1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib.....Where Are You, and Why?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by eightball, May 15, 2010.

  1. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    People in every generation go through tribulation. For the people who are hurting it is immaterial if some one else on the other side of the world is hurting.

    One Christian to another Christian waiting to get tossed into Saddam's tree chopper, "You think this is bad, wait for the Great Tribulation."

    What does anyone think Evangelical Christians - if there are any left - will be preaching about this topic in the year 4010 or 6010?
     
  2. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    They will be preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified for the forgiveness of sins. Believe this and be saved.
     
  3. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I, too, believe in a post-trib, pre-mil position. The pre-trib rapture is a recent construction that was made popular by Scofield and some others. I am just not convinced.

    The language of the passages suggests the custom of the expecting party meeting the arriving party and escorting them back.

    This is my position, but being honest, it's not something that we can predict with absolute certainty.
     
  4. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This topic makes for interesting spare time bible study, but it matters not if it is pre, mid or post as to how we live in Christ here and now. Like I said earlier, I see pretrib in the scriptures but I cannot devote much time to trying to convince anyone of it. To many more important works to be done.
     
  5. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is correct.
     
  6. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both sides of the debate should find this site of interest.
     
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello,

    Looked at most of the book, and it is not very convincing.

    It is filled with false assumptions about rapture believers (this rapture believer, anyway).

    For instance:

    That the Day of the Lord is the entire 7 year period of the tribulation...I believe the Day of the Lord is contained in the wrath of the tribulation, but within the seven year period, only the last three and a half years are considered "Great Tribulation".

    That the Day of the Lord includes the Millennial Reign.

    That the description of the Day of the Lord doesn't line up with the tribulation events.

    That it can't be the wrath of God, because wrath isn't mentioned until the sixth chapter.

    It is filled with as much weak argument as the position for the pre-trib rapture.

    But, many will believe it, because they will not search it out for themselves.

    I will tell you the strongest argument that deniers of the pre-trib rapture have...and I didn't see this in the book:

    The argument that there is a distinction between God's thumos wrath and His orge wrath, but this too is not conclusive.

    Each of us will make up our own minds (well, some of us will have it made up for them), and is not something to break fellowship over.

    God bless.
     
  8. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    " . . . but it matters not if it is pre, mid or post as to how we live in Christ here and now."

    Right on the money!

    I might have shared on this board before that I attended the first session of an 'Alpha Course' years ago. Most of the people gathered had no church or religious affiliation. Outside the room but not outside the hearing of all us were the two coordinators who were in a very heated argument over a pre-mil and post-mil position. The meeting was set to start and one of the two coordinators became so enraged that he left shortly after the meeting began. I often wondered how many of the participants bothered to return after such a display of 'christian charity'. Not many I'll bet.
     
    #28 lori4dogs, May 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2010
  9. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering that any belief he attributes to the pre-trib position he is pulling directly from pre-trib authors, I don't see how you support the claim that he is assuming things about their beliefs, much less that he is assuming falsely. He isn't telling what he thinks pre-tribs believe, he is giving quotes of what they actually say/argue and he sources them. Thats about as far from "assuming" as one can possibly get in any discussion.

    Now, do the beliefs of people like Walvoord and LaHaye accurately represent your beliefs? Evidently not. But since it is writers like LaHaye which are making claims for what pre-tribbers believe, any accusations of false assumptions would have to be attributed to those authors, not the one who is simply quoting them.

    So, what you don't find convincing is not Simmons arguments against the pre-trib position - what you must not find convincing is the arguments put forth by the men he is quoting (specifically LaHaye).

    In short, you consider the arguments of one of the most well-known and widely read proponent of the pre-trib position to be poor arguments.

    In the end though, this says nothing about strength of the arguments made by Simmons.

    The intent of this book is not to offers arguments against the pre-trib position, but instead to examine the arguments put forth by pre-trib proponents.
     
  10. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello dw,

    I have never read the books by the authors they discredit.

    So the first assumption is that all who believe the rapture believe for the same reasons.

    The book is very much about discrediting the rapture belief, and is another "my belief is better than yours" statement, which, unfortunately, we all seem to be guilty of.

    I will post the reasons I believe on this thread, just for the fun of it, and you are welcome to show me why I am wrong.

