Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture

[Ernie Brazee]

We have one Bible, to understand the mind of God we must study the whole Bible not just the New or Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the law taught in the OT, the OT is a picture of the completed work of Christ, this includes the rapture, the tribulation, and millenial reign of Christ. It takes study to arrive at the truth.

Ernie

 

[Ransom]

BrianT asked:

Why is a time gap assumed [in Daniel 9]?

Because the Dispensationalists can't get the Church off the map before the Great Tribulation unless they assume the gap.

 

[KenH]

At least one thing I have learned from this thread is that pretrib premillers have myriads of presuppositions that they use in their interpretation of the Bible, and they attempt to make verses here and there fit their presuppositions. How sad.

One awaiting the appearing and revelation of Christ Jesus,

Ken

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by EagleLives911:
In fact, I don't personally know any Baptist (out of thousands) who believe otherwise. I guess I'm flabbergasted at these other views! Frankly, I've never heard of these other views from any Baptist before joining this board!

Well, now you know there are lots of we Baptists who are not pretrib premillers. Sounds like you've lived a rather sheltered life, theologically speaking.

Do you know that 100 years ago, most Baptists would have been flabbergasted at the pretrib premill position taught among Baptists today?

I am glad this thread has served to help you understand that eschatology is not a settled issue among Christians, like the Trinity, the virgin birth, etc. are.

Always glad to be of assistance.

One awaiting the appearing and revelation of Christ Jesus on the final day,

Ken

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

3. As for the assumption, I maintain that 1 Thess 4 and 5 presume Paul had tuaght a pretrib rapture. Read Walvoord's articles in "Vital Prophetic Issues" ed. Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Kregel), 1995.

Sorry, but this makes me really uncomfortable. Basically, this requires us to make an assumption (based on what?), and then interpret scripture based on that assumption. What if the assumption is wrong in the first place? You end up looking at scripture backwards. The framework of interpretation should not be a preconceived idea, but scripture itself.

At least you would then be informed unbelievers

... (It's a joke ... RELAX).

Good to see some people are able to keep their sense of humor when disagreeing.

3. As for 1 Thessalonians 4, let me quote from Walvoord's conclusion to his article (p. 210):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As a whole, the posttribulationists' interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4 does little to advance their argument. They have no reasonable explanation how a posttribulational rapture offers comfort to the sorrowing Thessalonians.

</font>[/QUOTE]I don't recall seeing that quote from Walvoord before, and I must say I find his comments quite disappointing because although I often disagree with him, he usually doesn't miss something this obvious. 1 Thess 4:13-17 is *very explicit* in where the comfort lies, and I am constantly amazed at how many people miss this simple issue. The comfort is not in the timing of the rapture, but in the *fact* that the rapture will allow people to be reunited with their lost loved ones. The pasage starts with "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." and end with "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [18]Therefore comfort one another with these words." The whole purpose of this passage is "concerning them which are asleep", and the hope of being together again with them. The church was under heavy persecution, and many were dying. People were loosing friends and family all over the place. Unbelievers had no hope of seeing their departed loved ones again, but verse 13 tells us to "sorrow not", for we are not like those without hope. Paul then explains that at the end of things when Christ returns, we shall all again be reunited! What glorious comfort for those who are loosing friends and family to martyrdom! People see this as primarily a "rapture" passage, but the rapture mentioned is just the means to the end - the key point of the passage is the comfort of one day being reunited with dead loved ones, with Christ. Paul's purpose is not to lay out explicit doctrine about the trib, resurrection, etc. He is comforting those under persecution.

4. In 1 Thessalonians 5, there is no way that the time of the tribulation preceding the second coming can be called a time of peace and safety.

But it is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:38-39 - they are eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, not expecting their sudden destruction. Please see my previous post about the thief in the night.

We, the saints, are not destined for the wrath of this great tribulation but for salvation. Therefore, we will be taken out from it.

Salvation and tribulation are not opposites. It is possible to be present for God's wrath, but not the recipient of it. Let me put it this way: even pretrib concedes many come to salvation during the great trib. Are these "trib saints" appointed to wrath" instead of salvation? No.

5. 2 Thess 2 assumes a pretrib rapture. The saints there are confused because some, under the guise of being from Paul, have been teaching that the DOL has begun. They are confused becaseu Paul had taught them that they would be gone when the DOL started. Therefore, it is clear that Paul taught the the believers would be gone prior to the DOL which begins with teh Great Tribulation.

