Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[WilliamL]

I would provide evidence to the contrary but you're a true believing partial preterist, so no evidence to the contrary will suffice to change your mind.

And now I'm a "partial preterist?" -- whatever your definition of that is.

You are debasing this forum with name-calling. Stick to the scriptures to support your conclusions, not mere rhetoric.

[ghtan]

I tend toward Post-Trib, but am open to variations of pre-wrath. I don't have enough objections to pre-wrath to speak out against it. For one thing, at least formerly, during most of my 'post-trib career', I considered post-trib to BE pre-wrath, since I held that God's wrath was poured out when Jesus returns visibly after the tribulation. While I still think that His wrath is poured out after the trib (or continues to be after the trib, I am not convinced that His wrath BEGINS after the trib.

In this diagram, I have many eschatological event shown, in the sequence that I believe the Bible indicates. Notice, that I leave the wrath of God out here. Where one places the wrath of God in this sequence, I guess, perhaps determines what one calls oneself positionally.

One could, for example, place an arrow, somewhere in the second half of the tribulation, and not run afoul of any Bible verse. However, since phrases about the wrath, also point to times after Jesus returns, I think that arrow would have to be limited to a beginning point of God's wrath, (see Rev 14 and 15). So, I think, that the wrath should be a band, a lapse of time, not a point in time.

Now, since we are talking about a pre-wrath rapture (I think), here is where I have my doubts on this position. Although I agree that the wrath may start during the great tribulation, the rapture does not occur before the end of the tribulation. So, if Christians are, as I believe, present during the tribulation, and even during the part of the tribulation that Jesus described a great (after the abomination of  desolation) then it seems that those Christians present, will be protected (perhaps sealed) against harm from God's wrath, while still present during the tribulation. However, this does not mean that they are immune from all harm - the are still subject to the persecution of anti-christ and his forces.

I made a confident statement there, that the rapture does not occur before the tribulation, and that is why I do not consider myself (yet at least) to be in the pre-wrath camp. Is my confidence justified? Perhaps not to you, but allow me to explain the source of that confidence, then judge for yourselves.

If the wrath begins during the tribulation, fine, then it does. However, the main event seems to occur at the Day of the Lord.

1 Thess 5

2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

In the same context (same chapter) Paul goes on to say:

 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

To me, this likely indicates that the destruction of V.3, can be fairly called the wrath of God.

I should probably insert an idea here for you all to consider, not really a point, but just something to think about in this topic, when discussing the wrath aspect.

There word "wrath" not a time word, and it is possible that it should not be thought of as if it is. Wrath is anger, and emotion, and an outpouring or expression of anger with consequences. I discuss this idea in a video I made once upon a time. Think of that as you are tempted to pencil in a time point or an expanse of time, just a thought.

Anyway, back to my train of thought:

There is also this:

It seems to me, that the church is caught up, to be with Christ, when He returns visibly:

Matt 24

 29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, ANDTHE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31“And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

(Please pardon the mix of regular and bold type above, I am not trying ti emphasize anything there, there are two different fonts in the passage that I cut and pasted there)

What was said there though?

• Immediately after the tribulation
• the sun, moon, stars phenom
• the Son of Man appears
• the elect are gathered

While our pre-tribs friends deny that this is the rapture, it is undeniable that Jesus is here, returning after the trib, and gathers someone!

and that immediately after the trib, there is a phenom involving the sun, moon and stars.

We know also from 1 Thess 5:

2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief; . . . and . . .

9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Paul, it seems to me is possible connecting God's wrath, with the Day of the Lord, but . . . 
he is also comparing God's wrath to it's alternative - salvation. Which salvation is in mind, I leave you do decide.

However, for those of us who beleive that the rapture occurs when Jesus returns visibly, it is hard for us to place the rapture before the end of the tribulation, since that is when scripture says He will return.

If that understanding is correct, then a prewrath rapture, would mean that the wrath that the rapture occurs prior to, is a wrath that follows the tribulation, this necessitating a post-trib rapture.

While it may be possible to understand a wrath of God during the tribulation, it is not possible that the rapture, is prior to that wrath, unless the rapture occurs before the sun and moon and stars thing which is explicitly after the tribulation, does that much make since.

So, if a pre-wrath rapture is not a post-trib rapture, then that understanding suffers the same problem that the pre-trib and mid-trib rapture positions have, that of being an argument form silence, not a scriptural argument.

