I was reading recently in Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (1st edition). I found what is, to me at least, an interesting method of argumentation (which is not unique to Reymond by any means).
Regarding the already/not yet view of the kingdom, Reymond says, "The Reformed view is that Jesus was declaring that the kingdom of God had indeed come but had come first in grace (the 'already') before it came in power (the 'not yet'), a distinction not clearly seen by the Old Testament prophets" (p. 995).
Here, Reymond is admitting that those who were inspired by God could not see distinctions between what is represented as a single event (the coming of the kingdom).
Then later, concerning the Rapture, Reymond says, "When one takes Paul's description of the rapture within its total biblical context seriously*, it is anything but 'secret' or 'separate' from Christ's coming in power and glory."
Here, Reymond is asserting that because something appears to be single (the coming of our Lord), it cannot be understood as two separate events.
Notice this problem: He argues that something that appears as a single event can be understood as two parts, or two separate events (the kingdom), and then argues that something that appears as a single event cannot be seen as two parts (the Rapture/Second Coming). Can he really have it both ways? I tend to think not.
So which argument is valid? My answer is that the first one is valid. In prophetic foreshortening, or telescoping, events that are separated can be viewed as close together, such as when one looks mountains and sees them as very close when in fact they are separated by a great distance.
So to deny that the Rapture is pretribulational because the text of Scripture appears to be referring to one event is first, invalidated by his previous method of argumentation, and second, invalidated by the pattern of Scripture.
The Rapture may not be pretribulational (though I am convinced that it is). But Reymond's method of argumentation does not, to me, offer any contribution toward refuting a pretribulational rapture.
*I find it interesting that Reymond's method of argumentation includes accusing those who disagree with him of not taking the text seriously. Personally, while there are some interpretations of Scripture (including in Reymond) that stretch my imagination to conclude that he is taking the text seriously, I am not convinced that charge adds any exegetical or theology weight to the argument. Perhaps we should avoid it, particularly among those who largely agree on the gospel because we do take the text seriously.