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

[GRACE_ambassador]

Jesus Christ Himself, in His famous Olivet discourse, said this:

Matthew 24:33
33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

He instructed us to see and know the things He's talking about and to wait for His return. I'm doing just that. How about you?

Precious friend, I DO NOT belong to "the LOST sheep of the house of ISRAEL!":

Mat_15:24 But HE Answered and Said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." So, YOUR verse may apply TO YOU, But NOT to me!

Prophecy/Law
From CHRIST To HIS TWELVE, on the earth! { Currently “On HOLD!” }
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rightly Divided (2_Timothy_2:15!) From “Things That DIFFER!”:
-------------------------------------------------
Mystery/GRACE
From CHRIST To HIS one, From Heaven!! { Currently ACTIVE!}

DOES apply to me! I obey CHRIST's Command to The Body Of CHRIST
In Romans Through Philemon!:

"...we walk BY FAITH, NOT by SIGHT..." (2Co_5 : 7 KJB!)

And, note that disobedience to God's Command In 2 Timothy 2 : 15 Is
The MAIN reason for all of the reigning Confusion about salvation,
water baptism, miracles, signs, wonders, tongues, and end times, etc.
Just saying...

Be Blessed!

 

[Runningman]

Precious friend, I DO NOT belong to "the LOST sheep of the house of ISRAEL!":

Mat_15:24 But HE Answered and Said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." So, YOUR verse may apply TO YOU, But NOT to me!

Prophecy/Law
From CHRIST To HIS TWELVE, on the earth! { Currently “On HOLD!” }
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rightly Divided (2_Timothy_2:15!) From “Things That DIFFER!”:
-------------------------------------------------
Mystery/GRACE
From CHRIST To HIS one, From Heaven!! { Currently ACTIVE!}

DOES apply to me! I obey CHRIST's Command to The Body Of CHRIST
In Romans Through Philemon!:

"...we walk BY FAITH, NOT by SIGHT..." (2Co_5 : 7 KJB!)

And, note that disobedience to God's Command In 2 Timothy 2 : 15 Is
The MAIN reason for all of the reigning Confusion about salvation,
water baptism, miracles, signs, wonders, tongues, and end times, etc.
Just saying...

Be Blessed!

Then you ignore Jesus' command to see and know the things that will occur before He returns. Your choice.

 

[FreeGrace2]

^ @FreeGrace2 , I had previously stated it to you like this (and you didn't like it):

Verse 1 is speaking SOLELY and ONLY of our Rapture and our Rapture point-in-time,

Well, now you have given up on your embellished word salads. Thank you for being this clear, finally. Except for "point in time".

What, exactly, is the "point in time" of this rapture?

However, there are 2 phrases in v.1, yet you seem to claim that they are the same thing.

You have not explained what "the coming of the Lord" means. That phrase is separated by a conjunction of CONTINUATION (and).

But you have ignored that and claim v.1 is only about the rapture. OK, that's your opinions. Thanks. But this verse says nothing about going to heaven.

...when Jesus will descend TO "the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR" where WE (and WE ALONE) will be "caught UP / -AWAY" to that location (NO ONE ELSE will be in His "presence" THERE)

Why are you adding "away" to what v.1 DOESN'T SAY?

Why do you take the libery to make up whatever you want?

"the coming of OUR Lord Jesus Christ, and / even OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM"...

OK I see. You choose to pick your own meaning to "kai". I know the word has a range of meanings. But how many translations on biblehub.com translated "kai" as "even", which equates the 2 phrases?

That is "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" event (at one singular point-in-time).

And the point in time is WHAT?

This is the Subject that PAUL is BRINGING TO BEAR (bringing to the fore) on the "problem" disclosed in v.2

That the rapture hasn't occurred yet?

Well, you are free to your own opinions, but the phrase "the coming of the Lord" is clearly referring to the Lord's SECOND COMING.

But it's interesting to see how you have explained it to support your opinion.

But... let's examine all three verses again.

