A few years ago, a Christian brother and good Friend asked me, "Bill,
why do you bother posting on forums where there are atheists
and other non-believers who just argue with you?" My
Friend, although a long time Christian believer, has no patience
with folks who argue against our Christian faith or who argue
for a different theology.
And my answer to him is always, "Because in our dialogues I also learn and grow in my knowledge of God's Word. It is difficult to properly defend the Word - without gaining a greater personal understanding of the Bible and God's message to all of us."
A year ago, on the YE3C-Eschatology Facebook group page (which is short for "Young Earth Christian Creationist Coalition - Eschatology") a member, HP, posted the following questions and I considered them good questions, deserving answers:
HP posted:
I have a few questions.
Bill Gray: Let me attempt to answer your questions:
1. If the Rapture is imminent, why is Prophecy important?
2. If the Rapture is imminent, could that also mean the church will still be here during the Tribulation?
3. Could the PreTrib Rapture become a stumbling stone, if the Church is still here during the time of the Tribulation?
4. Could the expectancy of a Pre Trib Rapture be the cause of the Great Apostasy?
HP replies: Thanks Bill Gray, but I find that your answer to Question 2 contradicting in a sense of the definition of Imminent, which basically means it could happen at any time. But according to you, (you say it is imminent) as long as it is before the tribulation. You can see the implications that has.
As for Question 1, I'm referring to future prophecies like Gog and Magog and prophecies in Ezekiel that relate to End time Prophecy before the 70th week even begins. And yes I agree salvation is not effected by our eschatology, but we are to still handle God's Word as a workman who has no need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of Truth.
On Question 3, you cannot be 100% on your theological presupposition, Bill. It's an area where there is no room for dogmatics. But you still didn't answer the question. Well you did, but more of an eluding answer. And the same for Question 4.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, Regarding my answer to your Question 1: You are right in your supposition that the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 (Gog and Magog) will happen just prior to the PreTrib Rapture. I show that in the 3rd chart in my End Times Charts graphic below (page 2 of 3) - that the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 will happen, those armies destroyed supernaturally, and shortly after that event (maybe days, weeks, even months) the Antichrist will sign a seven year peace accord with Israel - which triggers the beginning of the seven year Tribulation.
Once again, because these two events, the battle of Gog and Magog and the Rapture, will happen before the Tribulation can begin - the Tribulation cannot be considered imminent.
Regarding my answer to your Question 2: Yes, the Rapture, because it is imminent, must occur before the Tribulation begins - for if it happens after the Tribulation begins, then it is not imminent. Remember that Matthew 25:13 tells us, "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."
In Matthew 24 we are warned, and assured, a number of times that the Rapture is Imminent, i.e., will happen PreTribulation:
Regarding my answer to your Questions 3 and 4 answer: You tell me that I am being dogmatic and cannot be 100% sure of my PreTrib Rapture position, that it is a presuppositional position. Not so, if you will study my End Times Charts below you will see that I give specific Scripture references throughout them. My position is not "Bill Gray's presupposition" - but is based upon Scripture and taken from years of studying Biblical eschatology, starting in 1991.
With that said, let me offer, for your viewing pleasure, four short Bible study videos I made for Bible studies and Sunday School classes:
HP wrote: Oh, and I'm not really big on commentaries. But if you can compress a dialogue in your own way, (as lengthy as it might be), I'm happy to read it.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, I will admit that my explanations are often not brief. But I would rather bore a few, rather than leave one who is seeking to understand - wondering why I would try to explain the Gospel in 100 words or less. In the beginning of this blog I mentioned a Christian brother who asked why I bother to dialogue with non-believers. I often joke with that same Friend when he complains that my blogs are too long, telling him, "If it is more than three sentences, I realize that is your limit."
And I offer this suggestion: If it is too long to read in a sitting, just browse for any "golden nuggets" you may find. While some may only pan for "gold" - others will take the time to read more. And still others will read to the end. Several have told me they archive my blogs for further study. Years ago when my Friend complained about the length of my blogs, I sent an e-mail to all the folks (then close to 1000) on my Friends Ministry eNewsletter mail list, asking for any suggested changes in format, length, etc., of my blogs and eNewsletters. Some may have ignored that request - but all who did respond unanimously said, "Don't change anything."
With that clarification out of the way, for me I find that commentaries are a great way to begin a personal study. While I am in full agreement that the Bible is our final authority - I find that opening several commentaries before I start a study or a writing gives me food for thought on that passage. But here I will state emphatically that one should be sure of the person, or persons, who wrote the commentaries - for not all theologians, scholars, and pastors are good sources for Bible exegesis.
That said, when we find reliable Bible teachers, scholars, and theologians whom we can trust - why waste their many years of study and knowledge by ignoring them? Look at what they have to say, study the Scripture passage yourself, and pray for guidance. I find that the best way to prepare for a study or a writing.
