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.

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,079
2,397
113
Good grief man read it again. If you feel the urge to copy and paste the order of terms to reverse the meaning I would caution you against it.
Just as I stated!

He follows Gods words, not John N. Darby or Adulterer C.I. Scofield, in their deception known as Dispensationalism

Quote Runningman:

The falling away happens first and then the man of sin is revealed. The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed.
 

Rondonmon

Senior Member
May 13, 2016
494
48
28
Your living in denial of God's clear words below, and your not alone.

Your Claim Of A Pre-Trib Resurrection Is 100% (False)

There is one future resurrection of "All" that have lived John 5:28-29, this take place on the (Last Day) John 6:39-40, at the (Last Day) final judgement John 12:48

All That Are In The Graves, The Last Day Resurrection And Final Judgement

John 5:28-29KJV
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth;
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The (Last Day) Resurrection

John 6:39-40KJV
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The (Last Day) Final Judgement

John 12:48KJV
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The (Last Day) Resurrection And Final Judgement

Revelation 20:11-15KJV
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MY TIME TO CONTINUE TO CONVERSE WITH A GUY WHO THINKS HE KNOWS THE SCRIPTURE BUT DOESN'T. In the bible, we are told to dust off our feet and move on.

You are so caught up on DESCRIPTORS you can't see THE FACTS.
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,079
2,397
113
IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MY TIME TO CONTINUE TO CONVERSE WITH A GUY WHO THINKS HE KNOWS THE SCRIPTURE BUT DOESN'T. In the bible, we are told to dust off our feet and move on.

You are so caught up on DESCRIPTORS you can't see THE FACTS.
Fact is, you run from debate because your teaching isnt found in scripture

Asteroids, Nuclear Fallout, Darth Vader, Dr. Spock, Beam Me Up Scotty Sci-Fi :giggle:
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
7,961
4,624
113
Those who believe in pre-trib will be disillusioned because by the time the great trib is in full mark of the beast mode the rapture still won't have happened.

The verse you're looking for is the one we've been looking at all along. It's 2 Thess. 2:3. The falling away happens first and then the man of sin is revealed. The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed.

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
"The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed"

BUT.........you earlier said the man of sin being revealed is the CAUSE of the (supposed) "falling away". You said that Christians will be anguished and distressed because they realize that they are IN the tribulation. Reread your posts. That is your absurd theory. Makes no sense anyway you slice it.

By the way that is exactly what the false preachers were telling the Thessalonians. And the Thessalonians WERE distressed......NEEDLESSLY. And that's exactly what Paul countermanded with his TRUE teaching.....Of the pre-TRIB rapture. This time in written form, formerly it was a verbal teaching. Aren't we lucky to have it in black and white nowadays?
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
3,110
1,501
113
mywebsite.us
@GaryA , what do you believe the verses I pointed out in the above half of this post ^ are saying (if you can gather what my "explanations" are, in this post... hopefully = ) )

If you come to a different conclusion than I have, on the above-mentioned verses, could you please explain *your* understanding of them? Thanks! = )
Hmmmm...

I find it interesting that the phrase "children of the kingdom" is only found in Matthew 8:12;13:38 - something I may not have ever paid any specific attention to.

The words/definitions for both 'children' and 'kingdom' are pretty generic. Both are plural.

On the surface of things, it appears to be an all-inclusive group.

It depends on how 'children' is related to 'kingdom'.

It will require more study... :unsure:
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
4,926
3,005
113
Who's "nit-picking" about Bill Mounce?

I was asking if the poster who had provided his definition of "apostasia" also agreed with his eschatology.

I myself had also provided Greek scholars (more than one) showing that same word's definition... but heard little response.
His eschatology is not relevant to the subject.
Those kinds of questions nearly always lead to a character assassination.


I didn't ask you the eschatological belief of any scholars. I simply told you I don't accept the morphing of apostasia into a
definition for the so-called "rapture". Departure from the faith does not mean departure from the earth.
It's an awkward attempt to force fit a doctrine into scripture.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
[DOUBLE POST] sry...will post this again later...


His eschatology is not relevant to the subject.

Those kinds of questions nearly always lead to a character assassination.


