The Secret Rapture and 7 year Tribulation is Not In The Bible

[Christian Quest]

There is no record of the 7-year tribulation recorded anywhere in Scripture, and it seems that the Secret Rapture is also not scriptural. Watch this video that proves that these doctrines are a deception from Satan himself. The Rapture Lie Exposed

 

[Freth]

Hello fellow SDA! Welcome!

The tribulation and rapture are discussed regularly on the forums. You will most likely get a number of responses with different perspectives. I have written responses on this subject four times, the most recent being this post.

God bless!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

There is no record of the 7-year tribulation recorded anywhere in Scripture, and it seems that the Secret Rapture is also not scriptural. Watch this video that proves that these doctrines are a deception from Satan himself. The Rapture Lie Exposed

Yeah, the two three and a half times of daniel are recorded in the book of revelation. The 7 year story is made up.

 

[RandyPNW]

There is no record of the 7-year tribulation recorded anywhere in Scripture, and it seems that the Secret Rapture is also not scriptural. Watch this video that proves that these doctrines are a deception from Satan himself. The Rapture Lie Exposed

This was a very well-done video, and I agree with perhaps 99% of it. The 1% of disagreement is irrelevant, and does not detract from the importance of this messsage. It is superbly done! Thank you for posting....

 

[fm107]

Poorly researched video with a number of inaccuracies. Whoever put this together is not rightly dividing God's Word. (2 Timothy 2:15)

 

[RandyPNW]

Poorly researched video with a number of inaccuracies. Whoever put this together is not rightly dividing God's Word. (2 Timothy 2:15)

And so we disagree. That's okay. You apparently wish to state your disagreement without mentioning anything at all that is inaccurate. So, you're just voting, and not arguing--that's okay with me. It shouldn't persuade anybody one way or another.

 

[bniffty24]

There's so much info out there opposing this rapture theory that I don't know why people continue to believe it.
My guess is that it makes one feel snug and safe and so for many it's hard to let go of.

 

[RandyPNW]

There's so much info out there opposing this rapture theory that I don't know why people continue to believe it.
My guess is that it makes one feel snug and safe and so for many it's hard to let go of.

Actually true. Lots of evidence in opposition to a Pretrib Rapture. However, the Jewish People in Jesus' time were God's Chosen People and interpreted prophecy in a way that covered liability for their sins. They either compromised with the pagan Romans or believed they should violently oppose them, or trust in a Messiah that would defeat them in battle.

Those who want to believe in a Pretrib escape also want to avoid being persecuted for righteousness. They don't want to suffer what seems to be a "defeat" at the hands of the political world.

In both casess there is an effort to avoid trouble from the world, whether the Romans or the Antichrists of our own day. We simply have to bear down and courageously face challenges to our faith. There is a cost to being righteous, and it is persecution to some degree.

The world doesn't like righteousness. The world likes its sins and wants to be accepted as such. Those who live in righteousness stand as an accusion against them, leading to the world wanting to punish the righteous as arrogant.

When the world rises, the righteous must not participate in it. There is no escape to making this decision. We must bear our cross and face these Antichrists...at least for a short time.

 

[Christian Quest]

Hello fellow SDA! Welcome!

The tribulation and rapture are discussed regularly on the forums. You will most likely get a number of responses with different perspectives. I have written responses on this subject four times, the most recent being this post.

God bless

Thank you Freth. I will surely have a look at your last interactions with this topic. It was a confusing topic for me at first but upon further bible study, it became clearer that the secret rapture is not biblical at all.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I was saved in 1971 and believed in the imminent pre-trib rapture for about 7, maybe 8 years. I just ran with the crowd on the subject and never really questioned or did any serious seeking on the subject. Dakes, Larkin, Scofield, etc. Basic DispensationaIism.
Then, around 1978 or so, I read the book "Christians Will Go Through the Tribulation" by Jim McKeever.

Amazon.com
I did a lot of other studies since. I see it. We will be here until the "Last Day."
As Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means..."
Now I know why he gave us this warning... there are a lot of deceived people out there.
No need to argue... the lines are drawn and I don't see a lot of people changing. Just realize that you believe this false doctrine at your peril.

You may be denied spiritual growth.

Hebrews 6:1-3 Murdock
1 Therefore let us leave the commencement of the word of the Messiah, and let us proceed to the completion. Or will ye again lay another foundation for the repentance which is from dead works, and for the faith in God,
2 and for the doctrine of baptism, and for the laying on of a hand, and for the resurrection from the dead, and for the eternal judgment?
3 We will do this, if the Lord permit.

If you do not have this doctrine of "resurrection of the dead" rightly divided... you may be denied permission to proceed on to the higher doctrines and experiences that accompany them.