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.

OK, you claim v.1 is only about the rapture, where you believe that Jesus takes the gathered ones back to heaven, although there is NO mention of such an event.

But never mind that. Just keep in mind that you claim v.1 is about the rapture.

v.2 then is about Paul countering the claims of some that the rapture has already occurred. OK?

Now, v.3 is crystal clear. "That day", which would be the rapture, from v.1, "will not come UNTIL the rebellion OCCURS and the man of lawlessness (beast, a/c) is revealed".

So, v.3 says the rapture DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL the beast (a/c) is revealed.

So you have just sunk your pretrib view. v.1-3 STILL teach that the tribulation occurs before the rapture. And I agree with that.

Just remember that all 3 verses (1-3) are about the SAME THING. And you claim v.1 IS about the rapture.

 

[randyk]

All one has to do is view all of the references in Scripture to "the day of Christ / our Lord Jesus Christ" and see that it involves OUR being UP THERE with Him;

False, there are days of Christ not associated with that.

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.

The Son of Man is commonly associated with the 2nd Coming, as that is how he is initially presented in Dan 7. However, Jesus here pulls a switch and indicates that his "revelation" encompasses judgments throughout history in the same way that his eschatological judgment will bring judgment to the world.

Jesus was specifically applying his "revelation" to the 70 AD judgment of the Jewish People. The context is pretty clear in that people who came down from the housetops did so back in the 1st century, and not in the last days!

Here it is called the "day of the Son of Man," but you are referencing the "day of Christ." And this is my whole point, that these references are virtual synonyms, if the context calls for it to be so. You cannot determine strictly by the name a specialized "day." The "Day of Christ" is not one day, the "Day of the Lord" another day, and the "Day of the Son of Man" another day. This doesn't follow. It is context that decides. Otherwise, they can be used as synonyms, if the context calls for it.

Here we even see that there are more than one "day of the Son of Man":
22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.

and I've already mentioned how the Thessalonians already (in his first letter) "KNOW PERFECTLY" that "the day of the Lord" ARRIVES...

That is what *you* say, but that is not what the passage is saying. I let the passage speak for itself.

Clearly, the Thessalonians did *not* know that the "Day of the Lord" had arrived. They were afraid that it had been so, and Paul was assuring him that it had not been. So no, they didn't know that the "Day of Christ's Coming" had arrived.

You distract the argument by switching definitions from the one who is arguing. If you wish to address my argument, you would have to acknowledge *my definitions.* If you are referring to a different kind of "Day of the Lord," then you're simply redefining what Paul was referring to, because he clearly referred to the literal, 24-hour day of Christ's Coming for the Church, aka the Rapture!

LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... (just like Jesus tells of is at the START of a SERIES of "PLURAL birth PANGS"... IOW, it's not just "ONE and DONE" when it comes to "birth PANGS"... in both scripture and in nature! ... there are MANY MORE "birth PANGS" which follow on from the INITIAL "birth PANG" that "kicks off" that time-period [that Jesus was also covering the Subject of...])

... IOW, Paul is not just now in his SECOND letter going to totally "change" the concept of what "the DOTL" entails and ARRIVES like... (verse 2 addressing this matter)

Paul did not establish the kind of "Day of the Lord" as you are, a fixed "Day" of certain length, including the Reign of Antichrist and the Millennial Reign of Christ. And if he didn't do that, then Paul wasn't changing anything! The Day of Christ's return was long understood to be the "last day" of the age. And Paul certainly wouldn't change that to conform to your Pretrib needs.

John 6.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

 

[cv5]

I'm not surprised--I've heard this argument before. I don't think it works-- Each phrase must be interpreted based on its use in its own
Again, Paul was not correcting the proposed itinerary of the Day of the Lord by proposing that the Rapture happen *before* the Day of the Lord. Nothing resembles that at all! This is purely your way of trying to save Pretrib Theology.

