August 31, 2009

Fighting is Not an Option During the Great Tribulation

This presentation will be challenging for those who believe that the way to survive the Great Tribulation is to fight. This will also be a reality check for many western believers, particularly those who have been taught an escapist theology. Cooper examines the Biblical principles that the Church must apply during this awful time -- and fighting is not one of them. This is a session from the 2009 2nd Annual Prewrath Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

"There is coming a time when injustice is the order of the day -- and we will have no remedy." - Charles Cooper

Download as MP3

August 30, 2009

A Response to David Reagan and His "Revelation Infers A Pre-Wrath Rapture?"

Recently, Dr. David Reagan has written a very brief critique of Prewrath here. As is custom of other pretribulational critiques of the Prewrath position, his article shows that he does not understand the Prewrath position, and I suspect he has not read any primary literature but has relied on skewed secondary sources.

Before I interact with his article, I want to preface a few words.

I have asked Dr. Reagan to engage in a public debate since I believe it would be beneficial for God's people. He rebuffed my request for having meaningful interaction on a public level calling it a "total waste of time." If he is not interested in public debate, then I think it would be good at least to have a written dialogue. Dr. Reagan and I can engage in meaningful interaction on our respective blogs. I will post his articles on my blog, and he can post mine on his blog. Then we can post each others' respective rebuttals and so on concluding with closing articles. We both will have a word maximum on each article so it will be a fair exchange. This way, his readers will read my articles on his website, and my readers will read his articles on my website. If Dr. Reagan is averse to public meaningful interaction, then surely he cannot be against having a beneficial dialogue in writing.

Moving on to the article.

I come from the school of thought that credible scholarship requires at least two things: First, it requires that the one critiquing a position understands not just what the other position claims, but the reasoning behind the claims. Reagan has done neither.

Second, good scholarship requires interacting with both the claims and the reasoning. Again, this is lacking from Reagan's article. If I failed at both of these activities my reputation as a researcher and theologian would diminish quickly.

As a prewrath rapturist, I am disappointed at the strawman that Reagan creates. I do not recognize almost any point he says that I am suppose to believe as a Prewrather. It is similar to a Muslim saying, "Christians believe the Trinity, which teaches that there are three Gods." False representation is a sign of a failed argument.

Nevertheless, let us interact with his article.

He starts off saying:

"Can an argument be made for placing the Rapture near the end of the Tribulation?"

This is not what the Prewrath position affirms. Notice that he does not cite any prewrath documentation so his readers can verify his assertions.

The Prewrath position places the rapture sometime during the second half of the 70th week of Daniel. Jesus says we cannot know the exact day or hour (Matt 24:36). The rapture can occur anytime between a period near the midpoint and toward the end of the 70th week. Here is a chart that is available at our site that Reagan could have easily linked to.

Next, he writes:

"The cornerstone of this concept is that the terrifying events during the first half of the Tribulation are due to the wrath of Man and Satan, and not to God."

The "cornerstone" of the Prewrath position is the first half? Um...I am stupefied. Prewrath teachers affirm that this period is the most insignificant. This is not to say that there will not be trials for believers at this time. But Reagan gets it completely wrong. Prewrath teaches that the terrifying events due to the wrath of Man/Satan are during the Great Tribulation, which occurs during the second half.

I am seriously not trying to be hard on Dr. Reagan. Whoever fed him distorted secondary sources on the prewrath rapture mislead him. But Reagan is to blame as well since his incompetency of not checking out the most basic facts of the Prewrath position undermines his credibility. Given that the Prewrath position is the fastest growing rapture position today, I would think that he would be on top of current issues.

Next, Reagan asserts that the Prewrath rapture undermines the sovereignty of God. I find this odd since all the writers on our prewrath website are Calvinists. He writes:

"This concept raises a serious theological problem because it questions the sovereignty of God. It assumes that Man and Satan can act apart from God's will, when the fact of the matter is that neither can do anything God is not willing to permit."

I truly do not see how Reagan is making a connection here that if someone believes that the Church will encounter Antichrist somehow requires a denial of God's sovereignty. Believers are being persecuted even today, does that require that God is no longer sovereign? His reasoning is incoherent. He then writes:

"Any carnage wrought by Man or Satan during the Tribulation will still constitute the wrath of God."

Essentially, his argumentation is such: "The 70th week of Daniel is entirely God's wrath, therefore, you are wrong." This is the classic logical fallacy called petitio principii, or most people know it as begging the question, where a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises.