The Bible does not describe a rapture apart from a return of Christ, nor does the Bible ever describe a return of Christ, is before the end of the tribulation, nor does it describe  secret ot invisible coming, those ideas come from vivid imaginations. I list 12 things often said about the end times that are not is scripture in another thread

So, as I see it, comparing the pre-trib and post-trib postitions, there are some similarities and some differences. Both are held by people who hold the bible in high esteem. I would make a comparison though, that in these camps, there is a philosophical difference in how one arrives at spiritual truth. The comparison, is to the chasm, between the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant or Reformed traditions.

In the reformation, the principle of Solo Scriptura, the bible only, was emphasized, It was believed that only the Bible, was a reliable source of truth. This tends to be the position that post-tribbers use in eschatology.

In Roman Catholicism, it is the Bible, plus church tradition, plus decrees of the Pope. Church tradition, and the Pope, have added things not found in scripture, such as exaggerated veneration of Mary, prayers to the saints, the idea that saints are a special class of believers, not ordinary believers, a central, human authority, etc, etc.

Protestants reject these ideas as spiritually reliable, simply because they are not found in the Bible.

I am pretty simple minded, I am a sola scriptura kind of guy as well. So, me eschatology, comes from the Bible. Everything I hold in mt eschatology, has at least one verse that supports that belief. Since pre-trib rapturism, adds things like invisible, secret, surprise to everyone return of Christ, I reject it, not be cause it is untrue, but because it is unsupported by scripture.

For this same reason then, I have to reject some varieties of the pre-wrath position, since they also are withouth scriptural support that I can see. However, I do not find them as dangerous as I find teaching the church that it will escape the tribulation altogether, so I do not see pre-wrath-ism, as harmful, even though I do not accept it.

Hi Omegaman,

I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening?

[Omegaman 3.0]

Hi Omegaman,

I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening?

Okay ghtan, let me see if I can put this into some sort of succinct  way. First of this is a defense of the pre-wrath position thread, so I have not tried to be that specific about what I think. I have here, however, kind of mumbled some of my thought, where I think I have difficulty with the pre-wrat position apart from the fact that I am not sure there is a definitive way to even describe that position.

I made that graphic, of what I think are some events that are spelled put is scripture, and had no representation of the wrath of God in the graphic.

Now, pre-trib people often use as a defense of there position, that we are not apointed unto wrath, we being believers.

Both pre-trib and post-trib people, believe that we are not appointed unto wrath, but the detail of what that implies vary. Many pre-trib believers, believe the the tribulation, is the wrath of God. Some, will say that the purpose of the tribulation, is to punish Israel, and point out a verse about the "time of Jacob's trouble", from the Old Testament.

In other words, God is angry (wrath) with the Jews, so this is the time of Jacob's trouble, not a time of trouble for the church. I think that is a fair representation of a view, which is held by some or many.

In contrast, a post-tribber might say, that the tribulation is not God's wrath, but is a time that the church (those who are alive at that time) will endure the persecution of anti-christ, etc.

So, there is a fundamental difference in the mind of some, what this wrath is, that the church is not appointed to.

I think that the basis of pre-wrath belief, that which this thread is about, is an attempt to acknowledge, that the church is not appointed unto wrath, but that indeed, also, we do see the wrath of God, represented in the Book of Revelation. So, in this (pre-wrath) theory, I think, the rapture would be before the time when God's wrath is unleashed, so the church is spared, but . . .  it does not acknowledge the idea that the church is absent in the tribulation period, or more precisely, the 70th week of Daniel prophecy.

I do not notice any consistent agreement, on where the wrath occurs in this theory so in that graph I made, I do not show it. One can decide where they think that is in that graph, and kind of figure out, what to call oneself.

You can see in that graphic, that I place a gathering to be with Jesus, after the tribulation, for the simple reason, that I can find that event in the Bible. I do not show a rapture before the trib, because I cannot find that in the Bible.

I have not so much, presented my view here in detail, other than to note, that in making that graphic, I actually made it clearer to myself, that I do not see how, one arrives are a pre-wrath position, IF the wrath is withing the 7 years period that some refer to as the tribulation.

