Wednesday, October 17, 2007

His Return: Imminent?

It seems that one of the major hang-ups that pre-trib believers have when it comes to pre-wrath is their belief that Christ could come any moment, and that believing otherwise destroys the doctrine of imminency. This is the reason that my very first post addressed this issue. In that post I didn’t even feel the need to try to persuade the reader to see that the verses didn’t teach that Christ could come at any moment, and trusted people to simply read the verses and decide for themselves:

Do any of these verses really teach that Christ could come back at any moment and that nothing has to happen first?

Of course, they don’t, and an attempt to find imminency within the verses is a true stretch of the imagination. I like what a friend says on this and other issues that are similar.

“Imminency? You must have gotten that out of the Bible…because you certainly didn’t find it in the Bible!”

While reading a great new pre-wrath article written by a recent convert from pre-trib, one particular reader had this exact problem. Here is their comment:

“It (pre-wrath) does violence to the doctrine of the imminency of Christ's return, which is one of the key doctrines that has motivated Christians since the time of Paul. Knowing that Christ could return at any moment is today and has been throughout history a key motivator for Christians.”

I will certainly agree that pre-wrath “does violence to the doctrine of imminency,” but rightly so. But concerning the statement that “this is a key doctrine that has motivated Christians since the time of Paul,” I take issue.

There is a common misconception that imminency was taught by Jesus, Paul and many others afterwards. First, to miss the clear teaching of Paul that actually taught against imminency in 2 Thessalonians is missing a teaching of utmost importance. Paul clearly taught that Christ would not come until after the lawless one was revealed. Click here for one example that I previously wrote about that shows how John Walvoord, a longtime popular pre-trib author, attempts to sidestep this issue.

Secondly, if the doctrine of Christ’s imminent return was so clearly taught by Jesus and Paul I would think that we would have a historical record of such a teaching, but we don’t. There’s not one single mention of this doctrine within all of Christian writings from the time of Christ until we reach the 1800’s! This is quite telling. How could such a clear scriptural truth be lost by the very next generation after Paul if he so adamantly wrote about it?

The most popular historical writing that pre-trib authors have used to show that imminency, and pre-trib in general, was taught over 1500 years ago is "Pseudo-Ephraem." They use Ephraem’s phrase "taken to the Lord” to show that he wrote of a pre-trib rapture, when in fact it becomes clear that Ephraem actually wrote of Christians going through the tribulation when one reads the whole article! Tim Warner has written a great article uncovering the truth.

Thirdly, this doctrine should hardly be a “key motivator for Christians” to live Godly lives. Tim LaHaye has stated that, “Christ could come back at any moment. When the Church loses this anticipation, she tends to become carnal and spiritually dead (Rapture Under Attack, p. 212).”

LaHaye continues to explain how there is no comfort in Christ's coming if it does not take place pre-tribulationally.

If a follower of Christ becomes carnal, or even loses hope because they reject imminency they have a bigger problem than a lack of imminency. They are lacking true spiritual depth. Even a pre-trib believer will have to admit that none of the old testament God followers believed in an imminent rapture, yet they were able to adhere to their faith and to God. In fact, we all know that Peter was told in John 21:18-19 that he would die by crucifixion, so it’s obvious that Peter didn’t think that Jesus was going to rescue him from this life at any moment. After giving Peter this bad news did Jesus then say, “Sorry, I know life is hard without a pre-trib rapture for you Peter, but hang in there and try to be happy and do your best to attempt to be spiritual without the hope of My any moment coming?” No. He simply, and boldly, said, “Follow me.” Where is Tim Lahaye when we need him to tell Jesus that He was potentially destroying the hope and spiritual life of Peter?


Katherine Hall said...

I'm still scratch my head as to why folks reject the prewrath position after they hear it. It is so clear.

Appreciate the endorsement.


ps...I'm praising God because I learned today my article helped everything fall into place for a friend.

Katherine Hall said...

...that's "scratching" by the way.

PWTribune said...

That's great! It's really fun when we actually get to see our hard work help another understand the Bible better.

Aletheuo said...

