The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church

Not a bad book, but not enough evidence to convince someone who is not a premillenial dispensationalist.

 

Probably, "half way there!"

 

His arguments hold as much water as any premillenial theory. Being a Preterist myself, I don't see how you can switch hermeneutics so often without justification. Rosenthal, LaHaye, Lindsey, Robertson, they've all missed the mark.

 

I already read Rosenthal's book 12 years ago. Not bad. I was used myself pre-wrath before. At the first place, I was pretrib before. Till my friends showed me of 2 Thess 2:1-3 and Matt 24:29-31. That how I left pretrib camp 12 years ago. About a month later after I left pretrib camp, I went to the Christian bookstore. I notice a new book -"Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". I purchase it, and did read it through all. At first, I agreed mostly on it.

But later, I realize, the Bible does not teaching us there is two phases of Lord's coming. Pre-wrath borrows the leftover from pretrib on two phases of the second coming.

I left pre-wrath camp 4 years ago, I became postrib myself completed, because the Bible teaches us there is the only ONE future coming at the end of the world very simple and plain.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DeafPosttrib,

If there is but one Second Coming at the end of the world, then why did the Apostle Paul say that only 'the dead in Christ' will rise out of their graves and 'we who are alive and ramain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air?' [I Thess. 4:16d & 17a & b]

There is no mention of the unsaved rising out of their graves and neither is there any statement or thought about the living who are unsaved at the time of His coming for the church. In this passage Jesus comes for His own redeemed people. In theology the term has been dubbed, the rapture of the church.

Regards . . .

 

I read Pre Wrath Rapture when it first came out, and it was very good. I myself am what I call "Mid Wrath", and the positions are very close. Rosenthal's associate, Robert Van Kampen (who I just read was actually the one who came up with the doctrine) also is has very good refutations of pre-trib. I even lent the book to an old staunch pre-tribber, and he was imediately convinced, but then some response book came out "Pre-Wrath Rapture, Is it Biblical", IIRC, which then convinced him back. One of the things that book pointed out, and perhaps the biggest case against pre-wrath was that it would be consistent for them if the rapture was placed after the trumpets, rather than before. That becomes MID-wrath!(Rev.14:14-16; cf. Matthew 25:31-34, 13:39-43 1 Cor.15:52) (I forgot what exactly that issue was, but it may have involved the resulting 2 comings of Christ; one years before the end of the tribulation, and one after-- same problem as pre-trib!). One key to all of this is too realize that God's "wrath" begins with the mainly humanly carried out trumpets, and is completed (Rev.15:1) in the entirely divinely carried out bowls. So Christians being here even through the trumpets is in no means suffering God's "Wrath", which is completed in the bowls.

One point the Pre-Wrath may have over Mid-Wrath and post-trib is that the 144000 and what are believed to be the rest of the redeemed are shown earlier in Ch.7 "standing before the Lamb". But this is not really telling us that Christ is back already at that time. They can be "before" Christ even before He returns.

Otherwise, Pre-Wrath is I believe, definitely closer to the truth, and Rosenthal and Van Kampen have truly refuted the pre-trib position.

Ray,
By "end of the world" I think he means end of this dispensation; not the end of the Millenium when the unsaved dead are raised, and then the physical world as we know it is brought to an end. This parallels confusion about the "Day of the Lord", especially in 2 Pet. The Day of the Lord begins with the pre-Millennial events, and goes through the Millennium to the final events after it.