And Reagan did not even bother to inform his readers of the most definitional tenet of Prewrath, which places a distinction between the Antichrist's Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord's wrath.

Incidentally, Reagan misunderstands the theology of sovereignty. It is not that God merely "permits" actions; instead he ordains them, or authorizes them. Case in point are the four malevolent horsemen who are sent out. The term used is edothē (was given), which is the divine passive indicating God's authorization--not merely "permission"--indicating God's sovereign power over everything including forces of evil.

Next he writes:

"There is another serious problem with the pre-wrath Rapture concept. It relates to the fact that all the wrath of Revelation is specifically portrayed as the wrath of God. Where do the seal judgments originate? The answer is from the throne of God as Jesus opens each seal of the scroll that was in the Father's right hand (Revelation 6:1). And where do the trumpet judgments originate? The same place -- from the throne of God (Revelation 8:2). When we arrive at the bowl judgments in Revelation 15:1, we are told that with them, 'the wrath of God is finished.'"

Reagan reasons that the seals must be the wrath of God since they originate from the same place that the trumpet and bowls originate from. This reasoning is flawed since God ordains all things from his throne, not just wrath. And did not Reagan just affirm above that God is sovereign over all things? And this would include suffering of believers. And a believer cannot suffer unless it is ordained by God's wisdom. Further, Reagan does not discuss any specifics distinguishing the seals from the actual content of the scroll. I have written an article showing that the seals are not God's wrath here.

In addition, for Reagan to be consistent he must agree that believers suffer God's wrath since the fifth seal is martyrdom. But this cannot be the case since God has promised believers exemption from his wrath. This is very problematic for pretribulationists who try to make the seals God's wrath.

Next, he makes another blundering misrepresentation of the Prewrath position:

"The seal judgments are viewed as the wrath of Man and Satan, occurring during the first half of the Tribulation."

Occurring during the first half of the Tribulation? This is in error. What is definitional of prewrath is that the fifth through the seventh seal occur during the second half, not the first half. And all prewrath teachers agree that the placement of the first four seals are not essential to the Prewrath position.

He writes:

"There is no justification for putting the trumpet judgments at the end of the Tribulation. "

This is not what Prewrath affirms; he is again repeating this error. I addressed this above.

He concludes with saying:

"One final problem with the pre-wrath concept of the Rapture is that it disputes the fact that there is no purpose for the Church being in the Tribulation. The Tribulation is the 70th week of Daniel, a time devoted to God accomplishing His purposes among the Jewish people, not the Church."

There are a couple of reasons why God would have his Church persecuted: (1) To refine his bride to become spotless (2) And to encourage other believers to stand firm in faith during persecution. These reasons are foreign to many western believers, particularly those in pretribulational escapist churches--but they are true, Biblical, and they exhort us to heed to what is coming upon us.

In addition, he calls the 70th week of Daniel a Jewish week. It is actually a Gentile week. This is the time of the Gentiles--490 years was decreed for Gentiles to trample on the Jews. And when that time expires, then salvation will come to the Jewish nation. God will be working sovereignly with his Bride, the Church, refining their faith; and, at the same time, he will be working with the Jewish remnant who will be included into the one people of God at the end of the 70th week of Daniel.

August 23, 2009

Israel and Jerusalem Today as it Pertains to Prophecy

This is a session from the 2009 2nd Annual Prewrath Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Roger Best, the "Prewrath Ambassador," gives a talk on Jerusalem and Israel today as it relates to prophecy.

Download as MP3

August 18, 2009

Does God Allow Loopholes for False Date-Setters?

It has been my observation over the years as well as current days, that false prognosticators have a favorite line they use to hedge their predictions: "I am not date setting, I am just providing the data." Hal Lindsey has used this line when his prediction of the Second Coming of Christ in 1988 did not come to fruition. Many others have used this line. And there are some today who are doing that for a prediction of the Second Coming in 3-5 years.

It is sober that some actually have the chutzpah to think they can appeal before a holy God one day on this prophetic loophole.

August 17, 2009

Pre-Wrath Story: "the Prewrath understanding has really jolted me..."

After about a year of intense study on the timing of the Rapture, I believe the Prewrath position to be the most biblically defensible of all the primary rapture views that have been articulated (Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Pre-Wrath, and Post-Trib)....Speaking as someone who loosely held to a Pre-Trib position up until about a year ago, the Prewrath understanding has really jolted me out of a state of indifference to Bible prophecy....

August 17, 2009

Thomas Schreiner Moves To Premillennialism Away From His Former Amillennnialism Mainly Because of Revelation 20

I don't know what position Tom Schreiner holds on the rapture. My guess is that he is post-trib, but I could be mistaken. And I do not know if he has actually considered the Prewrath position.

