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

[randyk]

"""Since it's this unmistakable, we shouldn't fear that great men have taught Pretrib. It was their obsession, but certainly not their "cup of tea." They should've left alone what they didn't understand."""
Please post 1 postrib rapture verse.
Should be very easy.

I have already done so repeatedly. The Rapture is defined biblically as Christ coming to save his people from the Antichrist. The Son of Man descends from heaven in Dan 7. Both Jesus and Paul refer to the same, the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, to save God's people. In Paul's use of the term "rapture," he refers to the salvation and glorification of the Church.

Paul explains this coming for the Church by the Son of Man in the context of the NT, whereas Jesus had depicted the event in the OT era. Paul explained that when Christ returns for his Church it will be the same event as Jesus mentioned, the Son of Man descending from heaven to save his people. But Paul expanded this to include the Gentile Church, and to tie the experience of the Church to the experience of Jesus himself, who went up to heaven to be glorified.

So when Paul ties the glorification of the Church with the Coming of the Son of Man, he is talking about an instantaneous event, in which the Church ascends to heaven, receives glorified bodies, and then participates in the descent of Jesus to the earth. Paul does not separate this "Rapture" event from other places where the coming of the Son of Man is mentioned. He just assumes that Gentiles are to participate with Jewish believers in this event, in which Jesus returns from heaven to save Jewish believers. They are all to be glorified at one single event, the coming of Christ.

When you ask for "one Postrib verse,* you are assuming that there is a question about when it would take place. If there was a question, then Paul would answer that question by giving a definitive answer.

But if it was already understood that Christ is coming in only a Postrib context, then no explanation would be necessary, and there would be no single verse to explain this. However, all verses given in reference to Christ's Coming assumes he is coming as depicted in Dan 7, in a Postrib context. And 2 Thes 2 does a more than adequate job of explaining that it is Postrib--surely God Himself anticipated that this argument would arise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
And, the challenge remains for you to show where Paul warned ANYONE about Jerusalem's future destruction. From any of his epistles.

Are you asking ME this question, or OldSage? Because that's his viewpoint, that Paul is covering the Subject of the events surrounding 70ad.

That's not MY viewpoint.

OK. Then it's to him.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Paul wasn't talking about what's "present", but what comes first. It's very clear.

Well, the false claim that Paul is covering in v.2 does say, "that the day of the Lord IS ALREADY PRESENT [perfect indicative]"...

No, Paul wrote that some are saying that is 'already present'. He never said it was. And v.2 follows v.1 and refers back to v.1.

...and so Paul's explanation in v.3 follows, saying,
"[3a]... NOT [is], [3b] if not shall have come THE departure FIRST" (i.e. Paul's Subject from v.1)
"[3c] and the man of sin be revealed..."

Paul's writing is clear. By "that day" he was referring to the specific day that the "coming of our Lord" (v.1) would occur.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
OK, DWM, explain why Paul would begin v.1 with "concerning..." and then CHANGE GEARS to v.2? How do you explain that

I did explain that... at the very bottom of my Post #4784 , as well as in many other posts, including the one immediately above this one.

lol. I read every post to me. And I've already pointed out how hard it is to wade through your posts, what with all your needless embellishments. Do you do that to keep people guessing what your point is?

Paul did NOT change gears. That is absurd. All 3 verses are connected in context, and the context from v.1 is the Second Advent and the rapture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You have to listen to people FG, or else you will remain a refugee from the truth.

Don't post foolish things.

I am giggling a bit when you say 'not to condescend', given your tenor.

Since you don't know, "tenor" is a sound. My posts don't make a sound. So what you are hearing is just that; you are "hearing things". That's a bias, a fantasy.

Anyhow, I cannot force feed you things you cannot digest.

You condescending poster.

I've opened a channel but you don't
want to learn. 'Don't condescend' I hear you say.

You condescending poster.

I am here to learn, aren't you? Or are you above learning?
Do you, dare I say it, 'know it all'?

You condescendin g poster.