<<there is no theology distinguishing the "Day of the Lord" from the "Day of Christ.">>

That's Some kind of fringe theory crazy talk right there.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I don't need 23 versions of the same verse.

My apologies for not making clear in that post (as I often do) that I was placing those in the same post "for the READERS / for the benefit of the READERS" who are following along out there, who perhaps have *not* seen the reasoning behind my mentioning of the text of v.2 saying "the day of the Lord" rather than "the day of Christ" (translation differences, etc)...

I failed to place that heading: "for the READERS" because I was placing that LIST *after* I'd already started my post (having "posted" it already), and the "edit" feature is just so short I couldn't place ALL I had WANTED to, there.


But just so you know, for future reference... Not *everything* I put in a post (addressed / responding to a particular poster) is intended *solely* for that poster alone... but like I said, I do often TRY to add the "heading" ('for the readers') if I'm venturing beyond a mere "direct response" to one.

My apologies for making it seem otherwise... = )

 

[cv5]

False, there are days of Christ not associated with that.

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.

The Son of Man is commonly associated with the 2nd Coming, as that is how he is initially presented in Dan 7. However, Jesus here pulls a switch and indicates that his "revelation" encompasses judgments throughout history in the same way that his eschatological judgment will bring judgment to the world.

Jesus was specifically applying his "revelation" to the 70 AD judgment of the Jewish People. The context is pretty clear in that people who came down from the housetops did so back in the 1st century, and not in the last days!

Here it is called the "day of the Son of Man," but you are referencing the "day of Christ." And this is my whole point, that these references are virtual synonyms, if the context calls for it to be so. You cannot determine strictly by the name a specialized "day." The "Day of Christ" is not one day, the "Day of the Lord" another day, and the "Day of the Son of Man" another day. This doesn't follow. It is context that decides. Otherwise, they can be used as synonyms, if the context calls for it.

Here we even see that there are more than one "day of the Son of Man":
22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.



That is what *you* say, but that is not what the passage is saying. I let the passage speak for itself.

Clearly, the Thessalonians did *not* know that the "Day of the Lord" had arrived. They were afraid that it had been so, and Paul was assuring him that it had not been. So no, they didn't know that the "Day of Christ's Coming" had arrived.

You distract the argument by switching definitions from the one who is arguing. If you wish to address my argument, you would have to acknowledge *my definitions.* If you are referring to a different kind of "Day of the Lord," then you're simply redefining what Paul was referring to, because he clearly referred to the literal, 24-hour day of Christ's Coming for the Church, aka the Rapture!



Paul did not establish the kind of "Day of the Lord" as you are, a fixed "Day" of certain length, including the Reign of Antichrist and the Millennial Reign of Christ. And if he didn't do that, then Paul wasn't changing anything! The Day of Christ's return was long understood to be the "last day" of the age. And Paul certainly wouldn't change that to conform to your Pretrib needs.

John 6.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I am trying with every fiber of my being to refrain from using the "funny emoji" on every single one of your posts. In fact I keep adding them........and then removing them.
I dare not tell you why.....

 

[randyk]

My apologies for not making clear in that post (as I often do) that I was placing those in the same post "for the READERS / for the benefit of the READERS" who are following along out there, who perhaps have *not* seen the reasoning behind my mentioning of the text of v.2 saying "the day of the Lord" rather than "the day of Christ" (translation differences, etc)...

2 or 3 witnesses suffice for anybody. I didn't know anybody was even challenging the point that "the day of the Lord" is used?

I failed to place that heading: "for the READERS" because I was placing that LIST *after* I'd already started my post (having "posted" it already), and the "edit" feature is just so short I couldn't place ALL I had WANTED to, there.

It's alright.

But just so you know, for future reference... Not *everything* I put in a post (addressed / responding to a particular poster) is intended *solely* for that poster alone... but like I said, I do often TRY to add the "heading" ('for the readers') if I'm venturing beyond a mere "direct response" to one.

