Pre-Tribulation Rapture DEBATE (Keith Foskey vs Spencer Smith)

Welcome to Eschatology Matters Fight Night, brought to you by Squirrely Joe's Coffee. For what is certain to prove to be a battle for the ages, is the coming of Jesus going to be in two stages with a pre-tribulation rapture?

Or is it all going to happen at one time? Tonight we have two formidable opponents who are going to battle it out over this important topic. First, we have the macho man himself, Spencer Smith. He will be defending a pre-tribulation rapture.

And his opponent, the king of the Amillennials, Keith Foskey, he will be opposing the pre-tribulation rapture. So get ready. The fight of the century begins now.

Debate Introductions and the Thesis Under Discussion

All right, well welcome to Eschatology Matters for our, I think our first Theology Fight Night. We here at Eschatology Matters have hosted a few debates and a few dialogues, but this is one of our first of this type, so I'm going to let our two inaugural Theology Fight Nighters introduce themselves, starting with our returning champ, Keith Foskey.

Keith, would you make introductions, sir?

Well, I only answered to King Keith at this point. You have to call me by my official title. I have a, well, excuse me, I'm Keith Foskey. I'm the king of the Amillennialists, and I'm here to drop a suplex on my now good friend, Mr. Spencer Smith, on the subject of the rapture.

So Keith Foskey, pastor of Sovereign Grace Family Church, reigning king of the Amillennials, and the most handsome man on this screen.

All right. Joined by Spencer Smith. Spencer, you and I have just gotten to know each other, but a little introduction, brother, and where you're coming from.

Well, I am Spencer Smith, and I am the heavyweight champion of fundamentalism, and I heard that there was some guy who called himself the king of the Amillennials, but I didn't believe a word of it. And so I was coming here to stake my claim and let him know that there is another champion in this world, and I'm looking forward to destroying my good friend, brother, Keith Foskey, tonight.

And I am actually a missionary doing mission work, trying to start churches, and a YouTuber and all that kind of crazy stuff as well.

I don't know.

It depends on who you ask what I am. So that's what I'm sticking with. So far.

Well, guys, I feel underdressed, but I'm sure we're in for a fun night. One of the things that I've appreciated about the way you've both engaged this topic is it's a serious topic, and you guys have done some good study and some good work.

We're going to have some good dialogue, but yet not take it too seriously. And I do appreciate the love that you guys are going to bring to this. Keith Foskey, you're going to be taking the affirmative tonight, and we'll get down to the schedule and how we're going to be walking through everything.

Keith, you are taking the negative. Mr. Spencer Smith is taking the affirmative. The topic, the present thesis that we'll be debating tonight, and we'll walk into it here in just a moment, is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events.

That'll be the topic we'll be debating. Spencer, you're taking the affirmative. I know we had some technical difficulties just there, so everybody got to see me trying to do some software fixes there in the nick of time.

But Spencer, would you make your introduction one more time, where you're coming from, and how you got interested in this debate topic as well?

Well, I mean, I believed in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church. I believe that the church is not going through the seven-year literal tribulation period. And that's my position that I take. And I've always taken that position, and I take that from a dispensational perspective.

And so that's what I believe. That's what I'm here to debate tonight.

Very good. Thank you, Spencer. Keith, you are taking the negative, which is an unfortunate title. But, Keith, where are you coming from? How does this topic interest you, and how are you going to be approaching this?

Well, you guys at Eschatology Matters have been so good to me in bringing me in as the King of the Amillennials, and I want to thank you again for this illustrious title. I'm sitting in the sanctuary at Sovereign Grace Family Church because I wanted all of the leftover anointing from all of my sermons to be able to waft in the room as I sit here to defend the true eschatology, which is not a pre-tribulation rapture, but that the rapture and the second coming are the same event.

They're going to happen at the same time at the end of the age. And we're not going into a millennium. We're going into the eternal state. But that's not what we're debating. But just so everybody knows, that's what's going to happen.

