50 Reasons for the Pretribulation Rapture
1. While posttribulationism appeared as early as 2 Thessalonians 2, many in the early church believed in the imminency of the Lord's return, which is an essential doctrine of pretribulationism.
Since imminency can be believed without belief in the pretribulation rapture (it isn't a support that only leads to pre-tribulationism) then that is not a reason 'for' the pretribulation rapture theory.
Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent
2. The detailed development of the pretribulational truth during the past few centuries does not prove that the doctrine is new or novel. Its development is similar to that of other major doctrines in the history of the church.
It isn't just that the pretribulational rapture theory grew more 'detailed' since the 18th century - it had no proponents prior to that at all. Pseudo-Eusebius, often used as the earliest proof, was mid-trib. Its development was not similar to 'other major doctrines' - that is a faulty premise.
Even if true, this would not be a 'reason for' the pretribulational rapture position, it simply would be a refutation of the fallacy of 'appeal to tradition' for rejecting the theory outright.
3. Pretribulationism is the only view that allows literal interpretation of all Old and New Testament passages on the Great Tribulation.
Firstly, this is not true. Pretribulationism does a number of passages figuratively. For example, Lk 17:26-35 literally speaks of people being destroyed and dying (which literally happened when half the Jews were killed in the siege of Jerusalem, many of whom were trying to preserve their lives by appealing to the Romans, wheras the Christians who fled through the mountains to Pella have no recorded casualties in history). Yet, the pre-tribulational rapture position applies these verses figuratively, not literarlly, to people being 'taken' in the rapture.
Second, there is no reason to take 'all passages' literally. Many eschatological references in the New Testament have clear figurative references in the old Testament. Cross reference Rev 9:7-9 with Joel 1:1-7, for example. Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture, not man-made hermeneutics like 'take everything literally.'
Is, “If the scripture makes plain sense, seek no other sense” a good Bible hermeneutic to use in study?
Third, it's a fallacy to set up one's own 'rules' to interpret something through, then declare that the conclusion is true because it is the only one that fits those 'rules.' That is circular reasoning, not a proof.
4. Pretribulationism distinguishes clearly between Israel and the church and their respective programs.
That's a description of the theory, not a supporting premise.
5. Pretribulationism maintains the scriptural distinction between the Great Tribulation and tribulation in general that precedes it.
Again, this is a description of part of the theory and not a proof. In this case, it's not actually clear that this is true. Pretribulation rapture theory tends to mix up the wrath of God and the Great Tribulation, and it's treatment of the Great tribulation vs. general tribulations seems fuzzy - not a clear scriptural distinction. One can grant that to the pre-tribulationist, the siege of Jerusalem represents merely one tribulation and has no bearing on the Great Tribulation - but that goes back to being another discriptor of the theory, not a proof.
6. The Great Tribulation is properly interpreted by pretribulationists as a time of preparation for Israel's restoration (Deu. 4:29-30; Jer. 30:4-11). It is not the purpose of the Tribulation to prepare the church for glory.
Fallacy: circular reasoning. The GT is a time of preparation becayse people who believe it is a time of preparation properly interpret it as a time of preparation...
This again is not a proof or even a supporting reason. Plus, the verses do not clearly demand what is being claimed. Deut 4:29-30, in context, is about the dispersion of the Jews (the diaspora) if they stop following God, but how God will not forget His covenant with them in the latter days (time of Christ onward, not necessarily the very last days of Earth, though hints of fulfillment in Rom 11.) Jer 30:4-11 is about the restoration of Israel. It does not describe a time of Tribulation, but a time of peace and security and the destruction of Israel's enemies!
Also, scripture does show that the Great tribulation is indeed about refining believers (Jew and Gentile) for the glory of God: Rev 9:7-19
7. None of the Old Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Deu. 4:29-30; Jer. 30: 4-11; Dan. 8:24-27; 12:1-2).
Firstly, there is not universal agreement that all those passages, and they alone, refer to the Great Tribulation or to a future Great Tribulation. Second, many of those passages were written to Jews, specifically about their covenant with God, so there is no reason to expect that they would mention Gentile believers. Third, Dan 12:1-2 does not exclude the church, as there are many Gentile believers written of 'in the book' (Phil 4:3, Rev 20:12, etc.) and we are God's people as well (Rom 9:6). While the conflict in the two verses seems to revolve around the physical nation of Israel, it seems it is the people of God (which would be both Jew and Gentile) rising as well as 'some to everlasting contempt.'
8. None of the New Testament passages on the Tribulation mention the church (Matt. 13:30; 39-42, 48-50; 24:15-31; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:4-9; 2 Thess. 2:1-11; Rev. 4-18).
