Why Pretrib Logic Fails

[Spock]

I can’t  wait to read this thread. I’m always open to learn new things. For now I believe in a pre Trib rapture, but let’s see if I find anything so compelling to make me believe otherwise. 

Edited February 17, 2019 by Spock

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, OldCoot said:

Maybe this lays it out a little bit better. Scripture references just shown not posted at length to keep from turning this post into a book.  In spirit of fair disclosure and honesty, these points are not mine.  They are a more concise set points that I use them here.  I am not into plagiarizing another brother's material.   Gary over at Unsealed.org put these points out in an article a while back.

 

1. A singular male child.  Jesus was clearly a singular male child, but what people frequently fail to notice is that the Church is at least three times figuratively called a singular man, as well (Ephesians 2:15, 4:13, Galatians 3:29).  Furthermore, the Church is compared to Christ's mystical, corporate "body" more often than it is compared to other metaphors like a "bride" or "temple".  See here.

 

It's easy to say things and make a case when divorcing context.  Eph 2:15 is about the abolition of the law and redeeming mankind to God through the blood of Jesus hence the term 'anthropos' in Eph 2:15 the context preserving the corporate, not singular. That's the 1st error.

Eph 4:13 is speaking to the entire body and how each individual arrives at the 'perfect man' in the strength of the corporate "Till WE ALL come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:" Again the context preserves the corporate sense. Error 2

I have no idea where Gal 3:29 fits as neither 'man' nor 'mankind' is mentioned, just a collective of heirs, the seed of Abraham. Must be a miscue.

 

 

2. The child is called teknon. The raptured child in Revelation 12:5 is called both teknon (informal child) and huios (son of honor), which is strange considering that Jesus is exclusively called huios in the Scriptures, except on a single occasion by his mother (Luke 2:48).  In addition, the Apostle John uses teknon to refer to the Church as the children of God in his first epistle (1 John 3:1-2, 10, 5:2), and uses huios exclusively to refer to Christ in his gospel and first epistle (John 1:49, 59, 3:13, 16, 5:19, 14:13, 1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:20).  To assume John is suddenly changing course in Revelation 12 would be contrary to all evidence.

 

The term 'teknon' is not 'informal child'. It's a child of either sex and is the child who live in willing dependence on the father. So it's not 'strange' at all considering the evidence of Jesus' life in the Gospels. Of course we don't really know what the point of the author is here as he never says, just alludes to some esoteric muse of deep, but not revealed, insight. It's hardly switching gears since Jesus is referred to as both 'teknon' and 'hurios' in the Gospels and in Rev 12. And it's not John, it's Jesus giving the Revelation.

 

3. The child is born before the woman goes into labor.  Revelation 12:5 is connected directly to Isaiah 66:7, which says this corporate baby is born before Israel goes into labor.  In other words, a pre-tribulational delivery.  You can read more about this here.  The Church has debated whether or not Mary had labor pains since earliest times, but Scripture seems to be silent on the subject.  Luke 2:6 does indicate that the time for the baby to be born had come.  This might indicate contractions and birth pains.  In any case, with nothing definitely saying she did not have labor pains, the preponderance of evidence would seem to indicate Mary was not free from the same curse that has been on all women since Genesis 3:16.

 

.How can anyone be so audacious as to suggest this? The child is born before the woman goes into labor? Let me post the truth. "

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood {5758} before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days."

Simpler:

Verse 1 "being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."

Verse 2 "as soon as it was born."

Verse 3 "she brought forth a man child, "

Labor first, then birth. The author is not to be trusted in my opinion.

 

4. The prophecy in Revelation 12 is yet future.  Revelation 1:1 clearly lays out the purpose of the book, which is to tell the saints what will happen in the future.  Revelation 4:1 drives this point home even further, indicating that everything from Revelation 4:1-on is yet to occur.

The logic fails here as before. You cannot have it both ways. If it is the church then it would have been raptured when it was born in the first century; so it's past. If it's future then the man child cannot be the church as it would have been snatched up.

 

5. The child will rule with a rod of iron.  Revelation 12:5 says that the male child "will rule all the nations with a rod of iron."  It is obvious enough that Jesus will rule the nations with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:7-9, Revelation 19:15),  but Revelation 2:26-27 informs us that the Church is afforded this honor, as well.

 

Proving what? That both Jesus and his exalted friends rule the nations with a rod of iron? How does this support the idea the church is the man child of Rev 12?

