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

[Absolutely]

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

Pot<> kettle
Big time

Laughable to see postribs jettison verses and claim any high ground.

Then mock the bible in rev 14 gathering as well as 1 thes 4 gathering.

Acts one has Jesus " beamed up"

I guess that is a mockery as well huh?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

it also says something must be taken away.

THEN the ac is revealed.

Well, those two verses state,

"7 ...the one restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [/come to be],

8 AND THEN [kai tote] shall that Wicked [G459] be revealed..."


IOW, the word "taken" is not in verse 7... rather, "[until] OUT OF THE MIDST he be come [/come to be]..."


But YES, this is the SEQUENCE (repeated 3x in this context; and which is the SAME SEQUENCE found in 1Th4-5, as well as other related passages)

 

[Absolutely]

"""The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable."""

Uh, are you aware of my challenge to postribs to post one postrib rapture verse?

There must be tons if them?
One?

 

[Absolutely]

Well, those two verses state,

"7 ...the one restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [/come to be],

8 AND THEN [kai tote] shall that Wicked [G459] be revealed..."


IOW, the word "taken" is not in verse 7... rather, "[until] OUT OF THE MIDST he be come [/come to be]..."


But YES, this is the SEQUENCE (repeated 3x in this context; and which is the SAME SEQUENCE found in 1Th4-5, as well as other related passages)

It says something is stopping his appearance.
And that something must be removed.

Iow it is the main ingredient.

 

[Runningman]

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...

The children of the kingdom described in Matthew 13 are wheat who are gathered by angels at the end of the world. They are also known as "the elect" who are gathered by angels after Jesus returns. The elect are believers in Christ - the church.

 

[cv5]

[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"... 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.)

The ESV is awful. Messed up at every key passage that I look for.

Exo 12:40 WRONG! Exo 12:40 CORRECT!
Act 13:20 WRONG! Act 13:20 CORRECT!
Rev 5:10 WRONG! Rev 5:10 CORRECT!

Plenty more where that came from. It's a disaster.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

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.

May I ask, do you believe "the man of sin" (in our text under discussion) is, or is connected [directly] to, the "beast" of Rev13:5-7,1 ("beast rise up out of the sea"... and involving the "42 months") that "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship" (except the believers/saints), and who the "another beast" of Rev13:11 ("rising up out of the earth [/land]") will "cause the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the beast" [the first beast]... do you believe the "first beast" (or at least its "mouth" [as being the "individual" of the wider "beast system [/government]"]) is the same as "the man of sin"?

If so, when are you saying his "be revealed" occurs in relation to this Rev13 text (and its related Dan7:20-25,27,11 passage)? After the "42 months" [GT] has begun? Or what? Before the "flee" of the Matt24 text?

 

[cv5]

The children of the kingdom described in Matthew 13 are wheat who are gathered by angels at the end of the world. They are also known as "the elect" who are gathered by angels after Jesus returns. The elect are believers in Christ - the church.

If indeed you can make that theory work despite the Church not being present during the seven year tribulation. Which of course is impossible.

Do you believe that the 144,000 ethnic Israelites in Rev 7/14 are in fact gentile Christians?
And who exactly are these "elders" ? You know...the ones whom Jesus made kings AND priests?

Rev 14:3
They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.

Revelation 7 shows FIVE discrete groups:
-Angels
-The four living creatures
-(24) elders
-144,000 Ethnic Israelites
-A multitude of tribulation saints

So tell us (if indeed you can): who are the
1) elders
2) 144,000
3) tribulation saints

Pre-TRIB rapture eschatology is able to clearly define these three groups.......to perfection.
Every other eschatology is a disastrous failure in attempting to do so.

 

[Runningman]

If indeed you can make that theory work despite the Church not being present during the seven year tribulation. Which of course is impossible.

Do you believe that the 144,000 ethnic Israelites in Rev 7/14 are in fact gentile Christians?
And who exactly are these "elders" ? You know...the ones whom Jesus made kings AND priests?

Rev 14:3
They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.

Revelation 7 shows FIVE discrete groups:
-Angels
-The four living creatures
-(24) elders
-144,000 Ethnic Israelites
-A multitude of tribulation saints

So tell us (if indeed you can): who are the
1) elders
2) 144,000
3) tribulation saints

Pre-TRIB rapture eschatology is able to clearly define these three groups.......to perfection.
Every other eschatology is a disastrous failure in attempting to do so.

There isn't a verse that says the church is not present for the great tribulation. In fact, all evidence in the scriptures states that the church will be here for the GT which is why they are going to be gathered after the tribulation when Jesus returns to gather His elect.

Your premise is wrong and you're asking me to prove something there isn't Biblical support for.

The elect are believers, whether they are ethnic Jews or Gentiles. It doesn't make a difference anymore as long as someone obeys they gospel of Christ.

The elect are not blind unbelievers.

Romans 11:7
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

 

[cv5]

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.

You are backpedaling......
Make sense when you're not making sense.

 

[cv5]

There isn't a verse that says the church is not present for the great tribulation. In fact, all evidence in the scriptures states that the church will be here for the GT which is why they are going to be gathered after the tribulation when Jesus returns to gather His elect.

Your premise is wrong and you're asking me to prove something there isn't Biblical support for.

The elect are believers, whether they are ethnic Jews or Gentiles. It doesn't make a difference anymore as long as someone obeys they gospel of Christ.

The elect are not blind unbelievers.