I don't think that can be claimed whatsoever if you read the actual verses:
Matt 13:30 is a parable of the weeds and wheat. Few would claim that Gentile Christians are not among the wheat, as the wheat represents the gospel church! Jesus Himself says, "the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom." Matt 13:38
Matt 13:39-32 follows onto this parable, as Jesus explains that in the end of the age "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Are Gentile believers not among the righteous? Of course they are! (Rom 9:30) Are Gentile believers not children of God? Of course they are! It is not all the physical descendents of Israel that are His children, but those of faith! (Rom 9:8)
Matt 13:48-50 again shows the righteous and the wicked being separated at the end of the age. Where do you see in this passage that it really is only speaking of Jewish righteous, and not all of the people of God?
Matt 24:4-31 speaks of a Great Tribulation taking place in Israel, but not just to Jewish believers. Rather, it shows the gospel spreading to the whole world (Rom 10:18, Col 1:6), that many will be deceived and turn from faith (I Tim 4:1), that the days will be cut short for the sake of the elect, and that the angels will gather the elect from the four winds. Is there any reason to restrict these elect people of faith to just the Jews? Do only Jewish believers, and never Gentile believers, live in Israel?
The elect are the people of God joined together under the headship of Christ (
1 Peter 2:4-9), so this chapter does reference the church.
Who are the elect of God?
I Thess 1:9-10 is written to the church of the Thesselonians, Thesselonica being the capital of Macedonia - a primarily gentile church group! These Gentiles 'turned from idols' to await Jesus, who would rescue them from the coming wrath (wrath of God which follows the tribulation, not rescue from the tribulation). How does a passage which clearly references a specific Gentile church group somehow 'not mention the church?'
Why is it that Isaiah 2:11 says that the Lord alone will be exalted in the Day of the Lord, yet Revelation and Daniel describe a tribulation period when antichrist will be worshipped and served by the unsaved for seven years?
I Thess 5:4-9: This passage is again written to the church at Thesselonica. The whole passage is about the church, and how we should remain alert and sober so we do not suffer the wrath of God (again God's wrath, not the tribulation which is the persecution of believers.)
Rev 4-18 references the church a number of times. Recall that the whole book - not just the three chapters, is written directly to Jesus' servants and to the 'seven churches' (Rev 1:1-4).
Rev 7:9-17 shows the saints from 'every tribe and nation' who came out of the Great Tribulation.
Rev 12:10-12 mentions the 'brothers and sisters' who triumphed over the Satan by the blood of the lamb.
Rev 14:12 says, "This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus."
Etc.
Those seem like very clear references to the people of God, both Jew and Gentile.
9. In contrast to midtribulationism, the pretribulational view provides an adequate explanation for the beginning of the Great Tribulation in Revelation 6. Midtribulationism is refuted by the plain teaching of Scripture that the Great Tribulation begins long before the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11
Rev 6 is about the Great day of the wrath of God (Rev 6:17.) The Tribulation is hinted at with the fifth seal in Rev 6:9-11, but as having begun in the past and being ongoing. I'm unfamiliar with all the teachings of the mid-trib position, but that would seem to support their view rather than the pre-trib view. I've not seen any mid-trib advocates claim that the seventh trumpet, "The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets..." is prior to the tribulation somehow.
Either way, even if they did, refuting one view would not automatically support a different theory. Disproving mid-trib, although those verses do not seem to, would not make it a reason 'for' the pre-trib rapture theory since there are many possibilities and not just two.
10. The proper distinction is maintained between the prophetic trumpets of Scripture by pretribulationism. There is no proper ground for the pivotal argument of midtribulationism that the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the last trumpet in that there is no established connection between the seventh trumpet of Revelation 11, the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52, and the trumpet of Matthew 24:31. They are three distinct events.
This is a circular proof. My interpretation is X, interpretation X leads to view Z, therefore Z is true, because Z is true the only true interpretation is X....
