The Post Tribulation Rapture position

[KRJ]

Consider how big the old Roman Empire was. It covered most of Europe, the Mideast and North Africa.

True. But the Islamic Caliphate covered a vast territory as well and lasted until the 1920s as the Ottoman Empire. It can also be considered one of the kingdoms that replaced Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom and so could just as easily be the ten toes in Daniel's vision. Plus, partly of iron and partly of clay could certainly describe the rift between Sunni and Shia. They hate each other but will cooperate if it's a matter of jihad against the infidel.

More or less, yes. Radical Islam.

Yes, but if a figure appears that both Sunni and Shia can agree is the long awaited Mahdi, and the Mahdi does signs and wonders, I have to wonder if any other type of Islam will exist but radical.

 

[KRJ]

Back to the original question. I'm post-trib. I believe the second coming and the rapture are one event.

I believe the history of pre-trib is this:

1) A young Scottish girl named Margaret Mitchell dreamed it in the 1830s;
2) Mitchell told it to Church of Scotland minister Edward Irving;
3) Irving believed it and told it to Plymouth Brethren minister John Darby;
4) Darby believed it and went through the Bible taking things out of context in search of proof texts;
5) Darby also told C.I. Scofield who believed it;
6) Scofield put the notes in his study Bible and Lord only knows how many people read them and believed it;
7) Scofield also had a lot of influence on Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary;
8) MBI and DTS have rained preachers all over the country who believe it;
9) Many pastors who did not study at MBI or DTS have gone to Bible colleges and sat under professors that did.

So your pre-trib hope teaching is less than 200 years old and originates with a teenage mystic.

Go ahead and plant the tomatoes. They will have time to get ripe before you are raptured. But start fasting and get yourself into spiritual shape because if you live long enough you're going to go through the tribulation where you might become a saint beheaded for your testimony. And who beheads people? The RCC? No, Islam.

 

[JeremyV]

In reference to the original post, I hold to a post tribulation rapture but I must qualify that by explaining that my understanding of the great tribulation is different then many. I understand the great tribulation to be a period of persecution against the church, not a time of judgment (which is separate event). The great tribulation fills up the cup that the great harlot holds and is the reason for the wrath of God being poured out. I am not a Calvinist but I do not see why this view would not work well with any of the millennial views (to a certain degree at least).

 

[RLBosley]

I believe he will be the 12th Imam or Mahdi, not the Pope.

I've recently come to that conclusion as well, KRJ. I don't believe the antichrist comes out of any Christian denomination..

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion if the beast is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, and this man "sits in the temple of God" which is the church. I know the dispy's say it's a rebuilt temple, but aside from the fact that is nowhere spoken of in scripture this temple is still called God's temple so it is actually used in the service of the one true God. I have a hard time believing a radical Islamist is going to go to any Christian church or temple whether it's figurative for the church or a rebuilt temple.

In reference to the original post, I hold to a post tribulation rapture but I must qualify that by explaining that my understanding of the great tribulation is different then many. I understand the great tribulation to be a period of persecution against the church, not a time of judgment (which is separate event). The great tribulation fills up the cup that the great harlot holds and is the reason for the wrath of God being poured out. I am not a Calvinist but I do not see why this view would not work well with any of the millennial views (to a certain degree at least).

I agree with the bold. However would you see a post-trib, pre-wrath rapture? Would the wrath period, in your view, be an extended period of time or simply the destruction of the wicked that accompanies Christ's return?

 

[JeremyV]

I agree with the bold. However would you see a post-trib, pre-wrath rapture? Would the wrath period, in your view, be an extended period of time or simply the destruction of the wicked that accompanies Christ's return?

Yes, I current believe that a pre-wrath rapture fits best scripture. I believe that first the church is raptured (the harvest by Jesus, Rev. 14:14-16) then God pours out his wrath on the earth for their persecution of the kingdom during the great tribulation (the second harvest, Rev14:17-20 and the seven last plagues Rev 15-16 and the judgment of the harlot, Rev. 17-18). I am not sure just how long it would be. All these things could be done in a relatively short period of time but I, as of yet, have no clue.

 

[RLBosley]

Yes, I current believe that a pre-wrath rapture fits best scripture. I believe that first the church is raptured (the harvest by Jesus, Rev. 14:14-16) then God pours out his wrath on the earth for their persecution of the kingdom during the great tribulation (the second harvest, Rev14:17-20 and the seven last plagues Rev 15-16 and the judgment of the harlot, Rev. 17-18). I am not sure just how long it would be. All these things could be done in a relatively short period of time but I, as of yet, have no clue.

I see. I can see where you get that, but ultimately I have the same problem with that as with the pre-trib position. I think scripture clearly says that the return of Christ is when the living believers are gathered together with him. So the only position that I think really fits is total post-trib.

 

[JeremyV]

I see. I can see where you get that, but ultimately I have the same problem with that as with the pre-trib position. I think scripture clearly says that the return of Christ is when the living believers are gathered together with him. So the only position that I think really fits is total post-trib.

I am not sure I am understanding your objection. What exactly do you mean by "the return of Christ is when the living believers are gathered together with him" I certainly believe that Christ will gather living believers to him at his coming. Is this what you meant?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion if the beast is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, and this man "sits in the temple of God" which is the church.

No. The Temple of God among Christians is the Christian him/herself. The Temple of God referenced in Revelation is the new Temple built by Israel under treaty with the antichrist.

I know the dispy's say it's a rebuilt temple, but aside from the fact that is nowhere spoken of in scripture this temple is still called God's temple so it is actually used in the service of the one true God. I have a hard time believing a radical Islamist is going to go to any Christian church or temple whether it's figurative for the church or a rebuilt temple.

I'll ignore the pejorative and simply say that my comment here, even if you don't accept the second part, negates the possibility of the "Temple" being any church.

 

[Revmitchell]

Back to the original question. I'm post-trib. I believe the second coming and the rapture are one event.

I believe the history of pre-trib is this:

1) A young Scottish girl named Margaret Mitchell dreamed it in the 1830s;
2) Mitchell told it to Church of Scotland minister Edward Irving;
3) Irving believed it and told it to Plymouth Brethren minister John Darby;
4) Darby believed it and went through the Bible taking things out of context in search of proof texts;
5) Darby also told C.I. Scofield who believed it;
6) Scofield put the notes in his study Bible and Lord only knows how many people read them and believed it;
7) Scofield also had a lot of influence on Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Theological Seminary;
8) MBI and DTS have rained preachers all over the country who believe it;
9) Many pastors who did not study at MBI or DTS have gone to Bible colleges and sat under professors that did.

So your pre-trib hope teaching is less than 200 years old and originates with a teenage mystic.

Go ahead and plant the tomatoes. They will have time to get ripe before you are raptured. But start fasting and get yourself into spiritual shape because if you live long enough you're going to go through the tribulation where you might become a saint beheaded for your testimony. And who beheads people? The RCC? No, Islam.

okie dokie

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't see how you can come to this conclusion if the beast is the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, and this man "sits in the temple of God" which is the church. I know the dispy's say it's a rebuilt temple, but aside from the fact that is nowhere spoken of in scripture this temple is still called God's temple so it is actually used in the service of the one true God. I have a hard time believing a radical Islamist is going to go to any Christian church or temple whether it's figurative for the church or a rebuilt temple.




I agree with the bold. However would you see a post-trib, pre-wrath rapture? Would the wrath period, in your view, be an extended period of time or simply the destruction of the wicked that accompanies Christ's return?

he will also call the memorials to cease, and will commit the "Abomination of desolation", so those both fit much better a rebuilt temple for israel in end times!

 

[Revmitchell]

In reference to the original post, I hold to a post tribulation rapture but I must qualify that by explaining that my understanding of the great tribulation is different then many. I understand the great tribulation to be a period of persecution against the church, not a time of judgment (which is separate event). The great tribulation fills up the cup that the great harlot holds and is the reason for the wrath of God being poured out. I am not a Calvinist but I do not see why this view would not work well with any of the millennial views (to a certain degree at least).

It is not possible that the church would be passed judgment on. Christ took on all of our judgment. Add to that Paul made it clear that we are not made for wrath.

 

[JeremyV]

It is not possible that the church would be passed judgment on. Christ took on all of our judgment. Add to that Paul made it clear that we are not made for wrath.

I completely agree. I think all believers will be removed before the wrath of God is unleashed.

 

[KRJ]

okie dokie

Cutsie comments are easy on the internet. Let's see a rebuttal. Point by point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Cutsie comments are easy on the internet. Let's see a rebuttal. Point by point.

Uh no it does not deserve an actual rebuttle hence the appropriate response.

 

[RLBosley]

I am not sure I am understanding your objection. What exactly do you mean by "the return of Christ is when the living believers are gathered together with him" I certainly believe that Christ will gather living believers to him at his coming. Is this what you meant?

Maybe I misunderstood you. It seemed what you were saying is that the Lord gathers the believers (The Rapture - I don't like the term so I tend to not use it) before his the wrath is poured out, at a time separate from his actual appearing. I believe scripture states that we are gathered to Christ at his actual appearing, not before.

No. The Temple of God among Christians is the Christian him/herself. The Temple of God referenced in Revelation is the new Temple built by Israel under treaty with the antichrist.I'll ignore the pejorative and simply say that my comment here, even if you don't accept the second part, negates the possibility of the "Temple" being any church.

There is nothing in the scripture about a rebuilt temple. That is an inference, not an explicit teaching, and IMO a bad inference at that.

