I agree with one of the main initial assertions, that the second coming is not seriously in question by anyone.
There is no question that the Scriptures teach the visible second coming of the Lord Jesus in glory with His angels, and that when He comes the church will be caught up to meet Him in the air;And this proves the point that the scriptures in Peter are speaking of those who scoff at the rapture. Because as the critic above admits, nobody is scoffing at the second coming. But many scoff at the promise of the pretribulation rapture, and demand to know where such is "plainly" taught in scripture.
2 Peter 3:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since
the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning
of the creation.
The Church and God’s WrathProblems with their critique.
1 Thess 5:9 "For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."
1. The context of 1 Thess 5 is not Revelation, which was written much later. The context is 1 Thess 4, which speaks of the rapture.
2. The existence of Saints in the tribulation, as explained in Revelation does not disprove the pretribulation rapture. In order for it to do so, the underlying assumption is that it must be impossible for people to repent if there was a pretribulation rapture. This is their false assumption.
Philadelphia Kept From That HourProblems with their critique.
Rev. 3:10 "Because you have kept the word of my perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth."
1. No, pretrib reasoning does not insist that the Philadelphian church is the entire church. Many will NOT be found worthy to escape. Luke 21:36. Besides Revelation 2-3 says SEVEN TIMES, that each message is for those who have ears to hear. I suppose those who attack pretrib must be deaf.
2. They ignore the link of the "open door" in Rev 3:8 to the "open door" in heaven in Rev 4:1.
3. They suppose "to be kept from the hour" might mean any number of things, but ignore the context in which this is given, namely, the entire book of Revelation which speaks in great detail about "the things that will be hereafter" (as spoken in Rev 4:1) which are the details of the tribulation.
4. They refuse to see that if we, people of today, maintain the same kinds of faithfulness as the Philadelphian Church, then there is no reason to think such promises will apply to us too. They refuse to hear that if we, people of today, maintain the same kinds of faithfulness as the other Churches, that we might be judged as they were. Thus, their "no rapture" interpretation of Rev 3:10 makes the entire Chapters of Rev 2,3 to have no effect.
Apostasy or Rapture: Taken out of the wayProblems with their critique.
2 Thess. 2:7 "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way."
1. That a verse is disputed or scoffed at does not mean the disputes are valid.
2. They ignore (or are ignorant) that the apostasia also means "departure".
3. They honestly don't understand 2 Thess 2: Whatever the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2...
4. They ignore that Paul said it was obvious. "now ye know", "I told you this", from veres 5 & 6.
Errors from Implication and Silence
The Time of Jacob's TroubleThe Pretribulation hypothesis points to the fact that the great tribulation is the time of "Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7). It is then inferred from this that the church is not the focus of the tribulation and would not be expected to be on the earth during this time. However, it is obvious from a casual reading of Jer. chapter 30 that the nations of the world are all drawn into the events described there. The fact that this period of time is called "Jacob's trouble" does not invite us to conclude that others, including the church, must be absent from the earth.
1. They confuse evidence with proof. It is true that all nations
are gathered. But to assume a "non rapture" from such is just another
assumption. Further, the rapture doctrine does NOT claim that nations
will disappear at the rapture, so the existence of nations after the rapture
is 100% consistent, and not contradictory in any way, with the pretribulation
rapture doctrine.
2. The fact is that the Bible calls the time "Jacob's trouble". And the Bible does not define Christians as heirs of Jacob, but rather, "heirs of Abraham."
3. There are many other scriptures that indicate that this time of trouble is for Israel. The biggest is Dan 9:27, the 70th week "is determined upon thy people", the people of Daniel, the Israelites. Other verses say we are no longer under the curse, which the 70th week is, it is a curse of the Law.
The Term "Church" Not In Revelation Chapters 4-21Actually, the common argument is that the Church is not mentioned again until Chapter 19. The word "church" does not appear again until Rev 22. This argument, I believe, IS faulty, although common among pretribulationists. I believe Rev 12 speaks of the rapture of the Church, as symbolized by the manchild, which is the body of Christ, or the Church. Every detail and description of the man child is also a description that fits the Church elsewhere in the Bible, and it makes no sense to have Jesus, as a baby, raptured up to heaven in the beginning or middle of the tribulation.
One pretribulation author suggested that John is a symbol of the church, and portrays the rapture of the church when he is instructed to "...come up here..." (4:1). But this method would leave the gate wide open for us to interpret almost any symbol as the church in chapters 4 though 21.Actually, nearly all pretribulation rapture teachers agree that Rev 4:1 is a picture of the rapture of the Church. And no, interpreting the verse symbolically does not "leave the gate wide open" to interpret things however we like. On the contrary, the entire description in Rev 4:1 is strongly symbolic and very fitting with the rapture. The open door, the trumpet voice, the "come up hither".
This argument from silence is self-destructive to the pretribulation hypothesis since the word for rapture, or any description of it, does not occur with reference to the specific term "church" anywhere in Revelation.Actually, the argument from silence is a very strong argument, and is a very valid method of reasoning. If a verse does not mention "XYZ" we cannot assume it is talking about such. And such an argument is an "argument from silence".
The word for rapture, harpazo, IS used in Rev 12 to describe how the manchild is "caught up" to the throne of God.
Here are the main arguments from silence in support of the pretribulation
rapture, and this is why the "argument from silence" is under attack by
those who attack the pretribulation rapture
.
1. 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4 are the two key rapture chapters in
the Bible. Neither chapter says that tribulation must come first.
2. Rev 19 and Zech 14 are the two key chapters in the Bible speaking of the return of Jeus. Neither chapter mentions the resurrection, or rapture, or trumpet blasts.
The Term "Rapture" Not In Matthew 24:31The reason why Matt 24 is said to be speaking of Israel is the comparison of the verse to verses in Isaiah 11:12; 27:12,13
Matthew 24
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end
of
heaven to the other.
Isaiah 11
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble
the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from
the
four corners of the earth.
Isaiah 27
12 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall beat
off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall
be
gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.
13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall
be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of
Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt,
and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.
There are other differences as well. In the rapture, 1 Thess 4:13-18, "The Lord himself will descend", which is different from "he shall send his angels". Also it is the "last trump" not the "great trumpet". Also the rapture is a gathering from out of earth, and Matt 24:31 is "from... heaven".
Argument From Imminence: Coming like a thiefI personally disagree with an "at any moment" type of "imminance", because I believe the Feasts of the Lord are a shadow and types which will continue to be fulfilled on each day of the feast, as were the first spring feasts at the first advent of Christ. The next feast is the Feast of Trumpets, and this is our "last trump" rapture feast, also known as the "wedding of the Messiah." I believe we should look for the possibility of the Lord's return on this Feast each year, and always be ready during the year to have our works judged as described in 1 Cor 3. If the Lord will not return until after the 7 years of tribulation, that would not surprise anybody who had even a remote clue as to what the Bible teaches.
The argument of imminence is based on well over 20 verses on the subject that we wait for and look for Christ, not anything that must come first. Those who deny imminence that Christ comes first are like those who the Lord condemns at the end of Matt 24 who say, "my lord delayeth his coming".
Matt 24:
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth
his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink
with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not
for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the
hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.