HP: Hi Bill, Sorry, but I have been encamped in the PreTrib Rapture teaching for most my Christian life - I've heard all the theology on it from Dr Ice, Andy woods, John MacArthur (whom I hold in high esteem), and my own Church. Like I said, if you let Scripture interpret itself and follow the the clear trail, you will come to a Post-Trib or Pre-Wrath Rapture. So I think in our case we must agree to disagree.
Also on the commentaries position, if you go to commentaries first you develop a presupposition that often leaves little space for the Holy Spirit to reveal what is intended to be understood in Scripture. My line of thought is: Read the Bible and gain a comprehensive understanding through solid hermeneutics. If you want, then (visit the commentaries to) see what other trusted teachers are saying on the matter. If it differs from the application you discovered, review each of the commentary writers' theories and see which holds to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, "searching Scripture to see if these things are so."
Bill Gray: Hi HP, First let me address the issue of developing a presupposition based upon reading commentaries written by trusted theologians, scholars, or pastors. I assure you that while there are many such people whom I trust very much on theological issues, I have never met one that I always agree with 100%, all the time. I study their work to get ideas - realizing that only God's Word is inerrant. I look at the Scripture passage under that light and go from there. Have I ever been wrong in my understanding of the Bible and the commentaries? Yes.
Let me give you an example: The charts shown in my composite graphic below took me four years to complete. Since completing them years ago, a number of times, through further study and dialogues such as this one - I have found mistakes. When I did, I made the correction - in my thinking and on my charts. Having done that over the years, I am at the point where I feel rather confident in their accuracy. However, that said, if someone does prove an error in my charts - that correction will be made.
In our dialogue I am not necessarily trying to change your mind, for in most cases that would be a fruitless effort. So why have the dialogue? Because I am constantly trying to grow more mature in my own Biblical knowledge - and in such dialogues when I defend my understanding of Scripture - one of two things can happen: In defending my faith, I learn. I am open to new ideas, new understandings - so if the person with whom I am having a dialogue has a persuasive new perspective, I want to explore that thought.
In our dialogues, I learn - and hopefully you learn. And prayerfully people reading our dialogue will learn and gain a greater knowledge of God's Word.
But I will say that I have spent the past 28 years studying the End Times and can find no Biblically correct Rapture - other than the PreTrib Rapture.
Now let's look at your at your leaning toward the PreWrath or Post-Trib Rapture position. Like you seem to have done, I also found Marvin Rosenthal's and Robert Van Kampen's PreWrath books intriguing. I have their books in my personal library. But when I stood their teachings next to the Bible - they drew the short stick.
Concerning a Post-Trib Rapture, we know that two things must occur in heaven before His Second Coming - the Believers' Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12) and the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19:6-9). Those things could not happen in heaven if we are raptured when Christ is on His way to earth in His Post-Trib Second Coming.
Two things I know: (1) The doctrine of Imminency is Biblical, and (2) all Rapture scenarios except for the PreTrib Rapture MUST deny the doctrine of Imminency for them to be true. Imminency can only apply to the Rapture - and it can only apply to the PreTrib Rapture.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, You tell me, "Also on the commentaries position, if you go to commentaries first you develop a presupposition and often leaves little space for the Holy Spirit to reveal what is intended to be understood in Scripture. . . . "
Not so. Let me offer a real life analogy for pre-trip preparation. In past years I have driven across American a number of times. And once I drove around America solo, an 8000 mile trip. Before I began my trips, I sat down with my Thomas Maps to plan the best route. That got me started. Once I began my journey, I found that, at times, I had to divert from my original planned route in lieu of a better route.
My study of a Scripture passage is very similar. I sit down with my Bible and several trusted commentaries. First, I study them all to get the thoughts of trusted commentary writers. Then, from the Bible, with suggestions from the commentaries, I begin to write my Bible study notes or blog. There will be times when I will divert, if I discover a point or issue I had not anticipated. That approach works for me.
You are not alone in your mistrust of commentaries. I have had other Friends who feel the same. No problem, that is their choice and that is your choice. I am not trying to tell you how to study Scripture, only how I do it.
But using that same logic of ignoring the many years of accumulated knowledge found in the commentaries - compare that to a person who will go to college or seminary - and then refuse to listen to his professors, for they are only men (or women). Isn't that a tremendous waste of their accumulated years of knowledge? And if you can learn it all by yourself - why even go to a college or seminary? Just my thoughts.
HP: Wow, Bill, the Bible, which is the Word of God, is totally different than planing a trip around the country. The greatest theologians in the world would be flabbergasted at your comment. The road paved by our founding fathers relied on the Holy Spirit - not commentaries. Thank you for your views, duly noted.
