Listen as Charles Cooper shows why pretribulationism is so debated. It invites debate because of its practice of wrongfully interpreting Scripture seemingly intentionally. Follow the Link!
Category:
Pretribulationism
It’s so easy to argue alone. Chances are you’ll win every time! Our goal at PRI is to proclaim and defend the PreWrath position. Yet, often we feel as if we are arguing by ourselves, because we’re the only ones arguing. Pretribulationists do not offer compelling arguments for their position.
Just once, at least, I would like to hear or read of a well-reasoned defense of the pretrib position that is based firmly upon sound exegesis. In response to my thorough disabling of the pretrib notion that Revelation 3:10 is a proof-text for their position, one person responded in the following manner:
Whats wrong with you guys? Rev chp 4 vs 1 is the rapture. Notice the church is not mentioned again till arounf chp 18 or so? Its gone.
To be fair, I am not going to judge the way this man expresses himself. After all, in this two-thumbs writing generation (texting), apocopation is the order of the day. No, I will stick with the substance of his argument.
This man presents a frequent argument of pretribbers. Instead of solid, faultless and accurate exegesis, he offers (1) a gross spiritualization (John represents the church), (2) an argument from silence (since the term “church” does not occur in chapters 4-18 or so, therefore the church must be in heaven), and (3) an appeal to logical reasoning (notice his remark: “Whats wrong with you guys?”). This is typical, shameless pretrib eisegesis that may purport to be – but isn’t – careful biblical exegesis. Now what is truly sad here is that this man is very serious. He sees nothing wrong with his defense.
No argument for the pretrib rapture in the book of Revelation holds more weighty assurance for pretribbers than their argument from silence regarding the absence of the term “church” in Revelation 4-18. So, when all other arguments have been shown to be untrue, well, not to worry! There is always the “absence-of-the-word-church” argument! The only logical conclusion to this whole line of reasoning is that the church must be in heaven, having been raptured before the events of chapters 4-18 start. Case closed! Argument won! What is next for debate? For most pretribbers, it is just that simple.
Now if we take the pretrib line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, since the term church does not appear in Revelation 20-21 either, we must conclude that the church is not on earth during the millennial reign of Christ. And since the term is absent from Revelation 21, we must also conclude that the church is not present in eternity future on the new earth. By their definition, once the term usage ends in Revelation 4, we do not see or hear from it ever again with the exception of a mention in Revelation 22:16. How is your argument from silence working out for you pretribbers?
We all understand that pretribbers have no problem identifying the church in Revelation 19, where verse 14 refers to “the armies of heaven.” This group must include the church, otherwise it does not return with Christ to fight at Har Mo’ed. Revelation 20:4 refers to “thrones and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed.” If the church is not a part of this group, then she is not present on the earth during the reign of the Lord Christ.
Using the pretrib argument, we sing, “O where, O where has God’s church gone, O where, O where can she be?” Yet, when it is convenient, pretribbers find the church in Revelation 4-19. We began with one pretribber’s conviction that the church appears in Revelation 4:1—John the apostle. Pretribbers have argued ad nauseam that “the twenty-four elders” found in Revelation 5:8-10 is the church. A. Boyd Luter and Emily K. Hunter, both pretribbers, recently argued that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7 is the church.[1] Some pretribbers argue that the two “witnesses” in Revelation 11 is the church. One pretribulationist has recently argued that the “male child” of Revelation 12:5 is the church. Luter and Hunter argue that the term “earth dwellers” used in Revelation 12:12 and 13:6 is the church.[2] Others have consistently taught that the reference to “harvest of the earth” in Revelation 14:15 refers to the church.
Notice Revelation 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 all refer to the church, not by the name “church” to be sure, but indirectly. It reminds me of a saying of my grandmother, “They called me everything, but a child of God.” It seems in Revelation 4-19 that the church is called everything else, but not the church. What we need is an honest dialogue about hermeneutics. Nothing will ever come of our discussions until we agree on how to study the Bible. Until then, pretribbers and prewrathers pass in the night.
[1] Luter and Hunter write, “Since there are essentially the same three elements seen in 1:5–6 and 5:9–10 as referring to the church, it would seem virtually certain that the same group is in view in 7:9, 14–15.” Check out their article: “The “Earth Dwellers” and the “Heaven Dwellers”: An Overlooked Interpretive Key to the Apocalypse,” FM 20(Fall 2002) p 7.
[2] Ibid.
There was only one passage in the N.T. that forms the basis for it. This is the opinion of their greatest teachers. Now that Rev 3:10 cannot be used as support for an explicit teaching for the Pretribulation rapture position, the doctrine has no scriptural support. There are no other passages that support it. The Pretribulation rapture doctrine is dead! Only those who do not want to be bothered with the facts can ignore it.
I am responding to Eric Douma’s sermon on April 3rd 2011, “The Day of The LORD: A Look at the Imminent Day of Salvation and Judgment.” We continue.
Douma claims that the term “birth pangs” in the Bible is a technical term for the day of the Lord. That is, every time it is found in the Bible it must refer to the day of the Lord. This is categorically false and unproven. It is an assumption he makes to maintain the unbiblical doctrine of imminence. What do I mean by this?
