Question for Post Trib Brothers

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cmdaniels1986

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi All,

I grew up in a Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, with the Pre-Tribulation "written in my head". After I "rebelled" I came back to the faith, and adopted a more reformed approach, and fell into the Post Tribulation field.

However, after much study, and the claim that nowhere does the Bible teach a pre-tribulation rapture, I started running into a couple of problems. My largest issue is this:

Revelation 19 describes the Wedding feast of the Lamb. I think we can all agree that for the wedding feast to take place, the bride (church) has to be present with the Lord. Assuming this, in the Gospel of Luke, Christ is telling the Jews to be ready for his second coming. He states this:

Luke 12:36 "Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks."

My question is, how does the Post Trib side explain this passage? Who is waiting for Christ to return, and what wedding feast is he returning from?

God Bless.
 
Welcome and fasten your seat belt. From the way you asked your question, you might be in for an interesting journey.

But first, let me remind you of the signature requirements. Click the link below my signature.

I don't have much time right now to address your question, but the first thing you might want to look at is what you mean by "tribulation." Search the forum for some additional discussion. One example is here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/great-tribulation-58528/

I'm not saying the question is bad--not at all. Just that I think you will need to understand a whole lot of things for it to be answered well.
 
I'm not sure the wedding feast of the lamb leans that much either way.
It's not like some of the wannabees made it to the wedding during the extra wait
They weren't ready and they missed out

A pre trib view would have tribulation saints... not seeing it in that parable
 
Why isn't it just a parabolic example of how we ought to wait for His coming that has no connection to the wedding feast of the Revelation? But, if it did, then who exactly would be waiting, since all believers would presumably be present at that feast?
 
cmdaniels1986 said:
whirlingmerc said:
I'm not sure the wedding feast of the lamb leans that much either way.
Click to expand...

I'm confused to what you mean?

The question was, what wedding feast is Christ returning from. What does the wedding feast symbolize, and who was waiting for his return?
Click to expand...

I mean. I don't think it helps a pre trib posiiton. A pre trib position holds that during the tribulation there are supposed ot be people who become believers, tribulation saints.... they are not in that parable.... it was just too late

For post trib, being just too late goes along with a late trib rapture where it's just too late and the opportunity is gone... it is also a parable not a strict time line A post trib person or a late trib person might just say that the opportunity was lost.

Both positions involve some type of waiting and some amount of surprize when he comes... the people unprepared would be viewed as unsaved in my view
Personally I leave the timing of the rapture to personal conscience but pre trib rapture is not a choice I lean toward personally
 
CMDaniels, Until the 1830s most all believers were "post-trib", because most all held that the great tribulation occured in AD70. There is ample evidence to support such a view. You would do well to read, The Last Days According to Jesus, by R.C. Sproul; Revelation (a Mentor Commentary) by Douglas Kelly, and search the threads here for eschatology. There are many more books than these two, but I think that they give good biblical cases for such a view.

From your post, it sounds like your thinking is still predominately in Dispensational categories. It might be better to think in terms of (partial)preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist, in terms of your reading of eschatology (all things that you will learn as you read more broadly than dispensational camps).

Here are two free ebooks (for which you don't need an eReader) to get you started. They are by Dr. Poythress. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, and Understanding Dispensationalists. (I have copied and pasted them into a .pdf, and put them on my kindle; though, you could simply read them on the screen.) (By the way, I can't endorse Dr. Poythress' books---b/c I haven't read them. However, I did skim them and think they would be valuable to help start shifting the mindset away from the "trib question" being the main one.)
 
Last edited:
nicnap said:
CMDaniels, Until the 1830s most all believers were "post-trib", because most all held that the great tribulation occured in AD70. There is ample evidence to support such a view. You would do well to read, The Last Days According to Jesus, by R.C. Sproul; Revelation (a Mentor Commentary) by Douglas Kelly, and search the threads here for eschatology. There are many more books than these two, but I think that they give good biblical cases for such a view.

From your post, it sounds like your thinking is still predominately in Dispensational categories. It might be better to think in terms of (partial)preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist, in terms of your reading of eschatology (all things that you will learn as you read more broadly than dispensational camps).

