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

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

No. (and I did explain this somewhere in this thread, or the related thread... before you arrived here at CC... so my apologies for the "repeat"... I'll make this brief)...

The text does not inform us that "*[missing] the Rapture" was "on their distraught / troubled / shaken minds" [or even in a "potential" sense, so that Paul found it necessary to address this letter to them]... No, Paul, in this 2nd letter, is BRINGING "the Rapture" [Subject] TO BEAR on the matter... the matter being "the thing that the false conveyors of v.2 were purporting..." [which was a DIFFERENT Subject--one that was both TROUBLING and PERFECTLY-REASONABLY-SENSIBLY commensurate with their PRESENT and ONGOING "persecutions and tribulations ye endure" per 1:4; not something that WASN'T *reasonable* and which [/such a thing would have] displayed ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of being even remotely so...]

The part you put about [them purporting] "that the Tribulation had already started"... yes... "2 ...[purporting] that the Day of the Lord IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"...

(and 1Th5:2-3 tells us they already "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of its ARRIVAL... LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... Like Jesus had already talked about...)

"The day of the Lord" consisting of BOTH "a period of time of JUDGMENTs... as well as a period of time of BLESSINGs"

Mem · Jun 5, 2021

VCO said:

Yes, I'm aware of the literal approach, and I can' clear picture it as explained many many times. There's even been a movie or two about it that shows it is easily 'depicted' However, I am always cognizant of the existential dilemma we all must endure throughout our life, i.e., the struggle of living in the yet but not yet, the ever present tension between being here but there, for example. Jesus spoke in this way will full spiritual awareness, to the Pharisees saying such things as, "where I am going you cannot come," which thoroughly perplexed them because they could think only in terms of the literal...

But yes, I can imagine the excitement upon the reading that verse, as I too look forward to at last having my own horse, even though I've never had the ability or privilege of any bearing me along other than, so I'm told, an elephant.

Mem · Jun 5, 2021

Gee whiz, I take a little break and the conversation runs three pages ahead of me... let's see if I can get 'caught up.'

FreeGrace2 · Jun 5, 2021

cv5 said:

I don't think you even know what you are saying.

cv5 · Jun 5, 2021

randyk said:

Okay, got it--I've probably made this mistake before. And I know why--it's because it seems so illogical to separate Paul's sense of the day of Christ's coming for the church from the Kingdom he comes to bring.

To insert, in between Christ's coming for the Church and the Millennial age, a period of 3.5-7 years of Antichristian persecution, in which the Church is persecuted and is also supposedly absent, seems ludicrous and incomprehensible to me. And how you can call this 3.5-7 years period of Tribulation the "Day of the Lord," and completely eliminate any sense of Christ's coming for his Church is also insensible to me.

I mean, I do understand you, and you are being rational. It just doesn't likely fit into what we are actually reading. It is a matter of reading an empty chalkboard, and then filling in the blanks with anything we want to insert. Nothing Paul says remotely indicates a Pretrib Rapture--it is completely being assumed by Pretribbers, without any basis for it whatsoever.

Is it any wonder that for 1800 years the Church read 2 Thes over and over and over again, and *never* saw a smidgeon of Pretrib teaching? You mention one guy who had a Pretrib Theology, but no serious systematic Pretrib Theology emerged in history until Darby. I wonder why? Maybe because in reading these passages, a Pretrib Rapture simply isn't there? If so, then maybe we should stop assuming it is there, you think?

Brother, you're a good guy, and have a good heart. But you're wrong on this one, and I hope to convince you to abandon Darbyism. He isn't worth it.

Later...

Maybe you don't quite perceive it.......but TDW is smoking you like a hog at a Texas barbecue....

cv5 · Jun 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:

Did that go over your head again? It wouldn't be the first time....

FreeGrace2 · Jun 5, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

Show me, please. And leave out all the embellishments.

Well, here's another tedious sentence that I can't figure out. Please STOP the embellishments and write more clearly.

I see no point being made here. So what it is?

FreeGrace2 · Jun 5, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

This post is just a mess.

I have to wonder if the poster edits his posts. It seems not.

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:

What you are doing is REMOVING the point of v.2... that which the false conveyors were purporting (or even could ever "purport," in a potential sense, even).

Why is verse 2 even in the text, according to the way you are reading this?? It has NO PURPOSE for being there, from the way *you* are reading this section, vv.1-3.

What is verse 2 saying, according to how you are reading it? What is verse 2's point? What point is Paul conveying in v.2?

...coz that's what his v.3a's "not" is speaking to

FreeGrace2 · Jun 5, 2021

cv5 said:

No, it didn't even reach my ankles.

If you can read and understand such hodge podge, then good for you.

FreeGrace2 · Jun 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Paul was referring to a very SPECIFIC DAY in v.3, which links back to v.1 and "the coming of our Lord".

