50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

VCO

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2013
11,995
4,615
113
You know the rule. Take literal what is to be taken literally. Only if it makes sense in a strictly symbolic sense are we to take something symbolic.

If I say "the cow jumped over the moon," you can rest assured that I mean that *symbolically.* If Joseph said that in his dream sheafs bowed down to him, you can rest assured that the "sheafs" represented Joseph's brothers.

If Daniel said a 4th Beast with 10 horns arises, you can rest assured that the image conveys something symbolic, unless syou can think of a Beast with 10 horns? The 10 horns may present a literal number "10," and these 10 horns may represent a literal number of 10 kings. But the number is still being used symbolically in reference to a beast. And the thing it represents is much greater than a beast--it represent an empire.

So forget the lessons on literal or non-literal interpretation. I am not "one of bthose liberals."

That depends on your definition of Liberal.

By my definition, you are Very Liberal, because you are less than the standard Evangelical Position, in almost everything.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,875
2,111
113
Not before the flood:
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
A couple things about this passage that I've put in past posts:

--"39 And they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away..."; the "they / them" of this verse is those who did not heed the Word of God and prepare (i.e. the unsaved / lost / unbelievers); It was not Noah who "knew not until," no, instead, he did heed God's word and prepared an ark (as God had instructed);

--ALL "Son of man cometh / coming / shall come / coming of / etc" passages (such as is this one also) speak of His Second Coming to the earth (His earthly designation, to judge and to reign); [note: I disagree with Abs' take on it, in that I do not believe this is a "Rapture [IN THE AIR]" passage]; this passage is saying the ones "taken" are taken away in judgment, whereas those "left" are left to ENTER the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom in their mortal bodies, capable of reproducing / bearing children... "just 'as in Noah's day' "... Comp. this passage with both Dan2:35c and Gen9:1 "[actively] FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" (note: Dan2:35 is a "Second Coming to the earth" passage)

--so whereas "Noah and crew" picture those going THROUGH the trib years (i.e. the "flood judgment"--see also Lk17:26-37) and entering the earthly MK age in their mortal bodies ("FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" Dan2:35c / Gen9:1), I see "Enoch" (ONE MAN) as a TYPE of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" who was "translated" PRIOR TO the "flood judgment" coming on the earth (Gen5:24)
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
That depends on your definition of Liberal.

By my definition, you are Very Liberal, because you are less than the standard Evangelical Position, in almost everything.
You're creeping into the area of "slander," brother. If you are going to make such an ugly accusation, you should back it up with examples. Disagreeing on minor points of prophecy is not an example of a "liberal" at work! ;)
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Commentators aside, I'm not going to submit to false doctrine. Another common fallacy stipulates that all views are equally correct. Which of course is absurd. And yes, I am disputing these commentators "without blinking an eye".
At least you admit you're adrift of respectable commentators, and are as such, a "law to yourself." I suppose you're not good for discussing much with, since you reject respectable outside sources? My point was that though you direct your antagonism towards me, I merely represent others greater than myself.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
I agree with you as far as that the temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. That doesn't satisfy the scope of Jesus' words though. The tribulation that Jesus said would be unmatched in intensity since the beginning of the world never happened. History also proves that. Therefore, you have a consistency problem with your historicist interpretation.

The AoD is therefore conclusively a description of a future thing.

Since Jesus is never wrong under any circumstances then obviously He was referring to a future event.
You may not understand me properly, or you simply reject what I believe outright. I don't agree that the "Great Tribulation," or "Great Distress," that Jesus mentioned "never happened." I obviously define it differently than you do. You seem to define it as some brief cataclysmic event, whereas I define it as an age-long experience, the Jewish Diaspora.

The Jewish Diaspora has indeed been happening, and is still happening. This "Great Tribulation" will only end at the end of the age, when Jesus comes. And so, as I define the "Great Tribulation," it is still happening--the Jewish Diaspora is still happening. Israel has not yet been fully restored. The state has been restored, but the spiritual restoration has not yet taken place.

