Pretribulationalism Revisited
One should consider the major contributors and maintainers of Pretribulationalism. One of the Pretribulation Rapture Cult’s (otherwise know as Darbyism) major prophets, Hal Lindsey, is admittedly addicted to secular music, namely Johnny Cash, and has no compunction about abandoning his wives for younger models. Another main defender, Thomas “Hitman” Ice, spews degrading insults at individuals who oppose PTR, e.g., equating them with Nazis and accusing them of promoting “the great lie”. Other major defenders of the doctrine are equally insulting, ad nauseam. LaHaye implied in his book, “Rapture Under Attack”, that Dave McPherson has a mental disorder. I can assure you that Dave is a very intelligent and witty fellow with no hint of any mental problems. There are other ones and I advise the reader to search them out on the Internet.
These type of individuals contact me regularly insisting that I doubt my position by being willing to consider that I might be wrong. This is an attempt to place us on even ground, which would be equivalent to denying the truth. They insist that eschatology does not matter in the long run, but it matters more whether we are in unity. Therefore, while on the one hand they insist that the pretrib rapture timing will not make a whit of difference in people’s lives if it turns out to be wrong, their associates summarily attack as an evil person everyone who holds a different view is. It appears to me to be a tactic to weaken the strength of the volume of evidence against their position. I refuse to submit to that tactic because I believe that PTR is one of the deadly doctrines that spawned the Great Apostasy.
One of the reasons that they believe their heresy (if proven such) will make no difference is that most of them hold the doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security. All of the souls they would deceive are professing Christians. Since no professing Christian can ever again be lost, even accepting the Mark of the Beast will not doom any of them to hell. This is evident by the inclusion of such a scenario in the fictional LaHaye/Jenkins books promoting PTR. EUS is a type of Universalism, only it requires one to at least give lip service to God. It is easy to understand how these two doctrines could have sprung from the same patch of ground. J. N. Darby, the founder of Dispensationalism or Darbyism, believed in UES. Any doctrine that removes the penalties for sin with the idea of exclusive and unconditional immunity will not only decline into antinomianism and licentiousness, but will open the door for more false doctrine. Error begets error, and it can be no other way.
Let’s consider the facts. The PTR doctrine is supported by conjecture and fiction rather than exegetical thesis. In fact, the dean of the pretribulation rapture cult, Dr. John Wolvrood declared that there is no rapture timing in the Scriptures. He went on to write that the doctrine is an ecclesiological evolution rather than an exegetical discovery. So much for the dispensationalist’s claim of literal interpretation. Of course, Dr. Wolvrood is correct and the ramifications are immense. Since there is no rapture timing in the Scriptures, there can be no valid defense of the theory of the pretribulation rapture theory. “Pre” denotes a timing and there is none.
One could rightly insist that there can be no valid defense of any rapture timing, pre, mid, or post. Thus we are forced by exegesis to place the rapture back where it belongs, with the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the age. It was separated from the Parousia by J. N. Darby and forced to stand alone as an exclusive Christian event. As it became obvious that this position was unsupportable by exegesis, the idea surfaced that individuals who do not believe PTR will be excluded from participating. This fear mongering is clearly a cult tactic. Other cult tactics were added as Darbyism morphed into the cult that it is today. Eschatological exegesis demands that the Parousia be taught as a single event that occurs at the end of the age. There are no verses that allow a two part Parousia separated by seven years. Such an idea has to be forced into the Scriptures. Neither Christ nor Paul taught such an idea. Both of them taught extensively concerning eschatology with considerable clarity. They would not have hinted or otherwise taught with ambiguity about an event so essential to Christians. Had they intended a two part Parousia—the first part a partial coming of Christ with Christians-only resurrection/rapture, and the second part seven years later with a heathen-only resurrection/rapture—it would have been clearly laid out in the Scriptures and there would be no debate.
Instead, Christ taught about one Parousia, not two or a split-Parousia. Paul also taught about one Parousia, not two or a split-Parousia. The following passage is consistent with Paul’s teaching on the subject.
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 2 Thesalonians 2:1-6
That “Day” is the Parousia/rapture, and Paul clearly declares that it will occur after the Great Apostasy and appearing of the Antichrist. The rapture cannot be prior to the so-called Tribulation according to this passage. Some Darbyites interpret falling away (apostasia) to mean falling up, i.e., rapture. That creates more problems in the text since Paul has already used the phrase “gathering together unto Him”, which makes no sense if apostasia is rapture. It would make the text read, “The rapture will not occur until the rapture and the Antichrist is revealed.”
