May 8, 2008

The Prewrath Rapture Guys Responding to Mal Couch, Part 1

Mal Couch has started a series responding to Prewrath. So far he has posted terse articles lacking anything meaningful. Nevertheless, my purpose is not only to give you the reader substantive replies, but for Couch's pretrib readers to find these articles through search engines and other means.

He writes,

It is a convoluted view that says the church will go through part of the tribulation and be raptured before the wrath of Revelation 16:1-12.

Even though the term "tribulation" is ingrained in the dispensational psyche it is a very misleading and unbiblical term since it assumes that the entire 70th week of Daniel is God's wrath. There are three properly Biblical terms: "70th week of Daniel" which denotes the seven year period; the "Great Tribulation" which Jesus denotes as Antichrist's persecution against the godly; and "Day of the Lord" which denotes God's wrath against the ungodly.

His statement about Revelation 16:1-12 if very odd indeed. Couch is suggesting that Prewrath affirms that the church will go through the trumpet judgments of God's wrath, but be raptured just before the bowl judgments. I'm sorry, but even pretrib internet apologists don't make this error. Anyone with any iota of the Prewath position understands that Prewrath affirms that the church is raptured before the trumpet and bowl judgments of God's wrath, not just the bowl judgments. He further confirms this error when he writes, "They argue that the church does go to heaven before that wrath of Revelation 16 and on."

Notice that he does not cite any documentation for his erroneous assertion. By the way, this common phenomenon is not exclusive to Couch; Pretrib writers are notorious for their lack of documentation of primary sources (e.g. books, authors, page numbers, etc.). It's called responsible scholarship.

Notice also that I have linked to his pretrib website for the reader to examine my argumentation, accurate documentation, and context. You rarely find the other side doing that for Prewrath.

Moving on,

[1Thess 5] is about the entire tribulation, the Day of the Lord, that will come upon the world like a thief in the night (v. 2). Paul never says this entire period (seven years), or even part of this period, will fall upon church saints.

Couch here simply assumes that "Day of the Lord" = "seven years." Further, Couch is assuming here that Prewrath affirms that believers will go through God's wrath. There is a reason why it is called "Pre-wrath."

Do you see what Couch is trying to do? The debate is not over whether believers will experience The Day of the Lord's wrath. Any Premill position would deny that. The watershed question is when does the Day of the Lord begin. And this is the question that Couch is precisely ignoring.

I would like the opportunity to debate Mal Couch publicly and ask him specific questions in my cross-examination period about his assertions since he would not be able to get away with his evasive reasoning. Notice again above, no documentation on his assertions.

We continue,

Those birth pangs Paul speaks about here in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 are seen as a whole, the complete seven years of earth horror. Thus the church shall escape the whole period of the birth pangs (the entire period of wrath) not just the last half.

Once again, Couch simply assumes that God's wrath begins at the start of the 70th week of Daniel. He can repeatedly say this, but it does not make it so -- he needs that little thing called...Biblical support. Assumptions may work for some, but most believers who I know want reasons for what they believe.

The very last part in that paragraph he says, "not just the last half." Now Couch is indicating that prewrath affirms that God's wrath is the second half of the 70th week of Daniel! I'm sorry, but this is just plain sloppiness on his part. It is definitional of the Prewrath position that God's wrath begins sometime during the second half of the 70th week of Daniel -- and not starting at the middle of the 7 year period.

But the spiritually challenged PreWrath guys ignore or certainly dance around Revelation 6:12-17 where it is clearly stated that the wrath of God begins at the front end of the tribulation, even though the final outpouring of wrath is described by the Bowls of Wrath in Revelation 16.

This statement simply proves without a shadow of doubt that Couch is comfortable with only talking to his own readers who he thinks will not check his statements or sources, since he is not interested in reading and interacting with what Prewrath says about particular passages.

He says that we "ignore" Revelation 6:12-17. Really? Apparently, Couch has never read any of the following Prewrath sources:

The Sign (Updated Edition) by Van Kampen, pp. 294-95.