The ONLY reason people are so at odds with all of the differing "harpazo" views is because of one false teaching that has everyone running down the wrong path.

That path is the one tht denies Jesus as the "He" of the confirmed covenant from Daniel 9:27. The false teaching of John Nelson Darby and the subsequent book by Sir Robert Anderson, took Jesus out of His place in His Word and put Satan in.

There is no seven year "tribulation" with a 3 1/2 year "great tribulation" at the end. It is the "time of Jacob's trouble" and it is 3 1/2 years total. (Jer. 30:7,Dan. 7:25, 12:7, Rev. 13:5)

Jesus' ministry was 3 1/2 years long and He was "cut off" (karath) in the midst of the week causing the sacrifice to forever cease.

The "sanctuary" spoken of by Gabriel was His body, not the stone temple. (Jn. 2:21).

Israel were the 'people of the prince to come' Gabriel told Daniel of and Jesus was that prince. That is what the answer to Daniel's prayer was answering. Israel was responsible for destroying that sanctuary (Mt. 27:25).

Put Jesus back where He rightfully belongs in His Word and pre-wrath fits because the harpzo occurs before any wrath. Now it becomes pre everything.

Jesus spoke the words from Isaiah 61:2a as recorded in Luke 4:19 saying:

'To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.'

That was the beginning of first 3 1/2 years of the last week. When He was crucuified Israel cut themselves off too. "Karath" means to "cut covenant."

The second half, Jacob's (Israel) trouble is spoken to in the next part 61:2b;

'the day of vengeance of our God'

The prophecy given Daniel was about, and for, Israel and Israel ONLY. That is what his lament was for, the redemption of ISRAEL, the see d from Jacob. The first half of the week is gone, only the 3 1/2 years remain.

Get the understanding right and the contorversy falls by the wayside.

In Christ,


PWTribune said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PWTribune said...

You are correct that the Bible doesn't indicated a 3.5 year trib and then a 3.5 year great trib. The Bible indicates that both are one in the same and begin at the abomination of desolation.

But you are seriously mistaken when you claim that Darby concocted the thought that the 70th week in its entirety is still future. The early Church fathers taught it!
Here's just one example:


"For when Daniel said, “I shall make my covenant for one week,” he indicated seven years; and the one half of the week is for the preaching of the prophets, and for the other half of the week — that is to say, for three years and a half — Antichrist will reign upon the earth. And after this his kingdom and his glory shall be taken away." [Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus, XXV]

There are many more, but I don't have the time right now, but if you're willing to call it a false teaching created by Darby I think you should do a little more research.


Aletheuo said...


History shows it is not even certain when Hippolytus was even born.Not until the discovery of the Philosophumena in 1851 (approx), his teachings were discovered. Hippolytus was not a "church father" as he was exiled to Sardinia in 235 and the only known commentary is from the Catholic church.

The Catholic church is rife with heretical teachings and useless as a basis for Biblical commentary.

Perhaps if you studied first the lament of Daniel and the message from Gabriel as stated in Daniel 9:24 without adding conjecture, the message would be clearer.

As stated in verse 24;

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city..."

"Thy people" is the whole bloodline from Jacob known as the nation of Isreal (not nation state created by UN Resolution 181).

The "holy city" is Jerusalem. The answer given by Gabriel must be kept in the context in which it was given addresssing the subject of the response. That being the people of the bloodline of Israel that God brought out of exile in Egypt first, then Babylonian captivity under Nebuchanezzar.

I do not place much value on the teachings and interpretations of men, however, perhaps a study of Bible scholars of old up until Darby might reveal to you some truths in original sound doctrine.

Albert Barnes on Daniel 9:27:

The word “he,” in this place, refers to the Messiah,

Matthew Henry;

When this angel said to Zacharias, I am Gabriel (Luk_1:19), he intended thereby to put him in mind of this notice which he had given to Daniel of the Messiah's coming when it was at a distance,
He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace, since it had become impossible for us to be saved by a covenant of innocence.

