I wrote this in Word and then cut and paste. So, no need to complain about the structure.
Post Trib arguments and comments
A. The historical argument. There are several major arguments on which the
posttribulationist rests his case. The first of these is the historical argument. His position is that pretribulationism is a new doctrine, arising in the last hundred years, and therefore to be rejected because it is not apostolic. Several things are to be noted.
(1) Such an argument is an argument from silence. If the same line of reasoning were followed one would not accept the doctrine of justification by faith, for it was not clearly taught until the Reformation. The failure to discern the teaching of the Scripture does not nullify that teaching.
(2) The early church lived in the light of the belief in the imminent return of Christ. Their expectation was that Christ might return at any time. Pretribulationism is
the only position consistent with this doctrine of imminence. If an argument from
silence be followed, the weight of evidence favors the pretribulation view.
This whole concept of the progress of bible doctrine would be our strongest argument against the posttribulation rapturist who argues that the doctrine must be rejected because it was not clearly taught in the early church.
B. The argument against imminency. A second major argument of the
posttribulation rapturist is the argument against imminency. It is evident that if belief
in the imminent return of Christ is the Scriptural doctrine then the church must be
raptured before the signs of the tribulation period unfold. The adherent of that
position discounts all the Scriptural admonitions to the church to watch for Christ and bids us watch for signs. His position rests on the argument that the announcements of events such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of Peter, the imprisonment of Paul, and the announced program for the age as set forth in Matthew 28:19-20, together with the outlined course of the age. with its development of apostasy, all make an imminent return impossible; therefore the Lord could not come until these events had taken place. Such argument fails to see that the very men who received such announcements themselves believed that what would be the natural course of history could be interrupted by the translation of the believers out of the sphere in which history unfolds and held to the imminent return.
The doctrine of imminency is taught in Scripture in such passages as John 14:2-3; 1
Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 4:16-17; 5:5-9; Titus 2:13; James 5:8-9; Revelation 3:10; 22:17-22. While the views of the early church can be studied later, several citations may be made at this point to show that the early church held to the doctrine of imminency.
In the Didache (AD 75 to 110) we read:
Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins
unloosed; but be you ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. This is clearly not the teaching of Post Trib.
Cyprian says: “It were a self-contradictory and incompatible thing for us, who pray that the kingdom of God may quickly come, to be looking for a long life here below…” These give evidence that the exhortation to watchfulness addressed to the church became the hope of the early church and that they lived in the light of the expectation of the imminent return of Christ. The testimony of the Scriptures and the evidence of the early church can not be denied.
C. The promise of tribulation. A third major argument of the posttribulation
rapturist is the argument based on the promise of tribulation given to the church.
Passages such as Luke 23:27-31; Matthew 24:9-11; Mark 13:9-13, which are addressed to Israel and promise them tribulation, are used to prove that the church will go through the tribulation period. In addition, passages such as John 15:18-19; and John 16:1-2, 33, which are addressed to the church, are also so used. Their argument is that in the light of such specific promises it is impossible to say that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation period. Their argument is substantiated by citing the persecutions recorded in Acts into which the church came (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 14:22; Rom. 12:12) as being a partial fulfillment of those warnings.
1. In reply to this argument it is necessary to notice, first of all, that Scripture
abounds in promises that Israel will be brought into a time of purging to prepare them as a nation for the millennium to follow the advent of Messiah. However, since Israel is to be distinguished from the church in the economy of God, those scriptures which promise tribulation to Israel can not be made to teach that the church is to experience the tribulation period. Israel and the church are two distinct entities in the plan of God and must be so regarded. (The main truth regarding these position is that of one’s method of interpretation (literal, symbolic, etc.)
2. Further, it must be noticed that the term tribulation is used in several different
ways in Scripture. It is used in a nontechnical, non-eschatological sense in reference to any time of suffering or testing into which one goes. It is so used in Matthew 13:21; Mark 4:17; John 16:33; Romans 5:3; 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 1:9. It is used in its technical or eschatological sense in reference to the whole period of the seven years of tribulation, as in Revelation 2:22 or Matthew 24:29. It is also used in reference to the last half of this seven-year period, as in Matthew 24:21. When the word tribulation is used in reference to the church, as in John 16:33, it is used in a nontechnical sense, in which the church is promised an age-long opposition from the god of this age, but it is not teaching that the church will be brought into the period technically known as the tribulation. Otherwise one would have to teach that the tribulation has already existed for over nineteen hundred years.
Since the posttribulation rapturist insists that the church is not only promised
tribulation, but is even now experiencing that tribulation, as has the church down
through the ages, he must give that period a different character from that set forth in the Scriptures. It can be shown in detail that the characterization of that period, according to the Scripture, is described by such words as wrath, judgment, indignation, trial, trouble, destruction. This essential characterization must be denied by the adherent to this position.
continued...