And I don't mistrust Commentaries. Like I said in my earlier statement, I first get a comprehensive understanding through solid hermeneutics - and then if need be, I go to trusted Commentaries.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, I agree that what works best for one person is not always best for others. The main thing is to keep our eye on the goal. In my solo trip around the country by car, my goal was to reach Alabama, Virginia, Boston, and then return to Southern California. You may have chosen to take a different route - but we both would end up at our desired destination.
That is our goal in studying and sharing God's Word - to end up in His presence. And to bring as many souls as possible with us.
It is always good to have discussions such at this. From them we ALL learn and grow in our knowledge of God's Word.
Lea G enters the dialogue: I find it amazing how everyone just assumes that Futurism is a fact and that the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera was correct, along with John Nelson Darby!
No one questions the absurdity that there are 69 weeks which are continuous. Then there is a mysterious gap (the church age), and the 70th week is an unknown future event. Also disgusting that these believers in this (eschatological belief) reckons its NOT about the prophetic coming, ministry, and death of the Messiah. But this honor (seems to be?) is actually about an Antichrist. Does anyone ever question the foundations anymore - or is everyone so blinded by axiomatic dogma that they forget we are supposed to be Berean?
Bill Gray: Hi Lea G, You tell us, "I find it amazing how everyone just assumes that Futurism is a fact and that the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera was correct, along with John Nelson Darby!"
No, I did not, and do not, look to a Roman Catholic priest, nor to a Baptist pastor, nor to any man - to understand and believe in a PreTribulation Rapture of the church and a PreMillennial Second Coming of Jesus Christ to establish his Millennial Kingdom on earth. I look only at the Bible and the Bible does affirm my belief in the Imminent Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the church.
On the other hand, in the 1800s we find a fellow named William Miller, an American Baptist preacher, who decided he knew when Christ was returning. So he set a date and time for His return - and Miller gathered many believers who followed him. He is credited with beginning the mid-19th century North American religious movement known as the Millerites.
He told his followers the Second Coming would happen sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When that failed, he adopted a new date, April 18, 1844, which also passed with no Second Coming. Then he set the date at October 22, 1844 and when that came and went, the date became known as the "Millerites' Great Disappointment."
Miller set many dates, which predictably did not happen. Many of his followers began to drift away. Then one evening two of his deacons were walking home from a meeting - and while walking across a corn field one of them had a revelation.
His revelation was that Christ has already returned - but not to earth. His return was to a special compartment of heaven - where He is working out our salvation right now.
That teaching is unBiblical. Keep in mind that on the cross Jesus Christ told us, "It is finished!" (John 19:30) - meaning that on that cross, He had accomplished all that is necessary to make eternal salvation available to all who will believe and receive his Gift of Eternal Life. The rest is up to each of us individually. We either receive the Son and eternal life, or we reject the Son and have eternal loss (John 1:12, John 3:16, 1 John 5:12).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church had its roots in the Millerite movement of the 1830s to the 1840s, during the period of the Second Great Awakening - and was officially founded in 1863.
So, if you want to talk about a confused and confusing eschatological scenario - that was it. In the Adventist church, eschatology is defined by a man, primarily William Miller. While in the conservative Baptist church - we get our eschatology from the Bible.
Lea replies: Nice straw man there, Bill. Seventh Day Adventist know of the "Great Disappointment" - but what you have done is use a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.
The reality is, what I said in my above post is VERY true and you have stated NOTHING but a strawman argument to change that stance.
I believe in the eschatology of Biblical Historicism, i.e., prophesy unfolds over time throughout history. So yes, I can state perfectly well how the "dark ages" fit into Scripture, and how the Papacy and its influence is seen in Scripture.
Lea continues: And please, do not tell me it is only Scripture you used to come to your conclusions of a PreTrib Rapture based on Futurism, because the reformation came about when theologians began a strong study - and unrelated people saw a Biblical Historicism picture which led to the reformation. It wasn't until the Council of Trent which was called to address and stop the reformation - that the orders were sent out to give explanations other than the biblical Historicist position.
It was the Spanish Jesuits Francisco Ribera and Luis de Alcasar who fleshed out Futurism and Preterism respectively. Futurism wasn't popular until John Nelson Darby fleshed it out and became the "father of the PreTrib Rapture" and Dispensational theory. So please don't say it is from Scripture only, as history testifies that if Scripture is all you have, then Historicism is what you get.
Bill Gray: Hi Lea G, You tell me, "And please, do not tell me it is only Scripture you used to come to your conclusions of a PreTrib Rapture based on Futurism, . . . Futurism wasn't popular until John Nelson Darby fleshed it out and became the 'father of the PreTrib Rapture' and Dispensational theory."
Lea my Friend, although I have studied the writings of many theologians and Bible scholars regarding the End Times - I base my belief in a PreTrib Rapture and PreMillennial Second Coming strictly on Scripture.
