It is definately not worth arguing about, and belittling pre-tribbers. AFAIC, you can't disprove any trib stance, so why get all huffy about it ?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rapture Question
- Thread starter Dave Bussard
- Start date
The pretrib position is still the only one that can be maintained in light of all Scripture. Two excellent source (for the many here who appear not to have read them), are Walvoord, The Rapture Question and, probably better, Gerald Stanton, Kept From the Hour.
I definately believe there is a difference.
This is really where I have problems, not so much with pre-trib.
John 10:16 "and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." God only has one set of people, not two. How would you answer to this?
The Jews we talking to Jesus in John 8:39 "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father", Jesus's reply to the unbelieving Jews was John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil".
What makes the difference between a believer in Christ(the Church) and Israel?
1 Kings 4:20 "Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry. And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt"
Did the promises of Abraham, (the many descendants and the land) were any of them fullfilled in light of Scripture?
The difference is all believers are saved, but not all Jews. Israel historically, as a nation, has rejected Christ.
Bible-belted
New Member
For those who think that pretrib cannot be disproven (and there do seem to be a few who've never actually seen it questioned) read G.E. Ladd, particularly his "The Blessed Hope". Blows Wlavoord (yes. I've read him) out of the water. (incidentally, Walvoord's "The Rapture Question" is probably one of the most poorly argued books I've read). Follow that up with a read of Ladd's "The Presence of the Future". Follow that up with "The Gospel of the Kingdom". Ladd'll set you straight.
Of course those wanting to see comparisons of the views would be advised to read the books on Revelation (See Ladd's commentary on Revelation too) and the Triblation found in the "Countrerpoints" series published by Zondervan. For my money, in the volume dealing with the Rapture, Doug Moo does a superb job of pointing out the utter lack of foundation for the pre-trib theory in Scripture that does not rely implicitly on circular reasoning.
Incidentally a Historic Premilenialilst CAN see a differnece between Israel and the Church without sccumbing to the nonsense that the church is a mere parenthetical thing.
And please, let's dispense with the arrogant idea that those who deny pretibism have never read about it from pretrib sources. ("if you knew anyting about it you'd belive it". Rubbish)
Of course those wanting to see comparisons of the views would be advised to read the books on Revelation (See Ladd's commentary on Revelation too) and the Triblation found in the "Countrerpoints" series published by Zondervan. For my money, in the volume dealing with the Rapture, Doug Moo does a superb job of pointing out the utter lack of foundation for the pre-trib theory in Scripture that does not rely implicitly on circular reasoning.
Incidentally a Historic Premilenialilst CAN see a differnece between Israel and the Church without sccumbing to the nonsense that the church is a mere parenthetical thing.
And please, let's dispense with the arrogant idea that those who deny pretibism have never read about it from pretrib sources. ("if you knew anyting about it you'd belive it". Rubbish)
Dave Bussard
New Member
>>>And please, let's dispense with the arrogant idea that those who deny pretibism have never read about it from pretrib sources.
You bring up a very good point. What I have found is that most (not all) that believe in pre-trib and have their arguments against other positions have ONLY gotten their arguments from pre-trib books. Most (again, not all) have not read Ladd, Gundry, Tragellis, DeMar, Rosenthal, VanKampen, etc.
On the other hand, those of us that are opposed to pre-trib usually started out pre-trib (because of our environment) until we studied further and found its inconsistancies and were troubled by its scriptural assumptions. I've NEVER heard of a pre-wrather, post-tribber, or any other end times believing person start in that postion and then leave it for pre-trib.
You bring up a very good point. What I have found is that most (not all) that believe in pre-trib and have their arguments against other positions have ONLY gotten their arguments from pre-trib books. Most (again, not all) have not read Ladd, Gundry, Tragellis, DeMar, Rosenthal, VanKampen, etc.
On the other hand, those of us that are opposed to pre-trib usually started out pre-trib (because of our environment) until we studied further and found its inconsistancies and were troubled by its scriptural assumptions. I've NEVER heard of a pre-wrather, post-tribber, or any other end times believing person start in that postion and then leave it for pre-trib.
Bible-belted
New Member
Yes, I agree.
I came out of a pre-trib environment. My trainng in minstry actually was under a pastor who required me to read books by Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost on the Rapture.
I actually started to question it hile reading a book completely (so I thought at the time) unrelated to eschatology. I was reading Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship". That caused me to question pre-tribulationism and it went from there.
I came out of a pre-trib environment. My trainng in minstry actually was under a pastor who required me to read books by Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost on the Rapture.
I actually started to question it hile reading a book completely (so I thought at the time) unrelated to eschatology. I was reading Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship". That caused me to question pre-tribulationism and it went from there.
Dave Bussard
New Member
Yes, that's the way most of us realize what pre-trib is. We assume it's correct because everybody tells us it is. Then we read one of their books and see 1 Cor 15:52 used to show that Christ will return invisibly, all the verses used in attempt to show the "any moment" return, and the conclusion that there must be two comings separated by 7 years because not all of the descriptions of His return contain the exact same information, etc.
Pre-trib appeals to what the Bible DOESN'T say, rather than what it does say.
[ December 14, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]
Pre-trib appeals to what the Bible DOESN'T say, rather than what it does say.
[ December 14, 2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]
I think "nonsense" or whatever Latreia used is over the top for this discussion. Neither is it an arrogant idea that those who don't believe it have never read it. In the reading I have done, the questions by and large and not dealt with in a substantial way.
Walvoord is not poorly argued. It is written on a popular level. When I read it, I remember thinking that he stated points that could be easily proven from Scripture but didn't take time to reference the scriptural proof. I was disappointed in that. Overall though, his points dealt with the various arguments in a substantial way. Stanton deals with Ladd and answers the objection, at least to my satisfaction.