The Rapture Question Answered: Plain and Simple by Van Kampen, pp. 152-55.

The Prewrath Rapture of the Church by Rosenthal, pp. 167, 170, 172, 179, 193.

Parousia Newsletter (Winter, 2000) "The Rapture Initiates the Day of the Lord." Charles Cooper exegetes this text extensively.

Prewrath Debate. Cooper during the debate, responded substantively to Couch on Rev. 6:17.

Mr. Couch, it is you sir who is ignoring what Prewrath has written on this text. He also said that we can "dance around" this text. Where are his citations? his documentation? I have provided him these prewrath sources where this text is dealt with. So I challenge him to demonstrate from these primary Prewrath sources where we have "danced" around the text.

At the first of the tribulation, in Revelation 6:16-17, the world cries out (not the church or the Christians crying out), "Hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the WRATH of the Lamb; for THE GREAT DAY OF THEIR WRATH "HAS ARRIVED" (Aorist Tense, it is already here at the beginning of the tribulation) and who is able to stand [up under it].

Couch invokes the Greek tense called the "Aorist" suggesting that God's wrath has already been happening and hoping that his readers will accept his word for it.

Unlike Couch who does not explain what the "Aorist" tense is, I will. In Greek there is a common tense called the "aorist" which we do not have in English. Contrary to popular thought out there the aorist tense is the least significant tense in Greek. Strangely one will hear pastors often preaching and making a big deal about this or that word in the "aorist." I personally think this misunderstanding is due to the fact that it is not found in the English grammatical system so it seems mysterious to those who do not know Greek. So Couch can throw it out there even though he does not have a proper understanding to its meaning -- but people accept his word because of that "Dr." in front of his name, so he must be right!

Let me demythologize the aorist tense. The aorist does not denote "past time" as some commonly understand it; and it does not denote a "once-for-all action." Some wrongly believe that it is a past tense because it can often be in a past action context. Though it is commonly in past action, it can also be an action in the present, future, or just timeless. Only context -- not the fact it is aorist -- tells us what time the action occurs.

The aorist is what is called the "indefinite" or "undefined" tense. It does not tell you the type of action such as specifying its duration, nor again does it tell the time that the action takes place.

The aorist is often known as the "background" or "snapshot" or "summary" tense (there are some nuances to those notions). Sometimes it is thought of as the "default" tense in Greek, but that may be too much of an understatement of its function. An author would choose the aorist tense to represent the action of the verb as a complete whole -- i.e. stating an undefined action without giving specific information of the type of action such as focusing on the beginning or ending of the action, its duration, or whether it is repeated or not. That information about the action of the verb can only come through lexical, grammatical, or other contextual indicators, and not its tense.

So going back to Couch's claim that the wrath of God has been unfolding because "has come" (ἦλθεν, elthen) is simply in the aorist tense is fallacious and does not account for context that indicates that the ungodly are fleeing to the caves because of the impeding wrath of God.

For a good example, the same exact verb in the aorist tense is used in Mark 14:41 when Jesus says, "the hour has come [impending]; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." The context clarifies that Christ is speaking of impending or ingressive action.

(As noted above there are prewrath sources for reference for further reading on that text.)

Since the church does not go under any part of the tribulation it will be gone in the PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE before Revelation 6!

Here Couch assumes that the first six seals are God's wrath. I have written an article on that very assertion that you can read here rather than repeating myself.

Remember people who come up with such silly views have an agenda at stake. They want the church to be "purged" by the pain of the tribulation or just flat out cannot stand the clear teaching of Pretribulational Rapturists! They want to argue just to argue! They work disparately [sic] hard to create another view in order to deny the obvious. They need to go to counseling!

Wow, three exclamation points. We want to "argue just to argue!" Yep, that's right, I have nothing better to do with my time. We work "hard to create another view in order to deny the obvious." Huh? I won't attempt to understand that one. We "need to go to counseling!" It is truly hard to believe that Couch has any advanced degree with these sort of immature statements that would undermine anyone's credibility seeking to be heard.