Kamieson, Facett, Brown;

Christ. The confirmation of the covenant is assigned to Him also elsewhere. Isa_42:6, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people”

I could go on,but, the things Gabriel outlined in verse 24 as to what this coming prince or He, would do can not be accomplished by any other than the Messiah. That was the answer to thy people and the holy city for redemption from sin, transgression, iniquity, heralding in everlasting righteousness, sealing or completing the vision and annointing the most Holy, Jesus.

It is ALL about Jesus. Take Him out of His Word and you deny His finished work.

Isaiah 426 and 49:8 foretell He was the coming covenant, Galatians 3:17 tells us it was confirmed 430 years before the law before Gd, Romans 15:8 verifies it's confirmation among men at the cross.

In Christ Jesus,


Aletheuo said...

Sorry for this missed typo, it should read:

Jamieson not Kamieson


Aletheuo said...


Just one more comment. You said:

There are many more, but I don't have the time right now, but if you're willing to call it a false teaching created by Darby I think you should do a little more research.

Regardless of how many more there are that teach the "HE" is the antichrist, it is a false teaching.

As far as research I am retired and all I do is research God's Word in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek all day, every day Dave.

I study, pray and study more, just as called to do in 2 Timothy 2:15 and Proverbs 25:2.

His Spirit is what guides me as we are told in John 16:13.

Perhaps if you did more resaerch in His Word, as it was given, His Spirit would show you that there is no human individual that will be the "antichrist."

That is spoken to only four times and it speaks only to a spirit that is against Jesus as the Christ of God.

The false prophet (man of sin, anthropos tes anomia, Gr.) is the human "OF THE" son of destruction as the original states 2 Thes. 2:3. The son of the destruction (huios tes apoleia) is Satan.

Ask yourself this question. If there is an "antichrist" and a false prophet as his partner as so man teach, where is this AC fella in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10 when the beast and false prophet are tossed into the lake of fire?

That "beast" is the antichrist spirit which is the evil counter to the holy Spirit. The false prophet is the evil opposite of Jesus and Satan (the beast in the sea Isa. 27:1, Rev. 13:1) the opposite of God the Father.

Trust me Dave, I have done my research and those claiming to be believers in Jesus need to get their eyes off the false teaching that Jesus is not the "confirmer of the covenant TO (bayrith rab) many" as the original text states.

Did not Jesus even tell us His "testament/covenant" (diatheke, Gr.) was for "many?" Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24.

Did He not come to bear the sins of "many?" Heb. 9:28.

Jesus IS the covenant and He confirmed it at the cross.

I only seek for members of His family to see the truth, not fall for the lies of those who make merchandise of His house. That being us.

In Christ Jesus,


PWTribune said...

But aletheuo, you claimed that the "false teaching" that makes the "he" in Dan 9 the Antichrist rather than Christ wasn't concocted until the 1800's by Darby. Then you sidesteped my point and tried to disclaim Hippolytus' work and by telling me how much you study and how much you know.

Who cares if it was written by Hippolytus or by Joe Bob in 227 AD. You were clearly wrong when you called it a false teaching and ascribed it to Darby.

My point is, if you could be SO wrong about the fact that people believed in a future 7 year week WAY before Darby, why couldn't you be wrong about the "he?"

You know so much about the original language, yet I know others that I would bet could run circles around your Hebrew/Greek, etc, and they claim that the original language DEMANDS the "he" is the antichrist. So am I supposed to "trust" you, as you suggested, because you claim you're so studied?

I'm usually not so blunt with my readers, but when they enjoy throwing around the term "false teaching" repeatedly because of ONE verse that is quite possibly the most difficult section in the entire Bible, I tend to grow tired of the conversation.

Aletheuo said...

Dave, catfish or whatever your name is,

The fact that a paper was located in 1851 people claimed to be written by Hippolytus has not one thing to do with what I stated about Daniel and the "HE" of the confirmed covenant.

I never said it was concocted until the 1800's. I said it was started by Darby and Anderson and that is where it spread from.

There is not one shred of factual evidence a document titled the "Philosophumena" by the RCC, can even be attributed to this man.

This paper has about as much value as the Vaticans listing of Peter as the first "Pope."