Why don't you just answer the questions posed to you? Is that somehow hard, or is it that you just don't want to engage?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

No, Paul wrote that some are saying that is 'already present'. He never said it was.

I didn't say Paul said it was.

I said Paul is telling of what the "false claim's content" is, in v.2.

The "false claim's content" is not identical to Paul's v.1 Subject, see.

Paul did NOT change gears. That is absurd. All 3 verses are connected in context

I'm not suggesting that Paul is "changing gears".

He is bringing to bear his v.1 Subject ON the matter of the "false claim's content" (v.2's "IS!!!"]), by his saying "NOT [is]" in v.3a... and continuing from there by saying, in v.3b, "if not shall have come THE Departure [v.1b's Subject--our Rapture event ] *FIRST* and the man of sin be revealed..." [v.3c]




Paul himself did not supply the words "that day," in v.3a... the translators did.

Paul's "NOT [is]" (v.3a) references back to the "IS" of the false claim (v.2), which false claim's content is NOT IDENTICAL to Paul's v.1 Subject. That is what's tripping you up, as well as other posters in this thread.

 

[Mem]

I didn't say Paul said it was.

I said Paul is telling of what the "false claim's content" is, in v.2.

The "false claim's content" is not identical to Paul's v.1 Subject, see.



I'm not suggesting that Paul is "changing gears".

He is bringing to bear his v.1 Subject ON the matter of the "false claim's content" (v.2's "IS!!!"]), by his saying "NOT [is]" in v.3a... and continuing from there by saying, in v.3b, "if not shall have come THE Departure [v.1b's Subject--our Rapture event ] *FIRST* and the man of sin be revealed..." [v.3c]




Paul himself did not supply the words "that day," in v.3a... the translators did.

Paul's "NOT [is]" (v.3a) references back to the "IS" of the false claim (v.2), which false claim's content is NOT IDENTICAL to Paul's v.1 Subject. That is what's tripping you up, as well as other posters in this thread.

I'm not sure, but I think where you and FreeGrace's difference in view diverges not so much on this issue is as it is concerning the interpretation of 'the rebellion' on FG's part and 'the departure' on your part.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I'm not sure, but I think where you and FreeGrace's difference in view diverges not so much on this issue is as it is concerning the interpretation of 'the rebellion' on FG's part and 'the departure' on your part.

That is indeed one of our differences.

Another one is that I see the "false claim's content" (v.2) to be DISTINCT from what PAUL is BRINGING to bear on it, in his v.1 Subject, which he does not abandon the Subject (by never referencing the event of our Rapture again in the context), but by his telling how the ONE Subject relates [time-wise / sequence-wise] to the OTHER Subject, thus addressing the issue... (meaning, the issue of the false claim v.2)...

(and indeed mentioning his v.1 Subject again in v.3b [not v.3a], plus alluding to it as well further on down in the text... I've mentioned in past posts that Paul repeats the "sequence" 3x in this context [vv.3b-9a]... so he's not "abandoning" his v.1 Subject whatsoever. = ) ).



IOW, FrGr2 is EQUATING Paul's v.1 Subject with that of the Subject of the false claim's content v.2.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Most churches are not teaching anymore about the rapture.
Basically robing their flock.

I have seen that ones end times view determines how the rest if the bible is interpreted.

For example, a friend of mine is magnetically drawn to Sam Solen.
Manifest sons of God.
You can not mention the rapture without stern resistance.

What a joke

Wow! Amazing!

You'd think that the Lord's repeated command to always be on the watch for His appearing would be a blessed hope for all believers.

At the end of Paul's detailed account of the living being transformed immortal and glorified and caught up, he told believers to comfort each another with those words. However in these last days people are not doing that nor are they looking forward to this event.

 

[Ahwatukee]

FreeGrace2 said:
Not even close. Paul's point is clear. v.1 cannot happen until the rebellion occurs and the man doomed to destruction is revealed.

Doesn't matter what you disagree with. The language and wording is very clear. v.1 cannot happen until v.3 occurs.

Why do you go about making false statements regarding this issue? There is nothing in the context that says that v.1 cannot happen until v.3. There is no support!

