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

[randyk]

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.

Brother, I don't care how many times you've pointed this out, it doesn't make sense to me. The passage reads:

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

3 μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της ανομιας ο υιος της απωλειας.

"First" qualifies our expectation of when the day of Christ will come. Our expectation must include a preliminary event, namely the rise of Antichrist, as well as the accompanying demise of the same. And the "day" of Christ's return is *not* separated from the return of Christ for his Church. On the contrary, that "day" is distinctly defined as the time in which Christ comes for his Church.

So we are not to expect Christ's coming for us, his Church, unless there is first the expectation that Antichrist will rise so that Christ will come only with the purpose of destroying him, and thus saving his Church.

 

[cv5]

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.

Get back to us when they rebuild the Temple as they are certainly preparing to do.......any time now.

So tell us: How does the reconstitution of Israel in 1948 and Jerusalem in 1967 fit in with your........eschatology?

 

[cv5]

Brother, I don't care how many times you've pointed this out, it doesn't make sense to me. The passage reads:

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

3 μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της ανομιας ο υιος της απωλειας.

"First" qualifies our expectation of when the day of Christ will come. Our expectation must include a preliminary event, namely the rise of Antichrist, as well as the accompanying demise of the same. And the "day" of Christ's return is *not* separated from the return of Christ for his Church. On the contrary, that "day" is distinctly defined as the time in which Christ comes for his Church.

So we are not to expect Christ's coming for us, his Church, unless there is first the expectation that Antichrist will rise so that Christ will come only with the purpose of destroying him, and thus saving his Church.

TDW's grammatical and textual analysis is impeccable. No doubt the best on CC. If you were wise you would heed what this person is saying. Lest you run the risk of being humiliated.....or worse yet exposed.

 

[randyk]

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

Sorry, I hadn't seen some of this earlier. It's much easier for me just to tell you what I believe, rather than doing a study on your position on these passages. I know you like to link them together into a kind of itinerary. I don't particularly like doing that, since I don't think that was the general purpose. But I'm not sure, and hope that in speaking about these passages, you can respond and let me know whether this is legitimate from your pov or not? I can't possibly address each of these several passages while at the same time trying to keep in mind how *you* fit them all together!

I see Matt 25 not as the Millennial Kingdom, but rather, as the end of the Millennial Kingdom. I know Jesus is talking about his Coming, which normally would take place at the *beginning* of the Millennial Kingdom. But again, I don't think this was about establishing an itinerary of events, or some kind of prophetic calendar. Rather, he was stating the net effect of his Coming, which would be to ultimately place people either on his right or on his left, to inherit eternal life or to inherit eternal punishment. It was a look at the long view, rather than a look, narrowly, at what immediately happened at his coming.

Many of these passages were given during Jesus' earthly ministry to address the Jews as a whole, knowing that a few would accept him, while many others would reject him. This was anathema to the whole call of Israel to be God's singular nation, united in one faith and under one law.

But Jesus was stating, matter of fact, that even families would be divided. One or two would go one way, while one or two or three would go another way. Some would serve Jesus without realizing it, while others would insult Jesus without knowing it. At the end, there would be a final division between God's People and those who had disqualified themselves from being God's People. This will happen, ultimately, at the end of the Millennium, and not before. That is when I think Jesus will gather the nations before him, and render his final verdict.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction. I am a Premillennialist, and don't have "all my ducks in a row" with respect to that time period.

 

[randyk]

Get back to us when they rebuild the Temple as they are certainly preparing to do.......any time now.

So tell us: How does the reconstitution of Israel in 1948 and Jerusalem in 1967 fit in with your........eschatology?

I've been excitedly reading about the restoration of the Israeli state since 1971 or 72. Some excellent books came out back then that spoke to the prophetic nature of that event. I also remember, as a child, listening to the radio when the 6 day war took place. In my heart, at that time I believed that God would save His ancient people from that Arab attack. And we saw a miracle at that time.

I've long supported Israel. I briefly supported the Liberated Wailing Wall messianic Jewish singing group way back when, as well as Jews for Jesus. I spent 10 years arguing in favor of the ultimate salvation of the Jewish State on the newsgroups, on a Usenet forum called alt.messianic. I went by myself to Israel, and almost succeeded in joining a kibbutz. I encouraged a Jewish friend, who was a Christian, to "make aliyah."

