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

[FreeGrace2]

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. Jews don't become Christians during the 70th week of Daniel tribulation. There are no Christians around during the tribulation. The Church age has ended at the rapture. Pre-trib. There will never be another Christian past the point of the rapture.

Where are you getting these crazy ideas? From another guy hollering from the choir loft?

You just keep failing to prove anything you post.

Rev 20:4 - 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Can you take the time to remove the foot in your mouth and explain how v.4 will come true based on your claims?

These beheaded ones "had not worshiped the beast or image nor received his mark". And they WILL reign with Christ 1,000 yrs.

So, explain yourself in light of Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That day will not come unt


Now concerning Presently speaking of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him The Lord's return to rapture all that are His to Himself, we ask you, brothers, We urge all y'all, christians, not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, not to let any form of scam claiming to be authored by us upset or frighten you alleging that the Day of the Lord 's coming and our being raptured together to Him has already come. Let no one deceive you in any way, for it i.e., the Day of the LORD will not come until the rebellion occurs Christianity is rejected and the beast is worshipped and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—the antichrist who brings it all about is revealed by the coming of the LORD'(s brightness shining the whole entire truth on all His creation so that neither the antichrist nor the beast can continue to deceive the nations for a thousand years).

I avoided parentheses, until the end there.
How'd I do?

 

[OldSage]

I'm not "refusing" to call it "the day of the Lord" (I've pointed that this is the content of the false claim [v.2] about a zillion times)... I'm simply spelling it out a different way due to your continual EQUATING of my phrasing "the day of the Lord" [v.2] to *mean* (in your mind) "Christ's coming/presence/parousia" (that THAT is what the false claim's content is saying "is already present / is already here" per v.2) in these back-and-forths-of-explaining.


I've repeatedly pointed out the content of the false claim is: "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present."




[not "JESUS HIMSELF" and not "our Rapture"--the "false claim's contents" (per v.2) were not about those items / Subjects]

NO !!!!!!!!

I've just explained that - READ MY POSTS

and now you are just back-flipping. I'm out of conversation with you. Sorry. I really did try a lot.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

NO !!!!!!!!

I've just explained that - READ MY POSTS

I'm not saying *your* viewpoint is that... I'm saying, when I express *my* viewpoint (using the phrase under present discussion, v.2), *you* interpret my meaning to be that, when I've not meant that.




So I clarified using different phrasing, and you're accusing me of "refusing" to call it something I've already called it a zillion times (per the actual wording of v.2). *sigh*



[for the readers, again: the Subject of v.1 and the Subject of v.2 are DISTINCT Subjects... and Paul is telling how the ONE relates time-wise/sequence-wise to the OTHER]

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"Everything Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a given. However, even if the Holy Spirit gave him the news that Jerusalem would be leveled (70 AD), he wrote NOTHING about Jerusalem specifically being leveled.

He DID mention the end times Beast (world ruler) in both epistles. So no one would have understand 2 Thess 2:1 as a prophecy about Jerusalem."

Ok, you are making several mistakes here FG.

Firstly if you study Paul's life, it is clear, amongst other things, that he was taught by the Lord personally.

I know that. Don't condescend. But it is the Holy Spirit who inspired all the authors of Scripture.

This you really need to take on board, as until you understand that Paul had perfect understanding, then you will make
wayward statements.

There was nothing perfect about Paul. He wrote what he was inspired to write.

But, even if you are right, so what? Where did he even mention Jerusalem or the temple to the Thessalonians? Or, for that matter, to ANY of the churches he wrote to?

The answer is NONE.

So your point fails to support your claims.

Galatians 1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.......
................15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Yep, I'm totally familiar with all of Paul's writings. I read through them every MONTH. Been doing so for about 2 decades.

So you're telling me nothing new here.

Now, it's your turn to read Paul regularly. And find any warning concerning Jerusalem in any of His writings.

I'll wait.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OldSage said:
In reply to TDW

Paul doesn't say "rapture" is on their/the Thessalonians' mind.
So now you are saying that 'the coming of the Lord' is not the rapture??