My apologies for making it seem otherwise... = )

No problem. Many times I'm doing the same. Some posters I never hope to convince of anything. But if they bring up arguments that need an answer, I answer them so that others may read and get my answer.

 

[randyk]

I am trying with every fiber of my being to refrain from using the "funny emoji" on every single one of your posts. In fact I keep adding them........and then removing them.
I dare not tell you why.....

If you have an argument, by all means give it a try. Otherwise, we're just engaging in unfriendly behavior.

 

[VCO]

I've never stated either one of these ^ , in my argument.


[you have a habit of "reading INTO" others' words, don't you? ...coz THOSE ^ were NOT what *I* had put, AT ALL!]


Are you certain you aren't merely skimming over (and past) most of what it is my actual arguments ARE??

(coz those [you point out here ^] were not ANYWHERE IN *my* arguments, and not at all the points *I* am making. Perhaps, "read again, more carefully"?? I'm sure not going to type everything all over again just so you can see the ACTUAL POINT / POINTS I put...)

So you actually think God wants you to ARGUE? Let's see what GOD thinks about Arguing.


Proverbs 6:16-19 (NCV)
16 There are six things the LORD hates. There are seven things he cannot stand:
17 a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that kill innocent people,
18 a mind that thinks up evil plans, feet that are quick to do evil,
19 a witness who lies, and someone who starts arguments among families.

Proverbs 17:19 (NCV)
19 Whoever loves to argue loves to sin. Whoever brags a lot is asking for trouble.

Mark 8:11 (ESV)
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.

Romans 14:1 (HCSB)
1 Accept anyone who is weak in faith, but don’t argue about doubtful issues.

1 Timothy 6:4-5 (TLB)
4 Anyone who says anything different is both proud and stupid. He is quibbling over the meaning of Christ’s words and stirring up arguments ending in jealousy and anger, which only lead to name-calling, accusations, and evil suspicions.
5 These arguers—their minds warped by sin—don’t know how to tell the truth; to them the Good News is just a means of making money. Keep away from them.

2 Timothy 2:14 (NCV)
14 Continue teaching these things, warning people in God’s presence not to argue about words. It does not help anyone, and it ruins those who listen.

Titus 3:9-10 (NCV)
9 But stay away from those who have foolish arguments and talk about useless family histories and argue and quarrel about the law. Those things are worth nothing and will not help anyone.
10 After a first and second warning, avoid someone who causes arguments.

In the Apocrypha:

Sirach 8:3 (NJB)
3 Do not argue with anyone argumentative, do not pile wood on that fire.

 

[OldSage]

"Those of us with a head on our shoulders realize that the "gap" of Dan9 is going to happen in the latter chapters. I mean you just cant miss it. I mean its the focal point in the history of the universe after all...."



Hmm some would all this "Ad Hominem". Stick to what it is you disagree with and then show why you disagree.

I don't really take it personally Blade.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Why are you adding "away" to what v.1 DOESN'T SAY?

Why do you take the libery to make up whatever you want?

I wasn't suggesting that the word "caught up / - away [G726]" is in verse 1;

...what I am saying is that that SUBJECT is what Paul is speaking about in verse 1's wording of "OUR episynagoges [noun] UNTO HIM" which is at the time when He will "DESCEND" TO "the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR," which is speaking of "our Rapture" event (G726 - rapture, caught up/-away, snatch, harpazo / harpagēsometha )... but using different words... *same SUBJECT*...

...which takes place at what Paul is calling here in v.1 "the coming [/parousia] of OUR Lord Jesus Christ" (not "the MANIFESTATION of His presence [/parousia]" that verse 8b is referring to...).



I hope that helps you understand my perspective, and how it differs from your suggestion that v.1 is the same time-slot as v.8b (I disagree with that)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ and to go along with that point (again, as I've stated before)... Paul uses something like 8 different terms and phrases in these 2 Thessalonians epistles, to speak of what we commonly call our "RAPTURE [G726]" event... not merely in the ONE verse we all readily recognize (1Th4:17, where that particular word is used).