John Darby merely highlighted for the church - what the early apostles and Biblical writers wrote and taught in their time. The PreTrib Rapture is definitely in the Bible - but erroneous teachings in later generations have clouded the issue. John Darby merely pushed back those clouds to show us what was earlier written by the apostles and Bible writers.
In these short videos I explain the eschatology as taken from the Bible - with Scripture references. I suggest that your Adventist teachings are derived purely from the teachings of modern men - beginning with the misled William Miller and his followers, the precursor of your Adventist theology.
At this point you have two choices: You can refuse to view my short videos and dismiss them. Or you can view them and tell me where you disagree. That is up to you. God bless, Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUwF_igeTQk&list=PL_YT3RttutrhPFj_GxNr9bXqlaei7eJaQ&index=1
Angela joins the discussion: There is no secret Rapture. The second coming of Christ has been misinterpreted and many have been misled as a result.
Bill Gray: Hi Angela, you are absolutely right, there is no Secret Rapture. However there will be an Imminent Rapture which will start the End Times ball rolling. It is not a secret, for all believers know it will happen. Yet when it does, only believers will see Christ in the clouds and be "snatched away" to join Him there.
Some folks may call it a "secret Rapture" since it will happen imminently, with no warning. However, all who know Scripture know to be looking for Him and will rejoice when He does appear to Rapture His church, the bride of Christ, into heaven.
Christ warns us in the Bible to be ready, for we do not know when He will come to Rapture His church. An example of that teaching is found in the Parable of the Ten Virgins, i.e., ten bridesmaids, found in Matthew 25:1-13. Five are ready, prepared to meet the Bridegroom when He appears. These are symbolic of believers who have a relationship with Him and are ready when He does come to snatch us away.
The five bridesmaids who have no oil for their lanterns are symbolic of unbelievers who are still following the world and are not prepared to meet Him when He comes. Having no oil, they are in darkness - just as they will be in eternal darkness when they die in disbelief.
So, in that sense it could be viewed as a "secret Rapture" - but only to those still following the darkness of this world.
My Friends, I pray that this dialogue from the past has been helpful to you. And I pray that it encourages you to dig deeper into Scripture to prove to yourself who is correct. Is what HP, Lea, Angela, or I believe Biblically correct - or have we all erred in our interpretation of Scripture?
I am asking you to be Bereans, testing what we say in this dialogue against Scripture - for the Bible is never wrong.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
And my answer to him is always, "Because in our dialogues I also learn and grow in my knowledge of God's Word. It is difficult to properly defend the Word - without gaining a greater personal understanding of the Bible and God's message to all of us."
A year ago, on the YE3C-Eschatology Facebook group page (which is short for "Young Earth Christian Creationist Coalition - Eschatology") a member, HP, posted the following questions and I considered them good questions, deserving answers:
HP posted:
I have a few questions.
1. If the Rapture is imminent, why is Prophecy important?
2. If the Rapture is imminent, could that also mean the church is still here during the Tribulation?
3. Could the PreTrib Rapture become a stumbling stone, if the Church is still here during the time of the Tribulation?
4. Could the expectancy of a PreTrib Rapture be the cause of the Great Apostasy?
Bill Gray: Let me attempt to answer your questions:
1. If the Rapture is imminent, why is Prophecy important?
Although our salvation is not affected by our prophetic beliefs - prophecy must be important to God for He chose to put over 1800 prophecies in His Bible.
Also, prophecy is very important to Christian believers because it validates our Bible. No other sacred book of any world religion contains prophecy, only the Bible. And to date the Bible prophecies have been proven, by religious and secular sources, to have been fulfilled with no exceptions.
The only prophecies left to be fulfilled are those of the future End Times - and since all the other prophecies have been fulfilled and proven accurate, there is no reason to doubt that the End Times prophecies will also be fulfilled as written in the Bible.
2. If the Rapture is imminent, could that also mean the church will still be here during the Tribulation?
Because the Rapture is the imminent event we are expecting - it has to occur before Daniel's prophecies of the 70th week, the seven year Tribulation, can occur. Neither the seven year Tribulation nor His Second Coming are, or could be, imminent - for people will be able to set a day and time for them prior to their occurrence. That negates the doctrine of Imminency for either of those events.
We know that the Rapture, which is imminent, must occur before either of them. First, the Rapture of the church will occur, but no one can know the time, season, day, nor hour (Matthew 25:13, Acts 1:7), for it is imminent. Shortly after the Rapture occurs, the seven year Tribulation will begin (Daniel 9:27). Then at the end of the seven year Tribulation Jesus Christ will return to earth, His Second Coming in Glory (Revelation 19:11ff).
Acts 1:7, "And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority."
Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."
3. Could the PreTrib Rapture become a stumbling stone, if the Church is still here during the time of the Tribulation?
If that could happen, yes it would become a stumbling stone. However, we know from Scripture that the PreTrib Rapture is the only viable rapture scenario found in the Bible. So based upon that, the church cannot be on earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 1 Thessalonians 1:10).