It's value in difining who the "HE" of Daniel is by Hippolytus is moot to what I stated.

I did not sidestep you point and just because this work was credited to Hippolytus has not one thing to do with my statement that Darby and Anderson falsely taught this doctrine.

The truth of the matter lies in God's Word, not the works men like Hippolytus, Darby, Anderson or any other who takes Jesus out of His Word and replaces it with Satan.

Your statement of your point in what people may have believed about a 7 year trib, is in itself a fallacy because thus far Hippolytus is the only person you have stated believed this.

Even when Paul was alive and still growing the Church men like Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus were trying to spread a false teaching that the "harpazo" had already occured.

Why do you think the Israelites gave Jesus up to be cricified? The did not "believe" He was the Messiah. Does what they believed give any credence to the fact they were dead wrong? No it does not, and what Hippolytus believed adds no credence to the fact that Jesus, "the coming prince" Gabriel foretold of, is the entirety of the subject he was telling Daniel of. Not Satan.

Isn't it convenient this so called work by Hippolytus surfaced just prior to Darby spreading this lie?

Your argument regarding Hippolytus has no merit as that teaching you accredit him is false, as is Darby's and any other who claims the coming prince Gabriel was speaking of is anybody but Jesus.

The doctrines of religious institutions such as the Catholic church hold no value in seeking the truth in God's Word.

If you are so bent on what men teach, why not study the works of the en I quoted above and dicover until Darby's false teaching began to proliferate in this country (BTW he was excommunicated from the Brethren cult and came to the states to spread his brand of heresy.

What matters here is not who started a false teachong or when it began. The issue is knowing it is not supported by one passage in Scripture as is the fact that the confirmer of the covenant is, and that is Jesus.

He was to be given as the covenant. Isa. 42:6, 49:8

He confirmed it before God 430 years before the law: Gal. 3:17

He confirmed it on earth before men: Rom. 15:8.

He said it was for "many" Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24

He died for the sins of "many" Isa. 53:12, Mt. 26:28, Heb. 9:28.

Instead of attacking me, why not 'attack' His Word and put aside the teachings and false doctrines of Catholicism Dave, catfish or whatever your name is?

In Christ Jesus,


Aletheuo said...


You never attempted conversaton. All you try to mdo is stand beating your chest and tell everyone else they are wrong.

Sort of like the kettle calling the pot black.

The original language does not bear out what you state Dave.

BTW, it might be helpful to remove the burr from undr your saddle. You seem awfully angry about something.

In Christ Jesus,


PWTribune said...

Not sure what you don't understand. I am confident that the entirety of the 70th Week is still future. You came here claiming I'm a false teacher. It's my blog. I can have dialect with whoever I choose. I have better things to do than to spend time debating with someone that says the Antichrist isn't a man, and that the first half of the week was fulfilled by Christ.

I don't run this blog so that I have to defend my beliefs to every person that comes heres. Sorry, this blog may not be for you.


Aletheuo said...


Never once did I claim you were a false teacher. Interesting how you twisted what I stated.

True it is your blog and it seems you have set the tone and anyone disagreeing with your set position is not welcome.

It's ashame you don't have time to look into what may possibly be a false teaching. I would say that is a rather closed minded position.

Stand on your belief as it will all be revealed one day. I just thought a little truth would be welcome, apparently not.

BTW Dave, that burr really seems to be bothering you, I'd have it looked into.

In Christ Jesus,


PWTribune said...

>>Never once did I claim you were a false teacher. Interesting how you twisted what I stated.<<

You started your very first post by claiming that something was a false teaching. You should know that this "false teaching" is what I teach. If it's a false teaching and I teach it I'm a false teacher. Not sure what you could possibly disagree with about this.

>>It's ashame you don't have time to look into what may possibly be a false teaching. I would say that is a rather closed minded position.<<

Why would you assume that I would believe as I do, yet not investigate other views. Of course I've looked into it. I don't think it's right. And I MIGHT have had good dialect with you about it IF you didn't claim to be so all knowing and weren't throwing around the false teaching label.