Very good. Well, we will start off with introductions from both of you. You will have 10 minutes. I will start waving my arms desperately if we start approaching that 10-minute mark. But you'll both have introductions.

Spencer, you will be starting with the affirmative. I'll start the timer at 10 minutes. Again, the topic for tonight is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events. Spencer, you're taking the affirmative and you have 10 minutes, sir.

Spencer Smith’s Case for a Pre-Tribulation Rapture

Okay.

I got to take my glasses off so that I can actually read tonight. And I apologize for that. So I believe that the pre-tribulation rapture is what the Bible teaches. I believe that Jesus Christ's coming is in two separate phases.

If you will, the rapture and then the second coming of the advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. And oftentimes when somebody is opposing the pre-tribulation rapture position, they talk about a secret rapture or something like that.

I never have really used the term myself. But what we're going to prove tonight, and I hope to demonstrate this to you, is that there is a rapture for the saints. And at the end, there's a coming where the Lord comes to judge.

And so they're two separate things. Now, 2 Timothy 2 .15 describes to us how to handle the Bible. The Bible says, 2 Timothy 2 .15, study to show that self-approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And if you want to, you know, someone said years ago, the only verse in the Bible that tells you how to study the Bible tells you, or that tells you to study the Bible, tells you how to study the Bible.

And you study the Bible by dividing the Bible. And that's really one of the things that's very tricky, very difficult. It's a strong meat type of thing. But I think that what we can do is by taking this dividing mindset, we can take the word of God and divide certain things to certain people.

For example, if I write a love letter to my wife and I hand it to somebody else that is not my wife, and they read it and think that I have these incredibly inordinate affections for them, it causes confusion.

And I think really a lot of the heresies, if not all the heresies that are out there today, are people that are taking things in the Bible that are not necessarily to them and are implementing those things into their, you know, trying to obey those things.

And so my golden rule that I always give to people when it comes to Bible study is all the Bible is for you, but not all the Bible is to you necessarily. And I think that's a principle for Bible study that you have to have.

Now, let me do this. There's a verse in 1 Corinthians 10 .32 that says, give none offense neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. The Jews, Gentiles, church of God. So I think that those are three good categories that we have to, you know, we can use that kind of as a tool to divide our Bibles.

Is God speaking to the Jews? Is he speaking to the Gentiles? Or is he speaking to the church of God? I think much of the errors in prophecy today are people that are, they are taking prophecy that was for the nation of Israel and applying it to the church of God.

And I think there's a difference tonight. And we hope to show you that tonight. Like, for example, there's the verse in Isaiah 54, 17, where it says no weapon formed against thee shall prosper. And that is a verse that we see charismatics use that verse all the time.

And they say, you know, go forward and conquer in Jesus name or whatever. And they say that no weapon formed against you shall prosper. Well, my question then was, you know, did a weapon prosper against Stephen at the stoning of Stephen?

So that's a fair question to these people. I throw at them. But that verse, you have to understand, is that to the Jews? Is that to the Gentiles? Is that to the church of God? Well, I don't think that verse is necessarily to the church of God.

Isaiah 54, 17, no weapon formed against thee shall prosper, is a verse that will be fulfilled for the nation of Israel at the second coming of Jesus Christ. And so you have to learn how to divide the Bible properly that way if you're going to understand prophecy.

Now, here's one thing I want to show to everybody that I think, how am I doing on time, brother?

You've got six minutes left.

Good, good.

Okay.

One thing I want to point out to everybody is that there's, when people talk about the rapture, the rapture, it's kind of like a misnomer because there is actually more than one rapture in the Bible. So when you speak about the rapture, you have to differentiate which rapture you speak of.

I've done my looking at it and kind of looked at it for years. I do believe that there are seven raptures in the Bible. I believe that the first rapture is in Genesis 5 where Enoch and Enoch walked with God and he was not.