So in these two posts, I've covered just TWO of such verses that speak of THAT SUBJECT (1Th4:17 and 2Th2:1).

 

[VCO]

Would that be PRE-12 Tribers? or, PRE-TOJT {Time of Jacob's 12-Tribes}-ers?

I have never heard of PRE-12 TRIBERS, and I Born Again in 1977 at almost 29 years of age. If you are asking do I believe Jacob's Trouble, GOD's Wrath on Unbelievers, and the Wedding of the Lamb, all takes place during the SAME 7 year Period of TIME. ABSOLUTELY!

 

[OldSage]

Maybe you don't quite understand. I don't need your assistance. I don't need your insights. I don't need your tutelage. I don't need your advice. I already KNOW what I'm talking about and believe me it's a good place to be. But what I am telling YOU is if you are wise you going to pay very careful attention to what TDW and like-minded individuals are saying. They are undoubtedly espousing accurate and correct exegesis. I believe what they believe in I know that I'm right also.

Sometimes the right thing to do is simply just sit at the feet of people who are actually equipped to teach sound doctrine.

You are not really teaching correctly just in terms of attitude, which marks you out.
If you assume a teaching role rather a merely discursive role, you heap on yourself a set of
biblical standards that are very exacting.

The forum for me is a friendly place to discuss openly with like-minded people, and therefore
I shall at the very least be disengaging with you.

In terms of correction, I could say a lot more, but I will leave that to others with more time and patience

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

So you actually think God wants you to ARGUE? Let's see what GOD thinks about Arguing.

Well, the way I am intending the word is not in the sense you are taking it...

... how *I* am intending the word is like the word (which is defined in this same way) used in Acts 19:8-9 translated in the KJV as "disputing":

--Acts 19:8 (referring to Paul here) "...and spake boldly for the space of three months, DISPUTING [G1256] and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God."

--Acts 19:9 (also speaking of Paul here) "[But when divers were hardened and believed not...]... he departed from them, and separated disciples, DISPUTING [G1256] daily in the school of one Tyrannus."



This was not considered a "negative" thing (something against God's wishes / will)...


This "G1256" word carries the meaning of:

"Usage: I converse, address, preach, lecture; I argue, reason." [source of quote: Strong's, taken from BibleHub]

and...

"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
dispute, preach unto, reason with.
Middle voice from dia and lego; to say thoroughly, i.e. Discuss (in argument or exhortation) -- dispute, preach (unto), reason (with), speak."

[source of quote: Strong's, taken from BibleHub]

- https://biblehub.com/greek/1256.htm [G1256]


Acts 19:8 V-PPM/P-NMS
GRK: μῆνας τρεῖς διαλεγόμενος καὶ πείθων
NAS: months, reasoning and persuading
KJV: months, disputing and
INT: months three reasoning and persuading

Acts 19:9 V-PPM/P-NMS
GRK: καθ' ἡμέραν διαλεγόμενος ἐν τῇ
NAS: the disciples, reasoning daily
KJV: the disciples, disputing daily
INT: every day reasoning in the



... This ^ is *my* intended meaning... as opposed to the passages you have offered.


Now, just because the KJV uses the word "disputing," in these two verses about Paul, does not mean they actually carry the kind of "negative connotation" that our modern-day use of such a term makes us think of, sometimes... Same for the word "argument [/arguing]" which is another way this word can be translated meaning the same thing (but not in the "negative sense" that we sometimes associate with the word... but more along the lines of what Paul was engaging in, in these two verses, quoted above).


Hope that helps you see my intended meaning. = )

 

[Mem]

The Day of the LORD will be doom for one group and salvation for the other, simultaneously, as Malachi 4:1-3 explains it. We are the 'only ones 'left' standing because no one (without the covering of His healing wings) can stand in His actual and physical all that He Was Is and Will Be presence.

