This is definitely not about Christ coming "at the end of the world". So the focus should be "unto salvation". What exactly does that mean to people who are already saved by grace? It refers back to the fact that salvation will only be completed when all the saints have been perfected, transformed, and glorified. And that can only happen at the Resurrection/Rapture. Which is not two separate events but in fact one event.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement here, but how is that consistent with your pre-trib stance? Revelation 20 sets the 'first resurrection' toward the end of the book of Revelation,
after those chapters about the beast rising up and such.
Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then
I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received
his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This
is the
first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy
is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
(NKJV)
We should next focus on "as a thief in the night". This distinguishes the Resurrection/Rapture from the Second Coming in that at the Second Coming all the inhabitants of the world can see Christ descending from Heaven with all His saints and angels, and it is evident to all that Christ is coming (Rev 1:7). The allusion to "a thief in the night" means that Christ comes (a) suddenly and (b) unexpectedly. That is exactly what He says about the Rapture in Matthew 24 and 25. Christ warns Christians again and again that He will come when He is least expected. "Therefore be ye also ready". The Parable of the Ten Virgins in fact confirms this.
Uh-oh. Revelation uses the 'thief' comment after the sixth bowl of wrath, again toward the end of the book. What evidence is there in the Bible... at all... for Jesus coming back again and again after His ascension? The Bible talks about the parousia, the return of Christ. I can't see anywhere where it teaches that this will happen over and over.
Revelation 16
12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs
coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs,
which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
15 “
Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed
is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”
16 And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. (NKJV)
Now because Christ descends from Heaven WITH His saints at the Second Coming, it should be obvious that He had already come previously FOR His saints.
Ummm, no that is not obvious. Is that your whole reason for inventing a whole 'nother return of Christ? The word for 'coming' is parousia, and the word was used for official visits from government officials. A dignitary would come to a city, and the people of the city would go out to meet him, then return to the city with him.
So just imagine this. There is the sound of a trumpet. Christ comes down to the clouds. The saints meet Him to the air as He returns. The word is 'parousia', after all. Look in Acts 1. The men who the apostles saw at the ascension said that Jesus would return the way He went up, after He went behind the cloud. When Jesus ascended, did He go to the clouds, come back down, wait seven years, then go up again?
And that again confirms that the Rapture is separated from the Second Coming by at least seven years.
You offered no evidence. You just asserted it. I see that with pre-trib teachers all the time. They take a passage that does not teach pre-trib, and may even contradict it, assume pre-trib, and then try to interpret the passage around it. Why doesn't Matthew 24 mention a rapture before the tribulation? Why doesn't the book of Revelation? Why is it that none of the scriptures that lay out a sequence of events mention a rapture before the tribulation? Then pre-tribbers will take one verse about the parousia, and make it about this pretrib rapture thing, but then use another verse to say that is a later second coming.
Furthermore between the Rapture and the Second Coming, there is an extremely important event which is ignored altogether by the naysayers. That is the Marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19). Since the Church is the Bride of Christ (who is the divine Bridegroom), all the saints must be present in Heaven for the Marriage of the Lamb BEFORE Christ descends with His saints and angels to bring destruction upon His enemies, and the enemies of Israel.
Have you actually read the passage about the marriage supper of the Lamb and considered whether it offers a shred of evidence for a pre-trib rapture? It shows up right before the scene of the King of Kings on the white horse, which premils often take as a passage about the
second coming. Where is there any evidence at all of it happening in heaven. I will post this section of scripture from Revelation 19 to give some context. Notice the two references to supper, which I will post as large text.
9 Then he said to me, “Write: ‘
Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!’ ” And he said to me, “These are the true sayings of God.” 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See
that you do not
do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him
was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes
were like a flame of fire, and on His head
were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He
was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on
His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.
17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “
Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all
people, free and slave, both small and great.”
(NKJV)
Look, I understand the appeal of pre-trib. It's just more comfortable to believe that we do not have to go through suffering and difficulty, even though believers around the world suffer and believers throughout history have suffered. But for Americans and British in nice comfortable nations, the idea of not having to suffer has it's appeal.
I also get if you come from a church you have a connection to, and you really feel like your church has the right doctrine, and if they taught you pre-trib, and you have read books, you might be emotionally invested.
But if there is no evidence for it in scripture, and the only way to teach pre-trib is just to assume it, read it into the text, and make some passages about the parousia be about one coming of Christ and other verses about another, then why be pre-trib? I was taught pre-trib and believed it. Then I realized I couldn't find a passage that taught it. Then I realized it pretty much contradicted passages like II Thessalonians 1. And dispensational pretrib was invented in the 1800's. So why believe in it?