Pre vs Post Tribulation

[Pilgrim]

In keeping with what Joe said, we always need to consider the best proponents of any theological position. There are a lot of good targets to pick if you want to make any doctrine look bad, but that does little more than stroke our own ego.

I agree.

I am anti-dispensational, but I am convinced that much of what I have heard from the Reformed group does not represent Dispensationalism in a very even light. Even those who "used to be Dispensationalists" often don't seem to have a very good grasp on the system as a whole, and I wonder if they really understand what they left behind and what they believe now.

I disagree. For those of us that were taught the two-salvation dispensationalism, we know exactly what it's about. That's why I related right away to Kevin's post. Trust me, when you've been there you know it.

Let's not pretend that the two-salvation dispensationalists don't exist, and not be afraid to call it what it is. It's a horrible error and comes from terrible exegesis of the Scriptures.

There are horrible errors taught by some covenant theologians as well. The point is that the two-salvation view is not at all demanded by dispensationalism when you boil it down to its essence.

 

[DMcFadden]

OK. Well, it must be rare indeed (thank goodness) because I've never come in contact with it. That's why I wondered if you meant Premil. No insult to your intelligence intended

When Gundry came out with his The Church and the Tribulation in the 70s, his arguments were persuasive to quite a view in the dispensational camp. He was exegetical, brilliant, and . . . well . . . dispensational in his premises. By the way, Ladd hated it and dismissed it in class saying that he "heard" that Gundry wrote it before he went to Manchester to study for his PhD with F.F. Bruce. Ladd, was a classic historic premil all the way down to a natural aversion (sometimes delivered with sarcasm, often with anger) to the dispensationalism of his youth (which he evidently jettisoned during his PhD work at Harvard).

I don't know if it's accurate to say that Ladd is a classic historic premil. However his work has become so prevalent in some quarters (mainly academic it appears) that he is now considered the gold standard when it comes to historic premil. Walvoord reviewed one of Ladd's books and said it looked like the amils had another advocate to add to their ranks. Specifically what I am getting at is that Ladd repudiated the views of older (and to me, classic) historic or covenant premils like Horatius Bonar, C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, etc, particularly with regard to the issue of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. On that issue Ladd is more like the amils. Arguing that there will be a mass conversion of Jews before the end is not the same as seeing conversion as well as a physical restoration to the land, as most earlier premils (including non dispensationalists) did.

I meant "classic" in the second sense, not the first. Ladd is an exemplar of the type of premillennialism you often get when you begin with a dispensational upbringing. Ladd (like so many other post-trib premils) wanted to distance himself from ANYthing dispensational. You are quite correct to say that he essentially utilizes an amil hermeneutic to get at his position. This is one of the rare times when I will credit Walvoord with being both fair and accurate in evaluating a theological opponent. That is why I commented some time ago that the shift from premil to amil was pretty easy for me since Ladd had done the hermeneutical heavy lifting already.

Incidentally, amils (as you know) are not of one piece of cloth on secondary issues either. There is quite a tradition among some amils for taking Romans 9-11 as presaging a future for ethnic Israel.

 

[Pilgrim]

When Gundry came out with his The Church and the Tribulation in the 70s, his arguments were persuasive to quite a view in the dispensational camp. He was exegetical, brilliant, and . . . well . . . dispensational in his premises. By the way, Ladd hated it and dismissed it in class saying that he "heard" that Gundry wrote it before he went to Manchester to study for his PhD with F.F. Bruce. Ladd, was a classic historic premil all the way down to a natural aversion (sometimes delivered with sarcasm, often with anger) to the dispensationalism of his youth (which he evidently jettisoned during his PhD work at Harvard).

I don't know if it's accurate to say that Ladd is a classic historic premil. However his work has become so prevalent in some quarters (mainly academic it appears) that he is now considered the gold standard when it comes to historic premil. Walvoord reviewed one of Ladd's books and said it looked like the amils had another advocate to add to their ranks. Specifically what I am getting at is that Ladd repudiated the views of older (and to me, classic) historic or covenant premils like Horatius Bonar, C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, etc, particularly with regard to the issue of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. On that issue Ladd is more like the amils. Arguing that there will be a mass conversion of Jews before the end is not the same as seeing conversion as well as a physical restoration to the land, as most earlier premils (including non dispensationalists) did.

I meant "classic" in the second sense, not the first. Ladd is an exemplar of the type of premillennialism you often get when you begin with a dispensational upbringing. Ladd (like so many other post-trib premils) wanted to distance himself from ANYthing dispensational. You are quite correct to say that he essentially utilizes an amil hermeneutic to get at his position. This is one of the rare times when I will credit Walvoord with being both fair and accurate in evaluating a theological opponent. That is why I commented some time ago that the shift from premil to amil was pretty easy for me since Ladd had done the hermeneutical heavy lifting already.

Incidentall, amils (as you know) are not of one piece of cloth on secondary issues either. There is quite a tradition among some amils for taking Romans 9-11 as presaging a future for ethnic Israel.

I think Hoekema in particular sees some physical fulfillment as well, although certainly not in the same way as the Dispensationalists or classic premils. My understanding is also that the typical amil view has been that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews before the end, but some more recent theologians like Palmer Robertson and Waldron do not see this. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I am really just starting to study eschatology.)