Here are two free ebooks (for which you don't need an eReader) to get you started. They are by Dr. Poythress. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, and Understanding Dispensationalists. (I have copied and pasted them into a .pdf, and put them on my kindle; though, you could simply read them on the screen.) (By the way, I can't endorse Dr. Poythress' books---b/c I haven't read them. However, I did skim them and think they would be valuable to help start shifting the mindset away from the "trib question" being the main one.)
Click to expand...

Have have studied the partial preterist view, and it does not satisfy me. As far as your 1830's comment, that is very debatable, and even if it was the case, that would not satisfy me. If we look at "Church Fathers", I can prove that the majority of people rejected Sola Fide as well, and Catholicism is the reason most held to a Post Trib view. The Catholic Church burned any writings they deemed heresy, and many of the early Church fathers held a Pre-Millenial view.

For me, the Dispensational view seems to fit the best, but as with all views, it still has obvious problems.

God Bless.
 
Please disregard my post. I did not read carefully enough to see that you were looking for those holding your eschatalogical position. If you are interested to hear someone outside that position, feel free to PM. Apologies, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Daniels,

Most of the members here are either amillennial or postmillennial. If there are more than 5 regular premil posters here (and I'm one of them) I'd be surprised. Covenant theology is the official position of this board, so pretrib and dispensationalism are basically incompatible with the official doctrinal stance here.

Consider this statement from the confession that you stated you affirmed when you joined this board, the 2nd London Baptist Confession, Ch. 26.1 "Of the Church":

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Click to expand...

This understanding of the church is fundamentally incompatible with dispensationalism, which typically divvies up the elect into the Old Testament Saints, the Church and the Tribulation Saints (if not more groups), with the church only consisting of the elect between Pentecost and the pretribulation rapture. Thus, to say Abraham is a member of the universal church in any sense (as the confession teaches) is tantamount to "replacement theology" to practically every dispensationalist I am aware of.

I think you will see better results if you were to ask your question on the Baptist Board, a more general Christian message board or one of the many Facebook theology groups. One I would suggest is "Historic (Classic) Premillennialism." There are some post-trib FB groups too but I haven't participated in them and cannot vouch for them. (Asking your question in the most prominent "Reformed Baptist" group will probably mostly result in "piling on" against dispensationalism (since their doctrinal position is also covenantal) or even against premil generally. There are probably more active members there than here at this point. But it may be worth a shot if you're willing to endure that kind of treatment. The response here has been rather restrained so far, but repeated and dogmatic contra-confessional postings are generally not tolerated. (I am not an admin or moderator and can't officially speak for their position, but I think that may be a fair representation of it.) But there is also a difference between seeking to understand in a case like this (which appears to be your goal) and being unteachable.

With regard to your question, it is not one I am really prepared to delve into at the moment. Maybe I can find a little time this weekend. But trying that Historic Premil FB group (which I am a member of) is more likely to result in some discussion.
 
Last edited:
nicnap said:
CMDaniels, Until the 1830s most all believers were "post-trib", because most all held that the great tribulation occured in AD70. There is ample evidence to support such a view. You would do well to read, The Last Days According to Jesus, by R.C. Sproul; Revelation (a Mentor Commentary) by Douglas Kelly, and search the threads here for eschatology. There are many more books than these two, but I think that they give good biblical cases for such a view.

From your post, it sounds like your thinking is still predominately in Dispensational categories. It might be better to think in terms of (partial)preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist, in terms of your reading of eschatology (all things that you will learn as you read more broadly than dispensational camps).

Here are two free ebooks (for which you don't need an eReader) to get you started. They are by Dr. Poythress. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, and Understanding Dispensationalists. (I have copied and pasted them into a .pdf, and put them on my kindle; though, you could simply read them on the screen.) (By the way, I can't endorse Dr. Poythress' books---b/c I haven't read them. However, I did skim them and think they would be valuable to help start shifting the mindset away from the "trib question" being the main one.)
Click to expand...

I didn't know Poythress's book was free. Thanks! I had to read it in seminary (long since given it away) and I credit it as one of the books that made me premil (!).
 