 

6. The child is conceived in and born out of Israel.  Jesus was conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem.  Both are towns in Israel.  The Church was conceived (or some might say "born") in Jerusalem on Pentecost around AD 33.  Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  The corporate birth of the Church occurs from "heavenly Jerusalem" (Galatians 4:26-27).

 

The citation here is void of context and the applied context is incorrect. The author is citing the conclusion to Paul's thesis on freedom and bondage in the Spirit. Not a good way to prove a point and in fact this behavior ranges far from truth.

 

7.  The child is in imminent danger from satan's world system.  This criterion presents a significant challenge to those who believe Revelation 12 is speaking about Christ.  Christ was in no danger from satan before His ascension and neither was He in danger before His death (Matthew 26:53, John 2:19, 5:26, 10:18, Philippians 2:8).

 

Is that so? You know the part about the dragon waiting to devour the child in Rev 12? 

Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. - Matt 2

I'd say he was in a lot of danger since Herod killed all the male children his age.

There's more.

Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. - Matthew 26

And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,  And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. - Luke 4

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, - John 8

Yeah, no danger.

 

8. The child is raptured to God's throne

. The male child is raptured in Revelation 12:5.  The Greek word used is harpazo, which means "caught up" or "snatched up" and it is the word used for the rapture of the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  Every single mention of Jesus' ascension is described using the words epairo or anabaino, both of which indicate a gradual rising (like climbing a mountain), not a quick and violent snatching away (harpazo).  Revelation 12:5 is clearly connected to the rapture event.

I don't know, I think this is weak. There is nothing saying that the various terms aren't just descriptions of aspects of the same event. He rose up, He was led up, carried up in a show of great power. Not too hard to reconcile. Worse is basing a doctrine, even a single tenet of a doctrine, on definitions of words. Even using a definition as a support ignores solid fact of the events or concepts and once again divorces text and context.

 

 

I made no such assertion.   I stated the simple basic fact that Paul says there is a crown of righteousness for those who are looking for Messiah's appearing.  It would suggest that we really should not waste a lot of time looking forward to the Antichrist's appearing.   There doesn't seem to be any reward for those who  are able to identify the Antichrist before or at his appearing.   When a reward is involved, it seems to the Lord's way of putting an emphasis on something.  And that is looking for the Lord's appearing to gather the redeemed. 

You may not like that as it might disrupt your world view on this stuff. Take it up with Paul. He wrote it.

You certainly alluded to this idea and in light of your many other posts it's a reasonable conclusion. You better be looking forward to the appearance of the beast, he's next; you need to be ready. Many pages and hundreds of words are written about the beast and his activities, his identity and appearance, his activities and power, these are vitally important or our Lord would not have said a thing about him.

 

 

 

[Spock]

On 1/25/2019 at 2:58 PM, JoeCanada said:

•       Why Pretrib Logic Fails Miserably on the Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy          by Alan E. Kurschner

Here is the pretrib logic:

Pretribs reason that since the Seventy-Weeks prophecy in Daniel  9:24–27 was given to Israel,the Church cannot “exist” on earth during any of its fulfillment.

Here is why this common pretrib argument fails:

First, pretribs such as Crone would have to deny that the Church exists during the New Covenant fulfillment, since Jeremiah prophesied specifically to “the people of Israel and Judah.” (See Jeremiah 31:31–34). I am sure that Billy Crone would admit that he is a New Covenantbeliever.

Pretribs cannot have their cake and eat it too. This obvious logical inconsistency seems to escape their minds.

The New Covenant was not made with the Church, but the Church is governed under this covenant as the New Testament teaches that the New Covenant was extended to the Gentiles. We have to look to the New Testament for its progressive revelation to learn these matters.

Why can the New Covenant that was made to Israel be applied additionally to Gentiles, but the 70 weeks prophecy made to Israel cannot also include God working with the Church at the same time?

We are never told.

Billy Crone and other pretribs are myopic and do not allow the New Testament progressive revelation to give us more information about the particulars of the 70th week of Daniel.

Many more examples could be given from the Old Testament. Here is another one:

Peter in Acts 2:16-21 is citing from a prophecy from Joel that was given to Israel and applying it also to the new Church situation. You cannot have a more explicit OT prophecy made to Israel while also including an application of its fulfillment to the Church.

Second, pretrib logic on this issue simply does not follow. It makes a category error by confusing what with when.

They argue that since the Church did not exist during the first 69 sets of seven years (483 years), therefore the Church cannot be there for the last seven years. That is a non sequitur. It fails logically.

