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

[TheDivineWatermark]

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?

Well, I happen to *disagree* that "the claims" (by false conveyors, v.2) has/had ANYTHING to do with "the rapture" whatsoever. No.

IOW, when Paul brings up the concept of the false claim, saying in that verse what it is that is or would be purported, NOWHERE does he use that word, "the rapture," when referring to said claim. Because that was not the Subject of the claim, per the wording actually supplied in that verse. So I reject your idea of what verse 2 is informing about.

 

[randyk]

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)

It sounds as if you're using the common Pretrib argument dividing the "manifestation" at the 2nd Coming from the Rapture event, which you don't believe is a "manifestation." Rather, it is a "secret coming?" Dr. George E. Ladd wrote a book titled, "The Blessed Hope." And he chose this title because it absolutely disproves that the coming and the appearing are two different events.

Titus 2.13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Should we, Christians, be waiting for this "appearing" of Jesus or not? Or, are you saying that we're really waiting for and anticipating a preliminary event, the "secret Rapture," and only after that the manifestation, or revelation, of Christ?

 

[randyk]

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)

So it goes like this: Concerning the Coming of Jesus for the Church, which is not his manifestation to the world, but only a secret coming for the Church, I want you to know that 1st will be the "Departure" of the Church, and then the revelation of the Man of Sin, and finally the manifestation of Jesus at his Coming. Right?

It sounds a little strange to think that Paul is implying this separation between secret coming earlier and manifestation at the end, but it is assumed that Paul is teaching this through use of the word "departure."

Two things wrong with this:

1) The word for "departure" would normally, in this context, refer to a departure from faith. This is how Daniel in ch. 7 painted the Man of Sin, as someone who opposed the Kingdom of God. He attempts to wrest faith away from the saints, which is an "apostasy." There is no sense of a "Rapture" of the Church as a form of "departure."

2) When Paul mentions that his subject matter involves the coming of Christ for the Church, there is no preliminary theology that justifies the insertion of Pretrib thinking. Often I hear it said that the Pretrib Rapture is taught in 1 Thes 4. But no Pretrib Rapture theology exists there at all!

So if we dispose of the false "departure" narrative, the text normally reads that some people errantly thought the day of Christ's return for the Church and the Rapture had already happened. And Paul corrects this by exposing preliminary "Christ" comings as false, as "false Christs"--just as Jesus had warned.

Paul was countering by saying that no Christ pretension should happen because we are not given power to defeat Satan in this world until Christ himself comes to destroy the Antichrist. False eschatological movements are verboten!

 

[OldSage]

So it goes like this: Concerning the Coming of Jesus for the Church, which is not his manifestation to the world, but only a secret coming for the Church, I want you to know that 1st will be the "Departure" of the Church, and then the revelation of the Man of Sin, and finally the manifestation of Jesus at his Coming. Right?

It sounds a little strange to think that Paul is implying this separation between secret coming earlier and manifestation at the end, but it is assumed that Paul is teaching this through use of the word "departure."

Two things wrong with this:

1) The word for "departure" would normally, in this context, refer to a departure from faith. This is how Daniel in ch. 7 painted the Man of Sin, as someone who opposed the Kingdom of God. He attempts to wrest faith away from the saints, which is an "apostasy." There is no sense of a "Rapture" of the Church as a form of "departure."

2) When Paul mentions that his subject matter involves the coming of Christ for the Church, there is no preliminary theology that justifies the insertion of Pretrib thinking. Often I hear it said that the Pretrib Rapture is taught in 1 Thes 4. But no Pretrib Rapture theology exists there at all!

So if we dispose of the false "departure" narrative, the text normally reads that some people errantly thought the day of Christ's return for the Church and the Rapture had already happened. And Paul corrects this by exposing preliminary "Christ" comings as false, as "false Christs"--just as Jesus had warned.

Paul was countering by saying that no Christ pretension should happen because we are not given power to defeat Satan in this world until Christ himself comes to destroy the Antichrist. False eschatological movements are verboten!

