Why is the Pre-Tribulation rapture popular and does it have a future?...

[Revmitchell]

maybe somethinks that full on pretierism is the view to be held?

Ah I see heresy

 

[Baptist4life]

I'm pre-Trib, but it's not worth arguing about. On our way up at the Rapture, I'll just look over, smile, and say "I told you so!" :thumbs:

 

[MB]

Mat_24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
This is the reason I believe in a pretrib rapture. Post trib tries to nail it down to the last trump.
Midtrib claims we will go through the first half. But no where does scripture ever say that believers will be tried or endure judgment. Tribulation means a time for trials. Our attendance would be pointless except as witnesses.
MB

 

[Allan]

Amen it has a future (that is what it's all about ) Truth will always be, even if people don't want to believe it.

 

[agedman]

This is so wrong on so many levels I cannot begin to address them all. I will simply say in response to this haughty comment ...

... that I have studied for myself, in depth, and it is the only logical conclusion that I fiind can be reached from proper exegesis of God's word. Feel free to believe it is not, it does not affect your salvation and, as to that truth, should not be a cause of division among brothers and sisters in Christ.

Though Iconoclast, Old Regular and others and I agree on so very many areas, we can remain unresolved in this area of eschatology. I enjoy that we are able to acknowledge our differences in view, respect that we each seek the truth, and glory that God has all well in hand. That ultimately we will rejoice in eternity, and I think laugh at some of our "serious" discussions that take (took) place on the BB.

Like you, I too took a great length of time to search for which views embraced the greatest literal rendering. I examined the OT consistency of the prophets seeing in "double vision." For example, I am again working through Isaiah in my personal devotion time, and certainly Isaiah prophetically speaks to the nations of his time while he also occasionally eclipses them and records events yet to come.

So, it came to pass that I found myself holding these views: 1) That there is a literal millennial reign following the glorious literal return of the second coming. 2) That some do not used to perplex me, but God has shown me that we may not all conclude the same on this matter. 3) That we should certainly be ready to express our thinking and give space for those what may not think like we do.

I also hold that before that second coming is a specific period of time called the great tribulation. That prior to that tribulation the believers will be taken, for God does not appoint His children to His wrath.

There was at a time I was strongly pre-trib, and am still much preferred in that thinking, but I could easily suggest a mid-trib removal, too.

Practically speaking, I long for the day that I "sleep" or am translated.

A popular song of my youth was written by Stuart Hamblin called "This old House."

I resemble his lyrics.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How did you come to this position? Did you know of any other position? In other words...were you in an amillenial church and from personal study you "saw " this pretrib on your own???

I didn't "come to this position," it came to me. I have always been a very thorough student of anything I undertook to acknowledge, embrace, and espouse. In high school, I was taught to fly by my dad, who learned on his GI bill after WWII, in order that he might have extra income as a crop duster, knowing farming was a tenuous living at best. Nonetheless, even though thoroughly trusting my dad, I did a great deal of reading on flight theory and process. Essentially, I did my own ground school.

When I joined the Army -- to avoid Vietnam, but instead wound up there as a helicopter pilot -- I actually began reading about combat theory and concepts, to make myself a better pilot and (drat the effort) found myself being told to take a field commission upon the death of our 2ND LT over Cambodia, because I was the "most qualified."

Everything I undertake, I approach in this manner. So when I became a Christian -- one of the few things in life I take absolutely no credit for "achieving" -- I determined to understand the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Baptist church in which I was saved. I bought, at my pastor's suggestion, two excellent dictionaries of the complete Hebrew and Greek languages, two or three commentaries covering somewhat divergent doctrinal views, and began to read and study when I could find the time.

The language was the most convincing in my conviction of many disciplines in the faith, as to salvation, the Holy Spirit, works, grace, gifts, etc. In fact, I came to see that, where the commentaries disagreed, the issue could be settled by the language, if one was willing to work at understanding it. Each new subject I encountered, I determined to "get the truth" as best as prayer, study and good exegesis could give it to me. I found myself in total and absolute agreement with the Southern Baptist Faith and Message, not because I was influenced to accept it by the preaching -- I was actually saved in an American Baptist Church -- but by my own study and prayer, letting God speak to me as He chose.

I cannot escape the nuances of the Greek in Paul's writings that convince me passages in 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 2 Thessalonians 2, as well as various separate and singular passages that confirm meanings in the Greek that are apparent in those passages too, as well as in Revelation, that absolutely convince me the word of God teaches a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven-year tribulation, and a literal millennial reign. Nothing will sway me from that conviction, because I know I have it not by the power of suggestion, but by the power of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

The pure unadulterated arrogance displayed by some Cals is simply astounding.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The pure unadulterated arrogance displayed by some Cals is simply astounding.

They don't seem to believe anyone else can actually think.

 

[prophet]

The word 'rapture' is an abstract noun, in English. It is a feeling, not an event. The word does not appear in Scripture.
Its popularity will tail off, when the Man of Sin is revealed, and the Mark is enforced. The regenerated will be hunted, in the whole planet..(there are many places where a public profession of Christ is criminal, or terminal, now). The LORD will return, after the Sun, Moon, and sky are gone...I doubt there will be anyone on the fence by then.

 

[Revmitchell]

They don't seem to believe anyone else can actually think.

See they like to think that they are so smart and to quote one they have "intellectual abilities" that they like to "think" they are so super smart above most everyone else that they can read into scripture God's top secret doctrines that only they can understand because they have "intellectual abilities" and anyone who holds any doctrine different than theirs are just stupid, uneducated, and mindless dummies who needs their arrogance to enlighten us stupid folks in the ways of the Lord.

 

[Yeshua1]

They don't seem to believe anyone else can actually think.

You guys think you have it rough...

I am a Dispy calvinist , and don't think that plays well in some circles!

 

[agedman]

The most viscous and caustic are not those of Calvinistic thinking, but those of non-cal.

Go to the Cal/Arm threads and read some of the remarks coming from some of the non-cal. It is truely sad, not to mention that some often brag of their "intellectual abilities" and go into post after post attempting to state the ignorance of the cal view(s).

Often, one can read on the BB a constant misinformation perpetrated by the non-cal, making grand gestures of superiority, when all is but deception and not related to the view(s) in any manner.

I once read a post where a non-cal was challenged to go a month, then a week, and then even a day without being critical of the cal. Thread after thread has been filled with posts by the non-cal using some negative words trying to demean the Cal view, and the post often are accompanied by Scriptures taken inappropriately, out of context, and not attending to the original language intent.

It is a breath of freshness to read a moderator on the Cal/arm threads discussing with a cal various view thinking - done without the ridicule, without the demeaning, and the posts share Scriptures - it is absolutely wonderful to see. Though I may not agree with one or both, the thread(s) have been remarkable and worthy of the BB.

As related to the eschatology of this thread, I have noted, on the BB, that those Cal folks that are not "dispy" at least are usually not uneducated about the view. They have taken a direction on eschatology that I have not, and will express their thinking with the Scriptures they think supports them.

What I consider a weakness, in the thinking of some who are critical of the dispy view, is attributing the extreme dispy teaching as held by all dispy folks. Sort of like stating the extreme Calvinistic thinking as held by all calvinistic thinkers.

It has been true that more often someone from the dispy may say - "not true" - and show how a modification has occurred. (example: that all are saved the same way from Adam to eternity)

The other criticism of those who are not dispy is that the dispy is a "new" view. Yet, it was held by Augustine (until Rome was sacked - never understood completely why he became amil after that in his last years), and it was taught (though not called as such) by Johnathan Edwards. In the basic form, the dispensation view has been a part of theology from the beginning of the church.

So it really is no "new" but has caught the interest of post WWII folks in light of the reading of "current events." And were once the teaching was a part of the theological discussion(s), it has become a "popular" song and dance with each "famous" trying to puff up their own rational - I think to make merchandise of the gospel - truly sad, bad, often inaccurate and remarkably offensive.

There are those that would place me as considered holding the doctrines of grace, and I also am a modified dispensational thinker.

Those that are non-cal don't like my soteriology; those who are cal who are not "dispy" don't like my eschatology.

 

[Iconoclast]

agedman

The most viscous and caustic are not those of Calvinistic thinking, but those of non-cal.

yes sadly this is true.When they cannot answer a cal post...the default position is to call the cal names. Arrogant and rude are the often used term of some who cannot give a biblical answer.

Go to the Cal/Arm threads and read some of the remarks coming from some of the non-cal. It is truely sad, not to mention that some often brag of their "intellectual abilities" and go into post after post attempting to state the ignorance of the cal view(s).

yes...I have seen this also:thumbsup:

Often, one can read on the BB a constant misinformation perpetrated by the non-cal, making grand gestures of superiority, when all is but deception and not related to the view(s) in any manner.

yes even on this thread dealing with endtimes you might see that very thing,someone who can judge all motives and even add some when there is no evidence of it.....as if all posting that does not meet his approval is arrogant.....interesting!

I once read a post where a non-cal was challenged to go a month, then a week, and then even a day without being critical of the cal. Thread after thread has been filled with posts by the non-cal using some negative words trying to demean the Cal view, and the post often are accompanied by Scriptures taken inappropriately, out of context, and not attending to the original language intent.

Exactly correct.Others have noticed this also.....I guess you are also rude and arrogant for noticing it.

It is a breath of freshness to read a moderator on the Cal/arm threads discussing with a cal various view thinking - done without the ridicule, without the demeaning, and the posts share Scriptures - it is absolutely wonderful to see. Though I may not agree with one or both, the thread(s) have been remarkable and worthy of the BB.

yes....that was nice.

As related to the eschatology of this thread, I have noted, on the BB, that those Cal folks that are not "dispy" at least are usually not uneducated about the view.

Yes again...many in fact used to believe and teach that view.

They have taken a direction on eschatology that I have not, and will express their thinking with the Scriptures they think supports them.

Many have taken that direction ironically because as they tried to strengthen their understanding of the view....and inspect it from some of the stronger Christians who believed differently...they began to discover that what they first were taught was...THE TRUTH.....has not always been viewed that way.
Unless someone can articulate the other positions accurately and not build the proverbial strawman....are they in anyway in a position to make such a judgement?
In my initial post that was what i was speaking of. Most wander into a church from a Rc backround, or no church history to speak .
the church offers them some truths...trinity, heaven, hell.....so they trust what they are being taught.....then the church puts out one endtime view.

The person eagerly looks over the notes, reads a book or two ....and many times is never really taught about the other views at all...or such a distorted view...that they see no value in it.

What I consider a weakness, in the thinking of some who are critical of the dispy view, is attributing the extreme dispy teaching as held by all dispy folks. Sort of like stating the extreme Calvinistic thinking as held by all calvinistic thinkers.

In it's heyday it was presented as THE TRUTH......until it was examined and dismantled. After that damage control happened and new versions of it began to emerge.

The other criticism of those who are not dispy is that the dispy is a "new" view.

Dispensationalism is the new kid on the block.
,

and it was taught (though not called as such) by Johnathan Edwards. In the basic form, the dispensation view has been a part of theology from the beginning of the church.

No.....If you work through Edwards the Great Work of God in the History of Redemption...you will see it differently.

One of the greatest postmillennial theologians of history was Jonathan Edwards. In his book, History of Redemption, Edwards theorized that the advance of the Gospel would someday spread to Africa and Asia. Edwards wrote:

There is a kind of veil now cast over the greater part of the world, which keeps them in darkness. But then this veil shall be destroyed, “And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations” (Isa. 25:7). And then all countries and nations, even those which are now most ignorant, shall be full of light and knowledge. Great knowledge shall prevail everywhere. It may be hoped, that then many of the Negroes and Indians will be divines, and that excellent books will be published in Africa, in Ethiopia, in Tartary, and other now the most barbarous countries. And not only learned men, but others of more ordinary education, shall then be very knowing in religion, “The eyes of them that see, shall not be dim; and the ears of them that hear, shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge” (Isa. 32:3,4).

In the first half of the 1700s, when Edwards was writing, the Christian population of Africa and Asia was less than one percent. That Africa would be converted to the Gospel was unbelievably optimistic. Today, I am encouraged to know personally of successful Christian missions among Africans, Indians and Tatars just as Edwards predicted. Many from among these nations are converted. They are entering the ministry, writing books and dedicating their lives to the conversion of the lost. I am also encouraged to imagine what is to come in the future.

i also saw this on the web;
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/05-3/5-3_holdsworth.pdf

There are those that would place me as considered holding the doctrines of grace, and I also am a modified dispensational thinker.
Those that are non-cal don't like my soteriology; those who are cal who are not "dispy" don't like my eschatology.

Most cals were taught dispy ideas...so it is not a problem per se.

 

[TipofTheTongueTheology]

My reasons and a couple more questions...

I give my reasons below but I would like to ask a couple questions...

Do you think Pre-Trib is unpopular among the leading theologians of today and mostly popular among pastors and congregations?

Also, if Pre-Trib were ever to vanish as a popular church doctrine what would be its demise?

I would have to say that I believe it is popular for many reasons. I believe one of the biggest influences to popularize it was Dispensationalism, especially after 1948 when Israel was recognized as a nation. The state of the world will definitely have an influence on popular eschatology. Since then there have been those who have studied the scriptures and have been convinced, those whose theology is influenced by popularity, those whose theology is influenced by sensationalism or current events, and then those who can't think for themselves and follow those who hold to it.

Respectfully, :thumbsup:
http://tipofthetonguetheology.blogspot.com/

 

[agedman]

agedman

Dispensationalism is the new kid on the block.
,

When one looks at the "Calvinist" they point to Calvin - but Calvin was predated by Augustine. It is name recognition.

When one looks at "Disp." they point to Darby - but dispensational type discussions and theology can be found even in the writings of Augustine. He separated the church age from the rest of history. Again, name recognition.

Edwards suggested four actual times Christ came/comes to earth, and appoints a dispensation period associated with each time.

Edwards also taught the millennial kingdom as a future reality, a place where the bride would be glorified among those that once persecuted her.

Dividing history into blocks of time has been part of the educational fabric from the beginning. It may not have been called "dispensation" but it used the division into periods to highlight certain aspects and traits of that period.

So, Darby comes along and puts it into a systematic format, and suddenly it is "new."

The early "fathers" may not have called it by the name, and name calling is part of the problem with any view - for it limits the modifications that occur (difference between reformed and calvinist as an example).

But, the only real "new" is perhaps the rapture thinking, but even that (though again not termed that way) can be found - for again, Augustine taught that the current church age would end abruptly with a rapture. He changed his mind when Rome was sacked, and I really don't understand why - some say he thought the teaching was "elementary." I don't see what he offered as an alternative was any more advanced.

Here is a brief part of a sermon dating from the middle ages. It is important to note that the writer of the sermon is debatable, but that the sermon is in fact that from about the mid 500's to early 600's.

The reason I post it is to show the pre-trib rapture is not "new" thinking:

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
​

 

[Iconoclast]

TipofTheTongueTheology

Do you think Pre-Trib is unpopular among the leading theologians of today and mostly popular among pastors and congregations?

half and half

Also, if Pre-Trib were ever to vanish as a popular church doctrine what would be its demise?

EPH2.....one new man being properly understood.

I would have to say that I believe it is popular for many reasons. I believe one of the biggest influences to popularize it was Dispensationalism, especially after 1948 when Israel was recognized as a nation. The state of the world will definitely have an influence on popular eschatology. Since then there have been those who have studied the scriptures and have been convinced, those whose theology is influenced by popularity, those whose theology is influenced by sensationalism or current events, and then those who can't think for themselves and follow those who hold to it.

Respectfully, :

thumbsup:
http://tipofthetonguetheology.blogspot.com/[/QUOTE]

Yes.....we have solved it completely:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

agedman

good post.

When one looks at the "Calvinist" they point to Calvin - but Calvin was predated by Augustine. It is name recognition.

When one looks at "Disp." they point to Darby - but dispensational type discussions and theology can be found even in the writings of Augustine. He separated the church age from the rest of history. Again, name recognition.

This is a fair point and needs to be examined.With any of these men from church history we see what they offer and consider what verses they suggest.

I am very leary of the "early church fathers"....yes...even Augustine who I am supposed to relish:laugh: many have a better grasp on the history and teachings than I do. I have listened to sermons and read a bit on it...but not enough to speak clearly on it.

Edwards suggested four actual times Christ came/comes to earth, and appoints a dispensation period associated with each time.

I think that everyone agrees that we can see times or dispensations in scripture;

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

the problem is not the idea of times or dispensations.....as much as it is dispensationalism that is the problem.

Edwards also taught the millennial kingdom as a future reality, a place where the bride would be glorified among those that once persecuted her

.

Edwards offered what he saw....as any teacher does.

Dividing history into blocks of time has been part of the educational fabric from the beginning. It may not have been called "dispensation" but it used the division into periods to highlight certain aspects and traits of that period

.
more or less....

So, Darby comes along and puts it into a systematic format, and suddenly it is "new."

The newness was the explanation of the so called "dispensations"...some of which contained major falsehoods which have survived until today. You see the fruit of those errors everyday on BB.

