Progressive
Dispensationalism |
 
La Dernière Trompette
Traduction Française
Den Sista Trumpeten
Översättning till Svenska
 
La Trompeta Final
Traducción Española
que viene pronto
 
Die Letzte Posaune
Deutsche Übersetzung
Demnächst
Copyright © 1998 - 2003. All rights reserved. All material on The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center
website is copyright protected. You may link to any article on this
site, but may not copy any material to another site without written
permission. Permission is granted for reproducing individual articles
in printed form for Church or small Bible study use. Articles
reproduced for this purpose MUST be complete, text unaltered, include
the authors name, and include the URL, WWW.LASTTRUMPET.COM. Copies may
NOT be sold, or included in any product for sale without written
permission. Graphics on this site are copyright protected and may NOT
be copied or reproduced on other websites. This includes all charts and
diagrams. The only exception is 'The Last Trumpet' banner on the
article pages, which may be used as a hot link to this page only.
(Revised 7/2002)
|
|
| Traditional vs. Progressive Dispensationalism |
Read the debate between Tim Warner, author and editor of The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center, and Dr. Mal Couch, president of Tyndale Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas, member of the Pre-Trib Research study group.
|
| Post-Tribulation Rapture vs. Pre-Tribulation Rapture |
Read the Virtual Debate between Tim Warner, author and editor of The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center, and Dr. Thomas Ice, author and director of The Pre-Trib Research Center.
|
Read the debate between Tim Warner, author and editor of The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center, and Samuel Frost, preterist author, and pastor of Christ Covenant Church, Tampa Bay, Florida area.
|
Introduction & Methodology
By Tim Warner - Revised 11/2002
DESCRIPTION OF THE POST-TRIB RAPTURE VIEW
The "post-tribulation" rapture view
is the belief that Jesus will return visibly and bodily to raise the
dead Christians and gather together the living Christians at the end of
a period of intense tribulation, called by Jesus "great tribulation"
(Matt. 24:21). The post-trib view is the only rapture view which sees
only a single future coming of Jesus. All other rapture views,
pre-trib, mid-trib, and pre-wrath, see the rapture and resurrection
prior to the second coming of Jesus by months or years. While these
rapture views see the rapture as a means to take the Church to heaven
to escape God's wrath, the post-trib view sees the rapture as a
mechanism to gather together believers from both heaven and earth in a
single location with Christ, to be revealed with Him in glory to the
world at His coming. Therefore, in a post-trib scenario, the rapture is
an integral part of the second coming. Upon Jesus' descent from heaven,
the angels will be dispatched by the trumpet blast and gather together
Jesus' elect to meet Him in the air. Then the whole gathering of angels
and saints are revealed to the world along with Jesus in a blaze of
glory.
HISTORY OF THE POST-TRIB RAPTURE VIEW
Despite a variety of Millennial
views in Christian history, until the last couple of centuries,
Christians were unanimously "post-trib." Historic pre-millennialists
and amillennialists have always been post-trib. Only within modern
dispensational pre-millennialism do we find the idea of a "rapture"
distinct from the second coming. The evidence from early Christian
literature is exclusively post-trib. A few popular contemporary authors
have made claims about pre-tribulationism being found in the writings
of the early Christians. And many Christians repeat these claims
without question. However, the claims are blatantly false. We have
documented the pre-trib revisionism of Church history in the section
entitled "Historical Evidence."
To
my knowledge, the first to separate the rapture from the second coming
was a Baptist minister named Morgan Edwards (1722-1795). He wrote a
paper while in seminary that outlined a hypothetical form of
mid-tribulationism, and years later published his thesis. Within forty
years of his death, Edward Irving (Catholic Apostolic Church), and
shortly thereafter John N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren), both of England,
were teaching pre-tribulationism.
It
is fair and accurate to say that, regardless of their views on the
Millennium, the vast majority of those who have called themselves
Christians held to a post-trib rapture and resurrection throughout
Church history. They saw only a single future coming of Christ both to
judge the "Man of Sin" and his followers, and to rescue the Church.