I want to qualify a couple of statements he makes:

He states in this sermon that the timing of the rapture is not clear in Scripture. Of course, we would disagree with him since we believe that the Bible is very clear that the Church will encounter the Antichrist's Great Tribulation and will then be raptured followed by the Day of the Lord's wrath upon the ungodly of this world.

One other element that I would disagree with him on is that he believes that when Satan is thrown to the earth with wrath in Revelation 12 Schreiner thinks that happened at Christ's First Coming at the cross. I believe that it happens at the midpoint of the seven year period when Michael the Restrainer is removed and the Great Tribulation begins. Also, unfortunately, he spiritualizes the mark of the beast. But historical premillenialists tend to be inconsistent in certain areas such as this. You just have to filter the good from the bad.

Nevertheless, Schreiner does an excellent job in exegeting Revelation 20.

Here is the audio sermon.

August 16, 2009

Biblical Calenders, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Danites

This is a session from the 2009 2nd Annual Prewrath Conference in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Charles Cooper explicates Biblical Ancient Calenders such as the Egyptian, Jewish, and Western calenders as it pertains to prophetic chronology. He also expounds on 2 Thessalonians 2, as well as Danites returning to Israel recently!

Download as MP3

August 15, 2009

Q&A and Closing Statement

This is Q&A and Cooper's closing statement at an eschatology forum last October in O'Fallon Missouri.

Download as MP3

August 15, 2009

Reagan is Only Interested in Monologues, Not Dialogues

Foolishness: "I consider debating to be a total waste of time."

Wisdom: "The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him." Proverbs 18:17

If the two-page, surface-level, inaccurate article that Reagan wrote against Pre-wrath recently is any reflection of what his competency would be like in a debate, it is understandable why he refused. As we learned this past week, David Reagan has rebuffed my offer to have meaningful interaction in a public format. He considers this interaction "a total waste of time." He is wrong, and every truth-lover should be offended by such a claim.

Debate is simply an orderly exchange of ideas in which each person receives the same fair amount of time to present their case. It includes meaningful interaction in cross-examination in which theological positions are held accountable; i.e., assumptions, inconsistencies, and false claims cannot go unchallenged as they often do in print. There is only one conclusion that someone must come to if they think that this meaningful interaction is a waste of time: They want their assertions to be immune from examination. They do not want to be seriously challenged.

The most effective format for two individuals with opposing views is not behind a keyboard or a book, but a public debate each having the same amount of time periods of an opening, rebuttals, cross-examination, and closing. And you cannot have a real debate without cross-examination; it is the soul of the debate. Otherwise, all you will really have is two monologues, not a dialogue. Further, the moderator is very important to a debate in managing and enforcing the protocol. If a debate functions as such, I believe that God's people are edified by witnessing a genuine engagement and accountability between theological perspectives. And most of all, God is glorified in this effective manner of communication that seeks after Biblical truth.

August 13, 2009

Update on the Prewrath vs. Pretribulational Debate

Some things just speak for themselves:

From: Dr. David Reagan

Alan

Good to hear from you.
I consider debating to be a total waste of time.
Have a blessed day in the Lord.

In Jesus,
Dave Reagan

(This rebuff is in response to my challenge here.)

August 12, 2009

Cooper Tells the Story of His Journey From Pretribulationism to Prewrath

Charles Cooper tells about his journey to the prewrath position. He also explains how the contradictions in the pretribulational system prompted him to examine Scripture more closely on the rapture question. This presentation was given last October in O'Fallon Missouri at an eschatology forum.

Download as MP3

August 11, 2009

An Open Debate Challenge to Dr. David Reagan of Lamb & Lion Ministries

[Update on the Debate]

In this article, pretribulational teacher David R. Reagan facilely describes the prewrath rapture, which was not all together accurate. He responds to the Prewrath rapture by attempting to refute the Prewrath rapture interpretation that the seals are not God's wrath. Further, he does not recognize the Biblical distinction between the Antichrist's Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord's wrath.

David Reagan, like so many other pretribulational teachers, accepts the common flaws of his system without being seriously challenged. Accordingly, I challenge Dr. Reagan to a public moderated debate with copious amounts of cross-examination. He has made claims against the Prewrath view that are demonstrably false. I am challenging him to defend those claims in public, in a debate. I am willing to defend the Prewrath position under cross-examination by Reagan. Is he willing to do the same with his own convictions?

