Member
Anyone looking for direct scripture support of the famed Pre-Trib Rapture will come up empty handed. Admits Rapture heavyweight John Walvoord in his book called The Rapture Question (Findlay, OH:1957, p.148). Saying;
"Ladd, in contrast to Jones, concedes that post-tribulalional rapture is an inference rather than an explicit revelation of Scripture in the following statement:
"Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation."
“The fact is that neither posttribulalionism nor pretribulationisim is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not in so many words state either.”
“Pretribulationism is based on the fact that it allows a harmony of the Scriptures relating to the Second Advent.”
“The separation of the translation from the return of Christ to earth permits each of the two events so different in character, to have its own place.”
“It solves the problem of the confusing and contradictory details in the post-tribulational interpretation illustrated in the difficulty of the postribulationist's themselves to work out a harmony of prophecies related to the second advent."
Another Rapture heavy-weight, Tim LaHaye says:
"One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either."
Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack). “That’s Not in the Bible” Gary DeMar
So despite the fact millions of books claiming the rapture flew off the shelves despite the failed prophecies surrounding them, millions of Christians believe as scripture truth the claims that have no scripture supporting them.
If you believe in the pre-trib rapture, how do you support it with scripture when the best-known Rapturists cannot?
"Ladd, in contrast to Jones, concedes that post-tribulalional rapture is an inference rather than an explicit revelation of Scripture in the following statement:
"Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation."
“The fact is that neither posttribulalionism nor pretribulationisim is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not in so many words state either.”
“Pretribulationism is based on the fact that it allows a harmony of the Scriptures relating to the Second Advent.”
“The separation of the translation from the return of Christ to earth permits each of the two events so different in character, to have its own place.”
“It solves the problem of the confusing and contradictory details in the post-tribulational interpretation illustrated in the difficulty of the postribulationist's themselves to work out a harmony of prophecies related to the second advent."
Another Rapture heavy-weight, Tim LaHaye says:
"One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either."
Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack). “That’s Not in the Bible” Gary DeMar
So despite the fact millions of books claiming the rapture flew off the shelves despite the failed prophecies surrounding them, millions of Christians believe as scripture truth the claims that have no scripture supporting them.
If you believe in the pre-trib rapture, how do you support it with scripture when the best-known Rapturists cannot?
