THE “FAILURE” OF THE CROSS?

On September 24, 2015, Pope Francis was speaking to a group assembled in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City and he said something that caused quite a stir within the ranks of Christendom.  In this speech, the pope mentioned “the failure of the cross.”  His statement troubled many people who wondered what to make of the pope’s remarks.  Many, especially Protestants, were deeply offended by those words.  But in what context did he use that phrase?  Does the pope really see the work of Christ on the cross as a failed event?  

According to official Catholic teaching, it is through the cross of Jesus Christ that we have redemption (CCC #517), justification (CCC #617) and salvation (CCC #1741).  To their credit, this is indeed biblical.  Again, this is official teaching, so they are at least giving lip service to the true effects of the cross.  But getting back to the speech, here is the context of what the pope actually said:

“To see and evaluate things from God’s perspective calls for constant conversion in the first days and years of our vocation and, need I say, it calls for great humility.  The cross shows us a different way of measuring success.  Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors.  And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, in the failure of the cross.”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150924_usa-omelia-vespri-nyc.html

In the context of his homily, the pope may well have been alluding to 1 Corinthians 1:18, that “the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,” thus, seeming like a failure to unbelievers.  To be fair, the pope did qualify the phrase in question by saying, “humanly speaking.”

But the magnitude and importance of this one-of-a-kind event called Calvary cannot be overstated.  So, he should have been more cautious, especially knowing that this speech was being recorded for the whole world (not just the clergy) to see and hear.  The very fact that it was controversial (even for some Catholics) demonstrates that his remarks were not entirely clear.  So, any reference to the cross as a “failure” had better be clearly explained.

 

Ok, so he certainly could have worded it more carefully.  The “failure of the cross” seemed to be a less-than-ideal choice of words (even with the qualifier), seeing how it quickly caused a commotion among Christians.  He could have used better qualifiers, e.g., “some people may think that it was a failure,” or “it only appeared to be a failure,” etc.  Anyone with his level of influence and authority should be very careful about the things he says in public, especially when it comes to the precious blood of the Savior (1 Peter 1:18-19).  Ok, so it won’t happen again.  Lesson learned, right?

Well, apparently not.

If he would have stopped there, then we would have left this alone and this article would never have been written… but he said it again.

A short time later, on November, 27, 2015, he made a similar comment.  In Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said to a group of youth:

“When you don’t understand something, when desperation hits you then look at the cross. That is the great failure of God, that is the destruction of God, and it’s a challenge to our faith. And this is hope, because history did not end in that failure. Rather it’s in the resurrection of Christ that renewed all of us.”

Apparently, the pope was not fazed by the outrage that his words had caused earlier in September.  But he went much farther this time and again called Jesus’ suffering on the cross “the great failure of God,” and he also refers to “the destruction of God” and “the history of God’s failure.”  These sound more like statements from an atheist than a Christian!  See his quote here:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-powerful-unscripted-talk-with-kenyas-youth-72927

Leaders must be careful of their words – you’d think that he would have learned the first time.  But this time he repeated it without saying “humanly speaking,” or using any type of qualifier or clarification.  And worse yet, he was speaking to the youth of that country, not scholars or theologians!  These impressionable minds can easily take this to mean that God was an actual failure in sending His Son to the cross, and that God was somehow “destroyed”!

Note that never in the speech he gave in September, nor in the one he gave in November, does the pope balance his reference to the cross as a failure with calling the cross an actual victory.  Strange, but only the term “failure” is mentioned in both speeches.  Was this intentional?  So, many youngsters will be left with a false impression of the greatest act of love (and victory!) in the history of mankind (Colossians 2:14-15).

What makes all this even more of a problem is the fact that the Catholic Church, in some of its teachings, promotes the idea that Jesus’ suffering on the cross just didn’t seem to be fully sufficient to save mankind.  Therefore, making it at least a partial failure.  We’re speaking of doctrines like salvation by “faith-plus-works,” Purgatory, penance, indulgences and sacraments.  All these entail adding some sort of work or suffering alongside Jesus’ absolutely sufficient and perfect work on the cross (John 19:30; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Hebrews 9:12, 14, 26; 10:14).

Most Catholics would defend the pope and say that the Church would never say that the cross was a failure. So, if Catholics really are against the idea of the cross failing, and if the cross really means that much to them, then why do they embrace these particular teachings that deny the sufficiency of the cross to pay for the sins of mankind?

