Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:

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

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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Furthermore, Rev 3:10 makes the exegetical case that the church is saved from the wrath, not saved in the midst of it.

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?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
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?

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

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.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

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.

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?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

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 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".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BrianT:
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 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.

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?

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

- First, it doesn't say in what form this takes (ie. seeing "rapture" here is definitely reading into the text)

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.

- Second, one can not get "out of" something they are never in.

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

First, from may mean out from within (emergence) but can also mean away from (exclusion). Cf. John 12:27; Acts 15:29; Heb 5:7. Second, John 17:15 is inconclusive. It may have the idea protected in the midst of [protected in the midst of attacks] but it could also be translated kept away from [exclude your disciples from the kind of activity that the evil one is engaged in (commentators seem to agree on this interpretation)]. Third, the parallel phrase in Jer 30:7 involves Israel and not the Church. An even closer parallel (sw/vzw + ejk) is found in Jas 5:20 with the meaning kept away from. It must mean that he will be kept from death, not restored in the midst of death. (from some notes that I have.

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

- 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".

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

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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?

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

 

[LadyEagle]

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!

 

[postrib]

...It doesn't matter one way or the other what anybody on here believes...

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Perhaps you misunderstood my point.

I did. Thanks for correcting me.

I want to get off now, feel free to have the last word.

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.

 

[LadyEagle]

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!

 

[KenH]

(Phil 1:19-26 NKJV) For I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, {20} according to my earnest expectation and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. {21} For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. {22} But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. {23} For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. {24} Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you. {25} And being confident of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy of faith, {26} that your rejoicing for me may be more abundant in Jesus Christ by my coming to you again.

Another thing I find amazing about pretrib premillers toward the idea of tribulation is to contrast their attitude with that of the apostle Paul.

In the above verses, Paul says he knows it would be better for him to go and be with the Lord, but better for the Philippians if he stays. If anyone would have a reason for wanting to leave, it would be Paul in chains in Rome, especially after all of the tribulation he had already gone through in his previous years of service to Christ. Yet he desires to stay in the final analysis for the sake of others.

Today, I find many pretrib premillers that I hear talk about life conditions in general say that, per their beliefs, things are going to get bad and they want out. No thought is given to being of help to others during tribulation, just get me out before it gets real bad. Also, from what I can tell, the vast majority of pretrib premillers live in the United States, where they are greatly blessed above what practically every other nation has. Perhaps they need to look at their attitude toward physical comforts? At the least, it is readily apparent that a great many pretrib premillers in the United States are not of the same strong, sturdy spiritual strength of the apostle Paul and other Christians throughout the centuries who have suffered tribulation for the faith.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Another thing I find amazing about pretrib premillers toward the idea of tribulation is to contrast their attitude with that of the apostle Paul.

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.

 

[KenH]

Thanks, Pastor Larry. I understand.

Ken