I believe that's a rapture. I believe Elijah was raptured when it came to the chariot of fire coming down to get him and taking him up into heaven. I believe he was raptured. Jesus in Acts chapter number one, where he went up right there on the Mount of Olives, which I've happened to been there before and it was a wonderful trip, went up on the Mount of Olives.

I believe I count that as a rapture. I count where Paul said, I knew a man so many years ago who was called away to the third heaven, which in my opinion was when he was stoned at Lystra and I think he was technically raptured there.

So that's a fourth rapture. I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 teach a fifth rapture and that rapture is directed towards the local church. And that is, it's a very unique, it's uniquely described as a unique thing.

It is not the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It's separate.

And then also in Revelation 11, there is a voice has come up hither to the two witnesses. People debate on if that's Moses and Elijah or whatever, but definitely there is a voice that says come up hither and those two men are raptured away.

And then also you have what I believe is the final second coming, the rapture of the tribulation saints in Matthew 24 verse 31. And so really where people get all messed up in this is that they don't have any problem with the first couple of raptures.

What they try to do, there's the church rapture, the two witness rapture, and then there's the final rapture of tribulation saints in Matthew 24. They try to condense all of those into one. And I think that's, I think you're gonna have some difficulty theologically if you do that.

For example, the rapture at the end of the tribulation period. First Thessalonians describes it as a shout. There's a shout, voice of archangel, trump of God and that kind of stuff. You don't see it described that way in Matthew 24.

So there's a different description because I believe it's a different event. Also, you have the mid tribulation rapture of Revelation chapter 11, which is the two witnesses. And then you don't see a shout there either.

And you also don't hear a trump there in Revelation chapter 11, but you do hear a voice. So they're described differently because ultimately they are different events. And then thirdly, you have the pre-tribulation rapture, which of course is described in first Corinthians 15, the twinkling of an eye, and there's the trump of God.

First Thessalonians four, there is of course, we all know that one in a moment. And see, I'd probably be good if I pulled that up here so I can quote it real quick. But first Thessalonians four and verse number, the end of the chapter there, verse number 13, ignorant brethren concerning them in their sleep, verse number 16 said, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with a voice, the archangel, with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with him in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so shall we ever be with the Lord. I think that is described completely differently in first Thessalonians four than it is in Revelation and even in Revelation 19, Revelation 20, and then also in Matthew 24.

There's no mention in this passage as far as lightning, as far as Matthew 24, 27 is coming as lightning. There's no mention of the foul of the air, you know, the great supper of the great God. Matthew 24 talks about the sun and moon being darkened, heaven shaking.

That's not mentioned in first Thessalonians four, first Corinthians 15. The tribes of the earth are mourning in Matthew 24, 30. There's a white horse, Revelation 19. There's a medicating of war, Revelation 19, 11, eyes of flame of fire, Revelation 19, 12.

And on and on,.

Vesture dipped in blood, armies fallen in white horse. All that stuff's described in Revelation 19, whereas it's not described that way in first Corinthians 15 or first Thessalonians chapter four. And so because of that, because they're described completely different, we conclude from that scripturally that they are completely different events and are not the same thing.

So just taking in consideration, and there's more, I can get into more details I could dig into with that, but that's just the basic gist of the whole idea. But also studies show that self-proved unto God.

One minute.

That needs not be ashamed,.

Rightly dividing the word of truth, dividing the Bible. And I think that's the big key to Bible interpretation that everybody, if we don't divide it correctly, if we start reading other people's mail, so to say, reading letters that God wrote to somebody else, that's not, it's for us, but it's not necessarily to us, then I think we get in trouble and I think we mess it all up.

So I wanna throw that out there for everybody to hear and I yield the floor.

Very good. Thank you, sir. 10 minutes to you, Spencer. Thank you very much. Keith, 10 minutes for your response. This'll be your introductory response. 10 minutes, sir.

Keith Foskey’s Response: One Second Coming, One People of God

I wanna thank everyone. I wanna thank Eschatology Matters, especially Brandon Wood, who's become a very good friend. You, Josh, for having me on and for Spencer Smith, who I plan to theologically suplex at some point in this debate.