THE RAPTURE QUESTION IN MODERN TIMES
In many parts of the western world, especially the USA and western
Europe, the pre-trib view supplanted the post-trib view in the last two
centuries. This was due largely to the Christian seminary movement,
with large schools like Dallas Theological Seminary leading the way in
promoting this view. But, probably the single most important reason for
the widespread acceptance of the pre-trib view was the Scofield
Reference Bible, which incorporated the dispensational / pre-trib
scheme in the reference notes.
In
the last several decades, there has been a considerable trend away from
pre-tribulationism. I believe this trend is mostly due to individual
Christians studying the Scriptures on their own and coming to the
conclusion that the pre-trib view is simply not biblical. Another
reason is the historical argument that post-tribbers have been
increasingly advancing, that the post-trib view was exclusively the
view of the early Church. Also, pre-tribulationism's recent roots have
been exposed by the research of men like George Ladd, Robert Gundry,
and especially Dave MacPherson.
The pre-trib establishment is taking this thinning out of their ranks very seriously. The Pre-trib Research Center,
founded by Tim LaHaye, and currently headed by Thomas Ice, is dedicated
to countering this trend and dealing with the powerful historical
evidence that post-tribbers have put forward. Pre-tribbers are also
responding with a blitz of propaganda in the form of fictional novels
and prophecy films, like LaHaye's "Left Behind" series, in order to
shore up their base. But, despite this effort, there is a steady exodus
of Christians from the pre-trib camp.
The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center
is dedicated to providing Christian pastors and laymen the biblical and
historical reasons for adopting the ancient rapture view of the Church.
It is our contention that the pre-trib view is not explicitly taught
anywhere in Scripture, and is based solely on incorrect inferences and
a faulty version of the dispensational system. It was not what Jesus
commanded to be preached in all the world until the end of the age.
Neither was it the view handed down by the Apostles to the next
generation of Christians. The view presented on this website is
essentially the same as what was held by the earliest Christian writers
contiguous with the time of the Apostles. We are not suggesting that
anyone should hold to the post-trib view simply because of its history
or antiquity. We aim to show that it is the only biblical view of the
rapture timing. The historical information is just further confirmation
that the early Church trained by the Apostles understood the Scriptures
in a similar way.
WHY IT MATTERS WHAT YOU BELIEVE
In contemporary western Christianity, post-tribbers are looked upon
with pity and suspicion. Some think we have a "martyr complex." Others
think we are just troublemakers, wanting to rock the boat.
Post-tribulationism just doesn't seem to fit in with the prosperous
lifestyles of contemporary western Christianity. The lack of real
persecution and hardship has led many to assume that this is the normal
Christian life. But, according to Scripture, persecution, tribulation,
and hardship, is the real "normal" Christian experience. The comfort
western Christians have enjoyed for the last few generations is an
anomaly that will soon come to an end. The theological "comfort zones"
we have constructed around this anomaly are about to come crashing
down.
For
those who are honestly considering the various views of the rapture
timing, and are open to God's leading regarding this issue, there is
plenty of opposition ahead for you. The "rapture question" has been a
hot potato issue in the recent past. In some cases, splitting churches.
Christians who have abandoned the pre-trib view and been the least bit
vocal about it have often found themselves being offered the "right
foot of fellowship." Many pastors who have abandoned pre-trib have lost
their churches, and missionaries have been abandoned by their mission
boards and supporting churches because of their switch to the post-trib
view. So, if you have no tolerance for hardship, you had better stop
here. If you've got the guts to face the truth head on no matter what
it is, then please continue.
Some
say it really doesn't matter if Jesus is coming before or after the
tribulation, as long as we are "ready." They think we should all just
agree to disagree, and love one another. But, "ready" is a relative
term! It begs the question, "ready for what?" There is a huge
difference between being ready to be gently whisked away to heaven on a
pillow, and being ready to become a martyr at the hands of Antichrist!
Is surface harmony worth the risk of huge numbers of believers being
caught totally unprepared spiritually, emotionally, and physically?