The only failure here is on the part of the pope, not the cross.  He failed to take advantage of opportunities to exalt the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but instead, perverted the very meaning of Calvary.

DAVE ARMSTRONG ON PRAYING TO SAINTS

Popular Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has written an article defending the practice of praying to, and praying for, the saints.  The “saints” to which Catholic theology refers in these cases are certain persons who lived especially holy lives and who have died and (it is assumed) went on to Heaven.  They are not referring to the biblical definiton, which says that every true believer is a saint (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1), but rather, the Catholic definiton.  How they know that these “saints” are really in Heaven to begin with is altogether another issue.  But Armstrong’s defense of the saints giving and receiving prayer can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead

The first example that Armstrong uses in an attempt to make his case is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.  He first points to the fact that in the King James Version of the Bible, the rich man used the term “I pray thee” (v. 27) and implies that this is evidence that the rich man was “praying” to Abraham.  Therefore, praying to a saint.

But we have to remember that this was “King James talk,” which was the common way to speak in the day the King James Bible was written.  The term “I pray thee” can indeed be used while in prayer, but it does not necessarily mean that one is praying.  It simply means, “I ask of you,” or “I beg of you.”  

Also, biblically speaking, prayer is only to someone who is in another realm, different than your own, for example, from earth to Heaven, and more specifically, from people on earth to God in Heaven (which is the only biblical example).  In Luke 16, Abraham and the rich man were in the same realm, near to each other.  They were certainly in two different places, but in the same realm (Hades).  So, two people in Hades communicating with each other is no different than two people in Heaven communicating with each other, or two people on earth communicating with each other – they are simply talking face to face, not praying.

Toward the end of this point, Armstrong says:

“Thus we can only conclude that human beings in the afterlife can be prayed to and that they have the power… to fulfill the requests… exactly what the Catholic communion of saints / invocation of saints holds…”

No, sorry Dave, but this is not the “only” conclusion that we can come to concerning prayer in this passage.  Actually, there is nothing at all in this passage about prayer.  Not only is yours not the only conclusion, it is not even a valid conclusion, according to the Bible.  Throughout Scripture, the only God-approved prayer is directed to God alone, not to Mary, not to saints, and not to angels.

Armstrong’s second example is King Saul “petitioning” the prophet Samuel after Samuel died (1 Samuel 28:15-16).  Actually, this is the story of how Saul, acting against God’s law, sought out the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7) to conjure up Samuel to help him.  It was (and is) a sin to be involved in necromancy or to use mediums to communicate with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12).  Even the witch knew that! (1 Samuel 28:3, 9)

It is interesting that Catholics will complain when Protestants compare praying to saints with necromancy, using mediums, or seances (all communicating with the dead), yet here, Dave Armstrong uses that very thing (the services of a medium) as an example of praying to saints!

Armstrong then states, “The Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died.”  And then he uses Jeremiah 15:1 to try and support his claim:

Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.  Send them out of my sight, and let them go!”

But any “casual assumptions” about the dead praying for us in this passage are made by Catholics, not Scripture.  God is not saying that Moses and Samuel actually stood before Him and interceded for the people.  He was making the point that even if they would have, He wouldn’t answer even their request.  God also says something similar to the verse above in Ezekiel 14:14: 

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

He then repeats this concept in verses 16, 18, and 20.  But in each case God is merely saying that EVEN IF great men of God like Moses, Samuel, Noah, Daniel, or Job would try to intervene (great intercessors as they were), God STILL would not answer their prayers, because of the great sin of Israel.  That’s the point God is making here.  He certainly was not endorsing the idea of prayer from these men after death.  Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone in God’s will praying to anyone but God, nor do we see any departed saints praying for us.

Next, Dave points out that the bystanders at Jesus’ crucifixion believed that He was asking (praying to) Elijah to come and save Him.  Supposedly, “This type of petition was commonly believed at the time.”  But these Jews had no biblical reason whatsoever to believe that one could pray to anyone other than God.  

Dave Armstrong’s third example is the apostle Paul supposedly praying for the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18: 

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Notice that this is merely an assumption on Dave’s part.  There is no mention of anyone dead here.  It is possible that Onesiphorus was simply away from home, so maybe that is why Paul prayed for his household (2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19). 