There actually are a lot of reasons to 'connect' the trumpet call at the return of Christ, as given by the commonality of symbols, context, and events (not just the trumpet) given in scripture:
M
att 24:31-32: angels, loud trumpet call
I Thes 4:16-18: Christ descends to lower atmosphere, cry of command, voice of archangel, sound of trumpet, we meet Christ in lower clouds
Rev 1:7: coming with the clouds, every eye will see
Heb 9:28: Christ will appear a second time to bring salvation
II Tim 4:1 Christ will judge us at His second coming and commencement of His kingdom
Matt 16:27: Son of man shall come in glory, angels, judgement
Rev 11:15: Kingdom of the world becomes the Kingdom of Christ
Acts 1:10-11: Jesus will return from heaven in the same manner he ascended
John 6:39-40: Believers resurrected
Col 3:4: When Christ appears, we will also appear with Him in glory
Acts 17:31: World judged by Christ
Luke 21:27: World sees Christ coming in a cloud with great power and glory
Luke 9:26: comes in glory, glory of Father, glory of the holy angels
John 5:28-29: All those in graves hear voice, judgement, Resurrection
Matt 24:27: Coming visible even to those not directly beneath, like lightning
Matt 25:31-32: glory, angels, sits on throne, all nations, judgement
2 Thes 1:5-10: Christ revealed from Heaven in blazing fire, judgement, glorified in holy people
I Cor 15:23-24: Christ's coming & Resurrection, followed by the 'end'
It is actually much harder to get a reading that these are all 'different' events, given the principle of letting scripture be the primary interpreter of other scripture.
11. The unity of Daniel's seventieth week is maintained by pretribulationists. By contrast, postribulationism and midtribulationists destroy the unity of Daniel's seventieth week and confuse Israel's program with that of the church.
That is merely a description of differences between the interpretations, not a proof. There are also, again, many interpretations beyond pre-trib and post-trib.
12. The translation of the church is never mentioned in any passage dealing with the second coming of Christ after the Tribulation.
I Cor 15:52-53, I Thess 4:13-17, Matt 24:31, Heb 9:28, II Tim 4:1-8, Jn 6:39-40, Col 3:3-4, Jn 5:28-29, I Cor 15:22-24 aren't passages mentioning how all believers will be Ressurected at the return of Christ or how non-believers will be ressurected to judgement?
Or do you simply mean that your interpretation applies all verses specifically mentioning the church to to a pre-trib rapture, and other verses to the second coming, then uses that interpreted distinction to 'prove' that scripture is silent on the church being Ressurected at Christ's second coming? That is circular.
13. The church is not appointed to wrath (Rom. 5:9: 1 Thess. 1:9-10; 5:9). The church therefore cannot enter "the great day of their wrath" (Rev. 6:17).
Since the Great Tribulation - a time of severe persecution of believers - is not the same thing as the Day of God's wrath, how does this 'prove' a pre-trib rapture? God isn't persecuting the believers during the day of His wrath - He is punishing unbelievers. Non-believers aren't cowering under rocks during the Tribulation, they are persecuting believers and believe themselves safe.
14. The church will not be overtaken by the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:1-9, which includes the Tribulation.
I Thess 5:1-9 does not say the Day of the Lord is 100% identical and concurrent with the Tribulation. The passage only speaks of judgement/the Day of the Lord, and how we are not appointed to suffer God's wrath. It never says anything about us escaping human persecution.
15. The possibility of a believer escaping the Tribulation is mentioned in Luke 21:36.
The 'escape' isn't due to Jesus translating the believer away, but specifically due to the believer being always on watch and not ignoring the signs (Lk 21:29-36.) This verse actually supports the partial-preterist view far better than the pre-trib, as for pre-trib it wouldn't matter if the believer was on watch or not. (The partial-preterist view points out that the Jews during the siege thought they were safe during a brief lift in the siege, so remained and many even tried appealing to Rome when the siege began again, only to be killed. Half the Jewish population of the time either died or was killed. The Christians, both Jew and Gentile, noted the signs and fled during the brief lift in the siege through the mountains, many taking refuge in Pella, and history doesn't record a single death for a Christian of that time.) Lk 21:26 doesn't hold much in the way of a 'support proof' for the pre-trib view.
16. The church of Philadelphia was promised deliverance from "the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth" (Rev. 3:10).
The word isn't deliverance, but keep - the Greek téreó means to spiritually guard, to keep intact. It's a poetic blessing for them: because the Philadelphia church (unlike some of the others) guarded the word, God in turn would guard them. This was a promise of safe custody specifically given to that church. Other churches, for example Smyrna, were given no such guarantee of being kept safe during the persecution that was to come.
17. It is characteristic of divine dealing to deliver believers before a divine judgment is inflicted on the world as illustrated in the deliverance of Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc. (2 Peter 2:5-9).
Again, God's outpouring of wrath upon the nations is -not- the same thing as the nations persecuting believers in a time of Great Tribulation for believers.
18. At the time of the translation of the church, all believers go to the Father's house in heaven (John 14:3) and do not immediately return to the earth after meeting Christ in the air as postribulationists teach.
Jn 14:3 actually says, "I will come back and receive you to myself that you also may be where I am" - not that Jesus will immediately return to heaven. Think of *where* this place is - it's in the New Jerusalem! The New Jerusalem descends to Earth.
