation events.

That it can't be the wrath of God, because wrath isn't mentioned until the sixth chapter.

It is filled with as much weak argument as the position for the pre-trib rapture.

But, many will believe it, because they will not search it out for themselves.

I will tell you the strongest argument that deniers of the pre-trib rapture have...and I didn't see this in the book:

The argument that there is a distinction between God's thumos wrath and His orge wrath, but this too is not conclusive.

Each of us will make up our own minds (well, some of us will have it made up for them), and is not something to break fellowship over.

God bless.

 

[lori4dogs]

" . . . but it matters not if it is pre, mid or post as to how we live in Christ here and now."

Right on the money!

I might have shared on this board before that I attended the first session of an 'Alpha Course' years ago. Most of the people gathered had no church or religious affiliation. Outside the room but not outside the hearing of all us were the two coordinators who were in a very heated argument over a pre-mil and post-mil position. The meeting was set to start and one of the two coordinators became so enraged that he left shortly after the meeting began. I often wondered how many of the participants bothered to return after such a display of 'christian charity'. Not many I'll bet.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Looked at most of the book, and it is not very convincing.

It is filled with false assumptions about rapture believers (this rapture believer, anyway).

Considering that any belief he attributes to the pre-trib position he is pulling directly from pre-trib authors, I don't see how you support the claim that he is assuming things about their beliefs, much less that he is assuming falsely. He isn't telling what he thinks pre-tribs believe, he is giving quotes of what they actually say/argue and he sources them. Thats about as far from "assuming" as one can possibly get in any discussion.

Now, do the beliefs of people like Walvoord and LaHaye accurately represent your beliefs? Evidently not. But since it is writers like LaHaye which are making claims for what pre-tribbers believe, any accusations of false assumptions would have to be attributed to those authors, not the one who is simply quoting them.

So, what you don't find convincing is not Simmons arguments against the pre-trib position - what you must not find convincing is the arguments put forth by the men he is quoting (specifically LaHaye).

In short, you consider the arguments of one of the most well-known and widely read proponent of the pre-trib position to be poor arguments.

In the end though, this says nothing about strength of the arguments made by Simmons.

I will tell you the strongest argument that deniers of the pre-trib rapture have...and I didn't see this in the book:

The argument that there is a distinction between God's thumos wrath and His orge wrath, but this too is not conclusive.

The intent of this book is not to offers arguments against the pre-trib position, but instead to examine the arguments put forth by pre-trib proponents.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello dw,

I have never read the books by the authors they discredit.

So the first assumption is that all who believe the rapture believe for the same reasons.

The book is very much about discrediting the rapture belief, and is another "my belief is better than yours" statement, which, unfortunately, we all seem to be guilty of.

I will post the reasons I believe on this thread, just for the fun of it, and you are welcome to show me why I am wrong.

One of the false assumptions about those who believe in the rapture is this:

That our Christianity revolves around this doctrine, and that we will be in "for a big surprise" when Antichrist shows up.

This is a side issue, for me at least.

I would like to see your commentaryon the posts I have already made.

For example, tell me your take on Daniel's 70th week.

In your own words please.

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

I, too, believe in a post-trib, pre-mil position. The pre-trib rapture is a recent construction that was made popular by Scofield and some others.

Agreed.

Now consider "what difference it makes".

In the Biblically correct view that you rightly agree with in your post above - the rapture happens at the 2nd coming - post-trib and the dead in Christ, along with "we who are alive and remain" are all caught up in the air to meet Christ and as Christ promised in John 14 - we are all taken to heaven to spend 1000 years with Christ judging the fallen angels and the wicked (1Cor 6).

This means that 1Thess4, and Rev 19-20:4 and 1Cor 15 and John 14:1-4, and Matt 24, and 2Thess 2 are all describing the same event. It is a diligent and repeated focus by NT authors for the church fixing its "hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ" 1Peter 1:13

In Matt 24 and in 2Thess 2 we are told regarding "the appearing of Christ and our gathering together to Him" -- that "that day will NOT come unless the apostasy comes FIRST AND the man of sin is revealed".

