Snatched Before the Storm!

A Case for Pretribulationism

Richard L. Mayhue

Vice President of The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary, California

Snatched Before the Storm!

A Case for Pretribulationism

© 2001 by Richard L. Mayhue

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the author.

Published by:

Kress Christian

PUBLICATIONS

P.O. Box 132228

The Woodlands, TX 77393

www.kresschristianpublications.com

ISBN 0-9772262-6-3

Snatched Before the Storm!

A Case for Pretribulationism

INTRODUCTION

Someone has said, “The best defense is the strongest offense.” Wise is the pretribulationist who understands and incorporates this kind of strategy into his doctrinal explanation of pretribulationism. For this reason, many of the frequently used arguments for pretribulationism have been deleted. These reasons are either erroneous or so weak that they prove ineffective.

Interaction with other positions in this discussion is minimal. Our purpose is not to defensively neutralize another possibility and then erroneously conclude that pretribulationism must be right. Perhaps both are wrong? But, I think not!

THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENTS

Early Church History

Was pretribulationism predominantly taught by the early church? If it was not, would this historical fact tarnish the luster of pretribulationism?

The closest patristic passage which possibly teaches pretribulationism is found in the Fourth Vision of the The Shepherd of Hermas.1 A careful and frequent reading of the passage by the unbiased student will lead to an inconclusive end.

Imminency

Much has been written about imminency in support of pretribulationism.2 The question remains, however, “Does the Bible teach imminency and thus pretribulationism as a logical result?” Or “Is imminency a logical corollary to pretribulationism, if in fact pretribulationism can be demonstrated to be biblical?”

In this writer’s judgment, there is no New Testament passage in which the imminent return of our Lord is clearly, demandingly, and primarily taught. Rather, the pressing obligation of pretribulationists is to exegetically and theologically demonstrate that a pretribulational rapture of the Church is taught by the Scriptures. Then the doctrine of imminency can be introduced. To do otherwise is to unnecessarily weaken the case for pretribulationism.

Recent History

Recent history has been levered against pretribulationism. Dave MacPherson frequently attempts to pinpoint the historical origin of pretribulationism in the early nineteenth century.3 His analysis has been answered thoroughly.

Though obviously suggesting that his research has destroyed pretribulationism, MacPherson has actually done pretribulationism a great service. Armed with the historical documents recorded here, pretribulationists can prove that their doctrine did not originate in a tongue utterance among the Irvingites or in the revelations of Miss McDonald. The available evidence clearly removes this stigma ...