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

[dwmoeller1]

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.

If overcomers are promised to be kept from the tribulation (hour of temptation actually, but for now we are assuming this is about the tribulation), then why do we find overcomers in the tribulation. And if overcomers are those in Christ, then why do we find those who are in Christ in the tribulation?

Given this, it seems more and more of a stretch to hold that overcomers are promised to be kept out of the (ie raptured out before) the tribulation. Maybe you can resolve this problem.

 

[BobRyan]

When John looks into the future he sees two resurrections.

Rev 20:4-5 shows the "First resurrection" - taking place before the 1000 years. This is the resurrection of the "blessed and holy" and "over these the 2nd death has no power". They are the dead in Christ - raised at the appearing of Christ described in Rev 19.

In 1Thess 4 - Paul also describes the resurrection of the dead in Christ - raised at the appearing of Christ.

Thus the rapture resurrection is in fact the "First Resurrection" described in Rev 20 and the one that starts the 1000 year timeline.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

When John looks into the future he sees two resurrections.

Rev 20:4-5 shows the "First resurrection" - taking place before the 1000 years. This is the resurrection of the "blessed and holy" and "over these the 2nd death has no power". They are the dead in Christ - raised at the appearing of Christ described in Rev 19.

In 1Thess 4 - Paul also describes the resurrection of the dead in Christ - raised at the appearing of Christ.

Thus the rapture resurrection is in fact the "First Resurrection" described in Rev 20 and the one that starts the 1000 year timeline.

in Christ,

Bob

This all presumes that the first resurrection is a literal physical resurrection rather than something else (ie. a spiritual resurrection, or in reference to regeneration). Given the nature of Rev this is should not be an automatic conclusion. I see no way to firmly establish this within the context of Rev 20 itself. Thus, as your reasoning stands its is begging the question. Is the first resurrection in Rev 20 really as you describe it?

But thats really for another thread...

 

[BobRyan]

This all presumes that the first resurrection is a literal physical resurrection rather than something else (ie. a spiritual resurrection, or in reference to regeneration). Given the nature of Rev this is should not be an automatic conclusion. I see no way to firmly establish this within the context of Rev 20 itself. Thus, as your reasoning stands its is begging the question. Is the first resurrection in Rev 20 really as you describe it?

But thats really for another thread...

One problem at a time.

the pre-trib and mid-trib views all accept that the resurrection is a bodily - literal - physical resurrection of "the body". (They tend to follow the 1Cor 15 teaching on that point).

So even if you do not agree with the physical resurrection teaching - it would still be valid to point out - that given the physical resurrection context in which they are arguing for pre-trib and mid-trib there is an apparent problem with the first resurrection being at the 1Thess 4 coming of Christ.

1. The problem in Rev 20 where John looks into his future and sees that there are only two resurrections and those resurrections exactly bound the 1000 years, with the first resurrection occuring at the Rev 19 "second coming" event, means that the 1Thess 4 reference to the dead in Christ rising "first" also seen to be at the 2nd coming.

2. It means that the rapture event of 1Thess 4 where "the dead in Christ rise First" can only happen post- trib.

Thus there is a case that proves the post-trib resurrection even without getting into a debate with the pre-trib and mid-trib groups over the 1Cor 15 teaching on bodily resurrection.

You could argue that they might try to get out of that specific resurrection problem by arguing that the resurrection is not in fact a bodily, physical resurrection at the time of Christ's appearing ... but I would argue that most if not all of them would sooner step back from the pre-trib rapture traditions than give up the bodily resurrection of the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

One problem at a time.

the pre-trib and mid-trib views all accept that the resurrection is a bodily - literal - physical resurrection of "the body". (They tend to follow the 1Cor 15 teaching on that point).

So even if you do not agree with the physical resurrection teaching - it would still be valid to point out - that given the physical resurrection context in which they are arguing for pre-trib and mid-trib there is an apparent problem with the first resurrection being at the 1Thess 4 coming of Christ.

1. The problem in Rev 20 where John looks into his future and sees that there are only two resurrections and those resurrections exactly bound the 1000 years, with the first resurrection occuring at the Rev 19 "second coming" event, means that the 1Thess 4 reference to the dead in Christ rising "first" also seen to be at the 2nd coming.

2. It means that the rapture event of 1Thess 4 where "the dead in Christ rise First" can only happen post- trib.

Thus there is a case that proves the post-trib resurrection even without getting into a debate with the pre-trib and mid-trib groups over the 1Cor 15 teaching on bodily resurrection.

The pre-trib and mid-trib view however, see the rapture as having happened well before Rev 20. Thus, the fact that only 2 resurrections are mentioned in Rev 20 is no real difficulty for their position and they can skim over it. In short, Rev 20 is a poor tool to use against their position. They would readily agree that only 2 resurrections are mentioned in Rev 20 and not really care...which is totally consistent with their view. After all, their whole position rests on indirect evidence to begin since there are zero passages which are explicit about a pre-trib (or mid-trib) timing of the rapture. The fact that there are no explicit statements in Rev either is therefore of no surprise or concern to them.

In short, if Matt 24 doesn't already prove a posttrib rapture to them, Rev 20 is going to be even less convincing.

 

[eightball]

Hoping this doesn't de-rail this very interesting intercourse we're having here.......Anyone who can interject where or how the "removal of the restrainer".......might be or not be a "clue" to add to this investigation of the timing of the Churchs' rapture?

 

[billwald]

Jesus asked a rhetorical question, when he returned would he find any true believers?

Maybe the Rapture already occurred and Jesus found so few that no one left on earth noticed.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Hoping this doesn't de-rail this very interesting intercourse we're having here.......Anyone who can interject where or how the "removal of the restrainer".......might be or not be a "clue" to add to this investigation of the timing of the Churchs' rapture?

The passage is too ambiguous about the restrainer and who or what it is to use this passage for *either* side. Its the type of passage which can reasonably be interpreted in several ways and thus provides no real clue to either side. Posties should generally avoid using it as a proof (which they do).

Pretribs however seem to rely quite a bit on this verse. Now if pretribs were to reason simply that IF the pretrib rapture is correct that THEN the the restrainer was likely the church or HS, that wouldn't fallacious. It recognizes the conditional nature of this interpretation and allows for other possibilities. However, pretribs usually use this passage as actual proof. They insist that the restrainer is the church or HS and then reason on that unsupported assumption. Thats a fallacy of begging the question.

Some will often go further. If asked how they know the restrainer is the church/HS, they might argue that its known because we know the church/HS is removed. Thats a fallacy circular reasoning.

Posties need to be careful not to counter this misuse of the passage by making the same basic mistake. The posties should not seek to disprove the pretrib by insisting that the restrainer is not the church/HS and must be something else. All that is necessary to stymie the pretribs argument is to show that there are other reasonable options as to who/what the restrainer is, and then point out that therefor the pretribs insistence on their own particular take is a fallacy.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Jesus asked a rhetorical question, when he returned would he find any true believers?

Maybe the Rapture already occurred and Jesus found so few that no one left on earth noticed.

Maybe. Do you have more than a maybe? And for what reason(s) might there be so few left on earth?

 

[billwald]

>And for what reason(s) might there be so few left on earth?

Maybe because when the "Christians" controlled most of the globe, Raping and slaving took precedence over evangelizing. For example, for 200 years Holland (Reformed Christians) had absolute control over the Dutch East Indies and gave us the largest Moslem country in the world.

 

[BobRyan]

The pre-trib and mid-trib view however, see the rapture as having happened well before Rev 20. Thus, the fact that only 2 resurrections are mentioned in Rev 20 is no real difficulty for their position and they can skim over it.

John is writing near the end of the first century AD - as he looks into the future - he calls the resurrection of Rev 20:4-5 "the first resurrection".

There is no other "first resurrection" nor even "resurrection" statement in the book of Revelation where John says "this is the resurrection" or anything like it.

Thus their problem is that when John looks into the future and describes the resurrection that is future - he claims that the one in Rev 20 is "the first".

As you note - their view requires an exact negation of the text - they must argue "oh no - Rev 20:4-5 is NOT the first resurrection - there are one or two others before that one -- John was mistaken".

And I am more than happy to have them stuck in the position of having to make that idea fly.

They would readily agree that only 2 resurrections are mentioned in Rev 20 and not really care...which is totally consistent with their view.

It is "inconsistent" to speak of a resurrection of the righteous that you must insist is NOT the "First Resurrection" and even more innexplicly must be thought as being "BEFORE the FIRST resurrection" of the saints in the future.

This point is not as difficult for many of the unbiased readers to pick up on. I will grant you that not "every detail" in scripture contradicts the pre-trib view, but this is one that certainly causes them to engage in a lot of "first is not first" arguments that are transparently revealing to many observers.

After all, their whole position rests on indirect evidence to begin since there are zero passages which are explicit about a pre-trib (or mid-trib) timing of the rapture.

Thus we have a weak position "made weaker" by then being required to engage in an "exact negation" of the text as they are forced to argue that "first is not really first" or "there are a bunch of first resurrections all called first and all happening at different times".

The confusion that they must engage in to ignore the direct reading of the text onlyl increases as you bring up the inconvenient details found in the text itself.

The fact that there are no explicit statements in Rev either is therefore of no surprise or concern to them.

My argument is not that there is a Matt 24 or Rev 20 point that stops all pre-trib and post-trib traditions and causes diehard pre-trib believers to instantly embrace the Bible model over the man-made traditions of the pre-trib rapture as soon as they read the text.

My argument is that keeping the discussion focused on the more sticky tangly problems with the pre and mid-trib rapture as it relates to scripture - can be very helpful to an unbiased objective reader who is open to viewing the pro's and con's of both sides of the issue.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dwmoeller1]

John is writing near the end of the first century AD - as he looks into the future - he calls the resurrection of Rev 20:4-5 "the first resurrection".

There is no other "first resurrection" nor even "resurrection" statement in the book of Revelation where John says "this is the resurrection" or anything like it.

Thus their problem is that when John looks into the future and describes the resurrection that is future - he claims that the one in Rev 20 is "the first".

As you note - their view requires an exact negation of the text - they must argue "oh no - Rev 20:4-5 is NOT the first resurrection - there are one or two others before that one -- John was mistaken".

And I am more than happy to have them stuck in the position of having to make that idea fly.

It does create some difficulties for all the passages which speak of our resurrection in basically the same terms, doesn't it?

It is "inconsistent" to speak of a resurrection of the righteous that you must insist is NOT the "First Resurrection" and even more innexplicly must be thought as being "BEFORE the FIRST resurrection" of the saints in the future.

Yeah, it does lead to inconsistencies when you start bringing in other passages. For instance: John 11:24
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

What? Lazarus won't be resurrected until the last day? No resurrection at the rapture for this NT believer? Or wait, maybe what she really means is "the last day before the tribulation" or "the last day of the church age"? Etc. etc. Yeah, given this verse alone it becomes extremely difficult to place the rapture as occurring before the tribulation without leading to all sorts of really bad weirdness in dealing with Rev 20.

This point is not as difficult for many of the unbiased readers to pick up on. I will grant you that not "every detail" in scripture contradicts the pre-trib view, but this is one that certainly causes them to engage in a lot of "first is not first" arguments that are transparently revealing to many observers.

Thus we have a weak position "made weaker" by then being required to engage in an "exact negation" of the text as they are forced to argue that "first is not really first" or "there are a bunch of first resurrections all called first and all happening at different times".

The confusion that they must engage in to ignore the direct reading of the text onlyl increases as you bring up the inconvenient details found in the text itself.

Yep.

My argument is not that there is a Matt 24 or Rev 20 point that stops all pre-trib and post-trib traditions and causes diehard pre-trib believers to instantly embrace the Bible model over the man-made traditions of the pre-trib rapture as soon as they read the text.

My argument is that keeping the discussion focused on the more sticky tangly problems with the pre and mid-trib rapture as it relates to scripture - can be very helpful to an unbiased objective reader who is open to viewing the pro's and con's of both sides of the issue.

Agreed. However it helps to tease out the truly sticky parts a bit more. In the end, its not usually the obvious problems that the pre-trib position has the most difficulties, but what happens after you see their explanations for the obvious problems. So sure, its easy enough to deal with the rapture not being the first resurrection, but as soon as that argument is made, a whole host of other, usually even more serious problems, begin to crop up.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello dw,

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.

A very graceful reply.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

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

Agreed.

Sorry for seeming to abandon this thread, but have been busy dealing with the heresy of annihilation on another forum.

I will come back to this (I really do enjoy this debate), and answer the replies as best as I can.

Keep in mind, this is one (doctrine) that I know I may be in error on, but, as I said, I have yet to see good argument against it, or for post-trib, and definitely not for amillennialism.

This question was asked by eightball, and is a valid question that one must answer:

Hoping this doesn't de-rail this very interesting intercourse we're having here.......Anyone who can interject where or how the "removal of the restrainer".......might be or not be a "clue" to add to this investigation of the timing of the Churchs' rapture?

Those of us who are pre-trib see the influence of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ as the restrainer.

Which, we believe, is removed.

It cannot be the Holy Spirit Himself...for God is omni-present.

Some see Michael asthe restrainer, and Daniel 12 as representative of his moving out of the way.

While I agree this is possible, I prefer the Spirit's presence in His people as the preferred choice.

The restrainer must be removed before the wicked one appears, and this would put the removal of the Church before the revealing of Antichrist.

The possibility of mid-trib, in my estimation, is a stronger position than at the end of the tribulation, which some try to tie to the resurrection of the tribulation martyrs...I see no valid tie there.


Hope all is well with you, God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed.

Sorry for seeming to abandon this thread, but have been busy dealing with the heresy of annihilation on another forum.

What do you think of this definition and commentary?

Bible references
Those who support annihilationism generally refer to New Testament texts such as Matthew 10:28 where Christ speaks of the wicked being destroyed "both body and soul" in fiery hell and to Old Testament texts such as Ezekiel 18:4 saying that "the soul that sins shall die". Their view of the afterlife generally appeals to New Testament references such as John 11:11 "our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep" and 1Thessalonians 4:15 "we shall not precede those who have fallen asleep". In this view mankind is mortal and the soul is in a dormant state having no concept of the passing of time when the body dies. According to this view, the dead in Christ are awaiting the resurrection of the dead mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

The ancient Hebrews, according to some modern scholars, had no concept of the eternal soul. The afterlife was simply sheol, the abode of the dead, a bleak end to existence akin to the Greek hades.


Those who oppose annihilationism generally refer to the New Testament, especially the story of Lazarus and Dives. By the time of Christ, the Jews largely believed in a future resurrection of the dead. They portrayed the wicked as suffering in sheol while awaiting the resurrection. Some annihilationists take these references to portray the temporary suffering of those who will be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anihilationism


References

1. ^ The Church of England's Doctrine Commission reported in February 1995 that Hell is not eternal torment. The report, entitled "The Mystery of Salvation" states, "Christians have professed appalling theologies which made God into a sadistic monster. ... Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being." (pg 199) ISBN 0-7151-3778-6
2. ^ St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter V) - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
3. ^ Arnobius, Against the Heathen: Book II, paragraph 61, last sentence.
4. ^ John Wesley Furthermore, it should be noted that this comment was made in regard to Calvinism and their insistence that some were pre-destined to receive Christ, and others to be eternally punished. How much weight this statement of Wesley's should be placed on his idea of eternal condemnation remains debated. Actually, the terminology "being destroyed body and soul in hell" is from the lips of Jesus. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." However, the word "destroy" in the original Greek does not necessarily mean to annihilate or cause to become non-existent. This word has the idea of ruin as to its useful original purpose. SERMON 128, Preached at Bristol, in the year 1740 - http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
5. ^ An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages (1965), 133-135; The Revelation of the Seven Seals (1967), 487.
6. ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry, 353
7. ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry by Timothy Dudley-Smith, p353
8. ^ Essentials: A liberal-evangelical dialogue by David L. Edwards with a response from John Stott. 1988; p314
9. ^ John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
10. ^ Essentials, p314
11. ^ Essentials, p314–15
12. ^ Essentials, p320
13. ^ a b Letter from F. F. Bruce to John Stott in 1989, as quoted in John Stott: A Global Ministry, 354
14. ^ Church of England, "The Mystery of Salvation: The Doctrine Commission of the General Synod" (1995); Published by Church House Publishing, London, 1995; copyrighted by The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England, 1995, ISBN 0-7151-3778-6.
15. ^ Essentials, p316
16. ^ http://www.harvestherald.com/challenge.htm
17. ^ http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
18. ^ chapter 6, "Hell: Not Endless" in The Enigma of Evil by John Wenham, p68–92; esp. 81–83. Quotations are Wenham's terms, not the Bible's necessarily. The first edition of the book was titled, The Goodness of God, but contained little or none of this disussion
19. ^ John Wenham, Facing Hell: An Autobiography 1913-1996. Paternoster Press: 1998
20. ^ Clark Pinnock, "The Conditional View" in Four Views on Hell, ed. William Crockett, p. 137

I suppose we could have a thread on that topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This question was asked by eightball, and is a valid question that one must answer:

Quote:
Hoping this doesn't de-rail this very interesting intercourse we're having here.......Anyone who can interject where or how the "removal of the restrainer".......might be or not be a "clue" to add to this investigation of the timing of the Churchs' rapture?

Those of us who are pre-trib see the influence of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ as the restrainer.

Same with the post-Trib view.

The Holy Spirit is being withdrawn from the wicked at the end of time.

But The Holy Spirit is always with the saints - "I will never leave you or forsake you".

The restrainer must be removed before the wicked one appears, and this would put the removal of the Church before the revealing of Antichrist.

The Bible never says that "Christians are the holy spirit" or that the saints are the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit has access to the World - only via the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

Same with the post-Trib view.

The Holy Spirit is being withdrawn from the wicked at the end of time.

But The Holy Spirit is always with the saints - "I will never leave you or forsake you".




The Bible never says that "Christians are the holy spirit" or that the saints are the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit has access to the World - only via the saints.

in Christ,

Bob

As I stated in the earlier post, it is the effect of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, that is removed.

Of course, I think I stated that.

If I didn't, let me try to state it clearly.

Right now, sin is restrained due to the influence of Christians in the world.

Just think of a few things Christians have a restraining effect upon:

Abortion, pornograghy, and the influence in the workplace.

But it is the Holy Spirit that is in Christians Who is removed.

During the tribulation, the Holy Spirit will be present as He has always been, but I believe (and this is just my belief) that He will resume a ministry similar to that of the Old Testament (I am not dogmatic about that).

Concerning the post about annihilation, I believe it is heresy.

There is a reason why people have viewed eternal punishment as eternal for so long...because this is what scripture indicates.

As far as the argument for it, it is very persuasive, but then, so is Christian Universalism, which claims that all will be saved.

I have been debating this on another forum, and have had to examine the arguments for it, and still, I believe it to be heresy.

It, like Christian Universalism, establishes a "no responsibilty" doctrine that alleviates the sinner from consequences.

All sin has consequences.

Are you for or against annihilation?

I will try to be back later, but have to go for now, just checking in.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

As I stated in the earlier post, it is the effect of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, that is removed.

Of course, I think I stated that.

If I didn't, let me try to state it clearly.

Right now, sin is restrained due to the influence of Christians in the world.

Just think of a few things Christians have a restraining effect upon:

Abortion, pornograghy, and the influence in the workplace.

But it is the Holy Spirit that is in Christians Who is removed.

I agree that "you are the sale of the earth" idea does give some role to Christians - certainly.

But in Rev 7 it is the Angels of God that hold back the 4 winds of passion war and strife so that the saints of God may be sealed.

The sealing work as we see in Ephesians - 1 is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus the Holy Spirit is not limited to just the work he does in the life of the saints.

In John 16 - The Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

in John 3 - Christ said that the Holy Spirit works on the heart of the unbeliever - bringing about the New Birth.

During the tribulation, the Holy Spirit will be present as He has always been, but I believe (and this is just my belief) that He will resume a ministry similar to that of the Old Testament (I am not dogmatic about that).

There is no difference in the Holy Spirit's work - NT vs OT - except in the area of the 1Cor 12 supernatural gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues etc that is more pronounced in the NT in certain ages than in the OT.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since you brought up the Anihilation topic again - I am going to start a thread - I too am interested in that topic.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Bob,

I agree that "you are the sale of the earth" idea does give some role to Christians - certainly.

Salt...and light.

That we might glorify God.

I see the light Jesus refers us as being is through our lives.

When the Church is removed, that light will no longer be there.

The wicked one cannot be revealed until He who restrains is taken out of the way.

During this time, I believe Antichrist makes his way to power, and at mid trib, exposes himself for who and what he is.

Also, during this time, the influence of the Church is not present, and because I believe this to be Daniels seventieth week, it is the 144,000 that are the witnesses for Jesus Christ.

I see the first 3 1/2 years as not so much a supernatural tribulation, but one of cataclysmic earthly terror which will cause the world to seek a "saviour".

The Great tribulation erupts in the worst time of tribulation as was never seen before, and never will again.

I have said before, I may be wrong, but I believe that we called out before the tribulation.

But in Rev 7 it is the Angels of God that hold back the 4 winds of passion war and strife so that the saints of God may be sealed.

But, that is during the tribulation, and the restrainer is removed before the tribulation.

The sealing work as we see in Ephesians - 1 is a work of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

Thus the Holy Spirit is not limited to just the work he does in the life of the saints.

Also, very much agreed, praise God!

In John 16 - The Spirit "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Agreed.

in John 3 - Christ said that the Holy Spirit works on the heart of the unbeliever - bringing about the New Birth.

Agreed.

There is no difference in the Holy Spirit's work - NT vs OT .

This is something I believe.

We see the Holy Spirit leaving King Saul.

With the promise of the Comforter, we are told He will be with us always.

except in the area of the 1Cor 12 supernatural gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues etc that is more pronounced in the NT in certain ages than in the OT.

in Christ,

Bob

Agreed.

God bless.