Romans 11:7
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Aahhhmmm........I asked some very specific questions. I was looking for very specific answers. Answers which you cannot provide. The reason being that your eschatology is fatally flawed. End of story.

 

[cv5]

Well, those two verses state,

"7 ...the one restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [/come to be],

8 AND THEN [kai tote] shall that Wicked [G459] be revealed..."


IOW, the word "taken" is not in verse 7... rather, "[until] OUT OF THE MIDST he be come [/come to be]..."


But YES, this is the SEQUENCE (repeated 3x in this context; and which is the SAME SEQUENCE found in 1Th4-5, as well as other related passages)

This quashes Runningman's "falling away" theories in devastating form.

 

[Runningman]

May I ask, do you believe "the man of sin" (in our text under discussion) is, or is connected [directly] to, the "beast" of Rev13:5-7,1 ("beast rise up out of the sea"... and involving the "42 months") that "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship" (except the believers/saints), and who the "another beast" of Rev13:11 ("rising up out of the earth [/land]") will "cause the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the beast" [the first beast]... do you believe the "first beast" (or at least its "mouth" [as being the "individual" of the wider "beast system [/government]"]) is the same as "the man of sin"?

If so, when are you saying his "be revealed" occurs in relation to this Rev13 text (and its related Dan7:20-25,27,11 passage)? After the "42 months" [GT] has begun? Or what? Before the "flee" of the Matt24 text?

If I understand you correctly then the man of sin (also known as the son of perdition) is described as someone who "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Deeper study shows parallels with who we know to be the anti-Christ depicted in Revelation 13.

 

[Runningman]

Aahhhmmm........I asked some very specific questions. I was looking for very specific answers. Answers which you cannot provide. The reason being that your eschatology is fatally flawed. End of story.

I have answers for those things you asked from the Bible, but if I answer them it'll be when I'm ready.

The reason I didn't answer them is because you were attempting to change topics and control the conversation. The pre-trib rapture got debunked again once you were corrected on what apostasia means and shown what 2 Thess. 2:3 actually says. It's absolutely not a departure of the church from earth prior to the man of sin being revealed or before Jesus returns.

In other words, you wants to pivot to something else and I didn't take the bait. You're running away from what we were discussing.

 

[cv5]

There isn't a verse that says the church is not present for the great tribulation. In fact, all evidence in the scriptures states that the church will be here for the GT which is why they are going to be gathered after the tribulation when Jesus returns to gather His elect.

Your premise is wrong and you're asking me to prove something there isn't Biblical support for.

The elect are believers, whether they are ethnic Jews or Gentiles. It doesn't make a difference anymore as long as someone obeys they gospel of Christ.

The elect are not blind unbelievers.

Romans 11:7
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

That is a hot mess of a response.
The pre-TRIB/rapture eschatological response would've been Biblical, succinct, elegant, complete and beautiful.

 

[Runningman]

That is a hot mess of a response.
The pre-TRIB/rapture eschatological response would've been Biblical, succinct, elegant, complete and beautiful.

You create a false dichotomy. There is no pre-trib versus post-trib. It's only your opposition to the word of God.

I prefer truth even when it's uncomfortable. Post-tribulation is decidedly not an itching ears doctrine. No one wants to hear it except serious Bible scholars and those who love truth.

You said it yourself: your ears are itching for succinct, elegant, and beautiful words.

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

 

[cv5]

You create a false dichotomy. There is no pre-trib versus post-trib. It's only your opposition to the word of God.

I prefer truth even when it's uncomfortable. Post-tribulation is decidedly not an itching ears doctrine. No one wants to hear it except serious Bible scholars and those who love truth.

You said it yourself: your ears are itching for succinct, elegant, and beautiful words.

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

On the contrary, "succinct, elegant, complete and beautiful" BECAUSE it is Biblical.
Please note the order of terms. I was very careful to arrange it like that to avoid a response like yours.

Overall this has been a great thread. Very educational and exciting. Thanks and congratulations to all of the respondents.

The pre-tribbers cleaned house BTW. It wasn't even close. As it should be. For reasons that are obvious.

 

[Runningman]

On the contrary, "succinct, elegant, complete and beautiful" BECAUSE it is Biblical.
Please note the order of terms. I was very careful to arrange it like that to avoid a response like yours.

Overall this has been a great thread. Very educational and exciting. Thanks and congratulations to all of the respondents.

The pre-tribbers cleaned house BTW. It wasn't even close. As it should be. For reasons that are obvious.

Your original post with 50 reasons was torn to shreds. I guess you'll see it however you want to despite what what the Bible says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

1 Timothy 4:1
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Someone needs To Make up our minds! Is it a GREAT apostasy where
many shall depart? Or, some shall depart?

God Bless!

 

[Runningman]

Someone needs To Make up our minds! Is it a GREAT apostasy where
many shall depart? Or, some shall depart?

God Bless!

Exactly. Like in 2 Thess. 2:3 where those who fall away from the faith before the man of sin is revealed, 1 Tim. 4:1 echoes that same prophecy. Some will depart (rebel, fall always desert) from the faith in the latter days.

That's a great question, too.

Some of anything is relative to how much there is. Some of an eight ounce cup of water probably 15-25% depending how thirsty your are. So only 1-2 ounces of water.

If we're talking about the present day church, with an estimated 2.3 billion people who self-identify as Christian, 15-25% is referring to 345-575 million souls.