That is probably what I am responding to.Neto wrote:I think there is confusion here with what exactly is meant by the term. Most who argue against the idea of a 'rapture' (I'm referring to discussions I've heard other than here on this site) are responding to the idea that Christ will return two more times, i.e., once 'in the air' before the tribulation period, and then afterwards, to the earth.
That may well be true for my post. Pre-Trib would be a special case of Pre-Mil, right? (i.e. if one believes Pre-Trib, one necessarily believes Pre-Mil, but believing Pre-Mil does not necessitate believing Pre-Trib.)I also think that people often use the term Pre-Mil, and are really reffing to Pre-Trib.
Who is this question directed to?The angel who appeared to the disciples when they saw Jesus ascend into heaven were told that he would return in the same manner in which he had gone up. This text does not explicitly say that he will return to the earth, but I think that it is pretty clearly implied, or at least that is the logical conclusion the disciples would have been expected to make.
So if your working definition does not require this "double coming", please give us your understanding of the term, because I think that that was the position of those who are said to have "invented this doctrine in around 1830", and much of the defense of the doctrine which one hears now-a-days also involves that belief (which I personally do not share).
