The following is a snippet from my forthcoming book critiquing pretribulation imminence theology. I am citing pretrib teacher Wayne A. Brindle’s four criteria of interpretation determining if a passage contains imminence teaching. I cite here his second criteria and then I comment on it:
“2. The passage speaks of Christ’s return as ‘near,’ without stating any signs that must precede His coming” (Brindle, “Biblical Evidence,” 139).
Similarly, just like the first criterion, this second one is flawed. Brindle is selective in his evidence by not allowing a passage that contains signs or events to be considered a rapture passage: “without stating any signs that must precede His coming.” He is basically reasoning, “The rapture is signless, because I have selectively chosen passages that are signless.” He uses his conclusion to argue for his conclusion. If he allowed passages that mention Christ’s return as both near and having signs preceding his return, his belief in imminence would collapse. For example, the following passage speaks of Christ’s return as near but mentions signs that must precede his coming. “Learn this parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also you, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, right at the door” (Mark 13:28–29). Jesus clearly prophesies that the intervening events of branches becoming “tender” and putting out “leaves” must happen before summer arrives. This text is from the Olivet Discourse, but since it mentions signs, pretribulational presuppositions forces them to selectively exclude it as evidence. It is automatically excluded as a rapture passage because it contains signs. Their interpretive method begins with a stacked deck—so as to not allow their theory to be falsified. Whether you are talking about, for example, physics, philosophy, or theology, if your theory does not allow the possibility of being falsifiable with counter evidence, then that is indicative that one’s theory is invalid. In other words, it is theoretically impossible for there ever to be any evidence against one’s theory. One of the most common red flags of an unfalsifiable theory is circular reasoning, exactly what we see with these criteria of imminence.
[1] This type of pretrib flawed reasoning reminds me of how flat earthers argue. They set up their theory in such a way as to not allow the possibility of counter evidence to their theory. To be clear, I am not suggesting that pretribs function as flat earthers in every respect; they do not. However, in this specific respect they do the same thing as flat earthers by not allowing their theory to be theoretically falsifiable.