I don't think it's possible to compare the intensity of a "Great Tribulation" by comparing death in one war with death in another war, by comparing torture during one event with torture in another event. The Holocaust was as bad as any possible future death camp scenario. The persecution of Christians by the Romans was as bad as anything the Antichrist will do to Christians.

So I see the Great Tribulation as not one brief event more terrible than all others, but rather, as an event more terrible in *duration.* The length of the Jewish punishment is longer than the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity. It is longer than any punishment in Israel's history. They lost their religion, their temple, and their status as God's People. But they will be restored when Christ returns. I hope that helps you understand how I see the consistency of my argument?
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
the pretrib verses are there for a reason.

Solid bible
Solid pretrib rapture.
There are *no* Pretrib verses! I've answered, in detail, every single *claimed* Pretrib verse. Not one of them are explicit theological statements of doctrine. They are all assumed and read into a passage, largely by allegory. These are *not* "Pretrib verses!"

On the other hand. 2 Thes 2 is more explicitly Postrib in theological statement of doctrine than one could be. But *anything* can be rejected, ignored, or rationalized. So no matter how clear Paul was on the matter, you may just want to double and triple down on what you want to believe, on what you think is a popular view. It isn't a matter of Salvation, so I'm not too concerned.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Church fathers had a lot of error

Not infalliable.

Bible is where the steak and potatoes are.

Church father following is following man.
This is what I get in every Christian forum when I refer to the Church Fathers. They say, "they are flawed!" Nobody is saying otherwise! Yes, they are flawed. But they are respectable studied Christians, whose reputations have lasted the test of time. They are *worth considering!*

Let's end that line of argument by agreeing that *all of us* are flawed, including the Apostle Paul, Peter, and the rest? We still need to examine our views against other Christians who have respectable reputations and have earnestly studied a particular subject.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Yes
All the " church fathers were postrib" baloney was debunked years ago.

Who really cared untill postrib adherants started invoking those dead men into a non bible argument.

They also could not agree on the trinity.
No, this has never been debunked. There were minor exceptions to the rule, but generally, there was nothing we can remotely call "Pretrib Theology" in the Early Church. You are completely wrong. If you think there were any major theological systems with a Pretrib Theology, please name it--not just a rare breed with "original" ideas?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,561
8,109
113
At least you admit you're adrift of respectable commentators, and are as such, a "law to yourself." I suppose you're not good for discussing much with, since you reject respectable outside sources? My point was that though you direct your antagonism towards me, I merely represent others greater than myself.
The prodigious ongoing error of the Pharisees was false doctrine conjured up from commentaries of commentaries. Which resulted in inchoate unintelligible unscriptural bafflegab. See quite a lot of that on CC.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
The prodigious ongoing error of the Pharisees was false doctrine conjured up from commentaries of commentaries. Which resulted in inchoate unintelligible unscriptural bafflegab. See quite a lot of that on CC.
That was a little pedantic, brother. Let's just say that bad commentaries produce bad results. Bad trees produce bad fruit. Your problem is this: these are *not* bad commentaries, nor are they non-Christian commentators! At what point do you take seriously Paul's exhortation to "submit yourselves one to another, " and "consider other brothers and sisters better than yourself?"

You seem like a mature Christian, as I am. So you should know these things? I hope my views are not pushing you over the edge?
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,561
8,109
113
That was a little pedantic, brother. Let's just say that bad commentaries produce bad results. Bad trees produce bad fruit. Your problem is this: these are *not* bad commentaries, nor are they non-Christian commentators! At what point do you take seriously Paul's exhortation to "submit yourselves one to another, " and "consider other brothers and sisters better than yourself?"