In all honesty, I'm glad to have met Spencer through this and I look forward to doing some other projects with him in the future and thankful for his friendship. I do, however, want to add that I thoroughly disagree with the pre-tribulation rapture and if you believe in it, you probably also believe that piglet needs a squat rack.

So just to put that out there, I'd like to preface my opening with this statement. My view of what is going to happen in the eschaton or the end times is relatively simple. I believe Jesus is going to return at the end of the age.

The dead in Christ will rise. The living and the dead will be judged. Some will be thrown into the lake of fire where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and some will enter into the eternal kingdom with Christ in the new heavens and the new earth.

All of that is true and is still in the future. This simple outline seems to fit well within the bonds of the passages which speak about the end times. In fact, it is the principle which is laid out in many of the parables Jesus gives, including the parable of the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25, 31 to 46, the parable of the dragnet, Matthew 13, 47 to 50, the parable of the wheat and the tares, Matthew 13, 36 to 43.

The only thing which does cause some consternation is the interpretation of the millennium and revelation. I am an amillennialist, as many of you know, because of this crown, but the position I argue tonight does not depend on the millennium.

We are not arguing the millennium tonight. I believe similar arguments to the ones I will make could also be made by historic premillennialists because we are simply arguing that there is no pre-tribulation rapture.

So whether you believe that after Christ comes, there's going to be a kingdom on this earth does not make a difference as to whether or not we hold to a pre-tribulation rapture. So if that comes up later in the rebuttals or anything else, just remember that is an irrelevant argument.

The millennium is not relevant to this argument. It is only the question of the pre-tribulation rapture. When in seminary, I was taught that the end times would follow a specific outline of events which are much more elaborate than what I just described to you.

The church would be raptured out of the world. A seven-year tribulation would follow. There would be a rise of an antichrist who would rule the world during the tribulation. Some would get saved and then be persecuted.

This would culminate in the true second coming of Christ where he would come and set his foot on the Mount of Olives and inaugurate the millennial kingdom. This position was popularized by the Left Behind series of books and movies.

It is also endorsed by famous pastors whom I respect like John MacArthur and Spencer Smith. So it is not something that I would say should divide us and make one of us say the other is a heretic. I can love my brother and still think he is cuckooed for Cocoa Puffs on this particular issue.

Now, I wanna say also, I was completely sold out for this position for many years. I believed it, talked about it, argued for it. And then a friend challenged me to prove this position from scripture.

I went to a few passages. He rightly pointed out that those passages did not prove that there was going to be a pre-tribulation rapture. So I went to my eschatology professor and I asked him to help me prove my case so that I could take it to my friend.

And that's when the wheels really fell off the cart. Now, keep in mind at this point, I wanted to believe in the pre-tribulation rapture. I was trying to argue for it. I asked my professor who taught it.

I took eschatology one, two, and three, and he taught it in all three of those semesters. And I said, tell me how to prove it. And as he made his case, I began to realize that there was no single text that taught his view.

My professor, try as he might, could not show me any text, but rather he had to create a string of pearls which were connected by a predetermined doctrine, which was being imposed upon the text, not exegeted from the text.

Now, I realized that this position, when I realized that this position didn't come from exegesis, but from what is classical eisegesis, reading into the text something that is not there, I had to abandon it.

And again, for a while, I remained premillennial because the rapture was the issue. And when I gave up the pre-tribulation rapture, I stayed premillennial, but eventually I came to discover that that also was not the case.

Now, I believe that it is because of this lack of scriptural support that we do not find any pre-tribulational teaching until relatively recently in church history. It is true you will find premillennial teaching in the early church.

That's why I don't think that there's anything wrong necessarily with being premillennial, even though I would hold a different view. But we must not confuse pre-tribulation rapture with premillennialism.

Though pre-tribulational views are premillennial, not all premillennials are pre-trib. I have friends like Dr. Michael Schultz and others who are historic premillennials. They do not hold to a pre-tribulation rapture, but they hold to a premillennial view.

