I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.
He says that the prewrath rapture teaches the identification of the timing of the rapture “quite precisely.” Actually, of all four major rapture positions, it is the prewrath rapture position that is the least precise. Pretribulationism (as DeWaay affirms) identifies the rapture as occurring as the same day when the 7 year period begins. Midtribulationism identifies it exactly at the mid-point. Post-tribulationism identifies the rapture on the last day of the 7 year period. So all those three rapture positions identify the rapture on a specific exact day in relation to the 7 year period.
In contrast, the prewrath rapture position says the rapture will occur sometime during the second half of the 7 year period when the Great Tribulation is cut short. It is the prewrath position that can only make sense out of Jesus’ words that no one can know the day or hour (see this video commentary for a point against the pretrib interpretation of this verse).
I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay.
He devotes a brief time in talking about what the Early Church writers believed on eschatology. He rightly states that the Early Church was premillennial. But what was conspicuously absent from his discussion was any acknowledgment of the fact that Early Church writers believed that the the Church will encounter the Antichrist, and that the resurrection would follow after the Great Tribulation. This is exactly the core of what Prewrath affirms.
It is not that every Early Church writer wrote on this subject; but everyone that actually did affirmed that the Church would go through the Great Tribulation.
Not only can someone search in vain for a pretribulational statement in the Early Church, but you will not find any pretribulational statements until the early 19th century.
As Evangelicals our ultimate authority is not in what the Early Church writers believed—it is in the inspired Scriptures. It is, however, very telling that the first generations of the Church believed what Prewrath affirms: The Church will encounter Antichrist.
Click here for primary evidence.
Click here for an audio discussion.
I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. This next part of his presentation is quite interesting. First, he notes this text:
And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:14)
He says that this body of believers who have come out of the Great Tribulation is “a church.” Notice the indefinite article. I will come back to that in a moment. At this point in his lecture, he says that he disagrees with his pretrib friends who say that there is not a church during the Tribulation. Indeed, DeWaay does affirm that there is a rapture of the Church before the tribulation, but he also identifies a church in Rev 7:14 who has just come out of a great tribulation. Here is the reason why he thinks “a church” is identified in Revelation 7:14. He asserts:
“[W]hat is the definition of the [word] ‘church’? ‘the called-out ones.'”
This is demonstrably false. The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia, ἐκκλησία, which means “assembly, congregation, gathering, church.” One will not find a credible Greek lexicon listing the meaning of this word as “called-out ones.” One authoritative Greek lexicon even has this to say:
Though some persons have tried to see in the term ἐκκλησία a more or less literal meaning of ‘called-out ones,’ this type of etymologizing is not warranted either by the meaning of ἐκκλησία in NT times or even by its earlier usage. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d, Accordance electronic ed., version 3.8. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989.)
Moreover, both D.A. Carson and Moises Silva actually use this very term as a paragon for a lexical fallacy. See respectively, Exegetical Fallacies; and Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics.
So these lexical facts undermine DeWaay’s theology of having “a” church in Revelation 7:14, as if there is another church raptured before the Great Tribulation. The Church is seen in Revelation 7:14, not because the word “church” means “called-out ones,” but because the rapture/resurrection occurs between the sixth seal and the seventh seal, consistent with Matthew 24.
He may disagree with pretribulationists with how to label these saints in Revelation 7:14: “tribulation saints” or “a church.” Don’t let that mislead you because DeWaay agrees substantially with pretribulationists that there is a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. So consequently, DeWaay’s position blunts the warnings of Christ because he still affirms that there will be a rapture before the Antichrist’s Great Tribulation. And this is in direct contradiction to our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 24.
We do know for certain who these warnings apply to in the Bible: the last generation of the present Church—not, as DeWaay would like us to think, a second created church that comes along after the rapture.
His position cannot explain the real warnings that Paul and Jesus make for the Church. And to place them in a “possible other church” context is exegetically unsupported and diminishes the force of Jesus and Paul’s Biblical teaching.
I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He believes that prophecy (related to Christ’s Second Coming) is not given in chronological order in the Bible for this reason:
“[W]e can see prophecies in the Old Testament about Christ’s Coming that contains both first and second advent material not necessarily in order.”
There you go. That is his reason. Never mind that this is an illogical inference. And never mind bothering to look to see if God’s progressive revelation in the New Testament may have something to say about this. For DeWaay, since God did not reveal in the Old Testament a chronological relationship between the first and second coming, the New Testament therefore does not give a chronology of his Second Coming. He is adducing a logical deductive reason, not an inductive reason from the New Testament.
He does not explain how his premise (God did not reveal specific information in the OT) necessarily infers his conclusion (God did not reveal specific information in the NT).
Not only is this a logically unsound and invalid argument, but I have shown in Parts 3-5 in this series that the New Testament provides a clear chronological framework of Christ’s Second Coming.
I am continuing my response to Pastor Bob DeWaay. He asserts:
“Prophecy is not given in chronological order in the Bible. You need to know that.”
We have made a case that the Bible does indeed emphatically contain prophetic chronological material in Matthew 24, Thessalonians, and Revelation.
There are other prophetic passages in the Bible that contain chronological information, but I want to mention two final texts in Daniel that are incredibly insightful. I direct the reader to this article on page 3 of the section entitled “An Overview of Daniel 7.” One will observe a consistency with Revelation’s teaching.
The second text is Daniel 12:1-3. Again, note the consistency with the Olivet Discourse: Great Tribulation followed by the resurrection.
I find it ironic the DeWaay talks about a “composite” for eschatological events. Yet, he is not able to see the most conspicuous, consistent composite in Scripture of a basic eschatological framework: (1) Antichrist’s Revelation (midpoint) (2) Antichrist’s Great Tribulation against God’s People (3) The Resurrection-Rapture (4) The Day of the Lord’s Wrath (5) The Reclamation of God’s Kingdom on Earth.
And one will search in vain for a pretrib rapture that occurs before # 1.