    One of the false assumptions about those who believe in the rapture is this:

    That our Christianity revolves around this doctrine, and that we will be in "for a big surprise" when Antichrist shows up.

    This is a side issue, for me at least.

    I would like to see your commentaryon the posts I have already made.

    For example, tell me your take on Daniel's 70th week.

    In your own words please.

    God bless.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Agreed.

    Now consider "what difference it makes".

    In the Biblically correct view that you rightly agree with in your post above - the rapture happens at the 2nd coming - post-trib and the dead in Christ, along with "we who are alive and remain" are all caught up in the air to meet Christ and as Christ promised in John 14 - we are all taken to heaven to spend 1000 years with Christ judging the fallen angels and the wicked (1Cor 6).

    This means that 1Thess4, and Rev 19-20:4 and 1Cor 15 and John 14:1-4, and Matt 24, and 2Thess 2 are all describing the same event. It is a diligent and repeated focus by NT authors for the church fixing its "hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ" 1Peter 1:13

    In Matt 24 and in 2Thess 2 we are told regarding "the appearing of Christ and our gathering together to Him" -- that "that day will NOT come unless the apostasy comes FIRST AND the man of sin is revealed".

    We are told that the false Christ will comes "in accord with the activity of Satan with all power and signns and false wonders" 2Thess 2:9.

    Thus it would be important for believers to be warned about the Matt 24, and 2Thess 2 counterfeit appearance that comes with all power, signs and wonders.

    So if that Bible prediction is correct AND YET someone's view is that the first thing that comes along MUST be legit because the saints are all gone by the time the antichrist shows up with all signs and power and wonders - appearing as if he IS Christ... well that changes things a great deal if in fact that first view is correct and what happens in real life is that the first thing you see coming along is the counterfeit.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed - that tribulation is not an example of "The wrath of God against the saints" nor is the future tribulation an example of such a thing.

    Rather we have God protecting his saints all through the tribulation for as He said "in this world you HAVE trouble - take courage I have overcome the world" and "he who loses his life for My sake will save it".

    Thus the rapture occurs just as Matt 24 states "immediately after the tribulation ... he will gather his saints".


    Agreed.

    Israel was in Egypt at the time of the 10 plagues - spared from them by God.

    Noah was on the earth at the time of the flood - spared from the flood by God.


    Bible timelines are "contiguous by definition" thus in Dan 9:1-6 the 70 years timeline of Jeremiah - contiguous, intact, preserved in total -- and so also the 70 weeks timeline at the end of chapter 9 that accurately predict both the coming of Christ and his crucifixion on the midst of that last 7 year period out of the 490 years (70 weeks of years).

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    He never assumes this. He is dealing largely with one book and one person's set of arguments - a person who effectively claims to speak for all pre-tribbers. He book is a response to that persons arguments only. If you have a problem it can only be with the pre-trib author who presumes to speak for you, not with the person who merely critiques his arguments.

    Its about discrediting a set of fallacious arguments. Since you yourself seem to agree that these arguments are fallacious, then I am not seeing how you are having a problem with it.

    Where does he make this assumption?
     
    #33 dwmoeller1, May 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 17, 2010
  14. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Major premise: Many believe in the rapture.

    Minor premise: Many believers have read the Authors' books on the rapture.

    Conclusion: All believers rely on commentary, rather than bible study, and to discredit the Authors, you can prove the pre-trib rapture is in error (if they just read this book).

    I don't think I said The writer of the tract assumed, this is directed at deniers of pre-trib in general.

    Go through the threads dealing with this issue and the same arguments are used.

    This is one of them.

    For example, some say that pre-tribbers think "one will be taken, the other left..." speaks of the rapture.

    Maybe some do, but not all.


    Major premise: I don't believe in the pre-trib rapture.

    Minor premise: I believe the book that denies the pre-trib rapture.

    Conclusion: there is no pre-trib rapture.

    Never said I believe anything was fallacious, this is much too big a word for my vocabulary.

    Again, what I read was as about as strong as any argument I've seen, which, in my opinion, is still not conclusive.


    This was not directed at the Author, but is true of most pre-trib deniers.

    But that is just an assumption of mine.

    Again, a "My belief is better than yours" attitude.

    As far as I'm concerned, I may be wrong (and I've said this), but your "magic bullet" hasn't conviced me either.