The fact that the Church did not exist at the time of the first part of this prophecy (69 sets of seven years, 483 years), who is to say that God is not going to work with both the Church and Israel during the last part of this prophecy? The Church does exist now. So logically it can be here for the last seven years.

When you allow for New Testament progressive revelation, you can learn more than what the Old Testament reveals. Imagine that!

And just to clarify these prophecies to Israel are not being replaced by the Church. The New Testament is simply telling us that God is expanding his redemptive program to the Gentiles, while he keeps his promises to Israel.

The Danielic passage is addressing Israel. Pretribs is trying to say more than it does by making it say that no other redemptive group can exist at that time.

Third, God has worked with both Israel and the Church at the same time in the past and he does in the present.

In the past:

Jesus made a prophecy to Israel about God’s judgment upon them (Matt 24:1–2; Luke 19:43–44).

When was this prophecy to Israel fulfilled? It happened in AD 70—during the Church age! Do you know where I am going with this?

Once again, why are we told that the prophecy to Israel about the 70 weeks excludes any fulfillment during the Church age, but a prophecy to Israel about its judgment is not?

When you have a theological system such as pretribulationism built on a web of assumptions, you will inevitably face internal inconsistencies.

In the present:

God also works with Israel and the Church at the same time, not just in the past, but the present:

“(19) But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.” (20) And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me.” (Rom 10:19–20)

“I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.” (Rom 11:11)

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.” (Rom 11:25)

These passages teach that God in this present Church age is working with Israel to make them “jealous.”

These reasons are sufficient to show that pretrib logic fails miserably when they claim that the Church “cannot be here” for the last part of Daniel’s prophecy.

Greetings my brother in Canada (I hope you are a Habs fan and not a Leafs fan). ?

i am now open  to your logic here in that the Church and Israel do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive groups, and there there can be an overlapping going on. Therefore, I would agree, THIS argument (that the 70th week is ONLY. A time for Jacobs trouble) May be deficient. 

However, there may be other reasons to support a pre Trib rapture other than this one. But I agree, this argument is open for discussion. 

I enjoyed reading this starting post and am looking forward to seeing how the discussion progresses. I myself am reevaluating what I believe so this thread should help me in that. Cheers, Spock

Edited February 17, 2019 by Spock

[Spock]

On 1/29/2019 at 10:48 PM, Cletus said:

Rev 13:6  And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7  And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Rev 13:9  If any man have an ear, let him hear.
Rev 13:10  He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

I’m not as confident in my exegesis of this passage as you are. Here are my concerns:

1. When does this apply? It seems to indicate the second half of Daniels week immediately after the abomination of desolation. And yes, the AC has been given power for 42 months, so this fits.

2. Who are the SAINTS?  Saints can be Jews, Christians, (set apart holy ones), or both.  Plus I imagine Saints can also refer to TRIBULATION SAINTS (not church) and even the 144,000 Jews. In other words, I’m not as convinced as you are that this implies the CHURCH has to be present here on earth when the AC does his thing. 

3. It says the AC shall OVERCOME these Saints.  Hmmmm, doesn’t Matt 16:18 say, “and the gates of hell shall not overpower (OVERCOME) it (the church).”  So which is it?  Jesus says Church won’t be overcome yet Rev 13 says the Saints will be overcome.  Are they talking about the same people?  You seem to think yes; I’m not there. 

Spock

[Retrobyter]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

You are mistaken (as usual). The rapture is ONLY for those "In Christ." NONE of the Old Testament saints died "In Christ" unless they were in His generation and believed He was their Messiah. That rules out 99.99999% of them. Their resurrection is on "the last day." That is, if you believe John.  Start out wrong, and you will probably end wrong.

You do know, Paul separated "spirit, soul, and body." They are three distinct entities, just as God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three different entities in one supreme being, and just like us (Made in His image), Soul (Our Father God) Body (the Lord Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of God. You do know we are created in His image and after His likeness?

they [the 144,000] would be part of the "Great Multitude" standing before the throne in 7:9-17  No, another mistake.  They are still on earth until chapter 14, which is just after the midpoint of the week. The great crowd, too large to number, is the just raptured church, all with resurrection bodies. The 144,000 will follow later, after the midpoint.

They are said to have come out of tribulation  God considers the church age as great tribulation: they came out of the world during the church age, one by one as they were born again.

Your timing of the rapture is in error also. For rapture timing, we can only follow what Paul wrote. He received the revelation of the rapture. HIS timing is just before God's wrath begins at the start of the Day of the Lord. In Revelation that would be just before the 6th seal. That is why they are seen in heaven just after the 6th seal. 

