Is the Pretribulation Rapture Biblical?

Reformedonline.com ^ | Unknown | Brian M. Schwertley

[topcat54]

Conclusion

Although the pretribulation rapture theory is very popular today, given arguments that are offered in support of this doctrine we must declare Pretribulationalism to be contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. Simply put, there is not one shred of evidence that can be found in the Bible to support the pretribulation rapture. The typical Pretribulational arguments offered reveal a pattern: of imposing one’s presuppositions onto a text without any exegetical justification whatsoever; of finding subtle meaning between words and/or phrases that were never intended by the author; of spiritualizing or ignoring passages that contradict the Pretribulational paradigm; and, of imposing Pretribulationalism upon passages that actually teach the unity of the eschatological complex (i.e., the rapture, second coming, general resurrection, and general judgment all occur on the same day—the day of the Lord). It is our hope and prayer that professing Christians would cast off this escapist fantasy and return to the task of personal sanctification and godly dominion.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, we'll be there by the Grace of God! But I strongly believe the labels will be meaningless.

Maranatha, Jesus!

[PetroniusMaximus]

“And in heaven we’ll all be “radical Calvinists,” by the grace of God.”

Sorry Dr. E, will be no “Calvinists” in heaven.

“But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.. for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? For when one says, “I follow Paul*,” and another, “I follow Apollos*,” are you not being merely human?”

*Read: “I follow Calvin”

[topcat54]

Thanks for the timely reminder.

I only struggled with the error of arminian dispensationalism for a short period of time after I first became a Christian. It was at that point that some good friends saw my peril and took me under their wings. They were attending, or planning to attend, a reformed seminary to be trained in the gospel ministry. They took the time to sit down with me and show me from the Bible the great errors and inconsistencies of "dispensational truth".

It took a while, but I eventually embraced a Reformed understanding by God's grace.

I've also seen others embrace that truth before my eyes. I had a friend from work about 20 years ago who was a died-in-the-wool dispensationalist. I kid you not, he literally would buy hardback Scofield Bibles (the old version) by the case and give them out to people. (That’s how I got mine.) He also used to listen to a fellow on the radio named Duane Spencer. Spencer was a well-known arminian/dispensationalist minister with a Methodist background. He got tossed from his church after telling his bishop that he had become a calvinist. My friend, George, followed Spencer from arminianism to calvinism. I was working with George on his dispensationalism, but he would give it up. What happened though was that over the course of several broadcasts, his spiritual mentor, Duane Spencer, ended up abandoning dispensationalism and adopted a covenant view of Scripture. I remember going into George’s office on Monday morning after the weekend broadcast and asking George if he was listening carefully to what Spencer had said. He had, and he eventually came over from the “Dark Side”.

I say this realizing that it takes time for truth to with out, but that is the hope of the gospel. Time is in God hand and He brings things about to His own glory. Christendom will not be built in a day. We build it brick by brick as individuals come to the truth.

I’m an theological optimist not because I see things getting better with my physical eyes, but because I know Christ is on His throne reigning over the nations whom He desires to make His disciples. And they will one day. We have His assurance.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"The language of v. 19 [i.e., Mk. 13:19 the parallel to Mt. 24:21], as also of Dan, 12:1, which it cites, uses traditional expressions to denote severe tribulation, not simply of Israel but of other people also." (65) For example, such language is even used to describe the anguish of the Egyptians after the tenth plague. "Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again" (Ex. 11:6; cf. 9:18; 10:14). "The cry of anguish sent up by this destruction will be unique, just as the disaster will be unique.""

Great example. If we focus too much on selective incidents in the Bible without seeing the bigger picture we obscure what God is telling us. More missing the forest for the trees.

Thank God for those who study His word so carefully in order to help us find the single theme that runs through every word of Scripture --

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17

[topcat54]

It has to do with answering your question.

Which question is that, about God's visiting His wrath on the children to the third and fourth generations?

Let me anticipate your question and save some time by saying that Adam, unlike say Achan’s sin or Israel's sin, was absolutely unique in the history of mankind.

We see this evidenced by Paul treatment of Adam and Jesus Christ, the last Adam, in Romans 5.

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. … Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life." (Rom. 5:14,18).

Adam was sinless when he fell from God’s grace, a condition that we have not enjoyed since that time.

He was also in a unique typological situation wrt Jesus Christ. Just as Adam served as the federal head of his people and thus sin came to all men, so too Jesus Christ is the federal head of His people, and all righteousness (release from sin) come to His own.

I hope you know that and can therefore appreciate the difference between how we are judged for the sin of Adam, and God's statement in general found in Number 14:18.

When the inhabitants of Israel said, "His blood be on us and on our children", they were not calling down malediction on a generation of Jews thousands of years in the future. It’s just that simple.

Seeing Scripture as a whole rather than as a bunch of disjoint pieces will help clear much of this up for you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Indeed, we'll be there by the Grace of God! But I strongly believe the labels will be meaningless.

Amen. I agree completely.

"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." -- Gal. 3:28

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Do your posts show up everywhere with all those "“" in place of quotation marks, or is it just appearing on my screen?

[topcat54]

The how do you interpret the MANY verses that clearly indicate the world in a foul condition before Christ’s return???

“I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” - Luke 18

Is that really a pessimistic statement or does it necessarily suggest an underlying pessimism on the part of Christ? I don’t think so.

Actually, it’s a question in the context of parable. So let’s be noble Bereans and make sure we get the big picture.

1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart,
2 saying: "There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man.
3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, 'Get justice for me from my adversary.'
4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, 'Though I do not fear God nor regard man,
5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.' "
6 Then the Lord said, "Hear what the unjust judge said.
7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them?
8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?"

The context is prayer and continuing in prayer before Almighty God knowing that He hears and He will respond. Using the picture of an unjust judge, He demonstrates that even if the unjust judge eventually relents, so surely a loving heavenly Father will do all we ask in His name.

So, given that context what do you suppose was Jesus’ implied response to the question?

I don’t know of any passage that necessarily requires a pessimistic view of the progress of history. And there are many that suggest we, as the children of the God of the universe, should be optimistic about the world that Christ came to die for.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Arminians tend to treat that passage as an individualistic promise, but it is not. God loves the world – all He has created – and gave Himself for it all.

[Alamo-Girl]

Amen!

Praise God!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All I can tell you is what is plainly written in the Bible for our instruction. The Jewish nation as a whole was cut off from the covenant in AD70. They were spiritually cast adrift from Almighty God. If you can image something worse than that, I guess offending God is an insignificant thing in your book.

Six million Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in six years is an indelible stain on humanity for somehow not preventing this terrible tragedy.

As is the blood of 800,000 murdered Tutsis in a few short weeks in Rwanda.

The real problem I have with the dispensational POV/end-times/rapture scenario is that if (God forbid) some nuclear strike were carried out on Israel, there would be those from the end-times camp who would say this is a fulfillment of prophecy.

And that is not Scriptural. National Israel already suffered in 70 A.D. Today individual Jewish believers do not receive the benefits coming from a Christian perspective.

But by the preaching of the Gospel, they can and will hear the truth of Christ risen with ears given by God and they will believe.

I honestly do not know what God has in store for national Israel, nor individual Jews. I do know, however, that whatever happens will be according to His perfect judgment and mercy.

And I believe all people, Jews, Gentiles, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists would be happier and better off believing in Jesus Christ as their savior.

And we as Christians are commanded to preach this truth to every nation and race on the planet.

[TomSmedley]

Please explain how the gospel you first believed was “crippled.”

That's a fair question.

1. It was presented as a mystical experience, rather than as a whole new pattern for living.
2. It was divorced from the nitty-gritty day to day routines of life.
3. The "Growth path" offered consisted of ever more intense levels/zones/realms of mystical experience.
4. It had no doctrine of ordinary vocation. God's richest and best blessings were seen as the monopoly of "full-time Christian service" professionals.
5. It had no doctrine of community, but acted as though one's own personal inner life was the axle of the universe. Jesus was preached as a "personal" Savior, rather than as Lord of the Church, Head of the Body, etc.
6. It offered no practical guidelines for vocational excellence.
7. It wrote off too much of the universe, assuming God only cared about the redemption of solitary isolated souls.
8. It offered no hope of victory in this life.

Is this helpful?

[Alamo-Girl]

I do not see the "dispensational POV/end-times/rapture" as wishing for anything ill to happen to Israel - or any nation or people but rather a hope that Jesus will come soon and put down the Adamic rebellion once and for all, ultimately establishing the new heaven and earth as promised, with the family united in Him.

And I believe all people, Jews, Gentiles, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists would be happier and better off believing in Jesus Christ as their savior.

And we as Christians are commanded to preach this truth to every nation and race on the planet.

Amen. Praise God!

[topcat54]

Have you fallen into the trap of postulation a conservative version of Pre WWI liberal Christianity’s triumphal optimism???

I already answered that here.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Do your posts show up everywhere with all those ““” in place of quotation marks, or is it just appearing on my screen?

Looks ok on my screen.

[PetroniusMaximus]

“Is this helpful?”

What kind of Christianity is THAT???

Seriously. Just so I know what were talking about, what kind of denominational experience are you describing?

[blue-duncan]

“The real problem I have with the dispensational POV/end-times/rapture scenario is that if (God forbid) some nuclear strike were carried out on Israel, there would be those from the end-times camp who would say this is a fulfillment of prophecy.”

And how would those in the Post mil and Amil camps interpret such a catastrophe?

[topcat54]

Tom. We really appreciate you stopping by. But Topcat doesn’t need the help. He can answer for himself.

Actually, I need lots of help. And I appreciate those who have a "whole council of God" view to help me sort through these things.

The Protestant Reformation was marked by what we call the Five Solas; Sola gratia ("by grace alone"), Sola fide ("by faith alone"), Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), Solus Christus ("Christ alone"), and Soli Deo gloria ("Glory to God alone").

Sola scriptura is very important to us, and we take it seriously. However, we also recognize that God did not abandon His Church but has produced faithful men down through the centuries to help guard and defend the truth. John Calvin, for example, was well-read wrt the earlier fathers of the Church and quoted from them often in his works to demonstrate how his views were perfectly compatible with the greater teaching of the universal Church which preceded him.

“And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)

When any man comes to the Scripture they need to recognize they do not stand alone, but rather are part of a long line of Christians going back centuries. And so we can judge what we believe, ultimately from the Bible, but also in light of what other godly men have written on the subject at hand. We should not be quick to adopt any new and novel views that fall far outside on the orthodox faith.

That is what I especially appreciate about the Reformed faith. It has a long history reaching back to Augustine and Paul.

The spirit of independency which infects much of American evangelical Christianity is opposed to this sort of humbling dependency. Church pastors become their own judge and jury as to what the Bible teaches (Calvary Chapels are big on this idea). They will run away at light speed from an ancient creed or confession like Nicea or Chalcedon, not to mention the Westminster Standards or London Baptist Confession, but at the same time have no problem inventing their own local creeds. It’s the NIH syndrome.

Many people who have been raised in independent, dispensational churches and later come to a confessional Reformed faith see the great difference, and how the former actually works contrary to what Jesus intended for His body.

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18)

As a Reformed Christian I have no issue with seeing Peter as the “rock” in Jesus’ declaration. And that does not make me a papist. Understanding Peter as the rock does not automatically open one up the all the trappings of the Romanist hierarchy. It simply confesses that every building has a foundation upon which it is built. The Church is no different. Our foundation happens to be Christ and His holy apostles:

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22)

I don’t mind having my views checked by folks who have a similar appreciation for the “communion of saints”. It’s both refreshing and liberating.

[topcat54]

And how would those in the Post mil and Amil camps interpret such a catastrophe?

What do you mean "interpret"? We tend not to go running off with newspaper in hand to check our Bible to see if it fits some prophetic jigsaw puzzle. And we certainly don't wait anxiously for the latest issue of "Israel, My Glory" or some other Zionist publication so someone else can tell us what we think.

Is that what you mean by "interpret"?

[dartuser]

And we're back to the root error, from which all else springs: dispensationalism's absolute distinction between Israel and the church.

That is not the absolute distinction between Reformed theology and dispensationalism. The absolute disctinction is THEOLOGICAL METHOD.

When a dispensationalist sets out to develop a systematic theology (the entire textual view), he uses Biblical theology (confined to just the text for topical information) in the following progression ::::

1. Recognize presuppositions

2. Develop a Biblical theology of the Old Testament using the text of the Old Testament.

3. Develop a Biblical theology of the New Testament using the text of the New Testament.

4. Synthesize and integrate results into a Systematic theology.

The reformed, covenant, whatever you want to call it uses the following progression.

1. Recognize presuppositions

2. Develop a Biblical theology of the New Testament using the text of the New Testament.

3. Develop a Biblical theology of the Old Testament using the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament.

4. Synthesize and integrate results into a Systematic theology.

It is theological method that forces the differences between Reformed and Dispensational theology. It is theological method that causes the Dispensationalist to make a distinction between Israel and the Church. The methodological difference also explains why the Reformed theologian has no use for Israel, discards OT land promises as conditional, and imposes spiritual meanings to OT prophecies that have never been understood (by Jewish historians and theologians) any other way but literal.

While I agree that the seperation of Israel and the Church is the most prominant difference ... that is not a cause of anything ... its the result of theological method.

[Quix]

And you for your encouragement and kind words.