What about the "many" believers whom Jesus mentioned in Matt. 24:9-13
who would fall away when the deception and persecution of the last days
arrives? If Jesus' coming is several decades away, then perhaps the
rapture debate is not all that critical. But, if Jesus is coming soon
as the signs seem to indicate, one's views on the timing of the rapture
are crucial to being prepared to be an overcomer in the difficult days
before His coming.
Knowledge
of what lies ahead motivates people to prepare. A rookie soldier, who
knows he is about to be shipped to the front lines in a brutal war,
will have a much different attitude about basic training than a new
recruit who joined up to get a free education and a pension! The
soldier who is about to engage the enemy knows his training may mean
the difference between life and death. He learns survival techniques;
he gets physically fit; he learns his weapons inside and out; he makes
sure his weapons are in good working order; through countless hours of
practice he becomes a marksman. He also prepares himself mentally for
combat and the possibility of being a POW. His objective is clear; he
is fully equipped; and he is mentally focused on getting the job done
and coming home in one piece! On the other hand, the new peace-time
novice, with big ideas of a comfortable career, could have a ho-hum
attitude about basic training. If he is unexpectedly thrust into a
fierce battle, he will find himself woefully unprepared. While staring
down the barrel of the enemy's rifle is not the time to be fumbling
around for your weapon's instruction manual. He might just conclude
that this is not what he signed up for!
If
it really doesn't matter what we believe about the last days, why did
God devote such a large portion of His Word to end-time prophecy? Is it
just filler material? Is it for intellectual entertainment? The answer
is really quite simple. Prophecy was intended to provide the kind of
motivation needed to turn flabby pew-potatoes into Christian soldiers.
This website is an introduction to "basic training" for Christians,
alerting them of the coming trials we will soon face in time to prepare
themselves and their families spiritually and emotionally, and perhaps
even physically at the proper time. And don't kid yourselves about your
own or your family's ability to easily digest the emotional
implications. Without strong spiritual character first, Christians who
live at relative ease in the western world often react badly to the
idea that they may soon face the Antichrist, and all the venom that
hell can dish out on God's children.
METHODOLOGY IN BUILDING OUR BIBLICAL CASE
The
Bible is the progressive revelation of God to mankind. All of the
information available to us in Scripture was not available to everyone
in history. Some things were revealed through Moses, others through the
prophets many generations later. More was revealed by Jesus, and still
more through the writings of the Apostles. Finally, Revelation was
given through John as the capstone of prophetic truth. The totality of
biblical prophetic truth was progressively given over thousands of
years.
Because
of the progressive nature of Bible prophecy, when interpreting a given
passage, we cannot assume things (that we know from later prophecy)
that had not yet been revealed to mankind when that particular prophecy
was written or spoken. For example, when examining what Jesus taught
His disciples about His coming and the end of the age, we need to place
ourselves in their shoes. We should take into account what they already
knew from their Jewish training in the Old Testament Scriptures. They
were certainly not aware of later prophecy, such as the book of
Revelation given six decades later! When Jesus taught His disciples, He
was quite aware that their understanding was limited to PAST
revelation. Jesus built on and added to their current foundational
understanding with more detailed revelation. This is clear in the
Olivet Discourse, where Jesus referred the disciples to what Daniel had
written about the "Abomination of Desolation" [Matt. 24:15]. Many other
passages could be cited in the New Testament, where the writer or
speaker quoted or alluded to Old Testament prophecy when teaching about
eschatology.
In
our study, we will not hop-scotch all over the Bible in order to
interpret a passage. We will try our best to understand a passage in
the way the original audience would have understood it given their
current level of learning. This assumes that Bible prophecy was first
and foremost intended for the audience to whom it was first given. Of
course, all Bible prophecy is beneficial to us who live thousands of
years later. But, it was not originally written specifically to us.
Therefore, we need to resist the temptation to interpret earlier
prophecy in light of later revelation. The original hearers of that
prophecy did not have the benefit of later revelation. When giving new
revelation, which was obviously meant to be properly comprehended by
the intended audience, we assume the writer was fully aware of what his
audience knew and did not know. He expected his hearers or readers to
interpret the prophecies correctly, given their limited understanding.
This approach to interpretation is called the "historical" method.