We are always going to disagree.

Apparently. So be it.

[Spock]

On 1/29/2019 at 10:55 PM, Jostler said:

That's a really tough passage to swallow for some, but it's hard to deny black and white.  Not only are there saints present for satan to "make  war" against, but somehow God's love and ultimate plan allows for them to be overcome. 

I asked Him how to  reconcile that passage with  the fact He is love and He  has answered me.  It's an AMAZING revelation and part of (only part) is found in Amos 8 and Psalm 149.  My  WHOLE understanding of the tribulation, the wrath and our role in all of it was completely transformed when He integrated those parts of the  Word into my big picture.  It's removed any  trace of fear of the tribulation and replaced it with an eagerness to get on with  it! 

Even so Lord Jesus, come quickly!  Hallelujah!

I wouldn't miss this for ownership  of the world 

I read Amos 8 and Psalm 149 and I have no idea what you see. I don’t see a dual purpose for Amos, except last 5 verses in chapter 9.....just talking about Assyria taking Israel over in 722 BC. 

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

You better be looking forward to the appearance of the beast, he's next; you need to be ready.

We each have a job.  I'll let you focus on the beast and I'll focus on Yeshua.  Then we both will be happy.

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Spock said:

The New Covenant was not made with the Church,

The Constitution of the U.S. was not made with the government either, but with the people.  The Government is just a product of that Constitution.

Likewise, the New Covenant is with Israel as Jeremiah states, but the church is a product of that Covenant. Remember, Paul is quite clear that all of Israel are not Israel.  And the Messiah comes from Israel, both as the head, Yeshua, but also the Body, the church. 

 

[Littlelambseativy]

29 minutes ago, Spock said:

I read Amos 8 and Psalm 149 and I have no idea what you see. I don’t see a dual purpose for Amos, except last 5 verses in chapter 9.....just talking about Assyria taking Israel over in 722 BC. 

Some are forgetting that the rapture makes the Jews jealous. That is what God intended. They turn to the One they rejected and accept Jesus as their Messiah ...and are part of the Tribulation saints along with the Old Testament  faithful who kept the Commandments and looked for their Messiah but did not see Him come in the flesh.

[Spock]

On 2/1/2019 at 12:05 AM, Revelation Man said:

You mean the ones I answered but you seemingly can't give a simple rebut to ? 

For starters, one thing I never do, unless it's the Armstrong teachings, is try to associate anyone with other peoples teachings, God teaches me, and I read many other people's work, some I agree with and some I find that I disagree with, but the Holy Spirit should be our guide in the end. Just because the 75 to 85 percent or vast majority of Christendom doesn't agree with your positions on the Rapture, doesn't make us all disciples of so and so, stop trying to peg everyone who disagrees with you brother, you are in the vast minority as per the Rapture beliefs,  but I am not trying to pigeonhole you as being a follower of X, Y, or Z !! It is what it is. Pre trib is fact as per the Church as far as I am concerned. 

I can hear it, but I heard it long ago and read the bible and saw that the pre tribulation rapture was the only POV that jibed with the bible IMHO. I can hear anything, but when I point out FACTUAL REASONS/Scriptures why it can't be true and all I get is crickets, I take that as people are just too entrenched in positions to change, for whatever reason, what I never do is get entrenched in my thoughts so deep that I can't be moved. Now when the Holy Spirit shows me something, I then can not be moved, of course. 

We (Church) Return with Christ in Rev. 19, while the Beast is STILL ON EARTH !! We (Church) are seen in Rev. 4 and 5 before the Seals are opened and in Revelation 7 just before the Trumpets are blown. We are with Christ for 7 years in Heaven. Those who repent after the Rapture will indeed suffer tribulation, but not the Raptured Church. Now you can disagree with me, that is OK, but I use the Scriptures, and show why the Scriptures used against the pre trib position don't mesh. Whatever opinion you desire is A OK with me, but I am going to point out the Scripture that show the pre-trib position brother, it's my job as a preacher to do so.

But it does line up with scriptures, the Pre trib is easy to see. You can't cite any scriptures about the pre trib, that I can't explain as per to why peoples belief therein is a miscalculation of said scriptures. Not one !! But Rev. 19 can't be explained by the post trib guys. Amongst many other passages. We see the Church in Rev. 4 and 5 also, and I have proven it many times. 