It is no wonder that many pretribs have seen right through these emotional appeals and have been convinced of prewrath.

We did not have any meaningful argumentation provided by Couch, nor did he cite sources or even attempt to interact with accurate prewrath representation. What we got was a slipshod, flippant response. I would not hold my breath that this will change in his subsequent entries.

May 6, 2008

Joel Rosenberg on Muslims Converting to Christianity

Here is an encouraging story by Joel C. Rosenberg.

May 2, 2008

The Prewrath Rapture Guys Responding to Dr. Mal Couch

Mal Couch has started a series responding to "the Prewrath Rapture Guys" here. I thought it would be appropriate to respond back!

He writes,

"I thought the PreWrath Rapture guys had been put out to pasture a long time ago! But I guess error has a way of continually re-surfacing again and again."

Dr. Couch sadly does not understand that not only has the prewrath view not been put out to pasture but there are now prewrathers feeding on a thousand hills. And the more pretribs that are introduced to the prewrath position -- from actual prewrath sources! -- the more prewrath hills will be feeding believers.

I read his part-one article hoping that there would be some meaningful argumentation from this pretrib teacher but sadly I found strawmen and sophomoric statements such as,

"They need to go to counseling!"

"But the spiritually challenged PreWrath guys ignore or certainly dance around..."

Not to mention his use of CAPITAL LETTERS to try to get his point across as if that lends credibility to his argumentation.

Yes, believe it or not, he is one of the more noted pretrib teachers out there. Of course, these type of statements can only be indicative of desperation. They know that prewrath is gaining much ground on pretribulationism but they realize that they cannot ignore it anymore so when they actually do have to address it, they have to misrepresent it as they have done from day one. That is fine with us actually because thinking believers will (and have) seen right through these smoke and mirrors.

Next week I will address his article point by point demonstrating that Mal Couch is ignorant in his use of Greek (he commits the "aorist is the past tense" fallacy!). Further, he shows no evidence of understanding the prewrath view (or wanting to) and he makes hackneyed assumptions when he argues against the prewrath view which only begs questions.

Incidentally, we can understand why Mal Couch and other pretrib teachers won't debate us in public moderated debates anymore after Cooper and Best dismantled Couch in a debate in Texas back in 1999.

May 1, 2008

The Growing Prewrath Family

I recently had an appointment with a Doctor in Murfreesboro Tennessee, who is a specialist, for a problem I was having. As he was going over my information he noted that I was retired. He asked what line of work I had been in and I replied, the ministry. He then asked what denomination? To which I answered Baptist. He sat back in his chair and said, Oh you must be pre-millenial and pretrib? Not knowing what was coming I rather slowly responded, I am pre-millenial but not pretrib. Uh huh so what are you, he asked and of course I quickly answered prewrath. He jumped out of chair and said I must shake your hand, so am I! He had read The Sign and The Rapture Question Answered some years ago and said finally the timing of the rapture makes sense. What a good time we had discussing eschatology, and oh yes he cared for my problem as well.

I have just concluded a prophecy conference at Barfield Baptist Church in Murfreesboro Tennessee. The Sunday through Wednesday conference was well attended and well received as I had opportunity to present the biblical basis for the prewrath rapture. One man, not from the church, attended every session, his interest came because his neighbor had given him a copy of The Rapture Question Answered by Robert VanKampen. Once you discover the truth you want to share it with others. What a joy it is to see people taking notes and digging into the Word of God with eagerness like the Bereans of old (Acts 17:11). Once again I found so many Christians accepting the faulty pretrib position simply because that is what they had been taught. It was a delight as well to work with a pastor who is open to discovering the truth of God's Word and not tied into simply what he had been taught. Barfield Baptist is a wonderful growing church and it was my privilege to share the Word of God with them.