The early "fathers" may not have called it by the name, and name calling is part of the problem with any view - for it limits the modifications that occur (difference between reformed and calvinist as an example).

A long time ago a read an article where it was explained that some of the so called premillenial thought was as simple as......Jesus goes to heaven about 33 ad....so when the thousand years were finished ..1033 an earthly kingdom would appear.

When it did not happen...the they started to re-think it.It was not based on what today is called dispy premill however,
:thumbsup::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

thisnumbersdisconnected

I didn't "come to this position," it came to me

.

ok...lets see-

I have always been a very thorough student of anything I undertook to acknowledge, embrace, and espouse.

This is a good thing...

Everything I undertake, I approach in this manner. So when I became a Christian -- one of the few things in life I take absolutely no credit for "achieving" -- I determined to understand the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Baptist church in which I was saved.

I understand what you are saying.....and yet...the highlighted portion seems to indicate what I posted earlier.

I bought, at my pastor's suggestion

,

Listen...this is a pattern for most new believers.You find a bible church.they suggest teaching to you.You study to take in what is offered....Any church will favor what they hold to.....it is up to you to seek out whether these things are so;
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

two excellent dictionaries of the complete Hebrew and Greek languages, two or three commentaries covering somewhat divergent doctrinal views, and began to read and study when I could find the time.

books and study are good.

I cannot escape the nuances of the Greek in Paul's writings that convince me passages in 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 2 Thessalonians 2, as well as various separate and singular passages that confirm meanings in the Greek that are apparent in those passages too, as well as in Revelation, that absolutely convince me the word of God teaches a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven-year tribulation, and a literal millennial reign. Nothing will sway me from that conviction, because I know I have it not by the power of suggestion, but by the power of God.

time will tell:wavey:

 

[Tom Butler]

The first teaching I ever heard on eschatology was from a pre-trib viewpoint. Made a lot of sense, and besides, nobody wants to be here for the tribulation.

Then our relatively new pastor preached from a post-trib viewpoint one Sunday. Afterward, we all rushed him to challenge him. He held up his hand and said, "guys, we're not going to debate this right now. You have an assignment. I want you to find for me a single clear scripture which teaches a pre-trib rapture. It must be clear, unmistakable and not subject to any other interpretation. Bring it back and then let's talk."

I couldn't find one. Still can't find one. Until I can, I've abandoned pre-trib eschatology. Hard to do because I really don't want to be here for the tribulation.

 

[Yeshua1]

When one looks at the "Calvinist" they point to Calvin - but Calvin was predated by Augustine. It is name recognition.

When one looks at "Disp." they point to Darby - but dispensational type discussions and theology can be found even in the writings of Augustine. He separated the church age from the rest of history. Again, name recognition.

Edwards suggested four actual times Christ came/comes to earth, and appoints a dispensation period associated with each time.

Edwards also taught the millennial kingdom as a future reality, a place where the bride would be glorified among those that once persecuted her.

Dividing history into blocks of time has been part of the educational fabric from the beginning. It may not have been called "dispensation" but it used the division into periods to highlight certain aspects and traits of that period.

So, Darby comes along and puts it into a systematic format, and suddenly it is "new."

The early "fathers" may not have called it by the name, and name calling is part of the problem with any view - for it limits the modifications that occur (difference between reformed and calvinist as an example).

But, the only real "new" is perhaps the rapture thinking, but even that (though again not termed that way) can be found - for again, Augustine taught that the current church age would end abruptly with a rapture. He changed his mind when Rome was sacked, and I really don't understand why - some say he thought the teaching was "elementary." I don't see what he offered as an alternative was any more advanced.

Here is a brief part of a sermon dating from the middle ages. It is important to note that the writer of the sermon is debatable, but that the sermon is in fact that from about the mid 500's to early 600's.

The reason I post it is to show the pre-trib rapture is not "new" thinking:

"For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
​

didn't most of the early Church fathers hold to a Milliniual viewpoint on end times, that many still seperated isreal and the Church out as being still seperate in the plans of God? that many held to Jesus returning to set up a Kingdom on earth from jerusalem still?

So the early church would have been seen as being perhaps 'classic pre mil?" in how they viewed end times?

And did Augustine though bring in the 'truth' of cathoch cjhurch being trhe Kingdom of God on earth, and from that later on developed the ideas of church repalcing isreal fully, and that A mil is way togo, as no lietral need to establish a physical Kingdom here on earth still?