Book review

I was raised to believe in the Pre-trib rapture. But reading the Bible has been "challenge to my beliefs" and has given me many questions about the end-times and the rapture. A friend of my has recommended that I read Marvin Rosenthal's The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. I haven't read the book yet, but I have read about the Pre-Wrath viewpoint online.

Pretribulationism, if it is wrong, will result in the untold agony of innocent Christians who have believed it, on the other hand, if the prewrath view is wrong, it has only helped make Christians more alert and watchful for the return of Christ.

 

Kicked out?

 

I don't know how much reading you want to do on the topic, but a friend and Bible College prof of mine, Dr. Alan Cole (Dr. Bob would know him) has just recently defended his doctoral dissertation refuting the pre-wrath position. If you ask him nicely, he might be willing to give you a paper or two on the topic.

http://www.faith.edu/new_web/college2/facultyad/acole.htm

 

www.rapturereadyinsurance.com

 

I agree that the mid-trib rapture theory is less than orthodox and a modernist doctrine, very far from historical fundamentalist theology .

The only Biblical, orthodox, and historically fundamental teaching regarding the rapture is the post-trib view . I personally reject as unorthodox, unbiblical, non-fundamental and modernist all teachings that are new, bizarre, unsound, wacky, foolish, and missing more than a few screws . Without any reasonable doubt, the various pre-trib raptures theories floating around in many churches today fall into the latter category .

I personally suggest that you avoid reading any books about the rapture if they were written after 1829 . That way you will not be reading any books that teach either mid-trib or pre-trib, and you will not get quite as confused . If you don’t have any old books, you are welcome to come to my house and read mine.

 

I would be interested in a "list" of pre-wrath errors as well (scripture please!). I was once pre-trib, but found it to be based on unscriptural assumptions. When the assumptions are removed, the whole thing falls like a house of cards.

Incidentally, it is a misnomer to call pre-wrath a mid-trib view. This is patently false and shows either ignorance on the part of the speaker or a deliberate use of a straw-man to beat down what they disagree with.


PS. The assumptions are: 1) 70th week = "Tribulation period", 2) God's wrath = the "Tribulation period", 3) the "doctrine" of imminence.


PSS. Other suggested pre-wrath books: 1)The Sign and 2)The Rapture Question Answered both by Robert Van Kampen, 3)Before God's wrath by HL Nigro.

 

I have to agree that Prewrath is not Midtrib. In some ways it is closer to Posttrib. Pretrib is made on a bunch of assumptions and is a 19th century theory. My problem with Prewrath is it like Pretrib it embraces Dispensationalism and takes to much of a literalist approach to Revelation's Apocalyptic language. I think it is sad however and I would say short sited for anyone to be disfellowshiped because of their views regarding the Tribulation.

Marvin Rosenthal Prewrath book did help me see the major errors of Pretrib 14 years ago BUT I became a Postriber which is the historic view of the Church. I would now describe my Millenial views a mix of Post mill and Amill.

 

I would have to disagree with you on the dispensational approach and pre-wrath. Most of the pre-wrathers I see believe in dipensations in general, but don't hold to them as strictly as pre-tribers do. Pre-wrath belief stands without it, pre-tribbism doesn't.

Rather, the pre-tribs define their doctrine according to where they draw the dispensational lines. We pre-wrathers are not near so dogmatic as to where the "lines" are. In fact, we generally see different plans for Israel and the church overlapping; therefore the "dispensations" are not so concrete.

It's important to realize that dispensationalism is a man-imposed structure placed over the scripture and is not an explicit teaching of scripture. And it becomes downright dangerous when doctrines are built upon it because it is man-imposed. For example, it leads to the unscriptural conclusion that God deals with only one group at a time (i.e. Israel, then the church age, the Israel again. This is nowhere taught in scripture).

I would agree that we pre-wrathers do interpret the scriptures in a 'literal' way. That is, we take the scriptures in their normal, plain sense meaning. If the plain sense makes sense go with that, unless there are specific textual indicators that point to a symbolic meaning. Most of the time these indicators are quite obvious, so interpretation is not the can of worms most people believe.

 

I personally suggest you read no books except the Bible and see where the plain sense reading of the text leads you first!

 

Amen! That is what I did, and I saw in the Bible that the rapture occurs at the sounding of the last trumpet, which in the Bible is the seventh trumpet, at the close of the Great Tribulation.

1 Cor. 15:51. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (NASB, 1995)

Rev. 11:15. Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become {the kingdom} of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."
16. And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,
17. saying, "We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. (NASB, 1995)


Note: I quit reading science fiction when I got saved.

 

"It's important to realize that dispensationalism is a man-imposed structure placed over the scripture and is not an explicit teaching of scripture."

Very true!!!

Too many of us probably just assume it because we've been taught it!! In truth dispensationalism takes some liberties of interpretation.

I'm personally amillenial in belief - I don't expect too many here will agree with me on that one!

 

Charles,

I am reading "A Case for Amillenialism" by Kim Riddlebarger and it is very convincing. I'm studying the issue now and am not sure where I'll end up!

Great book though - check it out.