 

But even if Onesiphorus was indeed dead when Paul wrote this, the final destiny of Onesiphorus was fixed, it was already decided (Luke 16:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8; Hebrews 9:27).  No amount of prayer from anyone, even an apostle, could help his state after death.  

But obviously, Onesiphorus was a godly man, or Paul would not have spoken so highly of him.  Therefore, if he was dead, there was no need to ask God for mercy for Onesiphorus, since he had already obtained that final mercy.  But there was something else going on here.  If Onesiphorus was actually dead, Paul’s “prayer” for him to find mercy in that day was not specifically a petition to “help” him, but rather, a pious wish, an expression of a heart-felt desire toward him.  Like when we say “May you rest in peace” to someone who is dead.  It is not really praying for him or to him, but it is simply a sentiment toward the dearly departed, a commending of them to God.

But Catholics may ask, “But what about Purgatory?  Couldn’t Paul have been praying for Onesiphorus’ well-being in Purgatory?”  No, Scripture does not speak of such a place.  After death, there is only Heaven or Hell.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

And the fourth example Armstrong gives us is both Jesus and Peter supposedly “praying to saints and for the dead.”  He points to Acts 9:36-41 where a girl named Tabitha had died.  And elsewhere, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-42), speaking “directly to a dead man (in effect, ‘praying’ to him).”

This is desperation.  There is a difference between 1) praying to a dead person who is supposedly in Heaven to help someone on earth, and 2) authoritatively and miraculously speaking to a dead body to raise it from the dead.  Neither Jesus nor Peter was asking these dead persons for help, i.e., they were not praying “to” them.  And neither were they praying “for” them in the Catholic sense of praying to aid them in Purgatory.  Again, this is a ridiculous attempt by Dave Armstrong to validate the Catholic practice of praying to the dead to help the one praying, and praying for the dead to help them to get out of Purgatory.  This is a desperate, shameful, and irresponsible manipulating of Holy Scripture, confusing and deceiving multitudes of Catholics.

For more information on praying to saints, see these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html

ANOTHER ATTACK ON SOLA SCRIPTURA

Attacks on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) are frequent and most of them come from members of the Catholic Church.  These attacks come in many forms and we’ve addressed many of them here on this blog.

But yet another subtle attack on Sola Scriptura comes from some Catholics’ interpretation of Nehemiah 8:1-8.  This passage is about the return of some of the Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem who had been exiled to Babylon seventy years earlier.  

In Nehemiah 8, the wall had been rebuilt and a special solemn gathering of the Jews was called to read the Book of the Law to the people.  At this time, several leaders were called on to help with this endeavor.  Today’s enemies of Sola Scriptura focus on this verse:

“So they read in the book in the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8)

They’ll say, “You see!  The common people needed a ‘magisterium’ here, an authoritative interpreter.  They needed leaders and teachers who could infallibly tell them what the Scriptures said.  They couldn’t interpret the holy Scriptures on their own and they didn’t dare use ‘private interpretation’!”

Now, we don’t discourage the role of teachers in the church today, since they are certainly a biblical concept.  Anyone saying that we don’t need teachers would be misrepresenting Sola Scriptura.  But there is not a hint of the need for an “infallible magisterium” in this chapter in Nehemiah, and it is not at all the purpose of this passage to condemn private interpretation.      

So, what’s the point of this passage in saying that the leaders gave the people the “sense” of the meaning, “causing them to understand” (v. 8)?  Does this mean that the common people were not allowed to interpret Scripture, but could only understand it from God-inspired interpreters?  No, it doesn’t.  Does this disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?  Not at all.

Many years earlier, in Deuteronomy 31:9-13 Moses commanded a similar solemn reading of the same Law every seventh year.  But there was nothing mentioned here about interpreting God’s Word at that time.  So why was there no need to interpret for the people in Moses’ time?  By contrast, why did Ezra have to interpret the Scriptures for them in the book of Nehemiah?

We have to remember that for Nehemiah and his people, it had been 70 years since the Jews had been in the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the use of the Hebrew language by the Jews was not as common in Babylon.  No doubt, many Jews had died within that time and a new group of young Jews existed which had been raised in Babylon.  The Jews had assimilated into the Babylonian culture and language, and most of the Jews were now speaking the Chaldean (Babylonian) language and/or Aramaic.  But Ezra’s reading of the Law (in Nehemiah 8:8) was probably in pure Hebrew, to which many of the Jews were not accustomed.  Thus, the need for interpretation.