We
will also pay close attention to the grammar. It is important to
understand that the mechanism for God's transferring knowledge to
people is the use of nouns, pronouns, articles, verbs, adverbs,
adjectives, conjunctions, and prepositions. The use of language has
certain rules which must be followed if we expect to properly
understand the original intent of the speaker or writer. And after all,
original intent is the goal we are striving for in our study.
Therefore, we will try our best not to violate the rules of grammar
with our interpretations of Scripture. This approach is called the
"grammatical" method.
Because
we intend to follow the "grammatical - historical" methodology, we have
built our case for the post-trib rapture progressively, avoiding
logical fallacies. We assume that the original hearers were aware of
older revelation, never newer revelation. Let me give a couple of
examples of sequential fallacies to illustrate the point, one fallacy
made by some post-tribbers and one made by some pre-tribbers.
Post-trib fallacy:
Some claim that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians of Jesus' coming at
the "last trumpet," he meant the seventh trumpet in Revelation. The
problem with this reasoning is Paul wrote in such a way that his
readers would know what he was talking about. They had no idea of the
seven trumpets in Revelation, because that was not revealed until
several decades later. We should look backward in the prophetic record
for "trumpets" with which to identify or compare the "last trumpet,"
rather than forward, because that is what the original audience was
expected to do. Otherwise, we assume things that the original audience
could not possibly know, and therefore would certainly not understand.
Our premise is that the original audience was expected to understand
what they were told.
Pre-trib fallacy:
Some claim that Jesus taught a pre-trib rapture in John 14:1-3. Yet,
nothing in that passage specifically indicates the "coming" is
pre-trib, or is separate from the "second coming." Jesus had just told
the same disciples to be watching for the signs of His coming
"immediately after the tribulation" in Matt. 24, and to be expecting
the coming of His Kingdom to earth in Luke 21. The only "coming" Jesus
spoke of prior to this (and the only one in the Old Testament) is
post-tribulational. Some pre-tribbers try to superimpose a pre-trib
rapture in John 14, claiming that the passage fits the pre-trib
scenario better, and conclude it is new revelation about the rapture.
But, what would the disciples think of such an interpretation given
their current understanding? Would they think Jesus was speaking of a
new and different coming before the tribulation after He had just told
them to watch for His post-trib coming two days earlier? Hardly!
These
two examples illustrate the absolute necessity of keeping the original
audience in view at all times in their particular historical setting.
By doing this, we will guard ourselves against the typical fallacies
committed by many students of Bible prophecy.
As
you read the articles in the first section, you will notice that they
follow a sequential path through the New Testament. It is beyond the
scope of this website to do the same with Old Testament prophecy.
However, when appropriate, we will look at Old Testament prophecy and
consider its implications regarding the knowledge of the original
audience of the New Testament prophetic Scriptures. By using this
format, we will build our case sequentially, and demonstrate the level
of reliance on previous prophecy, as well as examine new revelation
when given. By default, we will assume that prophetic details given
have a foundation in past prophecy. Where unique details are given that
have no apparent basis in past prophecy, we can assume that this is new
revelation. Often, the text itself tells us when new revelation is
being given and when old revelation is being reiterated. For example,
when Paul wrote, "behold I show you a mystery" (1 Cor. 15:54), we can
conclude he was about to reveal something not previously understood.
But, when Peter wrote that he was reminding his readers of the "words
of the prophets" (2 Peter 3:1,2), we can conclude he was referring to
previous prophecy.
Pre-tribbers
often claim to be the champions of the "literal" method of
interpretation. While literalism necessarily leads to a pre-millennial
understanding of prophecy, it does not favor the pre-trib rapture view
within the pre-millennial camp. I realize that this is a radical
statement in today's eschatological climate. But, we mean to prove our
assertion in the following articles. It is pre-tribbers themselves who
frequently appeal to non-literal interpretations as the primary support
for their view. Some common examples of this are...
