I want to illustrate the inconsistent hermeneutic of many pretribulationists.
Pretribulationists often pride themselves on having a consistent, sound, and valid hermeneutic; that is, interpreting Scripture in its “natural, normal, customary sense” (which begs the question, because everyone wants to claim this high-road hermeneutic, as if it is that simple).
Pretribulationists are mostly young earth creationists (I also affirm the latter) and reject the “Gap Theory.” So they will inveigh that you cannot accommodate your tradition—in this case evolutionary ages—by interposing it between the first two verses in the Bible, Genesis 1:1–2. You are not allowing Scripture to speak for itself, they will claim.
However, when it comes to applying this same hermeneutic to eschatology, they have to alter their hermeneutic to accommodate their tradition of a pretrib rapture. They will interpose a secret rapture before the great tribulation in Matthew 24; before the revelation of the Antichrist in 2 Thessalonians 2; and before the Antichrist persecution in the book of Revelation. Even though there is no mention of a rapture where they claim there is one. We are simply told to take their word for it, because that is the “natural, normal, customary sense of Scripture.” How that is the case, we are not told.