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.
A few good examples of this,
The same exact verb in the aorist tense is used in Rev 19:7, "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come (ἦλθεν, elthen) and His bride has made herself ready." Here, the context is that the marriage of the Lamb is about to happen (ingressive aorist).
As well in Rev. 14:15b, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come (ἦλθεν, elthen), for the harvest of the earth is ripe."
Another example where the exact same word in the aorist is found with the idea of an ingressive or impending action,
In Mark 14:41, Jesus says, "the hour has come (ἦλθεν, elthen); behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners." The context clarifies that Christ is speaking of impending or ingressive action.
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.
]]>
Mal Couch has started a series responding to "the Prewrath Rapture Guys" here. I thought it would be appropriate to respond back!