We are told that the false Christ will comes "in accord with the activity of Satan with all power and signns and false wonders" 2Thess 2:9.

Thus it would be important for believers to be warned about the Matt 24, and 2Thess 2 counterfeit appearance that comes with all power, signs and wonders.

So if that Bible prediction is correct AND YET someone's view is that the first thing that comes along MUST be legit because the saints are all gone by the time the antichrist shows up with all signs and power and wonders - appearing as if he IS Christ... well that changes things a great deal if in fact that first view is correct and what happens in real life is that the first thing you see coming along is the counterfeit.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Wrath of God

Many use the idea that rapture believers think God will keep them from tribulation, which is promised to those who overcome, and present the tribulation which the saints of history have faced.

From the Apostles to those persecuted in antichrist nations around the world today, Christians have suffered tribulation.

They say, "If God means to 'whisk us away' from tribulation, explain all of the Christians who have died for Christ!"

Indeed - that tribulation is not an example of "The wrath of God against the saints" nor is the future tribulation an example of such a thing.

Rather we have God protecting his saints all through the tribulation for as He said "in this world you HAVE trouble - take courage I have overcome the world" and "he who loses his life for My sake will save it".

Thus the rapture occurs just as Matt 24 states "immediately after the tribulation ... he will gather his saints".

First, as a rapture believer, I have no misconceptions of the tribulation that not only happens, but was promised would come:

John 16:33 (King James Version)

33These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

A simple word study on tribulation will easily show that we can distinguish a difference between tribulation, and Tribulation.

Which is why I pointed out that The Tribulation is a time of Judgment on this earth, appointed to Israel and the unbelieving world population.

This is the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole earth.

Next stop: Wrath.

And a specific wrath, the Wrath of God.

We who are in Christ are delivered from the wrath of God to Come, both eternal and temporal. When God judges the earth, we will not fall under this wrath.

Agreed.

Israel was in Egypt at the time of the 10 plagues - spared from them by God.

Noah was on the earth at the time of the flood - spared from the flood by God.

Daniel's seventieth week, or, the time of Jacobs Trouble...is the Day of the Lord, the Tribulation.

Bible timelines are "contiguous by definition" thus in Dan 9:1-6 the 70 years timeline of Jeremiah - contiguous, intact, preserved in total -- and so also the 70 weeks timeline at the end of chapter 9 that accurately predict both the coming of Christ and his crucifixion on the midst of that last 7 year period out of the 490 years (70 weeks of years).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

I have never read the books by the authors they discredit.

So the first assumption is that all who believe the rapture believe for the same reasons.

He never assumes this. He is dealing largely with one book and one person's set of arguments - a person who effectively claims to speak for all pre-tribbers. He book is a response to that persons arguments only. If you have a problem it can only be with the pre-trib author who presumes to speak for you, not with the person who merely critiques his arguments.

The book is very much about discrediting the rapture belief, and is another "my belief is better than yours" statement, which, unfortunately, we all seem to be guilty of.

Its about discrediting a set of fallacious arguments. Since you yourself seem to agree that these arguments are fallacious, then I am not seeing how you are having a problem with it.

One of the false assumptions about those who believe in the rapture is this:

That our Christianity revolves around this doctrine, and that we will be in "for a big surprise" when Antichrist shows up.

Where does he make this assumption?

 

[Darrell C]

He never assumes this. He is dealing largely with one book and one person's set of arguments - a person who effectively claims to speak for all pre-tribbers. He book is a response to that persons arguments only. If you have a problem it can only be with the pre-trib author who presumes to speak for you, not with the person who merely critiques his arguments.

Major premise: Many believe in the rapture.

Minor premise: Many believers have read the Authors' books on the rapture.

Conclusion: All believers rely on commentary, rather than bible study, and to discredit the Authors, you can prove the pre-trib rapture is in error (if they just read this book).

I don't think I said The writer of the tract assumed, this is directed at deniers of pre-trib in general.

