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.
My first reason for rejecting pretrib theory is that I don't see it anywhere in scripture. Not in any translation.
It has little to do with emotions.
Below is a good example. I don't buy this bizarre interpretation of ἀποστασία (apostasia)
Nothing emotional about it it
ἀποστασία (apostasia) in the NT
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/apostasia
It has little to do with emotions.
Below is a good example. I don't buy this bizarre interpretation of ἀποστασία (apostasia)
Nothing emotional about it it
ἀποστασία (apostasia) in the NT
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/apostasia
-
1
- Show all
Okay, so here's Bill Mounce's Statement on "Eschatology":
"Article Ten: Eschatology (Doctrine of Last Things)
Jesus will return—personally, physically, visibly to all, suddenly—and all disciples living and dead will be bodily caught up to meet Him. At the final judgment, the unrepentant will be raised to the resurrection of judgment and everlasting punishment in hell. Believers, while already having passed from darkness to light, will be raised to the resurrection of life and will enjoy the everlasting, personal presence of God in His heavenly kingdom. God’s plan of creation, redemption, and glorification will be complete."
Apparently, he believes there is just a "General Judgment / Resurrection," meaning, at one point in time (meaning, no MK age between them).
Is this what you also believe?
____________
As for the word "apostasia"... I had made a few points:
1) Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon [1871] says, "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis"...
[and says]
-- apo stasis = "apo [G575] =away" & "stasis [G4714] =a standing" [^ same word there ^] = "a standing away from [a previous standing]" or "a DEPARTURE"
... context determines just "WHAT KIND" of "DEPARTURE" is meant... In Acts 21:21, "a departure FROM MOSES" is meant. We can tell "what" departure in particular, by means of the added phrase "FROM MOSES". Same goes for the verb form in Timothy "some shall depart FROM THE FAITH"... where the writer finds it necessary to add the phrase "FROM THE FAITH" because this "idea" is not inherent in the word itself.
2) [quoting from BibleHub]
G646 - apostasia -
Word Origin
from aphistémi
[end quoting]
...see again Acts 12:10 - a "geographical / spatial" departure / departing: "and forthwith the angel departed [aphistemi] from him." kjv
3) See also Hebrews 9:8-9a -
G4714 - stasin/stasis
is used in a NEGATIVE sense, in 8 of its 9 occurrences (and there meaning [or, usages], "a rebel, revolutionist,...an insurrection, dissension, strife, uproar, a popular uprising, controversy");
but HERE, in its 9th occurrence ONLY, is NOT [negative], but means "A STANDING"
...in the context of a verse stating "the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per the "furnishings" named in v.4] yet having A STANDING [G4714]: Which is A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." - Heb9:8-9a.
If this RELATED word (stasis) *only ever* carried the NEGATIVE sense of definition, I would say you might have a convincing case.
As it is, it will take much more to convince me that "apostasia / apostasis / apo stasis" (at its most BASIC meaning, with nothing injected) does not simply mean "departure"... whether from some faith issue, or some governance-type issue, or a spatial/geographical departure, depending on CONTEXT.
I remain unconvinced of your viewpoint.
apo stasis [noun] - "an away-from standing" ('a standing away-from a previous standing'... or 'departure,' and in this case 'THE departure')
____________
This also takes into consideration what Paul is conveying in verse 2 (2Th2:2), the immediately-preceding verse (which v.3a starts out speaking with regard to):
"for you not quickly to be shaken in mind, nor to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as if by us, as that day of the Lord is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative]."
Paul then commences to unfold the SEQUENCE (in agreement with his first epistle to them).
"Article Ten: Eschatology (Doctrine of Last Things)
Jesus will return—personally, physically, visibly to all, suddenly—and all disciples living and dead will be bodily caught up to meet Him. At the final judgment, the unrepentant will be raised to the resurrection of judgment and everlasting punishment in hell. Believers, while already having passed from darkness to light, will be raised to the resurrection of life and will enjoy the everlasting, personal presence of God in His heavenly kingdom. God’s plan of creation, redemption, and glorification will be complete."
Apparently, he believes there is just a "General Judgment / Resurrection," meaning, at one point in time (meaning, no MK age between them).
