Featured Two good arguments for a Pretrib Rapture

I was tempted beyond my ability to resist when I read blog so I posted some as I knew many pre-rib-dispensationalists would never go there:

It is remarkable what the unbiased study of Scripture can accomplish!

The book is available at Christianbook.com for $20.

 

I remember reading his post on TGC. It was soon after my then fiance and I discovered that we had different eschatological view points. So I started reading up on his views. I have never been in the pre-trib camp but I have always been pre-mill. So it has been quite the undertaking for me to learn about A-mill. I'm still hoping to get his book at some point in the future and read it.

 

I agree that those things that Storms point out are problems for the pre-mill camp. I think he may be overstating his case slightly when he says that the NT "explicitly denies" them but he is right that the NT does appear to, at least, make them highly unlikely. However I ust can't get around Rev 20. It baffles me that he believes "Revelation 20 as a strong and immovable support for the amillennial perspective." I just can't see it! I've listened to Voddie Baucham and others (I just remember Voddie since he was the most recent) talk about Rev 20 and I just don't get how they arrive at that interpretation.

If we didn't have Revelation 20 I'd be amill no question, but Rev 20 forces me into Historic Premill.

 

I would highly recommend that you read more on Rev 20 on alternate views then.

Criswell Theological Review put out its Fall 2013 issues about various interpretations of Rev 20 entitled "The Meaning of the Millennium". It covers all the views. I would be more than happy to send you some, especially G. K. Beale's article which is an amill approach (actually, if you started at SEBTS, you should have access to that online anyhow). He is one of my favorite NT scholars and biblical theologians, so I am biased toward him. But I say give it a try. You might like it I sure did.

 

Sounds good. Anything you have I'll read. Send away. Sadly my application did not get processed in time to start with SEBTS this semester, so I'm looking at starting in the summer.

 

That is basically the position or primary reason that Ladd gives for being pre-millennial according to Hoekema, page 182. I would recommend Hoekema's book to anyone interested in the millennium!

 

I was PreTrib Dispensational until about 3 years ago. But I started having issues with Dispensationalism about 10 years ago.

It was not through a study of Eschatology directly, though. I was studying Romans 10, having problems with verses 9-10 seeming to have 2 causes and 2 effects - believe unto righteousness, confess unto salvation. Wait a minute. It seemed to say that salvation might be distinct from righteousness. So that sent me on a long study of salvation.

And i found that the OT quotes in Romans 9 & 10 were eschatological.

But I was also intrigued by what I viewed as parallel thoughts between Romans 10:9-13 and Matthew 10. But wait. Matthew was written to Israel, and Paul wrote to the church....right? Hmmm

Then i was reading Ephesians 3:6, that Gentiles were made fellow heirs, members of the same body. Wait a minute. Same body as Israel? And Hebrews 11:30-40 that those who had endured in times past would not be made perfect without us.

And through a study of Election, Predestination, glory, and related issues, i could not escape the reality that the Eschatological promises to Israel were repeated to Gentiles. So i stopped referring to myself as Dispensational.

I wasn't sure what that made me, since i was (and still am not) convinced of Covenant Theology. I thought "Inverted Dispensationalist" might have fit best.

Then at my previous church, i was asked by our bible study teacher if i would debate the timing of the rapture in front of the class, against him. I still held to PreTrib at that time, mainly because i had not studied any other position in-depth, and it was still comfortable.

But there was a twist in the debate. The teacher was PostTrib, and thought the best way to have a friendly debate would be to argue in favor of the position we opposed.

So, in preparation for the debate, i spent about 5 weeks investigating the PostTrib position. Considering that PreTrib and Dispensationalism are married, and i had already abandoned my allegiance to Dispensationalism, the PostTrib position was not a hard sell.

A little word study, and rejection of any argument that was based wholly on Dispensational distinctions.

Now i would be Historic PreMil, i think -

 

I think for me the study of history has caused me to question pre-mill or at least how dispensationalist view it. I'm not ready to leave it yet since I'm still trying to understand the a mill view. And as another posted Rev 20 with its use of 1000 6 times is a hurdle to get over.

 

So we have kind of taken over Evan's thread with our discussion of the millennial views. I know that the timing of the rapture is related to that topic but that isn't exactly the purpose of the thread. Evan said he would respond here sometime this weekend, so with that in mind I'm going to make a new thread talking about the millennial views, specifically amillennialism.

Link: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97775

 

Much appreciated.

 

Why do the pre-trib-dispensationalists reject the teaching of Jesus Christ in John 5:28, 29? Is it because it destroys pre-trib-teaching of a parenthesis Church?

28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth.

 

Would say that the best reasons would be that the church is not appointed unto the Wrath of god to be poured out in great tribulation, and that is the time for national isreal to be prepared to meet her comg messiah, and not the church to be made right for him, already have been!

 

Israel met the Messiah and crucified Him! What is perhaps worse they conspired with Rome to crucify Him!

 

Any thoughts to your "two good arguments" being arguments of silence, Evan? Or am I on ignore?

 

1 Thes 1:9-10 would be a primaey text to support pre trib, as the Church is looking for jesus, who has already spared us from yjr Wrath, great tribulation still yet to come!

 

The truth is there is not a single passage of Scripture that supports either Darby's-pre-trib-rapture or Darby's "parenthesis" Church. Walvoord is at least honest when it comes to this false representation of the Church. Walvoord writes, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 defines the Church properly as follows:

 

Oh Evan... where are you?