Of the three End Times events, Rapture, Tribulation, Second Coming - the only one which can be imminent is the PreTrib Rapture. Consider this, there will be two appearances of Jesus Christ during the End Times: Since no one can know the time nor the day of His initial appearance - that only fits the PreTrib Rapture. In the Rapture, He does not come to the earth, but appears in the clouds above the earth - to catch up, snatch out, rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:17) His church.
Once the seven year Tribulation begins (Daniel 9:24-27) - all people with a knowledge of Scripture can know exactly when He is coming again, His Second Coming. It will occur at the end of the seven year Tribulation. All they have to do is see the Antichrist appear, experience the beginning of the Tribulation - and count seven years to the day. That is when His Second Coming will happen, hardly imminent.
The only harm done in denying the PreTrib Rapture is to rob believers of their sense of eternal security and their assurance of rescue from the Tribulation wrath. Jesus Christ has promised both to all believers.
4. Could the expectancy of a Pre Trib Rapture be the cause of the Great Apostasy?
I will share two things: First the church will be Raptured, then the earth will be in a condition of total apostasy, no believers will be left on earth. All believers will have been taken out of this world and into heaven. Second, let me share a short audio discussion of the Bible passage found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-5, speaking of the apostasy or falling away. This audio was made by the great Bible teacher, Dr. J.Vernon McGee, and in it he explains the Great Apostasy, the Rapture, and the Day of the Lord, in very down to earth language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMOvkNrtGE8&feature=youtu.be
HP replies: Thanks Bill Gray, but I find that your answer to Question 2 contradicting in a sense of the definition of Imminent, which basically means it could happen at any time. But according to you, (you say it is imminent) as long as it is before the tribulation. You can see the implications that has.
As for Question 1, I'm referring to future prophecies like Gog and Magog and prophecies in Ezekiel that relate to End time Prophecy before the 70th week even begins. And yes I agree salvation is not effected by our eschatology, but we are to still handle God's Word as a workman who has no need to be ashamed, accurately handling the Word of Truth.
On Question 3, you cannot be 100% on your theological presupposition, Bill. It's an area where there is no room for dogmatics. But you still didn't answer the question. Well you did, but more of an eluding answer. And the same for Question 4.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, Regarding my answer to your Question 1: You are right in your supposition that the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 (Gog and Magog) will happen just prior to the PreTrib Rapture. I show that in the 3rd chart in my End Times Charts graphic below (page 2 of 3) - that the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 will happen, those armies destroyed supernaturally, and shortly after that event (maybe days, weeks, even months) the Antichrist will sign a seven year peace accord with Israel - which triggers the beginning of the seven year Tribulation.
Once again, because these two events, the battle of Gog and Magog and the Rapture, will happen before the Tribulation can begin - the Tribulation cannot be considered imminent.
Regarding my answer to your Question 2: Yes, the Rapture, because it is imminent, must occur before the Tribulation begins - for if it happens after the Tribulation begins, then it is not imminent. Remember that Matthew 25:13 tells us, "Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming."
In Matthew 24 we are warned, and assured, a number of times that the Rapture is Imminent, i.e., will happen PreTribulation:
Matthew 24:27, "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."
Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
Matthew 24:42, "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming."
Matthew 24:44, "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."
Matthew 24:50, "The master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of,. . ."
Regarding my answer to your Questions 3 and 4 answer: You tell me that I am being dogmatic and cannot be 100% sure of my PreTrib Rapture position, that it is a presuppositional position. Not so, if you will study my End Times Charts below you will see that I give specific Scripture references throughout them. My position is not "Bill Gray's presupposition" - but is based upon Scripture and taken from years of studying Biblical eschatology, starting in 1991.
With that said, let me offer, for your viewing pleasure, four short Bible study videos I made for Bible studies and Sunday School classes:
1. END TIMES Bible Study - Week One ~ Edited July 23, 2018
2. END TIMES Bible Study - Week Two ~ Edited July 23, 2018
3. WHAT WE BELIEVE - Our Statement Of Faith ~ Edited July 23, 2018
4. IT ALL BEGAN WITH CREATION ~ Edited July 23, 2018. I originally created this in 2006 as a PowerPoint Presentation for a talk I gave in my daughter Lana's World Religion class at our local college.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUwF_igeTQk&list=PL_YT3RttutrhPFj_GxNr9bXqlaei7eJaQ
HP wrote: Oh, and I'm not really big on commentaries. But if you can compress a dialogue in your own way, (as lengthy as it might be), I'm happy to read it.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, I will admit that my explanations are often not brief. But I would rather bore a few, rather than leave one who is seeking to understand - wondering why I would try to explain the Gospel in 100 words or less. In the beginning of this blog I mentioned a Christian brother who asked why I bother to dialogue with non-believers. I often joke with that same Friend when he complains that my blogs are too long, telling him, "If it is more than three sentences, I realize that is your limit."
