“5. Revelation does not use the word “Church” during chapters 4-19, therefore the Church does not correspond to the saints in those chapters.”
First of all, we need to make explicit the fact that this argument is in fact dependent on others. We need to identify what our criteria are for determining whether or not a passage refers to the Church. If a post-tribber or pre-wrather points to a group in Revelation and says, “That’s the Church!”, the pre-tribber will usually reply, “No, they’re Tribulation Saints because…they have to keep the Law, but the Church is saved by Grace [for example]!”
In this section I shall deal with the linguistic argument, and then my responses to the other arguments in this list will tackle the criteria/verses pre-tribbers use to justify the existence of “Tribulation Saints” as a distinct, non-Church group.
Again, we have recourse to the word-concept fallacy. The meaning of words is determined by context. The choice of a different word, while implying different nuances, does not necessarily mean a different subject is being described. I can describe Obama as “Commander-in-Chief” and as “President of the United States” (POTUS); am I referring to two different men? Answer: no. I am in fact employing different nouns to describe different roles and duties involved in the exercise of his office.
Thus the absence of the word “Church” does not ipso facto mean that the Church is absent from the world during Antichrist’s Great Tribulation. When asked to point out the Church in Revelation, the pre-wrather or post-tribber can cite a number of verses:
a) Rev. 6:9-11:
“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”
b) Rev 7:13-14:
“And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
c) Rev. 12:17:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
d) Rev. 13:7:
“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
At this point the pre-tribber replies, “They’re called ‘saints’, not ‘the Church’!” But the pre-wrather replies, “So what? The Church is referred to as “saints” in the opening of many of Paul’s letters: e.g. 1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 1:7. Why are the “saints” in those passages the Church, but not in these ones from Revelation?” In other words, other criteria required to prove that the saints in the middle section of Revelation are not the Church: the linguistic argument is not sufficient.
The other issue that sometimes gets thrown in with the Church/saints problem is the use of “kings” and “priests” in Revelation. The pre-tribber will rightly claim that the Church is represented in Heaven by those who sing, “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth”, in Rev. 5:10 (cf. 1 Peter 2:9). But when it comes to the group in Rev. 7, who have come out of the Great Tribulation, then the pre-tribber says, “They can’t be the Church, because they aren’t called kings or priests!”
How is this group described?
They “serve [God] day and night in his temple” (7:15). This sounds like a description of priestly activity to me: cf. Deut. 21:5, “And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister [=serve] unto him”. This again comes under the word-concept fallacy. By their actions we can determine that they may be functioning as priests or Temple attendants. Similarly, those who are resurrected and reign with Christ during the Millennium in Rev. 20 are said not to belong to the Church because the word “kings” is not used of them. But they are described as “reigning”, which is the function of a king, and the verb chosen in Greek to communicate this concept can also be translated “be a king”. Rev 20:4 in the Greek reads, “και εβασιλευσαν μετα Χριστου” – well the Greek word for king is “βασιλευς”. See the resemblance? To admit that these people are part of the Church is to admit that the Church will go through the Tribulation, because this group is beheaded for their testimony – cf. Rev. 13:10, “ He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
Other criteria are needed to determine whether these people are part of the Church or not, and these will be addressed in following posts.
All Along the Watchtower 
“And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Things can get confusing. We all know the body of Christ is the church, and that church is the catholic church.
Just kidding. Im seeing if you are awake.
God knows the end from the beginning. It is a fixed number of people who are the church. There are those walking among us who will get saved sooner or later. Its my understanding that when the last person who is to be saved is saved, then the rapture. Once the church is complete, he grabs us. very easy salvation.
After the rapture, people will come to Christ, but they will have to be beheaded for their salvation. These are those that the passage speaks of who were killed during the trib. You see, the trib is a return to old testament times. We are now under grace. The 70 weeks of good brother Daniel still have one week to go, and god put it on hold for the sake of Jesus and his church, his body.Immediatly after the rapture, the earth reverts back to old testament time. The comforter is removed from the earth. Gods protective hand is removed. The man of sin has his day in the sun. Its plagues a plenty.
LikeLike
Plenty of early Christians, and contemporary Christians in areas with persecution today, do not find becoming Christian easy. Tradition states that Paul was beheaded, as were some Christians in Syria last summer. Did God’s protective hand not cover Paul? I’d suggest that the appearance of a stark contrast between easy conversion now and difficulties in the book of Revelation has more to do with legal religious toleration of the period since Constantine than it has to do with different ways in which God saves people.
LikeLike
It is easy to get saved. All the apostles were killed maybe except for John. The killing of Christians in these lawless nations is just wrong. But there are Christian souls and there are the born again. Calling ones self Christian doesn’t make one born again.
LikeLike
By the way, there are 144,000 jews who turn to Christ during the trib. They evangelize the world and win souls for the kingdom of heaven. If you call them part of the church is just a matter of language. They will know who they are because its in their hot little hands in the bible. People of the earth will realize the bible was all true, cause they are seeing it first hand. My guess is that the devilish catholic church , in kahoots with law enforcement, will outlaw the bible again. The CC outlawed it once a thousand yrs ago. You know what, the CC just unbanned the bible in 1962. Wasn’t that nice of them? One true holy apostolic universal what ever.
LikeLike
“5. Revelation does not use the word “Church” during chapters 4-19, therefore the Church does not correspond to the saints in those chapters.”
This is the argument of someone to whom the Word of God is foolishness; i.e., an unsaved person.
By the same reasoning, John only uses the word “salvation” once (in chapter 4 of his gospel). Are we to conclude that salvation is absent from John’s gospel after the fourth chapter? The gospel of John does not use the word “gospel.” Are we to assume that the gospel is absent from John?
Christians are not to make assumptions–and especially doctrine–based on what the Bible does not say, as we’re not to add one word or take away from God’s Word.
Your arguments against this sloppy reasoning are good ones.
Here’s a point the pre-tribbers won’t address (among the dozens of other points they won’t address):
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 says that God will send STRONG DELUSION to all who “received not a love for the truth;” i.e., true believers.
Kinda hard to get saved when those same verses state very clearly that ALL who get the strong delusion will be damned.
One other point: there is no mention anywhere of a “70th week of Daniel” prior to 1800. None. It was not taught because it was an unknown doctrine. Was this because we’ve gotten so holy over the last 200 years? Was it God’s plan to keep every generation of Christians in the dark for centuries and only the last few apostate generations who knew the real truth?
Practically all modern eschatology was unknown before 1800-1830. Actually, there were some stray references to some of what is taught today going back to 1599 in one Catholic book. Why has the Corporate Media gotten behind the pre-trib view? Was it because they love Christians? Why did the world promote Left Behind and Late Great Planet Earth? Was it because they love Jesus and the truth?
Again, good points.
LikeLike
Some things were sealed till the time of the end. This is the time of the end.
Im a pre tribber, if you will.
Strong delusion is sent to keep the blind blind and to give credence to their hate for god. Like dinosaur bones. They give people a reason for saying gods word is not true.
It is no crime to be pre trib or post amongst the born again. Some believe either way.Being born again is what matters.
A number of things weren’t taught 200 yrs ago, because they couldn’t see past their surrey with the fringe on top. Now things are making sense. Unless you haven’t heard, there was now Israel 200 yrs ago. Now there is, which makes prophesy stand up on its own now.
LikeLike
70th week of Daniel is very scriptural. Its real and its coming to a town near you.
Say, how come your knowledge of scripture has so may holes in it? Stick around and ill fill you in, my brother.
LikeLike
Some things are sealed to the end, particularly Daniel. But Revelation is not sealed. Revelation 22:10 specifically says that Revelation is not sealed.
You make a good point about the strong delusion.
No, you misunderstand me: it is no crime to be pre-trib. I did not mention pre-trib with the sentence. What I said was It is the words of someone who is not saved to build doctrine from what the Bible DOES NOT SAY. We are not to do it.
“A number of things weren’t taught 200 yrs ago, because they couldn’t see past their surrey with the fringe on top. Now things are making sense. Unless you haven’t heard, there was now [no] Israel 200 yrs ago. Now there is, which makes prophesy stand up on its own now.”
Again, God assures us that we will always have His Word and that we are to consider the “whole counsel” of His Word.
The 70th week of Daniel is a man-made doctrine that was unknown until the last 185 years. Reading Daniel to wring a 70th week out of it is Catholic doctrine. I’d think you would be familiar with that.
You are correct when you state “Being born again is what matters.”
LikeLike
Them is fightin words…put em up.
LikeLike
catholic doctrine? Im not versed in catholic doctrine and neither do I want to be. Its no crime not to know about or believe the 70th Week. Its just nice to know. Something to talk about at cocktail parties……because us saved wont be here for it.
Just so you know, 70 weeks was pronounced on Israel. only 69 of them went by. I don’t have the verses handy and its hard reading, but ive seen it. A week is 7 days and the biblical week is 7 yrs, which is how long the trib is. Nice coincidence eh?
I don’t think the CC goes in for the 70th week. They pretty much stay out of the book of Rev because it damns the catholic church to hell. They prefer their faithful to stay out of that book.
LikeLike
I think part of what you identify as the “word-concept fallacy” is the distinction between “sense” and “referent.” To take your example of President Obama, “Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces” and “President of the United States” are technically two different offices, although according to US law they must have the same occupant. So both titles refer to the same person, but they have different meanings, in terms of the roles implied. Similarly, the phrases “the Church,” “the body of Christ,” “the saints,” “the elect,” “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6), or “God’s temple” all refer to the Church, but have different senses, different concepts which they are invoking about that particular group of people. Is this the distinction you mean? Or did I misunderstand you?
LikeLike
Yes, essentially that is the distinction I mean, but I would add that two words can share a sense, while one includes an added meaning the other does not have, and vice versa: e.g. A&C vs A&D – both have sense A in common, but the other sense each has (i.e. C & D) is not shared by the other.
LikeLike