You seem like a mature Christian, as I am. So you should know these things? I hope my views are not pushing you over the edge?
I'm being pushed toward accurate doctrine thats for sure. I credit you for demonstrating the false, whereby the true may shine through.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,875
2,111
113
There is no other way to interpret it, since we literally do not have any tribal distinctions anymore, nor will we ever see them again. The prophecy indicated that Israel would become a nation, and that the 2 divisions would be healed. The 12 tribes were purely the beginning of this nation, starting with 12 sons of Jacob.
I have a question (pretty sure we've covered this before in the past, but I'm trying to refresh my memory :D )
Can you take a look at the brief blurb I put in another thread (one small paragraph), esp. regarding the 12 tribes, and provide your thoughts on that point again... [I think in this post I link below, the poster and I had been discussing "Matthew25"... so that's what I'm supplying the "PARALLEL PASSAGES" to, in that post]:
Post #176 (#177 was an additional thought / reference) - https://christianchat.com/threads/five-foolish-virgins-vs-five-wise-virgins.198099/post-4535116

(add to that, Lk22:30, which I didn't reference in that post, because I was focusing in on the specific wording of Matthew 19:28 there ["in the regeneration when..."], and its relation [time-wise] with Matt25:31-34 [and its similar phrasing], His Second Coming to the earth... so how do you perceive the reference in those verses, to "the 12 tribes of Israel"? [future, per those CONTEXTS])



In addition to this [my] post ^ I quoted above (re: "the 12 tribes of Israel") and its linked post I provided there,
I had another post that I'd put, way back on April 9 in this thread (page 1), where I put forward another point about the Greek word "TRIBE / TRIBES [/ KINDREDS] [G5443]," in Scripture, such as is used in Matt24:31 / Rev1:7... can you take a look at that post, and venture some thoughts regarding the point being made there (esp. the top half of that post... but I think in that post I do also present the "contrast," where other passages which use that term also include a string of other words making it clear, in THOSE contexts, that ppl from ALL nations are meant, there [where MORE than just "G5443 tribes/kindreds" is used..., WITH it]):

Post #17 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4529877


Thoughts on that? ( @randyk )



[that post INCLUDES...]


... more at LINK to Post #17
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,875
2,111
113
Paraphrase: "That day, ie the coming of Christ for his Church, will not happen unless Antichrist appears first and is destroyed."
I propose (as I've pointed out in many past posts) that the word "FIRST" (in this verse, 2Th2:3) belongs in a separate "clause" from the one you attach it to, here ^ .

IOW, the text does not convey "[unless] the Antichrist [/man of sin] appears [/be revealed] FIRST," as you suggest ... no, the word "FIRST" is not shown attached with this clause, but another one.

So, Paul is listing TWO ITEMS (in this verse), and only designates ONE ITEM as being "FIRST" in this text (and it is not "the man of sin be revealed" clause / item). And this DOES impact the meaning of what Paul is actually conveying here.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,561
8,109
113
That's clearly untrue. When a child is raised up in a familiy of JWs, they are taught to interpret the Bible by their spirit and by their method of interpretation. So when the child grows up and reads the Bible, they still get the interpretive methodology they were raised up with.

When you read 2 Thes 2 I'm sure you read into the teaching you've already been given on it. I'm sure that when you read Revelation, and read a Pretrib Rapture into John's being caught up to heaven that you got indirectly from Darby's teaching. It certainly is *not* in the Bible itself!



In fact you are following Darby indirectly. There is no other place from which Pretrib teaching came. It did not come from the Bible until Darby began to apply his method of interpretation. He began with the presupposition that Christians could not and should not experience the "Wrath of God."

Let me be transparent here. I never studied Darby. I don't know precisely how far today's Pretribbers have wandered from Darby's original teaching. But I do know the seeds of Pretrib were planted by Darby. Regardless of your ignorance about where you got your teaching, you did get Pretrib teaching indirectly from him.



The Apostle John warned his readers not to add to the book of Revelation. If the Pretrib Rapture is not taught there, it is wrong to add one there. Not only is it not there, but it's not anywhere in the Bible. The general resurrection of the Church takes place at the Coming of the Son of Man, which according to Dan 7 takes place at the destruction of Antichrist, the Man of Sin. That is when the saints are delivered from him, and it is explained as a resurrection in Dan 12.