 

[fm107]

And so we disagree. That's okay. You apparently wish to state your disagreement without mentioning anything at all that is inaccurate. So, you're just voting, and not arguing--that's okay with me. It shouldn't persuade anybody one way or another.

Pretty much the entire video was inaccurate, from saying Darby came up with the truth of the rapture (a little research shows this is not the case) to the incorrect application of scripture, which happens throughout the video (due to it the video being routed in the erroneous framework of covenant theology).

I am not interested in arguing. My past experience on these forums is that people are not willing to move off their position, no matter how unsound and unscriptural their position is.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

By Bob Wilkin​

Introduction​

Somewhere around 2000, I became convinced that in Matt 24:40-44 the Lord is teaching the pre-trib Rapture. I was influenced by conversations with Zane Hodges. Around 2005, I then heard a message defending the pre-trib Rapture in the Olivet Discourse by Dr. John Hart. In 2007-2008, we published three articles by Hart in JOTGES supporting his view.

This article follows Hart’s ten points, but the comments are my own. I highly recommend readers carefully analyze Hart’s three articles, which are available at faithalone.org.

Because of space restrictions, I will merely hit the highlights. After all, Hart took sixty-five pages to develop his argument.
Continued at the link below

The Rapture in Matthew 24? Nine Proofs – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[RandyPNW]

I was saved in 1971 and believed in the imminent pre-trib rapture for about 7, maybe 8 years. I just ran with the crowd on the subject and never really questioned or did any serious seeking on the subject. Dakes, Larkin, Scofield, etc. Basic DispensationaIism.
Then, around 1978 or so, I read the book "Christians Will Go Through the Tribulation" by Jim McKeever.

Amazon.com
I did a lot of other studies since. I see it. We will be here until the "Last Day."
As Paul said, "Let no man deceive you by any means..."
Now I know why he gave us this warning... there are a lot of deceived people out there.
No need to argue... the lines are drawn and I don't see a lot of people changing. Just realize that you believe this false doctrine at your peril.

You may be denied spiritual growth.

Hebrews 6:1-3 Murdock
1 Therefore let us leave the commencement of the word of the Messiah, and let us proceed to the completion. Or will ye again lay another foundation for the repentance which is from dead works, and for the faith in God,
2 and for the doctrine of baptism, and for the laying on of a hand, and for the resurrection from the dead, and for the eternal judgment?
3 We will do this, if the Lord permit.

If you do not have this doctrine of "resurrection of the dead" rightly divided... you may be denied permission to proceed on to the higher doctrines and experiences that accompany them.

1971 was the 1st full year I began to walk seriously with the Lord. I had been failing in life as a teen, and capitulated to the Lord's prompting to give Him my all in late 1970. I had been raised a Lutheran, which was Postrib, though I never paid much attention to any other views.

But new Christian friends that I became associated with were all Pretrib, and I easily adopted their view. All of the books I read on prophecy--and I loved prophecy--were Pretrib. In particular, Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth" captured my attention, and I eagerly ate up all he had to offer.

But a year or so later, my brother convinced me to memorize Scriptures, and I soon realized I had a gift of memorization. I didn't take it too far, but I memorized, among other biblical letters, 2 Thessalonians. As I memorized this short letter I realized Paul was teaching something other than what I had been taught--he was explicitly teaching Postrib! From that time to this I've been staunchly Postrib.

There was a brief time of doubt when I moved to S. CA and lived in Orange County, not far from Chuck Smith's church, Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. He was very influential in the Jesus People movement, and wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation. It was Pretrib, and I couldn't believe I was as smart as him, and questioned my own confidence in the Postrib position.

So I went to a nearby church, which had become my church, and looked for books at its Bible Store discussing the matter of Postrib vs Pretrib. Melodyland (the church) had a School of Theology, and I supposed such issues might be discussed, even if Melodyland was largely Pretrib.

A stranger walked up to me and asked if he could help--I don't think he worked there. I told him what I wanted and he pointed me to 2 books that turned out to be classic works on Postrib, "The Church and the Tribulation" by Robert Gundry, and Ladd's "The Blessed Hope." I didn't agree with every view expressed, but they are incredibly gifted works on this matter and still current arguments.

I wrote a letter to Chuck Smith, asking him if I, a Postrib, would be welcome attending his church. He wrote back and suggested not. Then I asked my current pastor, Ralph Wilkerson, the same question. Though he was Pretrib, he fully welcomed me. So I sensed that one position was hostile towards scrutiny, while my position I felt was not--after all, I was attending a Pretrib church!

Later on I read Jim (James) McKeever's book and subscribed to his newsletter for a year or so. He was also a survivalist, and was curious about his sense of practical preparation for difficult times (I have not been, however, a Survivalist). James turned against the Jewish People and I dropped his newsletter like a hotcake. I was also disappointed that he was never able to produce a Postrib film like he promised.

