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.

[Zechariah11]

Now you are talking! Did you glean any new insights you could share?

Today, I came across a huge PDF file from Dr. Constable with interesting takes of Isaiah's confrontation with Ahaz in Isaiah 7 and 8.

I've always known that Isaiah 7:14 was messianic but had to have had a dual fulfillment .

in context, without an immediate fulfillment , it would have been meaningless and irrelevant to Ahaz as he faced the axis of Ephraim and Syria. So, who in Ahaz's time would have been the maiden who was to bear a child?

Some have put forth the view that the maiden was someone in the proximity who had not given birth, (perhaps someone on the scene and related to the prophet) This is the reason almah could not be used -- dual fulfillment. Certainly, the mother-to-be in Isaiah's day would not be a virgin at the time that this sign would be fulfilled to Ahaz.

The point is that this type of study yields so much more than studies centered around buttressing a view.

"If they say this, I say that . . ."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...as our esteemed Dr. Ecklesburg calls them

Nuts. I have to break my own rule and now remind you that when one posts about another FReeper, that person should ping that FReeper. Or else simply don't make personal comments about another FReeper.

So far all you've posted is name-calling and rude comments.

If you've read this thread and its companion thread you'd know Topcat has ONLY posted from Scripture, for Christ...

"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

The Old Testament is Christ concealed; the New Testament is Christ revealed.

"In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Hebrews 8:13

[Seven_0]

I'm not a gnostic. There are no "secrets" in the Bible that need to be "discovered". The first century believers who directly received the gospels, letters, etc could have firgured all that stuff out without a decoder ring.

I see that you have not developed the same awe as I have when it comes to the Word of God. I believe that scripture is full of hidden secret treasure, which displays God's character from cover to cover. I find it odd for you to suggest that one generation could have figured out all that stuff, when all of the generations of men have yet to exhaust it's blessings.

There is a new blessing in God's word for every day for the rest of your life.

Seven

[Zechariah11]

The reason for that comment was that it seemed beneath the dignity of a doctor of divinity(?) to refer to those who hold the dispensational view as "dispys."

I've heard very few lettered individuals of theology refer to the other side of the eschatology divide in such terms.

[Zechariah11]

Was it not to bait an argument that those with whom you ping began this thread? Yet you defend such behavior?

[Zechariah11]

Just a brief follow-up on the immediate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.<pPIin Isaiah 8:2 the word for having sex is “approached” which normally refers to the first intercouse of a husband and his bride.
Hence, the Immanual of Ahaz’s time may have been the child of Isaiah.

[Cvengr]

Dispensationalists assert Jews and Gentiles are all part of the Church. The Church and Israel are different objects, though in Prophecy.

There is nothing in Prophecy to preclude the Rapture from coming at present. It is immanent, not to be confused with immediate, as is clarified in 2nd Thessalonians.

There are prophetic events which must be fulfilled prior to the 2nd Advent, i.e. the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Apostasy, and removal of the Restrainer.

[Blogger]

Too late.

[Iscool]

"The fact that you don't believe this only shows that you don't believe what God said..." -- iscool {Is it really true that I do not believe God?}

I don't know...Let's find out...You say there are no secrets left in the bible...So you have this mystery figured out...Everything has already been fulfilled...Would you point out for us when these verses were fulfilled???

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Was it not to bait an argument that those with whom you ping began this thread?

Uh, no. Since you've come to this discussion late and have obviously missed most of it, your answer is found from Topcat in his post 338...

"I started (this) thread at your suggestion to focus on the dispensational theory of the pre-trib rapture."

No need to apologize, z. Such are the perils of commenting when you haven't followed the debate.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Does your Bible not have Romans 9? Because Romans 11 should be read and understood after we've read and understood Romans 9...

"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." -- Romans 9:6-8

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But as you noted yourself, I've tried not to post to you (even though you keep pinging me.)

So there is progress, contrary to pessimistic, unScriptural dispensational geopolitics.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The reason for that comment was that it seemed beneath the dignity of a doctor of divinity(?) to refer to those who hold the dispensational view as "dispys." I've heard very few lettered individuals of theology refer to the other side of the eschatology divide in such terms.

So titles are important to you, eh?

[Blogger]

"The fact that you don't believe this only shows that you don't believe what God said..." -- iscool {Is it really true that I do not believe God?}
When your answer to future prophecy tends to be a mixture of incongruent allegory and historic eisegesis, then yes- what iscool is charging appears to be true.

