Page 133 - The Rapture Question by John F. Walvoord
P. 133

Varieties of Posttribulationism
    held to a literal Millennium. Obviously, if Revelation up to
    chapter 19 should be considered in almost a completely non­
    literal interpretation, why should chapters 19-22 be very lit­
    eral? The inconsistency of this position has led many post-
    tribulationists to embrace amillennialism also.
       In general, the classic view is rejected because of its in­
    consistent application of interpretative principles of the Bible,
    its inability to explain problems, and its subjective character
    that permits the interpreter to explain away any problem that
    exists. Payne, while acknowledging that the early church
    fathers were in error in their premises for posttribulationism,
    nevertheless wants to accept their conclusions.
       The Semiclassic Posttribulational Interpretation
       More than likely the majority of contemporary post-
    tribulationists follow what might be called the semiclassic
    posttribulational interpretation. Included among them are
    posttribulationists who consider the Tribulation, to some ex­
    tent, contemporary but also find that certain features are still
    to be fulfilled. In view of the fact that there are unfulfilled
    prophecies that precede the Second Coming, they argue that
    the Second Coming cannot be imminent. On the other hand, if
    the church is already in the period described as the Great
    Tribulation, it is useless to debate whether the church will be
    raptured before it.
       A great variety of opinions exist in the semiclassic post­
    tribulational school of thought, with some like Alexander
    Reese holding to a specific seven-year period as necessarily to
    be fulfilled before the Second Coming according to Daniel
    9:27; but on the other hand, some find that prophecies of the
    Great Tribulation are already being fulfilled or have been
    fulfilled in the past.19 There is obvious confusion among post­
    tribulationists on the interpretation of some of the major as­
    pects of their point of view, quite in contrast to pretribu-
 ■
     lationists who generally differ only on minor details.
                         139
   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138