Unmasking Pre-Trib Fallacies

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

In Chapter Seven, we saw how pre-Tribulationists used a "comfort argument" to advance imminency. Unfortunately, we see the same argument being employed once more.

Reason # 13 for being a pre-Tribulationist

"The pre-Trib view maintains I Thessalonians 4:13-18 as a comfort passage and explains why the young Christians at Thessalonica were so upset about the death of their loved ones." 1

There are actually two arguments contained within Reason # 13, but each stems from the same passage. To better assess the merits of these two claims, we should first become familiar with that text. I Thessalonians was likely the earliest of Paul's epistles. It was written to answer a number of questions from that young and enthusiastic church in the capitol of Macedonia. Apparently one of the questions had to do with the fate of some believers who had recently died. According to noted pre-Trib scholar, Charles Ryrie, the church was grieving because they were concerned that those who died before the Lord returned might "lose all hope of sharing in the glorious reign of Christ." He continues by noting, "Paul's answer is the reassuring affirmation that the dead will be raised and will share in the kingdom." 2 This new information was presented as part of the revelation of the end-time event known as the rapture (See 4:13-17). Then, following that revelation, we find this concluding statement, "Therefore comfort one another with these words." (I Thessalonians 4:18).

First Argument

Based on this closing admonition to "comfort one another," pre-Tribbers developed an argument (one which we have seen twice before) to advance their position: Needless to say, this is not a sound argument since the conclusion is an example of the fallacy of division. That means "believing some property of a whole to be automatically a property of every part of that whole." 6 In other words, the mere fact that revealing the rapture brought comfort, does not mean every other aspect of the event must also impart comfort. (See Chapters 5 and 7 for expanded treatments of the so-called "comfort" argument.)

Second Argument

In the second part of Reason # 13, LaHaye offers a truly novel interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the disclosure of the rapture in I Thessalonians 4. In his opinion, the believers at Thessalonica were not upset because they feared their departed brethren were going to miss out on the Lord's glorious reign. Rather, he suggests, "the Thessalonians are grieving because they fear their loved ones will miss the rapture." 7

For such an interpretation to be possible, two questionable assumptions are required. First, we must assume the church at Thessalonica was knowledgeable about the rapture before I Thessalonians was written! After all, they could hardly grieve over missing the rapture if they didn't know it existed. Second, we are asked to assume that if, indeed, Paul had revealed the rapture to them, he had somehow failed to mention that the dead in Christ were to be included. That means the purpose of the rapture account in I Thessalonians 4:13-18 was merely to correct the Apostle's earlier, incomplete revelation.

The question is, should we accept these assumptions? Frankly, we think not. Surveying Paul's writings, we observe that the rapture was never a prominent topic in his teaching. As an example, Paul ministered in the city of Corinth for a period of 18 months. But it was not until several years later, when he penned I Corinthians, that the Apostle finally got around to revealing the mystery of the rapture. By contrast, Scripture indicates Paul spent little more than three weeks in Thessalonica. So, we reason, if Paul did not deem it necessary to present the rapture during his 18 months in Corinth, why should we assume he introduced the doctrine during the few days he ministered in Thessalonica? Because of this, it seems far more reasonable to view I Thessalonians 4 as the initial revelation of the rapture. Of course, this understanding would render the second argument a logical impossibility; i.e., the church grieving over an event they had not yet heard about.

Conclusion

The first argument is based on a logical fallacy; the second argument is based on assumptions which cannot be supported from logic or from Scripture. For these reasons, we conclude that Reason # 13 adds absolutely nothing to the case for the pre-Trib rapture.

Notes on Chapter 13.

  1. Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm, p. 224.
  2. Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1808.
  3. Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm, p. 222.
  4. Ibid., p. 222.
  5. Ibid., p. 62.
  6. Nicholas Capaldi, The Art of Deception, p. 120.
  7. Ibid., p. 224.
  • Return to Table of Contents
  • Go to Next Chapter
    •

    Last Updated November 19, 1997 by Larry Simmons