Last week I received another email letter from Mr. John Little, Part 6 of his series, “The Pre-Tribulation Lie.”
In the letter John Little gave a link to Pastor Steven Anderson’s movie, “After the Tribulation: The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Fraud Exposed” Official Movie
with the comment:
I’ve never seen anyone debunk this movie. It really does an excellent job of destroying the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Lie. People always say that they’ll get back to me with a reason why this movie is wrong, but they never do.
No one has ever come forward with EVIDENCE that this movie is wrong.
The movie is 1 hour and 58 minutes long. I watched it in full last night.
I am very familiar with Pastor Steven Anderson. I first learned of him when he posted video footage on the Internet about his maltreatment by border patrol agents manhandling him for refusing to entirely comply with their requests for identification as he traveled in Arizona from California on a public highway many miles from the border of Mexico. He had not been to Mexico. He was returning on a business trip from California. The Border Patrol in this case was most certainly wrong, and I trust utterly embarrassed by the alternative media coverage they received.
At that time I went to Pastor Anderson’s website, as well as his wife’s website, and exchanged email messages with her assuring her of my prayer support for her husband. Pastor Anderson and his family are fine Christians who believe the Bible. I cannot support in full his every doctrinal position, but I hold him in high regard.
Pastor Anderson believes in the Post-Tribulation Rapture position. He states in the movie at the end that at the age of twelve he read Matthew 24:29 and from that time did not believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position. More accurately, it appears that Pastor Anderson believes in the Pre-Wrath Rapture position.
Pastor Anderson, though both committed and sincere in his position, is mistaken.
Is his movie wrong?
At the start of the movie reference is made to Ezekiel 33:6,
Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.
Pastor Anderson asserts the mark of the beast will be required for everyone.
Careful study of Scripture will demonstrate to anyone that the Antichrist does not exert his influence or power or control over the whole earth. The Bible tells most explicitly that some nations will not be affected:
Dan 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Notice that Edom, Moab, and Ammon shall “escape out of his hand.” Therefore, the rule of Antichrist is not universal, even in the Middle East.
Reading further, just in Daniel 11:44, 45, nations north and east of the 10 kingdoms under Antichrist will make war on him. Clearly, they cannot be under his control.
In the film Pastor Anderson later appeals to Revelation 13:7, 8, 16, 17 to prove that all will have to take the mark of the beast.
In answer to this sweeping assertion, I would answer that in Scripture “all” does not necessarily mean “all” in an unlimited or universal sense. This makes for a most interesting Bible study. I have done this Bible study thoroughly and exhaustively, and have placed the results of my study in notes in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at Genesis 7:19; 24:10; 41:56, 57. See also +2 K 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 14:17. See the material I retained on this subject in Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at Genesis 41:56, a very important note.
The clearest example I know of in the Bible demonstrating that “all” and other universal expressions do not always mean “all” in a universal sense is 1 Kings 18:10,
1Ki 18:10 As the LORD thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom, whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee: and when they said, He is not there; he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they found thee not.
I guess Ahab’s search for Elijah was so thorough it extended to the Indian nations of North America, Central America, and South America, not to mention Europe. Of course to suppose this were so is nonsense. The Bible uses figures of speech, including hyperbole, when more is said than is literally meant, where what is asserted is limited to the purview or immediate concern to the author in his historical context.
This may be seen in statements in the Bible which pertain to Bible prophecy. See this universal statement applied to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:38,
Dan 2:38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
Consider this statement regarding Greece in Daniel 2:39,
Dan 2:39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
Consider this statement regarding the extent of the rule of Rome made in Daniel 7:23, 24,
Dan 7:23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
Not one of these kingdoms or nations ever ruled the whole earth.