Since Douma claims the rapture must occur before the great tribulation (so the church can avoid encountering the Antichrist), he interprets Jesus’ expression in Matthew 24:8, “the beginning of birth pangs,” to refer to the day of the Lord. He argues that since Paul uses the birthing metaphor in 1 Thessalonians 5 drawing from Isaiah 13 to refer to the day of the Lord, then Jesus must be using it in the same way. Therefore, he concludes that Matthew 24:4–35 describes the day of the Lord.
However, his premise is deeply flawed, for Jesus’ purpose of using the metaphor of birth pangs is just the opposite of Paul’s purpose.
Let’s begin.
Paul says, “Now when they are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape” (1 Thess 5:3). Paul’s analogy of “labor pains” is drawn from a day of the Lord passage in Isaiah 13:
(6) Wail, for the LORD’s day of judgment is near; it comes with all the destructive power of the sovereign judge. (7) For this reason all hands hang limp, every human heart loses its courage. (8) They panic—cramps and pain seize hold of them like those of a woman who is straining to give birth. They look at one another in astonishment; their faces are flushed red. (9) Look, the LORD’s day of judgment is coming; it is a day of cruelty and savage, raging anger, destroying the earth and annihilating its sinners. (10) Indeed the stars in the sky and their constellations no longer give out their light; the sun is darkened as soon as it rises, and the moon does not shine. (Isa 13:6–10; see also Isa 26:17–21)
We should not confuse Paul’s use of the birth pangs analogy with Jesus’ use of it in the Olivet Discourse, for it serves a completely different purpose than Matthew 24:8 (“All these things are the beginning of birth pains”). There are six differences that demonstrate that Jesus does not use the birth pangs metaphor to refer to the day of the Lord:
1. Jesus’ usage in Matthew 24 occurs before the great tribulation; Paul’s usage is found at the inception of the day of the Lord. In other words, Jesus uses the birthing metaphor to warn that the end has not arrived (“Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. . . All these things are the beginning of birth pains”). Paul uses it to announce that the end has arrived (“then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains,” cf. Isa 13:7–8).
2. Accordingly, Jesus emphasizes the tolerable stage of “the beginning of birth pains” (Matt 24:8); hence, the reason he reassures, “Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come” (Matt 24:6). In contrast, Paul is drawing from Isaiah’s labor imagery focused on the intolerable stage of actual giving birth, “cramps and pain seize hold of them like those of a woman who is straining to give birth” (Isa 13:8).
3. Jesus teaches that the “beginning of birth pangs” is what Christians are destined to experience (Matt 24:4–8); Paul teaches just the opposite that Christians are promised exemption from the hard labor pains, the time of God’s wrath (1 Thess 5:9).
4. The labor pains in Matthew 24 refer to natural events such as false christs, wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matt 24:5–8). Paul’s reference is to the supernatural event of the day of the Lord (2 Thess 1:5–8).
5. Jesus’ usage of the beginning of birth pangs occurs before the celestial disturbance happens (Matt 24:8–29). But in the Isaiah passage that Paul is drawing from associates the birth pangs of the onset of the day of the Lord with the celestial disturbance (Isaiah 13: 8–10).
6. Jesus uses the birthing metaphor to apply to both unbelievers and believers (Matt 24:5–8). While Paul uses it exclusively applied to unbelievers (1 Thess 5:3–4).
So we have seen that Douma is mistaken to think that Jesus is speaking of the day of the Lord. A red flag should go up whenever someone claims that this or that is a “technical term,” for the danger is not taking contexts into consideration and thus flattening out an author’s intention. In this case, Douma has abused Jesus’ intention of the birthing metaphor to serve his own theology of imminence.
I am responding to Eric Douma’s sermon on April 3rd 2011, “The Day of The LORD: A Look at the Imminent Day of Salvation and Judgment.” We continue.
In this part, I will respond to Douma’s repeated error of equating the “thief” imagery with “imminence.” In part one I responded to this misunderstanding as it relates namely to Peter’s usage. Even though most of what I need to say is in part one, I want to briefly respond to Douma’s claim as it relates to Paul’s use of the thief imagery. The text reads:
“For you know quite well that the day of the Lord will come in the same way as a thief in the night.” (1 Thess 5:2 NET)
Douma equates this statement with an “imminent rapture” because he says since we do not know when a thief comes, it follows that there are no prophetical events that must occur before the day of the Lord.
Douma is making a category error by not reading Paul accurately.
The thief imagery is intended to teach spiritual watchfulness, not physical watchfulness as some newsflash on CNN. This is shown in the remaining passage where Paul’s thrust is exhorting believers to stay spiritually awake and not be spiritually caught off guard when Christ comes back.
Hence, the reason Paul says that Christ is not coming back as a thief to those spiritually prepared!
“But you, brothers and sisters, are not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would” (1 Thess 5:4).
Why Douma wants to teach his people that Christ is coming back as a thief to them is beyond me. As Christians, God wants us to be spiritually prepared so that he will not come back as a thief for us because we are “not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would.”
Newer Posts