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.
A couple things about this passage that I've put in past posts:
--"39 And they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away..."; the "they / them" of this verse is those who did not heed the Word of God and prepare (i.e. the unsaved / lost / unbelievers); It was not Noah who "knew not until," no, instead, he did heed God's word and prepared an ark (as God had instructed);
--ALL "Son of man cometh / coming / shall come / coming of / etc" passages (such as is this one also) speak of His Second Coming to the earth (His earthly designation, to judge and to reign); [note: I disagree with Abs' take on it, in that I do not believe this is a "Rapture [IN THE AIR]" passage]; this passage is saying the ones "taken" are taken away in judgment, whereas those "left" are left to ENTER the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom in their mortal bodies, capable of reproducing / bearing children... "just 'as in Noah's day' "... Comp. this passage with both Dan2:35c and Gen9:1 "[actively] FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" (note: Dan2:35 is a "Second Coming to the earth" passage)
--so whereas "Noah and crew" picture those going THROUGH the trib years (i.e. the "flood judgment"--see also Lk17:26-37) and entering the earthly MK age in their mortal bodies ("FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" Dan2:35c / Gen9:1), I see "Enoch" (ONE MAN) as a TYPE of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" who was "translated" PRIOR TO the "flood judgment" coming on the earth (Gen5:24)
--"39 And they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away..."; the "they / them" of this verse is those who did not heed the Word of God and prepare (i.e. the unsaved / lost / unbelievers); It was not Noah who "knew not until," no, instead, he did heed God's word and prepared an ark (as God had instructed);
--ALL "Son of man cometh / coming / shall come / coming of / etc" passages (such as is this one also) speak of His Second Coming to the earth (His earthly designation, to judge and to reign); [note: I disagree with Abs' take on it, in that I do not believe this is a "Rapture [IN THE AIR]" passage]; this passage is saying the ones "taken" are taken away in judgment, whereas those "left" are left to ENTER the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom in their mortal bodies, capable of reproducing / bearing children... "just 'as in Noah's day' "... Comp. this passage with both Dan2:35c and Gen9:1 "[actively] FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" (note: Dan2:35 is a "Second Coming to the earth" passage)
--so whereas "Noah and crew" picture those going THROUGH the trib years (i.e. the "flood judgment"--see also Lk17:26-37) and entering the earthly MK age in their mortal bodies ("FILL / FILLED the [whole] earth" Dan2:35c / Gen9:1), I see "Enoch" (ONE MAN) as a TYPE of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" who was "translated" PRIOR TO the "flood judgment" coming on the earth (Gen5:24)
At least you admit you're adrift of respectable commentators, and are as such, a "law to yourself." I suppose you're not good for discussing much with, since you reject respectable outside sources? My point was that though you direct your antagonism towards me, I merely represent others greater than myself.
You may not understand me properly, or you simply reject what I believe outright. I don't agree that the "Great Tribulation," or "Great Distress," that Jesus mentioned "never happened." I obviously define it differently than you do. You seem to define it as some brief cataclysmic event, whereas I define it as an age-long experience, the Jewish Diaspora.
The Jewish Diaspora has indeed been happening, and is still happening. This "Great Tribulation" will only end at the end of the age, when Jesus comes. And so, as I define the "Great Tribulation," it is still happening--the Jewish Diaspora is still happening. Israel has not yet been fully restored. The state has been restored, but the spiritual restoration has not yet taken place.
I don't think it's possible to compare the intensity of a "Great Tribulation" by comparing death in one war with death in another war, by comparing torture during one event with torture in another event. The Holocaust was as bad as any possible future death camp scenario. The persecution of Christians by the Romans was as bad as anything the Antichrist will do to Christians.
So I see the Great Tribulation as not one brief event more terrible than all others, but rather, as an event more terrible in *duration.* The length of the Jewish punishment is longer than the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity. It is longer than any punishment in Israel's history. They lost their religion, their temple, and their status as God's People. But they will be restored when Christ returns. I hope that helps you understand how I see the consistency of my argument?
The Jewish Diaspora has indeed been happening, and is still happening. This "Great Tribulation" will only end at the end of the age, when Jesus comes. And so, as I define the "Great Tribulation," it is still happening--the Jewish Diaspora is still happening. Israel has not yet been fully restored. The state has been restored, but the spiritual restoration has not yet taken place.
I don't think it's possible to compare the intensity of a "Great Tribulation" by comparing death in one war with death in another war, by comparing torture during one event with torture in another event. The Holocaust was as bad as any possible future death camp scenario. The persecution of Christians by the Romans was as bad as anything the Antichrist will do to Christians.
So I see the Great Tribulation as not one brief event more terrible than all others, but rather, as an event more terrible in *duration.* The length of the Jewish punishment is longer than the 70 years of Babylonian Captivity. It is longer than any punishment in Israel's history. They lost their religion, their temple, and their status as God's People. But they will be restored when Christ returns. I hope that helps you understand how I see the consistency of my argument?
There are *no* Pretrib verses! I've answered, in detail, every single *claimed* Pretrib verse. Not one of them are explicit theological statements of doctrine. They are all assumed and read into a passage, largely by allegory. These are *not* "Pretrib verses!"
