Is the Post-Tribulation View Dangerous?

Search the Web on this topic and you find very little on the post-trib side.  On post told me that the Post-tribulation Rapture is very dangerous because it messes with the pre-tribulational doctrinal issues.  Well naturally, but that hardly makes it dangerous.  Another direction people take to tell us that it is dangerous is has a more slanderous nature.  It is from an accusation that those who believe the view won’t see the need to live godly lives, because they can put that off until later.  Unfortunately, that argument applies to just about anyone and it is contrary to Peter’s admonition.

2 Peter 3:10,12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Peter tells us that because the heavens and earth is going to be dissolved, for that reason we need to behave ourselves.  How a person chooses to live, is the heavenly test of eternity.   I don’t really see the logical nature of Peters reasoning here, but it dismantles and addresses the pre-tribbers argument over the issue.  In the end the accusation for the Post-trib view being dangerous is yet to be determined.

Taking a post-trib stance, on the other hand, is very beneficial.  It prepare and give a mindset to receive tribulation and persecution.  Both which are assigned and appointed to the believer… John 16:33, 2 Tim 3:12.  Paul tells us that he glories in his tribulations because the perfect him… Rom 5:3.  Jesus declares that this mindset is necessary to have the fertile soil of salvation in His parable of the sower… Mark 4.  For this reason the post-trib stance sees a fundamental tie to salvation.  The stony soil is not prepared for tribulation and persecution, and when it comes, those who have the stony soil, “immediately stumble” and fall away.  Taking the post-trib stance also prepares the believer to keep the oil in their lamp to go the distance.  This is the warning that Jesus gave concerning the 10 virgins.  Half were foolish and didn’t have enough oil to make it to the end.

In contrast, the Pre-trib view, has an extremely dangerous side effect.  That is the stony soil issue… Mark 4:18.  It makes the issue foundationally connected to salvation.  Because those who adhere to the view seem to be unable to look at the other side of the coin in case they are incorrect, they fail to notice that the fundamental attraction to the view is the part about skipping out on all the bad stuff, i.e. tribulation and persecution.  For this reason the stony soil has a strong attraction to it.  Historically this is what happens.  If the pre-trib doctrine is taught prior to persecution there is severe danger.  Such as in China in the 1930’s, when tribulation and persecution came, loads of believers became apostate.  Denying Christ, will cause Him to deny you before His Father in heaven.  Rev. 3:5 speaks of blotting out names that were once written in the book of life.

So concerning spiritual warfare, if the Devil were to take on a deceptive view, which one would be more favorable to his cause?  There is only one correct view.  Choose wisely.

2 Comments

  1. I agree. The Post-Trib view is a lot safer. And you’re right about the Post-Trib getting so little attention. This is probably because it has been presented as little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the obvious fallacies of the pre-trib. I would like to think there is a way to offer a better alternative than the pre-trib or pre-wrath theories, both of which continue to grow in popularity–for whatever reason I cannot tell.

    Reply

    1. Satan is the reason. Here is why:

      15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

      16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

      17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

      Just a few verses after…

      22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” (seems to be sincere and pure in motive, but…)

      23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

      The mouth that glorified Jesus Christ is the same mouth that insulted Him.

      It is clear that Peter is not Satan here. I hope you get what I mean.

      Sometimes its hard to turn our back on something that we already got used to, especially if we profit from it, we gain prominence from it; if its more convenient, comforting, and reassuring; we rather go for the majority and the popular; and sometimes holding on to this principle ” I was born a catholic, I will die as a catholic”, no offense to the catholics (I am a former catholic), but I’m just making a point here.

      God Bless.

      Eaglet – A former pretribber and prewrath

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s