Let me put it like this:



example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology



--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)



--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])





So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...



When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".



What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"... :geek: Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... ;) That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
Along those same lines ^ , please see again the link to another post, which link I placed in Post #312 of this thread:

https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4533048


... note especially what was stated about Geo. E. Ladd [famously not a "pre-tribber"] and how he'd said if Rev5:9 could be proven to say "US" in that text, it would pretty much convince him of "pre-trib"... Well, 23 of the 24 manuscripts on that verse have it as "US," and the other leaves it blank/untranslated. [how many "translations" show this, however??]
 

Runningman

Well-known member
Mar 4, 2020
1,749
1,258
113
"The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed"

BUT.........you earlier said the man of sin being revealed is the CAUSE of the (supposed) "falling away". You said that Christians will be anguished and distressed because they realize that they are IN the tribulation. Reread your posts. That is your absurd theory. Makes no sense anyway you slice it.

By the way that is exactly what the false preachers were telling the Thessalonians. And the Thessalonians WERE distressed......NEEDLESSLY. And that's exactly what Paul countermanded with his TRUE teaching.....Of the pre-TRIB rapture. This time in written form, formerly it was a verbal teaching. Aren't we lucky to have it in black and white nowadays?
I looked over my previois posts. I think you're either misrepresenting what I said or misunderstood it. I said the falling away will come first and because so many have fallen away the man of sin will be revealed.

That's what 2 Thess. 2:3 says and that's what I believe. We need to concern ourselves with what the scriptures say. They are the authority here and our preferences aren't.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
"The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed"

BUT.........you earlier said the man of sin being revealed is the CAUSE of the (supposed) "falling away". You said that Christians will be anguished and distressed because they realize that they are IN the tribulation. Reread your posts. That is your absurd theory. Makes no sense anyway you slice it.
That's how I'm seeing his "point" / posts, also.


Thus, why I am asking him, "WHAT is it that causes those finding themselves in that time period to be AWARE that they are indeed IN it and EXPERIENCING it... since it cannot be "the man of sin be revealed" as marking that AWARENESS, according to both his view and how Scripture itself is worded... so WHAT DOES MARK it, making them AWARE of its having begun??" (according to Runningman's view, I mean)
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
Hmmmm...
I find it interesting that the phrase "children of the kingdom" is only found in Matthew 8:12;13:38 - something I may not have ever paid any specific attention to.
Do you think it is perhaps "in contrast to" the "many [that] will come from the east and west..."

I tend to see it so.

The words/definitions for both 'children' and 'kingdom' are pretty generic. Both are plural.
Do you mean that both verses have "sons" [/children] as plural (and not the word 'kingdom')? At first I was thinking you meant 'both' of THESE WORDS, but I think perhaps you didn't intend that, am I right?

On the surface of things, it appears to be an all-inclusive group.
Mhmm... if I'm understanding you correctly... yup.

It depends on how 'children' is related to 'kingdom'.
It will require more study...
:unsure:
Those TO WHOM "the kingdom" was promised (and prophesied, via OT scripture)... = )

[the earthly kingdom--see their Q of Jesus in Acts 1:6... and to which Q Jesus RESPONDS in like manner, re: its TIMING, because that was their QUESTION]
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
4,926
3,005
113
[DOUBLE POST] sry...will post this again later...






Let me put it like this:



example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology



--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)



--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])





So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...



When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".



What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"... :geek: Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... ;) That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)
I read the first sentence. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You are about poisoning the well and I am not interested.
We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.


A dozen modern English versions aren't accepted
The KJV isn't accepted
Even the Greek isn't accepted so the beliefs of the translator are questioned.


(I've even consulted 2 German Bibles)

The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
I'm returning to skipping past your posts.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
I read the first sentence. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You are about poisoning the well and I am not interested.
We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.


A dozen modern English versions aren't accepted
The KJV isn't accepted
Even the Greek isn't accepted so the beliefs of the translator are questioned.


(I've even consulted 2 German Bibles)

The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
I'm returning to skipping past your posts.
How do you yourself determine whether Rev13:8 says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" OR "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"? They MEAN entirely distinct things.

How is THAT "poisoning the well"??