Given that pretribulationism is losing numerous adherents every year to the prewrath side, I would think that pretrib teachers would jump at the chance to debate a prewrather in public and show for everyone, once and for all, why prewrath is wrong. Oddly, this does not happen. Why am I doing this? It is not like David Reagan has anything to lose since it is pretribbers coming over to the Prewrath side. The reason is that I am confident that when Pretribulationism and Prewrath have the opportunity to be set side by side, most people will see the truthfulness in the Prewrath position, not pretribulationism. Why do you think that in the past 20 years, pretribbers are so averse to have their position examined publicly by a prewrather?

I believe that this debate would be beneficial for God's people since two theological positions are held accountable; i.e., assumptions and false claims cannot go unchallenged as they often do in print.

"The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him." Proverbs 18:17

August 9, 2009

The Teaching of the Early Church On the Second Coming of Christ

Guest Article by Gary Vaterlaus

Many claims have been made by pretribulationists that the early Church believed that Christ would come before the events of the 70th Week of Daniel begin--that is, before the period of tribulation. Dwight D. Pentecost in his book Things to Come uses selected quotes from some of the early church fathers to try to show that they believed in the imminent return of Christ (see pp. 168-169). More recently, Grant R. Jeffrey in his book Apocalypse: The Coming Judgement of the Nations devotes the entire Appendix to references to early church writings, some which he claims show that they held to an "any moment," imminent coming of the Lord.

I believe that we should let the Church fathers speak for themselves. Below are lengthy quotes from 12 documents of the early Church fathers from the first four centuries showing that they believed that the Church would be present on the earth during the Great Tribulation of Antichrist. From my review of the early Church writings I would agree with Robert Gundry's assessment that "...the early Church did not hold to the doctrine of imminence. The very passages cited for imminence (by the pretribulationists) reveal a belief that the Church will pass through the tribulation." (Robert Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, p. 179). In fact, in this same book Gundry shows convincingly that the pretribulation theory of the rapture was not known nor widely held until the mid-nineteenth century (see pp. 185-188).

Our sole rule for faith and practice must be Scripture. The teachings of the early Church do not "prove" that pretribulationism is incorrect, only Scripture can do that (and it does). However, as Robert Gundry sates, "...the antiquity of a view weighs in its favor, especially when that antiquity reaches back to the apostolic age. For those who received their doctrine first-hand from the apostles and from those who heard them stood in a better position to judge what was apostolic doctrine than we who are many centuries removed" (The Church and the Tribulation, p. 172).

The prewrath rapture position has its roots in historical premillennialism--the belief that the Church will be persecuted by the Antichrist, delivered at Christ's coming, and then God's wrath will be poured out on the wicked who remain, followed by the establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom. As you can see from the quotes below, this is precisely what the early Church fathers wrote. I quote many of them at length so that the claim of ignoring context cannot be made. I have emphasized the relevant portions.

Continue reading... »

August 7, 2009

Pseudo-Ephraem and the Didache

Click here to download this excellent article explaining what these two Church historical documents say about the timing of the Second Coming.

August 4, 2009

What Did the Early Church Fathers Teach on the Timing of the Second Coming?

This presentation on what the early church taught was given last October in O'Fallon Missouri at an eschatology forum. There are three speakers who had twenty minutes each to give their case: Steve Gregg (Preterist), Charles Cooper (Prewrath), Thomas Ice (Pretribulational).

I have included Steve Gregg's presentation because I want you to hear what a preterist case sounds like. It goes something like this:

"Ok, I grudgingly admit that preterism was never taught in the first three hundred years by a Church Father. But who knows!...maybe one day someone may stumble upon in the sands of Egypt an early Church document with preterist teachings, so therefore we can never be too sure what the early Church taught on this subject."

What Gregg also does is he invokes sparse preterist writings from the Church Fathers from AD 300-700 to cast doubt on what the early Church taught, as if they have the same weight as futurist writings from the first and second generations of the Church!

In the second presentation, Cooper demonstrates that the early Church clearly taught that the Church would encounter the Antichrist's Great Tribulation. Cooper even cites in support the authoritative church historian Larry V. Crutchfield, who, himself is a pretribulationalist!

In the third presentation, Ice focuses on the premillennial issue. Prewrath is premillennial as well so we can agree with Ice's points on that issue.

However, Ice makes a false claim by asserting that the early Church Fathers believed in imminency. They certainly did not believe in imminency in the pretribulational sense that the Church would be raptured before the Antichrist's Great Tribulation. And some believed that the Church would be raptured soon because they thought that they were in the midst of the Great Tribulation! So Ice's statements are misleading and incorrect.