So we have to understand there is a distinction, and the distinction is this idea of a pre-tribulation rapture. There's just, in my estimation, there is no text of the Bible that would prove it. And I know my brother mentioned dividing the text, and I'm not gonna do my rebuttal now, but when we get to the rebuttal, I'm gonna talk about that because that is an important conversation to have.

The English word rapture comes from the text in 1 Thessalonians, which was already read, 1 Thessalonians chapter four, verse 17. It says, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.

That comes from the Greek word there, harpazo, which was then translated into the Latin rapturo, and rapturo becomes where we get the word rapture. And so because that's the classic text, I wanna spend my time looking at that.

I'm not gonna read the whole text. If you have your Bibles, turn to 1 Thessalonians chapter four, read verses 13 to 18 and do Smith a favor and read it in the King James, it'll make him happy. But I do want you to know that this text is the text that is often cited as the one.

Give me my time, Josh, if you would.

You've got four minutes.

Okay.

This text is the one that is the one that's almost always debated because this text, as Spencer mentioned, does seem to be something different than the second coming. However, when we examine this text, it is the second coming of Christ.

And we see some key indicators to let us know that that's true. This passage is the return of Christ. This is his second coming. And we know that because it specifically says that. It tells us that the Lord is coming.

It says in this text that he is, this is his parousia. The parousia is the word which means his arrival, his coming. And it was tied to the idea of a king who comes after victory, comes in victory, and he comes with his entourage.

And how is his entourage coming? His entourage will be caught up with him so that they can escort him in. And the same picture Paul is giving us in 1 Thessalonians 4 is the picture of the Roman triumph where the triumphing army would come in triumphal procession and would come with him.

Those who've come out of the city greeted him and brought him back in. I remember my professor said, I don't believe that the rapture happens. We go up and come right back down. That's like a yo-yo. My professor said, I don't think we're like a yo-yo, but it's not a yo-yo.

It's a welcoming, like the people who welcomed Jesus, who was coming in on the back of the donkey on the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. We will meet the Lord in the clouds and we will come with him in his victorious second coming.

And again, if you don't believe that, then you believe that there are two parousias. You believe there's that parousia where Jesus comes but doesn't really come. He snatches away the church, but he didn't really come even though the word come is there.

And then you have to ask the question, well, what does it mean when it says that we're to take communion until he comes? Is it that coming or the second coming? What does it mean when we read the scripture and the angel said, when you saw Jesus go up, he's going to come again.

Well, is it that coming or is it another coming? Do we have a second coming and a third coming? And this is where another issue comes up is what is the coming of Jesus? What is this parousia that we have seen?

And again, the idea that this second coming, this rapture event happens before tribulation period is something that was not believed. It was not taught. And there is no evidence that this was taught until relatively recent in history.

And that is why I'm going to refer to it tonight as theological novum. Theological novum simply means new theology. How new is it? Well, you won't find any teaching on it in the first thousand years of the church.

You won't find any teaching on it in the first 1 ,500 years of the church. You really won't find any teaching, commentaries, creeds, or confessions that hold to it in the first 1 ,800 years of the church.

Throughout church history, believers have seen 1 Thessalonians 4. They've seen 1 Corinthians 5. And they have said, this is the second coming of Christ. And only now in the last 200 years have we come along and said, it can't be.

Only now have we come along in the last 200 years and said, no, that doesn't fit. We can't have that. And here's something I just want to point out. If we can harmonize Genesis 1 and 2, which are the two accounts of creation, and we harmonize them.

And if we can harmonize Kings and Chronicles, which are two histories of Israel, why can't we harmonize these events and the return of Christ as the one event that they are? Why do we have to divide them into two?

And why do we feel the need to do that? So that's my opening statement.

Very good. Thank you, sir. And thank you both for some strong introductory opening statements. To let everybody know that is in the chat or watching this live, please submit any questions you might have.