"I have already put forward a scriptural response which has been ignorred ..." -- Blogger {I have never knowlingly ignored any commnts or references.}
But you HAVE ignorred the fact that we come to our view from Scripture. Each time you accuse us of following Darby who made something up, you ignore the evidence presented. Each time you say that we are all over the map, you ignore the fact that we are building a Scriptural case that is based on the whole of Scripture. Each time you mock us as "literalists" you move away from what the text ACTUALLY SAYS to what you would like it to say. What was true in Daniel and Ezekiel is also true in Matthew 24 and Revelation. You ignore Scripture when you discount the promises to Israel. Yes, you ignore it, topcat.

" we are still getting charges thrown out at us that are simply untrue." -- Blogger {I have never posted anything that I cannot defend from the Scripture or from the writings of prominent dispensationalists.}
You are not dealing with prominent dispensationalists (and I would argue you can't back that up either). Quoting from them would be to switch the subject. You are arguing with us, not them. If you have REAL SCRIPTURE that contradicts us, then have at it. I have seen nothing to convince me that your case is strong. I've seen a lot of it that doesn't make theological or historical sense.

"Oh, I would put my eschatological understanding against what you are proposing any day. As a matter of fact, I have. Still here." -- Blogger
And so I am.

"Indeed! That “missing thing” would be something called a “Biblical eschatology. But I digress..." -- PetroniusMaximus
Wait! I'm sensing a theme here!

In #309, I asked you, "The subject of this thread is the pre-trib rapture. Does Papias or any of the other early church fathers speak to this issue?" I never got a response.
Who cares? =Though we could provide answers, we know that anything we say will be used to make more accusations. Showing that people believed in imminency, or escaping the persecution of a coming Antichrist will be somehow used to bludgeon us, so "pass". Our source of belief is not any of the early fathers, but Scripture alone.

[Blogger]

I only call you when you make asinine statements against “dispys”. This current post seems to be a synopsis of your posts, except you left out contra-evangelistic too.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I learned the difference between making statements critical of individual FReepers as opposed to making statements critical of belief systems, such as the geopolitical rationalization known as dispensationalism which tries and fails to defend a different Gospel to the Jews and to the gentiles.

You can learn to post without personal insult, too, Blogger.

Please stop making this personal.

[Blogger]

Asinine is defined as foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid. And so, a statement that accuses dispensationalism of being “pessimistic” (we are victors in Christ Jesus in dispensationalism, now and in the age to come), “unScriptural” (in spite of a plethora of Scriptures laid out to support our case), “dispensational geopolitics.” (this one is worn out. I have personally shown you were we get it in Scripture, but you still accuse us of believing things for political motives. Not exactly acting in good faith there.) was asinine. Addressing it to me is personal as is the term “dispys” which is certainly not meant as a term of endearment.

As to making it personal as well, I had once gathered a listing of adjectives you have used against your fellow freepers “views” just on these two threads. I thought better than to post them all, but people can see the kindheartedness exibited throughout the thread. I counted over 30 descriptions you have given such as “repugnant”, “despicable”, “manipulated by much darker powers”, “carrying the water for human, not heavenly goals” and many other gregarious comments. Regardless how such statements are couched, they are meant personally and also meant to avoid the rebuke of the religion moderator.

The facts of the matter is that most of us on this thread are Christians. Eschatology is not an easy subject and Christianity is “all over the map” on it. Most of the views at least have some Scripture to support them depending on how it is taken. I believe that the pre-trib pre-millenialist view is what Scripture indicates. This does not make me evil. This does not make me a carrier of water for human goals. This makes me a Christian who has come to a conclusion based upon what the Bible says. You may disagree. That doesn’t make you evil. That doesn’t make you a bad Christian. Nothing of the sort. Its iron sharpening iron. Or, at least it should be. Unfortunately on these threads it is more like Stones and daggers.

[topcat54]

It was rather obvious that your intent was to bait through Scripture the "dispys" (as our esteemed Dr. Ecklesburg calls them)

Whether you realize it or not (and apparently you don't) the thread was begun at the suggestion of Blogger who didn't care to mix a discussion of the dispensational pre-trib rapture with the dispensational notion of Christian Zionism.

The article in question seemed to stimulate discussion, or al least it was until Blogger started with the one-liners and you came along yelling "Run Away!"

How much more profit would it have been to ENLIGHTEN others --

Well, enlighten us then with your obvious superior knowledge of such things. Let's see how you do compared to the Bible.

[topcat54]

When you want to talk about the Bible again, then ping me. I’ll be around.

[topcat54]

I don't know...Let's find out...

I've explained these verses from a biblically consistent position several times. (You can check here for one instance.) I don't believe anyone from your position responsed.

I get tired repeating myself when all you folks seem to be able to do is rip a passage out and say nothing as if the interpretation is self-evident. Those without your dispensational convictions will not see the "obvious".