If you've read my blog you would see that I give great grace to opposing views. I don't use terms like false teachers or false teachings because I understand that they get me nowhere with people that I want to influence.

IF you actually do want to help people, and if you want them to actually listen, you should try approaching them in way that makes them want to listen to you. No one wants to listen to anyone that starts their conversation by saying, "You're a false teacher."

I know I don't.


Aletheuo said...

Well, if you are teaching that Jesus is not the "confirmer of the covenant" spoken to in Daniel, then I guess I would have to label you a false teacher because it is absolutely false.

Teaching people that doctrine, regardless of when it began, is false Dave.

I quoted numerous passages that verify that and there is not one passage in God's Word that even remotely suggests otherwise.

Gabriel was answering Daniel's prayer and he clearly said the answer was for: "thy people and upon thy holy city"

Gabriel listed 6 things that were to be accomplished in those 70, weeks and there is not one individual beside Jesus who can do that.

Isaiah recorded what God spoke in Isaiah 42:6 as an answer to Israel saying He would send His Son as a "covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles"

Galatians 3:17 records the covenant of the promise to all who would accept that was first "confirmed before God" prior to being confirmed on earth to men;

"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

Romans 15:8 reaffirms it's confirmation:

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: "

Sorry if it doesn't scratch your itch by trying to whisper sweet things in your ears and tell you things you'd like to hear. If what you teach is easily verifiable as false, then I will say so. People think they have to be fed things the way they want it. Jesus was not that way, neither am I. He called a spade a spade and clearly stated: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

He called hypocrites, hypocrites, to their face. There isn' time to play paddy cakes just so you or anybody else feels all cuddly and nice so they can "have it their way."

Perhaps a little more digging and a little more study on your own, without the influence of false teachers like Hippolytus, Darby, Lindsey, Kinsella etal. and you'll come to the truth Dave.

As it stands, what you are teaching is denying Jesus the place in HIS WORD that is His, not Satan's.

His Word IS Him and the story is about Him and His redemptive plan, not Satan and his plan for death and destruction.

Sorry if you don't like my approach, that's just how the truth is Dave, and few care to know it. Jesus said it would cut even to the marrow, I see it has. My intent is to get your attention, now look into it and you just might see the light. It's for your benefit Brother, not mine.

In Christ Jesus,


Aletheuo said...

Now I see your trouble Dave. You wrote a book and hung your hat on what you are claiming is something you know better than anyone.

Didn't you ever read Ecclesiastes 12:12-14?

12: And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14: For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

"Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness to the flesh"

You had better be 100% certain because you, as I, will be held in judgement Dave. And you know what awaits false teachers Dave.

2 Peter 2:21;

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Taking Jesus out of the place He belongs as the confirmer of the covenant, effectively denies Him and His finished work Dave.

I would suggest deep prayer and study before you claim what you have. As I said in my first post, there is not one passage that even remotely alludes to a 7 year tribulation. It is Jacob's trouble and that is 3 1/2 years. This isn't a parlor game Dave, this is God's holy Word you are messing with. You had better be 100% sure of what you teach Brother.

Remeber it's ALL about Jesus as the covenant our Father sent Him to be to end trangression, end sin and bring in eternal righteousness.

In Christ Jesus,


Aletheuo said...


I noticed too you are merchandising your book. That is a non-no Dave. Or haven't you read Jesus' own COMMANDMENT to disciples as they are sent out to evangelize in Matthew 10:8-10;

8: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

9: Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,

10: Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Since you claim to be astute in Greek then you know the Greek that has been translated in English to read "provide" is "ktaomai" 2932 and means: "procure a thing for one's self"

God's Word is not a marketable thing Dave. Didn't Jesus say in John 2:16: "make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."

Are you aware the body of believers is now that house Dave?

1 Cor. 3:16, Eph. 2:21 and mostly 1 Peter 2:5;

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Dangerous territory Dave "ktaomai" money for trying to evangelize and teach a false teaching.

I will pray God opens your eyes. You can dislike the messenger as much as you wish Dave, you cannot ignore the message of truth Dave.

