2023 Pre-Trib Conference

32nd Annual Pre-Trib Study Group Conference: Answering the Critics

See the schedule HERE 

Somebody noted on X (Twitter) that Andy Woods is to give a talk on prewrath, the suggestion being that PW is making "major inroads in their circles." You know who you are. Let me offer my take on this: from personal experience, PW is the constantly squeaky wheel demanding to be heard. Hence, you're going to get feedback. And the more PW becomes known, the more scrutiny it will receive.

As for Dr. Woods, I had the honor to briefly dialogue with him. He did his homework; understands the system about as well as anyone, and probably better than a lot PW rapturists I've encountered. You can find his critique of the prewrath view HERE.

A Challenge to the Pre-Trib Rapture? (Pt. 1)

From Dr. Reluctant...

I have received the following objection to the Pre-Trib Rapture from a brother named Jerry Parks. Jerry is a good man who blogs here. He states his argument thus (I have brought together his main assertions from several comments etc.)...continue reading

It was posted in a Facebook Group where a couple of prewrath adherents responded. Some of the comments are TLDR (too long, didn't read); but I skimmed through a few. Perhaps after Paul finishes I'll add my 2 cents. For the record, I rarely engage there as I find the debates go in endless circles.

Time for the Pre-Wrath Folk to Grow Up

Honestly, I don't want to keep bringing this up. This prophecy group needs to take an objective look at itself. Especially if it wants to be taken seriously.

Some time ago I wrote that Jan Markell was accused of calling the system satanic. The PW folk flocked to the offending video expressing their discontent. The prevailing opinion was that the pretrib biggies felt threatened by the growth of the PW system and that this was their knee-jerk reaction.

Actually, Jan was referring to the attacks, not the system. She never called prewrath satanic. Jan is tired of the constant e-mail diatribes (as are others). My friend Jack Kinsella - now gone to be with the Lord - constantly received mail from proponents of this group labeling him a false prophet because of his pretribulationism. I could say much more here.

But these easily offended folk resisted checking, even when prompted to. At least one PW website owner reached out to Jan and subsequently corrected his position on the fiasco. Kudos to him!

Now I find that my Zeteo3:16 article has also been accused of labeling this system satanic, or that its proponents aren't Christian. It was lumped in with Bill Perkins' graceless attack on the PW system. But did the person who referenced my article actually read it? Did anyone bother? Apparently no one went past reading the title.

Here's what I stated:

So, is the Pre-Wrath rapture satanic? Nope! Neither is the midtrib, posttrib or pretrib rapture. No one should go down that route. All rapture timing views are deductions. I defend the pretribulational view because I think it has far better arguments than the others. But I don’t consider rapture timing a doctrine to divide over.

It's time to grow up, People.

Addendum (and for the record):

Manfred Kober refers to Marv Rosenthal's comments in "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church":

The pretrib position is beset with “impossible-to-resolve problems” (p.197) and “insurmountable exegetical” difficulties (p.147). Even worse, the pretribulational teaching leads to “calamitous” consequences and “a spiritual catastrophe” which is in reality “a satanically planned sneak attack” (p. 281-282).

Getting the Rapture Right

Some time ago Dr. Paul Henebury posted a series of studies on the rapture at his blog. I liked his fair and irenic approach to a frequently divisive topic. While I didn't agree with everything, I liked how he humbly arrived at a pretribulational conclusion.

You can begin to read the series of 12 posts HERE

Dr. Henebury rightly (I think) classifies rapture timing as a C3 (Category 3) doctrine.  My own hierarchy of eschatological importance begins with the biblical covenants, the future Kingdom, and whether Israel is replaced by the church. How do we treat prophetic passages relating to Israel? Logically flowing next is premillennialism and, lastly, rapture timing.

Some of the comments were interesting. I'm impressed with Paul's patience in a few instances. One confident fellow from San Diego (Part 6) wasn't backward about preaching his prewrath position. It was familiar territory for me. Paul was polite. But in other forums Greg A might have run into some difficulty defending his militant assertions.