Just sharing.... Obviously, I'm not into denominational sectarianism.

 

[RandyPNW]

Pretty much the entire video was inaccurate, from saying Darby came up with the truth of the rapture (a little research shows this is not the case) to the incorrect application of scripture, which happens throughout the video (due to it the video being routed in the erroneous framework of covenant theology).

I've been discussing this for years. I did not, for example, say that there are no examples of Pretrib arguments before Darby--only that Darby alone came up with a school like his in which Christ can come back "at any time" and must precede, by 7 years, the end of the age.

There are been beliefs expressed that suggested the "Rapture" of the Church should precede, by a very short time, the End of the Age simply to avoid the outpouring of God's Wrath at the very end. Darby went far beyond anything like that in either history or the Scriptures.

Irenaeus and Hippolytus, among the Church Fathers, believed in a future "70th Week of Daniel." But I don't believe they were Pretribulationists. Through most of Church History Christians have expected to see the Antichrist unless they believed he had already come.

I am not interested in arguing. My past experience on these forums is that people are not willing to move off their position, no matter how unsound and unscriptural their position is.

Well then, if you don't wish to discuss the issue it would be best if you not comment at all?

 

[fm107]

Well then, if you don't wish to discuss the issue it would be best if you not comment at all?

So, you can only comment to say you agree with it? Am I not allowed to voice an opinion to the contrary?

The arguments on this issue are well known. You have said yourself, you have been discussing it for years, and yet you still remain in error. Like I said, people are unwilling to move off their position, no matter how unsound and unscriptural their position is. And I have no desire to get into an argument. As long as you hold to covenant theology, arguing over the rapture is a waste of everyone's time, because the basis by which you understand scripture (covenant theology) is wrong - it is a non-starter.

 

[RandyPNW]

So, you can only comment to say you agree with it? Am I not allowed to voice an opinion to the contrary?

The arguments on this issue are well known. You have said yourself, you have been discussing it for years, and yet you still remain in error. Like I said, people are unwilling to move off their position, no matter how unsound and unscriptural their position is. And I have no desire to get into an argument. As long as you hold to covenant theology, arguing over the rapture is a waste of everyone's time, because the basis by which you understand scripture (covenant theology) is wrong - it is a non-starter.

I could easily pick apart what you've said, but I would only wish to do that if you wish to argue the points. Since you don't wish to do that, you are violating your own claim, that you *do not wish to argue.* I've not once said you need to agree with me. I've only said you need to be willing to discuss these matters. I have no anger towards you for disagreeing with my position. But are you angry with me for not agreeing with your position? You can answer that for yourself, since you don't wish to argue.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

There is no record of the 7-year tribulation recorded anywhere in Scripture, and it seems that the Secret Rapture is also not scriptural. Watch this video that proves that these doctrines are a deception from Satan himself. The Rapture Lie Exposed

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that the other person is deceived by satan. We all are wrong about something, and it is God who pulls us out of the lie. Everyone think it is the other who is wrong. There is a good reason why Christians believe in the rapture and the 7 year tribulation, and yes maybe we are wrong, and if we are right, it is only because God for His own reason revealed it to us. All I know that I am sinner who was deceived by satan but God by His grace pulled me to light.

 

[RandyPNW]

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that the other person is deceived by satan. We all are wrong about something, and it is God who pulls us out of the lie. Everyone think it is the other who is wrong. There is a good reason why Christians believe in the rapture and the 7 year tribulation, and yes maybe we are wrong, and if we are right, it is only because God for His own reason revealed it to us. All I know that I am sinner who was deceived by satan but God by His grace pulled me to light.

Well, there's another way of looking at this. And we have to be real honest. When a doctrinal position emerges from the Scriptures that is not actually true, then we have to ask: Is this from Satan, or from satanic deception? Even if this is largely from the person's own imagination, can it be viewed as "hostile" to the truth?

I would have to say Yes, doctrines that replace biblical truths with false "truths" can be a form of rebellion if it is insisted upon, as opposed to just speculated about. False Christian religions like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses have an entire theological system that supplants the understanding conventional Christianity has of the Bible. Since it is plainly asserted as true in the face of the Christian witness, it is over-all a kind of "satanic rebellion," even if many people simply grow up in it and accept it by default. To "push it" is to rebel, no matter the degree of consciousness of the lie.

Peter, when he opposed Jesus going to the cross, seemed to be innocent, having Jesus' health in mind. But being that it consciously opposed Jesus' attitude that he should go to the cross caused Jesus to deem it "satanic."

One thing I've noticed is that whenever a deception takes form and roots itself in a person or in a group of people, cracking open that deception becomes a matter of doing spiritual warfare. That means the more doctrinally orthodox person has to be kind and not betray Jesus' witness to his love. There has to be compassion for the deceived one.