Post Trib arguments and comments
A. The historical argument. There are several major arguments on which the
posttribulationist rests his case. The first of these is the historical argument. His position is that pretribulationism is a new doctrine, arising in the last hundred years, and therefore to be rejected because it is not apostolic. Several things are to be noted.
(1) Such an argument is an argument from silence. If the same line of reasoning were followed one would not accept the doctrine of justification by faith, for it was not clearly taught until the Reformation. The failure to discern the teaching of the Scripture does not nullify that teaching.
(2) The early church lived in the light of the belief in the imminent return of Christ. Their expectation was that Christ might return at any time. Pretribulationism is
the only position consistent with this doctrine of imminence. If an argument from
silence be followed, the weight of evidence favors the pretribulation view.
This whole concept of the progress of bible doctrine would be our strongest argument against the posttribulation rapturist who argues that the doctrine must be rejected because it was not clearly taught in the early church.
B. The argument against imminency. A second major argument of the
posttribulation rapturist is the argument against imminency. It is evident that if belief
in the imminent return of Christ is the Scriptural doctrine then the church must be
raptured before the signs of the tribulation period unfold. The adherent of that
position discounts all the Scriptural admonitions to the church to watch for Christ and bids us watch for signs. His position rests on the argument that the announcements of events such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the death of Peter, the imprisonment of Paul, and the announced program for the age as set forth in Matthew 28:19-20, together with the outlined course of the age. with its development of apostasy, all make an imminent return impossible; therefore the Lord could not come until these events had taken place. Such argument fails to see that the very men who received such announcements themselves believed that what would be the natural course of history could be interrupted by the translation of the believers out of the sphere in which history unfolds and held to the imminent return.
The doctrine of imminency is taught in Scripture in such passages as John 14:2-3; 1
Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 4:16-17; 5:5-9; Titus 2:13; James 5:8-9; Revelation 3:10; 22:17-22. While the views of the early church can be studied later, several citations may be made at this point to show that the early church held to the doctrine of imminency.
In the Didache (AD 75 to 110) we read:
Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins
unloosed; but be you ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. This is clearly not the teaching of Post Trib.
Cyprian says: “It were a self-contradictory and incompatible thing for us, who pray that the kingdom of God may quickly come, to be looking for a long life here below…” These give evidence that the exhortation to watchfulness addressed to the church became the hope of the early church and that they lived in the light of the expectation of the imminent return of Christ. The testimony of the Scriptures and the evidence of the early church can not be denied.
C. The promise of tribulation. A third major argument of the posttribulation
rapturist is the argument based on the promise of tribulation given to the church.
Passages such as Luke 23:27-31; Matthew 24:9-11; Mark 13:9-13, which are addressed to Israel and promise them tribulation, are used to prove that the church will go through the tribulation period. In addition, passages such as John 15:18-19; and John 16:1-2, 33, which are addressed to the church, are also so used. Their argument is that in the light of such specific promises it is impossible to say that the church will be raptured prior to the tribulation period. Their argument is substantiated by citing the persecutions recorded in Acts into which the church came (Acts 8:1-3; 11:19; 14:22; Rom. 12:12) as being a partial fulfillment of those warnings.
1. In reply to this argument it is necessary to notice, first of all, that Scripture
abounds in promises that Israel will be brought into a time of purging to prepare them as a nation for the millennium to follow the advent of Messiah. However, since Israel is to be distinguished from the church in the economy of God, those scriptures which promise tribulation to Israel can not be made to teach that the church is to experience the tribulation period. Israel and the church are two distinct entities in the plan of God and must be so regarded. (The main truth regarding these position is that of one’s method of interpretation (literal, symbolic, etc.)
2. Further, it must be noticed that the term tribulation is used in several different
ways in Scripture. It is used in a nontechnical, non-eschatological sense in reference to any time of suffering or testing into which one goes. It is so used in Matthew 13:21; Mark 4:17; John 16:33; Romans 5:3; 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 1:9. It is used in its technical or eschatological sense in reference to the whole period of the seven years of tribulation, as in Revelation 2:22 or Matthew 24:29. It is also used in reference to the last half of this seven-year period, as in Matthew 24:21. When the word tribulation is used in reference to the church, as in John 16:33, it is used in a nontechnical sense, in which the church is promised an age-long opposition from the god of this age, but it is not teaching that the church will be brought into the period technically known as the tribulation. Otherwise one would have to teach that the tribulation has already existed for over nineteen hundred years.
Since the posttribulation rapturist insists that the church is not only promised
tribulation, but is even now experiencing that tribulation, as has the church down
through the ages, he must give that period a different character from that set forth in the Scriptures. It can be shown in detail that the characterization of that period, according to the Scripture, is described by such words as wrath, judgment, indignation, trial, trouble, destruction. This essential characterization must be denied by the adherent to this position.
continued...