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.
.
John Wallvoord, and Richard Mayhue may wish that the post trib resurrection were not specifically taught in scripture; they dedicated their lives to rejecting the scriptures that so teach, but there is no other possibility satisfying Matthew 24, 1Corinthians 15, 2Thessalonians 2, and the entire book of Revelation, but a resurrection at the 7th trump, before the bowl judgements.
.
Agreed. But what of Pseudo-Ephraim, used by Ice and others, which they claim is proof for an imminent rapture? Wasn't Pseudo-Ephraim one of the 20?