Well why would you cite the JW, I mean Satan has been deceiving for 200o years (and even before that of course), I decided to listen to Jesus almost 35 years ago. I prove everything I say with Scriptures brother.

The Rapture is for the Church, thus it's basically not in the Old Testament, it can be vaguely seen in a few places. But we can understand what happens to Israel, and thus understand things as per what will happen to the Church. It is called Jacob's Troubles for a reason.

As per the New Testament, only Paul, the Disciple of the Gentiles was given the Rapture understanding, and Paul tells us about it in the New Testament chapters, 1 Corinthians 15 and in 1 Thessalonians 4 amongst other places. Jesus gives it unto us in parables because it was only intended for Paul to conceptualize it to the masses, not the other Disciples per se. So we do see it in the 10 Virgins parable where 5 are shut out of the wedding and in Matthew 24:36-51 where one is taken and another is left and where Jesus' return for the Church is imminent, but his Second Coming WILL NOT BE IMMINENT, it will be an orderly event, as in Vials 1-6 which leads to the 7th Vial, that is a countdown. All of the Scriptures have to be used to gain any understandings. Jesus tells it to us in Matthew 24:36-51 but the post tribbers say it means something else.

Then in 2 Thessalonians 2, we are specifically told that the Church must DEPART before the Man of Sin can come forth and BEFORE the Day of the Lord can come upon us. It has nothing to do with falling away from the Faith, the Subject is a Gathering together unto the Lord, BEFORE the Day of the Lord, which starts at the First Seal and runs to the 7th Vial. 

We see the Church in Heaven before the Seals are opened !! 

Rev. 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

The different views of who these 24 Elders are here below....................see the Blue.

1.) The 24 Elders are Angels...........................Well, we see humans called Elders but never have we seen Angels called elders. Also throughout the book of Revelation Elders and Angels are distinguished. Thirdly in Rev. 5:9 the Elders sing a Song of Redemption, so lets discount that viewpoint.

2.) The Elders are the Church AND Israel..........The problem with this is that Israel will not be Resurrected (Daniel 12:1-2) and rewarded until the Second Coming of Christ.

3.) The 24 Elders are the Church..........BINGO..........The reasons are many, I will list them below:

The Rewards promised to the Seven Churches are given unto the 24 Elders in Rev. 4:4.

* A Crown - ( Rev. 2:10, 3:11, 4:4 and 4:10 )

* A Throne - ( Rev. 3:21 and 4:4 )

* A White Robe - ( Rev. 3:4-5 and Rev. 4:4 )

In Pre-tribulationism: the Rapture occurs BEFORE the tribulation. 

So the above definition of pre-trib fits perfectly with the 24 Elders being the Church in Heaven doesn't it ? Before the Seals are opened !! 

This however wouldn't work in Post tribulation theory or with pre-wrath theory either !!

As per the 24 Elders meaning ? or why 24 Elders !!  Well this fits 1 Chronicles 24:7-19 where we are told there are 24 orders of priests.

1 Chronicles 24:7 Now the first lot came forth to Jehoiarib, the second to Jedaiah,..........18 The three and twentieth to Delaiah, the four and twentieth to Maaziah. 19 These were the orderings of them in their service to come into the house of the Lord, according to their manner, under Aaron their father, as the Lord God of Israel had commanded him.

Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

So as you see, the 24 Elders can be nothing but the Church in Heaven. They get the same EXACT REWARDS that the Church were promised and we are indeed kings and priests unto God the Father. 

So it's all there brother, I am not just guessing, I just don't take passages out of the contextual composition that they were given unto us in without TRYING THEM via all other verses/passages to see if they jibe. I am very good at Chess/Riddles, I guess that is why God called me unto Prophecy brother. 

God Bless

 

 

I love reading your words RevMan but I can’t buy your 24 elders teaching.  May I suggest you read David Lowe’s Earthquake Resuuection and check out his interpretation on the 24 elders.  

Honestly, I’ve decided to not even discuss the 24 elders anymore, too divisive with 20 different points of view. I will close with this....I could never base a pre Trib rapture on that....the identity of the 24 elders.  I know pre tribbers want them to be church guys so they can say, “see, there you go, church in Heaven before seals opened.”

i find this so weak....honestly brother, you would need a lot more than that to convince me the rapture is before the seals. 

In my opinion, Rev 7:9-17 is the best evidence for when the rapture takes place.....after the 6th seal. The issue for me has always been the timing of the 6th seal.  Is it before 70th week or during the 70th week.? Still open....