    God bless.
     
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello,

    Forgot to ask, perhaps you will look at my posts and straighten me out.

    In your thoughts and words.

    Like I said, I have left room for error, and would be happy for someone to show scriptural evidence of their position.

    God bless.
     
  16. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hopefully never suggested it was a magic bullet for the pre-trib position. Obviously, there are other arguments for the pre-trib position that LaHaye doesn't use (or disagrees with), but his arguments do represent the most popular and most common. Showing they are chock full of fallacy does create some difficulty for that position.

    The same would be true for the post-trib position if the same could be shown of a popular post-trib supporter.

    It was nothing more than a site for reference. There is much more that could be discussed.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I did not read through the entire site - but I did find this - most of which I agree with .

    The author exposes a key flaw in the pre-trib rapture position.

    The author appears to be affirming a post-trib pre-mill 2nd coming - which would be the one that the Bible teaches.

    But what I cannot determine so far - is whether the author agrees with Christ in John 14:1-4 that at the 2nd coming Christ is going to take the saints to heaven.

    Does anyone know what the author says on that point?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Agreed. The notion that God has promised "no tribulation" to the church would be a huge problem given the 50 million Christians killed in the dark ages.

    As for the wrath of God -- both the pre-trib and the post-trib groups agree that the wrath of God does not target the saints.

    in the same way that Israel was spared the 10 plagues of egypt while still IN Egypt and Noah was spared the flood that destroys the world - while still living ON the world.

    Matt 24 "Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather his elect". The same sequence is seen in Daniel 7.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    He does raise at least a couple excellent points though.

    First of all, any verse which mentions both the rapture and tribulation together explicitly puts the rapture after the tribulation.

    1. Mark 13:24-27 24 “But in those days, (a)after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 (b)Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

    Christ clearly states that the rapture (b) will occur *after* the tribulation (a).

    2. Matt. 24:29–31 29 “(a)Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 (b)And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    Again, Christ clearly states that the rapture (b) will occur after the tribulation (a).

    And secondly, there are no verses which explicitly state the rapture occurs before the tribulation. So John 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:52 all mention a rapture but none even hints about it coming before the tribulation.

    So while the post-trib position has at least 2 explicit verses in support of the position, the pre-trib position has zero.This doesn't disprove the pre-trib position by itself, but it does put it in the position of bearing the burden of proof in any discussion.

    So regardless of what you think of the man or his theology, he does raise some good points to consider. Or forget Moody and just consider these points are ones that I raised...cause I would if someone else hadn't.
     
  20. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    But none of the ones you are thinking about are explicitly about the rapture, much less its relationship to the tribulation. The point is that every verse that is explicit points to a post-trib rapture. Not proof in itself, but it is a very damaging starting point for the pre-trib position.

    Or it might just be referring to the final judgement. After all, no where else is the tribulation or its time span described as an "hour of temptation". Sure, seeing it as referring to the tribulation appears reasonable at this point, but then so does seeing it as referring to the judgement at the end of the tribulation. Since we have two reasonable interpretations, it would be unwarranted to insist on one over the other w/o further proof.

    I just wanted to point out that its not the only reasonable take on the passage and will refer back to this later on. But for now, lets go with your assumption.

    Ok, so far, I am liking the detailed support and specific details. I am looking forward to how you bring it all together.

    Ok I will deal with that later.

    Let me put this in a syllogism
    First premise (unstated): If the church were present on earth during the tribulation, it would be mentioned in Rev 4-19.
    Second premise: The church is not mentioned in Rev 4-19
    Conclusion: The church must not be present on earth during the tribulation.

    Two problems with this. First of all, it relies on the fallacy of argument from silence. There are many other sound reasons why the church may not be mentioned in those chapters which has nothing to do with it being absent from earth.

    Second, your second premise begs the question - that is, it can be true only if you first assume that mention of saints in the trib cannot be a reference to the church. For instance:
    Rev 12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

    and also
    [i[Rev 13:8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.[/quote]

    Both would be seem to be clear references to the church. After all, what other group has ever been referred to in those terms?

    If so, then, to all evidence, it was immediately lost and not brought back till the 19th century. It certainly finds no noticeable body of believers holding it as a doctrine.
     
Loading...