Pilgrim said:
Mr. Daniels,

Most of the members here are either amillennial or postmillennial. If there are more than 5 regular premil posters here (and I'm one of them) I'd be surprised. Covenant theology is the official position of this board, so pretrib and dispensationalism are basically incompatible with the official doctrinal stance here.

Consider this statement from the confession that you stated you affirmed when you joined this board, the 2nd London Baptist Confession, Ch. 26.1 "Of the Church":

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Click to expand...

This understanding of the church is fundamentally incompatible with dispensationalism, which typically divvies up the elect into the Old Testament Saints, the Church and the Tribulation Saints (if not more groups), with the church only consisting of the elect between Pentecost and the pretribulation rapture. Thus, to say Abraham is a member of the universal church in any sense (as the confession teaches) is tantamount to "replacement theology" to practically every dispensationalist I am aware of.

I think you will see better results if you were to ask your question on the Baptist Board, a more general Christian message board or one of the many Facebook theology groups. One I would suggest is "Historic (Classic) Premillennialism." There are some post-trib FB groups too but I haven't participated in them and cannot vouch for them. (Asking your question in the most prominent "Reformed Baptist" group will probably mostly result in "piling on" against dispensationalism (since their doctrinal position is also covenantal) or even against premil generally. There are probably more active members there than here at this point. But it may be worth a shot if you're willing to endure that kind of treatment. The response here has been rather restrained so far, but repeated and dogmatic contra-confessional postings are generally not tolerated. (I am not an admin or moderator and can't officially speak for their position, but I think that may be a fair representation of it.) But there is also a difference between seeking to understand in a case like this (which appears to be your goal) and being unteachable.

With regard to your question, it is not one I am really prepared to delve into at the moment. Maybe I can find a little time this weekend. But trying that Historic Premil FB group (which I am a member of) is more likely to result in some discussion.
Click to expand...

I, also, am one of the five premil guys. I didn't really understand the question. I'll think more on it. I've listened to a lot of progressive dispensationalists make decent cases against post-trib, but I've never heard them bring up this issue.
 
I can see a partial preterist position... I cannot see a full preterist position as likely

Got another issue.... given "Left behind" opens tomorrow, Oct 3, what are good ways of discussing the issues with people
that is without alienating the hearers with echatological rabbit trails

I was talking to a Christian song writer who writes about the rapture allot and I mentioned to him that I thought he was focusing on fears and not
the 'he will come back to be marveled at by those who believe' frm Thessalonians, a verse he wasn't aware of and also mentioned
'perfect love cases out fear, he who fears is not perfected in love, " 1 John, another verse he was not aware of.
I tried to explain that fear has a place, but love is far better and the best promises in the Bible are for those who love God
 
The Marriage Supper of the Lamb has indeed been a battleground text of sorts between pre-trib and post-trib premils. But this is most often seen in relation to that event and the judgment seat of Christ and the insistence on the part of the pretribulationists of a necessity for an interval between the two events.

While many and perhaps most assign Luke 12:35ff to the tribulation, (while nevertheless stating that it has application to the church) some prominent ones (David Larsen, W.E. Blackstone, Alva McClain, Erich Sauer, MacArthur? (I only have the Study Bible, not the commentaries)) cite it as proof of the imminent any-moment rapture ("the next event on the calendar") in a way that would seem to preclude primary reference to the tribulation. (To be sure, we should be watching and waiting no matter what our understanding of this subject is.) I think there is some division within the pre-trib camp with regard to how to interpret some of the discourses as to whether or not certain passages have the present age or the tribulation in view.

What warrant do we have for assuming (or insisting) the reference to a wedding in this parable MUST be a reference to the marriage supper of the Lamb? I think its fair to say that some (perhaps including some pretribulationists) would argue that dogmatically making a connection to the marriage supper here is special pleading in an attempt to defend a theory.
 
Last edited:
nicnap said:
CMDaniels, Until the 1830s most all believers were "post-trib", because most all held that the great tribulation occured in AD70. There is ample evidence to support such a view. You would do well to read, The Last Days According to Jesus, by R.C. Sproul; Revelation (a Mentor Commentary) by Douglas Kelly, and search the threads here for eschatology. There are many more books than these two, but I think that they give good biblical cases for such a view.