I made some technical distinctions in vocabulary. I refer to the 7 years period, as Daniel 70th week, because that is terminology acceptable to many camps. In the first part of that period, I label a section I call tribulation, because Jesus seems to have done so also, in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24). In that same discourse, Jesus said that after the abomination of desolation, there will be great tribulation, so I never refer to the 7 years as the great tribulation, I reserve the "great" adjective, for the portion after the appearance of the abomination of desolation, which I believe to be synonymous with the man of sin, the anti-christ and maybe some other labels.

Now, you thought that I see a period called wrath. Actually, that is not technically what I hold. Wrath, to me, is the anger of God, manifested on the objects of His wrath, and that is of course, not the church. I believe that God has good aim, so that if He chooses, he can exercise His wrath, while not directing in on His people, Therefore, no matter at what point, or over what period of time, God is exercising His wrath, he can do so, without the church being an object of His wrath, and therefore, no matter when that wrath is, we the church, are not appointed unto it.

I can see the wrath of God, in the description of bowls or vials in the book of revelation, like other do. But I do not have a well developed sense of the timing or duration of His wrath.

As to your question of my assumption of where the great tribulation is in Revelation, I do not see the Book of Revelation as presenting a sequence of events. I think it goes over the same ground several times, somewhat like Gen 1 and Gen 2, cover the creation, but one is basically a recap of the other. The fact that much of Revelation is vision and symbolic, and non-sequential, means  I do not get a lot of chronology out of that book. i readily admit that I cannot read it, and get a clear picture.

So, for me to make many pronouncements based on the book of Revelation, would be improper, since I do not feel that my discernment and qualifications, are up to that task. Now, certainly there are portions of the book of Revelation, that we can see represent the tribulation (we see the mark of the beast, beheading of those who held to their testimony of Jesus etc.), but I am not up to the task of arranging that book in order with confidence.

So, what then? I think it is the wrong approach to look at the book of Revelation, and build one's case or understanding upon it. I think that it is a sound rule, to base ones doctrine on teachings which are clear and specific, and ones that the bible explains in details, to aid our understanding.

Taking the clear passages, and laying out the detail in a chronological order to that there are no contradictions, and in a way that as much as possible, one uses the plain and simple understanding of what a test says. I do not think we should import our ideas to he text, we should let the text, shape our ideas. Then we are in a position, to look at other sections of scripture, to see how they can fit in seamlessly. If we do not do that, then were start with what may be some faulty assumptions, and then read the clearer verses in the light of our faulty understanding, and we end up inadvertently, twisting the scripture and adding ideas, to make it all work - and often it really doesn't, if we are honest with ourselves.

Incorporating these principle, right or wrong, into my Bible study, has lead me to conclude that there is not responsible way to assume a pre-trib rapture, and that a post-trib scenario seems more likely and compatible with scripture. Clearly, others disagree.

Now, what I actually believe, whether it is the "standard" post-trib position or not (is there such a thing?), is summarized on a page on another site, where I have enough control over how the page looks, that it is easier to present, than it is here on the forums. That page is here.

That summary, is about as much as I hold, as my official position, going much outside of those things, I believe gets into too much speculation, and I want to be responsible.

I hope that even if that all was not that helpful that at least I have made my own position and methods clear. Thanks for the questions.

 

 

[toknowthetruth]

Hi Omegaman,

I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening?

Okay ghtan, let me see if I can put this into some sort of succinct  way. First of this is a defense of the pre-wrath position thread, so I have not tried to be that specific about what I think. I have here, however, kind of mumbled some of my thought, where I think I have difficulty with the pre-wrat position apart from the fact that I am not sure there is a definitive way to even describe that position.

I made that graphic, of what I think are some events that are spelled put is scripture, and had no representation of the wrath of God in the graphic.

Now, pre-trib people often use as a defense of there position, that we are not apointed unto wrath, we being believers.

Both pre-trib and post-trib people, believe that we are not appointed unto wrath, but the detail of what that implies vary. Many pre-trib believers, believe the the tribulation, is the wrath of God. Some, will say that the purpose of the tribulation, is to punish Israel, and point out a verse about the "time of Jacob's trouble", from the Old Testament.

In other words, God is angry (wrath) with the Jews, so this is the time of Jacob's trouble, not a time of trouble for the church. I think that is a fair representation of a view, which is held by some or many.

In contrast, a post-tribber might say, that the tribulation is not God's wrath, but is a time that the church (those who are alive at that time) will endure the persecution of anti-christ, etc.

So, there is a fundamental difference in the mind of some, what this wrath is, that the church is not appointed to.

I think that the basis of pre-wrath belief, that which this thread is about, is an attempt to acknowledge, that the church is not appointed unto wrath, but that indeed, also, we do see the wrath of God, represented in the Book of Revelation. So, in this (pre-wrath) theory, I think, the rapture would be before the time when God's wrath is unleashed, so the church is spared, but . . .  it does not acknowledge the idea that the church is absent in the tribulation period, or more precisely, the 70th week of Daniel prophecy.

I do not notice any consistent agreement, on where the wrath occurs in this theory so in that graph I made, I do not show it. One can decide where they think that is in that graph, and kind of figure out, what to call oneself.

You can see in that graphic, that I place a gathering to be with Jesus, after the tribulation, for the simple reason, that I can find that event in the Bible. I do not show a rapture before the trib, because I cannot find that in the Bible.

I have not so much, presented my view here in detail, other than to note, that in making that graphic, I actually made it clearer to myself, that I do not see how, one arrives are a pre-wrath position, IF the wrath is withing the 7 years period that some refer to as the tribulation.

I made some technical distinctions in vocabulary. I refer to the 7 years period, as Daniel 70th week, because that is terminology acceptable to many camps. In the first part of that period, I label a section I call tribulation, because Jesus seems to have done so also, in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24). In that same discourse, Jesus said that after the abomination of desolation, there will be great tribulation, so I never refer to the 7 years as the great tribulation, I reserve the "great" adjective, for the portion after the appearance of the abomination of desolation, which I believe to be synonymous with the man of sin, the anti-christ and maybe some other labels.

Now, you thought that I see a period called wrath. Actually, that is not technically what I hold. Wrath, to me, is the anger of God, manifested on the objects of His wrath, and that is of course, not the church. I believe that God has good aim, so that if He chooses, he can exercise His wrath, while not directing in on His people, Therefore, no matter at what point, or over what period of time, God is exercising His wrath, he can do so, without the church being an object of His wrath, and therefore, no matter when that wrath is, we the church, are not appointed unto it.

I can see the wrath of God, in the description of bowls or vials in the book of revelation, like other do. But I do not have a well developed sense of the timing or duration of His wrath.

As to your question of my assumption of where the great tribulation is in Revelation, I do not see the Book of Revelation as presenting a sequence of events. I think it goes over the same ground several times, somewhat like Gen 1 and Gen 2, cover the creation, but one is basically a recap of the other. The fact that much of Revelation is vision and symbolic, and non-sequential, means  I do not get a lot of chronology out of that book. i readily admit that I cannot read it, and get a clear picture.

So, for me to make many pronouncements based on the book of Revelation, would be improper, since I do not feel that my discernment and qualifications, are up to that task. Now, certainly there are portions of the book of Revelation, that we can see represent the tribulation (we see the mark of the beast, beheading of those who held to their testimony of Jesus etc.), but I am not up to the task of arranging that book in order with confidence.

So, what then? I think it is the wrong approach to look at the book of Revelation, and build one's case or understanding upon it. I think that it is a sound rule, to base ones doctrine on teachings which are clear and specific, and ones that the bible explains in details, to aid our understanding.

Taking the clear passages, and laying out the detail in a chronological order to that there are no contradictions, and in a way that as much as possible, one uses the plain and simple understanding of what a test says. I do not think we should import our ideas to he text, we should let the text, shape our ideas. Then we are in a position, to look at other sections of scripture, to see how they can fit in seamlessly. If we do not do that, then were start with what may be some faulty assumptions, and then read the clearer verses in the light of our faulty understanding, and we end up inadvertently, twisting the scripture and adding ideas, to make it all work - and often it really doesn't, if we are honest with ourselves.

Incorporating these principle, right or wrong, into my Bible study, has lead me to conclude that there is not responsible way to assume a pre-trib rapture, and that a post-trib scenario seems more likely and compatible with scripture. Clearly, others disagree.

Now, what I actually believe, whether it is the "standard" post-trib position or not (is there such a thing?), is summarized on a page on another site, where I have enough control over how the page looks, that it is easier to present, than it is here on the forums. That page is here.

That summary, is about as much as I hold, as my official position, going much outside of those things, I believe gets into too much speculation, and I want to be responsible.

I hope that even if that all was not that helpful that at least I have made my own position and methods clear. Thanks for the questions.

 

 

I like your post-trib summary Omegaman. Well ordered and concise. I like how you brought out that point in Rev 20:4-5 so well. Thanks for sharing that. 

Don't know if you saw my outline of Rev, but I find it easiest to start with the outside picture in Rev and then work my way in, sorta like working a puzzle. To me the beauty of how it's laid out becomes evident when taking that approach. Works for me anyhow.

[Omegaman 3.0]

 

I like your post-trib summary Omegaman. Well ordered and concise. I like how you brought out that point in Rev 20:4-5 so well. Thanks for sharing that.

Don't know if you saw my outline of Rev, but I find it easiest to start with the outside picture in Rev and then work my way in, sorta like working a puzzle. To me the beauty of how it's laid out becomes evident when taking that approach. Works for me anyhow.

Thank you for the compliment, and you are more that welcome - I enjoy writing as I can. I have not seen your outline of Rev, but I shall  try to look it up.

[toknowthetruth]

 

I like your post-trib summary Omegaman. Well ordered and concise. I like how you brought out that point in Rev 20:4-5 so well. Thanks for sharing that.

Don't know if you saw my outline of Rev, but I find it easiest to start with the outside picture in Rev and then work my way in, sorta like working a puzzle. To me the beauty of how it's laid out becomes evident when taking that approach. Works for me anyhow.

Thank you for the compliment, and you are more that welcome - I enjoy writing as I can. I have not seen your outline of Rev, but I shall  try to look it up.

I'll post it here for you. Here's a link to a thread I started where I referenced it as well. 

 

Outline of Revelation

 

I. Chapters 1-7 (Seven seals) Bird's eye view of time from John's day to New Heaven and New Earth 
     A. 1-3 Intro and Seven Churches
     B. 4-7 Six seals and prep for seventh seal

II. Chapters 8-14 (Seven trumpets) Zeroing in on the period of great tribulation and rapture
     A. 8-11 Seventh seal and Seven trumpets of the tribulation
     B. 12-14 The Woman, the Dragon, the Beast, and the Rapture

III. Chapters 15-22 (Seven vials) Zeroing in on wrath of God, the Millennium, Battle of Gog and Magog, and the New Heavens and New Earth.
     A. 15-16 Seven vials of God's Wrath
     B. 17-19 Mystery Babylon, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, Beast and False Prophet defeated
     C. 20-22 Millenium, Battle of Gog and Magog, White Throne Judgement, and New Heaven and New Earth

[ghtan]

Hi Omegaman,

I read your post with interest because it seems to be a non-standard post-trib view. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to believe that there is an end time period called the great tribulation followed by another end time period called the period of wrath, and that the rapture will happen in between. If so, that can equal a pre-wrath position or a mid-trib position. To help me better understand your view, where exactly in the book of Revelation do you see the rapture happening?

Okay ghtan, let me see if I can put this into some sort of succinct  way. First of this is a defense of the pre-wrath position thread, so I have not tried to be that specific about what I think. I have here, however, kind of mumbled some of my thought, where I think I have difficulty with the pre-wrat position apart from the fact that I am not sure there is a definitive way to even describe that position.

I made that graphic, of what I think are some events that are spelled put is scripture, and had no representation of the wrath of God in the graphic.

Now, pre-trib people often use as a defense of there position, that we are not apointed unto wrath, we being believers.

Both pre-trib and post-trib people, believe that we are not appointed unto wrath, but the detail of what that implies vary. Many pre-trib believers, believe the the tribulation, is the wrath of God. Some, will say that the purpose of the tribulation, is to punish Israel, and point out a verse about the "time of Jacob's trouble", from the Old Testament.

In other words, God is angry (wrath) with the Jews, so this is the time of Jacob's trouble, not a time of trouble for the church. I think that is a fair representation of a view, which is held by some or many.

In contrast, a post-tribber might say, that the tribulation is not God's wrath, but is a time that the church (those who are alive at that time) will endure the persecution of anti-christ, etc.

So, there is a fundamental difference in the mind of some, what this wrath is, that the church is not appointed to.

I think that the basis of pre-wrath belief, that which this thread is about, is an attempt to acknowledge, that the church is not appointed unto wrath, but that indeed, also, we do see the wrath of God, represented in the Book of Revelation. So, in this (pre-wrath) theory, I think, the rapture would be before the time when God's wrath is unleashed, so the church is spared, but . . .  it does not acknowledge the idea that the church is absent in the tribulation period, or more precisely, the 70th week of Daniel prophecy.

I do not notice any consistent agreement, on where the wrath occurs in this theory so in that graph I made, I do not show it. One can decide where they think that is in that graph, and kind of figure out, what to call oneself.

You can see in that graphic, that I place a gathering to be with Jesus, after the tribulation, for the simple reason, that I can find that event in the Bible. I do not show a rapture before the trib, because I cannot find that in the Bible.

I have not so much, presented my view here in detail, other than to note, that in making that graphic, I actually made it clearer to myself, that I do not see how, one arrives are a pre-wrath position, IF the wrath is withing the 7 years period that some refer to as the tribulation.

I made some technical distinctions in vocabulary. I refer to the 7 years period, as Daniel 70th week, because that is terminology acceptable to many camps. In the first part of that period, I label a section I call tribulation, because Jesus seems to have done so also, in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24). In that same discourse, Jesus said that after the abomination of desolation, there will be great tribulation, so I never refer to the 7 years as the great tribulation, I reserve the "great" adjective, for the portion after the appearance of the abomination of desolation, which I believe to be synonymous with the man of sin, the anti-christ and maybe some other labels.

Now, you thought that I see a period called wrath. Actually, that is not technically what I hold. Wrath, to me, is the anger of God, manifested on the objects of His wrath, and that is of course, not the church. I believe that God has good aim, so that if He chooses, he can exercise His wrath, while not directing in on His people, Therefore, no matter at what point, or over what period of time, God is exercising His wrath, he can do so, without the church being an object of His wrath, and therefore, no matter when that wrath is, we the church, are not appointed unto it.

I can see the wrath of God, in the description of bowls or vials in the book of revelation, like other do. But I do not have a well developed sense of the timing or duration of His wrath.

As to your question of my assumption of where the great tribulation is in Revelation, I do not see the Book of Revelation as presenting a sequence of events. I think it goes over the same ground several times, somewhat like Gen 1 and Gen 2, cover the creation, but one is basically a recap of the other. The fact that much of Revelation is vision and symbolic, and non-sequential, means  I do not get a lot of chronology out of that book. i readily admit that I cannot read it, and get a clear picture.

So, for me to make many pronouncements based on the book of Revelation, would be improper, since I do not feel that my discernment and qualifications, are up to that task. Now, certainly there are portions of the book of Revelation, that we can see represent the tribulation (we see the mark of the beast, beheading of those who held to their testimony of Jesus etc.), but I am not up to the task of arranging that book in order with confidence.

So, what then? I think it is the wrong approach to look at the book of Revelation, and build one's case or understanding upon it. I think that it is a sound rule, to base ones doctrine on teachings which are clear and specific, and ones that the bible explains in details, to aid our understanding.

Taking the clear passages, and laying out the detail in a chronological order to that there are no contradictions, and in a way that as much as possible, one uses the plain and simple understanding of what a test says. I do not think we should import our ideas to he text, we should let the text, shape our ideas. Then we are in a position, to look at other sections of scripture, to see how they can fit in seamlessly. If we do not do that, then were start with what may be some faulty assumptions, and then read the clearer verses in the light of our faulty understanding, and we end up inadvertently, twisting the scripture and adding ideas, to make it all work - and often it really doesn't, if we are honest with ourselves.

Incorporating these principle, right or wrong, into my Bible study, has lead me to conclude that there is not responsible way to assume a pre-trib rapture, and that a post-trib scenario seems more likely and compatible with scripture. Clearly, others disagree.

Now, what I actually believe, whether it is the "standard" post-trib position or not (is there such a thing?), is summarized on a page on another site, where I have enough control over how the page looks, that it is easier to present, than it is here on the forums. That page is here.

That summary, is about as much as I hold, as my official position, going much outside of those things, I believe gets into too much speculation, and I want to be responsible.

I hope that even if that all was not that helpful that at least I have made my own position and methods clear. Thanks for the questions.

 

 

OK, my mistake then. You do not after all hold to a separate period of wrath after a tribulation period. That said, I am surprised that you are content with the post-trib view despite not being able to reconcile it with Revelation given that the latter is the latest and hence should be the clearest of God's revelation on what the future holds. But you are right that this is not the appropriate thread to discuss it. Thanks for your explanation.

[Omegaman 3.0]

OK, my mistake then. You do not after all hold to a separate period of wrath after a tribulation period. That said, I am surprised that you are content with the post-trib view despite not being able to reconcile it with Revelation given that the latter is the latest and hence should be the clearest of God's revelation on what the future holds. But you are right that this is not the appropriate thread to discuss it. Thanks for your explanation.

Well, let me be clear here on some small points. First, there is no need for me to reconcile what I think with Revelation, because I have not been presented with any conflict with Revelation. Reconciliation, is to make right, something that is wrong, or to make order out of disorder. Revelation is demonstrably non-chronological, therefore it is difficult for me to have extreme convictions of sequence, based on that particular book. There is of course, symbolism in Revelation to an extent, that does not exist in other New Testament documents, compounding the problem. Revelation seems to me, to have more extremes in variance of understanding that perhaps any book in the Bible, I just do not feel like I am smart enough, to unravel a book that I am not convinced anyone else has yet unraveled, lol.

I do not see where it logically follows, nor that the Bible asserts, that Revelation should be the clearest book on what the future holds, so I have a fundamental disagreement there. All I would conclude about latter books, is that they could contain additional information, but that does not necessarily equate to clarity.

To the degree that I am content with the post-trib view, it is due to the fact, that I see it as containing no contradictions with any verse or passage of scripture, and it does not insert into the end times scenario, things that are not stated is scripture (like pre-trib raptures, secret comings and the like). So, having this view of total harmony and zero compatibility issues with scripture, let suppose I decide to examine Revelation. What position does the place me in? One of four things will happen, either Revelation will confirm, what I already hold, or it will contradict it, or it will add to it, or it will have no effect.

If it has no effect, then there is little to be gained. If it confirms it, then nothing is gained either. if it adds to it, so what, I already have all the details I need for the rest of my life now, although that might be interesting. If it contradicts it, then one of three things is wrong, of those three I get to choose from:

1. My theory is wrong
2. My new, Revelation based theory is wrong
3 Both theories are wrong.

From choice 3, I do not know how I could even know that, and I have no known alternatives to move to, that I know to be right. From choices numbers one and two, I should choose the other theory, but again, how would I know which  one to go with? So then I am faced with the question:

Do I go with a theory that is compatable with every other book of the Bible that deals with eschatology, but has a rub with a single, difficult book, full of visions and symbols and is unclear, of should I accept a theory based on an interpreation that I suspect is prone to errors, based on a single book that I admit to not understanding completely?

There is a principle in exegetical practice, which I think makes a lot of sense: Always interpret unclear passages in the light of the clearer ones. That is what I have tried to do, and is one reason why I do not spend a lot of time in the book of Revelation.

Regarding the period of wrath after the tribulation. Allow me to restate and/or clarify. I believe that there is a period of time, after the tribulation, which contains Gods wrath. Time, a period, is not Gods wrath. That post-trib period, is a span of time, during which God expresses or exercises His wrath. However, his wrath is not limited to that period only, and it is has already been expressed many times, and that time just after the tribulation, is not even the last time that He will express His wrath.

I do not know if that clarified or muddied the waters, regarding my thoughts (for you), but hopefully it allowed me to make what I hold to be true, and what I am not willing to go on record as holding to be true, more clear. I know that sentence is not even clear, but what I mean to say, is that there are things that I believe to be true, and believe with enough conviction, to say I am confident, x, y, and z will take place. There are things, I am confident in saying that I am confident a, b, and c, will not take place, and then there are all the other letters, where I can say I do not know, or I am unsure, and I do not make them part of my 'official' position. Those things are not part of my official position, because I do not want to assure people of things, that may be error.

I apologize for my limited ability to communicate what it is, that I am attempting to say, but it is a limitation I do not know how to overcome.

[FresnoJoe]

I Believe Yeshua

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:27 (KJV)

Just Will NOT Leave Heaven

Then I will return to my lair until they have borne their guilt and seek my face-- in their misery they will earnestly seek me." Hosea 5:15 (NIV)

Until His People, Israel Cries Out To Him

Yet he took note of their distress

when he heard their cry;

for their sake he remembered his covenant

and out of his great love he relented.

He caused all who held them captive

to show them mercy.

