Matthew 24:40 Is the rapture secret?

[randyk]

I know postrib position /post wrath .

It is one dimensional and based off of a theorized " one coming"
Pretrib stands alone.
I can defend my position and never mention another position.
In your doctrine "anti pretib rapture rhetoric" is that doctrine's foundation.

The dead church fathers are also a main foundation.

Seeing this disadvantage of methods is telling.

Show me a link to any postribber presenting their theory without those extra biblical rabbit trails.

The pretrib rapture fits.
Postrib Rapture doctrine omits and reframes MASSIVELY.

I'm not your enemy because i'm Postrib and you'e Pretrib. Many of my closest friends are Pretrib, and I've gone to Pretrib churches for most of my life. So I have to tread carefully among my friends, just to hold in good conscience to what I believe the Scriptures teach.

As I see it, the strongest argument for Pretrib, aside from all of the "symbolic proofs," is the Imminency Doctrine, teaching that Christ "can come at any moment.* I don't believe that, but if it's true, and there are Scriptures in evidence of that, then Christ cannot be Postrib.

 

[randyk]

Rev 19 is the return in power and glory TO EARTH.
in the virgin parable Jesus meets up away from the brides dwelling and continues to heaven.

In the rapture pretrib it is the same.
In Rev 14:14 it is the same and it is DURING the trib.

The "one taken" of mat 24 has no return to it.
In fact it pictures Noah gathered pretrib.
Lot ...the same.

In your model it would be plausible for Noah to be raptured post flood.
Lot would need to stay in Sodom.
Then lot would need a rapture post fire.

I understand your arguments but do not accept "symbolic" arguments. Parables are, by nature, inexact replications of the truths they represent. All of the background imagery in the parable is designed to make the story coherent--not to be an exact replication of the truhts it means to show.

For example, in the parable of the man buying a field with a pearl hidden in it, the land he buys, and the purchase itself, is an inexact representation of our obtaining the gift of Christ. But the "purchase" does not represent the idea we can "buy" Salvation. These are inexact representations, and it would be wrong to over-literalize the story in an effort to create greater detail for the simple truths that are being conveyed.

So the 10 Virgins parable, and the symbolic representation of Christ's 2nd Coming, are inexact representations, meant to show common truths, and not emphasize what is merely "window dressing." You are trying to say the "window dressing" has doctrinal significance, and I just can't buy that. The Holy Spirit spells out doctrines, and does not "hint" at it.

Nor do I accept an over-literalization of the Apocalypse. By its very nature it is symbolic. As such, trying to attach a chronology to a number of visions is an exercise in futility. Connecting historical events is certainly a good thing. But connecting a series of visions as if they were the actual histories, and not symbolic representations of them, is not possible, in my view.