I'm saying neither of those two things are the content of the "false claim" that Paul is telling about in v.2.

OK, DWM, explain why Paul would begin v.1 with "concerning..." and then CHANGE GEARS to v.2? How do you explain that?

And, the challenge remains for you to show where Paul warned ANYONE about Jerusalem's future destruction. From any of his epistles.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Most churches are not teaching anymore about the rapture.
Basically robing their flock.

Why? Were they naked?

 

[Absolutely]

I'm not saying *your* viewpoint is that... I'm saying, when I express *my* viewpoint (using the phrase under present discussion, v.2), *you* interpret my meaning to be that, when I've not meant that.




So I clarified using different phrasing, and you're accusing me of "refusing" to call it something I've already called it a zillion times (per the actual wording of v.2). *sigh*



[for the readers, again: the Subject of v.1 and the Subject of v.2 are DISTINCT Subjects... and Paul is telling how the ONE relates time-wise/sequence-wise to the OTHER]

Did he not say Jesus returned in ad 70?

Or was that someone else?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Did he not say Jesus returned in ad 70?

Or was that someone else?

Not exactly.



I mean, I pretty much "grasp" his viewpoint... he thinks Paul is addressing the events surrounding 70ad.




But in my latest post (the one you quoted of mine), I was addressing the particular issue he is [/was] having, by his suggesting that I am "refusing" to call it (v.2's false claim, re: ) "the day of the Lord"...

...except I've been continually pointing out that the content of the false claim Paul is covering in verse 2 is: "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present"

(however, the false claim's content is NOT: "that JESUS HIMSELF is already here," NOR "that His KINGDOM is already here," NOR "that our RAPTURE is already taken place"--Those are not the content of the false claim Paul is covering in v.2)

 

[Absolutely]

Not exactly.



I mean, I pretty much "grasp" his viewpoint... he thinks Paul is addressing the events surrounding 70ad.




But in my latest post (the one you quoted of mine), I was addressing the particular issue he is [/was] having, by his suggesting that I am "refusing" to call it (v.2's false claim, re: ) "the day of the Lord"...

...except I've been continually pointing out that the content of the false claim Paul is covering in verse 2 is: "that the day of the Lord is already here / is already present"

(however, the false claim's content is NOT: "that JESUS HIMSELF is already here," NOR "that His KINGDOM is already here," NOR "that our RAPTURE is already taken place"--Those are not the content of the false claim Paul is covering in v.2)

I agree.
It could not be that Jesus came or was seen.
It simply does not fit

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

And, the challenge remains for you to show where Paul warned ANYONE about Jerusalem's future destruction. From any of his epistles.

Are you asking ME this question, or OldSage? Because that's his viewpoint, that Paul is covering the Subject of the events surrounding 70ad.

That's not MY viewpoint.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I agree.
It could not be that Jesus came or was seen.
It simply does not fit

It is my understanding that "parousia" speaks of a person's PRESENCE [bodily / physically / tangibly]...

Context determines WHO ALL it involves (as in, WHO it is who will be in said person's "presence"), and WHERE that "presence" will be LOCATED.

So I agree that Paul (v.1) is referencing Jesus' actual Physical / Bodily Presence at "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" (i.e. at "our Rapture" event--"TO the meeting OF THE LORD *IN THE AIR*"), and not merely the "events of 70ad" apart from His Physical / Bodily Presence.



[v.8b the "MANIFESTATION of His presence / parousia" is when "EVERY EYE" shall see Him, not just those of us experiencing "our Rapture [IN THE AIR]" event like verse 1 speaks of, by contrast; And I agree with your earlier point... that v.8a is NOT speaking of the same point in time as v.8b is speaking about...]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Paul wasn't talking about what's "present", but what comes first. It's very clear.

Well, the false claim that Paul is covering in v.2 does say, "that the day of the Lord IS ALREADY PRESENT [perfect indicative]"...