And I offer this suggestion: If it is too long to read in a sitting, just browse for any "golden nuggets" you may find. While some may only pan for "gold" - others will take the time to read more. And still others will read to the end. Several have told me they archive my blogs for further study. Years ago when my Friend complained about the length of my blogs, I sent an e-mail to all the folks (then close to 1000) on my Friends Ministry eNewsletter mail list, asking for any suggested changes in format, length, etc., of my blogs and eNewsletters. Some may have ignored that request - but all who did respond unanimously said, "Don't change anything."
With that clarification out of the way, for me I find that commentaries are a great way to begin a personal study. While I am in full agreement that the Bible is our final authority - I find that opening several commentaries before I start a study or a writing gives me food for thought on that passage. But here I will state emphatically that one should be sure of the person, or persons, who wrote the commentaries - for not all theologians, scholars, and pastors are good sources for Bible exegesis.
That said, when we find reliable Bible teachers, scholars, and theologians whom we can trust - why waste their many years of study and knowledge by ignoring them? Look at what they have to say, study the Scripture passage yourself, and pray for guidance. I find that the best way to prepare for a study or a writing.
HP: Hi Bill, Sorry, but I have been encamped in the PreTrib Rapture teaching for most my Christian life - I've heard all the theology on it from Dr Ice, Andy woods, John MacArthur (whom I hold in high esteem), and my own Church. Like I said, if you let Scripture interpret itself and follow the the clear trail, you will come to a Post-Trib or Pre-Wrath Rapture. So I think in our case we must agree to disagree.
Also on the commentaries position, if you go to commentaries first you develop a presupposition that often leaves little space for the Holy Spirit to reveal what is intended to be understood in Scripture. My line of thought is: Read the Bible and gain a comprehensive understanding through solid hermeneutics. If you want, then (visit the commentaries to) see what other trusted teachers are saying on the matter. If it differs from the application you discovered, review each of the commentary writers' theories and see which holds to the scrutiny of the Scriptures, "searching Scripture to see if these things are so."
Bill Gray: Hi HP, First let me address the issue of developing a presupposition based upon reading commentaries written by trusted theologians, scholars, or pastors. I assure you that while there are many such people whom I trust very much on theological issues, I have never met one that I always agree with 100%, all the time. I study their work to get ideas - realizing that only God's Word is inerrant. I look at the Scripture passage under that light and go from there. Have I ever been wrong in my understanding of the Bible and the commentaries? Yes.
Let me give you an example: The charts shown in my composite graphic below took me four years to complete. Since completing them years ago, a number of times, through further study and dialogues such as this one - I have found mistakes. When I did, I made the correction - in my thinking and on my charts. Having done that over the years, I am at the point where I feel rather confident in their accuracy. However, that said, if someone does prove an error in my charts - that correction will be made.
In our dialogue I am not necessarily trying to change your mind, for in most cases that would be a fruitless effort. So why have the dialogue? Because I am constantly trying to grow more mature in my own Biblical knowledge - and in such dialogues when I defend my understanding of Scripture - one of two things can happen: In defending my faith, I learn. I am open to new ideas, new understandings - so if the person with whom I am having a dialogue has a persuasive new perspective, I want to explore that thought.
In our dialogues, I learn - and hopefully you learn. And prayerfully people reading our dialogue will learn and gain a greater knowledge of God's Word.
But I will say that I have spent the past 28 years studying the End Times and can find no Biblically correct Rapture - other than the PreTrib Rapture.
Now let's look at your at your leaning toward the PreWrath or Post-Trib Rapture position. Like you seem to have done, I also found Marvin Rosenthal's and Robert Van Kampen's PreWrath books intriguing. I have their books in my personal library. But when I stood their teachings next to the Bible - they drew the short stick.
Concerning a Post-Trib Rapture, we know that two things must occur in heaven before His Second Coming - the Believers' Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12) and the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (Revelation 19:6-9). Those things could not happen in heaven if we are raptured when Christ is on His way to earth in His Post-Trib Second Coming.
Two things I know: (1) The doctrine of Imminency is Biblical, and (2) all Rapture scenarios except for the PreTrib Rapture MUST deny the doctrine of Imminency for them to be true. Imminency can only apply to the Rapture - and it can only apply to the PreTrib Rapture.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, You tell me, "Also on the commentaries position, if you go to commentaries first you develop a presupposition and often leaves little space for the Holy Spirit to reveal what is intended to be understood in Scripture. . . . "
Not so. Let me offer a real life analogy for pre-trip preparation. In past years I have driven across American a number of times. And once I drove around America solo, an 8000 mile trip. Before I began my trips, I sat down with my Thomas Maps to plan the best route. That got me started. Once I began my journey, I found that, at times, I had to divert from my original planned route in lieu of a better route.