Roger Best

April 28, 2008

Prewrath Story
Coming to the Prewrath Position Naturally

Michael Rogers explains,

I accepted Jesus Christ in 1979 and entered the Baptist Denomination where I served the Lord for eighteen years. I was trained very well in the study of God's Word and I have always hungered for truth no matter what the topic. I found myself some years later in the Pentecostal church where I served as an elder for many years. I answered God's call on my life and after finishing bible college I started a church in Bellefontaine Ohio. While I was under my former pastor we would often sit in his office and discuss the may topics of Scripture that the church struggled with, such as eternal security, tithing, etc. One day he asked me what I believed concerning the Rapture. My response was simple, I believed in the Rapture and believed it could occur at any moment. I had never heard of the prewrath rapture position nor of the authors who have written on the subject. My pastor, instead of enlightening me on the subject challenged me to study the topic out starting with Matthew 24. At the time I did not know he was a prewrath advocate. I took the challenge and spent a year searching the subject out using Matthew 24 as my spring board. It wasn't long before I connected all the dots and what I found both excited me and scared me. I was afraid to share my findings with my pastor for fear I would be rejected. But, I entered his office one day and told him I had concluded my study and shared with him my new found belief. I explained to him that I saw the Rapture as "Prewrath" and that the church would enter Daniel's 70th week and suffer persecution by Antichrist after which the church would be raptured. Without saying a word he just smiled at me, got up from his chair, pulled a book from his book case and handed it to me. It was the Prewrath Rapture of the Church by Marvin Rosenthal. I was shocked that not only did the doctrine exist but books existed on the subject. I took the book and read it through two times. Though my findings was vague in comparison to Marvin Rosenthal's book my study matched his exactly. This confirmed that I had discovered truth. That was eight years ago, and I have been studying the prewrath rapture ever since and teaching it wherever I can. At this time I am not pastoring a church and I am finding it difficult to get the message out. I fear that the churches lethargic attitude concerning the Second Coming of Jesus is only setting the church up for the Apostasy. Pray with me and for me as I want to do my part to get the truth of God's Word out. If there is anything I can do to be apart of this movement please let me know.

April 27, 2008

Amazing on Amazing Grace...

April 26, 2008

The Colossal Statue and The Four Beasts in Daniel

Update: I have learned that the chart does not work in the IE browser. If you have Firefox it works in that. I will just have to convert this to an image so it works in all browsers when I find time. Thanks.

Daniel 2: The Colossal Statue

Theme            Liberal Critics              Amillennial                 Premillennial
                        (e.g. Driver)                (e.g. Young)              (e.g. Gaebelein)

Gold Head           Babylon                    Babylon                       Babylon

Silver Torso          Media                       Medo-Persia               Medo-Persia

Bronze Thighs      Persia                       Greece                        Greece

Iron Legs,             Greece                      Rome              Rome/Revived Rome
Iron Clay Feet                                     

Daniel 7: The Four Beasts

Theme             Liberal Critics               Amillennial                  Premillennial

Lion                    Babylon                       Babylon                       Babylon

Bear                    Media                         Medo-Persia                Medo-Persia

Leopard              Persia                          Greece                         Greece

Beast w/              Greece                        Rome               Rome/Revived Rome
Iron Teeth                                                 
& 10 Horns                                                
Little Horn         Antiochus IV                Antichrist                    Antichrist
                            Epiphanes

Question: Why don't liberal critics recognize Rome in these two dreams in Daniel? Answer: They reject a sixth century dating of Daniel (Babylonian period) because their anti-supernatural bias forces them to see the visions as interpretations of the past and not revelations of the future. In short, they reject predictive prophecy (i.e., the visions could not predict the coming of the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome).  So they date Daniel to the second century during the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (165/164 BC) and thus they view the fourth kingdom as Greece. There are other reasons why liberal critics will reject a sixth century dating but understand that their deep-seated bias against predictive prophecy is what really drives their argumentation.