Is this what you also believe?
____________
As for the word "apostasia"... I had made a few points:
1) Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon [1871] says, "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis"...
[and says]
-- apo stasis = "apo [G575] =away" & "stasis [G4714] =a standing" [^ same word there ^] = "a standing away from [a previous standing]" or "a DEPARTURE"
... context determines just "WHAT KIND" of "DEPARTURE" is meant... In Acts 21:21, "a departure FROM MOSES" is meant. We can tell "what" departure in particular, by means of the added phrase "FROM MOSES". Same goes for the verb form in Timothy "some shall depart FROM THE FAITH"... where the writer finds it necessary to add the phrase "FROM THE FAITH" because this "idea" is not inherent in the word itself.
2) [quoting from BibleHub]
G646 - apostasia -
Word Origin
from aphistémi
[end quoting]
...see again Acts 12:10 - a "geographical / spatial" departure / departing: "and forthwith the angel departed [aphistemi] from him." kjv
3) See also Hebrews 9:8-9a -
G4714 - stasin/stasis
is used in a NEGATIVE sense, in 8 of its 9 occurrences (and there meaning [or, usages], "a rebel, revolutionist,...an insurrection, dissension, strife, uproar, a popular uprising, controversy");
but HERE, in its 9th occurrence ONLY, is NOT [negative], but means "A STANDING"
...in the context of a verse stating "the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per the "furnishings" named in v.4] yet having A STANDING [G4714]: Which is A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." - Heb9:8-9a.
If this RELATED word (stasis) *only ever* carried the NEGATIVE sense of definition, I would say you might have a convincing case.
As it is, it will take much more to convince me that "apostasia / apostasis / apo stasis" (at its most BASIC meaning, with nothing injected) does not simply mean "departure"... whether from some faith issue, or some governance-type issue, or a spatial/geographical departure, depending on CONTEXT.
I remain unconvinced of your viewpoint.
apo stasis [noun] - "an away-from standing" ('a standing away-from a previous standing'... or 'departure,' and in this case 'THE departure')
____________
This also takes into consideration what Paul is conveying in verse 2 (2Th2:2), the immediately-preceding verse (which v.3a starts out speaking with regard to):
"for you not quickly to be shaken in mind, nor to be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as if by us, as that day of the Lord is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative]."
Paul then commences to unfold the SEQUENCE (in agreement with his first epistle to them).
-
1
- Show all
I have a hard time keeping everyone's viewpoints straight, as to which ones belong to whom... My apologies.
So, you hold to the Amillennialist viewpoint? Is that accurate to say? IOW, you believe the phrase "the last day" speaks only of a time-period consisting of "24-hrs" (that kind of "last day")? You say nothing regarding "caught up / -away / snatch / harpazo" here... do you think this "fits" in there somewhere, at that point?
So, you hold to the Amillennialist viewpoint? Is that accurate to say? IOW, you believe the phrase "the last day" speaks only of a time-period consisting of "24-hrs" (that kind of "last day")? You say nothing regarding "caught up / -away / snatch / harpazo" here... do you think this "fits" in there somewhere, at that point?
Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 means a defection from the truth. It means a falling away from the truth. The group who has the truth is the church. The church will fall away from the truth.
Jesus will not return until this happens, meaning that the "man of sin" also known as the anti-Christ has already been revealed.
This means that Jesus returns post-tribulation
Pre-tribbers have the cart in front of the horse, bringing Jesus back prior to the entrance of the anti-Christ on the scene. 2 Thessalonians 2 contradicts the pre-trib narrative.
It's not very complicated. I think if we follow definitions properly and just let the Bible speak for itself there is no case to make for pre-trib.
Jesus plainly says He returns after the [great] tribulation anyway. Shouldn't that be enough?
Jesus will not return until this happens, meaning that the "man of sin" also known as the anti-Christ has already been revealed.
This means that Jesus returns post-tribulation
Pre-tribbers have the cart in front of the horse, bringing Jesus back prior to the entrance of the anti-Christ on the scene. 2 Thessalonians 2 contradicts the pre-trib narrative.