The Great Day of the LORD
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace, when all the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble; the day is coming when I will set them ablaze,” says the LORD of Hosts. “Not a root or branch will be left to them.” 2“But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, and you will go out and leap like calves from the stall. 3Then you will trample the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day I am preparing,” says the LORD of Hosts.…

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Are you joking, just to keep the Argument Going?

No. And I'm unsure why you are asking me this.

I was asking FreeGrace2 what *he* meant by his post addressed to Abs (which I happened to misunderstand the *point* FreeGrace2 was making there)... I was not making any other points regarding anything about what you have spelled out here, in the following sections of your post (at least that I recall of that post you're quoting of mine):

Jesus said to the thief on the Cross:
Luke 23:43 (NASB)
43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
Where is Paradise?
2 Corinthians 12:2-5 (ESV)
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—
4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.
5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— (Paul is talking about his experience.)

The bible only teaches their are THREE Heavens.
1st Heaven = the birds soared in the heavens.
2nd Heaven = the stars of heaven, the Universe.
3rd Heaven = the eternal dwelling place of GOD Almighty.

My post was not aiming to make any points regarding these things... I was merely asking FreeGrace2 WHETHER *I* was understanding HIS POST correctly OR NOT... and before too much time passed, I realized I HAD MISUNDERSTOOD his point there...

 

[VCO]

Well, the way I am intending the word is not in the sense you are taking it...

... how *I* am intending the word is like the word (which is defined in this same way) used in Acts 19:8-9 translated in the KJV as "disputing":

--Acts 19:8 (referring to Paul here) "...and spake boldly for the space of three months, DISPUTING [G1256] and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God."

--Acts 19:9 (also speaking of Paul here) "[But when divers were hardened and believed not...]... he departed from them, and separated disciples, DISPUTING [G1256] daily in the school of one Tyrannus."

No, I was looking at the frequency you used the phrase "my arguments". You seemed to be almost addicted to it.

 

[randyk]

The question is... THE FALSE CONVEYORS were *purporting* "THAT the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE is how *they* (THE FALSE CONVEYORS) put it! Which "PERFECT INDICATIVE" (how *they* worded it) actually *means*: "ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►). In certain contexts the results are PERMANENT."

So...(in v.2--what we are discussing) *THEY / the FALSE CONVEYORS* meant: that it is ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT (not just "IS AT HAND / SOON to occur"), referring to "the day of the Lord" which is "an earthly-located *time-period* of lengthy duration with MUCH transpiring WITHIN it

(i.e. "an earthly-located PERIOD-OF-TIME-[not-merely-24-hrs] of *JUDGMENTs* unfolding followed by and ALSO INCLUDING an earthly-located PERIOD-OF-TIME-[also-not-merely-24-hrs] of *BLESSINGs* unfolding"--ALL OF THAT *They / the false conveyors* were purporting it IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE, meaning it had ARRIVED / CAME INTO EXISTENCE at some point in the PAST--to which Paul is BRINGING TO BEAR the "corrective" (involving a SEQUENCE issue indicated by the word "FIRST," applying to ONE THING in particular--ONE THING *FIRST* (not TWO things *FIRST*) before "the DOTL" can "BE PRESENT" to unfold upon the earth over the course of SOME TIME)]

So you're saying that the "error" was in thinking that the Day of the Lord was a period of troubles that had already begun, when it had not actually begun yet? And so, Paul had to correct this by saying that the revelation of the Man of Sin was actually the beginning of the Day of the Lord, which includes the reign of the Man of Sin, as well as the reign of Christ in the Millennium?

And so, you think that Paul was teaching that the "departure of the Church" was "1st," the thing that precedes and precipitates the beginning of the Day of the Lord? If so, it sounds like you're saying the Departure of the Church and the Revelation of the Antichrist are the things that define when the Day of the Lord begins--not just when some falsely said that it had already begun?

I've been struggling with understanding precisely what you believe. And I find it easier for me to try to say it, and you confirm it, rather than have you just repeat all the statements you've made, with all of the references. It's really taxing for me!