We've had two opening statements from both of our participants. Again, the topic that we are discussing is the rapture and the second coming of Christ are two separate events. Spencer Smith is taking the affirmative.

Keith Foskey is taking the negative. We're going to have some time here for some rebuttal, some back and forth. You'll both be allotted five minutes. I'll give you guys a minute to gather your notes. So again, if you're following this live and if you have any questions after they've had their rebuttal time, we'll also have some discussion time between Keith and Spencer.

And then following that, time permitting, we're going to get to audience questions or any that come from me. So please list those in the chat and we'll try to get to those. Again, time permitting. Spencer, you led off with the affirmative.

Keith, you answered with the negative from your introductions. So I'm going to go back to Spencer for the first rebuttal. Are you ready, sir?

Rebuttal and Cross-Examination on the Nature of the Rapture

Yeah, I am.

All right. Five minutes when you're ready.

Okay.

Well, okay.

I hear what Brother Keith is saying there and I understand what he's saying. You know, this is one of those things where this is strong mate and I think good men can disagree on this and that's no problem.

When it comes to church history, I want to say, I do look at church history. I think it is interesting and useful. But at the end of the day, church history is not as authoritative as we want it to be.

So, I mean, you know, just because we don't see anybody teaching that doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible didn't teach that. And so, I mean, it's a good point, but it's not necessarily the end-all, be-all measure of truth that we have.

We have to just be Bible-believing Christians and say, this is what the Bible teaches. I would suggest maybe in church historical ideas that there were good people who believed this type of stuff. Maybe they were repressed.

That's a possibility that I'm open to,.

Although I'm not willing to,.

I wouldn't debate that, of course. But so, the Lord does come, no question. He comes in Revelation, I believe chapter 19,.

Riding a white horse.

I've never ridden a horse. Oh, I've ridden a couple times, but I'll be riding a horse one day, and it's going to be amazing. But there are other examples, like 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, where this is described completely differently.

So, let me get into this list that I have here. And I've got several list of things that I could throw out there. But the rapture of the church is different from the second coming in several ways. Number one, the rapture of the church is for the church.

And the second coming of Jesus Christ is related more towards the Jews. And that's Matthew 24. Let me say this. Let me just get to this list right here. In 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, there is no mention of lightning.

Whereas in Matthew 24, 27, there is a mention of lightning. Let me go on to this. No mention of the wrath of Almighty God in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, whereas Revelation 19, 15, there is. There's no mention of Christ's name written on his thigh.

Whereas in Revelation 19, 16, there is a mention of that. 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, 1 Corinthians 15, there's no mention of fowls of the earth. And that's actually quite an interesting thing. They suffer the great God.

Jesus is gonna come back and slaughter all his enemies. And all these birds are gonna eat all these bodies. That's what's going on. And in 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians chapter 4, there's no mention of any of that type of stuff.

No mention of the beast and his kings assembling an army in the Valley of Megiddo, where they'll have that final showdown as there is in Revelation chapter 19. There's no mention of the beast and false prophet being cast into the lake of fire as there is in Revelation 19, verse 20.

And there's no mention of his army being slain in Revelation 19, 21. And then also in Matthew 24, Revelation 19, there's no mention of the word shout. And so I'm bound by what the Bible says. And I just don't see that being directed towards these two things in the local church, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians chapter 4.

And so because of that, I've concluded that they're different events entirely. And really that's all I can do. So either it's all one big event and it's just described different ways in different books, or it's different events described different ways because they are different events.

And that's the point that I'm trying to say. And that's one of the reasons why I believe that 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15 is not the same as Matthew 24 and not the same as Revelation 19. The coming of Jesus Christ comes in two parts.

And that's what I wanna throw out there. So how am I doing on time?

You have two minutes left, well, a minute and a half.

A minute and a half.

So I wrote this down, do the differences of these three events, the rapture, the pre-tribulation rapture, 1 Thessalonians 4, the rapture in Revelation chapter 11, and the second coming, the rapture that is described in Matthew 24, which will be revealed in Revelation 19.