However, there is not a single verse in the bible that clearly teaches that idea, and multiple that say the exact opposite.
The bigger problem, though, is that if the Holy Spirit is gone, how will people come to believe in Jesus. For no one comes unto Jesus unless the Father first draw him.
As one explores pre-trib, one constantly finds issues like this, and has to re-intepret scriptures contrary to there face value meaning.
>> “The bigger problem, though, is that if the Holy Spirit is gone, how will people come to believe in Jesus. For no one comes unto Jesus unless the Father first draw him.” <<
.
Amen!
You have provided a solid answer to a post to which I just replied. I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me.
A valid point as Jesus Christ mentions in John 16:
7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
And Paul has this from Romans 8:
Romans 8:
14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
The theory of the Holy Spirit as not acting on believers during the tribulation came from a footnote commentary in the original Schoefield Bible. I believe it has since been removed from the footnotes. I can verify later when I have access to my library. However, it seems most pre-trib dispensationalist put the "only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."(KJV); and "only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."(NKJV and NASB); the "he" as the church.
As I have stated to come to a CERTAIN conclusion on "he who now restrains" (NKJV and NASB) without other scriptural proofs is poor theology. Meaning if we don't know for sure, we cannot say we are CERTAIN.
The main thrust of a pre-trib rapture (or translating or caught up) are the following:
-the "he who now restrains" being the church-which there are differing opinions on as well.
-the verses ref "the wrath to come."-which there are differing opinions on as well
-the difference between "concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him" and the Day of the Lord. One being the gathering of the bride of Christ His Church and the other the Day of the Lord where He judges the earth.--This is usually disputed by amils, but I gather we all see a rapture but differ on its timing of before, during or after the tribulation.
That is how I see the points of contention between the varying rapture positions. I am sure an amillennialist would disagree with all of us given they do not see a literal tribulation nor a literal 1,000 year Reign of Christ on earth.
Funny thing about His re-educating how we think;...we so often read into Scripture what we think it means, until He allows us to stumble into His Word. What we frequently think is the common sense meaning,...once we understand His Word, is completely contrary to what He has been trying to communicate to us all along,...and then we realize He has been telling us everything up front all along,...we were just to scarred in our souls to realize it.