So what do these examples have to do with claims made based upon Revelation 13:7 and other verses cited above regarding the Antichrist and the extent of his rule? If you understand anything about Bible prophecy at all the very next verse in Daniel will make this quite clear:
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Very clearly, the person spoken of by Daniel in this immediate context, particularly, “and shall wear out the saints of the most High,” is the person spoken of in Revelation chapter 13. Daniel tells “the rest of the story” which is much brighter in outlook in the immediately following verses in Daniel chapter 7.
So what is my point?
Pastor Anderson and John Little and Alex Jones and many others are most mistaken in their understanding of Bible prophecy. They have failed to take all the Bible evidence into account at every turn. Therefore their conclusions are not correct.
What seems to motivate the mistaken position of Bible prophecy they have adopted?
Pastor Anderson stated that the mark of the beast will be required for everyone. This beginning assertion made early in the movie I have proven wrong by submitting my irrefutable EVIDENCE immediately above.
In the movie Pastor Anderson gives the contemporary evidence we see now regarding the New World Order, the subverting of our Constitution, and the evidence of Satan working behind the scenes to bring one world doctrine.
Then Pastor Anderson brings forward his major claim and concern that most Christians are completely unprepared because of the Pre-Tribulation fraud not found in Scripture. Where did this evil doctrine come from? Pre-Tribulation Rapture belief is based on ignorance of the Bible. The Bible states plainly it takes place after the Tribulation.
Hence, the title of the film, “After the Tribulation: The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Fraud Exposed.”
The title is taken from the words of Matthew 24:29,
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
The movie was most helpful in making clear their mistaken position. Pastor Anderson and others who espouse the “Pre-Wrath Rapture” view believe the Rapture will take place after the Great Tribulation but before the Time of Wrath which God will pour out upon the whole world after that event.
Pastor Anderson and John Little criticize the Pre-Tribulation Rapture view because, say they, it is new, having never been heard of before 1830, when it was subsequently developed by John Nelson Darby and adopted and popularized by the notes in the original Scofield Reference Bible.
I hardly suppose that their view, the Pre-Wrath Rapture view, can be shown to be any older!
When a view was first propounded and by whom has no bearing upon its truthfulness. The question that must be answered is, Can the view proposed be proven from Scripture? Those who would criticize the view proposed must address the Bible basis claimed for the view. Otherwise, such criticisms of its age and source have nothing to do with its truthfulness. Those are just ad hominem attacks and are logical fallacies. Does anyone mean to claim that it is not possible to learn anything new from the Bible today that was not discovered and propounded before? Anyone who would make such a claim surely does not believe in Real Bible Study as advocated here, and should not be listened to.
As for my own understanding of this subject, it was not derived from John Nelson Darby, though I own a set of his complete works and have enjoyed his excellent translation of the Bible for many years. I did not derive my view from the Scofield Reference Bible, though I’ve owned a copy or two of that study Bible since 1953. I derived my view from careful, personal, Bible study, and I have presented the results of my Bible study on this subject extensively on this website.
When I have discussed Bible doctrine with Roman Catholics on the Internet, they have charged me with getting my view from Martin Luther, the great heretic in their view. I responded that I have one book by Luther in my very large personal library, a commentary on Galatians, and have never read it. I have another book he wrote about the bondage of the will which I have never read. I have a biography written about him, and have never read that either. I surely have not used Martin Luther as the basis of what I understand about Bible doctrine! The argument used by the Roman Catholics on the Internet against me is an ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy, and I called them on it. I derive my understanding of Bible doctrine by studying the Bible by making extensive use of cross references (which as you must know by now is my specialty!). And yes, I most surely have studied other resources extensively, but I check them out carefully by verifying the accuracy of their interpretation of Scripture.
As always, I am most willing and ready to change my view if I am proven wrong in my understanding of the Bible. So far, no one commenting here has given even half a try to better inform me. I have taken the time to read other viewpoints. Apparently most others have not, and are unwilling to voice their objections here.
I believe John Little can no longer with any truthfulness or credibility make the claim, “No one has ever come forward with EVIDENCE that this movie is wrong. No one” any more, for even in this post, I just did.