It's not very complicated. I think if we follow definitions properly and just let the Bible speak for itself there is no case to make for pre-trib.
Jesus plainly says He returns after the [great] tribulation anyway. Shouldn't that be enough?
-
2
- Show all
I believe in the literal millennial reign of Jesus on this earth.
That the last day is a 24-hr period? I don't think it has to be.
I actually think the return of Jesus is a processional event that might take some time.
Our resurrection or harpazo (if we are alive) is described as happening in the twinkling of an eye.
We join him as he comes but I don't think Jesus' return & takeover is complete instantaneously. He is still judging as he comes.
That the last day is a 24-hr period? I don't think it has to be.
I actually think the return of Jesus is a processional event that might take some time.
Our resurrection or harpazo (if we are alive) is described as happening in the twinkling of an eye.
We join him as he comes but I don't think Jesus' return & takeover is complete instantaneously. He is still judging as he comes.
Are you thinking that this ^ is the point being made in vv.2-3 (I'll spell it out here, leaving "blanks" for you to fill out, to explain to me how you are "defining" these terms)?
"2 [those... purporting] that the Day of the Lord [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:_______]
is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative; <--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase: _________].
3 that day [<--plz tell me what 'day' this is speaking to:________] will NOT be present,
if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:________... and what one item is said to be *FIRST*:_________]
and the man of sin be revealed [<--plz tell me "when," or at what point, you believe "the man of sin BE REVEALED":__________, including what scripture you use to support what you believe; as well as how you define the phrase used in close proximity, regarding him, "in his time"<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:__________]
So you're saying Paul's sentence conveyed this (here? or elsewhere? which words in these two verses stated this?)
No one disagrees that Jesus "RETURNS" after the trib, btw.
I believe Paul is actually conveying just the opposite of what you suggest he is, and I have pointed out in past posts how that is.
Let's start at the 2nd verse (where I had provided blanks for you to show how you are "defining" the various phrases/terms). How are you defining the phrase "the day of the Lord" (what does it look like? what are its characteristics? its length/duration? its location? its purpose? its starting point, and how you know? and what made it so convincing to the Thessalonians to be persuaded by those saying it "IS PRESENT,"... why could they believe such a thing, etc etc)
Again, we all agree Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the GT (Lk12:36 speaks of that very point in time: "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" ; as does Lk19:12,15,17,19... plus their parallels... and theirs... so many that they are too numerous to list here).
So, yes, we all agree with that point. Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the trib.
"2 [those... purporting] that the Day of the Lord [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:_______]
is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative; <--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase: _________].
3 that day [<--plz tell me what 'day' this is speaking to:________] will NOT be present,
if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:________... and what one item is said to be *FIRST*:_________]
and the man of sin be revealed [<--plz tell me "when," or at what point, you believe "the man of sin BE REVEALED":__________, including what scripture you use to support what you believe; as well as how you define the phrase used in close proximity, regarding him, "in his time"<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:__________]
So you're saying Paul's sentence conveyed this (here? or elsewhere? which words in these two verses stated this?)
No one disagrees that Jesus "RETURNS" after the trib, btw.
I believe Paul is actually conveying just the opposite of what you suggest he is, and I have pointed out in past posts how that is.
Let's start at the 2nd verse (where I had provided blanks for you to show how you are "defining" the various phrases/terms). How are you defining the phrase "the day of the Lord" (what does it look like? what are its characteristics? its length/duration? its location? its purpose? its starting point, and how you know? and what made it so convincing to the Thessalonians to be persuaded by those saying it "IS PRESENT,"... why could they believe such a thing, etc etc)
Again, we all agree Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the GT (Lk12:36 speaks of that very point in time: "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"
; as does Lk19:12,15,17,19... plus their parallels... and theirs... so many that they are too numerous to list here). So, yes, we all agree with that point. Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the trib.
-
1
- Show all
Okay, I'm asking you, do you believe the saved and the lost are "resurrected" on the same "last day," as Bill Mounce seems to believe? (a 'general judgment' at ONE point in time... as "Amill-teachings" have it)
Or, do you believe the saved are "resurrected" at the time surrounding Christ's "return," and then there's 1000 yrs (intervening) before the lost are "resurrected" at the GWTj point in time? (as "Pre-mill-teachings" have it)
Many of these "ideas" (i.e. 'definitions of words' like we're discussing re: the particular word in 2Th2:3) that ppl have, are impacted by "chronology" issues. IOW, they can be "reasoned away"...