(Source for the Chart: Lecture notes from Dr. J.J. Niehaus, Old Testament Prophetical Books)

April 15, 2008

The ESV Study Bible -- Mostly Good News...and Some Bad News

As many of you may know, the much touted ESV Study Bible will be launched this year (October 15). It will be a superb study bible indeed looking over the list of the contributors.

I am very pleased to see that they chose Colin Nicholl to write the 1 and 2 Thessalonians' study notes. I look forward to reading them. Dr. Nicholl has a new approach to the traditional outline of Thessalonians. Having studied under him, I was persuaded that he is correct. As far as I know, his view of the outline will be reflected in the notes.

I was disappointed though that they chose a non-futurist to write the Revelation notes, amillennialist Dennis Johnson. I think it it safe to say that most of the ESV's readership have a futurist approach to Revelation and not amillennial, so choosing an amillennialist is an enigma to me. Indeed, other contributors have some input in all the books, but don't expect to find distinctive futurist interpretations since they will be overshadowed mostly by the Amill hermeneutic. I could be wrong, but we will find out with its release.

If you use the ESV I would recommend purchasing the study bible, but understand that study notes should not be a replacement for doing in-depth studies yourself as well as reading and referencing actual commentaries on individual books of the Bible.

April 10, 2008

The "Coming" (Parousia) and the "Day of the Lord" are Interchangeable (Co-Referential) Terms

The New Testament writers including Jesus understood that the "Day of the Lord" and the "Coming" (Parousia) denoted the same events at Christ's Return (deliverance of the godly and judgment on the ungodly.) The two terms often emphasize different aspects of Christ's Return -- "Coming" with deliverance, and "Day of the Lord" with the judgment aspect.

Peter provides us with an excellent example in which he freely interchanges these two terms denoting the same event of the conflagration of creation:

(10) But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (11) Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, (12) looking for and hastening the coming (parousia) of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat. - 2Pet 3:10-12

April 9, 2008

Variant Terms are Employed in the Use of the "Day of the Lord"

Ben asks,

"If you are saying that the Day of the Lord and the Day of Christ are the same event, does that mean that the Day of the Lord is the rapture?"

The "Day of the Lord (or Christ)" commences with the deliverance of the righteous by the rapture followed by God's wrath against the ungodly who remain on the earth.

But a few comments should be made about variant descriptions of our Lord's Return described most commonly as "The Day of the Lord."

First, Paul and other New Testament writers commonly used "Lord" and "Christ" interchangeably in many Christological contexts. Not to mention that they frequently combine the terms throughout the New Testament (e.g. 14 times in the Thessalonians),

"Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." - 2Th 1:1-2

Second, Paul has the freedom to extend the traditional term "Day of the Lord" to "Day of our Lord Jesus Christ" because his Christology teaches him that the Lord is Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament era, Christ was not revealed. In the New Testament apostolic era the apostles have learned that the "Day of the Lord" is a time when Christ will be magnified and vindicated; hence the "Day of Christ" or "Day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Third, When Paul places an emphasis on our sanctification or the deliverance of the righteous at Christ's Return he has used the term "The Day of Christ" or a variant of it; and when he wants to place emphasis on the judgment aspect of Christ's Return he often employs "The Day of the Lord." But it would be a mistake to confuse these emphases on different aspects of the Coming of our Lord by disconnecting the rapture from its immediate subsequent wrath of God (They are back-to-back events).

Fourth, to begin to appreciate the freedom that the New Testament writers had with the traditional term "Day of the Lord" here is a good sampling of variants:

Pauline: "the day of Christ"; "the day of Jesus Christ"; "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ"; "the day of the Lord"; "the day"; "that day"; "the day of wrath." Non-Pauline: "the days of the Son of Man (Luke 17:22, Noah); "the great day" (Rev. 6.17); "the day of visitation" (1 Peter 2:12); "the last day" (John 6); "the day of judgment" (1 John 4:17)