A critique of:
**50 Evidences for the Pre-Trib Rapture**
Historical Doctrine of Imminency
By Dr. Donald V. Erickson
(Dr. Erickson operates a website/blogsite on Prophecy and other issues)
Critique by me.
The original article is in ordinary type. The critique in italics.
1. The early church believed in the immanency of the Lord's return.
While it can be debated which church father said what, there is a consistency in the early church on immanency which is essential to the pre-trib position and in opposition to some other positions.
While no one can dispute that the early church expected Christ’s return almost immediately this is no guarantee that they were right in that belief. The Early Church had plenty of other wrong beliefs - take, for instance, the whole debate about the nature of Christ and the Trinity. It was 400 years before this was sorted out and "correct" doctrine imposed.
The comment in John 21:22,23 shows that many false beliefs were around about the immediacy of the Lord’s coming. The feeling of immanency they lived with however, does not exclude the belief in events preceding that coming as Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2 show.
1&2 Peter shows Peter had an expectation of the Lord's near return, but this return was clearly expected on "the Day of the Lord" and Peter is clear in 2 Peter that there would be several events before the Lord's return:
(i) His own death.
(ii) The events of ch 3 - which it is clear by the language he uses that he expected the church to be around to see those events.
The Same is true in 2 Thessalonians - the only "Coming" Paul envisages is on the day of the Lord and that is preceded by certain events. But when Christ was to come we (the church) would be "gathered to meet him" (v1,2).
So the sense of immanency in the NT does not mean:
(i) "Christ could come at any moment" - all the NT witnesses to the Second Coming have specific events named before Christ will come.
(ii) "There are no known prophetic events to be fulfilled before the Second Coming" - rather all NT witnesses predict events before Christ's coming.
Also Christ himself repeatedly implied in his teaching that there would be a significantly long gap between his departure and return. See my previous article on the Second Coming in the NT.
2. The Pre-trib position is the ONLY one which truly teaches immanency.
This, of course, depends on how one defines immanency. If it is defined as Pre Tribs do as “Christ can come at any moment now” then by definition immanency only supports a Pre Trib rapture position. But the doctrine of immanency is not explicitly stated in scripture so is a derived doctrine, as is the Pre Trib Rapture, so it is dangerous to be too dogmatic about what immanency means. A looser definition of immanency such as. “we expect the Lord to return soon, maybe in our lifetime” would easily cover the Bible idea of immanency and not demand a Pre Trib position.
The doctrine of immanency has to stand or fall on its own merits when compared with scripture and not be bolstered by implications from other theories.
3. The fact that there is a greater development of the doctrine in recent centuries does not preclude it from the early centuries. In the very early years of the church you see the development of great
fundamentals doctrines of Trinity, Deity, God-man, canon of Scripture, etc. Following those early church councils is a time of decline in the corporate church into great apostasy. The teaching of that time are built on many of the heresies of Augustine. When the Reformation comes, there is a period of reestablishing the foundational doctrines of
salvation. Now, in these last days there is both and ability and a need in the church to better understand the doctrines of eschatology and the Spirit is continuing His ministry of guiding the church in all truth.
I agree wholeheartedly. Augustine did distort things with his reintroduction of Greek philosophy which the Church Councils had effectively weeded out of the church. The Reformation and following has led to a restoration and a discovery of truth which is a process still going on. But this point neither supports nor undermines a Pre Trib position. It just sounds good in a list.
4. The exhortation to be comforted by the "coming of the Lord" (1Thes 4:18) is valid only in the context of the pre-trib view. It could even be a fearsome thing in a post-trib view.
Not so. The context of 1 Thess and its references to the second coming cover more than just the last half of chapter 4. Refer to the following:
1:9,10. To wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.
2:19 For what is our hope, our joy, or the crowns in which we shall glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes…
3:13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
Then there is the large section from 4:17-5:11. The section quoted from ch 4 is not the whole context.
The interesting thing is that Paul nowhere says anything like the following:
“At this point I am talking about the rapture which will happen before the coming of Christ in Glory at the end of the Tribulation.” Or “At this point I am talking about Christ’s coming at the end of the Tribulation, on the day of the Lord.” Paul never makes that sort of distinction, But, in fact, he talks about the rapture (1 Thess 4:16,17) and goes right on talking about “the day of the Lord” (1 Thess 5:2) as if he is talking about the same thing. And after talking about the rapture he says we should be encouraged (4:18) which he does again after talking about the day of the Lord (5:11). In actual fact “comforted” may not be the best translation. “Encouraged” may be better. We will need courage.
But the reality is that the two “comforts/encouragements” have specific things attached to them that we should be encouraged/comforted by:
4:18 The fact that those who have already died are not going to miss out but will be raptured first. This should bring us encouragement.
5:11. The fact that we are not going to experience the wrath of God should bring us comfort. No matter what else happens we will not go through God’s wrath.
So in a sense the idea of “comfort” here does not necessarily support a pre trib rapture. There are reasons why it could support a post trib rapture position.
5. We are exhorted to look for the "Glorious Appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13) If there are any prophetic events (ie: tribulation) to come first, then this passage is nonsensical.
The nonsensical bit is this objection. The “Glorious appearing of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ” is not a reference to a pretribulation rapture at all. The idea of “Glory” and “appearing” associated with the second coming always point to the day of the Lord in scripture, not to a secret, silent rapture. By definition Titus 2:13 is talking about the day of the Lord. And as that is so there are two pertinent points we can make from Titus 2:13.
(i) WE (the
(ii) The event Paul is talking about is the day of the Lord so there are known prophetic events that will happen before it. Namely the tribulation and Antichrist.
And it is this coming of Christ - in power and glory - that Paul says is "our Blessed Hope" - not some secret rapture.
6. Again, we are to "purify ourselves" in view of his coming.(1 John 3:2-3) If his coming is not imminent then the passage is meaningless.
Why is it meaningless? The fact is this: our future rewards in heaven will be based primarily on the degree of holiness we attain in this life. Because this is true we should purify ourselves so that we maximize our inheritance in heaven. That makes perfect sense to me - irrespective of whether the rapture is Pre or Post Tribulation.
7. The church told *only* to look for the Coming of Christ. It is
This objection depends, of course, on one’s interpretation methodology and hermeneutic. Matthew 24 and it’s parallel passages in Luke and Mark are Jesus’ primary teaching on his second coming and the teaching was addressed to his disciples, not to the Jews. His disciples represent us, the church. If we start saying otherwise then we might as well cut the gospels out of our bibles altogether because none of Jesus’ teaching can have any relevance to us – it was all given to his disciples.
So if Matthew 24 is addressed to the church then Jesus gives the church plenty of signs to look for.
The same could be said of 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul there gives lots of signs of the Second Coming and it is patently obvious that 2 Thessalonians is addressed to the church not to Jews.
8. Nature of the Church
(Those who do not understand the nature of the church as unique in the program of God will continually be confused about the nature of His coming for the church.)
Dispensational (Pre tribulation) teachers make a great deal out of the distinction between
9. The translation of the church is never mentioned in any context dealing with the second coming of Christ at the end of the Tribulation.
Again this depends on ones hermeneutic. If one assumes this is so before one starts then of course one will never find a reference to the church being raptured at the end of the tribulation. But if one lets the Bible speak for itself one may find differently. For instance:
(i) The passage already debated in 1 Thess 4&5. Paul talks about the rapture of the church and the “day of the Lord” in the same context.
(ii) And if that wasn’t enough, because the Thessalonians still had difficulty understand Paul wrote 2 Thess to them a few months later to explain further what he meant.
2 Thess 2:1 is as clear a reference to the rapture as one could hope for. “The coming of our Lord and our gathering to meet him.” The “our” refers to the church both times.
But then Paul immediately talks about the “day of the Lord” and events leading up to it as an explanation of the rapture.
He then concludes v8 by mentioning again Christ’s “coming” – without any clarification so we have to assume that by “coming” he means exactly the same coming as in v1.
So twice – in each of the letters to the Thessalonians – Paul joins the rapture to the Day of the Lord and in 2 Thess he actually goes out of his way to list a whole string of events that are going to happen before we “gather together to meet him”.
As you can see I am not doing any real interpretation here. Only using the laws of English grammar to say what it says.
10. The church is "not appointed to wrath" (Rom 5:9; 1 Thes 1:9-10). The church cannot enter into the "great day of their wrath."
I’m happy with this claim. But the writers' mistake is to confuse the “Wrath of God” with the "Tribulation". The two are not the same. A simple word study of “wrath” in a concordance will reveal that “wrath” when it means the “end time wrath of God” only ever occurs on the Day of the Lord – That great day when Christ and God appear in power and glory to set up their kingdom. Wrath is poured out on his enemies at that point. But no wrath is poured out during the tribulation. By the time wrath comes the tribulation is over. In a sense wrath is the last event of the tribulation.
The statement above “The church cannot enter into the great day of wrath” is actually not scriptural. What the scripture says is that, “God did not appoint us to wrath…” (1 Thess 5:9)– it doesn’t actually say we can’t be there on the day, only that we won’t be the recipients of it. And we will be there - with Christ in his victory train. But we are raptured before the wrath falls. It may be only one second before (who knows) but that will be enough. If the wrath of God falls at midday on the day of the Lord and we are raptured at 11:59:59 then the scripture in 1 Thess 5:9 will still be proved true.
The relationship between the events of the Tribulation and the Wrath of God I have covered in the notes of Revelation but to recapitulate:
(1) Revelation is a series of seven visions each having seven parts. The Seals, Trumpets and Bowls are the main time sequence visions as far as the Tribulation is concerned.
(ii) The Seventh Seal, Trumpet and Bowl are the same event - they are described identically with the phrase, "lightnings, thunder, loud noises, heavy hail, etc". This phrase is a description of "the Wrath of God" is vivid terms.
(iii) Each of these three visions talk of the "wrath of God" - but it is important to see WHEN that wrath is mentioned:
(a) The 6th Seal announces the coming of the Wrath - but the 7th Seal IS the wrath.
(b) The 7th trumpet tells us "thy wrath came". This is the song sung AFTER the seventh trumpet has completed.
But before the 7th Seal and trumpet we read of the safety of God's people.
The Bowls are all "wrath" but before the wrath comes we are told again of the safety of God's people (Rev 15).
So the "wrath" is at the very end of the Tribulation - it si not the Tribulation itself. Wrath comes on the "day of the Lord", which is the "day of Wrath."
The seals and trumpets are not wrath (except for the seventh of each). As I have explained in the text of Revelation:
(i) The Seals are the final outworking of the law of Sowing and Reaping acting on the curses of the broken covenant with Adam.
(ii) The Trumpets are the final outworking of the Law of Sowing and Reaping acting on the accumulated sin of mankind from 6000 years of rebellion. The "sins of the forefathers" have finally and fully come home to roost.
So there is a sense in which the Seals and Trumpets are not direct judgments of God and so not "wrath". Wrath is the direct judgment of God. The Seals and Trumpets are, rather, the reaping of man's sin and not the Wrath of God. Of course God has been, until the time of the Tribulation, holding back the full effects of our sins (in a similar way to how Romans 1 teaches God restrains the results of sin). And it is clear that this restraint of God on the effects of man's sin is removed in the Tribulation - but the actual events are not in themselves "inspired" by God - just "allowed" by God.
10. The Church will not be "overtaken by the Day of the Lord." (1 Thes 5:1-9) (Day of the Lord is another term for the great tribulation.)
This is just bad exegesis and interpretation. The Tribulation is not the day of the Lord. I have read hundreds of books on this subject and have never heard this idea before. Every writer in the history of the church that I have ever read has agreed that the “day of the Lord” is the last day of the tribulation when Christ comes in power and glory to set up his kingdom. The phrase “the day of the Lord” has never, to my knowledge, ever been identified with the tribulation before this document was posted.
11. The church will be "kept from the hour of testing that shall come upon all the world." (Rev. 3:10)
True. But what does “kept from the hour” mean?
In actual fact the Greek is better translated “Kept in the hour” in the sense that
12. The believer will escape the tribulation (Luke 21:36).
The “It” referred to in Luke 21:36 - “it will come” - is not the tribulation but is “that day” (v34). The phrase “that day” or “the day“ is a sort of shorthand used right through the OT and NT to mean “the day of the Lord. So all that is promised here is that we will not experience the wrath on the day of the Lord, it has no reference at all to the tribulation. The problem is this objection is the wrong equation by the author of: day of the Lord = the tribulation.
13. It is in the character of God to deliver His own from the greatest times of trial. (
Hmmmm. Yes, But…
Rahab had to stay in the city until the Israelites broke through the walls. As her house was fairly high in the walls of
Noah didn’t miss the flood. All 365 days of it he sat in that ark. Every windy gale, every nearby volcanic eruption, all the pouring driving rain and the fountains of the deep erupting around him. He felt them all.
So it is not necessarily the nature of God to deliver his own out of trial. Rather he promises to deliver them through the trial. And that is quite a different thing. (1 Cor 10:13)
14. It is clear that there is a time interval between the translation of the church and the Return of Christ. (John 14:3)
John 14:3 doesn’t say that at all. What it says is this:
(i) Jesus is going away.
(ii) While he is away he will prepare a home for us.
(iii) He will come back to take us back to the home he has made.
What it doesn’t say is that there is a time gap between the translation of the church and the return of Christ.
15. Only the pre-trib position does not divide the Body of Christ on a works principle as does partial rapture does so clearly and others to a lesser extent. It becomes a climatic finale to the grand plan of
salvation.
I agree - all partial rapture theories do this. Hence I reject all partial rapture and mid - tribulation rapture theories. But this criticism does not apply to the post tribulation position.
16. The Scriptures are adamant that the church is undivided. In this age the church is divided by the continuing old nature in the believers. When we are glorified at the coming of Christ, the church is no more divided.
So what? This adds nothing to the argument as the Post Trib viewpoint never argues that the church will be divided in some way.
17. The godly remnant of the tribulation has the attributes seen in OT Israel and not the church. The church is not present in the prophecies of Revelation.
Again this depends on how one interprets Revelation. Rev is an apocalyptic and one of the features of apocalyptic is that they are symbolic. On my blog
stjohnrevelation.blogspot.com
you will find many proofs of how John has used symbolism to clearly mark out the church in the tribulation. If one assumes that Rev is symbolic and the symbols mean the church then there is no difficulty in finding the church in Revelation. It all boils down to hermeneutical assumptions made before one opens the book of Revelation - but are those assumptions right or wrong?
18. The pre-trib view, unlike the post-trib view does not confuse terms like "elect" and "saints" which apply to believers of all ages, as opposed to terms like "church" and "in Christ", which apply only to those who are the body of Christ in this age.
Sorry. I have been a post trib man for 30 years and have never confused these. The ones who confuse them seem to be the pre-trib writers. For instance Matt 24:31 "gather his elect" - pre-trib writers insist that this means "Jewish elect", whereas post-trib writers say this means "the followers of Christ" as it would appear to in context. So Pre-trib writers end up with a rapture at the end of the Tribulation that is exclusively for Jews only - if there are any Gentile converts to Christ in the Tribulation they miss out.
The Work of the Holy Spirit
19. The Holy Spirit is the Restrainer of evil in the world. He cannot be taken out as prophesied unless the church which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit is taken out.
Where does the Bible say the Holy Spirit is the restrainer? Not in 2 Thess 2 that’s for sure. It is an interpretation, and it is capable of other interpretations. For instance take a look at stjohnrevelation.blogspot.com notes on ch 17.
Chapter 17 discusses the restrainer. And its not the Holy Spirit!
Furthermore there is nowhere in scripture that explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world. Nowhere!
20. The Holy Spirit will be taken out before the "lawless one" is revealed. That lawless one will certainly be revealed in the tribulation. In fact, the tribulation begins with the signing of the covenant between that lawless one and
See above on the Holy Spirit.
Again "the coming of the lawless one being initiated by the signing of a covenant" is an interpretation of Daniel 9, the prophecy of the 70 weeks. It is an interpretation and many interpreters do not agree with it. At this point in time I personally do agree with it, and am working on a study for this blog that will cover that, and opposing interpretations. But to put it forward as a "proof" of a pre-tribulation rapture is not acceptable. It does not, in itself, prove a Pre-trib position.
21. The "falling away" in 2 Thes 2:3 would better be understood in its context as "the departure." This is a reference to the departure of the Holy Spirit as He indwells the church.
See above on the Holy Spirit. How this is a "proof" of the rapture I cannot see!
Why the phrase "falling away" cannot mean "a falling away from (the) faith, i.e. apostasy" I am not sure. This is the meaning Jesus give to it in Matthew 24:10-13:
(i) "Many will be offended".
(ii) "False prophets...will deceive many"
(iii) "The love of many will grow cold" - presumably this means "love for God" - this is the way Dispensational writers and teachers have always understood it in my experience.
22. The work of the Holy Spirit is making the church like Christ where they submit to death and persecution, whereas the OT saints (see many of the Psalms) and the tribulations saints cry out for vengeance (Rev 6:10)
Where does the Bible say, "the work of the Holy Spirit makes us Christians submit to persecution and death". Anyway submission to such on earth is not contrary to a desire for justice to be worked at the eternal Throne of God.
Again the interpretation of Rev 6 implied here depends on how one interprets Revelation. If one assumes there are no church age saints in Rev 4-19 (the Dispensational argument) then of course these are "tribulation saints" who are crying pout for vengeance.
But if these "saints" are "Christian saints" then "Christian saints" are seen to be crying out for "vengeance".
"Vengeance" is not quite the right word to describe their cry, however. What they are crying for is "justice" - a perfectly reasonable request for Christians to make of God, who is the "God of all Justice."
But this point is assuming what the writer of this article is trying to prove. He is offering "50 Proofs of the Pre-tribulation Rapture". What he has offered here is not a proof but is a corollary. It is true if there is a Pre-tribulation rapture - but it is not true if the rapture is post- tribulation.
The Hermeneutical Argument
23. Only the pre-trib view allows for a truly literal interpretation in all of the OT & NT passages regarding the great tribulation.
Not so. For the reasons:
(1) That pretrib scholars – along with everyone else – have to use the same scriptures to talk about the tribulation – and most of those are symbolic to start with. So nobody, not even pretrib scholars give a purely literal interpretation. It is just not possible given the fact that the relevant scriptures are, in many cases, symbolic.
For example: No Pre-tribulation scholar argues that:
(i) The three seven headed beasts in Revelation are literal.
(ii) "Babylon" is literal. (I do, but I have never seen a Pre-trib writer do so!).
Other examples could be given. Pre-trib writers are bound by the realisation that some of Revelation is symbolic - just as the rest of us are. The only question is, "How much?"
(2) Post -trib interpreters do not necessarily deny a literal fulfillment to OT (or NT) prophecies. For instance, I do not. Some may, I don't know. But it is not a fact that only a Pre-trib position allows one to be a literalist. In my experience Pre-trib writers often try to worm out of the clear literal, in context, meaning of passages that do not suit their theory.
24. Only the pre-trib position clearly distinguishes the church and
Not so. In fact I have read books on most of the major schools of interpretation and all clearly distinguish between
Other interpreters feel that those same scriptures have a double fulfillment - literally in Israel and symbolically in the Church. I would be more of this persuasion.
But the real point is that at the end of the age God’s dealings come together for
The Necessity of an Interval of Time between the Rapture and the Second Coming.
25. All believers must appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10). This event is never mentioned in the account of events surrounding the second coming.
All 2 Cor 5:10 indicates is that there must be a time for judgment of Christians.
But it does not indicate when it will happen.
It could happen:
(i) Some time after the day of the Lord, or
(ii) On the day of the Lord AFTER the wrath has fallen, or,
(iii) It could happen in a moment of time as we are raptured (I tend to favour this idea). After all God has no difficulty in dealing with millions of people at once now, why should it be any different at the judgment seat?
But the real problem here is that when Christ comes on the day of the Lord eternity crashes in on time and the saints, the church, are translated into eternity. And time is not the same in eternity as it is on earth. Trying to tie in an eternal event (the judgment seat of Christ) with an earthly time frame of events is actually a waste of time.
However one has only to read all the references to the judgments of the saints in Revelation and other NT writings and it is clear that this judgment happens after/ with the Second Coming on the day of the Lord.
Other references to the judgment of Christians happening after the Second Coming on the day of the Lord have been noted in my paper on the end of the age and rapture in the NT, where I quote repeatedly from Leon Morris's conclusions in his book, "The Biblical doctrine of Judgment." There are actually several places in the NT that put the judgment of Christians and their reward after the Day of the Lord.
See my blog again on Revelation ch 4 where I demonstrate that these 24 elders are not men but angelic beings. So their presence in heaven proves nothing about the church’s whereabouts. I offer there several reasons why this does not suggest, or prove, the rapture has already occurred.
There is no doubt that they "represent" the people of God, but this is probably best understood to the "the people of God of all ages", so the number "24" = 12 + 12, the 12 patriarchs, and the 12 apostles.
27. There is clearly a coming of Christ for his bride before the second coming to earth. Rev 19:7-10.
Rev 19:7ff does not indicate that the rapture has taken place but only announces that it is about to take place. You need to read up on Jewish marriage customs and you would understand what is being said here. It is covered in my blog. The "Announcement" precedes the "coming of the Groom". The actual "coming of the Groom" is Rev 19:11ff.
28. Tribulation saints are not translated at the second coming of Christ but carry on ordinary activities. These specifically include farming, construction, and giving birth. (Is 65:20-25).
Again this depends on where one places the rapture. If it is a post trib rapture then "Tribulation saints" get raptured with the rest of us – after all they are believers in Christ like us. Why should they be treated any different?
Those that carry on normal life after the second coming have always, in my reading, been assumed to be those non Believers who survive Armageddon – of which there will be some. This has always been the understanding of every Dispensational writer I had heard or read, and it is a viewpoint I still agree with.
29. The Judgment of the Gentile nations following the second coming (Mat 25:31-46) indicates that both the saved and the lost are in a natural body which would be impossible if the translation had taken place at the second coming.
I think we are confusing “saved” here with being “invited into the earthly
(i) Not Christians and not raptured people,
(ii) Not "saved" in the Christian sense as a result of passing the judgment.
30. If the translation took place at the same time as the second coming, there would be no need to separating the sheep from the goats at the subsequent judgment. The act of the translation would be the separation.
This objection fails because of the answer to the above statement. We are not talking about “Christian sheep” here. (In case you think I am trying to avoid the problem remember I grew up believing and studying a pre-trib position. All the pre trib-writers and preachers heard all taught that the “sheep” here were not Christians but basically “good citizens”. So I am only arguing for what Pre-trib writers generally agree on and teach anyway - or at least they used to.)
31. The Judgment of Israel (Ez 20:34-38) occurs after the second coming and requires a regathered
Again fails because of the above answers.
Differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming.
32. At the Rapture, the church meets Christ in the air. At the second coming, Christ returns to the Mt of Olives.
So Christ is only allowed to do one thing? Who says?
Is it not possible that Christ could begin his descent from heaven and catch up the saints as in 1 Thess 4 and then continue down to the Mt of Olives? I see no reason why not. We know there is a judgement seat of Christ and a marriage supper of the Lamb and Armageddon and the judgment of the sheep and goats and a few other events BUT WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW IS WHEN THESE EVENTS TAKE PLACE, NOR DO WE KNOW WHAT ORDER THEY OCCUR IN. Anyway, as I have already argued, the judgement seat of Christ for Christians could take place in an instant, a fraction of a second while we are being raptured. It doesn't need to take a long time.
33. At the time of the Rapture, the Mt of Olives is unchanged. At the second coming it is divided forming a valley east of
Where does the Bible say that "at the time of the rapture the Mt of Olives is unchanged". This is an assumption of the writer. If, in fact, the rapture and second coming are the same event then the Mt of Olives is divided at the rapture (or actually, just after it). But this "proof" proves nothing. It is another red herring in a list to put people off the scent.
34. At the time of the rapture, saints are translated. No saints are translated at the time of the second coming.
Been said before in this list but it still has no proof for it. I have listed in my article of the Second Coming several scriptures that say otherwise. The root problem with this writers assumptions is the assumption that second coming is not on the "Day of the Lord". This is because he is assuming the following equation: "day of Lord = Tribulation" - and this equation is false.
35. At the time of the rapture, the world is not judged for sin, but descends deeper into sin. At the second coming, the world is Judged by the King of kings.
Where does the Bible teach that "after the rapture the world descends into deeper sin?" I know Dispensational teachers say so (based on 2 Thess and Rev primarily) but if the rapture is on the day of the Lord then it is simply not so.
This argument thus does not "prove" a Pre-trib rapture but is a corollary from it.
36. The translation of the church is pictured as a deliverance from the day of wrath, whereas the coming of Christ is a deliverance for those who have suffered under severe tribulation.
The first half of this I agree with – but the day of wrath is the Day of the Lord so it doesn’t help a pretrib argument.
But where does it say the coming of Christ is a deliverance for those who have suffered tribulation? Matt 24 maybe? But it doesn’t prove or disprove a pretrib rapture.
37. The rapture is immanent whereas there are specific signs which precede the second coming.
Back to this again. But it all depends on how one defines “immanent”.
38. The translation of living believers is a truth revealed only in the NT. The second coming with the events surrounding it is prominent in both OT and NT.
True. But it proves nothing about which view of the rapture is correct. We all agree with the doctrine of "Progressive Revelation" - that there were things "hidden" from the OT prophets and writers which were revealed to the NT writers. The fact that the doctrine of the rapture ONLY APPEARS IN THE NT (a point which I agree with) only proves or illustrates the Doctrine of Progressive Revelation, it offers no proof one way or the other for a pre-trib or a post - trib rapture.
39. The rapture is only for the saved, while the tribulation and second coming deals with the entire world.
Also true. But it does not prove that the rapture is not one of the events that happens at the time of the second coming. As an argument it proves nothing as to whether the rapture is Pre-trib or post-trib. It is simply a statement of fact.
40. No unfulfilled prophecy stands between the church and the rapture. Many signs must be fulfilled before the second coming of Christ.
Who says, "no unfulfilled prophecy stands between us and the rapture?" Not the Bible – only some teachers who say it on their own authority.
Funny thing – people have been saying that for nearly 200 years – and God keeps on fulfilling prophecies. Surely this means that there were, in God’s plan, prophecies to be fulfilled before the rapture and there may still be! One would think that this claim of there being “no prophecy to be fulfilled” would have died with the reestablishment of
The trouble with this slight of hand is this: "no known event" - known by who? If God knows and knew there were events prophecied before the rapture then there were, in actual fact, known events prophecied before the rapture. The fact that some Bible interpreters can't find them doesn't change the facts.
41. No passage in either OT or NT deals with the resurrection of the saints at the second coming nor mentions the translation of living saints at that same time.
Haven’t we seen this above already? I answer it in my article on the Second Coming. It is simply not true.
The Nature of the Tribulation
42. Only the pre-trib view maintains the distinction between the "great tribulation" and the tribulations in general which we all experience.
Nonsense. Post trib views and partial rapture views all clearly distinguish these. This is a fallacious claim.
43. The great tribulation is properly understood in the pre-trib view as a preparation for the restoration of
Why and how? One can say this but what does it mean? I'm glad he said, "In the pre-trib view". But that may not be the "proper" understanding of the passages he refers to. It is a matter of opinion.
44. Not one single passage in the OT which discusses the tribulation, mentions the church.
What a stupid objection! Of course not! That is because the church was "a mystery hidden in God" (Ephesians ch 2&3). The OT writers were not privy to this mystery, so of course they did not mention it. Again we are back to the doctrine of Progressive Revelation. The non- mention of something in the OT (or anywhere else for that matter) does not and cannot prove or disprove a Pre-trib rapture view.
45. Not one single passage in the NT which discusses the tribulation, mentions the church.
Untrue - 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is a clear case in point, "Our gathering together to meet him" - where "our" must surely mean "the church" and "gathering together" must refer to the rapture. Paul then clearly says "this will not happen until these things happen first" and then he goes on to talk about the Tribulation events.
46. In contrast to mid trib or pre-wrath views, the pre-trib view offers an adequate explanation for the beginning of the great tribulation in Rev 6. These others are clearly refuted by the plain teaching of Scripture that the great tribulation begins long before the 7th trumpet of Rev 11.
I’m not sure what you are on about here. But whatever it doesn’t apply to a post trib view.
Both post-trib and mid trib interpretations assume the Great Tribulation starts in Rev 6 - just as Pre-Trib writers do. There is no difference - the explanations given are just the same.
How "the others" (Presumably post-trib and mid-trib views) are "refuted" by the argument you put up here is totally beyond me as they argue exactly the same time chronology (from Daniel) for the tribulation as the Pre-trib view - with one exception, the rapture.
47. There is no proper groundwork provided that the 7th trumpet of Rev is the last trumpet of 1 Cor 15. It is accepted only on the basis of assumption. The pre-trib view maintains the proper distinction between the prophetic trumpets of the church and the trumpets of the tribulation.
Again read my blogs on the seven trumpets and also
christianfoundation.blogspot.com
Where I spend some time showing that the last trumpet of 1 Cor 15 and the 7th trumpet must be the same. The distinction you make here between "the trumpets of Revelation" and the "prophetic trumpets of the church" is a new one on me. Completely novel - and I have been around for over 55 years reading this stuff. Where are the "prophetic trumpets of the church" taught about in scripture so that I can go away and study up on them? Or is the idea an invention of your own (it looks like it is) to try to deflect the obvious connection between the "last trumpet" and then "seventh trumpet". Obviously if these two trumpets are one and the same then the whole pre-trib view (and mid-trib and partial views) dissolves into nothingness and a Post-trib view remains supreme as the only interpretation of scripture possible.