I think some Jews are the worst, such as Bernie Sanders, and many others, who use their God-given talents to attack divine truth and even the Jewish State. I believe God is putting up with them, so as to not destroy all of them--He needs some to be converted at the return of Christ, and some to be converted even now.

I believe God will not only save the Jewish State at Jesus' Coming, but He will also save many Christian countries from complete collapse. If God doesn't save Israel, can He save any state?

 

[randyk]

TDW's grammatical and textual analysis is impeccable. No doubt the best on CC. If you were wise you would heed what this person is saying. Lest you run the risk of being humiliated.....or worse yet exposed.

Want to try to start over? DW and I have known each other for quite awhile, and seem to respect each other, despite our differences in eschatology. As Christians I believe we both love each other. This is just an argument in a small department within the larger subject of Christian Salvation. I'll say nothing bad about him because despite our differences, I like his attitude and actually like him.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Sorry, I hadn't seen some of this earlier. It's much easier for me just to tell you what I believe, rather than doing a study on your position on these passages.

I'm not asking you to do a study on my position of those two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7).

I'm asking you to point out anywhere in those approx. 297x occurrences of the word "tribe / tribes"--perhaps a few more (or perhaps even a few less occurrences--??)--and tell us HOW MANY of those occurrences of this word ['tribe / tribes'--Old or New Testament] refer to anyone outside of the "12 tribes of Israel"

 

[cv5]

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?"

No tribal distinctions anymore? Surely you jest. In fact there are tribal distinctions everywhere today. Some are readily self-identifiable some are not.

Just as it is indisputable fact that ancient royal bloodlines exist today anonamously, so it is with the sons of Aaron. Or David. Or even Saul for that matter.

For pity's sake man get it together......

 

[cv5]

I will add this much. Some Pretribbers have a problem with Postrib because they believe the Rapture is unpredictable, whereas the "Tribulation Period" is a predictable 1260 days. I can understand that concern because yes, Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour of his Coming, save the Father.

But nowhere in the book of Revelation is it said that Jesus returns from heaven on the 1260th day of Antichrist's reign. For all I know, Antichrist's overwhelming domination on earth is what lasts 1260 days--not his actual rule.

It is said that Antichrist rules over a 10 nation resuscitation of the old Roman Empire, the "4th Beast" of Dan 7. That places his rule in Europe.

And though people across the globe worship his carnality and power over Christianity, he only rules over Europe, and appears to be indomitable in the world, among all the powers on earth. This overwhelming power will last 1260 days. The time for resistance begins *after* the 1260 days, culminating in Armageddon, a world war.

I believe the nations will turn against him at the end. And how long it takes for Armageddon to develop we don't know. It does take time for troops from across the world to be mobilized to the Middle East, where I believe Antichrist will take his final stand.

It is clear, however, that beyond the 1260 days, life continues on earth before Christ returns. It's said that the 2 Witnesses are killed *after* their testimony of 1260 days. They lie dead in the streets for several days *after* the 1260 day period. And then there is an extension of time during which Christ's Coming is portrayed as "coming quickly." We don't know how long that time period is, and thus the day and hour of Christ's Coming remains unpredictable.

Rev 11.14 The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon.
Rev 16.15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.



And so, the Tribulation Period cannot be "counted down" to Armageddon, since we don't know how long the mobilization period for Armageddon will be. Nor will the world even recognize that this is happening. To the unbelieving world, this is just another "Napoleon" figure, trying to configure the world in a way that organizes the world into a functional Kingdom. Christians will seem to them to be an obstacle in this process.

We pre-tribbers know the rapture is unpredictable. As per the Jewish wedding ceremony, it is the Father alone Who, according to His express will, commands the Son to harpazo the Bride. When and only when the Father sees that the home the Son is building is completed. Precisely as Jesus indicates in John 14....

 

[cv5]

I've been excitedly reading about the restoration of the Israeli state since 1971 or 72. Some excellent books came out back then that spoke to the prophetic nature of that event. I also remember, as a child, listening to the radio when the 6 day war took place. In my heart, at that time I believed that God would save His ancient people from that Arab attack. And we saw a miracle at that time.