More hocus pocus? Esoteric doctrines are more akin with gnosticism than with Christian doctrine. Subjective revelation is not how God's word operates. God "shouts things from the housetops--He doesn't whisper them to private covens.



I heard you the 1st time--no need to reiterate. Separating the Coming of Christ into two days is *not* what is being taught. We were warned *not* to accept any coming prior to the destruction of the Antichrist. These are false Christs and false prophets, or false 2nd Comings! Any movement claiming to be the realized Kingdom of God on earth today is a "false Christ."



Sorry, but that's exactly what 2 Thes 2 teaches. You can ignore it, debate it, but you have to answer God about it. It's His word--not mine. Either submit to His word, or fight a losing battle all your life. Many have out of sheer pride. They haven't been completely to the cross.



Don't you realize what a bind you've put yourself in? You said the entire Tribulation Period, including the persecution of the saints by the Antichrist is the Wrath of God. And yet you say its impossible for the saints to be there, experiencing the persecution of Antichrist. You're very confused!!

You conflate the Wrath of God directed against unbelievers for their eternal damnation with saints going through turmoil with those who are being judged. If I go through an earthquake in my city because God is judging my city for its ungodliness, and yet, I am not ungodly, then I'm only going through the trouble with those who are being judged. I am *not* being judged myself. That is exactly what the Prophet Jeremiah went through when Jerusalem collapsed during the judgment of Israel. And yet Jeremiah himself was *not* being judged. So you're 100% wrong, and your logic is faulty. You base your whole system on a fallacy. Worse, you refuse to even see it.



The "hour of trial" you may be referring to was an historical experience of one of the 7 churches John was writing to. It wasn't wrath for those in the city who were faithful, was it?



That "Great Tribulation" refers to the historical Jewish Diaspora, which has been going on since the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD! This Jewish tribulation is the worst judgment in Israel's history precisely because of its great duration of time! It has lasted for 2000 years! And it will be finally "cut short" at Christ's coming, just when it seems Israel will finally be destroyed.

If you think 3.5 years of Antichrist persecution is going to be hugely greater than the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, or the Christians burned as candles by the Romans, or those Christians thrown to the lions by the Romans, you're kidding yourself. Pain is pain, and vast numbers of Christians have died in history, and great natural disasters and diseases have happened, claiming millions of lives. Staliln caused the death, it is said, of 20 million people in the USSR during the 20 years he was in charge. And you say the endtime tribulations will be much worse? What--you think the suffering of people in the last days will be worse than what Jesus suffered on the cross?

No, you're looking at it all wrong. This isn't a comparison between how one death is worse than another death, nor is it even a comparison of numbers, though it is significant. The fact is, the entire NT age has been a tribulation for Christians. Jesus is coming back to bring it to an end. And he will come back to destroy Antichrist on the *last day!*



Well, you're engaging in false teaching yourself, because the Pretrib Rapture is *not* taught in the Bible. Darby taught it, his disciples taught it, and now you're teaching it. Shame on you!
Fully two thirds of Israel will be wiped out during the tribulation period, The time of Jacob's trouble. The World War II holocaust doesn't even come close. Nothing in history comes close.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,561
8,109
113
Can you give me *any* symbolic number that is not a "specific number?" When Jesus had his disciples gather up the leftover fish and loaves, they gathered up 12 loaves in one case and 7 loaves in another case. These were symbolic numbers, representing God's endless supply for His people. The 12 represented all Israel--not that they were divided into tribal regions anymore, but that they were a nation built upon those 12 tribes.

Numbers are generally specific, even when they are symbolic. So your complaint is nonsensical.



Do you denounce everyone who disagrees with you as a "Liberal?" I'm certainly not a Liberal.



That was the whole point I was making, that the loss of tribal distinctions renders the meaning of the 12 groups of 12,000 *symbolic.* There is no other way to interpret it, since we literally do not have any tribal distinctions anymore, nor will we ever see them again. The prophecy indicated that Israel would become a nation, and that the 2 divisions would be healed. The 12 tribes were purely the beginning of this nation, starting with 12 sons of Jacob.



The horns and beast were obviously symbolic of an endtimes empire under the Antichrist. But the number ten was not only "specific," but it was *literal.* There will be literally 10 states under the control of Antichrist in the endtimes.



Who is "we?" I believe it's *you* who take something obviously symbolic and turn it into a literal number. It certainly could be a literal number, but the 12 divisions are not possible. And so, I think the number also is symbolic. To be honest, I don't really know. I'm just saying that the tribal distinctions are impossible, if you're going to be literal. And so, they refer to *all Jews.* In this case, they refer to all Jews who comprise the remnant of Israel who believe in Jesus.



Yes, He knows that there are no tribal distinctions anymore. You think God has assigned certain tribes to every Jew today? How silly is that?



Yes. Viewing this passage as symbolic or not has nothing to do with believing in God's omnipotence. Why would God want to take people with a mixed tribal heritage, that no longer have any tribal distinction, and reassign them 12 tribes?

This is not an example of divine omnipotence. This is more the product of your unwillingness to see the obviously symbolic nature of the passage. It shows, in other words, your weakness, your pride. If you can't be right, then everybody else has to be a "Liberal?"
Not loaves.... baskets. They gathered up 12 baskets. Basically Jewish lunch buckets. And later they gathered up 7 baskets which were large hampers of a gentile type.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Not loaves.... baskets. They gathered up 12 baskets. Basically Jewish lunch buckets. And later they gathered up 7 baskets which were large hampers of a gentile type.
Right. Point still stands though...
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,561
8,109
113
I've been posting evidence/proof of Postrib from the Scriptures since the mid-70s. There is zero evidence/proof for a Pretrib Rapture in Scriptures, with respect to *explicit theological or doctrinal statements.* Lacking clear, explicit Scriptural statements, saying in effect that the Rapture of the Church precedes the rule of Antichrist, we must conclude that Pretrib Doctrine is "read into" the Scriptures, and is not really supported by the Scriptures.

Not only is all NT eschatology based on postribulational Dan 7, and the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man to destroy Antichrist, but 2 Thes 2 positively declares that we are "deceived* if we believe Christ's day of coming can be *before* the rise and death of Antichrist!

That is as clear and explicit biblical theology and doctrine as any other. So your illusion remains an illusion, and you can spout it for another 30 years if you want?

You can try to mismanage the words all you want, but what Paul said in 2 Thes 2 cannot say Postrib any better in the words that he used. It can be taken other ways only by seriously disturbing the sense of what he's saying, and by assuming other issues, not mentioned, are involved.

Paraphrase: "That day, ie the coming of Christ for his Church, will not happen unless Antichrist appears first and is destroyed."

Actual quote: "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. "
"Paraphrasing" (cough cough) like that will land you in all kinds of trouble friend....
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
Fully two thirds of Israel will be wiped out during the tribulation period, The time of Jacob's trouble. The World War II holocaust doesn't even come close. Nothing in history comes close.
Yes, some events are worse than others. Probably the most important point I'm trying to make here is that in defining the "Great Tribulation" Jesus made it to be synonymous with what he called 'Jewish Punishment.* And he created a couple of bookends for this "Great Tribulation." One side of it was the detruction of the temple in Jerusalem. And on the other side of it was the Return of the Son of Man. In between Jesus defined the period as the "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, who were being punished for rejecting their Messiah.

All the Church Fathers defined it this way. So do I. Modern Eschatology leaves much to be desired. Though popular positions may sound right, they are *not* necessarily right.
 

randyk

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2021
902
268
63
Pacific NW USA
"Paraphrasing" (cough cough) like that will land you in all kinds of trouble friend....
Paraphrasing is a perfectly acceptable form of explaining something. Apparently, instead of addressing whether the paraphrase makes sense, you'd rather engage in ad hominem attacks? Your position is not only weak--it is non-existent.