...and so Paul's explanation in v.3 follows, saying,
"[3a]... NOT [is], [3b] if not shall have come THE departure FIRST" (i.e. Paul's Subject from v.1)
"[3c] and the man of sin be revealed..."


Apart from those two things being "in play," so to speak, the false claim is proven to indeed be false... So don't let anyone cause you to be "shaken in mind" and "troubled" by that particular false claim's content.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
I'm saying neither of those two things are the content of the "false claim" that Paul is telling about in v.2.

OK, DWM, explain why Paul would begin v.1 with "concerning..." and then CHANGE GEARS to v.2? How do you explain that

I did explain that... at the very bottom of my Post #4784 , as well as in many other posts, including the one immediately above this one.

 

[OldSage]

I said:
"Everything Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's a given. However, even if the Holy Spirit gave him the news that Jerusalem would be leveled (70 AD), he wrote NOTHING about Jerusalem specifically being leveled.

He DID mention the end times Beast (world ruler) in both epistles. So no one would have understand 2 Thess 2:1 as a prophecy about Jerusalem."

I know that. Don't condescend. But it is the Holy Spirit who inspired all the authors of Scripture.


There was nothing perfect about Paul. He wrote what he was inspired to write.

But, even if you are right, so what? Where did he even mention Jerusalem or the temple to the Thessalonians? Or, for that matter, to ANY of the churches he wrote to?

The answer is NONE.

So your point fails to support your claims.


Yep, I'm totally familiar with all of Paul's writings. I read through them every MONTH. Been doing so for about 2 decades.

So you're telling me nothing new here.

Now, it's your turn to read Paul regularly. And find any warning concerning Jerusalem in any of His writings.

I'll wait.

You have to listen to people FG, or else you will remain a refugee from the truth.
I am giggling a bit when you say 'not to condescend', given your tenor.

Anyhow, I cannot force feed you things you cannot digest. I've opened a channel but you don't
want to learn. 'Don't condescend' I hear you say.
I am here to learn, aren't you? Or are you above learning?
Do you, dare I say it, 'know it all'?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

But if the proof that the Day of the Lord has not come is in itself the Rapture, which the Thessalonians understand and know precedes the DOTL, but the decievers are oblivious to, (and therefore peddle a certain lie thinking they can pull it off),
why does Paul then need to give a different proof that the DOTL has not come?

Why doesn't Paul just refer to the obvious, (as before):
That the Lord has descended from heaven with a shout and a Trumpet
That every eye has seen him
That the dead have been raised
Christians have been raptured, Thessalonians included
That earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire etc

Try to track with me here for a second...

... the false claim's content (v.2) is: "that the day of the Lord IS already here / IS already present"... The false conveyors (saying such a thing) are not referencing "EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM" nor "the earth and heaven have been dissolved with fire"... but that the time period of JUDGMENTs unfolding upon the earth is already here (and that they all were in it and experiencing it).

Paul is saying, "NOT [is]" (it's NOT!).

And then explains the two things that must be "in evidence" for such a claim to be "true".

ONE THING is said to be *FIRST* (I believe the wording there connects back to reference what PAUL IS BRINGING to bear on the subject, i.e. "our Rapture / THE Departure" as being *FIRST* before "the day of the Lord" [JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING UPON the earth over time] can indeed "BE PRESENT")...

...AND the man of sin BE REVEALED...

WHEN he is "REVEALED" (and that's at the START of the 7-yrs), the day of the Lord will INDEED be in existence / be present (the thing that the false conveyors claim "IS ALREADY PRESENT").




Are you trackin' with me?? I'm trackin' you...

 

[randyk]

I don't think this is correct though. The little horn is terminated by a Heavenly court judgment and the Holy People take control of the Kingdom.

Daniel 7 26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

Also the 'lawless one' is clearly in existence in the 1st century, but the little horn only comes after the 4th beast has arrived, and the 4th beast appears to be the RCC.

Well, we have a difference of opinion, and that's okay. We're just sharing our different viewpoints.