Go through the threads dealing with this issue and the same arguments are used.

This is one of them.

For example, some say that pre-tribbers think "one will be taken, the other left..." speaks of the rapture.

Maybe some do, but not all.

Its about discrediting a set of fallacious arguments. Since you yourself seem to agree that these arguments are fallacious, then I am not seeing how you are having a problem with it.

Major premise: I don't believe in the pre-trib rapture.

Minor premise: I believe the book that denies the pre-trib rapture.

Conclusion: there is no pre-trib rapture.

Never said I believe anything was fallacious, this is much too big a word for my vocabulary.

Again, what I read was as about as strong as any argument I've seen, which, in my opinion, is still not conclusive.

Where does he make this assumption?

This was not directed at the Author, but is true of most pre-trib deniers.

But that is just an assumption of mine.

Again, a "My belief is better than yours" attitude.

As far as I'm concerned, I may be wrong (and I've said this), but your "magic bullet" hasn't conviced me either.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello,

Forgot to ask, perhaps you will look at my posts and straighten me out.

In your thoughts and words.

Like I said, I have left room for error, and would be happy for someone to show scriptural evidence of their position.

God bless.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Again, a "My belief is better than yours" attitude.

As far as I'm concerned, I may be wrong (and I've said this), but your "magic bullet" hasn't conviced me either.

God bless.

I hopefully never suggested it was a magic bullet for the pre-trib position. Obviously, there are other arguments for the pre-trib position that LaHaye doesn't use (or disagrees with), but his arguments do represent the most popular and most common. Showing they are chock full of fallacy does create some difficulty for that position.

The same would be true for the post-trib position if the same could be shown of a popular post-trib supporter.

It was nothing more than a site for reference. There is much more that could be discussed.

 

[BobRyan]

Both sides of the debate should find this site of interest.

I did not read through the entire site - but I did find this - most of which I agree with .

1. Taking believers to the Father's House.
LaHaye suggests that if the Lord does not take believers to His Father's house before the Second Coming, He will break a promise.[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] He derives this understanding from John 14:2-3. "In My Father's house are many dwelling places; it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." (John 14:2-3). Plainly, there is no mention of taking believers to heaven before the Second Coming. (Nor is there any suggestion that He will come twice.) Jesus simply promised that He would come again, and from that point on, His followers would always be with Him.
So, why do pre-Tribbers teach something the Scriptures don't? The answer is that they interpret this passage, not according to its plain reading, but based on their assumptions. Though the passage mentions only one Coming, they assume there are two. Of those two Comings, they assume Jesus is here referring to the earlier and not the later. Finally, they assume after this Coming Jesus will return to heaven, where He will remain until His final Coming, an event which (also assumed) is to take place at least seven years later. Incredibly, though not one word in this passage specifically warrants these assumptions, pre-Tribulationists routinely offer these verses as a proof text for their beliefs! That is what is known as circular reasoning—a logical fallacy wherein you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. Bottom line, this passage provides absolutely no evidence of two Comings nor for the belief that Christians will be transported to heaven seven years before the Second Coming

The author exposes a key flaw in the pre-trib rapture position.

The author appears to be affirming a post-trib pre-mill 2nd coming - which would be the one that the Bible teaches.

But what I cannot determine so far - is whether the author agrees with Christ in John 14:1-4 that at the 2nd coming Christ is going to take the saints to heaven.

Does anyone know what the author says on that point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Wrath of God

Many use the idea that rapture believers think God will keep them from tribulation, which is promised to those who overcome, and present the tribulation which the saints of history have faced.

From the Apostles to those persecuted in antichrist nations around the world today, Christians have suffered tribulation.

They say, "If God means to 'whisk us away' from tribulation, explain all of the Christians who have died for Christ!"

"It would be unfair of God to 'poof up' the Church after He has allowed so many to suffer!"

First, as a rapture believer, I have no misconceptions of the tribulation that not only happens, but was promised would come:

John 16:33 (King James Version)

33These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Agreed. The notion that God has promised "no tribulation" to the church would be a huge problem given the 50 million Christians killed in the dark ages.