So, no, Sola Scriptura is not refuted in Nehemiah 8:1-8 in the least.  This passage does not demonstrate that an infallible magisterium (as the Catholic Church claims to have) is necessary.

THE DARBY DECEPTION (The Pre-Trib Rapture on Trial)

The doctrine of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaches that the Rapture of the church (i.e., the sudden removal of true believers worldwide) happens shortly before the start of the Tribulation.  The Tribulation (also known as “the time of Jacob’s trouble”) is a seven-year period of extreme chaos, death, destruction and punishment such as the world has never seen coming upon this unregenerate and evil society.

So, what is the origin of the Pre-Trib doctrine?  Is it biblical, or is it something made up by man?

What Do Catholics Say?

Many Catholic apologists claim that John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the originator of this teaching.  We know of no official statements from the Catholic Church claiming this, but there is an article on this topic over at Catholic Answers making this claim.  The article has no specified author, but it does have the nihil obstat and imprimatur, which are the Catholic Church’s seals of approval, so that certainly gives the article some weight (according to the Catholic Church).  It says that “…all Christians agreed that the rapture… would occur immediately before the Second Coming, at the close of the period of persecution… But in the 1800s [refering to the time of Darby], some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution…” and that “…no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-rapture

Author and former editor of (Catholic) Envoy Magazine Carl Olson says that “John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)… formed the dispensationalist system… the concept of a pretribulation Rapture was unheard of prior to that time” and that it was Darby who “solidified the belief in the 1830s…” and that the Pre-Trib Rapture was “the modern creation of Darby…”:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5788

Catholic apologist Tim Drake writes, “This theory [the Pre-Trib Rapture doctrine] traces its roots to the 1830s and John Nelson Darby…”:

https://legatus.org/do-catholics-believe-in-the-rapture/

Popular Catholic author and apologist Steve Ray also claims that “The Rapture is a new Protestant doctrine…” and that it “was never taught in all of church history until the mid-1800’s when two women had an ecstatic vision…” (which is allegedly where Darby got the idea of a Pre-Trib Rapture):

https://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2018/02/03/the-rapture-not-all-evangelical-protestant-scholars-agree/

The people at the CatholicBridge.com website also tell us that “John Darby… put forth the Pre-Tribulation Rapture theory around 1830 after traveling to northern Scotland to meet with Margaret McDonald, a woman who had a ‘vision’ during a serious illness…”:

http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/raptured-catholics.php

And the highly popular, internationally known Catholic author and speaker, James Akin, who is a senior apologist at Catholic Answers, also claims that dispensationalism (which ties in closely with the Pre-Trib Rapture) “was started in the 1830s by an Englishman named John Nelson Darby”:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/israel-and-the-church

These are just some of many Catholic apologists who make this claim concerning Darby and the Pre-Trib Rapture.

Pre-Trib Is Pre-Darby

But it can be demonstrated that at least some concept of  a Pre-Trib Rapture existed long before Darby’s time.  For the record, it is not just Catholics that have fallen for the idea that Darby started the concept, but some Protestants have, as well.  For instance, Dave MacPherson wrote concerning this topic, but his work has been refuted by articles such as these:

https://pmicenter.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/dave-macpherson-inventor-of-false-pre-trib-rapture-history/

http://www.according2prophecy.org/macphers.html

http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-origin-of-the-concept-of-a-pre-tribulation-rapture/

According to the links just above: 

· Dave MacPherson wrongly attributes the origin of the Pre-Trib Rapture to (occultic influenced) Margaret McDonald, from which Darby supposedly stole the idea.

· Mac Pherson’s work is lacking in historical method, and his book, The Rapture Plot is defective, lacking in substance, and it distorts history.

· His attack on the Pre-Trib view is described as ridiculous

· MacPherson overlooks the fact that Darby developed his concept of the Rapture in the winter of 1826-1827, three years before he even met Margaret McDonald.

· McDonald’s handwritten account of her “Pre-Trib” prophecy actually has nothing at all in it that suggests a Pre-Trib Rapture!

· There is no hard historical evidence that McDonald, Edward Irving (a Scottish minister who allegedly influenced Darby), or his followers (the Irvingites) ever held to pretribulationism, so how could they be the very source of Darby’s Pre-Trib view?