Paul reminds them that he taught them the same thing before. Therefore, this section is consistent with the rest of his teaching. This is easily seen by the following passage.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:20-24
Paul never writes “resurrections” or “comings”, but is always singular. Just in case someone interprets this fact to mean that he is referring to two single events, consider that the PTR and the Parousia are never seen in the same passage so that they can clearly be delineated as two separate events. Instead, it is always a single event, i.e., the Coming of the Lord and simultaneous resurrection/rapture. This is an important point. No one has the authority to form two events out of one when there is no clear exegesis for such a split. J. N. Darby took liberties with the Scriptures when he did just that very thing. In order to justify his action, he sets up a division in the New Testament based on the biological and historical division between Jews and Gentiles. He ignored the facts that they are all made one in Christ, that Christ taught Jewish Christians, Paul taught Gentile Christians, and they taught the same things. In case someone might claim that they taught two different events to two types of Christians, consider that Paul wrote, "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (i.e., Gentile): for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. " (Romans 10:12) Additionally, there is no exegesis that prove they taught two separate events, and such an idea is inconsistent with the contextual Divine Order of God’s Word.
One then has to wonder how the PTR can continue as a valid doctrine. PTR is primarily based on the follow Parousia reference.
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
There is no “rapture” timing in this passage. However, there is an indication of the time frame when the Parousia/rapture/resurrection might occur. It will occur after a trumpet of God sounds. We have already read where Paul declared that it would be the last trumpet. As George Mueller wrote, "Can there be any resurrection before the first one; and can there be another trump after this last one?" Darby excommunicated him for that rhetorical question. Darby would have also excommunicated the following men had he the authority since none of them accepted Darbyism with its PTR.
Polycarp, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles and John Wesley, Matthew Henry, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Knox, and Charles Finney, George Mueller, Samuel P. Tregelles, Charles Spurgeon, William Booth, G. Campbell Morgan, W.E. Blackstone (who changed from a leading Pre-Tribulation proponent), H.H. Halley, A.B. Simpson, C.T. Studd, Leon Morris, Oswald J. Smith, Francis Schaeffer, Peter Marshall, J.B. Phillips, A.W. Pink, Paul S. Rees, C.S. Lovett, and many other ones.
Of course, the first resurrection occurs at the end of the age and the trumpet that sounds in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is the last one, as 1 Corinthians 15:52 declares.
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed — 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1 Cor 15:51-52
NKJV
If 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 depicts the PTR, then there would be another first resurrection after the so-called Tribulation and seven more trumpets after the last one. Darbyites deal with this obvious hindrance to their theory by splitting the first resurrection into two parts separated by seven years. Unwilling to also split the last trumpet—since they have already split the Parousia and resurrection—they come up with the idea of a stray trumpet before the seven trumpets in Revelation, although there is no exegesis for that theory either. However, it is much less ridiculous than having a trumpet sound that is split into two parts separated by seven years. It either sounds or does not sound, and Christ either comes or He does not come.
The idea of a two-part Second Coming is fairly ridiculous to me. How can Christ come in two parts? They declare that since His feet will not touch the ground at the first/second coming, it is not really a coming. Of course, this defies the Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is not really a coming, then He does not come and there is no two-part Second Coming. If it is really a coming, then it is the Second Coming and there is no other part two or a third coming. In fact, it would be completely illogical to call the other half of a second coming (such a thing is impossible) also a second coming. Instead, it has to be labelled a third coming. Thus, either the Scriptures are in error or the PTR is a completely false doctrine. The only way that they can wiggle out from under this totally defeating truth is to declare that Christ comes prior to the so-called Tribulation Period and remains hovering in the air until He touches down seven years later. Then it is one prolonged Parousia. This is also impossible because the term “coming” means the same as appearing or arrival. After coming, appearing, or arrival, your guest is now considered “here”—not continually in the state of coming, appearing, or arriving. It is the brief period or incipient phase of a visit just a blow is a brief action in a fight. One does not land a single blow that continues the act of landing for 15 rounds. It last only a split second even though the effect(s) may remain for a longer period. It is obvious that Darbyites have forced the Scriptures to fit their theory and decided on hostilities to avoid recognizing and accepting the truth. This is self-delusion or willful deception.
If there were even one verse that depicted two Parousias, a split-Parousia divided by seven years, or even two similar events portrayed side by side so that one could easily recognize that they were indeed two events, the debate would have been over long ago. However, there are no verses that even hint at a rapture/resurrection timing. Darbyites avoid the clear implications of the Scriptures by eisogetical hair-splitting, taking verses, sentences, and even single words, out of context, melding them with other words, sentences, and verses, and concocting a theory. They must defend such a concoction with malice and keep adherents in the fold with cult tactics, which include fear and dependence on the blessings of the leadership. Therefore, to debate the conjecture of Darbyites is fruitless. The only question is if there is a clear rapture timing or a depiction of two side by side events in the Scriptures. The dean of the PTR movement conceded that there are no such indications in the exegesis. Thus, there is no premise and no defense for the PTR position. To force on the text opens the Scriptures to a type of hermeneutics that can be used to concoct a manner of false doctrine and faddism. God’s Word must be protected from such tragedy.