I was first drawn into the timing debate when I was directed to the late Herb Peters' Fulfilled Prophecy website. Peters - an adamant prewrath rapturist - was confident he'd discovered the identity of the Antichrist and that the 70th week of Daniel was almost upon us. He even contacted John Walvoord to announce that he'd found the Antichrist. Needless to say Walvoord wasn't convinced. At the time I was leaning posttrib and found his theories intriguing.

Peters contacted Jack Kinsella and Hal Lindsey to see if they'd give their authorship to his book, given that they were better known in prophecy circles. They declined because 1) it wasn't their material and 2) they didn't agree with his conclusions. Some of his irate followers then flooded Jack's Omega Letter Forum to wreak havoc.

Ironically, what swayed me to seriously consider pretribulationism were the claims of these zealous prewrathers. Most of them were sincere converted pretribbers who were introduced to Marvin Rosenthal's book. The three books most touted were: "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" (Rosenthal); "The Sign" and "The Rapture Question Answered" (Van Kampen).

We read books with a bias in place. I'm no exception. That said; my take on Rosenthal and Van Kampen was that they were more provocative than eschatologically challenging. Rosenthal came across as bitter and Van Kampen overly self-assured. The latter also misrepresented, Walvoord, Mayhue and Barnhouse. It was after reading Van Kampen that I realized why so many prewrathers constantly used phrases such as: "compare Scripture with Scripture," "face-value" (see Greg A's comments in the link above), "plain and simple," etc. These expressions filled the pages of his book and his readers adopted them.

Under close examination the system's arguments aren't always "face-value." One self-published prewrath defender (Dave Bussard) once called prewrath "meat and potatoes." I disagree. One only has to look at the charts. It has also undergone schism and some revisions. And it has been my experience that many adherents are confused over some points.

I give credit to prewrath friends for faithfully articulating the framework of their system as set out by Rosenthal's and Van Kampen's formulas. However, articulating and defending its points isn't the same. Most prewrath blogs and websites spend more time attacking popular pretribulationism than defending their assumptions. This is true of the two leading prewrath websites. Here's another example.

I've responded to some of these issues on this blog.

My disagreements with the system doesn't make pretribulationism correct. There are other views. I'm surprised the midtrib view doesn't generate greater interest as I think it is more viable than prewrath. Then there's the posttrib view. I may take a look at one certain posttribber's criticisms at some future point.

May the Lord come soon!

Further reading for the bored:

God’s Wrath in the Sixth Seal

Who are the 144,000?

We’re Hunting Pretribbers

On Exposing Pretribulationism

Every once in a while when the mood takes me I get to grind my axe. Here I go again.

There's an essay on pretribulationism that I've come across several times on Facebook. Its author provides a bunch of excuses for his anti-pretrib crusade. Similar pretexts commonly appear on blog and Facebook hit and runs by different individuals. I want to address a sampling here, in no particular order.

The motives are always altruistic, of course. They do it out of "love" and to correct "false doctrine." I'm reminded of my busy posttribulational friend who once told me he went after pretribbers because he feared their escapist mentality would endanger them once the tribulation arrived. Sound familiar?

That same individual also happened to like going after prewrathers even though they believe the church will experience the tribulation. Truth be known, he just loves to argue. What's love got to do with it? Pardon the Tina Turner pun but when you use terms such as "laughable" or when you call to question a pretribber's integrity (as opposed to yours) - what you are indulging in is arrogance and pride. Not love.

As a side note, if you're a Five Point Calvinist you might consider dropping the "dangerous escapism" routine. It won't wash. On the other hand if you believe one can lose their salvation, perhaps you'd better humbly look at yourself first. Do you know you'll survive the tribulation, faith intact? Where are you placing your confidence?