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
“Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God." Rev 21:2-3
Note that in I Thess 4:16-18, we meet Jesus "in the air" - greek 'aer' - the lower atmosphere where living things breath [trees, birds, people, etc]. 'Aer' encompasses the space from the surface of the ground to the lower clouds. [In contrast to the greek 'ouranos' (heaven), the first heaven being the upper atmopsphere, the second space, the "third heaven" God's heaven). As we are meeting Christ in the lower aer, then this is in full view of those on the planet.]
The greek word harpazo (to seize/snatch up) also refers to an overt action by force, such as robbery or seizing the spoils of war, vs. a secret action. [
Strong's Greek: 726. ἁρπάζω (harpazó) -- to seize, catch up, snatch away]
The 'meet the' Lord phrase (apantēsin) is one used often in Greek literature to describe a delegation leaving their home to meet a delegate or new ruler halfway, then escorting them back.
Taken all together, especially with the many other scriptures already posted above with common symbols and context of the return of Christ, the theory that we meet Jesus then escort Him to Earth as the New Jerusalem descends is far stronger than the theory that we all secretly get raptured into heaven.
19. Pretribulationism does not divide the body of Christ at the Rapture on a works principle. The teaching of a partial rapture is based on the false doctrine that the translation of the church is a reward for good works. It is rather a climactic aspect of salvation by grace.
I'm not sure how to make sense of this. Salvation by grace leads climatically to the theory of a partial rapture that is in turn based on a false doctrine of works? I think Walvoord needs to clarify this paragraph. Either way, a theory not being 'works-based' doesn't automatically make it correct. There are many theories of eschatology that are not works based. The untruth of one incorrect works based theory would not give support as to the truth of any one of the others.
20. The Scriptures clearly teach that all, not part, of the church will be raptured at the coming of Christ for the church (1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:17).
Since the main disagreement between the various main theories on eschatology is not on whether the whole church will be ressurected or not, but rather the timing, this point does not support any one of those views over another.
21. As opposed to a view of a partial rapture, pretribulationism is founded on the definite teaching of Scripture that the death of Christ frees from all condemnation.
Again, this is a non-proof that appeals to another specific view being wrong as proof that the pre-trib view is the only alternative.
22. The godly remnant of the Tribulation are pictured as Israelites, not members of the church as maintained by the posttribulationists.
Those who came out of the Great Tribulation are 'from every trive and nation' - Rv 7:9-17. It is true that Rev 7:1-8 uses distinctly Jewish terms (the 12 tribes, the list of tribes, etc.) It could refer literally to 144,000 from the 12 tribes, but this would be a jarring literal passage in the midst of the figurative languages of the seals and the multitude from all tribes. If it were literal, it would not overturn that the multitude out of the Great Tribulation is from all tribes, and it is more likely given the context and literary style to be a reference to the 'Israel of God.' You can see many various interpreatations of the text here:
Revelation 7:4 Commentaries: And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
Basically, this is again a fallacy - circular reasoning that there is only one correct interpretation, which leads to only one view, which means only one interpretation is correct.
23. The pretribulational view, as opposed to posttribulationism, does not confuse general terms like elect and saints, which apply to the saved of all ages, with specific terms like church and those in Christ, which refer to believers of this age only.
This is another fallacy, begging the question. "My view sees these terms as only for this specific age therefore scripture uses these terms as only for this specific age."
24. The pretribulational interpretation teaches that the coming of Christ is actually imminent.
I'm not sure that it actually does. At least, I've encountered many pre-trib proponents who believe the gospel must be preached to every last person on the globe before Christ can return (ignoring the several scriptures showing that prophecy already fulfilled), and many who believer various world events must first take place. Yet they may well be not a good reflection on the theory as a whole.
Yet since pre-tribulationism is not the only theory that teaches an imminent return, and Christ Himself said there would be signs preceding the Great Tribulation, this again is not really a 'support' of pre-trib over any other view.
25. The exhortation to be comforted by the coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4:18) is very significant in the pretribulational view and is especially contradicted by most posttribulationists.
Why would the comfort of rising to be with Christ be 'contradicted' by posttribulationalists or those of other views? Whenever the Ressurection comes, it will be a comfort! The suffering we experience on Earth is nothing compared to our future glory with Christ. (I Pet 5:1-10, Phil 3:10-11)
I'll finish these out in another post, but will sum up with this:
Walvoord has a habit in his writings of trying to overwhelm the reader with a list of verses or brief points to try and shore up how 'solid' his views are - yet on actual examination most of his points rest on fallacies, aren't true supports to the exclusion of other theories, generally represent competing views with strawmen arguments and without their actual support, and his support 'verses' generally do not support his view alone. Sometimes the verses he uses are even directly contradictory to his own view.