It all gets very complicated....lol

But Paul really adds 2 objective proofs to 1 subjective one, doesn't he?

i.e. we will know when Jesus comes back because we will be gathered to him

but objectively

1) Jesus will be seen in the clouds
&
2) The man of sin in the temple (prior)

And there Paul has given us the 2 or 3 witnesses standard of truth

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
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*...

Go look at your post. You ADDED the word "away" and in caps, no less. So, why did you?

...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...).

It's really hard to figure out what you point is, the way you post. How about plain sentences without all the embellishments?

Since you have admitted that v.1 is "solely" about the rapture, it should be obvious to you and everyone else that v.1-3 are ALL about the rapture.

So, we have to determine WHEN that occurs. And v.3 tells us. AFTER the trib.

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)

Your posts are so generally unclear, it's really hard to figure out what you perspective even is.

So, let's cut to the chase. Since v.1 is about the rapture, what is th timing of the rapture per v.3?

And please, leave out all those embellishments. Just explain it plainly.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

I would suggest that this is the VERY REASON your posts are so hard to figure out. You aren't making yourself clear.

... 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":

Why did you put quotes around the word 'I'? This is an example of unnecessary embellishments. You don't need any of them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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...

So now you're putting asterisks around your personal pronoun 'I'. What's with that anyway?

Kinda like air quotes when speaking. Which indicates a different meaning to the word used. If you are referring to yourself, just type the capital I by itself. No need for quote marks or asterisks.

I am interested in how you view v.3 since you acknowledge that v.1 is about the rapture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, I happen to *disagree* that "the claims" (by false conveyors, v.2) has/had ANYTHING to do with "the rapture" whatsoever. No.

OK, then. So why would Paul even bring up the rapture in v.1 and then abandon that subject and move to something different in v.2? That doesn't make sense. And v.3 refers back to v.1 anyway.

Because the rapture will occur on a SPECIFIC DAY, to be sure. It won't be over a time period.

So you have a lot to figure out. v.1 is about the rapture, v.3 is about the timing of the rapture, but you think v.2 is about something totally different. That is confustion.

IOW, when Paul brings up the concept of the false claim, saying in that verse what it is that is or would be purported, NOWHERE does he use that word, "the rapture," when referring to said claim.

This is irrelevant. Paul used "gathering" in v.1, and you agreed that was the rapture.

So there would be NO reason to bring up any other subject in v.2. And Paul returns to the rapture's timing in v.3.

Because that was not the Subject of the claim, per the wording actually supplied in that verse. So I reject your idea of what verse 2 is informing about.

I think you are very confused. All 3 verses are about the rapture. It's obvious.

 

[OldSage]

OK, then. So why would Paul even bring up the rapture in v.1 and then abandon that subject and move to something different in v.2? That doesn't make sense. And v.3 refers back to v.1 anyway.

Because the rapture will occur on a SPECIFIC DAY, to be sure. It won't be over a time period.

So you have a lot to figure out. v.1 is about the rapture, v.3 is about the timing of the rapture, but you think v.2 is about something totally different. That is confustion.


This is irrelevant. Paul used "gathering" in v.1, and you agreed that was the rapture.

So there would be NO reason to bring up any other subject in v.2. And Paul returns to the rapture's timing in v.3.


I think you are very confused. All 3 verses are about the rapture. It's obvious.

I think (perhaps) the confusion in the mind of the Thessalonian Church stems from the ambiguity
of what Jesus said about the destruction of the Temple. I think the Thessalonian Church was muddled
about the two comings - and this seems to be what Paul is unwrapping here.

 

[cv5]

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

You missed it buddy. Did you actually read my post? I am not the one doing the teaching here. I'm leaving it to TDW. A person far better equipped than I. So your accusations are completely unfounded.

 

[Absolutely]

False. I've answered this question recently. It is simple to answer. The Scriptures make all kinds of hyperbolic and universal-type statetments that are generalized and not stating, absolutely, that every single person on earth must take the mark or die.

It's like saying "everybody's dying" when the conditions exist in which many people are dying, and not literally everybody is dying, including everybody throughout the earth in all times.