Paul does NOT teach them they will be gone. He goes into great detail about what must happen first, what to look for. If Paul believed in a pretrib rapture, he would have simply said "Don't worry, the day of the Lord can't be here yet, because you all would have been raptured already!" Why did he not say this?

Also, about the "day of the Lord", Joel 2:31 says "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come." This sounds exactly like the 6th seal (Rev 6:12) Matt 24:29 says this is "Immediately after the tribulation". And it is not until this time that men cry "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rev 6:17). The day of the Lord is the day he returns at the end of the Trib. 1 Cor 5:5, 2 Cor 1:14, and many other passages speak of remaining faithful until and looking for the day of the Lord. That day will not overtake us, not because we are not here, but because we are watching for it and expecting it.

In the end, I am not going to run anyone out of Christianity over their timing. The fundamental issue is a personal return of Christ in judgment and victory.

Amen, Pastor Larry.

God bless you, I really enjoy your participation in these forums.

[ June 07, 2002, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[Daniel David]

Brian, Ransom, and anyone else...

The time gap that pretribbers believe in is found in Daniel 9:24-27. Here is the passage:

Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."

A couple of points from the pretrib perspective:

1. 3 periods of time are given that equal 70 sevens (weeks). They are 7 sevens, 62 sevens, and 1 seven.

2. After the addition of the first set of numbers (7+62=69), the Messiah will be cut off but not for Himself. Obviously this is the death of Christ.

3. After the death of the Messiah, Jerusalem would be destroyed by the people of the prince to come. Who destroyed Jerusalem? Romans. When did this happen? AD 70. So already there is a 40 year time gap.

4. Sometime after this (it is not specified), the prince to come (antichrist) will confirm a pact/treaty/covenant with Israel for the final seven. This has not happened yet. So the time gap has been around 2000 years so far.

To disagree with the interpretation is one thing. To say that pretribbers invent the gap because we need it is foolish and ignorant. Obviously greater men than I have given much more information about this passage. The information is available.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

I am an Amillennialist, and I have a question for you scholars. You all say Jesus could come back at any moment, which I believe. You say the Antichrist is going to rule from the temple in Jeruslaem, but the Great Tribulation has to start because the church has to be gone.

Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? (John 2:20)

The temple took 46 years to build, so how could you all believe Jesus could come back at any moment whe the temple has to be rebuilt, and it took forty-six years to complete??? And where does the Bible talk about a seven-year Great Tribulation???

"The proof of compliance with the anti-Christian system is the acceptance of a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads (v. 16). Interpreters such as Wilcock do not find it necessary to understand this mark as any more visible or literal than is the "seal" (7:3) or the "name" (14:1) on the foreheads of the Christians...Receiving the beat's mark is synonomous with worshiping the beast (cf. 14:9, 11; 20:4)...Those who do not participate in the world's activities and philosophies in any age should expect persecution and ostracism.The indication of this ostracism is found in the mention of one of its forms, that they may not buy or sell (i.e., economic boycott - v. 17)...Worshiping the emperor was a test at every phase of life. Christians were boycotted in the market for the refusal to bear the mark of the emperor. Marriage settlements, wills, transfers of property - none of these were legal without the stamp of the emperor...for centuries, the mark (v. 16) of being Roman Catholic was the one worshiped in the Latin language, regardless what langauge one commonly spoke, or whether one even could understand the Latin liturgy. The receiving of this mark on the hands or foreheads may merely be an allusion to practice, common in ancient times, of slaves or soldiers bearing the name or the mark of their owner or emperor upon their hands (Actius and Ambrose bear testimony to this), or, in some cases, upon the forehead (as confirmed by Maximus and Ambrose)." ("Revelation, Four Views, A Parallel Commentary")

Also, the book talks about Popes who forbade their members to mingle or do any business with other religious orders. With the great number of Catholics back in the day, this would have been a great problem for them. This book gives interpretation for all the possible interpretations of the book of Revelation.

 

[BrianT]

Hi PreachtheWord,

Personally, I think the last few verses of Dan 9 are maybe the most perplexing passages in end-time study. Pronouns fly fast and furious, and I have a hard time understanding who is who in the passage, what is what, and when is when. Even the Hebrew is difficult, and comparing translations you see that translators have a very tough time with this passage.