From your post, it sounds like your thinking is still predominately in Dispensational categories. It might be better to think in terms of (partial)preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist, in terms of your reading of eschatology (all things that you will learn as you read more broadly than dispensational camps).

Here are two free ebooks (for which you don't need an eReader) to get you started. They are by Dr. Poythress. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, and Understanding Dispensationalists. (I have copied and pasted them into a .pdf, and put them on my kindle; though, you could simply read them on the screen.) (By the way, I can't endorse Dr. Poythress' books---b/c I haven't read them. However, I did skim them and think they would be valuable to help start shifting the mindset away from the "trib question" being the main one.)
Click to expand...

Hopped into this thread to say "great resources". Currently on another one of my eschatology kicks.
 
cmdaniels1986 said:
For me, the Dispensational view seems to fit the best, but as with all views, it still has obvious problems.
Click to expand...

having left Dispensationalism myself, I found it to be erroneous for a few reasons, one being it's "consistent Literal" Hermeneutic, it is not consistently literal in it's interpretation of prophecy, it cannot be, for it is impossible to interpret prophetic symbols literally!

I have thought it necessary to post these links refuting Dispensationalism as you've said you think it fits better in the interpretation (of the marriage supper I suppose) but if the system can be shown to be faulty at the root it will not hold up at the fruit either ie; specific passages like the one you've mentioned.

If it can be shown that Israel & the Church have a spiritual covenantal continuity then there is no need of a pre-tribulation rapture or seven year tribulation period, nor a dichotomy between Old Testament saints & New Testament saints, nor tribulation period saints which under Dispensationalism is Daniel's supposed 70th week which would in fact make them Old Testament saints!

the book that I found helpful in refuting Dispensationalism was Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow by Grover Gunn & Curtis Crenshaw, which you should try and purchase from a bookshop somewhere if you can.

There is a link to the e-book here, unfortunately this link has only Grover Gunn's part of the book.

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow

from the web page...

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow is a critique of Dispensationalism: The Reformed faith holds that the Bible contains a unified progression of revelation in which God has one basic people who form the universal church. While acknowledging that God's final purpose in every detail of history is His own glory, the Reformed faith teaches that God's plan to save a people through the death of Christ is the unifying purpose that runs like a scarlet thread throughout redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation and ties it all together. There is an essential unity to God's people throughout the ages and a basic continuity in God's program throughout the ages.

This teaching on the unity of God's people and the continuity of God's program is the fundamental teaching with which dispensationalists disagree. Dispensationalists hold Biblical revelation to be an interrupted progression in which God has two basic peoples: the earthly seed, Israel, and the heavenly seed, the church. Dispensationalists tend, in various degrees, to deny that redemption through Christ is the basic unifying purpose in Scripture and to deny the basic continuity of God's plan of salvation in the Old and New Testaments. This two-people view of redemptive history can also lead to strong theorized dichotomies between law and grace, between conditional and unconditional covenants, between earthly and heavenly purposes, and between Jewish and Christian end-time prophetic events. As dispensationalist Dr. John F. Walvoord explains, dispensationalism "maintains sharply the distinctions between law and grace, between Israel and the church, between earthly and heavenly, and between prophecies being fulfilled and those which will be fulfilled in the millennium."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Defining the Basic System

Chapter 2: Israel and the Church

Chapter 3: The Parenthesis Theory and the Church in Prophecy

Chapter 4: The New Covenant, Part One

Chapter 5: The New Covenant, Part Two

Chapter 6: How They Argue Their Case

Chapter 7: Consistent Literalism

Chapter 8: Interpreting the Prophets

Chapter 9: Rightly Dividing the Word

Chapter 10: Christian Zionism

Chapter 11: "Thy Kingdom Come"

Chapter 12: Old Testament Salvation

Chapter 13: Dealing with It in the Real World

Appendix 1: The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Doctrine

Appendix 2: Conditional and Unconditional Covenants

Curtis Crenshaw has also posted Why I Am No Longer Dispensational

House Divided by Bahnsen & Gentry could also be a book that is a helpful refutation of Dispensationalism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top