I've also been interested to learn that Ladd's views on the already/not yet concept of the Kingdom of God were appropriated by John Wimber and C. Peter Wagner for their "Power Evangelism." That's a little off topic for this thread, but dispensational fundamentalists don't tire of pointing it out. One's eschatology will typically have an influence on how we are to carry out ministry in the here and now.

 

[Pilgrim]

The evangelical ship is sinking and the confessionally Reformed and (non fundy) dispensational brethren have all of the life rafts.

I think there are a few fundy life rafts too, although they may not be representative if IFB's as a whole. Regardless there is a movement among younger fundamentalists that is unsatisfied with the typical way of doing things. A lot of the material on Sharper Iron is representative of this viewpoint. Some of them are Calvinistic or lean that way as well and take theology seriously, something that fundamentalism hasn't been known for. The non KJVO fundy Detroit Baptist Seminary appears to do good work. I have found several of their theological journal articles to be quite good. Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (also non KJVO) has written some good articles as well, including A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.

I recently picked up a fundamentalist book on the failure of evangelicalism. It is Promise Unfilfilled by Detroit Baptist Seminary professor Rolland McCune. I haven't read it yet, but I think it will be quite good even though I know I won't agree with the author 100% on issues like separation. It is reviewed by Andy Naselli here.

It would seem that someone like MacArthur occupies an uneasy middle ground between Fundamentalism and (neo)Evangelicalism. Like others of similar views this comes down to the issue of secondary separation. He was reared in fundamentalism and went to BJU initially but transferred to another school. I think the transfer was because he wanted to play football. He has been quite critical of BJU type ideas on separation but he is clearly more separatistic than most evangelicals and has been sharply critical of much of neo-evangelicalism. The difference between him and the fundamentalists is that to borrow a phrase from the current election, he has recently preached at places like Billy Graham's training center without preconditions, although his objections to Graham's actions and inclusivistic statements is quite well known.

 

[puritan lad]

The difficulty is defining exactly what a Dispensationalist is. It is possible to hold to a Dispensationalist Eschatology and not be a Dispensationalist in terms of dividing Scripture. A true Dispensationalist holds that only certain portions of Scripture are relevent to certain ages, ie. the Old Testament is no valid today. Some go so far as to suggest that today's Christians only need to concern themselves with Paul's writings, since the Gospels related only to a pre-church era. (See Why Paul, not Peter, is our apostle). Obviously, this is heresy (not to mention that Paul himself rejected this nonsense).

So men like MacArthur may hold to a Dispensational Eschatology, but are not really full-blown Dispensationalists. In fact, A.W. Pink held to what appears to be a Dispensational Eschatology, yet referred to Dispensationalism as "...a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned."

As for the original question of a pre-trib rapture, Rev. 20:4-5 along with 1 Thess. 4:16 refutes that possibility. How can the First Resurrection of Rev. 20 include the "tribulation saints" if, according to 1 Thess. 4, that resurrection takes place before the tribulation even begins?

 

[Pilgrim]

The difficulty is defining exactly what a Dispensationalist is. It is possible to hold to a Dispensationalist Eschatology and not be a Dispensationalist in terms of dividing Scripture. A true Dispensationalist holds that only certain portions of Scripture are relevent to certain ages, ie. the Old Testament is no valid today. Some go so far as to suggest that today's Christians only need to concern themselves with Paul's writings, since the Gospels related only to a pre-church era. (See Why Paul, not Peter, is our apostle). Obviously, this is heresy (not to mention that Paul himself rejected this nonsense).

So men like MacArthur may hold to a Dispensational Eschatology, but are not really full-blown Dispensationalists. In fact, A.W. Pink held to what appears to be a Dispensational Eschatology, yet referred to Dispensationalism as "...a device of the Enemy, designed to rob the children of no small part of that bread which their heavenly Father has provided for their souls; a device wherein the wily serpent appears as an angel of light, feigning to "make the Bible a new book" by simplifying much in it which perplexes the spiritually unlearned."

As for the original question of a pre-trib rapture, Rev. 20:4-5 along with 1 Thess. 4:16 refutes that possibility. How can the First Resurrection of Rev. 20 include the "tribulation saints" if, according to 1 Thess. 4, that resurrection takes place before the tribulation even begins?

Early in his ministry Pink was dispensationalist but he later repudiated it strongly. I think he may have repudiated premil altogether. Books like The Redeemer's Return by Pink that are still in print do not represent his later thought. Many if not most dispensationalists today do not hold to seven dispensations, etc. The essence of it is basically the church/Israel distinction.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Back to the OP and earlier thread responses. Here is a resource that does indeed reference a post-trib premill view:

Gleason Archer (editor), The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational, Zondervan (June 1984).

Premillennialists continue to be divided on the question of the Rapture of the church: Will it occur before, in the middle of, or after the Tribulation? Drs. Paul Feinberg (Pre), Gleason Archer (Mid), and Douglas Moo (Post) present the case for the position each holds. Each chapter is followed by critical responses from the two opposing positions. The book in intorduced by Richard Reiter's helpful essay tracing the history of this debate in American evangelicalism.