On Bad Arguments Against Pre-Tribulationism

Graeme Goldsworthy in Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (a rather unnotable book) says,

It would be difficult on the basis of Old Testament texts alone to arrive at this structure of two coming with the overlap of the ages between them (p. 224).

No, that’s not the bad argument. He is exactly right.

But how many times as someone argued against a pre-tribulation rapture because “no NT texts says that Christ is coming twice.”

I object to that argument on several grounds.

1. I don’t think most dispensationalists would grant that the pre-tribulation rapture means Christ is coming back twice. I think most would say the Rapture and the Second Coming are two aspects of the same coming. (I could be wrong about that.)
2. I don’t grant that the NT does not make any distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming. I think it does, exegetically, if you don’t start with a presupposition against it.
3. Their own argument works against them because, as Goldsworthy admits, the OT does not speak of two comings, and yet we know there are two. How much more will we know in the future that will cause us to look back and see what Jesus meant (cf. John 2:22 where Jesus prophecy of his own resurrection made no sense until after he had arisen).

In short, there may be valid arguments against pre-tribulationalism. I am okay with someone making valid arguments against anything. But by all means, don’t make bad ones.