So "that day" in v.3 is "the coming of the Lord" in v.1. Both are specific days. neither are the DotL.

TheDivineWatermark said:

OK, for your clarification, so you'll stop with your confusion, v.2's "day of the Lord" can refer to EITHER the entire time-period, or just the beginning of it, which IS the Second Advent.

The DotL cannot include any part of the Tribulation, since the Lord isn't on earth. Not until He comes back and ends it at the battle of Armageddon.

So, IN context, "the coming of the Lord" is clearly the Second Advent in v.1, the DotL in v2 refers to the FIRST day of the Dotl, and "that day" in v.3 refers to the beginning of the DotL, when Jesus returns.

So, ALL 3 verses refer to the very DAY that Jesus comes back to earth.

And you haven't proven otherwise.

The false teaching were claiming that Jesus had already returned.

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:

LOL!!

... and you think this would be "troubling" to the Thessalonians, why?? I think because either you aren't as familiar with the Thessalonians as Paul was, or perhaps... not as familiar with... [something else...]

Hmm... let's think... Paul is taking the time to compose a letter to tell them not to be "shaken in mind" about anyone trying to tell them THAT?? Right!

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

No. "The day of the Lord" Paul had already acknowledged that the Thessalonians "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of its ARRIVAL... LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... And Jesus had already spoken about those... which are "the BEGINNING of birth pangs" not the ENDING point of them (as you'd like for us to believe)... Nah!! I'm not buyin' what you're sellin'! LOL

(at least, in this LATEST post of yours... whereas your earlier posts, where you agreed "the DOTL" starts at the beginning of the TRIB YRS, I could agree with that... yes! This is what Paul shows to be the case!)

randyk · Jun 5, 2021

cv5 said:

You're watching the wrong movie.

randyk · Jun 5, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

Sorry, that's exactly what the text informs us. Paul suggested that they were wrong in their expectation of Christ's Coming and the Rapture. They had already been taught about the Rapture in 1 Thes 4.

2 Thes 2.5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?

TheDivineWatermark said:

The false conveyors were purporting that Christ's Coming and the Rapture had already taken place, which was the gathering of Christians to Christ. False prophets and false teachers were pretending to be a form of Christ's Kingdom on the earth, which was beginning to be revealed. Paul was calling this "nonsense."

TheDivineWatermark said:

The Thessalonians well knew they were suffering tribulations, which was normal for Christianity at that time. Jesus had clearly warned his apostles that they would experience resistance to the Gospel from the world. None of this has anything to do with the expectation, by the Thessalonians, that Jesus had come. They thought Jesus had come simply because someone was claiming that, and so Paul warned against these claims, whether spoken or in writing, no matter who was doing the claiming.

Your entering into the discussion information about tribulations has nothing to do with the subject. All the churches knew they experienced opposition from the world, and beliefs about Christ's return were distinct from this. They did, undoubtedly, know about Daniel's prophecy, in ch. 7, that the Man of Sin had to come 1st. So they may have viewed the tribulations of their time as this Antichristian revelation, against which the Kingdom was now rising on earth to oppose it.

Paul warned them that Antichrist was an actual man who would fulfill the prophecies of Daniel--that's where Paul got his information from. He would oppose God until the Son of Man descends from heaven to destroy him.

TheDivineWatermark said:

You are defining the "day" Paul was speaking of by other applications of the "day of the Lord" in other Scripture passages, thus conflating them. That is an illegitimate manner of interpretation. It may or may not be true, but it is not a legitimate manner of interpreting Scripture passages.

If you want to define the "day" Paul is speaking of you must interpret it by its immediate context in 2 Thes 2. And the context there is the coming of Christ for his Church, ie the Rapture. We are not to expect that literal day, which is the day Antichrist is destroyed, unless first a literal Antichrist appears. Until that time we are not to expect a final Kingdom appearance and deliverance.

So don't define the "day of the Lord" as both judgment and salvation because it is used as such elsewhere. In this passage, the context is the "Rapture." We are not to expect that until Antichrist is destroyed at the coming of Christ. All who claim that there are manifestations of Christ's coming now, or manifestation of Christ's Kingdom experiencing victory now, present a lie, and we are to reject it. This is the message of the book.

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

randyk said:

I *am* defining it within its context.

What I am NOT doing (and what others are doing) is, jumping back OVER AND PAST v.2 in order to ascertain what v.3a's "NOT" is speaking to (that is a grammatical issue)...