(rather than "examining the scriptures, to see if these be so" ;) )




We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.
Just to be CLEAR TO THE READERS (in case this ^ comes across differently than intended), I am not "KJVO"

And yes, I DO believe examining the text is important.
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
8,046
2,177
113
Your claim is (False)

Your Suggested Claim Of The Church (Departing) To Heaven In A Pre-Trib Rapture Is (False)

(Apostasia) A Falling Away Or Defection From Truth Once Held (Apostasy)

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah;
feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
I read the first sentence. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You are about poisoning the well and I am not interested.
We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.


A dozen modern English versions aren't accepted
The KJV isn't accepted
Even the Greek isn't accepted so the beliefs of the translator are questioned.


(I've even consulted 2 German Bibles)

The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
I'm returning to skipping past your posts.
i can easily play out the postrib rapture theory.
Put myself square into that doctrine, play it out and make conclusions.
I have that abilty and have spent hours in studying it.

The problem lies in " the impossibility" once the rapture verses are incorporated.

That is the issue.
Just ASSUMING there can only be one appearance.

Just ASSUMING The pretrib rapture does not merit a look.

That is unacceptable.

Iow you do not know because of "positioning without investigation"

Not me. I must investigate.

I know you dont because investigation involves questions .

Questions seek answers.

Postribs have no questions.

I do.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
6,229
1,246
113
The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
On the contrary, I WELCOME for it to be thoroughly scrutinized!!

I find none of the arguments, made by the other viewpoints, to bear up anywhere close to it (same for the past 45+ yrs of my examining this and other views... though I'm willing to change to something IF SCRIPTURE ITSELF confirms another view... I've said that many times... same as was said at the intro to KS Wuest's long article! I AGREE with that! CHANGE if Scripture itself is shown to say something else! I've not seen evidence of that, just like Scripture itself does NOT SAY, in Rev13:8, "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world," but INSTEAD actually says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world." Stick with the TEXT, not one's ideas injected into the text.)
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
8,046
2,177
113
That's how I'm seeing his "point" / posts, also.


Thus, why I am asking him, "WHAT is it that causes those finding themselves in that time period to be AWARE that they are indeed IN it and EXPERIENCING it... since it cannot be "the man of sin be revealed" as marking that AWARENESS, according to both his view and how Scripture itself is worded... so WHAT DOES MARK it, making them AWARE of its having begun??" (according to Runningman's view, I mean)
it also says something must be taken away.

THEN the ac is revealed.

Something stopping his appearance.

Actually it only says "revealed".

" uncovered"
Has no real involvement in his power. Only that he is known TO BELIEVERS ( POSSIBLY).
Or could be to the world.
Or could be the world announces his " awesomeness" as they did with obama.( ahead of him taking power)

That alone should raise questions and assist in framing my view.

Nobody ever looks at it.
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
8,046
2,177
113
On the contrary, I WELCOME for it to be thoroughly scrutinized!!

I find none of the arguments, made by the other viewpoints, to bear up anywhere close to it (same for the past 45+ yrs of my examining this and other views... though I'm willing to change to something IF SCRIPTURE ITSELF confirms another view... I've said that many times... same as was said at the intro to KS Wuest's long article! I AGREE with that! CHANGE if Scripture itself is shown to say something else! I've not seen evidence of that, just like Scripture itself does NOT SAY, in Rev13:8, "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world," but INSTEAD actually says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world." Stick with the TEXT, not one's ideas injected into the text.)
Yes
Most of the challenges are not real.
They are assumptions.
Until they discuss rather than hold up their prism of reframing what is there, there is no real debate.

You and awatukee actually discuss the verses.
Actually unpack things.
 

Absolutely

Well-known member
Jul 23, 2018
8,046
2,177
113
I read the first sentence. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. You are about poisoning the well and I am not interested.
We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.


A dozen modern English versions aren't accepted
The KJV isn't accepted
Even the Greek isn't accepted so the beliefs of the translator are questioned.


(I've even consulted 2 German Bibles)

The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
I'm returning to skipping past your posts.
Any bible hound dog will dig.
To promote the opposite is not high ground.

Otherwise we can all just relax and become watchtower door knockers.

No dig...no nuggets