My argument is that the Man of Sin is an endtime figure, who appears directly before the establishment of the Son of Man's eschatological Kingdom. Some Christians have seen the Kingdom of Christ actually beginning in the Early Church, with the ushering in of the NT Church. Others have indeed seen the Roman Empire as the Antichrist, and I don't think that is wholly without merit.

My spin on it is that the Roman Empire is the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7, which does indeed contain antichristian elements. However, that Empire was to split into 10 kingdoms, eventually united by a future Antichrist. And Christ returns specifically to defeat the Antichrist and to establish his eschatological Kingdom on earth.

The heavenly court at which the Son of Man sits is, in my interpretation, an explanation as to how God determines what Kingdom will rule on earth. The Son of Man is preferred over the Man of Sin, and the Son of Man proceeds to come from heaven to enforce God's decree.

In my view, this courtroom scene is sort of parenthetical, and merely explanatory. The Son of Man descends from heaven, without interruption, the court having already determined what his role is to be.

 

[OldSage]

Well, we have a difference of opinion, and that's okay. We're just sharing our different viewpoints.

My argument is that the Man of Sin is an endtime figure, who appears directly before the establishment of the Son of Man's eschatological Kingdom. Some Christians have seen the Kingdom of Christ actually beginning in the Early Church, with the ushering in of the NT Church. Others have indeed seen the Roman Empire as the Antichrist, and I don't think that is wholly without merit.

My spin on it is that the Roman Empire is the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7, which does indeed contain antichristian elements. However, that Empire was to split into 10 kingdoms, eventually united by a future Antichrist. And Christ returns specifically to defeat the Antichrist and to establish his eschatological Kingdom on earth.

The heavenly court at which the Son of Man sits is, in my interpretation, an explanation as to how God determines what Kingdom will rule on earth. The Son of Man is preferred over the Man of Sin, and the Son of Man proceeds to come from heaven to enforce God's decree.

In my view, this courtroom scene is sort of parenthetical, and merely explanatory. The Son of Man descends from heaven, without interruption, the court having already determined what his role is to be.

Oh man, a straightforward discussion in non-elliptical English. I need a lie-down and a glass of water....when i've recovered RK ....I am almost hyperventilating....

 

[randyk]

Good day, randyk,

Just to be clear here, you are correct in your conclusion that Christ will return to the earth to end the age after antichrist, that little horn, is given authority for 42 months i.e. the last 3 1/2 years of that seven year period. After that Christ will return to end the age, specifically after the 7th bowl judgment.

Now by saying "Christ can *only* come when he comes to destroy the Antichrist" I don't know if you are including the Lord's appearing to gather the church here or not. If this is the case, then you should not be interpreting these them as taking place at the same time, because they are two separate events, which take place at different times.

The Lord's appearing to gather the church has always been imminent, i.e. it can happen at any time. If you have the event of the church being gathered when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age which takes place after the antichrist finishes his 3 1/2 years, then the Lord's return cannot be imminent, because that event would have to take place first. And not only that event, but all of the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments which is God's wrath.

For example, the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, as well as the beasts reign and all that the false prophet does, must take place before the Lord will return to end the age. Therefore, if I was on the earth during that time, I would know according to His word that the Lord would not be able to return until after the 7th bowl has been poured out. That being the case, the Lord's appearing to gather the church could not be imminent.

In addition to this, believers understand that God's wrath no longer rests upon them because Jesus already satisfied it on behalf of every believer. Many people overlook this by putting the church on the earth during the time of God's wrath. They also err in not recognizing that there is a difference between the common trials and tribulations that the Lord said believers would have because of their faith in Him vs. God's coming wrath, which is not the same. It is the latter that believers are not appointed to suffer. In defense of this, expositors say that God is going to protect the church during the time of His wrath. Yet, there is nowhere in Revelation that states this, nor is the church even mentioned during the narrative of God's wrath.

The erroneous claim that the church will be on the earth during the time of God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments also stems from not understanding the severity and magnitude of those plagues of wrath.