But one thing I do notice - the passage starts out by defining what the 70 weeks are for:

- To finish the transgression: happened at Christ 's first coming (Gal 3:19, Heb 9:15)
- To make an end of sins: happened at Christ's first coming (Heb 9:26)
- To make reconciliation for iniquity: happened at Christ's first coming (2 Cor 5:19, Eph 2:16, Heb 2:17, etc.)
- To bring in everlasting righteousness: happened by Christ's first coming (Rom 3:21-22, Rom 5:21, etc.)
- To seal up vision and prophecy: happened at Christ's first coming: Matthew Henry says "He came to seal up the vision and prophecy, all the prophetical visions of the Old Testament, which had reference to the Messiah. He sealed them up, that is, he accomplished them, answered to them to a tittle; all things that were written in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning the Messiah, were fulfilled in him. Thus he confirmed the truth of them as well as his own mission. He sealed them up, that is, he put an end to that method of God’s discovering his mind and will, and took another course by completing the scripture-canon in the New Testament, which is the more sure word of prophecy than that by vision, 2 Pt. 1:19; Heb. 1:1."
- And to anoint the Most Holy: happened at Christ's first coming (Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38

Again, I don't feel anyone can be too dogmatic about what verses 26 and 27 are telling us. They open up some interesting possibilites and some great discussion though.

God bless,
Brian

 

[Primitive Baptist]

AMEN. Christ fulfilled it all.

 

[hrhema]

Kiffin:

You better study Biblical history again because the two councils of Nicea and Trent both happened in Rome and both happened under the leadership of the Emperor constantine.

It was during these councils that the papacy was established and the Roman Catholic Church was started. Again it was during these councils that the doctrine of the trinity became established.

 

[KenH]

hrhema,

Surely you understand that the form of the Roman Catholic Church today is much different that it was in its infancy, right? Besides, some of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is going to be true and some will false, just like any other church. That is why everything that everyone teaches has to be checked against the Bible, which is the only true teaching for our spiritual health.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[hrhema]

That is right and this is why we should only criticize what is wrong not the whole.

There are doctrines in nearly every organization out there that are questionable and debateable.

 

[Ray Berrian]

What I was saying on June 6th post was that Christ comes in the rapture to take the saints to Heaven and to be evaluated for 'good works' at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Then the Messianic Kingdom on earth. Then . . .

The wicked dead are raised 1,000 years later than the above event noted in the first paragraph, namely the rapture of the church. The unsaved will be judged as worthy only of Hell at the Great White Throne Judgment, because they neglected or willfully rejected the saving claims of Christ.

Conclusion:

Rapture {saints living and dead will be raised from their graves}
Millennial Kingdom on earth
{Lastly} Resurrection of the wicked dead from their graves

 

[BrianT]

Ray, you have just posted a circular argument.

 

[ddavis]

I for one am glad that “gap” was filled with the church age.

 

[Pastor Larry]

First, let me address Ken. You comment how sad it is that the dispensationalists supposedly have these myriads of presuppositions. Why is it our ‘presuppositions’ that are sad rather than yours? Like it or not, our “presuppositions” are firmly exegetical and therefore not presuppositions at all. You failed to answer my question (so far as I can see) about how much you have actually read of dispensationalism as opposed to what you have heard from its opponents. You seem very convinced without really knowing what we believe.

Now to Brian

As for your comfort, I would encourage exegesis. We have to admit there is something missing in 1 Thessalonians, namely the Thessalonians statement. I think if you read Walvoord’s article, you will realize why he says what he does. He makes a very good case for it. Remember you can’t read 4 apart from 5. They go together. The rapture that is the comfort clearly precedes the DOL.

I think your point on presuppositions is valid, but only in the framework of understanding revelation. The epistles are one side of a conversation about which we have very little. I don't think this passage is about a presupposition. i think the point is that if you look at it from both angles (posttrib and pretrib), the pretrib presupposition answers more questions. Even the posttrib position involves a presupposition. Surely you won't deny that.

You say, Paul's purpose is not to lay out explicit doctrine about the trib, resurrection, etc. He is comforting those under persecution. I completely agree. That is why your position seems tenuous to me.

But it is in perfect harmony with Matt 24:38-39 - they are eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, not expecting their sudden destruction. Please see my previous post about the thief in the night.

But Matt 24 and 1 Thess 5 have different audiences and different referents. Don’t confuse them

Salvation and tribulation are not opposites. It is possible to be present for God's wrath, but not the recipient of it. Let me put it this way: even pretrib concedes many come to salvation during the great trib. Are these "trib saints" appointed to wrath" instead of salvation?

Paul is writing to the church saints, not trib saints. In the context, salvation and tribulation are opposites, and “wrath” in Thessalonians is the Tribulation wrath. Furthermore, Rev 3:10 makes the exegetical case that the church is saved from the wrath, not saved in the midst of it.

Paul does NOT teach them they will be gone. He goes into great detail about what must happen first, what to look for. If Paul believed in a pretrib rapture, he would have simply said "Don't worry, the day of the Lord can't be here yet, because you all would have been raptured already!" Why did he not say this?

Turn the questions around: If Paul had taught them that they would be here for the tribulation, then why were they concerned? They should have expected it. Yet clearly they did not. Why did they not expect it? Because Paul had them (and us) otherwise.

About the DOL, it has various references and is used as a general reference to the 1007 years of tribulation and millennium in Scripture. There is not the space to deal with it here. But the case for that is very solid. I agree with much of what you said. I find your divisions unconvincing however. You say, That day will not overtake us, not because we are not here, but because we are watching for it and expecting it. I say that is not what the text says. The text it will not overtake us like a thief because we will not be here. In comparing Scripture with Scripture (beginning w/ v. 9), I don’t see how you get around that.

I would just encourage you to read some more. I think some of your connections do not really do justice to the text. They are read from your presuppositions (I am not denying that we have ours). The question is, Which are the best? (The answer is: Ours).

[ June 07, 2002, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
First, let me address Ken. You failed to answer my question (so far as I can see) about how much you have actually read of dispensationalism as opposed to what you have heard from its opponents.

Fair enough. I spent about 15 years listening to Hal Lindsey's Saturday 1.5 hour long radio program. My pastor recently finished a multi-multi-week series teaching the pretrib premill position(as a friend said I must have felt like I was already going through tribulation

)

How's that?

One awaiting the appearing and revelation of Christ Jesus at the end of the world,

Ken

[ June 07, 2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[Bro. John Willis]

Originally posted by hrhema:
I wanted to address Mr. Willis' remark about Catholicism and the Jehovah Witnesses.

The Jehovah Witness does not even believe in the Rapture or any such thing at all. Their end time doctrine is far different then pre-trib, post trib, amillenial etc.

As far as blaming everything on the Catholic Church my point is and will always be that the Protestant church do hold to doctrines that started in Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity started in Roman Councils of Nicea and Trent.
Athansius was the one who debated the belief that the Father and son was separate persons with Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325 a.d. Until the council of Trent which declared the Holy spirit the Third person of the Godhead the word Trinity had not been coined. Athanasius is the one who coined the word Trinity.

Therefore all those who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity believe in something from Rome.

I'm happy that you took this issue up since I have a good knowledge of these matters. But you are wrong. The doctrine that you call the 'Trinity' was first established in Genesis 1:1. The main issue at both councils was the Arian heresy which exists today in the Jehovah's Witnesses. The doctrine itself is more correctly termed "The Triune God" which is used in quite a number of doctrinal statements. This is the remaining issue within this thread and it's doctrinal ramifications; the use of non-Scriptural terminology, to wit...rapture which does not appear once in all of the Holy Bible.
The issue that Kiffin brings up later concerning the Church at Alexandria is in fact speaking about a church which was considered apostate even in the times of Athanasius and with definitive intimation towards the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff(The Pope). My original statement that premill/pretribb amounts to Russellite eschatology and theology is based on their teaching of Immanency, Invisible Parousia, Earthly Mitigation and Reign of Faithful Believers and others. It is true that they have changed their belief system at least four times within the past 45-50 years, but not so radically that these dogmas cannot be attested to by their faithful. The statements that I make about Rome are from the position of "past faithful". If you want to stand up for the Roman Church this is not the place to do it. But if you care to, even Rome cannot be made to stand for "pre-anything" in the beginning centuries of her life.
Don't get hot about my statements. Just using what I know to be true...RCC known history and the Holy Bible and not necessarily in that order.
By the way...Baptist ARE NOT Protestants.
Your brother
John

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brian T,

Read your ideas on the 'circular argument.' Do you agee with the stated brief sketch of part of future eschatology?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

You say, That day will not overtake us, not because we are not here, but because we are watching for it and expecting it. I say that is not what the text says. The text it will not overtake us like a thief because we will not be here.

Why is the church exhorted to watch and be ready for something she won't be around for in the first place?