- John's being caught up to heaven in Rev. 4:1 represents the rapture
- the 24 elders in heaven represent the whole Church in heaven
- the 7 letters in Revelation represent 7 consecutive "church ages"
- Enoch's and Elijah's catching up are types of a pre-trib rapture
The
articles on this website will prove conclusively that post-tribbers can
far surpass pre-tribbers in holding to a consistent "grammatical -
historical" or "literal" methodology. And a consistent literal
methodology will necessarily lead to a post-trib rapture (within a
pre-millennial framework).
The
second major section of this website presents our historical argument
from the post-Apostolic early Church. We do not claim perfection for
the post-Apostolic Church, nor any of the early Christian writers.
However, our intent is to demonstrate that the second generation Church
was solidly post-trib, and that no hint of pre-tribulationism can be
found in their writings. While this is a secondary argument, and does
not carry the weight of the Biblical arguments, it is the natural
extension of our premise. Since we are viewing prophecy progressively,
always building on previous revelation, it is logical to conclude that
students (or disciples) of the Apostles would reflect the view handed
down to them by Apostolic oral tradition. The second generation Church was the product of the lifetime teaching ministries of Jesus' Apostles.
The early Church not only possessed the written documents of the New
Testament, but also a considerable body of oral personal instruction
from their mentors, the Apostles. We will demonstrate beyond a
reasonable doubt that the second generation Church was unanimously
post-trib regarding the rapture. The implications of this fact are
enormous. If the pre-trib view is correct, the Apostles of Jesus
were miserable failures in transmitting sound doctrine to the very next
generation of Christians, and grounding them in the Word, since no hint
of pre-tribulationism can be found in the post-Apostolic Church.
That means, the entire Church succumbed to a false view of the rapture
virtually overnight, and no record can be found of any kind of
resistance or rebuttal of this alleged post-trib error. All this
despite the fact that the early Christian apologists, like Justin,
Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, wrote volumes against the contemporary
heresies that threatened the Church, appealing to the Scriptures and
Apostolic oral tradition. If pre-tribulationism is true, we are forced
to conclude that as soon as the Apostles died (actually while John was
still alive), the whole Christian Church abandoned the Apostles'
doctrine and substituted a false eschatology that required them to go
through the tribulation.
The
third section of this website addresses the arguments advanced by the
pre-trib side. Post-tribbers in the past have been accused of arguing
our case by merely tearing down pre-trib, rather than advancing a
positive presentation of the Biblical basis for our view.
Unfortunately, this is a fair analysis in many cases. At The Last Trumpet - Post-Trib Research Center
we intend to take the high road by first building our case from
Scripture alone, then dealing with the historical arguments, and lastly
providing our rebuttal of the pre-trib arguments.
The
process of developing our eschatology first and foremost from a
progressive handling of Scripture using the grammatical - historical
(literal) method, and then adding the testimony of the early Church,
leads firmly to a post-trib understanding of the rapture. One of the
reasons the pre-trib view cannot be correct is because it is derived
from reading many ideas (some biblical and some not) into the text that
the original hearers could not possibly know. Pre-tribulationism is the
result of a long series of post-hoc arguments, and largely ignores the
historical setting and progressive nature of prophecy. It is "reverse
engineered" and forced onto the Scriptures rather than built
progressively on a proper foundation. Because we have built our case
progressively, you will benefit the most by reading the articles in
sequence, at least in the first section titled "Post-Trib Rapture."
CHALLENGE TO PRE-TRIBBERS
If you are pre-trib, all we ask of you is to give us a fair hearing. As
you consider our arguments from Scripture with an open mind, ask
yourself the following questions. "If the pre-trib rapture is true, where was it introduced in the progressive revelation of Biblical prophecy?"
Such a major event, that is not to be found in Old Testament prophecy
or even in Jesus' own teaching, must have been unveiled to the
Christian world at some point in time. When? Where? What passage of
Scripture indicates this new radical departure from the rest of Bible
prophecy? As you contemplate the historical evidence provided on this
site, ask yourself this question. "Why was the pre-trib rapture
view only discovered, and documented in the history of Christianity,
many centuries after the founding of Jesus' Church?" If it is truely part of the "Faith once delivered to the saints," why did the early Church know nothing of it?
Top of Page
|