Or, do you believe the saved are "resurrected" at the time surrounding Christ's "return," and then there's 1000 yrs (intervening) before the lost are "resurrected" at the GWTj point in time? (as "Pre-mill-teachings" have it)
Many of these "ideas" (i.e. 'definitions of words' like we're discussing re: the particular word in 2Th2:3) that ppl have, are impacted by "chronology" issues. IOW, they can be "reasoned away"...
There is no doubt in my mind the context indicates "the departure". The departure from what/when?
From the ominous reality of verse 2 of course. The Day of the Lord. We will be removed from the proximity of where those judgments will occur (the earth). And we will be removed from the time of those judgments (beforehand).
1 Cor 15:23-24 time/priority sequence states exactly the same thing. In fact the passage begs for a sequence.
v23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
v24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
Paul nowhere contradicts his pretrib rapture doctrine. And neither does the rest of the Bible if you care to pay strict attention.
I agree with every single one of your post. Spot on. Beautiful work.
From the ominous reality of verse 2 of course. The Day of the Lord. We will be removed from the proximity of where those judgments will occur (the earth). And we will be removed from the time of those judgments (beforehand).
1 Cor 15:23-24 time/priority sequence states exactly the same thing. In fact the passage begs for a sequence.
v23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
v24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
Paul nowhere contradicts his pretrib rapture doctrine. And neither does the rest of the Bible if you care to pay strict attention.
I agree with every single one of your post. Spot on. Beautiful work.
Are you thinking that this ^ is the point being made in vv.2-3 (I'll spell it out here, leaving "blanks" for you to fill out, to explain to me how you are "defining" these terms)?
"2 [those... purporting] that the Day of the Lord [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:_______]
is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative; <--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase: _________].
3 that day [<--plz tell me what 'day' this is speaking to:________] will NOT be present,
if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:________... and what one item is said to be *FIRST*:_________]
and the man of sin be revealed [<--plz tell me "when," or at what point, you believe "the man of sin BE REVEALED":__________, including what scripture you use to support what you believe; as well as how you define the phrase used in close proximity, regarding him, "in his time"<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:__________]
So you're saying Paul's sentence conveyed this (here? or elsewhere? which words in these two verses stated this?)
No one disagrees that Jesus "RETURNS" after the trib, btw.
I believe Paul is actually conveying just the opposite of what you suggest he is, and I have pointed out in past posts how that is.
Let's start at the 2nd verse (where I had provided blanks for you to show how you are "defining" the various phrases/terms). How are you defining the phrase "the day of the Lord" (what does it look like? what are its characteristics? its length/duration? its location? its purpose? its starting point, and how you know? and what made it so convincing to the Thessalonians to be persuaded by those saying it "IS PRESENT,"... why could they believe such a thing, etc etc)
Again, we all agree Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the GT (Lk12:36 speaks of that very point in time: "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" ; as does Lk19:12,15,17,19... plus their parallels... and theirs... so many that they are too numerous to list here).
So, yes, we all agree with that point. Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the trib.
"2 [those... purporting] that the Day of the Lord [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:_______]
is present [G1764 - PERFECT indicative; <--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase: _________].
3 that day [<--plz tell me what 'day' this is speaking to:________] will NOT be present,
if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:________... and what one item is said to be *FIRST*:_________]
and the man of sin be revealed [<--plz tell me "when," or at what point, you believe "the man of sin BE REVEALED":__________, including what scripture you use to support what you believe; as well as how you define the phrase used in close proximity, regarding him, "in his time"<--plz tell me how you "define" that phrase:__________]
So you're saying Paul's sentence conveyed this (here? or elsewhere? which words in these two verses stated this?)
No one disagrees that Jesus "RETURNS" after the trib, btw.
I believe Paul is actually conveying just the opposite of what you suggest he is, and I have pointed out in past posts how that is.
