Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists.
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). He agrees with G. E. Ladd 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 the same:
"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 in the face of the failed prophecies surrounding them, why do millions of Christians believe as scripture truth the claims put forth by these?
If you believe in the pre-trib rapture, how do you support it with scripture when these cannot?
Funny, that Dr Kenneth Wuest, head of NT Greek at Moody Bible Institute for many decades before his death in 1961 thought that that the scripture, especially 2 Thessalonians 2 clearly supported the pre-trib position.
Virtually every translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 prior to the KJV said it was a departure (as in physical departure) was in view not a falling away or doctrinal departure. Even the Latin Vulgate uses "dicessio" which is a spatial, physical departure. And the context in laid out in verse one. The context is the Day of the Lord and our gathering to Him, not our departing from Him. For instance....
2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.
And there are many scholars who concur with Kenneth Wuest's assertion on the text meaning a physical departure or rapture and not a doctrinal departure or falling away. Dr. Andy Woods published a book specifically addressing 2 Thes 2:3 in February 2018. "The Falling Away: Spiritual Departure Or Physical Rapture: A second look at 2 Thessalonians 2:3" Very detailed analysis.
And I am convinced that the pre-trib removal of the righteous has substantial support in the OT as well. But then, that would be the standard set in Torah and affirmed by the Bereans in Acts 17. And it becomes apparent when those attack the pre-trib, especially those they think are somehow "leaders" of the concept, that the attackers never seem to use much OT support to bolster their position, even though that is the scriptural requirement that must be met for any doctrinal matter to be established.
But I also find it rather curious that the pre-trib is the one position that seems to generate so much angst and vitriol not only from the "Christian" community, but especially so the secular community as well. Primarily those who write New Age / UFO / Channeling books where they claim to channel extraterrestrials. They go to great lengths to dismiss the pre-trib position and waste little time attacking any other position. So it does beg the question, why would a psychotic super cherub (Satan) have such a severe problem with the pre-trib if in fact it is doctrinally incorrect and leads people astray?
I get this sudden Shakespearian moment.... "me thinks ye doest protest to much".