For example, at the sounding of the 5th trumpet/1st woe, an angel unlocks the Abyss letting out demonic beings that resemble locusts, which will torment the inhabitants of the earth with stings like that of a scorpion for five months. The context states that only those who have the seal of God in their forehead are protected from this plague of wrath, which excludes only the 144,000 who will have been sealed in chapter 7. Everyone else besides them will be tormented. Where is God's protection of the church here?

Likewise, when the angel sounds the 6th trumpet, a third of the inhabitants of the earth are killed and there is nothing mentioned about anyone being excluded from this.

Or when that 4th angel pours out his bowl on the sun giving it power to scorch the inhabitants of the earth, searing them with intense heat. Everyone on the earth will be exposed to that and no one is excluded.

These are just a few examples of what is going to take place and no one is exempt. Therefore, the claim that God protects the church during that time is nowhere listed in the narrative of God's wrath. It's just an assumption on their part.

But to recap, if it was true that the gathering of the church takes place at the same time when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, then as I sit here writing this post, I would know that the Lord could not return right now, because all of those events must take place first. In that case, the example of the good man of the house who doesn't know at what time the thief is going to break in and therefore has to always watch, would not fit the scripture. In fact, I wouldn't have to watch at all. The only thing that I would have to watch for is when that 7th bowl is poured out.

Yes, thanks for your comments and for explaining your comments. I do have a different take. I see Jesus' Coming as depicted in the NT only as depicted in the OT, as Dan 7 presents it, in a postrib context. It is all about the displacement of Antichrist's Kingdom with Christ's Kingdom.

I define "imminency" differently than you do. You see it as meaning *Christ can come at any moment.* This has never been true. God has established a "day" at which His Son will appear--he cannot appear randomly on any day, nor are we told that in our ignorance we should expect him on any day.

"Imminency" means "near." It doesn't mean Jesus can come today. Since Jesus died on the cross for the sins of Man, the way is now opened for salvation, meaning that for anybody who wishes to join him, the Kingdom is "near." It does not mean that it can arrive on any day.

The exclusivity of the 144,000 from a particular judgment may refer only to a judgment taking place in Israel. It certainly does not exclude multitudes of Christians elsewhere in the world.

And when the Scriptures deny that God is angry with Christians after they're saved, it does not mean we don't share the world with sinners, who brings God's wrath upon our planet. We do have to share these negative experiences, though technically, we are not experiencing God's wrath itself.

If God sends storms, earthquakes, and diseases upon this world, in response to widespread and despicable human sin, the Christian Church is not exempt from these problems, since we share the same world. But in experiencing them, we are not the objects of God's wrath, but only casualties suffering the effects of human sin and the effects of God wrath directed at sinners.

Our suffering the same experiences does not mean God is angry with Christians--no more than Christ's death for the sins of the Jewish People meant that God was angry with Jesus! We are here to testify to God's salvation in the midst of God's display of anger at sin on earth.

 

[OldSage]

Well, we have a difference of opinion, and that's okay. We're just sharing our different viewpoints.

My argument is that the Man of Sin is an endtime figure, who appears directly before the establishment of the Son of Man's eschatological Kingdom. Some Christians have seen the Kingdom of Christ actually beginning in the Early Church, with the ushering in of the NT Church. Others have indeed seen the Roman Empire as the Antichrist, and I don't think that is wholly without merit.

My spin on it is that the Roman Empire is the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7, which does indeed contain antichristian elements. However, that Empire was to split into 10 kingdoms, eventually united by a future Antichrist. And Christ returns specifically to defeat the Antichrist and to establish his eschatological Kingdom on earth.

The heavenly court at which the Son of Man sits is, in my interpretation, an explanation as to how God determines what Kingdom will rule on earth. The Son of Man is preferred over the Man of Sin, and the Son of Man proceeds to come from heaven to enforce God's decree.

In my view, this courtroom scene is sort of parenthetical, and merely explanatory. The Son of Man descends from heaven, without interruption, the court having already determined what his role is to be.

What do you think the books are? The Book Of Life and the Book of Death maybe?

Deuteronomy 30
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: