Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

50 Reasons for the Pretribulation Rapture!

JM

Member
The more I study, the more I lean toward the pretrib Rapture. It has a lot to do with the way in which I view the Church.

50 Reasons for the Pretribulation Rapture

Historical Argument
1. While posttribulationism appeared as early as 2 Thessalonians 2, many in the early church believed in the imminency of the Lord's return, which is an essential doctrine of pretribulationism.

2. The detailed development of the pretribulational truth during the past few centuries does not prove that the doctrine is new or novel. Its development is similar to that of other major doctrines in the history of the church.

Hermeneutics
3. Pretribulationism is the only view that allows literal interpretation of all Old and New Testament passages on the Great Tribulation.

4. Pretribulationism distinguishes clearly between Israel and the church and their respective programs.

Nature of the Tribulation
5. Pretribulationism maintains the scriptural distinction between the Great Tribulation and tribulation in general that precedes it.

6. The Great Tribulation is properly interpreted by pretribulationists as a time of preparation for Israel's restoration (Deu. 4:29-30; Jer. 30:4-11). It is not the purpose of the Tribulation to prepare the church for glory.

7. None of the Old Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Deu. 4:29-30; Jer. 30: 4-11; Dan. 8:24-27; 12:1-2).

8. None of the New Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Matt. 13:30; 39-42, 48-50; 24:15-31; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:4-9; 2 Thess. 2:1-11; Rev. 4-18).

9. In contrast to midtribulationism, the pretribulational view provides an adequate explanation for the beginning of the Great Tribulation in Revelation 6. Midtribulationism is refuted by the plain teaching of Scripture that the Great Tribulation begins long before the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11.

10. The proper distinction is maintained between the prophetic trumpets of Scripture by pretribulationism. There is no proper ground for the pivotal argument of midtribulationism that the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the last trumpet in that there is no established connection between the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11, the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52, and the trumpet of Matthew 24:31. They are three distinct events.

11. The unity of Daniel's seventieth week is maintained by pretribulationists. By contrast, postribulationism and midtribulationists destroy the unity of Daniel's seventieth week and confuse Israel's program with that of the church.

Nature of the Church
12. The translation of the church is never mentioned in any passage dealing with the second coming of Christ after the Tribulation.

13. The church is not appointed to wrath (Rom. 5:9: 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:9). The church therefore cannot enter "the great day of their wrath" (Rev. 6:17).

14. The church will not be overtaken by the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:1-9, which includes the Tribulation.

15. The possibility of a believer escaping the Tribulation is mentioned in Luke 21:36.

16. The church of Philadelphia was promised deliverance from "the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth" (Rev. 3:10).

17. It is characteristic of divine dealing to deliver believers before a divine judgment is inflicted on the world as illustrated in the deliverance of Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc. (2 Peter 2:5-9).

18. At the time of the translation of the church, all believers go to the Father's house in heaven (John 14:3) and do not immediately return to the earth after meeting Christ in the air as postribulationists teach.

19. Pretribulationism does not divide the body of Christ at the Rapture on a works principle. The teaching of a partial rapture is based on the false doctrine that the translation of the church is a reward for good works. It is rather a climactic aspect of salvation by grace.

20. The Scriptures clearly teach that all, not part, of the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ for the church (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:17).

21. As opposed to a view of a partial rapture, pretribulationism is founded on the definite teaching of Scripture that the death of Christ frees from all condemnation.

22. The godly remnant of the Tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the church as maintained by the posttribulationists.

23. The pretribulational view, as opposed to posttribulationism, does not confuse general terms like elect and saints, which apply to the saved of all ages, with specific terms like church and those in Christ, which refer to believers of this age only.

Doctrine of Imminency
24. The pretribulational interpretation teaches that the coming of Christ is actually imminent.

25. The exhortation to be comforted by the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:18) is very significant in the pretribulational view and is especially contradicted by most posttribulationists.

26. The exhortation to look for "the glorious appearing" of Christ to His own (Titus 2:13) loses its significance if the Tribulation must intervene first. Believers in that case should look for signs.

27. The exhortation to purify ourselves in view of the Lord's return has most significance if His coming is imminent (1 John 3:2-3).

28. The church is uniformly exhorted to look for the coming of the Lord, while believers in the Tribulation are directed to look for signs.

The Work of the Holy Spirit
29. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer of evil cannot be taken out of the world unless the church, which the Spirit indwells, is translated at the same time. The Tribulation cannot begin until this restraint is lifted.

30. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer must be taken out of the world before "the lawless one," who dominates the tribulation period, can be revealed (2 Thess. 2:6-8).

31. If the expression "except there come a falling away first" (KJV) is translated literally, "except the "departure" come first," it would plainly show the necessity of the Rapture taking place before the beginning of the Tribulation.

Necessity of an Interval Between the Rapture and the Second Coming
32. According to 2 Corinthians 5:10, all believers of this age must appear before the judgment seat of Christ in heaven, an event never mentioned in the detailed accounts connected with the second coming of Christ to the earth.

33. If the twenty-four elders of Revelation 4:1-5:14 are representative of the church as many expositors believe, it would necessitate the rapture and reward of the church before the Tribulation.

34. The coming of Christ for His bride must take place before the Second Coming to the earth for the wedding feast (Rev. 19:7-10).

35. Tribulation saints are not translated at the second coming of Christ but carry on ordinary occupations such as farming and building houses, and they will bear children (Isa. 65:20-25). This would be impossible if the translation had taken place at the Second Coming to the earth, as posttribulationists teach.

36. The judgment of the Gentiles following the Second Coming (Matt. 25:31-46) indicates that both saved and unsaved are still in their natural bodies. This would be impossible if the translation had taken place at the Second Coming.

37. If the translation took place in connection with the Second Coming to the earth, there would be no need of separating the sheep from the goats at a subsequent judgment, but the separation would have taken place in the very act of the translation of the believers before Christ actually sets up His throne on earth (Matt. 25:31).

38. The judgment of Israel (Ezek. 20:34-38), which occurs subsequent to the Second Coming, indicates the necessity of regathering Israel. The separation of the saved from the unsaved in this judgment obviously takes place sometime after the Second Coming and would be unnecessary if the saved had previously been separated from the unsaved by translation.

Contrast Between the Rapture and the Second Coming
39. At the time of the Rapture the saints meet Christ in the air, while at the Second Coming Christ returns to the Mount of Olives to meet the saints on earth.

40. At the time of the Rapture the Mount of Olives is unchanged, while at the Second Coming it divides and a valley is formed to the east of Jerusalem (Zech. 14:4-5).

41. At the Rapture living saints are translated, while no saints are translated in connection with the second coming of Christ to the earth.

42. At the Rapture the saints go to heaven, while at the Second Coming to the earth the saints remain on the earth without translation.

43. At the time of the Rapture the world is unjudged and continues in sin, while at the Second Coming the world is judged and righteousness is established on the earth.

44. The translation of the church is pictured as a deliverance before the day of wrath, while the Second Coming is followed by the deliverance of those who have believed in Christ during the Tribulation.

45. The Rapture is described as imminent, while the Second Coming is preceded by definite signs.

46. The translation of living believers is a truth revealed only in the New Testament, while the Second Coming with its attendant events is a prominent doctrine of both Testaments.

47. The Rapture concerns only the saved, while the Second Coming deals with both saved and unsaved.

48. At the Rapture Satan is not bound, while at the Second Coming Satan is bound and cast into the abyss.

49. No unfulfilled prophecy stands between the church and the Rapture, while many signs must be fulfilled before the Second Coming.

50. No passage dealing with the resurrection of saints at the Second Coming ever mentions translation of living saints at the same time.

Written by: John F. Walvoord
(The Rapture Question, Zondervan)
 
Written by: John F. Walvoord
Walvood has also been known to say that none of the rapture theories can be 100% proven with scripture. He admits all end time theories have their problems.

I don't know enough about what mid or post trib proponents believe, but can comment on a few of Walvood's points. :-D
( don't take it personal Jason, you know I like to debate. ;-) )

Hermeneutics
3. Pretribulationism is the only view that allows literal interpretation of all Old and New Testament passages on the Great Tribulation.
Maybe it's me, but I see a lot of allegorizing. Revelation 4:1 is a prime example. I can't do a thing but read it literally and I do not come up with the interpretation Pretrb comes up with.

4. Pretribulationism distinguishes clearly between Israel and the church and their respective programs.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Nature of the Tribulation
5. Pretribulationism maintains the scriptural distinction between the Great Tribulation and tribulation in general that precedes it.
At the same time, I believe they ignore the distinctions between the GT and The Day of the Lord.

13. The church is not appointed to wrath (Rom. 5:9: 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:9). The church therefore cannot enter "the great day of their wrath" (Rev. 6:17)
I agree. (see above comment)

17. It is characteristic of divine dealing to deliver believers before a divine judgment is inflicted on the world as illustrated in the deliverance of Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc. (2 Peter 2:5-9).
I agree. Divine judgement is God's wrath, The Great Tribulation is not.

22. The godly remnant of the Tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the church as maintained by the posttribulationists.
Who are these Tribulation Saints I hear about? Are they all Jews?

Doctrine of Imminency
24. The pretribulational interpretation teaches that the coming of Christ is actually imminent.
They might, but I don't believe the Bible does.

The Work of the Holy Spirit
29. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer of evil cannot be taken out of the world unless the church, which the Spirit indwells, is translated at the same time. The Tribulation cannot begin until this restraint is lifted.

30. The Holy Spirit as the restrainer must be taken out of the world before "the lawless one," who dominates the tribulation period, can be revealed (2 Thess. 2:6-8).
The Bible doesn't directly suggest the "Restrainer" is the Holy Spirit, but it does give good indication that Michael is.

(read Daniel 11:45 also)

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Compare that to Matthew 24:21 and 2 Thess 2:6-7 Also, do some research on what it meant to a Hebrew to hear the words, "stand up".

Scroll down about 1/3 way, to where it says, "the restrainer" http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/R ... index.html

33. If the twenty-four elders of Revelation 4:1-5:14 are representative of the church as many expositors believe, it would necessitate the rapture and reward of the church before the Tribulation.
Many of the 'scholars' can't agree on the actual interpretation, so it is left up to speculation at best. I personally believe it is 12 judges from the OT and maybe 12 disciples.
 
This is exactly how the false doctrine of the rapture was formed: assuming that because the "church" is not mentioned, then they must have gone to heaven.

Where this fails at is the fact that the "church" is the "assembly" and the "assembly" is Israel. Thus all believers are Israel, and thus all believers go through the Great Tribulation (whoever is alive at that time).

So many flaws with this thinking. My doctrine on who the "elect" and who the "church" are needs to be read, being supported by scripture without question.
 
wavy said:
This is exactly how the false doctrine of the rapture was formed: assuming that because the "church" is not mentioned, then they must have gone to heaven.

Where this fails at is the fact that the "church" is the "assembly" and the "assembly" is Israel. Thus all believers are Israel, and thus all believers go through the Great Tribulation (whoever is alive at that time).

So many flaws with this thinking. My doctrine on who the "elect" and who the "church" are needs to be read, being supported by scripture without question.

But in the Church, there is neither Jew nor Greek. To me, this means the Church is the Church, not Israel. How can you be neither Jew nor Greek and still Israel?
 
JM said:
But in the Church, there is neither Jew nor Greek. To me, this means the Church is the Church, not Israel. How can you be neither Jew nor Greek and still Israel?

Please read the context of those passages because they also say there is neither male nor female. The context is discrimination. And you wrongly (no offense) equate Jews with Israel. Jews plus all believing nations are one Israel in Messiah. And please, if you must argue, read my thread on who the elect are. The church is not the "church". The church (properly "assembly") is clearly Israel according to numerous passages in scripture, but if you must argue, like I said, read my elect thread in the Apo & The forum.
 
wavy said:
JM said:
But in the Church, there is neither Jew nor Greek. To me, this means the Church is the Church, not Israel. How can you be neither Jew nor Greek and still Israel?

Please read the context of those passages because they also say there is neither male nor female. The context is discrimination. And you wrongly (no offense) equate Jews with Israel. Jews plus all believing nations are one Israel in Messiah. And please, if you must argue, read my thread on who the elect are. The church is not the "church". The church (properly "assembly") is clearly Israel according to numerous passages in scripture, but if you must argue, like I said, read my elect thread in the Apo & The forum.

I looked at that post and made comments. It’s not as comprehensive as you believe and is riddled with error, if you must argue please argue from a point of humility. You’ll see that your position isn’t as solid as you first believed.

Thank you.


JM
PS> If you most argue, please learn how to use the quote feature. :wink:
 
JM said:
I looked at that post and made comments. It’s not as comprehensive as you believe and is riddled with error, if you must argue please argue from a point of humility. You’ll see that your position isn’t as solid as you first believed.