The reason Paul starts off with "Concerning the appearing of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" is because there were some in Thessalonica who were teaching that "The Day of the Lord" had already come. So, the Thessalonians were basically concerned that if the Day of the Lord had already come, it would mean that they missed the appearing of the Lord and our being gathered to Him, because that event takes place first. They were basically saying, "Hey Paul, there are some who are teaching that the time of God's wrath is here. How we weren't caught up in the air to meet the Lord as you taught us.

Verse 1 takes place prior to the Day of the Lord

 

[OldSage]

FreeGrace2 said:
And, the challenge remains for you to show where Paul warned ANYONE about Jerusalem's future destruction. From any of his epistles.

OK. Then it's to him.

It's everywhere FG. Choose a book and we'll find it

 

[Ahwatukee]

Yes, thanks for your comments and for explaining your comments. I do have a different take. I see Jesus' Coming as depicted in the NT only as depicted in the OT, as Dan 7 presents it, in a postrib context. It is all about the displacement of Antichrist's Kingdom with Christ's Kingdom.

You can stop right there!

The information regarding the living believers being transformed and caught up was something that was previously unknown. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, Paul says "Behold, I show you a Mystery." The word means some that was previously unknow because it was covered and is now being revealed.

I define "imminency" differently than you do. You see it as meaning *Christ can come at any moment.* This has never been true. God has established a "day" at which His Son will appear--he cannot appear randomly on any day, nor are we told that in our ignorance we should expect him on any day.

OH, and do you know the day that the Father has selected, randyk? No, you don't! Therefore, the day when He appears is imminent for all believers because we don't know the day that the Father has specified. I wish that you people would stop trying to support your beliefs with these with these ridiculous ideas that you come up with. Because neither you nor I know the time that the Father has selected for the Lord to appear and gather His church, then for both you and I and everyone else "Imminent" means the same exact thing, i.e. the Lord could come at any time.

"Immanency" means "near." It doesn't mean Jesus can come today. Since Jesus died on the cross for the sins of Man, the way is now opened for salvation, meaning that for anybody who wishes to join him, the Kingdom is "near." It does not mean that it can arrive on any day.

Wrong again! Imminency means that the event is Looming, on the horizon, about to take place, in the workings, impending, approaching, brewing, in the cards, etc., etc. Jesus gave us an example of His imminent appearing in the following scripture:

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day on which your Lord will come. But understand this: If the homeowner had known in which watch of the night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. For this reason, you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect."

Believers Christ, like the good man of the house who doesn't know at what time the thief will come to break in, continue to watch and to be ready because we don't know at what time the Lord is going to appear to gather His church.

The exclusivity of the 144,000 from a particular judgment may refer only to a judgment taking place in Israel. It certainly does not exclude multitudes of Christians elsewhere in the world.

First of all, the 144,000 are from 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. They are not the church. And second, there is no judgment mentioned regarding the 144,000. The church will not, I repeat, will not be on the earth during the tribulation period.

And when the Scriptures deny that God is angry with Christians after they're saved, it does not mean we don't share the world with sinners, who brings God's wrath upon our planet. We do have to share these negative experiences, though technically, we are not experiencing God's wrath itself.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You treat God's coming wrath as though casual, of none effect. Yet, Jesus said that it would be a time of great tribulation unequaled from the beginning, till now and never to be equaled again. And that if that time of God's wrath was allowed to go on any longer than the prophesied time, no one would be left alive on the earth.

However, the fact is that believers within the church have been, like Abraham, credited with the righteousness and have been reconciled to God. Jesus took upon himself the wrath that all believers deserve, satisfying it completely. This stems from not understanding the severity and magnitude of God's coming wrath. However, you and others continue to claim that the church is destined for the same punishment. You plainly do not have enough study regarding these matters and should not be making these claims.

If God sends storms, earthquakes, and diseases upon this world, in response to widespread and despicable human sin, the Christian Church is not exempt from these problems, since we share the same world. But in experiencing them, we are not the objects of God's wrath, but only casualties suffering the effects of human sin and the effects of God wrath directed at sinners.