And yes the individual Christian is the temple of God, but so is the church.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. - Eph 2:14-22 NASB​

he will also call the memorials to cease, and will commit the "Abomination of desolation", so those both fit much better a rebuilt temple for israel in end times!

Nothing in scripture about some eschatological bad guy causing "memorials" to cease. And the abomination of desolation was the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. could that point to a greater fulfillment in the future? Maybe, but scripture doesn't explicitly say.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is nothing in the scripture about a rebuilt temple. That is an inference, not an explicit teaching, and IMO a bad inference at that.

There wouldn't be. At John's writing, everyone knew the Temple had been destroyed a quarter-century earlier. It is historical fact that the third Temple, known as Herod's Temple, was destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D. We know John's writing was after that, as in Revelation 1:9, he references being exiled to Patmos. Extrabiblical writings prove that this occurred near the end of the First Century, under Domitian. He wrote the Revelation in A.D. 95 or 96, probably the latter.

So any mention of "the Temple," as in Revelation 11:3 where the Two Witnesses preach in front of the Temple, requires a just inference that it is, at some point in John's future, rebuilt. It has not yet been done in these 1,918 years. Israel's faithful, however, have been attempting to rebuild it for over 40 years.

And yes the individual Christian is the temple of God, but so is the church.

Sorry, but 1 Corinthians states with authority that the believer is the only Temple there is now. There is no Scripture to support a church building being a "temple," only references to the Body of Christ as the church. Either way, that has the same meaning, as the church is the body of believers.

 

[RLBosley]

There wouldn't be. At John's writing, everyone knew the Temple had been destroyed a quarter-century earlier. It is historical fact that the third Temple, known as Herod's Temple, was destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D. We know John's writing was after that, as in Revelation 1:9, he references being exiled to Patmos. Extrabiblical writings prove that this occurred near the end of the First Century, under Domitian. He wrote the Revelation in A.D. 95 or 96, probably the latter.

So any mention of "the Temple," as in Revelation 11:3 where the Two Witnesses preach in front of the Temple, requires a just inference that it is, at some point in John's future, rebuilt. It has not yet been done in these 1,918 years. Israel's faithful, however, have been attempting to rebuild it for over 40 years.

You know, I hope, that is a much debated topic. Regardless of Revelation's date a literal temple rebuilt in Palestine is not the only way that those passages could be fulfilled.

What do you mean by "Israel's faithful"? The only people faithful to God are Christians.

Sorry, but 1 Corinthians states with authority that the believer is the only Temple there is now. There is no Scripture to support a church building being a "temple," only references to the Body of Christ as the church. Either way, that has the same meaning, as the church is the body of believers.

I was not referring to a church building. The church, the body of believers as you rightly say, is the temple as is the individual person's body.

 

[Yeshua1]

You know, I hope, that is a much debated topic. Regardless of Revelation's date a literal temple rebuilt in Palestine is not the only way that those passages could be fulfilled.

What do you mean by "Israel's faithful"? The only people faithful to God are Christians.



I was not referring to a church building. The church, the body of believers as you rightly say, is the temple as is the individual person's body.[/QUOTE

God wi;; seal and call out a faithful remant of saved jews in end times, and since the Antichrist will cause offerings to cease, and proclaim himself as messiah in a building, how can that be the Church?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You know, I hope, that is a much debated topic.

Well, of course I know it is a much debated topic. Just not in my mind. :laugh:

Regardless of Revelation's date a literal temple rebuilt in Palestine is not the only way that those passages could be fulfilled.

Given the need to take the Bible as a whole as the literal word of God, it seems unlikely he would spend 65 books giving us literal and specific instructions and then tack on one at the end that is too vague to understand. It must be taken as literally as the rest of the Bible, which means that John's vision is indeed of a literal Tribulation and Day of Judgment, filtered through the eyes of a First Century man seeing a vision at least 2,000 years or so into the future.

What do you mean by "Israel's faithful"? The only people faithful to God are Christians.

There is and always has been a remnant in Israel. I know you don't believe that God still has a purpose for Israel, but it is obvious from the Bible that He does, indeed, and though the remnant will ultimately be saved in the same fashion as us, He has a different plan for them, as He promised Abram.

I was not referring to a church building. The church, the body of believers as you rightly say, is the temple as is the individual person's body.

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote here, then ...

... I know the dispy's say it's a rebuilt temple, but aside from the fact that is nowhere spoken of in scripture this temple is still called God's temple so it is actually used in the service of the one true God. I have a hard time believing a radical Islamist is going to go to any Christian church or temple whether it's figurative for the church or a rebuilt temple ...

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I completely agree. I think all believers will be removed before the wrath of God is unleashed.

Jeremy-I never try to put words in the mouth of others—but it seems you support (or at least come closest to) the “pre-wrath rapture” view—I’m a post-trib supporter, but I must admit that pre-wrath would be my 2nd choice—here is a book you might be interested in
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310277205/?tag=baptis04-20