The more popular objections I have encountered from anti-pretrib rapturists are the following:
1) There's no literal, clear scriptural support for the pre-trib rapture
For starters, there's also no definitive passage proclaiming the mid-trib, pre-wrath or post-trib rapture, so this argument is dead at the outset. There's also no definitive verse that proclaims the trinity and other central doctrines to the faith, but are gleaned from systematic studies. More on this later.
2) The Second Coming and the Rapture are not separate events
As you know, the pre-trib position separates the rapture by seven years from the second coming. The Bible clearly presents what most call the "second coming" as a visible event seen by all who are on the earth at that time, fearing the wrath and destruction that accompanies that coming. The problem with the objections along this line of thinking is that those using it have conveniently forgotten that Christ appeared a second time when confronting Saul in Acts 9 on the road to Damascus. Some are bound to conveniently claim that it was just a vision for which there is no textual support for that injection into the text, especially given that the other unbelieving men with Saul did not see Jesus. Recall that after Christ was risen, only His faithful followers and new converts saw Him before His ascension. More on this later.
3) The Church is present during the tribulation
This is the classic half-truth built upon the foundation of equivocation fallacy, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used with different meanings, leading to a misleading conclusion. This fools a majority of adherents to false doctrines, unfortunately. In this case, the argument uses the key of "Church," without any consistency with the text. Even Orthodox Jews can be referred to as a "church," also with the meanings of congregation, group, and any number of other definitions. There will be many saints in the tribulation period on this earth, but not the body of Christ take up at the pre-trib rapture.
4) The last trumpet contradiction
The lack of discernment between the last "trump" and the seventh angel's trumpet blast is yet another roadway into the equivocation fallacy by some. The text simply doesn't support the idea that the last trump sound is the same thing as the singular trumpet blast of the seventh angel. Additionally, the things that follow the blast of the seventh trumpet blast of the seventh angel speak not one word of the rapture, nor anything even akin to that.
5) What about the wheat and tares parable in Matthew 13
Another false equivocation: The wheat symbolizes Israel in the tribulation who believe in Christ Jesus and keep the Law. Those believers (wheat) enter the Kingdom as Jesus stated in Luke 12:32.
6) The "day of the Lord" includes the tribulation
It is admitted that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 is difficult to understand. However, the reference to "that day" is not a reference to the rapture, but rather to the day of the Lord of the horrific events leading up to the second coming of Christ. The falling away and the revealing of the man of sin mark the beginning of the tribulation, not the timing of the rapture. Misapplying "that day" as a reference to the rapture does introduce confusion into those passages and the context.
7) The historic Church did not teach pre-tribulation Rapturism
It's no secret many of the church fathers thought the rapture was post-trib because of the persecutions (tribulations) they themselves were suffering. Conversely, many thought the rapture was pre-trib, so the fixation only on those who were opposed while ignoring those who were in favor of the pre-trib rapture belief, that's nothing more than the cherry-picking fallacy. Some who believed in the pre-trib rapture doctrine are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Pseudo Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes, Irenaeus of Lion, Victorinus of Petrovium - bishop of Slevenia, et al. Darby absolutely did NOT invent the pre-trib rapture doctrine. That seems to be the cud chewed by the lazy who only believe what they were told from the pulpits of their false teachers.
8) The purpose of the tribulation includes the Church
Nowhere in Daniels prophecy is there any allusions to the Church, the body of Christ since that body was a mystery revealed only to Paul at the first, not to the prophets nor the other apostles (Romans 16:25). There are slews of misapplied scriptures that we will not be covered in this OP, but likely some will bring up if they choose to try and use them in this thread.
9) The resurrection timing of Revelation 20:4-6
The claim is that the first resurrection takes place after the second coming of Christ after the end of the tribulation. This again the the fallacy of equivocation. This is also the failure of distinguishing between the prophesied and the unprophesied. Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15 to name a few, which show to us what is ignored by many as the prophesied, with the unprophesied not yet revealed. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 shows to use what was a "mystery" up to this point. If it had been prophesied, then it was not a mystery, which would make Paul a liar.
10) The call to endure, not escape...
11) The hour of testing in Revelation 3:10 refers to protection, not removal
Read John 16:31-33 where Jesus was speaking to His disciples, not the nation of Israel nor humanity in general. He spoke of daily trials and tribulations they would encounter, not the tribulation of Daniel's seventieth week. Forcing generalized language into the focused scope of Daniel's seventieth week is yet another equivocation in argument when failing to make the disctinctions. Revelation 3:10, then, does not refer to the rapture, but rather to the remnant of Jewish believers. Additionally, John was an apostle to Israel, not the body of Christ...otherwise, Paul was a liar, and I don't believe he was.
12) The marriage supper of the Lamb timing issue
In this dichotomy is also the belief that the body of Christ is the bride of Christ. How anyone can think that Christ ill marry His own body, that remains a mystery to me... Also, the idea of Christ marrying some other than the one to whom He was married in ancient times, which was Israel, that only makes Him out to be like fallen man who marries, divorces and marries another as a form of serialized polygamy. Bringing Christ down to the level of sinful man is indeed a theological dichotomy. The text of Revelation 19: 7-9 takes place at the second coming of Christ, either in Heaven or on earth. The phrase "bride of Christ" is nowhere in scripture. The commonly used verse is 2 Corinthians 11:1-2, even though Paul is clearly declaring as folly the belief that believers are espoused to Christ. Verses 3-4 reinforce this as a contextual inclusion. Jeremiah 31:32 and Isaiah 54:5 are clear contradictions to any other than Israel being the wife and bride to whom Christ will once again be married. The practice applauded by the many serial polygamists out there is not something that should be forced upon the texts as a means for trying to make Christ out to be a sinner like mankind.
13) Paul's warning about the antichrist refutes pre-tribulationism
The use of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 seems to be a valid argument for the idea that the body of Christ will be here to see the revealing of the man of sin. The revealing of the man of sin begins the "day of the Lord." The Thessalonians were shaken because of a letter stating that the tribulation was already at hand. The "day of Christ" is not a reference to the rapture.
14) The Old Testament patterns favor the protection in tribulation, not removal
The subjective misapplication of OT sections such as Genesis 7, Exodus 7-12 and Daniel 3 leads some to further errors of false parallels. Those are parallels to Israel's protection within tribulation, yes, but not the body of Christ since the body of Christ was still a mystery hidden in God since the creation of the world, as Paul clearly stated to us. Revelation 12: 14 gives to us a more clear picture of those ancient texts in how they will apply in the tribulation with Israel as the centerpiece of it all, not the body of Christ.
15) The wrath of God and tribulation are not the same
Every bit of that seven years shows to us an increasing measure of God's wrath upon the earth and upon Israel especially, with the last 42 months being identified as the "great day of His wrath." The fact that one fourth of the earth's entire population at that time perishing, with the same number perishing in the second half, and to say that the first half is not a demonstration of His wrath...that's just plain silly. The measure of His wrath being greater in the last half, after a fourth of the original population has already perished, with another fourth of the original population number dying in the second half...with there being five months when mankind would seek death, but could not die...failure to distinguish that the measure of wrath in the second half is what was being addressed while ignoring the populational levels of death being pretty much the same in both halves, that strains at the out limits of credulity that anyone like Steve Anderson has any type of blind following in favor of that nonsense.
Thoughts?
MM
1) There's no literal, clear scriptural support for the pre-trib rapture
For starters, there's also no definitive passage proclaiming the mid-trib, pre-wrath or post-trib rapture, so this argument is dead at the outset. There's also no definitive verse that proclaims the trinity and other central doctrines to the faith, but are gleaned from systematic studies. More on this later.
2) The Second Coming and the Rapture are not separate events
As you know, the pre-trib position separates the rapture by seven years from the second coming. The Bible clearly presents what most call the "second coming" as a visible event seen by all who are on the earth at that time, fearing the wrath and destruction that accompanies that coming. The problem with the objections along this line of thinking is that those using it have conveniently forgotten that Christ appeared a second time when confronting Saul in Acts 9 on the road to Damascus. Some are bound to conveniently claim that it was just a vision for which there is no textual support for that injection into the text, especially given that the other unbelieving men with Saul did not see Jesus. Recall that after Christ was risen, only His faithful followers and new converts saw Him before His ascension. More on this later.
3) The Church is present during the tribulation
This is the classic half-truth built upon the foundation of equivocation fallacy, which occurs when a key term in an argument is used with different meanings, leading to a misleading conclusion. This fools a majority of adherents to false doctrines, unfortunately. In this case, the argument uses the key of "Church," without any consistency with the text. Even Orthodox Jews can be referred to as a "church," also with the meanings of congregation, group, and any number of other definitions. There will be many saints in the tribulation period on this earth, but not the body of Christ take up at the pre-trib rapture.
4) The last trumpet contradiction
The lack of discernment between the last "trump" and the seventh angel's trumpet blast is yet another roadway into the equivocation fallacy by some. The text simply doesn't support the idea that the last trump sound is the same thing as the singular trumpet blast of the seventh angel. Additionally, the things that follow the blast of the seventh trumpet blast of the seventh angel speak not one word of the rapture, nor anything even akin to that.
5) What about the wheat and tares parable in Matthew 13
Another false equivocation: The wheat symbolizes Israel in the tribulation who believe in Christ Jesus and keep the Law. Those believers (wheat) enter the Kingdom as Jesus stated in Luke 12:32.
6) The "day of the Lord" includes the tribulation
It is admitted that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 is difficult to understand. However, the reference to "that day" is not a reference to the rapture, but rather to the day of the Lord of the horrific events leading up to the second coming of Christ. The falling away and the revealing of the man of sin mark the beginning of the tribulation, not the timing of the rapture. Misapplying "that day" as a reference to the rapture does introduce confusion into those passages and the context.
7) The historic Church did not teach pre-tribulation Rapturism
It's no secret many of the church fathers thought the rapture was post-trib because of the persecutions (tribulations) they themselves were suffering. Conversely, many thought the rapture was pre-trib, so the fixation only on those who were opposed while ignoring those who were in favor of the pre-trib rapture belief, that's nothing more than the cherry-picking fallacy. Some who believed in the pre-trib rapture doctrine are Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Pseudo Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermes, Irenaeus of Lion, Victorinus of Petrovium - bishop of Slevenia, et al. Darby absolutely did NOT invent the pre-trib rapture doctrine. That seems to be the cud chewed by the lazy who only believe what they were told from the pulpits of their false teachers.
8) The purpose of the tribulation includes the Church
Nowhere in Daniels prophecy is there any allusions to the Church, the body of Christ since that body was a mystery revealed only to Paul at the first, not to the prophets nor the other apostles (Romans 16:25). There are slews of misapplied scriptures that we will not be covered in this OP, but likely some will bring up if they choose to try and use them in this thread.
9) The resurrection timing of Revelation 20:4-6
The claim is that the first resurrection takes place after the second coming of Christ after the end of the tribulation. This again the the fallacy of equivocation. This is also the failure of distinguishing between the prophesied and the unprophesied. Daniel 12:2, John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15 to name a few, which show to us what is ignored by many as the prophesied, with the unprophesied not yet revealed. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 shows to use what was a "mystery" up to this point. If it had been prophesied, then it was not a mystery, which would make Paul a liar.
10) The call to endure, not escape...
11) The hour of testing in Revelation 3:10 refers to protection, not removal
Read John 16:31-33 where Jesus was speaking to His disciples, not the nation of Israel nor humanity in general. He spoke of daily trials and tribulations they would encounter, not the tribulation of Daniel's seventieth week. Forcing generalized language into the focused scope of Daniel's seventieth week is yet another equivocation in argument when failing to make the disctinctions. Revelation 3:10, then, does not refer to the rapture, but rather to the remnant of Jewish believers. Additionally, John was an apostle to Israel, not the body of Christ...otherwise, Paul was a liar, and I don't believe he was.
12) The marriage supper of the Lamb timing issue
In this dichotomy is also the belief that the body of Christ is the bride of Christ. How anyone can think that Christ ill marry His own body, that remains a mystery to me... Also, the idea of Christ marrying some other than the one to whom He was married in ancient times, which was Israel, that only makes Him out to be like fallen man who marries, divorces and marries another as a form of serialized polygamy. Bringing Christ down to the level of sinful man is indeed a theological dichotomy. The text of Revelation 19: 7-9 takes place at the second coming of Christ, either in Heaven or on earth. The phrase "bride of Christ" is nowhere in scripture. The commonly used verse is 2 Corinthians 11:1-2, even though Paul is clearly declaring as folly the belief that believers are espoused to Christ. Verses 3-4 reinforce this as a contextual inclusion. Jeremiah 31:32 and Isaiah 54:5 are clear contradictions to any other than Israel being the wife and bride to whom Christ will once again be married. The practice applauded by the many serial polygamists out there is not something that should be forced upon the texts as a means for trying to make Christ out to be a sinner like mankind.
13) Paul's warning about the antichrist refutes pre-tribulationism
The use of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 seems to be a valid argument for the idea that the body of Christ will be here to see the revealing of the man of sin. The revealing of the man of sin begins the "day of the Lord." The Thessalonians were shaken because of a letter stating that the tribulation was already at hand. The "day of Christ" is not a reference to the rapture.
14) The Old Testament patterns favor the protection in tribulation, not removal
The subjective misapplication of OT sections such as Genesis 7, Exodus 7-12 and Daniel 3 leads some to further errors of false parallels. Those are parallels to Israel's protection within tribulation, yes, but not the body of Christ since the body of Christ was still a mystery hidden in God since the creation of the world, as Paul clearly stated to us. Revelation 12: 14 gives to us a more clear picture of those ancient texts in how they will apply in the tribulation with Israel as the centerpiece of it all, not the body of Christ.
15) The wrath of God and tribulation are not the same
Every bit of that seven years shows to us an increasing measure of God's wrath upon the earth and upon Israel especially, with the last 42 months being identified as the "great day of His wrath." The fact that one fourth of the earth's entire population at that time perishing, with the same number perishing in the second half, and to say that the first half is not a demonstration of His wrath...that's just plain silly. The measure of His wrath being greater in the last half, after a fourth of the original population has already perished, with another fourth of the original population number dying in the second half...with there being five months when mankind would seek death, but could not die...failure to distinguish that the measure of wrath in the second half is what was being addressed while ignoring the populational levels of death being pretty much the same in both halves, that strains at the out limits of credulity that anyone like Steve Anderson has any type of blind following in favor of that nonsense.
Thoughts?
MM
-
1
- Show all