48.The Unity of Daniel's 70th week is maintained by the pre-trib view. By contrast, the mid-trib view destroys the unity and confuses the program for
In my experience the post trib view does not deny the clear teaching or subvert it into an allegory. Some writers may, but the majority hold to a literal 70th week (which, of course, is not a literal week but is a symbol for a period of 7 years). The fact that the 70th "week" of Daniel is already divided into two halves by Daniel 9:27 means that your attack on the Mid-trib position is unjustified. There are significant events at the mid point of the 70th week, Daniel says so. The only question is what else should be put in there also. The mid-trib view suggests the rapture. I disagree with them, but for the same reasons I disagree with the pre-trib view.
49. The gathering of saints after the tribulation is done by angels whereas the gathering of the church is done by "The Lord Himself."
Let’s see some textual proof for this distinction. The calling of us forth by the Lord (1 Thess 4) does not exclude the angels actually doing it.
Matthew 13 may indicate otherwise in the two parables of harvest and fishing. These clearly apply to Christ's disciples and it is the angels who do the work.
Revelation 14:14-20 is a scripture of some relevance here. In this passage there are "two reapings" of the earth - one of the righteous and the other of the unrighteous. This conforms to Leon Morris' teaching on Judgement mentioned in my article on the Second Coming/rapture on this blog site: The righteous and unrighteous have to be reaped together. These two "reapings" are clearly at the end of the Tribulation - the context demands this. The first "reaping" is carried out by a Being sitting on a white cloud who looks like the Son of Man. In other words, Jesus. So the reaping of the righteous (whether the people are Jewish or Gentile is irrelevant to this point) at the end of the Tribulation is carried out by Jesus here in Rev 14. Yet in Matt 24:31 this same reaping is clearly carried out by angels. These are clearly the same reaping - unless there is suddenly going to be two reapings of the righteous on the last day. So it would seem that there is no contradiction between (i) Jesus reaping the righteous and (ii) the angels reaping the righteous - it is the same thing. Exactly the same as being "caught up with a shout and a trumpet call" (1 Thess 4). These are simply metaphors to describe a great future reality. Presumably the trumpet will sound, the archangel will shout, the angels will gather his elect and Jesus will reap his harvest - but I doubt that Jesus will literally have in his hand a golden sickle. That is a symbol.
50. Rev 22:17-20 And the Spirit and the Bride say come. And he that heareth, let him say come ... He who testifieth of these things saith .
Again this is not a proof of anything.
SUMMARY:
So "50 proofs" are reduced to very little at all. The disappointing thing about the article was the real shortage of scriptural material. Some points quoted small lines of scripture - out of their context and often incapable of meaning what was said they meant when put back into context. It was an argument of emotion, and so easily destroyed by straight exegetical work.
It is disappointing that such a pointless set of "proofs" was produced by someone who is a "Doctor" - presumably a Doctor of Theology or he wouldn't be trying to pass himself off as an expert of Scriptural things. I would have expected better exegetical work from a Doctor of Theology. If someone with as little theological background as myself can make mincemeat of it then it wasn't very well presented.
One thing which should be noted is this: The "Doctrine of the Pre-tribulation Rapture" and the "Doctrine of Immanency" are not the same thing.
Dr. Erickson in his title, and throughout the article, assumes that they are one and the same thing. They are not.
"Immanency" is an argument put forward to support a Pre-trib position, but it is not the same thing as the Pre-trib position. A defense of the Pre-trib position could be made with no reference to Immanency at all. In my view such a defense would still be wrong, but I am here simply making the point that the equation: "Immanency = the Pre-trib rapture doctrine" is not necessarily so. It is only so if one has a very specific definition of what "immanency" means. As I have suggested in this post there are other possible, broader definitions of the word that some scholars would be happy to subscribe to without adopting the Pre-trib view of the rapture.
Another very disappointing feature of the article is Dr. Erickson's very plain lack of knowledge about the very school of thought he was writing to support. For example, to make equations such as: "The Tribulation = the Day of the Lord" is completely novel, as far as I can tell, with Dr. Erickson. It is not the belief held by Dispensational (Pre-Trib rapture) writers in general.
Another disappointing feature was his clear lack of research into relevant scriptures. Bold claims were made, for example in point #49, which if he had simply bothered to read all of the scriptures relevant to that subject he would not have fallen into the trap of making wrong claims.
In all, very disappointing. Though it did give me a bit of fun pulling it apart.
1 comment:
Hi John,
Want some help understanding the symbology of these ancient texts? The time for the removal of ignorance has arrived. The referenced links will take you to all of my blogs and websites.
Here is Wisdom
Peace...
Post a Comment