We generalize in language all the time. The conditions for this "mark" have already been outlined as existing in a 10 nation empire under the Antichrist, probably in Europe. The mark will be applied within this empire, and obviously will reach only those who are actually caught.

Since the Scriptures indicate Christians will survive until Christ's coming, it's plain that many survive Armageddon and the mark of the Beast. Nowhere are we told that a "Rapture" is what delivers them *before* this time period!

You say "false" in answer to my post, then make 2 false statements.
1) it says " every man, woman and child take the mark, whether bond or free"
So , you object to that verse by calling it " hyperbole".

2) them address the fact that lot, the baby Jesus, and noah are removed PREJUDGEMENT, by saying no such dynamic is possible.

Hmmmm
That is bizarre

But then again and once again my job is to make you go against the bible.

 

[cv5]

How can you "know" what you are talking about when there are NO verses that describe Jesus taking resurrected and raptured saints to heaven after giving them all bodies of immortality?


Speaking of which, can you answer my 2 questions regarding 2 Thess 2:1?

1. what does "the coming of the Lord" mean in v.1?
2. what does "our being gathered to Him" mean in v.1?

Thanks so much if you would answer these questions.

Those questions have been answered to impeccable perfection. Beyond all refutation. Dozens and dozens of times already. Tragically you're not picking up on it......

 

[cv5]

I think (perhaps) the confusion in the mind of the Thessalonian Church stems from the ambiguity
of what Jesus said about the destruction of the Temple. I think the Thessalonian Church was muddled
about the two comings - and this seems to be what Paul is unwrapping here.

Nope. Nothing in The text whatsoever pertaining to the temple. Absolutely nothing. Sheer speculation on your part.

 

[cv5]

I would suggest that this is the VERY REASON your posts are so hard to figure out. You aren't making yourself clear.


Why did you put quotes around the word 'I'? This is an example of unnecessary embellishments. You don't need any of them.

Unfortunately it appears that "hard to figure out" = "you don't get it".
In my opinion, TDWs Style of posting is sublime. Beautifully parsed and emphasized.

 

[cv5]

It all gets very complicated....lol

But Paul really adds 2 objective proofs to 1 subjective one, doesn't he?

i.e. we will know when Jesus comes back because we will be gathered to him

but objectively

1) Jesus will be seen in the clouds
&
2) The man of sin in the temple (prior)

And there Paul has given us the 2 or 3 witnesses standard of truth

Complicated? Nope not complicated it all. Exceedingly straightforward & very simple. I am absolutely shocked that everyone seems to be walking around with blinders on Regarding these passages. They are dead easy.

 

[Absolutely]

Quote. """The mark will be applied within this empire, and obviously will reach only those who are actually caught."""

I was wondering when a postrib was actually going to go there.
I have always noticed, in their minds, they see the church going from cave to cave always one step ahead of the ac chasing them.
That is in their minds, as is the uturn on riderless horses
...all made up with no verses.

Yet here they ,( left behind trib saints) ACTUALLY are;

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Now notice, NO CHRISTIANS SEALED!

NOTICE ...THEY EAT IN HEAVEN.

But hey...thats just the bible talking....SPECIFICALLY REFERRING to and absent church from the earth...and that absent church EATING IN HEAVEN.

100% Pretrib rapture.

No doubt about it.
The 5 foolish, left behind christians indeed martyred (billions of them) with dirty robes....EATING .....therefore raptured and in glorified bodies...in heaven

 

[Absolutely]

awesome proof of a pretrib rapture

 

[Absolutely]

6.5 years into the great trib and wrath and none of them are expecting Jesus cause, in their minds, they actually know the day of the rapture..

Huh?

 

[Absolutely]

The parable of the 10 virgins has postribs completely cut off, as it declares "....but the groom tarried"

Postribs have no tarrying at all....because to go out to meet Jesus, ( immenancy) has no place in their doctrine.

That alone has them painted hopelessly in a proverbial corner.

 

[OldSage]

Nope. Nothing in The text whatsoever pertaining to the temple. Absolutely nothing. Sheer speculation on your part.

Strangely ignorant comment