I've long supported Israel. I briefly supported the Liberated Wailing Wall messianic Jewish singing group way back when, as well as Jews for Jesus. I spent 10 years arguing in favor of the ultimate salvation of the Jewish State on the newsgroups, on a Usenet forum called alt.messianic. I went by myself to Israel, and almost succeeded in joining a kibbutz. I encouraged a Jewish friend, who was a Christian, to "make aliyah."

I think some Jews are the worst, such as Bernie Sanders, and many others, who use their God-given talents to attack divine truth and even the Jewish State. I believe God is putting up with them, so as to not destroy all of them--He needs some to be converted at the return of Christ, and some to be converted even now.

I believe God will not only save the Jewish State at Jesus' Coming, but He will also save many Christian countries from complete collapse. If God doesn't save Israel, can He save any state?

I think you missed my point. The rebuilt Temple is required for the fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week. Which, when it comes to pass, quashes your view of eschatology.

 

[Ahwatukee]

I think you missed my point. The rebuilt Temple is required for the fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week. Which, when it comes to pass, quashes your view of eschatology.

Agreed! And as you already know, once the church has been gathered, God will pick up right where He left off in fulfillment of that last seven years, complete with a temple and sacrifices just as they were when the decree of seventy sevens was made.

Who are these people? I wish that everyone could be just be in agreement regarding the word of God. I guess that is just not possible with Satan running around.

 

[randyk]

I think you missed my point. The rebuilt Temple is required for the fulfillment of Daniel's 70th week. Which, when it comes to pass, quashes your view of eschatology.

You mean *if* it comes to pass? You seem to be certain that it *will* come to pass, and that somehow conflicts with my views? I don't personally have any concern over a rebuilt temple. I know the temple of Law is done and gone, and has no bearing on anything God is now doing with Israel.

I just don't believe the temple has anything to do with the Antichrist either, except that He positions himself, or situates himself, in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. In other words, assuming a position in God's heavenly temple is, de facto, a proclamation of Deity. He doesn't need an actual temple on earth, built of wood and stone.

 

[randyk]

We pre-tribbers know the rapture is unpredictable. As per the Jewish wedding ceremony, it is the Father alone Who, according to His express will, commands the Son to harpazo the Bride. When and only when the Father sees that the home the Son is building is completed. Precisely as Jesus indicates in John 14....

Jesus is not still preparing a "mansion" for his people. He did that when he died on the cross, redeeming us with his blood, forgiving us by his mercy. He is not literally in heaven, constructing a large building.

 

[randyk]

No tribal distinctions anymore? Surely you jest. In fact there are tribal distinctions everywhere today. Some are readily self-identifiable some are not.

Just as it is indisputable fact that ancient royal bloodlines exist today anonamously, so it is with the sons of Aaron. Or David. Or even Saul for that matter.

For pity's sake man get it together......

I'm perfectly comfortable with saying there are no longer any tribal allotments for the Jews, and no longer any tribal distinctions among them. Knowing our ethnic backgrounds is not the equivalent of having tribal groups with tribal boundaries.

Let's say I'm half Swedish and half Finnish. Which "tribe" do I belong to? Right. I don't belong to any Swedish or Finnish tribe, because there are none!

Neither are there any tribes in Israel anymore--no tribe of Reuben, no tribe of Judah, no tribe of Joseph. You have a "different" view of "tribes." And I don't believe it's reasonable.

 

[VCO]

Brother, I don't care how many times you've pointed this out, it doesn't make sense to me. The passage reads:

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

3 μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της ανομιας ο υιος της απωλειας.

"First" qualifies our expectation of when the day of Christ will come. Our expectation must include a preliminary event, namely the rise of Antichrist, as well as the accompanying demise of the same. And the "day" of Christ's return is *not* separated from the return of Christ for his Church. On the contrary, that "day" is distinctly defined as the time in which Christ comes for his Church.

So we are not to expect Christ's coming for us, his Church, unless there is first the expectation that Antichrist will rise so that Christ will come only with the purpose of destroying him, and thus saving his Church.

Matthew 25:13 (NCV)
13 “So always be ready, because you don’t know the day or the hour the Son of Man will come.

 

[randyk]

I'm not asking you to do a study on my position of those two verses (Matt24:30 / Rev1:7).

I'm asking you to point out anywhere in those approx. 297x occurrences of the word "tribe / tribes"--perhaps a few more (or perhaps even a few less occurrences--??)--and tell us HOW MANY of those occurrences of this word ['tribe / tribes'--Old or New Testament] refer to anyone outside of the "12 tribes of Israel"

Well, since Israel was the focus in the OT, I imagine the "tribes" in the OT Scripture focused largely on the 12 tribes of Israel? In the NT, the authors of NT Scripture likely often referred back to Israel, as well, since the NT covenant is based on what started out as a covenant with Israel. The Church is an expansion form one nation, Israel, to many nations, the Church. It is an expansion from 12 tribes of Israel to many tribes on earth.

Rev 5.9; 7.9; 11.9; 13.7; 14.6 all seem to do with tribes beyond Israel. The book of Revelation is dealing with world judgment, and would likely address the tribes of the world.

"Tribes" are a smaller unit than nations, and represent coalitions around particular ethnic groups, as opposed to a more broad national unity, encompassing one or more ethnic groups.

 

[randyk]

Matthew 25:13 (NCV)
13 “So always be ready, because you don’t know the day or the hour the Son of Man will come.

Yes, the "imminency argument" is probably Pretrib's best argument. I don't agree with it, but I've found over many years it is, in my opinion, the most formidable argument against Postrib.

If indeed we Christians are to expect that Christ can come *on any day,* then there is no requirement that Antichrist appear 1st. This would undo what 2 Thes 2 says, and requires that 2 The 2 be interpreted differently, if it is to fit together with Imminency Teaching.

But I don't believe the Early Church understood Imminency Teaching as it is being taught today. I don't believe it ever meant that Christ could return "on* any day." Rather, it merely indicated that Christ's coming is "near."

So we need to understand, in context, what Christ's "near" coming meant. I believe Jesus indicated that when he arrived on the scene, he brought divine judgment close to mankind. He held the ace by which men are judged or saved. From that time forward, the Kingdom is viewed as "near" to all men.

This is how "Imminency Teaching" is really to be viewed, in my opinion. Christ was never understood to be able to come "any day," even if some believed he would come in their own lifetime. They always believed that the spirit of Antichrist was already present, indicating that if Christ was to come at all, he would come to destroy Antichrist, or the Antichrist spirit.

 

[VCO]

Yes, the "imminency argument" is probably Pretrib's best argument. I don't agree with it, but I've found over many years it is, in my opinion, the most formidable argument against Postrib.

If indeed we Christians are to expect that Christ can come *on any day,* then there is no requirement that Antichrist appear 1st. This would undo what 2 Thes 2 says, and requires that 2 The 2 be interpreted differently, if it is to fit together with Imminency Teaching.

But I don't believe the Early Church understood Imminency Teaching as it is being taught today. I don't believe it ever meant that Christ could return "on* any day." Rather, it merely indicated that Christ's coming is "near."

So we need to understand, in context, what Christ's "near" coming meant. I believe Jesus indicated that when he arrived on the scene, he brought divine judgment close to mankind. He held the ace by which men are judged or saved. From that time forward, the Kingdom is viewed as "near" to all men.

This is how "Imminency Teaching" is really to be viewed, in my opinion. Christ was never understood to be able to come "any day," even if some believed he would come in their own lifetime. They always believed that the spirit of Antichrist was already present, indicating that if Christ was to come at all, he would come to destroy Antichrist, or the Antichrist spirit.

YOU HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION FOR "THE DAY OF THE LORD".
J. Vernon McGee, will explain it to you.

QUOTE:
"Let no man deceive you by any means." If we are not to be deceived, then let's listen to Paul.


"For that day shall not come." Which day? The Day of the Lord --not the Rapture. The Day of the Lord shall not come except there be the fulfilling of two conditions: (1) "There come a falling away first" and (2) "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." Both of these things must take place before the Day of the Lord can begin, and neither one of them has taken place as yet.


There must be "a falling away first." Many have interpreted this to mean the apostasy, and I agree that it does refer to that. But I think it means more than that, as a careful examination of the word will reveal. The Greek word that is here translated as "falling away" is apostasia. The root word actually means "departure or removal from."


Paul says that before the Day of the Lord begins there must first come a removing. There are two kinds of removing that are going to take place. First, the organized church will depart from the faith -- that is what we call apostasy. But there will be total apostasy when the Lord comes, and that cannot take place until the true church is removed. The Lord asked, "...when the Son of man cometh [to the earth], shall he find [the] faith... ?" (Luke 18:8). When He says "the faith," He means that body of truth which He left here. The answer to His question is no, He will not find the faith here when He returns. There will be total apostasy because of two things: (1) the organization of the church has departed from the faith -- it has apostatized and (2) there has been another departure, the departure of the true church from the earth. The departure of the true church leads into the total apostatizing of the organized church. The Day of the Lord cannot begin -- nor the Great Tribulation period -- until the departure of the true church has taken place.


Paul is not going into detail about the rapture of the church because he has already written about that in his first epistle: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1Thess. 4:16-17). That is the departure, the removal, of the church.


The organized church which is left down here will totally depart from the faith. We see it pictured as the great harlot in Revelation 17. The Laodicean church, which is the seventh and last church described in the Book of Revelation, is in sad condition. I think that is the period we are in right now. When the true believers are gone, it will get even worse. It will finally end in total apostasy.


From the viewpoint of the earth the removal of believers is a departure. From the viewpoint of heaven, it is a rapture, a snatching or catching up. I think the world is going to say at that time, "Oh, boy, they are gone!" They think that fellow McGee and other Bible teachers are a nuisance, and they will be glad when they are gone. The world will rejoice. They do not realize that it will be a sad day for them. They think they will be entering into the blessing of the Millennium, not realizing they are actually entering into the Great Tribulation period, which will be a time of trouble such as the world has never before seen.

Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee.
:END QUOTE.

 

[Ahwatukee]

You mean *if* it comes to pass? You seem to be certain that it *will* come to pass, and that somehow conflicts with my views? I don't personally have any concern over a rebuilt temple. I know the temple of Law is done and gone, and has no bearing on anything God is now doing with Israel.

I just don't believe the temple has anything to do with the Antichrist either, except that He positions himself, or situates himself, in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. In other words, assuming a position in God's heavenly temple is, de facto, a proclamation of Deity. He doesn't need an actual temple on earth, built of wood and stone.

Why do you people continue to resist the truth?!

The temple that is being spoken of is not the temple in heaven, but the physical temple on earth.

In Matt.24:15 Jesus quoted Daniel 9:27 and since that time no fulfillment has been made regarding that seven year covenant, nor the setting up of the abomination within the temple. Therefore, that last seven years is yet future. Understand then, that the decree was given through Daniel to the people of Israel and Jerusalem when they were under the law. Once the church has been gathered, God is going to pick up right where He left off with Israel and Jerusalem in fulfillment of that last seven years, complete with temple and sacrifices.

And for you information, according to the "Temple Institute" everything is ready for that coming temple. All of the furniture, the incense holders, the table for the show bread, lampstands, etc. The Sanhedrin has been reconvened for some time and they have been teaching their priests to offer sacrifices according to the law. So, they're ready to go! All that is missing is the revealing of that antichrist to establish that seven year covenant with them, which will allow them to rebuild their temple in fulfillment of the scriptures.

Theses events are going to take place whether you or others believe them or not. I suppose that you will learn the hard truth when you see the church gathered prior to God's wrath. That is unless you believe the lies that the antichrist will be speaking regarding our disappearance.

And what you call "personal attacks" I call contending for the truth of God's word. Satan has found many believers as foot soldiers to bring in these false teachings to believers within the church, such as your belief that the Lord is going to put His bride through His wrath and then gather her. It's like those ant traps where the ants bring back the poison to infect the entire colony. That's what you and others are doing with this junk that you are pedaling.

 

[randyk]

YOU HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION FOR "THE DAY OF THE LORD".
J. Vernon McGee, will explain it to you.

QUOTE:
"Let no man deceive you by any means." If we are not to be deceived, then let's listen to Paul.

"For that day shall not come." Which day? The Day of the Lord --not the Rapture. The Day of the Lord shall not come except there be the fulfilling of two conditions: (1) "There come a falling away first" and (2) "that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." Both of these things must take place before the Day of the Lord can begin, and neither one of them has taken place as yet.

There must be "a falling away first." Many have interpreted this to mean the apostasy, and I agree that it does refer to that. But I think it means more than that, as a careful examination of the word will reveal. The Greek word that is here translated as "falling away" is apostasia. The root word actually means "departure or removal from."

Paul says that before the Day of the Lord begins there must first come a removing. There are two kinds of removing that are going to take place. First, the organized church will depart from the faith -- that is what we call apostasy. But there will be total apostasy when the Lord comes, and that cannot take place until the true church is removed.

There is no basis for this statement unless it comes from John N. Darby, or from someone influenced by him. Nothing in the Scriptures indicates that there can be no total apostasy until the church is removed. That was certainly untrue in the OT Scriptures when Israel fell into total apostasy. Men like Elijah and Jeremiah remained on earth and in Israel while at the same time Israel experienced *total apostasy.*

So listening to someone without any real theological basis for saying such things tells me he's just spouting the doctrine he was raised up in. It did not come out of objective Bible study on his own. It was a spin off from Pretrib Teachers that formed his Christian eschatology in the beginning of his Christian education.

Sorry, I read the serious theologians. I would rather read Walvoord than McGee.

The Lord asked, "...when the Son of man cometh [to the earth], shall he find [the] faith... ?" (Luke 18:8). When He says "the faith," He means that body of truth which He left here. The answer to His question is no, He will not find the faith here when He returns. There will be total apostasy because of two things: (1) the organization of the church has departed from the faith -- it has apostatized and (2) there has been another departure, the departure of the true church from the earth. The departure of the true church leads into the total apostatizing of the organized church. The Day of the Lord cannot begin -- nor the Great Tribulation period -- until the departure of the true church has taken place.

Faith on earth is always difficult to come by. Even the apostles, in their early life, had "small faith," according to the Lord. Saying that the earth generally appears to be without faith does not indicate there is no faith. It is a state of the world ready for judgment. And the Church has to be here to be a witness against the world until final judgment comes.

Equally significant is the fact that all positions, Pretrib and Postrib, believe there will be a Church on earth to suffer the persecution of the Antichrist. So clearly, there will be faith on earth. God doesn't ever do anything without informing His servants, the prophets. The Church is here, along with the 2 Witnesses, to be a witness to the world. We are called upon to endure *to the end.* It doesn't do the Lord a lot of good to teach his apostles about the "Last Day" if Christians will not be around to see it!

Paul is not going into detail about the rapture of the church because he has already written about that in his first epistle: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1Thess. 4:16-17). That is the departure, the removal, of the church.

Again, this is nonsense logic. How does anybody know that Paul completed his teaching about the Rapture in his 1st letter? He obviously didn't do that because in his 2nd letter his says more about it.

The organized church which is left down here will totally depart from the faith. We see it pictured as the great harlot in Revelation 17. The Laodicean church, which is the seventh and last church described in the Book of Revelation, is in sad condition. I think that is the period we are in right now. When the true believers are gone, it will get even worse. It will finally end in total apostasy.

The Laodicean Church is a kind of church that existed in the Early Church and always exists in various places on earth. It does not represent the Endtimes state of the Church. If it did, it would still suggest that the Church is on earth!

From the viewpoint of the earth the removal of believers is a departure. From the viewpoint of heaven, it is a rapture, a snatching or catching up.

This is a most silly argument. "Departure," or "apostasia" cannot mean 2 things at the same time. It either means departure from the faith, or Rapture to heaven--not both! Nobody communicates this way!

I think the world is going to say at that time, "Oh, boy, they are gone!" They think that fellow McGee and other Bible teachers are a nuisance, and they will be glad when they are gone. The world will rejoice. They do not realize that it will be a sad day for them. They think they will be entering into the blessing of the Millennium, not realizing they are actually entering into the Great Tribulation period, which will be a time of trouble such as the world has never before seen.

When God decides to judge the world, it won't take him 3.5 or 7 years time. It will take Him a split second. The 3.5 years is a period the Church is warned about because it will suffer persecution from Antichrist at that time, just as it happened in the ancient Roman Empire and many times since. To say the Church is gone is to make the Antichrist a non-threat. That subverts the entire teaching and message of Revelation. Sorry!