As for the wrath of God -- both the pre-trib and the post-trib groups agree that the wrath of God does not target the saints.

in the same way that Israel was spared the 10 plagues of egypt while still IN Egypt and Noah was spared the flood that destroys the world - while still living ON the world.

Matt 24 "Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather his elect". The same sequence is seen in Daniel 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

If you are speaking about D.L. Moody, it has also been said that He was not one who spent much time in prayer.

God bless.

He does raise at least a couple excellent points though.

First of all, any verse which mentions both the rapture and tribulation together explicitly puts the rapture after the tribulation.

1. Mark 13:24-27 24 “But in those days, (a)after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 (b)Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

Christ clearly states that the rapture (b) will occur *after* the tribulation (a).

2. Matt. 24:29–31 29 “(a)Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 (b)And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Again, Christ clearly states that the rapture (b) will occur after the tribulation (a).

And secondly, there are no verses which explicitly state the rapture occurs before the tribulation. So John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:52 all mention a rapture but none even hints about it coming before the tribulation.

So while the post-trib position has at least 2 explicit verses in support of the position, the pre-trib position has zero.This doesn't disprove the pre-trib position by itself, but it does put it in the position of bearing the burden of proof in any discussion.

So regardless of what you think of the man or his theology, he does raise some good points to consider. Or forget Moody and just consider these points are ones that I raised...cause I would if someone else hadn't.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I can assure you there are more than three passages that indicate that the Church will be removed.

But none of the ones you are thinking about are explicitly about the rapture, much less its relationship to the tribulation. The point is that every verse that is explicit points to a post-trib rapture. Not proof in itself, but it is a very damaging starting point for the pre-trib position.

Revelation 3: 7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write. These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 8I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

What is the hour of temptation that is to try the whole earth?

I think it safe to say this speaks of the tribulation that will shortly be described in the following chapters.

Or it might just be referring to the final judgement. After all, no where else is the tribulation or its time span described as an "hour of temptation". Sure, seeing it as referring to the tribulation appears reasonable at this point, but then so does seeing it as referring to the judgement at the end of the tribulation. Since we have two reasonable interpretations, it would be unwarranted to insist on one over the other w/o further proof.

I just wanted to point out that its not the only reasonable take on the passage and will refer back to this later on. But for now, lets go with your assumption.

Notice the open door which no man can shut for the overcomer, and immediately in the following chapter:

Revelation 4:1After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

What is an overcomer?

1 John 5 1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? [/SIZE]

Our Lord speaks to those who are in Christ...this is he who is the overcomer.

Ok, so far, I am liking the detailed support and specific details. I am looking forward to how you bring it all together.

A few quick thoughts:

The tribulation I believe firmly to be Daniels seventieth week, which is a time of judgment for Israel, though the earth will reap its destruction.

Ok I will deal with that later.

The Church is not mentioned until (I think) chapter 19...why not?

Could it be, that because it is a time God is dealing with Israel, this is why they are not mentioned?

Let me put this in a syllogism
First premise (unstated): If the church were present on earth during the tribulation, it would be mentioned in Rev 4-19.
Second premise: The church is not mentioned in Rev 4-19
Conclusion: The church must not be present on earth during the tribulation.

Two problems with this. First of all, it relies on the fallacy of argument from silence. There are many other sound reasons why the church may not be mentioned in those chapters which has nothing to do with it being absent from earth.

Second, your second premise begs the question - that is, it can be true only if you first assume that mention of saints in the trib cannot be a reference to the church. For instance:
Rev 12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

and also
[i[Rev 13:8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.[/quote]

Both would be seem to be clear references to the church. After all, what other group has ever been referred to in those terms?

The claim of some is that the rapture was never thought of until the 19th century, but I suggest that Paul as teaching it in the first.

God bless.

If so, then, to all evidence, it was immediately lost and not brought back till the 19th century. It certainly finds no noticeable body of believers holding it as a doctrine.