"3 that day shall NOT be..." is directly addressing what the false conveyors were communicating [in v.2] "IS [already present / already here / already in existence; Perfect Indicative... Perfect Tense meaning: already "began at some point in the PAST, and continuing on into the PRESENT"]

Considering that the time it would take for Paul to get a letter to them (after perhaps the time it took for him to sense the need for such a letter to them), they would be well-into [time-wise] this "false idea" (whatever it entailed... meaning, what the false conveyors were purporting)... And considering that "the day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" whenever used in the SAME CONTEXTS (which Paul would certainly have been very familiar with in his knowledge of OT scriptures) always refers to A TIME-PERIOD (SAME ONE [as also is used in this context: 2 chpts]), and that the Thessalonians ALREADY "KNOW PERFECTLY" the manner of its ARRIVAL when they would have HEARD the false conveyors PURPORTING of it as "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]," I find it pretty far-fetched to imagine that Paul is now shifting gears by defining it in an entirely *different* way from just as near-ago as his first letter to them... That makes absolutely no sense to me, and makes it seem y'all are grasping at straws merely in order to retain your idea that Paul is CONVEYING a "post-trib Rapture" in this text/context... and by switching the word "FIRST" to a completely different clause (from where it actually is), one can seemingly "get away with it".

VCO · Jun 5, 2021

Mem said:

No, you have misunderstood, and I assume you are talking about:

John 7:34 (HCSB)
34 You will look for Me, but you will not find Me; and where I am, you cannot come.”

JESUS is part of the ONE AND ONLY ALL KNOWING GOD OF THE UNIVERSE. AS SUCH HE KNEW THE PHARISEES WERE NOT BORN AGAIN, AND NEVER WOULD BE. That is why HE told them that they cannot come. Only Born Again Believers will ever get to go to Heaven.

John 3:2-7 (HCSB)
2 This man came to Him at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one could perform these signs You do unless God were with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “I assure you: Unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 “But how can anyone be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked Him. “Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 Whatever is born of the flesh is flesh, and whatever is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not be amazed that I told you that you must be born again.

Mem · Jun 5, 2021

VCO said:

Jesus told Peter this also, however, in Peter's case, He added, "But you will follow later (John 13:6b)." Was He speaking of death? I don't believe so since that was what the Pharisees apparently supposed. But why was Peter not enabled to follow at that particular time but would "later?" Most would suggest this is heaven as you do, unless I assume incorrectly, upon his death. But then, why would he then 'later' later (there's no typo, I intentionally wrote it twice) be raised in incorruption (put on the imperishable) at the rapture event?

VCO · Jun 5, 2021

TheDivineWatermark said:

Again, to be clear, I am not saying that "the DOTL" is our Rapture.

But "the DOTL" is an earthly-located *time-period* that INCLUDES all three of the following:

--the 7-yr Trib (unfolding upon the earth); AND

--Christ's Second Coming (to the earth); AND

--His 1000-yr reign (on / over the earth)

...ALL THREE.

Its *ARRIVAL* is at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman per 1Th5:2-3... Jesus spoke of those.

WE (the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY) will NOT be present on the earth FOR THOSE. They are what "kick-off" the DOTL time-period (i.e. TRIB portion).

What I *disagree* with... is that "the DOTL" COMMENCES at the time of Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19.

No. It STARTS way back at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3 ; Matt24:4/Mk13:5]" AKA the "FIRST SEAL" (in the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time-period.. of 7 yrs duration).

And saying it is ALL THREE, Leads to MASSIVE CONFUSION.

TheDivineWatermark · Jun 5, 2021

VCO said:

The "JUDGMENTs" aspect OF "the DOTL" is not merely the split-second of His "arrival / return" (Rev19), but the entire 7 years that Rev4 thru 19 is describing (SEALS, TRUMPETS, VIALS--a SPANS of time, rather than a mere "24-hr day's time" upon His "RETURN"); thereafter is the "BLESSINGs" aspect OF "the DOTL" (i.e. the MK age), which the "saints" will ENTER upon His "RETURN" there (to the earth), Rev19.

The "JUDGMENTs" aspect OF it will commence when Jesus will "STAND to JUDGE" Isa3:13, Rev5:6, [2Th2:7b-8a parallel language to that of Lam2:3-4 in the context of "wrath" words there--and like Hab1:6,12's "...O LORD, thou hast ordained them [the Chaldeans / Babylonians] FOR JUDGMENT [i.e. TO EXECUTE JUDGMENT]; O mighty God, thou hast established them [the Chaldeans / Babylonians] FOR CORRECTION"... Our Lord is the One Who will be then STANDING to JUDGE by OPENING the SEALS [equivalent "the BEGINNING of birth PANGS"], and the effects of which will thereafter unfold upon the earth, that is, DURING the TRIB yrs...).

Zech14 uses both phrases ('day of the Lord' and 'IN THAT DAY') to be speaking of the SAME TIME PERIOD, aka the MK aspect OF IT that commences upon His "RETURN" to the earth... but that is only *that* aspect, not the entirety of what "the DOTL" entails).

...so, on the contrary... I believe by NOT acknowledging that "the DOTL" ARRIVES at the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" as 1Th5:2-3 says, then great *confusion* results, when ppl view these various texts on it (...note each context determines WHICH ASPECT [or all 3] that it's referring to...)

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

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member