Let's start at the 2nd verse (where I had provided blanks for you to show how you are "defining" the various phrases/terms). How are you defining the phrase "the day of the Lord" (what does it look like? what are its characteristics? its length/duration? its location? its purpose? its starting point, and how you know? and what made it so convincing to the Thessalonians to be persuaded by those saying it "IS PRESENT,"... why could they believe such a thing, etc etc)
Again, we all agree Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the GT (Lk12:36 speaks of that very point in time: "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding"
; as does Lk19:12,15,17,19... plus their parallels... and theirs... so many that they are too numerous to list here).So, yes, we all agree with that point. Jesus will "RETURN" AFTER the trib.
Well first off this will be a awkward conversation because I'm not using the same Bible version as you. I'm using the KJV and that's what I'm basing my definitions on along with a kjv strong's concordance.
Verses 2 and 3 look like this:
KJV
2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
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;
So I'm not entirely sure we're getting the same meaning from the text.
What I think you're trying to ask if what these verses mean: they mean exactly what they say.
The context of these verses indicates there's a possibility of being deceived about when Jesus returns (day of Christ). Paul makes it clear that the falling away (defection from the truth) will happen first which in turn will reveal the man of sin or anti-Christ.
Jesus doesn't return until after the falling away happens and the man of sin or anti-Christ is here. This means the great tribulation has already started before Jesus returns.
Verse 8 says says he'll be destroyed by the brightness of His coming.
Still want to believe in pre-trib rapture?
-
1
- Show all
The text does not state: "is at hand"... instead, the text states "IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative; G1764 - enestēken - https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-2.htm ]"... then note what the "PERFECT indicative" ("PERFECT tense") means... it doesn't mean that it is something that is UPCOMING (ahead) and soon-but-yet-to-occur, no.
The words you supplied are not in the text. I'm supplying the words which ARE in the text.
And that is just the START of our going over this text.
They do mean what they say.
The issue is, they do not say what you've presented them to be saying (and I'm just talking, here, about the one phrase thus far).
This is the case with quite a few of the phrases in this context: either they actually SAY something different, or in another place are DEFINED differently than how it's "commonly defined" out there (instead of the "biblical" definition of such-and-such--Example: the "Amill-teaching's" definition of "the day of the Lord" is "off"/not accurate [which, MANY OTHERS simply "repeat as true"]... so there we get to the next point in what Paul is actually conveying here.)
So, for [one of] the first question / fill-in-the-blanks, you get a "failing grade," so to speak
Try again. We all have to do this, so you're not alone. = )
The words you supplied are not in the text. I'm supplying the words which ARE in the text.
And that is just the START of our going over this text.
They do mean what they say.
The issue is, they do not say what you've presented them to be saying (and I'm just talking, here, about the one phrase thus far).
This is the case with quite a few of the phrases in this context: either they actually SAY something different, or in another place are DEFINED differently than how it's "commonly defined" out there (instead of the "biblical" definition of such-and-such--Example: the "Amill-teaching's" definition of "the day of the Lord" is "off"/not accurate [which, MANY OTHERS simply "repeat as true"]... so there we get to the next point in what Paul is actually conveying here.)
So, for [one of] the first question / fill-in-the-blanks, you get a "failing grade," so to speak
Try again. We all have to do this, so you're not alone. = )
-
1
- Show all
Almost ALL of the Bibles that predate the KJV state "the departure".
"The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608). This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’” Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”?"
The question of why this change occurred is also well researched. For us pre tribbers all of this is extremely well known.
https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/the-departure-in-2-thessalonians-2-3/read
"The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608). This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome’s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400 renders apostasia with the “word discessio, meaning ‘departure.’” Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”?"
The question of why this change occurred is also well researched. For us pre tribbers all of this is extremely well known.
https://www.pre-trib.org/articles/all-articles/message/the-departure-in-2-thessalonians-2-3/read
Unfortunately you are liable for shoddy exegesis. Pretty common quite frankly and I am as guilty as anybody else. However when you have the opportunity to sit at the feet of someone who is TRULY qualified and speaking the truth in righteousness.........it's time to shut up and LISTEN and make the necessary adjustments.