In Christ Jesus,


PWTribune said...


It's been a long time since I've had someone state so many false claims and accusations. Thank you for the entertainment.

My book is available as a free download. But you should know that considering that you know me so well and my heart behind my actions. And because you know me and my heart you should know (but you must have forgotten) that any $ from a hardcopy that is sold goes directly to the small publisher because they need the money more than I do.

BUT I have a strong conscience and know that there is nothing wrong with selling a book. One can market a book because if done correctly it can reach many more people than an internet site because people tend to respect a book more than a web site due to "internet prophets" like yourself, which I clearly and correctly pegged you as by your first post.

And you claimed that I claim to know Greek. Again, as you're usually wrong with your scriptural conclusions, you are also wrong again in your accusations of me. I made it very clear in my book that I never went to seminar and that I am a Podunk small business owner that simply does his best to understand God's word. In fact, if you actually read my work you would know that I've even admitted to being wrong in some conclusions I made in my book. In that admittance I even made it clear that I really have very little understanding of Greek and that I would not use it in order to come to a doctrinal conclusion.

Feel free to be a pest and to post false accusations and to call me a false prophet if you wish, but this will be my last discussion with you. Thanks for your help! ;o)


Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

I have been inclined to the Post-Tribulational view for many years, but I coming to think that the Pre-Wrath view has a good deal going for it.

Raul Delgado said...

dyspraxic fundamentalist,

You said that you were "inclined to Post-Tribulationalism", but that you are now considering the Pre-Wrath View. I was Pre-Trib for about 20 years. I then examined the various Rapture views. I came to the conclusion that the Pre-Wrath View was more biblically sound and supported. Now, about the Post-Trib View, like I said, I have studied it before and have noticed some variations of it. But, anyway, I was just wondering, what things about Post-Trib make you question it. I ask because there are some things about Post-Trib that I disagree with and I was just curious if they are the same hang-ups that you are having.

Just my thoughts, Raul from El Paso, TX

PWTribune said...

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist,

I'm not as opposed to post-trib as some are. I don't think it's correct, and I think that it shows some weakness in a persons interpretation skills, but in the end it will cause absolutely no harm to a person that believes it, in my opinion. You are not in the dark assumption that you will avoid the future suffering as a post-tribber so it doesn't have that attached to it as does the pre-trib or preterist position.

Keep up the study and please come back and comment. Oh, and your weird colored picture kind of creeps me out! :)


raul delgado said...


You can be so comical. The other day I was reading a post by you (smackbucket) on another forum and you posted something about you being convinced of the falseness of Pre-Trib after reading a Pre-Trib book that was making a weak defense of that view. That really made me laugh. Perhaps you should consider that reality show, "The Last Comic Standing". But seriously, the work that you do doesn't go unnoticed. And, you are indeed a great help. God Bless, Raul

PWTribune said...


I'm the funniest guy I know (lie)! My wife thinks I'm hilarious...but not all the time. I get a lot of rolled eyes. Oh well, her loss. :)


Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Dave, sorry about the picture. Somebody else designed it, but I think it is cool.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...


I think Post-Trib lacks a good place for the Bema judgment. At best the Bema would take place in mid-air very quickly. That could not be ruled out, but the Pre-Wrath gives a less extraordinary solution.

At least as I saw it, the Post-Trib view depended upon the seals, trumpets and bowls overlapping. They have to overlap to make it work.

I think the Post-Trib view also minimizes the rapture as a distinctive event.

God Bless


PWTribune said...

>>Dave, sorry about the picture. Somebody else designed it, but I think it is cool.<<

I was just being funny. But I might be on the receiving end of a "so funny I forgot to laugh" rebuttal, here!

And I agree with your thoughts about the seals, trumpets and bowls overlapping. They MUST as a post tribber, and really, they can't even line up with each other in any kind of orderly fashion. I have a book that shows how they supposedly line up and it's something crazy like the 1st seal with the 3rd trumpet and the 5th bowl! I just made up the numbers that were used, but you know what I'm saying.


Raul Delgado said...

