Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Omegaman 3.0]

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.

That word "why" can be a tricky one. May I suggest that we do not develop our ideas about what the bible teaches, by asking the question "Why?"

"Why would a loving God, send anyone to Hell". "Why", opens up the mind to faulty, human reasoning. People will look at that questions and think, "Well, a loving God would NOT do that", and then conclude that God does not do that, and so, the idea of Hell must be false. The right question is not "Why would God . . . ", but "What does the Bible teach?".

In Eschatology, people come up with "Why" questions, and go down all sorts of paths based on their reasoning, instead of being guided by the answers to "What" questions, that the Bible gives answers to.

Regarding your premise that a book as misunderstood as the Book or Revelation clearly often if not usually is, it is difficult for me to understand why you would find it superior to books with plain language. It is not as though the word of God is given for all to understand.

In any case, you are skeptical of a view that is not supported by Revelation. That is fine. I am skeptical, of any view derived from the book of Revelation, that is not supported by other books of the Bible, is that not also fair? I do not think that the Bible contradicts itself. So, I submit, that if you have some notion that the Book of Revelation contradicts what I believe (which so far, I have not seen), you should let us see where that is done - why my views are wrong, according to Revelation.

Now, as you know, there are (at least) 4 ways to understand or approach the book of Revelation. These are called futurist, historicist, preterist, and idealist. Right there that tells you that the book is not that clear, and which ever view your are taking, there are at least three views which say you are wrong. Unless you have the right view (and how would you know that exactly?), your criticism of people's theories on eschatology based on the book of Revelation, will automatically be wrong, there is no way around that inconvenience.

However, I suppose that this is the wrong thread to discuss this. Unfortunately, I do not know which thread, if any, would be the best thread, and I am not really that interested in pursuing the topic, as I do not see where it is advancing anyone's understanding of anything.

[Last Daze]

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.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy.  It all has to harmonize.  If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain.  I agree with Omegaman's approach.

[ghtan]

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.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy.  It all has to harmonize.  If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain.  I agree with Omegaman's approach.

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing.    

[Last Daze]

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.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy.  It all has to harmonize.  If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain.  I agree with Omegaman's approach.

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing.    

One of the maxims that I use when interpreting prophecy is to give things that are plainly stated precedence over inferences when there's a conflict.  So, if you look at all the things that are plainly stated and use them to build your framework, you're much less likely to have to engage in major reconstruction since they will take priority.  This is my preference and what makes sense to me.  Everyone's free to do as they wish.

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point.

Yes, plainly stated verses do have an advantage as a starting point.  Are you saying that all this "disagreement" came from people who prioritized what is plainly stated?  Maybe the issue is that they didn't.  People obviously have different approaches to the subject and come to different conclusions.  There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[WilliamL]

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

"Just Will NOT Leave Heaven": ah, but what does this mean? When Jesus --

1 Thes. 4:16 ...will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

-- does this mean he has left heaven? or does leaving heaven mean this:

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4 and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...

[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

  "Just Will NOT Leave Heaven": ah, but what does this mean? When Jesus --

1 Thes. 4:16 ...will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

-- does this mean he has left heaven? or does leaving heaven mean this:

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4 and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.

Ah~!

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

Could It Be, Is It Really

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. Revelation 19:11-14

All About Jerusalem And The Battle For Zion?

The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. Joel 3:16

[WilliamL]

Is not this --

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

fulfilled in this?

And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.  Rev. 5:6-7

 

Must not this --

Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. Isaiah 63:1-3

come before this?

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. ... And he was clothed with a vesture covered in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.  And the armies which were in heaven followed him... Rev. 19:11, 13-14

 

 

[Last Daze]

 

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

"Just Will NOT Leave Heaven": ah, but what does this mean? When Jesus --

1 Thes. 4:16 ...will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

-- does this mean he has left heaven? or does leaving heaven mean this:

Zech. 14:3 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day of battle. 4 and in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives...

To all of you who claim that Jesus will come with the clouds, then do the resurrection / rapture, then go back up to heaven, then spend months to years back up there, then come down to earth for Armageddon, how do you square that with Acts 1:9-11?

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”  Acts 1:9-11

It's not terribly complicated.  He was lifted up.  A cloud received Him.  He's out of sight.  Anyone who holds to the part in orange above, how do you justify contradicting what the angel said?

Anyone?

 

[toknowthetruth]

 

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.

I see clarity in Revelation, but I also see there are places where it's not so clear. It is one of the longest prophetic books and I would say probably the longest of those dealing with what hasn't happened yet. So to me that would equate with more unclear passages than other shorter prophetic books/passages.

From your post I'm assuming you are not a post-tribber. I'm curious as to what you think in Revelation contradicts post-trib rapture. I'm sure there are verses that can be interpreted so, but I think there are is also a lot in Revelation that supports a post-trib rapture. I don't know that you can come to a black and white yay or nay in that regard.

[ghtan]

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.

It just makes more sense to start with what is plainly stated and use that as a framework for the more ambiguous aspects of prophecy.  It all has to harmonize.  If you start with highly symbolic imagery, you're much more likely to force a strained interpretation on those things that are clear and wind up with something arcane or esoteric that requires an inordinate amount of tap-dancing to explain.  I agree with Omegaman's approach.

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point. On the other hand, if an author makes isolated statements on various occasions about a certain topic and then writes a whole book on that topic, which would we read? I would read the book, because it would put the earlier statements into perspective. No need for tap dancing.    

One of the maxims that I use when interpreting prophecy is to give things that are plainly stated precedence over inferences when there's a conflict.  So, if you look at all the things that are plainly stated and use them to build your framework, you're much less likely to have to engage in major reconstruction since they will take priority.  This is my preference and what makes sense to me.  Everyone's free to do as they wish.

 

If the earlier passages were plain, why is there still so much disagreement over them? Why do new views like pre-wrath arise? Evidently, those passages do not point clearly to any view. Therefore, they have no advantage as a starting point.

Yes, plainly stated verses do have an advantage as a starting point.  Are you saying that all this "disagreement" came from people who prioritized what is plainly stated?  Maybe the issue is that they didn't.  People obviously have different approaches to the subject and come to different conclusions.  There's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

If they did not prioritise the 'plain' statements, it shows they agree those are not good starting points for this purpose. In the end, methods are only as good as the results they produce. I once tried to interpret Revelation using what I thought I understood of earlier end time passages, but it got me nowhere. Revelation remained a closed book. Then I decided to read Revelation as a self-contained work, without the baggage of earlier passages. It worked wonders for me. And when I went back to the other passages, it brought order to chaos. I recommend this approach to everyone.