(Here is Part 1)
The second criterion that pretribulationists operate from is:
- The passage speaks of Christ’s return as ‘near,’ without stating any signs that must precede His coming.[1]
This is another form of circular reasoning that we saw in the first criterion. Brindle assumes that when an author mentions that Christ’s return is near, without mentioning any signs that will precede that return, then the New Testament author must be speaking of an imminent return. Once again, he begins with his conclusion and uses it as evidence. It is selective evidence through a priori exclusion of any passage that mentions signs or events in order to be considered a rapture passage. He is essentially saying, “The rapture is signless, because I have selectively chosen only those passages that do not mentions signs.” He uses his conclusion to argue for his conclusion. If he wanted to begin with an unbiased criterion, then he should consider passages regardless of whether they mention signs. For example, Mark 13:28–29 speaks of Christ’s return as near, but it also 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.” Jesus clearly predicted 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, using the illustration of the fig tree, pretribulation interpreters exclude it out of hand as evidence from the very start. The pretrib interpretive method begins with a stacked deck and therefore their theory is impossible to be falsified. Whether you are discussing physics, philosophy, history, or theology, if your theory does not allow the theoretical possibility of being falsifiable with counter evidence, then that is an indication that the theory is invalid. In other words, it is impossible for there ever to be any evidence against that theory. Just so I am not misunderstood, for a theory to be falsifiable, it does not mean that it is necessarily false—it could be true. It just means that a valid theory requires objective criteria that would allow it to be falsified if there were evidence. In fact, all true theories are falsifiable. One of the most common red flags of an unfalsifiable theory is circular reasoning.[2]
[1] Wayne A. Brindle. “Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture.” BSac 158 (2001): 139.
[2] This type of 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 (i.e. falsifiable) to their theory. To be clear, I am not suggesting that pretribs reason as flat earthers in every, or most respects—they do not. My point is that in this specific respect they reason as flat earthers by not allowing their theory to be theoretically falsifiable.