Here's a suggestion: if you people want to go on a Worthy Crusade, go after the Lost. They really need the gospel. And, if you're really "Brave and Courageous" or an "Overcomer" (in contrast to spineless pretribbers), I know a few volatile countries where you could preach the gospel and get some practice in for the Great Tribulation purification. Practice makes perfect - right?

Next, I don't care whether someone had an overbearing pretrib pastor who ridiculed non-pretribbers. That's plainly wrong. Get over it. Don't do the same thing.

Neither am I impressed that you too were once a "clueless" pretribulationist who was "indoctrinated" by that "recent tradition" - especially if you've now embraced the newest constantly evolving position. It doesn't automatically follow that you're a "Berean" because you changed your view. I was "indoctrinated" by Catholicism and a bunch of other doctrines. I now embrace dispensationalism and pretribulationism as better viewpoints, but that alone doesn't mean I'm suddenly right.

Strange as it may seem non-pretribbers sometimes do migrate to pretrib. It's not because the Holy Spirit "told them so" or because of some "special revelation" as people sometimes declare. It's a case of weighing arguments against Scripture. Yes, we occasionally think for ourselves. Life is full of ironies and surprises.

I'm not impressed with assertions that John Darby purloined Margaret MacDonald's vision and indoctrinated "Schofield." Provide a pretrib quote from MacDonald, not an excerpt from one of MacPherson's "plots." That the Scofield Study Bible then indoctrinated most of the American Church reminds me of the Israeli 9/11 conspiracy theory (sorry, Stephen Sizer).

I also don't want to hear about Scofield's or Lindsey's or LaHaye's sins, or any other pretribbers' or non-pretribbers' for that matter. Consider your own.

Speaking of indoctrination and Scofield's Study Bible (I don't own one); I see plenty of non-dispensational Study Bibles around. You can get Reformed, Puritan, Creationist, Catholic and Adventist versions, and likely many other varieties. In fact there's a project for a Pre-Wrath Study Bible. And good for them!

Pretribulationism is sometimes called a divisive doctrine. There's a whole essay's worth in that concept. Yet I'm now seeing non-pretrib individuals desperately looking for churches which teach their particular rapture view. I often see the comment, "I won't attend a pretrib church."

My wife and I are privileged to attend a non-dispensational church. We do have a pretribulational option. What we love about our church is the pastor's passion for the gospel in the tradition of people like Spurgeon and M'Cheyne. He's often invited to speak at pretrib churches because of that commitment to the gospel.

I don't care for gossip related to an encounter with a leading pretrib teacher who allegedly lost his cool because he wasn't familiar with the new-kid-on-the-block view. The teacher has gone to be with the Lord and cannot defend himself. We can all dish up anecdotes about our personal experiences.

I'm not a fan of prophecy conferences at the best of times. But don't lump all pretrib conferences into one bucket and compare them unfavorably to your own - especially when you originally wanted to participate in them. Some of us remember.

Yes, there are some sensational pretrib "prophecy" teachers out there in the market place. Don't jump the gun too quickly, though. Pretribulationists don't have a monopoly on weirdness. Trust me!

When anyone claims a well-known (usually solid) dispensational teacher said salvation in the Old Testament was attained by works, a citation and link ought to be provided. They may also want to demonstrate how salvation was achieved. Don't just tell me it was by faith. We all know that. What was the content of one's faith then?

Now, once again, repeat after me: "Dispies do not teach salvation by works in the OT."

Please don't gripe to me when your view has just been attacked....especially when a significant portion of your program involves criticism of another system. I've lost count as to how many times Adventists chided me for "attacking" Steve Wohlberg (not related to the actor) after I responded to his End time Delusions.

No, pretribulationism isn't the "monolithic" teaching in the mainstream church that it's frequently made out to be. It may have been once, and might still be the dominant view among older premil prophecy buffs. However, that's quickly changing within the younger generation. Many of us have seen an upsurge of attacks on pretribulationism and dispensationalism. Pretribulationism and premillennialism are losing whatever ground they held within evangelical churches for a number of reasons. Feel better now?