Save us, Lord our God,

and gather us from the nations,

that we may give thanks to your holy name

and glory in your praise.

Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,

from everlasting to everlasting.

Let all the people say, “Amen!”

Praise the Lord. Psalm 106:44-48 (NIV)

Just Another Viewpoint On The Return Of The KING Of KINGS

Love, Your Brother Joe

[ghtan]

 

OK, my mistake then. You do not after all hold to a separate period of wrath after a tribulation period. That said, I am surprised that you are content with the post-trib view despite not being able to reconcile it with Revelation given that the latter is the latest and hence should be the clearest of God's revelation on what the future holds. But you are right that this is not the appropriate thread to discuss it. Thanks for your explanation.

Well, let me be clear here on some small points. First, there is no need for me to reconcile what I think with Revelation, because I have not been presented with any conflict with Revelation. Reconciliation, is to make right, something that is wrong, or to make order out of disorder. Revelation is demonstrably non-chronological, therefore it is difficult for me to have extreme convictions of sequence, based on that particular book. There is of course, symbolism in Revelation to an extent, that does not exist in other New Testament documents, compounding the problem. Revelation seems to me, to have more extremes in variance of understanding that perhaps any book in the Bible, I just do not feel like I am smart enough, to unravel a book that I am not convinced anyone else has yet unraveled, lol.

I do not see where it logically follows, nor that the Bible asserts, that Revelation should be the clearest book on what the future holds, so I have a fundamental disagreement there. All I would conclude about latter books, is that they could contain additional information, but that does not necessarily equate to clarity.

To the degree that I am content with the post-trib view, it is due to the fact, that I see it as containing no contradictions with any verse or passage of scripture, and it does not insert into the end times scenario, things that are not stated is scripture (like pre-trib raptures, secret comings and the like). So, having this view of total harmony and zero compatibility issues with scripture, let suppose I decide to examine Revelation. What position does the place me in? One of four things will happen, either Revelation will confirm, what I already hold, or it will contradict it, or it will add to it, or it will have no effect.

If it has no effect, then there is little to be gained. If it confirms it, then nothing is gained either. if it adds to it, so what, I already have all the details I need for the rest of my life now, although that might be interesting. If it contradicts it, then one of three things is wrong, of those three I get to choose from:

1. My theory is wrong
2. My new, Revelation based theory is wrong
3 Both theories are wrong.

From choice 3, I do not know how I could even know that, and I have no known alternatives to move to, that I know to be right. From choices numbers one and two, I should choose the other theory, but again, how would I know which  one to go with? So then I am faced with the question:

Do I go with a theory that is compatable with every other book of the Bible that deals with eschatology, but has a rub with a single, difficult book, full of visions and symbols and is unclear, of should I accept a theory based on an interpreation that I suspect is prone to errors, based on a single book that I admit to not understanding completely?

There is a principle in exegetical practice, which I think makes a lot of sense: Always interpret unclear passages in the light of the clearer ones. That is what I have tried to do, and is one reason why I do not spend a lot of time in the book of Revelation.

Regarding the period of wrath after the tribulation. Allow me to restate and/or clarify. I believe that there is a period of time, after the tribulation, which contains Gods wrath. Time, a period, is not Gods wrath. That post-trib period, is a span of time, during which God expresses or exercises His wrath. However, his wrath is not limited to that period only, and it is has already been expressed many times, and that time just after the tribulation, is not even the last time that He will express His wrath.

I do not know if that clarified or muddied the waters, regarding my thoughts (for you), but hopefully it allowed me to make what I hold to be true, and what I am not willing to go on record as holding to be true, more clear. I know that sentence is not even clear, but what I mean to say, is that there are things that I believe to be true, and believe with enough conviction, to say I am confident, x, y, and z will take place. There are things, I am confident in saying that I am confident a, b, and c, will not take place, and then there are all the other letters, where I can say I do not know, or I am unsure, and I do not make them part of my 'official' position. Those things are not part of my official position, because I do not want to assure people of things, that may be error.

I apologize for my limited ability to communicate what it is, that I am attempting to say, but it is a limitation I do not know how to overcome.

Why would God add information if it does not make the picture more complete and thus clearer? Therefore, I find Revelation gives a better idea of what to expect in the last days than the earlier parts of scripture relating to this subject. I would have little confidence on any end-time view unless I find it supported in Revelation. But, that's just me. To each his own.