Many years ago I heard a wrestler say that the best defense was an offense. Well, I’m not so sure about that. Nevertheless, I want to provide some defense for the Pre-Trib rapture, and to some degree also go on the offense. There’s good reasoning for this…
Some criticisms of pretribulationism are plain short-sighted. This isn’t to say that there aren’t fair objections. Yet some critics are found wonting when forced to defend their own views in the same stringent manner they demand from pretribulationists. I’ve come across this in blogs and social media.
Sometimes a person will fire off criticisms of pretribulationism, yet are reluctant to divulge their own positions. Obviously they don’t want to go defensive. At other times they’ll proudly proclaim they’re this or that, and why you should be as well. In almost all instances, they become highly sensitive when challenged. It doesn’t matter how polite you try to be. All that said; if you think you detect some sarcasm up ahead, it’s likely there.
Before I continue, let’s do some house cleaning:
First, I wasn’t raised pretrib. Furthermore I used to be posttrib. Don’t assume I’ve been irrevocably afflicted by “Darbyism” or “Scofieldism” or seduced by some pretrib pastor. For a long time I remained skeptical of any pretrib material I read. While I don’t intend to be dogmatic or sound arrogant, I’ve tried to do my homework. On my shelves are almost as many books critical of pretribulationism as there are defending it. Take home message – people can be informed, and still disagree with you.
What I want to do is present fairly typical objections to pretribulationism and attempt to respond to them. Some of these float around blogs and social media. Others can be found in non-pretrib books and websites. I’m loosely following the formats of Dr Reluctant (Paul Henebury) who responded to the 95 Theses against Dispensationalism and Dan Phillips’ Twenty-five Stupid Reasons for Dissing Dispensationalism.
I’m aware that I can’t match these gentlemen in smarts, or Phillips’ sarcastic wit. They responded in general to objections coming from proponents of Covenant Theology. My effort is focused on objections arising from non-pretrib futuristic premillennialists. I won’t be able to cover everything in one article. So there will be follow-ups.
In no particular order:
Why are pretribbers so adamant?
Where do I start? I mentioned having a collection of books which criticize pretribulationism and plug their own eschatological views. Would you say they were adamant? Were Tregelles, Gundry, Rossing, Rosenthal, Van Kampen etc adamant? It’s only okay to be adamant when you just know you’re right – right? Moving along…
Give me just one single Bible verse which proves pretrib.
Wish I had a dollar for every time this comes up. A pretrib pastor was asked this in the 2015 Left Behind or Led Astray? documentary. When I pointed out the difficulty of proving the doctrine of the Trinity from just one verse, one person acted shocked. Was I putting pretrib rapture doctrine on a par with the Trinity? Nope – just making a point. If this fellow could find One Verse, he would have. But he didn’t. Can you?
Here’s the deal – if we could conclusively prove doctrines with just one single verse, Systematic Theologies would be a whole lot thinner. The Trinity is an essential doctrine verifiable from a systematic study of scriptures, rather than one single verse. See Paul Henebury’s Rules of Affinity.
However, all rapture positions are deductions and assumptions based on various texts. Not even our prewrath friends are able to rest on one isolated verse. They typically rely on what I refer to as the PW Catechism which draws from a series of texts. And they’re good at it. The use of these texts, under examination, can be challenged. No view or verse is immune to being questioned.
Can you point to a direct scriptural reference that states that Jesus’ return will be a two-stage event – a spiritual or visible (but not bodily) return at the rapture for the Church and then a bodily or physical coming at Armageddon? (Emphasis mine)
There’s history and irony behind this one. This question comes from a prewrath website maintained by PW author Heidi Nigro. Another criticism of this “two-stage” coming can be found at a Van Kampen dedicated website HERE. The irony is that Renald Showers showed how Van Kampen taught four future comings of Christ within his system (see The Pre-Wrath Rapture View – R. Showers). In response to Showers’ critique, H. Nigro claimed her multi-phase Second-Advent view wasn’t a problem for her. But apparently pretrib’s “two-stage” system is. Go figure.
It’s claimed that Rev 19 doesn’t depict the start of the Second Coming. Apparently it begins at Matt 24:29-31 and in between Revelation’s 6th and 7th seals. Rev 19 is a different event, yet part of the same coming. In between these two same-yet-different events are two more instances where Christ returns and goes back to heaven. These can’t be located in Scripture, unfortunately. I suppose they’re secret comings. But you can rest assured they’re all part of Christ’s future Single Coming. Got all that?
Charles Spurgeon wasn’t a pretribber.
No, he definitely wasn’t. So? He wasn’t prewrath or midtrib either. Neither was he futuristic premil. Spurgeon didn’t hold to a future 70th week of Daniel. His position was historicist premil. Other scholars cited against pretrib are John Wesley, Matthew Henry, John Knox, John Hus, John Calvin, Isaac Newton, John Wycliffe, John Bunyan, George Whitefield, John Newton, Jonathan Edwards – well, you get the drift.
Think about this – most of these scholars were amil-postmil (except Spurgeon). Systematic study of eschatology wasn’t their focus. They also held to Replacement Theology. So, do we discard premil and a distinction between Israel and the Church? There are other recent non-pretrib “refinements” – are they then invalid? For more on Spurgeon see Dennis Swanson’s article, Charles H. Spurgeon and Eschatology.
Matt 24:31 is the rapture. If it quacks like a duck…
Does it quack like the rapture or quack like the prophesied final gathering of Israel at the end of the 70th week? Are the elect the church, or can the term refer to Israel? Is the Olivet Discourse only for the church? Some think so. It has been addressed HERE. See also Rapture and the Gospels.
Pretribbers are seeing the light and abandoning pretrib
Yes, many have converted away. Years ago most prewrath proponents I encountered were ex-pretribbers who read a book or became familiar with a teacher. I’m interested in conversion stories (eschatological etc) and like to learn people’s reasons. To that end I’ve listened to a few testimonies. None have yet compelled me to re-think my position. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m right.
Conversion (or de-conversion) examples can be found everywhere. A. W. Pink abandoned premil for amil, as did a modern Reformed apologist. I have books, written by Roman Catholics, attacking dispensationalism and the rapture. In each case they converted to Roman Catholicism from Evangelicalism. One even claimed to be a former dispensationalist. Judging from his straw man polemics, I doubt he ever really understood it.
Nobody before John Darby taught the pretrib rapture
I hate to pick on our PW friends (again) but this objection from that camp is inconsistent. I’ll get back to Darby in a future post. For now – can you show how many taught the Intra-Seal Rapture before Jacob Prasch or C. S. Lovett, or PW before Van Kampen and Rosenthal? Along similar lines I’ll read how a person claims to have arrived at PW through their own study via the Holy Spirit. So, beginning in the late 20th century the Holy Spirit began revealing this truth to believers? But early 19th century Darby was deluded?
The pretrib rapture teaching is escapist
You bet!
More to come…
Maranatha!
Sharing is caring!