My study of a Scripture passage is very similar. I sit down with my Bible and several trusted commentaries. First, I study them all to get the thoughts of trusted commentary writers. Then, from the Bible, with suggestions from the commentaries, I begin to write my Bible study notes or blog. There will be times when I will divert, if I discover a point or issue I had not anticipated. That approach works for me.
You are not alone in your mistrust of commentaries. I have had other Friends who feel the same. No problem, that is their choice and that is your choice. I am not trying to tell you how to study Scripture, only how I do it.
But using that same logic of ignoring the many years of accumulated knowledge found in the commentaries - compare that to a person who will go to college or seminary - and then refuse to listen to his professors, for they are only men (or women). Isn't that a tremendous waste of their accumulated years of knowledge? And if you can learn it all by yourself - why even go to a college or seminary? Just my thoughts.
HP: Wow, Bill, the Bible, which is the Word of God, is totally different than planing a trip around the country. The greatest theologians in the world would be flabbergasted at your comment. The road paved by our founding fathers relied on the Holy Spirit - not commentaries. Thank you for your views, duly noted.
And I don't mistrust Commentaries. Like I said in my earlier statement, I first get a comprehensive understanding through solid hermeneutics - and then if need be, I go to trusted Commentaries.
Bill Gray: Hi HP, I agree that what works best for one person is not always best for others. The main thing is to keep our eye on the goal. In my solo trip around the country by car, my goal was to reach Alabama, Virginia, Boston, and then return to Southern California. You may have chosen to take a different route - but we both would end up at our desired destination.
That is our goal in studying and sharing God's Word - to end up in His presence. And to bring as many souls as possible with us.
It is always good to have discussions such at this. From them we ALL learn and grow in our knowledge of God's Word.
Lea G enters the dialogue: I find it amazing how everyone just assumes that Futurism is a fact and that the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera was correct, along with John Nelson Darby!
Bill Gray Note: Futurism is the same as Dispensationalism, i.e., belief in a PreTrib Rapture and PreMillennial Second Coming of Christ.
No one questions the absurdity that there are 69 weeks which are continuous. Then there is a mysterious gap (the church age), and the 70th week is an unknown future event. Also disgusting that these believers in this (eschatological belief) reckons its NOT about the prophetic coming, ministry, and death of the Messiah. But this honor (seems to be?) is actually about an Antichrist. Does anyone ever question the foundations anymore - or is everyone so blinded by axiomatic dogma that they forget we are supposed to be Berean?
Bill Gray: Hi Lea G, You tell us, "I find it amazing how everyone just assumes that Futurism is a fact and that the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera was correct, along with John Nelson Darby!"
No, I did not, and do not, look to a Roman Catholic priest, nor to a Baptist pastor, nor to any man - to understand and believe in a PreTribulation Rapture of the church and a PreMillennial Second Coming of Jesus Christ to establish his Millennial Kingdom on earth. I look only at the Bible and the Bible does affirm my belief in the Imminent Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the church.
On the other hand, in the 1800s we find a fellow named William Miller, an American Baptist preacher, who decided he knew when Christ was returning. So he set a date and time for His return - and Miller gathered many believers who followed him. He is credited with beginning the mid-19th century North American religious movement known as the Millerites.
He told his followers the Second Coming would happen sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When that failed, he adopted a new date, April 18, 1844, which also passed with no Second Coming. Then he set the date at October 22, 1844 and when that came and went, the date became known as the "Millerites' Great Disappointment."
Miller set many dates, which predictably did not happen. Many of his followers began to drift away. Then one evening two of his deacons were walking home from a meeting - and while walking across a corn field one of them had a revelation.
His revelation was that Christ has already returned - but not to earth. His return was to a special compartment of heaven - where He is working out our salvation right now.
That teaching is unBiblical. Keep in mind that on the cross Jesus Christ told us, "It is finished!" (John 19:30) - meaning that on that cross, He had accomplished all that is necessary to make eternal salvation available to all who will believe and receive his Gift of Eternal Life. The rest is up to each of us individually. We either receive the Son and eternal life, or we reject the Son and have eternal loss (John 1:12, John 3:16, 1 John 5:12).
The Seventh-day Adventist Church had its roots in the Millerite movement of the 1830s to the 1840s, during the period of the Second Great Awakening - and was officially founded in 1863.
So, if you want to talk about a confused and confusing eschatological scenario - that was it. In the Adventist church, eschatology is defined by a man, primarily William Miller. While in the conservative Baptist church - we get our eschatology from the Bible.
Lea replies: Nice straw man there, Bill. Seventh Day Adventist know of the "Great Disappointment" - but what you have done is use a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.
The reality is, what I said in my above post is VERY true and you have stated NOTHING but a strawman argument to change that stance.
