A fatal accident, heart attack, stroke, etc all have the same effect of causing us to suddenly and unexpectedly come face to face with Christ.
I generally think some...a minority of believers will be protected in some form during the tribulation but scripture to me appears to indicate that many if not most will have to pass through a difficult winnowing process.
Revelation is God's wrath, His final wrath. We are not under God's wrath....yet. This is the Age of Grace.
Revelation clearly states that many come to Christ during the Tribulation. That, in fact, is part of God's goal. Also, the 144,000 are sealed. Those who take the mark of the beast suffer much worse than those who do not, who are divinely protected. God takes care of the Jews in the wilderness who flee, just as he supernaturally took care of them in Exodus.
But the Church is never mentioned after the opening chapters of Revelation. The Tribulation and Great Tribulation (that occurs during the latter half and then the last 30 days) does not mention the Church. That is because they are with the Lord and taken out beforehand.
Agreed.
The last of the Apostles (the men who saw and were taught by Christ) died off about 100 AD. There was a period of about 200 years before the Nicene Council met in 325 AD. So there was a period of time where the men who were taught by the first Apostles (about 200 yrs.) continued on in the Church. These early Church fathers that lived after the Apostles, wrote down what they believed. The thinking is that if anyone understood what the early Apostles believed it would be these men. “The Writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers”, of which there were about 20 father’s quoted, shows that not one of them believed that the Church was going to be taken before the 70th Week of Daniel. Of those 20, all but two writers, Origen and Clement of Alexandria - men who’s names have become trademarks of allegorical and mystical interpretation - believed that the Church would go through the persecution of antichrist to refine the Church before the Rapture.
Two quotes from past Deans of conservative seminaries that hold to the Pre-Trib view:
Dr. John Wallvoord, past president/dean (50 yrs.) of Dallas Theological Seminary in his original book, The Rapture Question (first addition [removed after 1st printing],1954), states, “…the fact is neither post tribulationalism or pre-tribulationalism is an explicit teaching of scripture. The Bible does not, in so many words state either.” “…the rapture question is determined more by your ecclesiology (your understanding of Israel and the Church) more than it is by your eschatology (your view of prophetic things).” - that last part is a very fair statement.
Dr. Richard Mayhue, who was dean of Masters Seminary in California, has written in The Prophet’s Watchword - The Day of the Lord (p. 181), “Neither a pre-tribulation rapture or a post tribulation rapture is taught explicitly in the scriptures. Problems remain to be solved by the pre-tribulationalist. But perhaps the position of the pre-tribulationalist is correct, although it’s proof at times has be logically invalid or at least unconvincing.”
Does God want us to believe something that is “logically invalid or unconvincing”?
If the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach something then that teaching is most likely “man’s teaching” not God’s. Scripture should be clear on whatever it is teaching - especially on what it calls the “blessed hope and glorious appearing of Jesus Christ.” Every doctrine of the Church is clearly taught in the N.T. Why not this one? These two men admit, and they were no dummies, that pre-trib and post-trib are not explicit teachings of scripture. Given those early church fathers believed the church would go through that time period is an important consideration regardless of the position you take.