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist,
I agree with you. Those are precisely some of the same problems I perceive with Post-Trib. Concerning the time of the Bema Judgment, it certainly would have to occur quite rapidly. I just don't buy their assertion that the Church rises to meet Christ in the air, rushes through the Bema Judgment, and then u-turns back down to earth. About the seals, trumpets, and bowls overlapping, again I disagree with them. In some respects their overlapping scenario seems plausible, but once everything is fully laid out, some things just don't fit reasonably. Instead, I am convinced that the seals, trumpets, and bowls follow a sequential, chronological order. Concerning the Day of the Lord (Wrath/Vengeance) Period, some Post-Tribbers teach that it is a literal 24-hr day that occurs at the very end of Daniel's 70th Week. While another variation of this, places the Day of the Lord Period immediately after Daniel's 70th Week. One particular Post-Trib author/lecturer, claims that it will occur after Daniel's Week and will last one year. While, there are others, who assert that the Day of the Lord encompasses the whole millenium. Again, I strongly disagree with all of this as well. And, finally, about the Rapture, Post-Tribbers readily argue that the other Rapture views teach a Second and Third Coming when they teach that the Rapture and the Coming to earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords are two distinct events. When actually, these two events can easily be shown to be two distinct phases of His Second Coming. The only difference with us as Pre-Wrathers vs Pre-Tribbers and Mid-Tribbers is the amount of time that separates these two distinct phases. The Pre-Tribbers argue 7 years, the Mid-Tibbers argue 3.5 years. Whereas, we argue somewhere between 5 months to about 3 years depending on how long the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord Periods will be. Especially the Day of the Lord Period, because we see the first phase(the Rapture) occuring at the start of this period, while His coming all the way down to earth occurs towards the end(not the very end) of the Day of the Lord Period. But, all that said, we definitly see all these events occuring well within Daniel's 70th Week timeframe. And then, after a short time(days) after Daniel's 70th Week, the millenium begins. Like I've told others, once the Day of the Lord Period is correctly understood and placed, then everything else falls into place.

Just my thoughts, Raul

Raul Delgado said...

What do you call a cow with no legs?

PWTribune said...

EX girlfriend?

raul delgado said...

Ex girlfriend??? ha-ha-ha No, you call it groundbeef.

Try again. What do you call a dog with no legs?

PWTribune said...

No idea.

raul delgado said...

It doesn't matter what you call it because either way it can't come to you. ...sorry, slow night.

Anonymous said...

Posting on an old thread I know....

I affirm the pre-wrath position. I do not think that the return of Christ is imminent. However, I do remember the emotional pull of the doctrine of imminency when I was pre-trib. It made sense. It feels biblical. It certainly tugs at teh guilt strings, i.e., what will you be doing when Christ returns?

Imminency is a pretty manipulative doctrine in that respect. I think that the emotional force of Imminency may be used instead of biblical scholarship in some cases.

When I discuss the idea with my pre-trib friends, I ask a couple of questions:

1) If Christ's return is imminent, then all the prophetic pre-conditions for His return must have been fulfilled. What was the last condition fulfilled and when was it fulfilled?

2) Another way to ask that question is to say, 'To what point in history was Christ return imminent?' At what date could he have returned from Heaven?

It is possible to narrow things down some. For example, He could not have returned before his Resurrection. But I would like to ask a pre-tribber: could He have returned before His ascension?

Was His ascension the point of imminency? Was it theoretically possible that He could have hit the clouds and come back to earth moments after His ascension? No, not likely. For many reasons. Here are some of those reasons: the gospel had not yet spread; Peter had not yet suffered as Christ predicted; and Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed as Christ predicted.

Could Christ have returned before Peter was killed or before Jerusalem was sacked? If the answer is 'no' then a person may have to conclude that Christ's return was not immiment until those two items were fulfilled at the least.

Surely the early church would have known of these predictions that Christ made. Did they conclude that they could be raptured before they were fulfilled? Doesn't that contradict the idea that the early church expected Christ to return imminently? The early church did not need the imminent return of Christ to motivate them to perform radical acts of obedience and evangelism. They turned the world upside down.