Wrong! You're trying to make the trials and persecutions that Jesus said believers would have because of our faith in Him, the same as God's coming unprecedented wrath, which they are not. Those within the church who are watching and are continuing in faith, are indeed exempt from God's coming wrath. For those who believe in Christ, their sins have been forgiven and covered over. As the scriptures states, we are not appointed to suffer God's wrath. The wrath of God will be for the specific purpose of the fulfillment of the last seven years that was decreed upon Israel and Jerusalem and for the punishment of a Christ rejecting world.

Our suffering the same experiences does not mean God is angry with Christians--no more than Christ's death for the sins of the Jewish People meant that God was angry with Jesus! We are here to testify to God's salvation in the midst of God's display of anger at sin on earth.

Everyone on the planet earth at that time will be exposed to God's wrath and there will be no ark's to get on and no small city to run to.

This coming wrath which will commence once the church has been removed from the earth, will be God's direct wrath against a Christ rejecting world. Believers are not appointed to suffer that coming wrath, because Jesus already did.

The next event to take place is the gathering of the church, which will be followed by God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, as well as the plagues that the two witnesses bring. Sudden destruction will come upon the wicked, but those in Christ are not in darkness so that this day should take us by surprise like a thief. We will be gathered from off the earth just as the Lord promised.

 

[OldSage]

Don't post foolish things.


Since you don't know, "tenor" is a sound. My posts don't make a sound. So what you are hearing is just that; you are "hearing things". That's a bias, a fantasy.


You condescending poster.


You condescending poster.


You condescendin g poster.

Why don't you just answer the questions posed to you? Is that somehow hard, or is it that you just don't want to engage?

A very sad reaction to someone trying to guide you and help you.

BTW, tenor - see 2)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenor

 

[VCO]

Most churches are not teaching anymore about the rapture.
Basically robing their flock.

I have seen that ones end times view determines how the rest if the bible is interpreted.

For example, a friend of mine is magnetically drawn to Sam Solen.
Manifest sons of God.
You can not mention the rapture without stern resistance.

What a joke

Every Church that I have attended Teaches a Pre-Trib Rapture, and I have attended a lot of them because we moved a lot since the early 80's.

3 - Community Bible Teaching Churches
4 - Bible Churches
1 - Independent Baptist Church
1 - Grace Brethren Church
2 - Evangelical Free Church
1 - Evangelical Lutheran Church
1 - Bible Fellowship Church
and a couple on Vacation.

Sounds like you should stick with Evangelical style of Churches, like I did.

 

[Mem]

That is indeed one of our differences.

Another one is that I see the "false claim's content" (v.2) to be DISTINCT from what PAUL is BRINGING to bear on it, in his v.1 Subject, which he does not abandon the Subject (by never referencing the event of our Rapture again in the context), but by his telling how the ONE Subject relates [time-wise / sequence-wise] to the OTHER Subject, thus addressing the issue... (meaning, the issue of the false claim v.2)...

(and indeed mentioning his v.1 Subject again in v.3b [not v.3a], plus alluding to it as well further on down in the text... I've mentioned in past posts that Paul repeats the "sequence" 3x in this context [vv.3b-9a]... so he's not "abandoning" his v.1 Subject whatsoever. = ) ).



IOW, FrGr2 is EQUATING Paul's v.1 Subject with that of the Subject of the false claim's content v.2.

Ok.
v1 concerning the true claim (which is not yet) v2 asking do not believe any claim that it has already v.3 because 2 conditions, the rebellion and revelation of the antichrist, have yet to be met but you add the rapture as a third condition, correct?

 

[cv5]

Try to track with me here for a second...

... the false claim's content (v.2) is: "that the day of the Lord IS already here / IS already present"... The false conveyors (saying such a thing) are not referencing "EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM" nor "the earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire"... but that the time period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth is already here (and that they all were in it and experiencing it).

Paul is saying, "NOT [is]" (it's NOT!).