· Darby’s understanding of the Pre-Trib Rapture was the product of the development of his personal interactive thought with the text of Scripture.

It is true that the modern Pre-Trib concept was highly developed and popularized by Darby, but to say that a Pre-Trib idea was “unheard of” before Darby is simply false.  The following sources promoted, or at least mentioned, some type of pretribulationism before the time of Darby in the 1800s:

Morgan Edwards (1722-1795)

Thomas Collier (1615-1691)

Brother Dolcino (1250-1307)

Pseudo-Ephraem (4^th to 8^th Century)

The Apocalypse of Elijah (3^rd Century)

Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.)

The Shepherd of Hermas (140 A.D.) 

See here:

https://www.pre-trib.org/tom-s-perspectives/message/a-history-of-pre-darby-rapture-advocates/read

http://baptistbulletin.org/the-baptist-bulletin-magazine/is-the-pre-trib-rapture-a-recent-invention/

Champions of History?

Catholics are almost always the ones to point to history when trying to prove their point, but according to the articles linked above, history does not at all support their case concerning Darby being the creator of the Pre-Trib Rapture.

In fact, we would strongly assert that the Pre-Trib Rapture is indeed a BIBLICAL concept.  See here:

https://calvaryoxnard.org/reasons-to-believe-in-a-pre-tribulation-rapture/

https://www.raptureready.com/

http://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2014_09_01_archive.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-rapture-and-catholic-eschatology.html

Some Questions

So, if the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is not the correct view, then perhaps it is the Post-Tribulation view (where the Rapture happens after the Tribulation, at the time of Jesus’ literal return to earth, also known as the Second Coming).  This is the view of the Catholic Church (as well as some Protestant groups).

But if the Post-Trib view is true, then:  

• Where is the imminency?  Where is the concept that Jesus could appear at any time? 

 

The Bible clearly tells us to watch for the coming of Jesus Christ because we do not know when He comes (Mark 13:32-37; Luke 12:40).  But if we find the Tribulation upon us, then we will know that there will be seven years before He comes back.  That is, two periods of 1260 days each (Daniel 9:27 [“middle of the week”]; Revelation 11:3; 12:6).  We can know that He is coming back 1260 days after the abomination of desolation (in the middle of the Tribulation).  But if we already know exactly when He is coming, then there is no imminency involved and therefore, we cannot trust what Jesus said. 
 

• Where is the “business as usual” idea?

Matthew 24:36-39 and Luke 17:26-29 tell us that Jesus’ coming (of which the time is unknown) will happen during a time in which people will be experiencing a “business as usual” status (i.e., people will be doing the normal, everyday stuff - building, planting, marrying, etc.).  But the Bible also tells us:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers of Heaven shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven…  (Matthew 24:29-30)  

Sorry, but we can hardly call this “business as usual.”  At this point will be many supernatural and frightful events happening.  The Bible clearly tells us of a coming with unknown timing, a time of relative peace and prosperity (Matthew 24:36-39 and Luke 17:26-29), and another coming with incredible disasters and heaven-shaking signs and events (Matthew 24:29-30), which is a time that can be calculated and determined.  These two cannot be the same event.  So, either Jesus is contradicting Himself… or, there will be two separate events, or phases, of his coming.  We prefer to believe the latter.

• If Post-Trib is true, then at what point do the resurrected believers enjoy their mansions of which Jesus spoke?

In My Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. (John 14:2-3)

Jesus said that He would go (to Heaven - where God’s house is) and prepare a place for us.  He then said He would come to receive us (to be with Him), obviously, in this context, to enjoy the mansions that He prepared for us.  We need to go to Heaven to enjoy our mansions, right?  But if He only comes back after the Tribulation, when He touches down on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4) and sets up His kingdom here… then we don’t get to live in our mansions in Heaven, do we? 

In the Pre-Trib view, the church (all true believers) are taken up to our mansions (as promised) before the Tribulation.  And we will be in Heaven while the “earth dwellers” (Revelation 3:10; 6:10; 11:10; 13:14) are enduring the wrath of God for their rejection of Him.  And while in Heaven, we will enjoy the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7-9) before we come back to earth with Him to reign.  This makes much more sense in light of His promise about the mansions. 

• If the church of Jesus Christ must go through the Tribulation, then why does Jesus make the Tribulation conditional for the church of Thyatira?

Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, EXCEPT they repent of their deeds. (Revelation 2:22 - NASV)

Apparently, those repenting of their sins would not have to go into “great tribulation.”  Those repenting would be part of the true church of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the church does not go through the Tribulation.

 

Furthermore, another of the seven churches that Jesus addressed, the church of Philadelphia, is promised the same thing:

Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

The “hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world” is none other than the seven-year Tribulation.  Jesus Christ, Himself, promised to keep the church, the true believers, FROM (Greek “ek,” meaning “out of”) that temptation.

• If the church has to go through the wrath and judgment of God (in the Tribulation), then why was the angel who was bringing judgment to Sodom and Gomorrah restricted?  Why did he tell Lot that he and his family had to first be removed from Sodom before its judgment? 

   

Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come hither… (Genesis 19:22)

In other words, the angel is saying, “I can’t destroy this place until you and your family are safely out of the area.”  The righteous are sometimes disciplined by God, but they are never to partake of God’s wrath and judgment.

Remember, Jesus used the picture of Lot escaping Sodom as an example of His coming:

As it was in the days of Lot… (Luke 17:28-30)

• If the Tribulation comes first, along with the antichrist, then what was it that was hindering the antichrist from appearing?

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 gives us a hint that something is now holding back the antichrist from appearing.  If it’s not the church of God, or the Holy Spirit’s influence in the church, then what exactly is it that is holding this false messiah back.  Something significant is now preventing the antichrist from appearing on the scene, and we believe it is the true church, because Christians are salt and light in this wicked world (Matthew 5:13-16).

• If the Pre-Trib Rapture is not true, then why were the Thessalonians shaken and confused when they thought that the Day of the Lord (the Tribulation) had come upon them? (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)

They already knew that Christians must suffer persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:4).  Paul had already warned them, so that was not an issue with them.  What troubled them is that someone wrote a false letter to them, forging Paul’s name and saying that the Day of the Lord had come.  They were troubled because they knew that they were not supposed to go through the Day of the Lord / Tribulation.  That false letter contradicted what Paul had told them about the Rapture in his first letter (1 Thessalonians).

• Also, could not the Rapture, itself, be the very cause, or catalyst, that triggers the Tribulation, and a perfect time to usher in the antichrist to present “solutions” to the chaos of millions of people on earth missing?

See these articles suggesting the Rapture as the cause or beginning of the Tribulation:

https://studygrowknowblog.com/2011/03/16/could-the-rapture-cause-the-coming-world-collapse/

https://israelmyglory.org/article/aftermath-of-the-rapture/

The U-Turn To Earth

One argument that Post-Tribbers use is that Jesus will come in the clouds and the church will rise to meet Him in the air and then we will all make a U-turn and come back down to earth with Jesus.  They say this because some claim that the Greek word for “meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is a technical term used to describe the people of a city going out to meet a conquering king or dignitary approaching the city.  And the people would then accompany him back to the city.  Post-Tribbers see this as what should happen when Jesus returns to earth.

But in the following link, the author points to Michael R. Cosby, a Post-Trib Professor of New Testament and Greek, who at first believed the same thing, but then experiencing a “disturbing exercise in scholarly honesty,” discovered, to his horror, that applying the term in this way was wrong and was simply eisegesis [i.e., reading something into the text, rather than letting it speak for itself].  See here:

https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/the-meeting-in-the-sky/read

Conclusion

One last thing.  The Tribulation period is about God’s wrath.  Never are God’s people (who are faithfully following Him) the objects of His wrath!  This punishment is not for the church (the bride of Christ).  And no good husband, especially Jesus Christ, would thoroughly beat his bride till bloody before taking her out to eat.  But that would be a proper analogy of the Tribulation and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb if the Post-Trib view is true. 

Remember, the Tribulation is called the “time of Jacob’s trouble.”  God re-named Jacob “Israel” (Genesis 32:28).  So, the Tribulation is mainly about the nation of Israel and God’s dealings with them (Daniel 9:24), it is not about the church.

Of course, there are other views of what will happen in the end times.  Unfortunately, all the details are not conveniently found in the same chapter of a single book in the Bible, therefore one must do some research to put the puzzle pieces together.  But taking Scripture together as a whole, we believe that the Pre-Trib position makes the most sense of all the data.

So, since the concept of the Pre-Trib Rapture is biblical and historical, the false idea that Darby “started” this concept is indeed a deception.