Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture

Earlier in this thread, I stated I was raised solidly pretrib, and defended it vocally, but a few years ago was forced to make the transition away from pretrib. I am now posttrib, and on the fence between amill and premill.

 

I totally agree the church is "saved from the wrath". Where we disagree is that this salvation from wrath takes the form of a rapture 7 years prior. Consider Rev 3:10, the very verse you mention: it was written primarily to the church in Philadelphia. Was Rev 3:10 a promise of rapture for them? Obviously not. Why has the verse changed meaning for us?

 

I have never read Lindsey. I have never considered him to be an academic source. I was referring to, as I stated, Walvoord, Thomas, and the like and their exegesis of various passages relevant to this discussion. Even most pastors are not presenting the material from an academic viewpoint (quite often because they themselves do not really know the stuff). It is generally on a more popular level. I think, in your position, you are making more assumptions than the text can bear.

 

She is not told to watch for the tribulation but rather for the coming. If the tribulation was prior to the rapture, then there would be no need to tell them to be ready; they would have seven years to get ready.

As for Rev 3:10, it was written to the church at Philadelphia but most are convinced that the messages are to all churches of all ages. Furthermore, it says that the will be saved "out of" the tribulation and in parallel usages, it clearly means "away from" not "in the midst of." Read RL Thomas for a good discussion of this.

 

I agree the church is to watch for his coming. But there is always a need to be ready, even more so during the trib. Nowhere does scripture mention a coming *with a timeframe* other than at the end of the trib. Why is the church told to watch for his coming, and the only times a timeframe is used in reference to his coming, it is after the trib?

I agree the material in the letters can be applicable to all churches of all ages, but still the primary recipient was the Philadelphians. The promise was given directly to them, and for them it was not a promise of rapture. Again, has scripture changed meaning?

About "out of" and "from", I have three thoughts:

- First, it doesn't say in what form this takes (ie. seeing "rapture" here is definitely reading into the text)
- Second, one can not get "out of" something they are never in. I can't get "out of" my car without first being inside it. God can't spew the lukewarm "out of" (same Greek) his mouth (verse 16) without the lukewarm first being in his mouth. One can't take the speck or beam "from" their eye, if it is not in they're eye in the first place.
- the Greek used is a generic preposition (with a sense of "of", belonging to), and interestingly enough the next two times it is used in Revelation is verse 16 "spew thee out of my mouth" and verse 18 "buy of me gold tried in the fire".

 

I don't agree at all. The references to his coming are not only after the trib. That is where your presuppositions comes in. You think that he comes after the trib so all the references to his coming are after the trib. Do you see the circular reasoning you have employed?

The question is, If he comes after the trib, what reason is there to be ready now? Let's live like the devil and just get saved when we see the tribulation judgments. That is no motivation to watch at all.

No it hasn't. The church at Philadephia was saved out of tribulation. Again, read Thomas for a good discussion of this.

No it doesn't. But it does say that the church will be saved from (out of) the tribulation. How will that happen apart from the Rapture? There is an assumption ... namely that something happens before the tribulation to get the church out of it.

By comparison to other Greek constructions, this does not work. It is to read Greek in light of English. Consider the following:

The point is that they can saved from something in the sense of being kept from it, as parallel constructions clearly show.

But I could show you places where the Greek is used in the way the pretrib understands it (as mentioned above).

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I am simply discussing the passages themselves, not the conclusion I draw from them. Let me put it another way: There are verses talk about his coming after the trib. There are verses that talk about his coming without a time reference in relation to the trib. But there are no verses that talk about his coming *that have a time reference*, that place his coming before the trib. I am *not* saying that the passages that do not have a time reference are therefore after the trib, but I am saying that to place them before the trib is to read into them.

For example, compare the two most common "rapture" passages, 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:51-52, with Matt 24:29-31. Neither 1 Thess 4:16-17 nor 1 Cor 15:51-52 have a time reference - they only describe an event, not the timing of it in relation to the trib. Matt 24:29-31 *does* have a time element, "immediately after the tribulation". Now, I realize that there is no "proof" that all three passages are talking about the same event, but notice:

- in all three, the Lord comes
- in all three, there is the presence of angles
- in all three, a trumpet sounds
- in all three, saints are gathered

In fact, if you lay out a table and compare every detail of each passage, you see that 1 Thess 4:16-17 actually has more in common with Matt 24:29-31 than it does with 1 Cor 15:51-52. Yet we all tie 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:51-52 together easily. Why should we not tie in Matt 24:29-31 as well? I can think of no other cross-reference examples in any other area of scripture where passages that match so closely are not tied together. I admit it may be possible that Matt 24:29-31 should not be tied into the other two passages, but I have a hard time with the reason, because it would be based on where one *wants* Matt 24:29-31 to fit rather than on the text of the passage itself. It seems to me that the proper approach is to assume it is tied together until it can be explicitly explained, from other scripture, why it should not be. And I find no other scripture that tells me that. (for example, I had a KJVO fellow tell me that the two accounts of the temptation of Christ were two different events, because of the differences between the passages - obviously their similarities tie them together more strongly than their differences push them apart!) In fact, I think it would be *very* strange if Paul wrote his passages without the Matt passage in mind - for if he was talking about something different, he could have easily qualified his words instead of following the Matt passage so closely without any explanation that it is not the same event.

Anyway, I've enjoyed this discussion, but I've invested WAY more time and effort than I was intending to. I've been on this ride before, too many times. I want to get off now, feel free to have the last word.

God bless,
Brian

 

My final 2 cents on this topic: It doesn't matter one way or the other what anybody on here believes, because Jesus is Coming Soon!

 

I think what we believe about the rapture's timing is important because Jesus said it's possible for us to "be offended" by tribulation and "fall away" (Matthew 13:20-21; Matthew 24:9-12; Luke 8:13).

I believe Jesus told us everything we'd have to face beforehand for a good reason, so that we would be less likely to be offended and fall away: "Take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things" (Mark 13:23). "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). To be forewarned is to be forearmed: mentally, emotionally, and spiritually (and possibly even physically, if the Lord so leads).

http://www.geocities.com/postrib

 

I did. Thanks for correcting me.

Me too, and this is it:

I think the timing is important, but it is not a matter to drive someone out of orthodoxy over. We should live as if Christ will come tomorrow (or today). Watch and be ready.

 

Awww....you guys, it went zoom right over ya! Don't you get it? It was a pun on this topic.... it doesn't matter what anybody on here believes because...here it is:

Jesus is Coming Soon! (the last word....ok, now my 2 cents is truly over)....but it just went right past you!

 

Although I said I was done, I will comment here because I think you demonstrate the misrepresentation that you possess. I don't know of any pretribber who is trying to avoid tribulation because they don't want to suffer for Jesus. I certainly am not. What we are trying to do is be accurate with Scripture. We are not scared of tribulation and trying to avoid death any more than you are when you drive with a seat belt on on the right side of the road. Are you scared of death because you are not driving on the left side at 80 miles an hour with your seat belt off? Of course not. And in the same way, we are not trying to avoid death and tribulation by our position.

Every time you see trial or persecution in Scripture, it is not talking about the "tribulation." Don't make the mistake of identifying two things together that should be identified as separate.