By referencing Bonhoeffer, I assume you refer to the ad hominem argument that pretribs desire to avoid persecution. That argument has been dealt with so much and shown to have no biblical support. Our concern is not with persecution or tribulation; it is with what Scripture says. Of course, this discussion always gets a little heated because some cannot imagine that others are right.
A while back I wrestled through this issue having read some posttrib stuff. Having wrestled through it, I am more firmly than ever committed to the pretrib rapture because, as I say, it is the only one that deals with all of Scripture fairly. It is uninformed to say that Pretrib deals with what Scripture doesn't say rather than what it does. It is disappointing to see such arguments used as "proof" or "support" for a position. Posttribs make great appeals to silence, the main one being that "Scripture never says Christ will come back before the rapture" while at the same time failing to produce a verse that denies it. All the while, they use verses that clearly have other possibilities and even other probabilities to support ... and they say we proof text.
As one who has read the posttrib arguments and found them utterly and totally unconvincing and unable to deal with Scripture in a consistent way, I will only say that you can hold whatever position you want, but remember, it is not emotions that matter -- it is the text of Scripture.
You guys can hold your position and believe what you want. However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support. It clearly does have support whether you agree with it or not. You may prefer a different interpretation because of you own preferences. But realize that there are other interpretations that do justice to the passages in question.
Walvoord is not poorly argued. It is written on a popular level. When I read it, I remember thinking that he stated points that could be easily proven from Scripture but didn't take time to reference the scriptural proof. I was disappointed in that. Overall though, his points dealt with the various arguments in a substantial way. Stanton deals with Ladd and answers the objection, at least to my satisfaction.
By referencing Bonhoeffer, I assume you refer to the ad hominem argument that pretribs desire to avoid persecution. That argument has been dealt with so much and shown to have no biblical support. Our concern is not with persecution or tribulation; it is with what Scripture says. Of course, this discussion always gets a little heated because some cannot imagine that others are right.
A while back I wrestled through this issue having read some posttrib stuff. Having wrestled through it, I am more firmly than ever committed to the pretrib rapture because, as I say, it is the only one that deals with all of Scripture fairly. It is uninformed to say that Pretrib deals with what Scripture doesn't say rather than what it does. It is disappointing to see such arguments used as "proof" or "support" for a position. Posttribs make great appeals to silence, the main one being that "Scripture never says Christ will come back before the rapture" while at the same time failing to produce a verse that denies it. All the while, they use verses that clearly have other possibilities and even other probabilities to support ... and they say we proof text.
As one who has read the posttrib arguments and found them utterly and totally unconvincing and unable to deal with Scripture in a consistent way, I will only say that you can hold whatever position you want, but remember, it is not emotions that matter -- it is the text of Scripture.
You guys can hold your position and believe what you want. However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support. It clearly does have support whether you agree with it or not. You may prefer a different interpretation because of you own preferences. But realize that there are other interpretations that do justice to the passages in question.
Dave Bussard
New Member
Hi Heidi
Yes, the Day of the Lord begins after, but on the same day that the rapture takes place. For further explanation see 2 Thessalonians Part 1, 2, 3 at:
www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
And Joel 2:31 makes it clear that the the sign in the sun, moon, and stars must take place BEFORE the Day of the Lord (see also Matt 24:29, Rev 6:12-17).
Though from your question I have a sneakin suspicion that you already know this!
Yes, the Day of the Lord begins after, but on the same day that the rapture takes place. For further explanation see 2 Thessalonians Part 1, 2, 3 at:
www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
And Joel 2:31 makes it clear that the the sign in the sun, moon, and stars must take place BEFORE the Day of the Lord (see also Matt 24:29, Rev 6:12-17).
Though from your question I have a sneakin suspicion that you already know this!
Dave Bussard
New Member
Pastor Larry>However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support.
Oh, we are not pretending! We mean it!
Oh, we are not pretending! We mean it!
Dave Bussard
New Member
See Heidi, I've got a pretty good antenna!
And thanks for all your votes everyone. There are 52 and they're still coming.
And thanks for all your votes everyone. There are 52 and they're still coming.
You are wrong, plain and simple. You may disagree but it is a simple matter of being blind to the words of Scripture that leads you to "mean" that it has no support. At this point, I do not mean to be mean or insenstive, but if you conclusively disprove the pretrib position, you will be the first in history and I daresay you wouldn't be posting here. You would be publishing your work. Indeed I would be interested in reading it to see you answer the questions.Originally posted by Dave Bussard:
Pastor Larry>However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support.
Oh, we are not pretending! We mean it!
As for the DOL, it begins just after the rapture, with the beginning of the tribulation period. This much is clear from Scripture. It is a wonder that any seriously doubt it. But then I never cease to be amazed by the views that are put forth.
It is interesting Dave that you bring up 2 Thessalonians. Perhaps you can explain to us why the Thessalonians were unsettled to believe that they were in the DOL. If they were posttribulationists, as you are, woulnd't they have been expecting it??
The reality is that only reason they would be troubled is if they thought they were going to be raptured before it began. Being told that they were going through the DOL (by a false teacher) was a contradiction of what Paul had taught, just as posttribulationism is. If the DOL begins just after the rapture and includes the tribulation (as Scripture clearly teaches), then it is clear that the Thessalonians thought they would be gone before the tribulation (hence Pretribbers) and Paul does nothing to correct them. Instead he confirms it. This shows the pretrib teaching is clearly compatible with Scripture, contrary to the claim of "nonsense."