I finally came to a posttribulational viewpoint because of what I honestly think the scriptural view is. I know most can say the same regarding their view. Even though I'm posttribulational I still am pre-millennial and not amillennial and I don't believe the Church is Israel but rather that the Church is made up of those who are partaking of promises made to Israel. I read of all the issues and discussed them with others on other forums and came to be suprised by many of the views that commonly accompany the pre-trib view. I heard it asked if the common lay person who advocates the pretrin view is aware of the beliefs that accompany it so often. When the pre-trib view was presented to me over the years nobody said much about the other views that so often accompany this view. I have been suprised also because of the many different views in the pre-trib camp that can be bewildering to a certain degree. I thought there was more common agreement. I might be wrong but I wonder if many who advocate the pre-trib view know of the many outight reverses and changes that have been made in the pretrib view over the years so as to help it maintain credibility. Many people who believe in the pre-trib view agree with the following while many don't.
1) The Day of the Lord does not occur at the end of the tribulation but includes the entire length of the final 7 years culminating in the great tribulation.
Me: Since its inception in the 1830s pre-tribulationism had taught that the Old Testament righteous would be resurrected and raptured along with the rest of the Church at the pre-tribulational rapture. This was shown to be a glaring error and was later changed and later even the timing of the Day of the Lord was changed. This history of change can be seen in the following quote,
"In 1937 Alexander Reese published, “The Approaching Advent of Christ.” Before this, earlier pretribulationists put the day of the Lord at the end of the tribulation. They also put the resurrection of the OT righteous at the time of the pretribulation rapture until Reese pointed out that the Old Testament righteous do not rise until the end of the tribulation at the last day (Job 19:25-26; Isa 26:19, 20; Dan 12:1-2; Jn 6:39-40, 44,54; 11:24; 12:48)."
"It is a little known fact that in reaction to the inconsistencies pointed out by Reese’s book, pretribulationists began to teach that the OT righteous would not be raised with the church at the rapture (as formerly believed), but would continue to ‘sleep in the dust of the earth’ until the ‘last day’ at the end of the tribulation (Dan 12:1-2)."
"At the same time, Reese pointed out that Paul had instructed the church to be on guard for the day of the Lord (1Thes 5:2, 6-, as also Peter exhorts believers to be always “looking for and hasting to the coming of the day of the God” (2Pet 3:12 ASV). This would hardly make sense if the church has been removed from the earth seven years before a post-tribulational day of the Lord. The force of Reese’s argument induced some of the earlier pretribulationists to rethink their placement of the day of the Lord."
"After the publication of Reese’s book, pretribulationists moved the day of the Lord forward to the beginning of the seven years. The day of the Lord would now be seen as starting with the imminent, unsignaled, pretribulation rapture. In this way, both the rapture and the day of the Lord could be seen as coming suddenly, unexpectedly, and without preceding signs, “like a thief in the night” (1Thes 5:2; 2Pet 3:10). It seemed the perfect solution."
"In 1973 Robert Gundry wrote, “The Church and the Great Tribulation. In the years following Reese’s landmark rebuttal, pretribulationists taught that the day of the Lord should be understood to begin with the any moment rapture. This would soon change, at least in academic circles."
"Gundry pointed out the simple fact that regardless of where the day of the Lord is thought to begin, if we say it starts with the rapture, then the rapture cannot be maintained as an imminent event, simply because Paul says that ‘that day’ shall not come until the man of sin has first been revealed (2Thes 2:2-3)."
"This is decisive, because regardless of where one begins “that day”, it cannot be disassociated from Christ’s return to ‘gather together’ the church (2Thes 2:1-3). Gundry’s logic sent waves throughout the pretribulational camp, but another strategic adjustment was soon to follow.
"I have scholarly articles published in journals where pretribulationists admit the problem posed by Gundry. The answer for the difficulty was to propose an additional gap between the rapture and the day of the Lord in order to provide time for the Antichrist to be revealed ‘after’ the rapture, but ‘before’ the start of the day of the Lord."
"The acknowledgment that the day of the Lord is signaled by the advance revelation of the Antichrist puts to rest the false theory that the use of the term, ‘thief’, requires the concept of imminence (an event that may occur any moment without warning). No, it is clear that the Lord and the apostles apply this term (i.e., ‘day of the Lord’) to an event that is by no means imminent, as now admitted, even by pretribulationists."
(From article The Rapture Question Answered Decisively By The Timing Of The Day Of The Lord - R. Kelly)
Me: I wonder how many laypeople in the pew who advocate the pre-trib position know of these changes that had to be made for the pre-trib view to maintain its credibility. Epsecially the changing of the Day of the Lord from occuring at the end of the tribulation to including the entire breadth of the final seven years? Notes in the 1917 edition of the Scofield Bible states plainly that the Day of the Lord occurs at the end of the tribulation and the 1965 revised edition of the Scofield Bible places the Day of the Lord as beginning at the pre-trib rapture and including the entire breadth of the final seven years. To say this is a minor and incidental part of the development of doctrine in the pre-trib view is incorrect. Changing the timing of the Day of the Lord to include the entire seven years is a colossial change of staggering importance that affects everything as far as final eschatology goes and is a glaring example of exegetical manipulation in my opinion. Outside of academic circles few may even know this change was made.
2) The age of grace will end at the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church. All those saved after the pre-trib rapture will still be able to be saved but they will not be saved in the age of grace which will end with the rapture.
Me: When it pointed out that the tribulation is portayed as perhaps the greatest time of evangelization and soul winning that has ever the reply I have usually got is that grace will still be operative during that time but more along the lines of how grace operated under the Old Testament era. My thought has laws been that if grace will still be operative during that time and people will still be saved because of grace then how can it be advocated that the age of grace will have ended at this time.
