Pre-Trib Rapture

Well... you have to start w/ the concept of a 7 year Trib first. Is that in the Bible? But even before that, you have to deal w/ the concept of the restoration of Israel (Acts 15 makes that fairly clear). And to get to that, you have to establish a messianic hermeneutic of the OT rather than a literal one. So... the OP is riddled w/ assumptions that will bog down the answer to this question.

My answer, however, is NO there is no such thing as a pre-trib rapture.

 

It's a matter of interpretation. Some say yes, some say no.

 

Several years ago, my pastor preached a sermon in which he took a clearly post-tribulation view. It was the first time most of us had ever heard that view, so when the service was over, we cornered him.

"Okay guys," he said, "we're not going to debate this right now. Here's your assignment: go to the scriptures and find for me one single clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation verse which teaches a pre-trib rapture. Bring it next week and we'll talk."

That' was 32 years ago.

I'm still looking.

 

Yes, I am too! However, it is sad that Pre-tribbers make this a practical test of functual fellowship. I am a premillennial post-tribulationalist.

 

A better question to ask is where is there a clear teaching of the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.

 

Source please.

 

I'm not sure why it's a better question and it's certainly off-topic, but if you want to start a new thread I will show you where they are.

Steve

 

One trick pony.

 

What in the world are you talking about? How is that in any way relevant to the discussion?

 

Pre-Trib Would Be the Way to Go....

....but, if that is not His plan for the church, will the church be ready and able (faith wise) to withstand going through at least some ot the Tribulation? :tear: That is the question that should be asked! :type:

 

No, it is not in the Bible.

Dispensationalism is a new doctrine born of a man named Darby about 1830. The Church NEVER interpreted Scripture that way before Darby.

There were historic premils but these were very different from this new, weird, dispensational, premilinneal, pretribulational rapture business.

This doctrine came the same way that KJVonlyism and mormonism and penetecostalism and much fundamentalism came- through a HORRIBLE and arrogant hermeneutic.


The deadly thing about this issue is not the actual doctrine of dispensationalism. It is not heresy. The deadly thing about it is the WAY in which it came to be- a horrible hermeneutic. Who CARES that NOBODY- and I mean NOBODY- ever in the whole history of the church EVER saw anything CLOSE to this business before??? Not DARBY. And not Scofield who popularized it. And not Dallas Theological Seminary and TBN who maintain it.

And the way dispensational, premillennial, pretribualtional rapture came to be is different from many reputable doctrines whose teachings evolved over time- like the Trinity for example. Our understanding of the Trinity was very dim before Athanasias and Arius. But the doctrine of the Trinity, though not fully developed, had ROOTS that extended back to the Apostles. In other words, the Trinity had historicity. It did not just pop up from nothing in Athanasias' day.

The same is true with the doctrines of grace.

But this cannot be said of such things as pentecostalism, kjvonlyism and dispensationalism. These things popped up out of nothing- historical roots be danged!

 

The Thessalonian epistles can be interpreted to support a pre-trib rapture. Zane Hodges gave a good exposition in a collection of writings entitled "Walvoord: A Tribute."

A pre-trib rapture is definitely tied to Dispensationalism.

In my limited experience with the cyber world, I've observed that discussions like this are frustrating and pointless in the sound-byte world of internet forums.

If you really want to understand Dispensationalism and the arguments for it, there is no better source I have seen yet than Chafer's Systematic Theology, especially the volume on Ecclesiology and Eschatology.

So in answer to the original question, viz., is the doctrine in the Bible, I would say "Yes." But obviously not all would agree.

 

Steve,

At the center of the OP inquiry is this question:

So really the OP is trying to make the arguement that the pre-trib rapture is not a biblically sound doctrine, thus trying to imply that those who hold to that doctrine do not take the Bible seriously. I of course disagree.

I would argue the point that a systematic study of the Bible holds no evidence that Jehovah made the covenants at the heart of reformed covenant theology (works, redemption and grace), an arguement I have tried many time in the past to have defended by those who hold the position. That is the tie-in to this discussion.

That is why it is a better question to ask and even a better question to answer. And of course, no one here can answer that question in a throughly biblical fashon, the reason I say that is because I have studied the works of really smart reformed covenant theologians who devote entire books to the subject and they end up using the historic writings and teachings of the church and not the Bible to make their case.

So again, my contribution to this discussion is actually a good question to ask. In other words, and to use crude allegory, before you can steal second base, you must first get on first base.

 

Oh yes, the consistant use of historical-grammatical hermeneutics is horrible. We know this because the very picture of all knowledge (Luke2427) tells us so. Of course, it matters not to the unflappable Luke2427 that the major Mormon and Jehovah witness (and Roman Catholic) doctrines relating to the kingdom come right out of the covenant a-mil school of thought but why dwell on that when there is so much mud to be thrown at those fundamentalists who take the Word of God seriously?

 

You do realize that you can be amill and not be a covenanter right? There is a new brand of theology unfortunately dubbed "new covenant theology." Of course there are many forms, but basically it holds to many views of covenant theology w/out adhereing to the theological covenants. So it seems you are studying what is becoming an outdated system. I find this common amongst many dispos.

 

You've already skipped ahead. Does the Bible even teach a 7 year tribulation as the pre-tribbers believe??? You have to define and defend "tribulation" before you put a timing of rapture on it.

 

Ok you've got my attention! Can you please give an overview [brief] of what you believe [scripturally] to be the end time events? Perhaps there needs to be/already has been, a thread dedicated to this?

I was always taught the any moment any time doctrine since I was a small child; however, through study, I've come to really question it. This Scripture seems to refute pretrib rapture:
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Sounds as though Paul is restating what might have been misunderstood in his first letter [1 thess 4] which many people would get their rapture doctrine--but I believe all he is doing there [in 1 thess 4] is comforting those of us who are alive concerning those who have gone on. I also agree with what Luke 2427 said concerning Church history--Rapture doctrine is fairly new. So a brief "primer" would be appreciated

 

I don't see a 7 year trib coming to the world. It may get better or worse (not sure where I fall there), but I believe that the next event to occur is Jesus to return and usher in the completed kingdom associated w/ the new heavens and new earth and New Jerusalem (i.e. eternity). I believe the reign of God has begun at the resurrection, and the restoration of Israel is taking place now. But the complete and full manifestation of God's reign (the world as it was w/out sin in the Garden) is yet to be fulfilled. So I hold to a form of Amillennialism. But not the old covenant theology brand.

Thus my "rapture" theology is nothing more than OT language about God gathering his people to himself and dwelling in their midst (language of covenant, "I will be your God, you will be my people, I will dwell in your midst).