Necessity of an Interval between the Rapture and the 2nd Com

Excellent Article. I used to wonder why it was that there were Christians who held onto a Post-Tribulation view, when I thought that the scriptures were basically very clear on a Pre-tribulation view. That doesn't puzzle me anymore, because it is how "they" interpret the scriptures, they try and make their interpretation fit into the scripture instead of the other way around, and then of course if you do not read the Bible and understand how God worked with mankind through dispensations, prophecy becomes confusing and a little jumbled, and especially now when prophecy has become almost a potpourri of ideas and speculations.

Honestly, I don't think it even comes down to understanding of the dispensations.

I'd class myself as a dispensationalist, but I think that view itself stems from the acceptance of a literal approach to Scripture - and I think this is the key.
If Scripture is taken literally, it makes sense. Where it isn't taken literally, people have to do some linguistic gymnastics in order to make things fit (assuming that they're being intellectually honest, but just misguided), OR, alternatively, people now have the opportunity to twist and flex Scripture in whatever direction they choose (because - why not? It's allegorical, so interpretation is up to me, right?).

Mid-trib and post-trib views fall into this first category, in my opinion - intellectually honest, but demonstrably false, stemming from a non-literal interpretation of Scripture and a total misunderstanding of prophecy as a result.

There are exceptions to this literal standpoint, obviously, but I think people often misunderstand those too. Symbolic literature isn't literal per se, but that does not equal allegory either, for example. The vast majority of Presbyterians follow in the footsteps of Augustine (and Origen before him) in this respect: they interpret the Scriptures allegorically. The difficulty and the danger here is that a non-literal understanding places the responsibility for interpretation on the reader, and in many respects takes that right away from the Holy Spirit. I don't want to stress that too much - obviously many people in this boat are honestly misguided, and seek the Holy Spirit's leading in many respects - but I think that the practice of interpreting the Scriptures in any manner other than that dictated by the text introduces an element of error (man) that simply shouldn't be involved in the first place. Taking Scripture literally circumvents this by allowing the text to dictate meaning on its own terms.

/end rant

Benjamin, in a way we are saying the same thing. But as for myself, when I studied the dispensations in the beginning, this helped me in understanding God's overall plan for mankind, including the prophetic scriptures. And I agree, it is the literal interpretation of scripture including the allegorical which in itself has a literal meaning, that we can clearly for the most part understand the flow of scripture from Genesis through Revelation. Your right about how the Churches adopted the allegorical method of interpretation which was introduced by Augustine and Origen because of their lack of understanding Prophecy and the symbolism especially in the Book of Revelation as being a literal fulfillment, that they spirituralized most of the prophetic Word.