The only early citation that Ice attempts to produce is a statement from The Shepherd of Hermas, in which he reads his pretribulational system into this ancient document. He (selectively) cites a statement from Vision 4 that says that if someone has enough faith they can escape a great tribulation. What Ice does is anachronistically reads "escape" as a rapture. But there is nothing in the text that suggests a rapture. In fact, the "escape" in that context indicates a physical escape leaving the person on earth (see Vision 4:2). Nor does Hermas place the Return of Christ before the Great Tribulation. Further, Hermas actually makes statements of enduring the Great Tribulation:

"Blessed are those of you who patiently endure the coming great tribulation and who will not deny their life." (Vision 2:2)

"Therefore those who endure and pass through the flames will be purified by them...The white part is the age to come, in which God's elect will live because those chosen by God for eternal life will be spotless and pure...You have also the foreshadowing of the great tribulation that is coming" (Vision 4:3)

It should also be mentioned that like so many of the other early Church Fathers' exposition of Scripture, this document instead is not didactic intending to interpret what the Bible teaches on the Second Coming -- it is part of a vision. The fact that this is the only citation that Ice can produce within the first four hundred years of Church History is very telling.

Ice also invokes a later Church document called Pseudo-Ephraem and purports that there are pretrib statements. This has been thoroughly refuted in this Parousia Newsletter.

In summary, the term "Prewrath" is new, but its essential teaching goes back to the early Church writers, contra preterism, pretribulationism, and amillennialism.

Download as MP3

August 3, 2009

Do You Believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

Here is the article version of this video.

August 2, 2009

The Natural Reading of Scripture Concludes with the Prewrath Position

[Editor's Note: The following prewrath story is similar to so many stories we receive in the sense that many believers come to the prewrath rapture on their own. As far as I am concerned this validates the natural Biblical reading of the Prewrath position. I have never known any pretribber who has come to the pretribulational position on their own--it is always by Tradition or some other secondary source.]

Fellow Believers,

I was raised in a Church of Christ (amillennial) home and educated at the leading Church of Christ-affiliated college (Abilene Christian University), so I was thoroughly saturated with C-of-C exclusivist ("the only true church") doctrine. But later, when I was in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, God began to work on me, then, through a series of rather remarkable events (miraculous, I believe), led me out of that bondage.

But then, since C-of-C teachings were all to which I had been exposed, I was adrift on a vast ecumenical sea without a chart, compass, or paddle. Again, my heavenly father had mercy on me and led me to a small Brethren assembly, and the leading elder/pastor (they don't have paid ministers) took me under his wing and helped me to get the biblical doctrine of salvation straightened out. The C-of-C emphasizes correct doctrine and Christian living over a personal, spiritual relationship with God, so it's a subtle works-based salvation doctrine. Brother Ed showed me the meaning of Eph. 2:8-10 - salvation by grace through faith, which lifted about 30 years and a million pounds of do-it-yourself indoctrination and practice off my shoulders. I was free at last! ... thanks be to God's merciful intervention.

Although I had some doubts about two other doctrines they adamantly espoused (pre-tribulation rapture and once-saved-always-saved), and I visited numerous other denominations (everyone from mildly charismatic to word-of-faith to Seventh Day Adventist to Nazarene to other main-line churches), I continued to fellowship primarily in the Brethren assemblies. But then, about 15 years ago, God gave me a keen interest in eschatology and I have, since then, studied many books and commentaries on Daniel, Revelation, and related Scriptures. And, although they all seemed to have some strong arguments to support them, I just couldn't get a pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib rapture to fit into the end-times scenario of Revelation.

I had finally come to the conclusion that the Rapture must be at some point during the second half of the 7-year trib period, but I felt like Elijah must have - I had no idea that anyone else shared that view. Then, one day just a couple of months ago, I was searching the Internet for something (I can't remember what), and ran across your site. And I couldn't believe what my eyes were reading! I immediately devoured most of the articles published on your site and ordered several books, including The Sign, The Fourth Reich, and The Rapture Question Answered by Robert Van Kampen, and The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church by Marvin Rosenthal. I have read the Fourth Reich (my wife and I like to read Scripture-based fiction together) and am presently going through the others with a fine-toothed comb. I think there are a few errors, which have led you to some wrong conclusions. But those are tangential, and by-and-large, I agree with your position and thank God for bringing it to my attention.

The Lord be with you in "enduring to the End."

Yours in Him,
Bob Giffin