On the other hand. 2 Thes 2 is more explicitly Postrib in theological statement of doctrine than one could be. But *anything* can be rejected, ignored, or rationalized. So no matter how clear Paul was on the matter, you may just want to double and triple down on what you want to believe, on what you think is a popular view. It isn't a matter of Salvation, so I'm not too concerned.
On the other hand. 2 Thes 2 is more explicitly Postrib in theological statement of doctrine than one could be. But *anything* can be rejected, ignored, or rationalized. So no matter how clear Paul was on the matter, you may just want to double and triple down on what you want to believe, on what you think is a popular view. It isn't a matter of Salvation, so I'm not too concerned.
This is what I get in every Christian forum when I refer to the Church Fathers. They say, "they are flawed!" Nobody is saying otherwise! Yes, they are flawed. But they are respectable studied Christians, whose reputations have lasted the test of time. They are *worth considering!*
Let's end that line of argument by agreeing that *all of us* are flawed, including the Apostle Paul, Peter, and the rest? We still need to examine our views against other Christians who have respectable reputations and have earnestly studied a particular subject.
Let's end that line of argument by agreeing that *all of us* are flawed, including the Apostle Paul, Peter, and the rest? We still need to examine our views against other Christians who have respectable reputations and have earnestly studied a particular subject.
No, this has never been debunked. There were minor exceptions to the rule, but generally, there was nothing we can remotely call "Pretrib Theology" in the Early Church. You are completely wrong. If you think there were any major theological systems with a Pretrib Theology, please name it--not just a rare breed with "original" ideas?
-
1
- Show all
That was a little pedantic, brother. Let's just say that bad commentaries produce bad results. Bad trees produce bad fruit. Your problem is this: these are *not* bad commentaries, nor are they non-Christian commentators! At what point do you take seriously Paul's exhortation to "submit yourselves one to another, " and "consider other brothers and sisters better than yourself?"
You seem like a mature Christian, as I am. So you should know these things? I hope my views are not pushing you over the edge?
You seem like a mature Christian, as I am. So you should know these things? I hope my views are not pushing you over the edge?
I have a question (pretty sure we've covered this before in the past, but I'm trying to refresh my memory 
)
Can you take a look at the brief blurb I put in another thread (one small paragraph), esp. regarding the 12 tribes, and provide your thoughts on that point again... [I think in this post I link below, the poster and I had been discussing "Matthew25"... so that's what I'm supplying the "PARALLEL PASSAGES" to, in that post]:
)Can you take a look at the brief blurb I put in another thread (one small paragraph), esp. regarding the 12 tribes, and provide your thoughts on that point again... [I think in this post I link below, the poster and I had been discussing "Matthew25"... so that's what I'm supplying the "PARALLEL PASSAGES" to, in that post]:
In addition to this [my] post ^ I quoted above (re: "the 12 tribes of Israel") and its linked post I provided there,
I had another post that I'd put, way back on April 9 in this thread (page 1), where I put forward another point about the Greek word "TRIBE / TRIBES [/ KINDREDS] [G5443]," in Scripture, such as is used in Matt24:31 / Rev1:7... can you take a look at that post, and venture some thoughts regarding the point being made there (esp. the top half of that post... but I think in that post I do also present the "contrast," where other passages which use that term also include a string of other words making it clear, in THOSE contexts, that ppl from ALL nations are meant, there [where MORE than just "G5443 tribes/kindreds" is used..., WITH it]):
Post #17 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4529877
Thoughts on that? ( @randyk )
[that post INCLUDES...]
... more at LINK to Post #17
I propose (as I've pointed out in many past posts) that the word "FIRST" (in this verse, 2Th2:3) belongs in a separate "clause" from the one you attach it to, here ^ .
IOW, the text does not convey "[unless] the Antichrist [/man of sin] appears [/be revealed] FIRST," as you suggest ... no, the word "FIRST" is not shown attached with this clause, but another one.
So, Paul is listing TWO ITEMS (in this verse), and only designates ONE ITEM as being "FIRST" in this text (and it is not "the man of sin be revealed" clause / item). And this DOES impact the meaning of what Paul is actually conveying here.
IOW, the text does not convey "[unless] the Antichrist [/man of sin] appears [/be revealed] FIRST," as you suggest ... no, the word "FIRST" is not shown attached with this clause, but another one.
So, Paul is listing TWO ITEMS (in this verse), and only designates ONE ITEM as being "FIRST" in this text (and it is not "the man of sin be revealed" clause / item). And this DOES impact the meaning of what Paul is actually conveying here.
-
1
- Show all
Yes, some events are worse than others. Probably the most important point I'm trying to make here is that in defining the "Great Tribulation" Jesus made it to be synonymous with what he called 'Jewish Punishment.* And he created a couple of bookends for this "Great Tribulation." One side of it was the detruction of the temple in Jerusalem. And on the other side of it was the Return of the Son of Man. In between Jesus defined the period as the "Great Tribulation" of the Jewish People, who were being punished for rejecting their Messiah.
All the Church Fathers defined it this way. So do I. Modern Eschatology leaves much to be desired. Though popular positions may sound right, they are *not* necessarily right.
All the Church Fathers defined it this way. So do I. Modern Eschatology leaves much to be desired. Though popular positions may sound right, they are *not* necessarily right.