Well, I read it. Didn't find it particularly enlightening as proof of my "error". What it seems to me is that you made the exact arguments I was arguing against, thus you went backwards in explaining things.

You didn't necessarily give credence to the points, parallels and harmonies between the Tanach and the New Testament. You basically just threw everything I said out, picked grains, and then taught other doctrine. You didn't scripture for scripture and point for point address what I said and even appealed to the use of websites from people that are obviously biased.
 
The Word of God does not need a lot of foolish vain talking! The Word is its own hermeneutics. Isaiah 8:20 & Matthew 4:4's EVERY WORD, 2 Timothy 3:16. (and on & on such as 1 John 2:4!!)

But instead, here comes writing's from the worlds professed scholars who hardly any agree on much anyway! Revelation 17:5. Too lazy to do as God requires?? Do you not know that it takes the same amount of reading time to read man's junk as to that of reading God WORD?


Why not do as the Scripture states & use Scripture to understand 'doctrine'???
Remember that it states ALL SCRIPTURE is to be used! (2 Tim. 3:16 verses) Or do we not want to be 'corrected'? It seems that God would not be God by telling us that all Scripture is needed, if the doctrine was not even seen in the O.T.?? So, why not do as He has documented, and hunt for the answer (s) as He requires?

I for one, think that anything less than that requirement of which is from Christ's above stated Matt. 4:4's verse, & His Inspired WORD of 2 Tim. 3:16, finds a Rev. 17:5 bunch that are all included in the building of the Tower of Babel'ing after God went down and confounded their 'tongue'! Genesis 11:7-9. Check out Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15!

You do know why the Godhead did this right? :roll: And here we come trying to find True doctrine by reading from the builders who were trying to get to heaven another way than what God requires from ALL SCRIPTURE, huh?

---John
 
NB, who are you addressing in that post above? Is it Jason, wavy, myself or all of the above. :-?
 
Vic said:
NB, who are you addressing in that post above? Is it Jason, wavy, myself or all of the above. :-?

****
Hay friend, I am the one who stated that I thought that you missed your calling, remember? :wink:
SO:
You know that I will not take your bait, huh?

No, seriously, even though I rarely use names, there is a whole series of posted up daily stuff in this thread that is foolish vain talking as I see it.
How many times do we need to read a verse or two to understand its meaning? Titus 3:9-11.

'50 reasons for pre-trib wrath'??? +! :o

---John
 
wavy said:
JM said:
I looked at that post and made comments. It’s not as comprehensive as you believe and is riddled with error, if you must argue please argue from a point of humility. You’ll see that your position isn’t as solid as you first believed.

Well, I read it. Didn't find it particularly enlightening as proof of my "error". What it seems to me is that you made the exact arguments I was arguing against, thus you went backwards in explaining things.

You didn't necessarily give credence to the points, parallels and harmonies between the Tanach and the New Testament. You basically just threw everything I said out, picked grains, and then taught other doctrine. You didn't scripture for scripture and point for point address what I said and even appealed to the use of websites from people that are obviously biased.

Hey, I didn't write all the above, the stuff in read. Wavy, why did you misquote me...adding to what I said in red as if I said it?

JM
PS: Lean to use the quote! lol
 
How many times do we need to read a verse or two to understand its meaning?

Sometimes we can read it 100 times and still refuse to believe it

If everyone would REALLY study what is said to the churches
in Revelation. And really BELIEVE it, we would have non of
these discussions.

And Vicky wouldn't still search for the meaning in greek.
(Isn't it "Victoria" if I retranslate it from greekoamericanism? hehehe)
 
We'll, hey, if its all that big a deal to you, then fine. I'll use he quote tool (old habit from other message boards).

Hey, I didn't write all the above, the stuff in read.

JM
PS: Lean to use the quote! lol

Learn to spell, lol! (joke)
 
Geo said:
And Vicky wouldn't still search for the meaning in greek.
(Isn't it "Victoria" if I retranslate it from greekoamericanism? hehehe)
Who's spreading rumors saying my name is Vicky? :o It's Victor. :P

8-)
 
wavy said:
We'll, hey, if its all that big a deal to you, then fine. I'll use he quote tool (old habit from other message boards).

Hey, I didn't write all the above, the stuff in read.

JM
PS: Lean to use the quote! lol

Learn to spell, lol! (joke)

I'll do my bset! lol
 
Back
Top