3) The Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth at the pre-trib rapture. Since the Holy Spirit indwells the Church and the Church will be gone the present minstry of the Holy Spirit will be stopped as it is withdrawn from the earth.
Me: This seems to be a reversal of Pentecost. God is actually going to reverse what He began at Pentecost by taking the Spirit from the earth? Paul stated that "our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction;" (I Thess 1:5) so how will the gospel be preached with full conviction and power during the tribulation if the Spirit is gone? It's the Spirit that convicts the world because of its sin (John 16: At Pentecost Peter stated, "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear" (Acts 2:33). In reply, it's usually argued that the Holy Spirit will be gone but it will still be active on the earth. My question then was why would the Spirit leave if it is still going to be active on the earth? The reply has usually been it wil be active as it was during the Old Testament era during the tribulation.
4) Those saved during the tribulation will not be part of the Church. The Church will be gone and the age of grace ended and those saved during the tribulation will belong to the redeeemd entity of Israel which is an entrirely different group than those of the Church.
Me: Rev 7:14 states that "These are the ones who have come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Yet according to pretribulationism thay are still not part of the Church even though every believer from Christ until the rapture who had their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb became part of the Church.
The question arising from this view has been stated as,
"Does the suggestion that Israel has yet a role to play in the program apart from the inclusion of the Jews within the worldwide fellowship of people who acknowledge Jesus as Savior, Messiah and Lord necessarily encroach on the finality of what Christ accomplished in the establishment of His Church as the one people of God in which all racial barriers have been eradicated? And how can Israel serve both as a type of the kingdom inaugurated at Christ's first advent but consummated only at His second and as a distinct group possessing theological importance alongsdide of the spiritual kingdom of Christ - the Church?" (From "The Millennial Maze" - by Stanley J. Grenz - ch 4 "A Future Kingdom For Israel" - pg 124)
5) The Holy Spirit will not indwell believers who come to faith during the tribulation. It's present inward ministry to believers will have stopped at the end of the age of grace which will end when the pre-trib rapture takes place. The Spirit will be "with" tribulation believers but not "in" tribulation believers as on the day of Pentecost when "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4). Tribulation believers simply will not be given the privileges and promises that accompany believers during this church age of grace.
Me: When I have heard this belief stated and advocated I have always wondered how one can be saved and born again if the Spirit does not dwell within them. How can one experience the new birth and inward regeneration if the Spirit does not reside within? I've been told that the tribulation believers will be saved but not regenerated inwardly as those who believed before the end of the age of grace that will end at the pre-trib rapture. A new take on the nature of New Testament salvation itself seems to be advocated if this is so.
6) Only part of the New Testament scriptures will be relevant for those who come to faith during the tribulation. Since much of the New Testament scriptures concerned the Church and part concerned Israel the parts pertaining to the Church now gone will be of no importance or relevance for those who come to faith during the tribulation since they will not become part of the Church.
Me: I'm thinking that those saved during the tribulation have been reduced to experiencing a second tier salvation altogether if when they come to faith the Spirit will not indwell them and major portions of the New Testament will supposedly not even concern them since they are to not be part of the Church. Poor Israel who will experience this second class salvation!
7) The Church has no role to play whatsoever as far as supprt and witness to Israel during the final tribulational time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30:7, Daniel 12:1, Matt 24:21).
Me: This may be the point associated with the pre-trib view tha has the biggest possibility of dire consequences as far as the eschatological preparation of the Church is concerned. More is at stake than can be imagined. If the Church is to be be here for the duration and what better people to befriend and witness to Israel than a prepared servant Church that holds the key to prophetic interpretation that will explain to Israel why it finds itself in the predicament it will. When world opinion has turned against Israel and it finds itself harried, pursued and persecuted then there can be a servant Church prepared to lay down it life for beleagured Israel. This Church will be devoid of its own self interests and will willingly accept its tribulational role even as it finds itself harried and persecuted and in the wilderess also. It is then that "those who know their God will display strength and take action and those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many" (Daniel 11:32-33). The Church will have the insight as to what is occuring and will witness to Jews and Gentiles and point them to Christ. This befriending and support of Israel will help pave the way to heal the historical breach between Isarel and the Church since it is the Church who so often during its history has stood with its feet on the neck of the Jews. It's God's wisdom and genius to have the Church present and functioning to Israel since the destinies of both are beginning to converge again.
Summary:
- The Day of the Lord does not occur at the end of the tribulation but includes the entire length of the final 7 years culminating in the great tribulation.
- The age of grace will end at the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.
- The Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth at the pre-trib rapture.
- Those saved during the tribulation will not be part of the Church.
- The Holy Spirit will not indwell believers who come to faith during the tribulation.
- Only part of the New Testament scriptures will be relevant for those who come to faith during the tribulation.
- The Church has no role to play as far as support and witness to Israel during the final tribulational time of Jacob's trouble (Jeremiah 30:7, Daniel 12:1, Matt 24:21).
I may have come across as provocative and I'm not trying to. I'm just of the opinion that the question of the rapture and when it occurs is one of very great and growing importance and the believers need to wrestle it out as well as possible. And it's not just whether or when the rapture will occur but as referenced above there are many questions and beliefs that often accompany the pre-trib view that need looking at again in my opinion. Much is at stake as far as the Church's preparation for the future is concerned especially in regards to any role it will play regarding Israel in the future. We may have to try hard but we can look at things again and discuss them in a manner characterized by wisdom from above that is pure and peaceful and gentle and without hypocrisy and destined to bear fruit.
Blessings to you.