I believe in the eschatology of Biblical Historicism, i.e., prophesy unfolds over time throughout history. So yes, I can state perfectly well how the "dark ages" fit into Scripture, and how the Papacy and its influence is seen in Scripture.
Bill Gray Note: Let's review three possible views on the timing of prophetic events: Preterism (past), Historicism (present), and Futurism (future).
Preterism is the view that the majority of prophetic events found in Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD, when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. In other words, the book of Revelation is a history book, not a book of coming prophecies.
Historicism equates the current church age with the time of the Tribulation. In their theology, the church age, which began on the Day of Pentecost 33 AD and will culminate with the beginning of Daniel's 70th Week (the seven year Tribulation) - is the Tribulation. According to them we in the current church age today are already living in the Tribulation. Christ will just appear at some later undetermined date and take us into eternity.
Futurism, which is the same as Dispensationalism, looks at the approximately 300 prophecies which were fulfilled literally in the first coming of Jesus Christ - and based upon those fulfilled prophecies, we believe that the book of Revelation reveals what will happen in the future. It all hinges upon the Imminent PreTrib Rapture of the church, followed by the seven year Tribulation, and then the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
Lea continues: And please, do not tell me it is only Scripture you used to come to your conclusions of a PreTrib Rapture based on Futurism, because the reformation came about when theologians began a strong study - and unrelated people saw a Biblical Historicism picture which led to the reformation. It wasn't until the Council of Trent which was called to address and stop the reformation - that the orders were sent out to give explanations other than the biblical Historicist position.
It was the Spanish Jesuits Francisco Ribera and Luis de Alcasar who fleshed out Futurism and Preterism respectively. Futurism wasn't popular until John Nelson Darby fleshed it out and became the "father of the PreTrib Rapture" and Dispensational theory. So please don't say it is from Scripture only, as history testifies that if Scripture is all you have, then Historicism is what you get.
Bill Gray: Hi Lea G, You tell me, "And please, do not tell me it is only Scripture you used to come to your conclusions of a PreTrib Rapture based on Futurism, . . . Futurism wasn't popular until John Nelson Darby fleshed it out and became the 'father of the PreTrib Rapture' and Dispensational theory."
Lea my Friend, although I have studied the writings of many theologians and Bible scholars regarding the End Times - I base my belief in a PreTrib Rapture and PreMillennial Second Coming strictly on Scripture.
John Darby merely highlighted for the church - what the early apostles and Biblical writers wrote and taught in their time. The PreTrib Rapture is definitely in the Bible - but erroneous teachings in later generations have clouded the issue. John Darby merely pushed back those clouds to show us what was earlier written by the apostles and Bible writers.
In these short videos I explain the eschatology as taken from the Bible - with Scripture references. I suggest that your Adventist teachings are derived purely from the teachings of modern men - beginning with the misled William Miller and his followers, the precursor of your Adventist theology.
At this point you have two choices: You can refuse to view my short videos and dismiss them. Or you can view them and tell me where you disagree. That is up to you. God bless, Bill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUwF_igeTQk&list=PL_YT3RttutrhPFj_GxNr9bXqlaei7eJaQ&index=1
Angela joins the discussion: There is no secret Rapture. The second coming of Christ has been misinterpreted and many have been misled as a result.
Bill Gray: Hi Angela, you are absolutely right, there is no Secret Rapture. However there will be an Imminent Rapture which will start the End Times ball rolling. It is not a secret, for all believers know it will happen. Yet when it does, only believers will see Christ in the clouds and be "snatched away" to join Him there.
Some folks may call it a "secret Rapture" since it will happen imminently, with no warning. However, all who know Scripture know to be looking for Him and will rejoice when He does appear to Rapture His church, the bride of Christ, into heaven.
Christ warns us in the Bible to be ready, for we do not know when He will come to Rapture His church. An example of that teaching is found in the Parable of the Ten Virgins, i.e., ten bridesmaids, found in Matthew 25:1-13. Five are ready, prepared to meet the Bridegroom when He appears. These are symbolic of believers who have a relationship with Him and are ready when He does come to snatch us away.
The five bridesmaids who have no oil for their lanterns are symbolic of unbelievers who are still following the world and are not prepared to meet Him when He comes. Having no oil, they are in darkness - just as they will be in eternal darkness when they die in disbelief.
So, in that sense it could be viewed as a "secret Rapture" - but only to those still following the darkness of this world.
My Friends, I pray that this dialogue from the past has been helpful to you. And I pray that it encourages you to dig deeper into Scripture to prove to yourself who is correct. Is what HP, Lea, Angela, or I believe Biblically correct - or have we all erred in our interpretation of Scripture?
I am asking you to be Bereans, testing what we say in this dialogue against Scripture - for the Bible is never wrong.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Click on the image to enlarge:
