50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord
- Thread starter cv5
- Start date
-
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.
LOL!!
... and you think this would be "troubling" to the Thessalonians, why?? I think because either you aren't as familiar with the Thessalonians as Paul was, or perhaps... not as familiar with... [something else...]
Hmm... let's think... Paul is taking the time to compose a letter to tell them not to be "shaken in mind" about anyone trying to tell them THAT?? Right!
... and you think this would be "troubling" to the Thessalonians, why?? I think because either you aren't as familiar with the Thessalonians as Paul was, or perhaps... not as familiar with... [something else...]
Hmm... let's think... Paul is taking the time to compose a letter to tell them not to be "shaken in mind" about anyone trying to tell them THAT?? Right!
Then explain what "our being gathered to Him" refers to in v.1.
The 7 year tribulation thesis seems to me completely without foundation.
If you foolishly abduct Daniel's last week from its rightful 1st century home,
and keep it in your futurist future, then the same process can carry on........
Why have a unitary 7 years, why not two 3.5 year periods separated by another 2000 years?
And while we are at it, let's subdivide the 3.5 years.....and so on.
If you foolishly abduct Daniel's last week from its rightful 1st century home,
and keep it in your futurist future, then the same process can carry on........
Why have a unitary 7 years, why not two 3.5 year periods separated by another 2000 years?
And while we are at it, let's subdivide the 3.5 years.....and so on.
I've emboldened the part that I think is wonderfully said! I've felt the same way for many years. It's absolutely incredible that something spoken so simply can be completely distorted in order to create a new theology, a new eschatology!
For many centuries good Christians read 2 Thessalonians and *never* read "apostasia" as the Departure of the Church from the earth in a Pretribulational Rapture! You have to wonder how effective the Holy Spirit is if He can't even communicate to the Church what Paul meant for 1800 years!
And why so suddenly John N. Darby is privileged to see what few have seen before, to initiate a brand new eschatology in Christian history. It makes one wonder!
I've found it fascinating, and recognize that theology is either a revelation or a bondage. And if the error is a bondage, it is not easily exposed, even if it seems simple to you or me.
Those who hold to a Pretribulation eschatology are, I believe, in a kind of bondage. They are utterly unable to see things from another point of view. So it requires kindness, prayer, and persistence in speaking the truth. Thank you for what you're doing. As peripheral as this topic is to more important topics like Salvation, it is still a part of God's word. And Paul considered it important enough to write this letter.
The real danger is that there are religious movements that get proud and begin to declare themselves the voice of God or the move of God on earth, assuming an attitude that they are the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth presently in some almost militant kind of form. Zealotry and battling with carnal weapons to achieve spiritual fulfillment is not God's Kingdom, but rather, a false Messiah.
That was Paul's concern, that we would get high on ourselves, and miss the real enemy of our souls. Christ is who we need to look to, because he will defeat the foe in his own time, and not when we choose to declare it.
I've felt the same way for many years. It's absolutely incredible that something spoken so simply can be completely distorted in order to create a new theology, a new eschatology!For many centuries good Christians read 2 Thessalonians and *never* read "apostasia" as the Departure of the Church from the earth in a Pretribulational Rapture! You have to wonder how effective the Holy Spirit is if He can't even communicate to the Church what Paul meant for 1800 years!
And why so suddenly John N. Darby is privileged to see what few have seen before, to initiate a brand new eschatology in Christian history. It makes one wonder!
I've found it fascinating, and recognize that theology is either a revelation or a bondage. And if the error is a bondage, it is not easily exposed, even if it seems simple to you or me.
Those who hold to a Pretribulation eschatology are, I believe, in a kind of bondage. They are utterly unable to see things from another point of view. So it requires kindness, prayer, and persistence in speaking the truth. Thank you for what you're doing. As peripheral as this topic is to more important topics like Salvation, it is still a part of God's word. And Paul considered it important enough to write this letter.
The real danger is that there are religious movements that get proud and begin to declare themselves the voice of God or the move of God on earth, assuming an attitude that they are the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth presently in some almost militant kind of form. Zealotry and battling with carnal weapons to achieve spiritual fulfillment is not God's Kingdom, but rather, a false Messiah.
That was Paul's concern, that we would get high on ourselves, and miss the real enemy of our souls. Christ is who we need to look to, because he will defeat the foe in his own time, and not when we choose to declare it.
It matters not if it means departure or "falling away from the faith" (implied ,as it LITERALLY means departure)
Both scenarios ARE PRETRIB.
Either way you interpret it, it remains a pretrib dynamic.
You are TRANSPOSING "SEATED,IN POWER AT THE END OF HIS RULE" ONTO "REVEALED".
So in your zeal to whip that dead horse , you are unaware that;
1) that particular transposing is totally ridiculous and fits nothing
2) you are making our case and not yours, as everytime you say "revealed" you are invoking a STARTING PLACE ....NOT an ending of a world leader's reign of terror.
Conversely falling away is a natural happening that happens in mass all the time
..( nothing notable at all)...and "revealed" is another no brainer that he WILL BE REVEALED at the START of the gt as the false fake Jesus riding a white horse.
Not a single postrib dynamic anywhere to be found.
100% pretrib
..solid bible with BOTH SCENARIOS
I've attempted to.
I've stated that "the false info that said a certain condition exists" (according to the false conveyors in v.2) and that this is the reason Paul is BRINGING "our RAPTURE" Subject TO BEAR on the matter... "because" (he says) that "certain condition" (they said is in existence) will NOT exist until ONE THING HAPPENS *FIRST* ... and it is NOT that "the Antichrist must be here for 3.5 years FIRST"... That is NOT what point Paul is conveying here. Though he IS providing the "corrective SEQUENCE [issue]"... bringing THAT TO BEAR on this matter (of v.2's Subject).
I've stated that "the false info that said a certain condition exists" (according to the false conveyors in v.2) and that this is the reason Paul is BRINGING "our RAPTURE" Subject TO BEAR on the matter... "because" (he says) that "certain condition" (they said is in existence) will NOT exist until ONE THING HAPPENS *FIRST* ... and it is NOT that "the Antichrist must be here for 3.5 years FIRST"... That is NOT what point Paul is conveying here. Though he IS providing the "corrective SEQUENCE [issue]"... bringing THAT TO BEAR on this matter (of v.2's Subject).
Nope. On the very day that the "69 Weeks [total]" were concluded (the day Jesus DID the Zech9:9 thing, and SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing--and "AFTER" which, He experienced the "CUT OFF and have nothing [/or, but not for himself]" part of the prophecy [ALL having to do with "Jerusalem / the city"--JUST LIKE the prophecy topic of Dan9:24 is concerning), He said (to Jerusalem) "...BUT NOW they are HID from thine eyes"...
(but this "BLINDNESS [/a HARDENING]... UNTIL" thing will only last for a certain amount of time before it will be LIFTED... but I've posted on all that before... "after TWO DAYS" and "IN the THIRD DAY" and "go My way TILL" and "IN their affliction, they WILL seek Me EARLY"...etc etc...)
Daniel 9:24-27 is telling of SEQUENTIAL things... (thus, time has not brought the world to v.27a yet... so to speak... [the verse that says "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"]--the 70th Week, completing the whole)
(but this "BLINDNESS [/a HARDENING]... UNTIL" thing will only last for a certain amount of time before it will be LIFTED... but I've posted on all that before... "after TWO DAYS" and "IN the THIRD DAY" and "go My way TILL" and "IN their affliction, they WILL seek Me EARLY"...etc etc...)
Daniel 9:24-27 is telling of SEQUENTIAL things... (thus, time has not brought the world to v.27a yet... so to speak...
[the verse that says "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"]--the 70th Week, completing the whole)-
1
- Show all
Does the term "time of Jacob's trouble" ring a bell? You definitely need to undertake a study on that. And the relevant chapters in Daniel. You might as well do a deep dive study on Zechariah, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel.........hhhhmmm yes all of the Old Testament prophets come to think of it. Because a firm grasp of the Old Testament prophets is essential to even begin to understand the book of Revelation.
Are you kidding? Daniel himself parsed this prophecy at 69 weeks. The rest of Scripture confirms it (the gap and the reason for the gap) in undeniable overwhelming unequivocal fashion. If you know what you're talking about the matter is far far beyond any debate.
Hint: the Church age fills the gap.....
Hint: the Church age fills the gap.....
yes
Postrib rapture ENSURES they WILL NOT watch and wait for Jesus.
In fact, their doctrine has their eyes on the white horse riding antichrist
YIKES.
And we are the "incorrect" ones watching and waiting for the real Jesus while the "undecieved" ones actually wait for the false Jesus.
I am so glad God showed me the correct prism of bride / groom centering.
That dynamic alone DESTROYS any hope they have of going through the gt.
Oh wait...they will see it in part as they , by their own disenfranchisement, have ELECTED to stay and face the ac to be rounded up and martyred.
So neither group actually goes through the gt.
Postrib rapture ENSURES they WILL NOT watch and wait for Jesus.
In fact, their doctrine has their eyes on the white horse riding antichrist
YIKES.
And we are the "incorrect" ones watching and waiting for the real Jesus while the "undecieved" ones actually wait for the false Jesus.
I am so glad God showed me the correct prism of bride / groom centering.
That dynamic alone DESTROYS any hope they have of going through the gt.
Oh wait...they will see it in part as they , by their own disenfranchisement, have ELECTED to stay and face the ac to be rounded up and martyred.
So neither group actually goes through the gt.
Well, randyk is not trying to make the point that he's "revealed" at the end of the trib.
Instead, he's trying to suggest that the text in v.3 is saying that "before ____ [such-and-such--which he's filling in this blank with "His Second Coming / our Rapture"], the man of sin must [(be revealed to) reign his 3.5 years] *FIRST*..."
The problem with that is, that he has to CHANGE / RELOCATE / SWITCH AROUND the word "FIRST" from its OWN clause and place it in a completely DIFFERENT clause that it does not belong in... to get it to say such a thing.
(It doesn't. That's NOT the clause where the word "FIRST" fits or is placed, in this text.)
Instead, he's trying to suggest that the text in v.3 is saying that "before ____ [such-and-such--which he's filling in this blank with "His Second Coming / our Rapture"], the man of sin must [(be revealed to) reign his 3.5 years] *FIRST*..."
The problem with that is, that he has to CHANGE / RELOCATE / SWITCH AROUND the word "FIRST" from its OWN clause and place it in a completely DIFFERENT clause that it does not belong in... to get it to say such a thing.
(It doesn't. That's NOT the clause where the word "FIRST" fits or is placed, in this text.)
Nope. On the very day that the "69 Weeks [total]" were concluded (the day Jesus DID the Zech9:9 thing, and SAID the Lk19:41-44 thing--and "AFTER" which, He experienced the "CUT OFF and have nothing [/or, but not for himself]" part of the prophecy [ALL having to do with "Jerusalem / the city"--JUST LIKE the prophecy topic of Dan9:24 is concerning), He said (to Jerusalem) "...BUT NOW they are HID from thine eyes"...
(but this "BLINDNESS [/a HARDENING]... UNTIL" thing will only last for a certain amount of time before it will be LIFTED... but I've posted on all that before... "after TWO DAYS" and "IN the THIRD DAY" and "go My way TILL" and "IN their affliction, they WILL seek Me EARLY"...etc etc...)
Daniel 9:24-27 is telling of SEQUENTIAL things... (thus, time has not brought the world to v.27a yet... so to speak... [the verse that says "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"]--the 70th Week, completing the whole)
(but this "BLINDNESS [/a HARDENING]... UNTIL" thing will only last for a certain amount of time before it will be LIFTED... but I've posted on all that before... "after TWO DAYS" and "IN the THIRD DAY" and "go My way TILL" and "IN their affliction, they WILL seek Me EARLY"...etc etc...)
Daniel 9:24-27 is telling of SEQUENTIAL things... (thus, time has not brought the world to v.27a yet... so to speak...
[the verse that says "FOR ONE WEEK [7 yrs]"]--the 70th Week, completing the whole)