And then explains the two things that must be "in evidence" for such a claim to be "true".

ONE THING is said to be *FIRST* (I believe the wording there connects back to reference what PAUL IS BRINGING to bear on the subject, i.e. "our Rapture / THE Departure" as being *FIRST* before "the day of the Lord" [JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING UPON the earth over time] can indeed "BE PRESENT")...

...AND the man of sin BE REVEALED...

WHEN he is "REVEALED" (and that's at the START of the 7-yrs), the day of the Lord will INDEED be in existence / be present (the thing that the false conveyors claim "IS ALREADY PRESENT").




Are you trackin' with me?? I'm trackin' you...

The problem: he isn't tracking himself I'm afraid.....

 

[ewq1938]

Exactly. Thank you for paying attention to that detail.

It's rare that I meet someone who understands that about the seal. Do you think the same for the rest of them or just the 6th? I believe they all give us glimpses of future events that take place in the trumps.

Also:

Rev 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

Christ opened "one of the seals" and there are a total of 7. Which one did he open first?

 

[ewq1938]

So I think the evidence is quite compelling that the 7th trumpet is also know as the last trumpet and is literally when Jesus returns or occurs shortly before His arrival.

Yep, spot on. There are only 7 ends times trumpets and the 7th is the last trump which is the same last trump Paul spoke about. Pre-trib has to invent an 8th trump so they can separate the 7th trump from being the last one. This is a clear clue that doctrine is false and man-made and littered with errors like changing Apostasy from leaving the faith to a physical departure which the word does not mean.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I didn't say Paul said it was.

I said Paul is telling of what the "false claim's content" is, in v.2.

The subject of the 3 verse passage is on "that day", which refers to the "coming of our Lord" in v.1.

The "false claim's content" is not identical to Paul's v.1 Subject, see.

You have no reasonable explanation why Paul would "change gears" after v.1.

I'm not suggesting that Paul is "changing gears".

You are whether you recognize it or not.

He opens with "concerning the coming of our Lord". That's the subject and he doesn't change gears to the DotL.

[QUOE]He is bringing to bear his v.1 Subject ON the matter of the "false claim's content" (v.2's "IS!!!"]), by his saying "NOT [is]" [/QUOTE]
Sorry, but none of this makes sense.

in v.3a... and continuing from there by saying, in v.3b, "if not shall have come THE Departure [v.1b's Subject--our Rapture event ] *FIRST* and the man of sin be revealed..." [v.3c]

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
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.

Color coding seems to be the ony way to make the passage clear.

Red words refer to the Second Advent in v.1 and v.3.
Blue words refer to the rapture of living believers in v.1.
Green words refer to the FIRST DAY of the DotL in v.2.
Orange words refers to the Trib in v.3.
Purple words refer to the Beast #1, aka a/c in v.3

So, this is what Paul was conveying to the Thessalonians:

Concerning the Second Advent and rapture, we ask that you DON'T become alarmed by the teaching that the Second Advent/rapture "has already come". For, "that day" (Second Advent and rapture) WILL NOT COME until the Trib occurs and Beast #1/ac is revealed.

That is what Paul wrote.

Now, to be clear, you need to use color coding (no embellishments please) and quote the passage and then explain what your colors refer to.

Paul himself did not supply the words "that day," in v.3a... the translators did.

Are you smarter than all the translators and can prove that Paul never meant "that day"?

Paul's "NOT [is]" (v.3a) references back to the "IS" of the false claim (v.2), which false claim's content is NOT IDENTICAL to Paul's v.1 Subject. That is what's tripping you up, as well as other posters in this thread.

Sorry, but your sentence structure is appalling. I can't make out anything in this paragraph.

Please just do a color coded quote of the passage and explain what the colors refer to, like I just did.

Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

IOW, FrGr2 is EQUATING Paul's v.1 Subject with that of the Subject of the false claim's content v.2.

If v.2 isn't referring back to v.1, then you HAVE TO ADMIT that Paul changed gears, which you have already denied.

You can't have it both ways.