But then there has to be minute attention to the details of what caused the failure, and understanding of how to expose the failure in the right way--in a way that fits the particular person. I see arguments about eschatology as often harmless indulgences in speculation. But on a matter like the Pretrib Rapture, I believe something "satanic" has been complicit in it for the reasons already given.

In such a case, all parties need to keep their loving witness. And they need to be willing to expose even themselves to the kind of scrutiny that will deliver either party from error. Calling it harmless just extends the time in which the deception continues, and feeds into Satan's purpose, to confuse, to frustrate, and to divert attention away from truths that sustain the Church.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

In such a case, all parties need to keep their loving witness. And they need to be willing to expose even themselves to the kind of scrutiny that will deliver either party from error. Calling it harmless just extends the time in which the deception continues, and feeds into Satan's purpose, to confuse, to frustrate, and to divert attention away from truths that sustain the Church.

I did not say it's harmless. Of course we must submit everything under Scripture and be led by the Spirit. But we must also be careful to attack other Christians who believe something different than us and call them deceived. Because what if we are the ones who are deceived and the other is correct. We will all have to give account to God one day.

I am the only one in my Church who believes in literal 1000 years. But that does not cause division, and we still love one another. We sure spent time talking about our disagreement, and we look into Scripture, but not once I heard from anyone 'you are deceived by satan'

 

[RandyPNW]

I did not say it's harmless. Of course we must submit everything under Scripture and be led by the Spirit. But we must also be careful to attack other Christians who believe something different than us and call them deceived. Because what if we are the ones who are deceived and the other is correct. We will all have to give account to God one day.

I am the only one in my Church who believes in literal 1000 years. But that does not cause division, and we still love one another. We sure spent time talking about our disagreement, and we look into Scripture, but not once I heard from anyone 'you are deceived by satan'

I do think tone is important. There is a right way to suggest someone may be under deception, indicating not that you're superior in intellect or spirituality, but that the concern is for the truth, for God, and for the person. Just to come out and call someone "deceived" is over the top in our culture--them's fightin' words!

So I appreciate you recognizing that it's not a nothing matter to allow deception if indeed you see something as a deception. If you're right, then you're trying to rescue the truth for the benefit of all. A so-called "peaceable" stand that tolerates anything and everything is obviously short-sighted and wrong. Thank you.

I've been a Postribber in a Pretribulational environment for about 50 years now. And the more open I am about my Postrib beliefs, the more I appear to be side-lined or dismissed. It's really gotten so bad that I'm about to leave my church.

A guy shoved at me some "Got Questions" print outs on the Rapture the other day--about 5 of them. I could submit all of this here.

I took pains to print out an answer to every single point. But I get no response from the brother who asked me.

What I got at church were more sermons stating the Pretrib position as "fact." I just have to sit and listen to the propaganda, and have no means of responding to it or questioning whether it is truly biblical.

And when I asked our current pastor for Bible Studies like we had before COVID I got promised that "we're going to get there," and a year later nothing happened. It may be because when we had the earlier Bible Studies I stated my beliefs, and the pastor had no answers for them when they crossed his own positions.

Our pastor wants people to listen while he teaches. He wants "yes" people who ask questions that allow him to say what he believes.

The last team pastors, husband and wife, both promised me that they wanted to personally discuss my Postrib beliefs. In front of others they pretended to be open and interested. I say that because later they wouldn't answer their phone, or their email.

When I talked to the Pastor at church, he just laughed and said they don't always get the message. I was pretty fed up with this deceptive tactic, but Christians aren't perfect. I just trudged ahead.

And as I said, with our current pastor I'm going through the same thing--pretend interest but no discussion of substance. My denominational headquarters won't respond to me. They apparently wish me to direct my questions through my pastor.

I years ago asked Chuck Smith if he would tolerate a Postribber like me in his church, and he indicated "no." I wrote Hal Lindsey, and he ignored me. I wrote Zola Levitt, and he had one of his underlings say he would discuss it with me only if I read Dr. Pentecost's huge book on the subject--I had already read Walvoord's book on the subject which was equal to Pentecost's work.

I wrote Walter Martin, and he put out a tape stating his Postrib position, possibly just because I asked for it. That was more than a response! Though we were in agreement on this subject, he was in a field where he has to be more objective--an apologist and "Bible Answerman." But he said, quite bluntly, that he thinks this kind of thing is "peripheral" to more important doctrines. He just wasn't going to shy away from *any* biblical matter.

The point is, people are more prepared to defend what they've always believed or what their church denomination or pastor believes. It's truly a sad state of affairs--not that they believe other than I do, but that they're unable or unwilling to even discuss the issues in a friendly, cordial way.