Mainstream churches are starting to abandon fundamental teachings in favor of diversity issues and liberation theology. Think about the Social Gospel, Same-sex Marriage, inerrancy, anti-Israelism, spiritualizing the Resurrection, denial of sin and the Trinity, Universalism, Ecumenism, Inter-Faith Dialogue etc. Get the picture?

I always feel better after a good gripe.

Switching my grinder off for now...(stay tuned).

More Pretrib Problems

As I've noted before, there's that sense of urgency on the part of a certain group to get the word out that pretribulationism is a dangerous unbiblical doctrine which leaves one unprepared for the tribulation. I think I've just about heard most of the excuses offered up against the pretribulational view. Some of the polemics border on the absurd. One example of the latter is the following blurb for a book by John Finkbeiner:

Lifesaver was written to expose the hypocrisy, the abuse of trust and the fatal flaws in modern American Christianity’s most popular and trumpeted position on the end times— the Pre-tribulation rapture (PTR) view.

That offering was tame compared to some of the other lame remarks in Finkbeiner's book. A more genial Chris White has also chimed in on YouTube by churning out several "pretrib debunkers". His videos are engaging and he's done an excellent job in some areas - debunking pretribulationism, not so much. Take his Parousia video:

"The word “parousia” (coming) is only used 24 times in the New Testament; The definition includes and encompasses all the things that Christ will do, starting with the rapture–His visible return, the raising of the dead, the last judgment, and the setting up of the kingdom after Armageddon; The rapture will be the first thing to happen at His coming (“parousia”), but there are not multiple “parousias”;..." (Emphasis mine)

Finkbeiner agrees:

The most common accepted meaning of parousia is “presence” or “a coming to establish an abiding presence.” Is there anything in this definition that supports dual parousias or two comings? Can one “coming to establish an abiding presence” be followed by another “coming” seven years later? What professor, knowledgeable in N.T. Greek, would distort parousia so we have parousias plural?

What's really bizarre is that White and Finkbeiner's rapture system has multiple future comings of Christ. Robert Van Kampen and Charles Cooper detailed four. In fact the system needs at least two if one takes the Great Multitude (Rev 7:9) to be the post-rapture church. One advocate has defended this contradiction by stating that Jesus and the church hover somewhere in the earth's atmosphere until Rev 19. That position would require relocating God's throne, the angels, the elders and the four living creatures and taking a symbolic view of Rev19:11.

Before God's Wrath author H L Nigro proposed an elaborate solution including the following remarks:

First of all, Jesus may have the ability to be in more than one place at once. Second, God and heaven exist outside of time as we know it, so one moment of earthly time can be all the time Jesus needs in heaven to judge a billion or more saints, and have a wonderful wedding celebration. While I hold to the multi-phase view, the single-phase view is no problem either. (Emphasis mine)

There's some level of contradiction operating when someone admits to a multi-phase position, yet denounces the so-called pretrib "two-stage event" by asserting that: "When the return of Christ is mentioned in scripture it is always mentioned as a singular event."

Which "singular event" would that be - the one at Matt 24:30 or the one at Matt 25:31 & Rev 19:11? And what about those in between (which Scripture is silent about)?

Another issue arises from 2 Thess 2:8. Early strategy was to say the Antichrist was "handcuffed" at that point, rather than destroyed. Yet how can he be said to be handcuffed, or lose authority, and still able to muster armies to gather at Armageddon? Someone proposed the solution that he is destroyed at the end-phase of the single Parousia. But an honest assessment of that position would be to say that Antichrist's destruction occurs at Christ's final visit.

As Eric Douma aptly points out:

"There is a logical fallacy in attempting to maintain that Jesus can come bodily in the parousia, and
then somehow be continually present –without being present bodily."

I agree. If Christ comes for the church and returns to heaven, then one cannot legitimately lay claim to a single-phase Second Advent.