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

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
DWM already claimed that Paul wasn't "changing gears" in v.2. [...] has to admit that Paul DID change gears.

But that isn't reasonable, since he began v.1 with "concerning...". That was his concern: the coming of the Lord and our being gathered to Him. If that isn't the Second Advent and rapture, one IS FORCED to have Paul completely changing gears and going off on a tangent.Which he wasn't.

See my Post #4873, where I address this issue.

Are you kidding? You include links to 10 more posts!! You really expect anyone to try to chase down all of them to try to figure out what you believe?

If you can't simply explain yourself in a single paragraph (embellishments excluded), that's a problem.

Your posts are coming out of "both sides of your mouth", so to speak.

The reason your posts are confusing is that your view of 2 Thess 2:1-3 is confused. It's clear and simple, but you want it to be so convoluted and confusing that no one can actually follow your "explanations". So it's just a defense mechanism.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @FreeGrace2 ,

from the first paragraph at the first linked post:

[quoting]

--1:7-8 says, "ye who are troubled rest/repose with us IN THE REVELATION OF the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels [note: "7 angels... 7 trumpets... 7 vials ] in flaming fire INFLICTING *VENGEANCE ON them that..." (on those *same* persons that 2Th2:10-12 says that "GOD SHALL SEND TO THEM great delusion, SO THAT they should believe the LIE / the FALSE / the PSEUDEI" *during* that SAME FUTURE, SPECIFIC, LIMITED TIME-PERIOD) [*where "AVENGE IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (Lk18:8) is the SAME TIME-PERIOD that Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 says of "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (same phrase also in Rom16:20 "shall CRUSH Satan UNDER YOUR FEET *IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"...) ALL speaking of that SAME *future*, specific, LIMITED time-period we call "the 7-yr Trib" (i.e. from SEAL #1 to His RETURN to the earth in Rev19)].

[end quoting]


____________


The "false claim" Paul is drawing att'n to in 2Th2:2, was CLAIMING (or CLAIMS) that that ^ time period has already arrived and is unfolding in their present experience.

And Paul is saying, "NOT!" Don't believe it!





Paul is not "switching gears" from the subject [subjectS] he was ALREADY COVERING in Chapter 1.

 

[Absolutely]

2 Thes 2 is based on Dan 7, where the Man of Sin reigns for a time, times, and half a time, aka 3.5 years. The book of Revelation confirms this time period by referring to it as 42 months, or as 1260 days. This is the blueprint. The Man of Sin reigns for 3.5 years, attacking God's people. But then the Son of Man comes down from heaven, to defeat the Man of Sin, to save his people, and to establish his eternal Kingdom. To overcomplicate this simple blueprint is what has caused all of the trouble, I beiieve.



2 Thes 2 says that Christ cannot come for his people until *after* the Man of Sin is revealed, which we know extends for 3.5 years. Then, after the Battle of Armageddon has developed and commences, the Son of Man returns from heaven, to defeat the man "doomed to destruction," and to set up his eternal Kingdom. This is entirely Postrib!



The Beast is destroyed at the coming of the Kingdom of God, when the Son of Man comes down from heaven. This is *not* after the Millennium.



If the Son of Man comes to defeat the Man of Sin, to save his people, and to establish his eternal Kingdom, this is a Postrib context.



The Dispensational sense of a removal of the international Church and a return to an exclusively Jewish people of God is not Scriptural, nor is it even reasonable. God will not return to the Old Covenant, nor will He return to an exclusive Israel. And when the Man of Sin attempts to destroy God's People, this may be talked about as a universal policy within his Kingdom, but is hardly indicative of exhaustive annihilation of all God's people. Obviously, some escape, some are beyond his reach or outside of his Kingdom, and some have to remain alive unto the coming of the Lord.



This has never been a problem for Postribs, that Christ returns *with his saints.* The dead are already with him, and will return with him. Those who are alive and remain until his coming will be caught up in a second of time, to return with the departed saints.



I've tried to explain above. Keep in mind that I've been Pretrib before. But I doubt that you've ever been Postrib. So it may be a little difficult for you to see things the way a Postrib does. I'm trying to help you see things the way I do, whether you agree or not.

QUOTE """2 Thes 2 says that Christ cannot come for his people until *after* the Man of Sin is revealed, which we know extends for 3.5 years""


You have to make "revealed" into something else

All it says is "REVEALED".
What do you think in your mind "revealed" means.

Example;
It was revealed at the meeting who the next ceo is.
At the meeting it will be revealed. who the next ceo will be.

You do understand that is ahead of any office, desk, OR CURRENT POSITION correct?
THINK "R E V E A L E D".....ONLY "REVEALED". NO ADDITIVES.

You are getting way, way. Ahead of what is plainly written and rephrasing "revealed" to mean "not only in power, but at the end of his office"

I like that he is revealed FIRST and then the rapture
That is solid pretrib rapture.
Does not say ANYTHING of a rapture postrib...zero.
You added it.

"""2 Thes 2 says that Christ cannot come for his people until *after* the Man of Sin is revealed, which we know extends for 3.5 years. Then, after the Battle of Armageddon has developed and commences,"""

Ok do you see what you did?
According to you,but not written anywhere in the bible, the ac is continuously revealed for 3.5 years.

Please stop reading into that verse what is not there and never will be there.

 

[Absolutely]

QUOTE """If the Son of Man comes to defeat the Man of Sin, to save his people, and to establish his eternal Kingdom, this is a Postrib context."""

Show me in dan 7 13-14 where it says he comes to save his people.

 

[Absolutely]

Actually, I think the problem is that you try to maneuver some alien sense of a Day of the Lord and transfer it into 2 Thes 2, where a 24 hour day is *in context.* To thus excise a foreign concept of a "day" as a "time period" from elsewhere and place it, awkwardly, into 2 Thes 2, confuses the passage and is an illegitimate way of interpreting, when the actual context suggests only a 24 hour day.

This smacks of an interpretive fallacy, wherein a word or phrase is thought to be applied uniformly from context to context, instead of allowing the context itself to determine how that word or phrase is being applied. After all, that's how words and phrases work. They can be used in a technical sense uniformly in several different locations, or they can obtain their own unique meaning, where the new context justifies that particular use.

The Day of the Lord does have a technical eschatological use. But it by no means does not obtain that use uniformly only because every place it speaks of eschatological things the same phrase is used. The Day of the Lord can be used as an extended time period and used in an eschatological sense for the Millennium. Or the same phrase can be used in an eschatological sense for the 24 hour day in which Christ returns. The *context* determines how it is to be used, and you are trying to bypass that.

Your error, and I see you do this all the time, is forcing a migration of common terms into places without regard for the different contexts, and for the different meanings that may imply. In this case, our sense of the "day of the Lord" in 2 Thes 2 is in context a reference to the literal day Christ comes back for his Church, and does not reference the Millennium at all, nor the 3.5 years of Antichrist's rule, nor any length of time beyond the day of Christ's coming itself. Sorry, this is, I believe, where you err.

Ok, what is the false claim paul is combating?
What were the thesolonians believing that was untrue?

 

[Absolutely]

"""I've tried to explain above. Keep in mind that I've been Pretrib before. But I doubt that you've ever been Postrib. So it may be a little difficult for you to see things the way a Postrib does. I'm trying to help you see things the way I do, whether you agree or not."""
Ok
I appreciate the candidness.

That's all any of us is doing

 

[Absolutely]

"""No Christian will take the mark of the beast, and the Bible does not say all that refuse the mark of the beast will be martyred, which implies some Christians will escape martyrdom."""

It says all on the planet do take it..

That is one reason the jews....and Only the jews are ushered to safety.
Also only The 144k jews are sealed against the flying scorpions.
Both those dynamics tell you the church is completely gone

 

[JerryInBoston]

Rapture timing, Christ's second coming, pre trib, mid trib, pre wrath, post trib ... Faithful Christians can be too dogmatic and lose sight that there is simply no explicit textual support for either position. All sides cobble together passages that fit their timing position, but if it was explicitly stated, there would be but one position. Be ready, for you know not when. Peace. ✌

 

[JerryInBoston]

"""No Christian will take the mark of the beast, and the Bible does not say all that refuse the mark of the beast will be martyred, which implies some Christians will escape martyrdom."""

It says all on the planet do take it..

That is one reason the jews....and Only the jews are ushered to safety.
Also only The 144k jews are sealed against the flying scorpions.
Both those dynamics tell you the church is completely gone

That the church is gone pre-opening of the seals is speculative.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @JerryInBoston,

why would you say that the "24 elders" (IN Heaven) are saying, "hast redeemed US to God by thy blood out of EVERY..." in Rev5:9, BEFORE the FIRST SEAL is opened (when Jesus WILL "STAND to JUDGE" Isa3:13, Rev5:6, etc)??



--and where did they get those "stephanous / crowns"? (recall, Paul had said he would be awarded one "IN THAT DAY" and not to him only--and that's not referring to the day he DIED and was thus immediately "present with the Lord")

--and why is it said of them "having been clothed in white garments [G2440 - himatiois ]"?? (same word found in Rev3:5 in "the things WHICH ARE" section, per 1:19b [chpts 2-3], where that chpt 3 reference is speaking toward a "future tense" thing [i.e. toward the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book, per Rev1:19c])

--and why are they shown sitting on "thrones"??

 

[FreeGrace2]

^ @FreeGrace2 ,

from the first paragraph at the first linked post:

[quoting]

--1:7-8 says, "ye who are troubled rest/repose with us IN THE REVELATION OF the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels [note: "7 angels... 7 trumpets... 7 vials ] in flaming fire INFLICTING *VENGEANCE ON them that..." (on those *same* persons that 2Th2:10-12 says that "GOD SHALL SEND TO THEM great delusion, SO THAT they should believe the LIE / the FALSE / the PSEUDEI" *during* that SAME FUTURE, SPECIFIC, LIMITED TIME-PERIOD) [*where "AVENGE IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (Lk18:8) is the SAME TIME-PERIOD that Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 says of "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (same phrase also in Rom16:20 "shall CRUSH Satan UNDER YOUR FEET *IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"...) ALL speaking of that SAME *future*, specific, LIMITED time-period we call "the 7-yr Trib" (i.e. from SEAL #1 to His RETURN to the earth in Rev19)].

[end quoting]

Several comments:

1. is the above a quote of 1:7,8 or just your explanation of the verses? I cann't tell, what with all your completely unnecessary embellishments.
2. if it's a quote, you don't need to put your "announcements" before and after the quote. Just quote the verses.

The "false claim" Paul is drawing att'n to in 2Th2:2, was CLAIMING (or CLAIMS) that that ^ time period has already arrived and is unfolding in their present experience.

And Paul is saying, "NOT!" Don't believe it!

Right. Neither the Second Advent (coming of our Lord) OR our being gathered to Him (rapture) have happened yet.

Why not? Because the "man doomed to destruction" hasn't been revealed yet. He comes first. THEN the Second Advent and rapture.

Paul is not "switching gears" from the subject [subjectS] he was ALREADY COVERING in Chapter 1.

Then WHY v.1?

Of course your view is that he changed gears. If you accept v.1 as the Second Advent and rapture, then v.2 IS a change of gears.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"""No Christian will take the mark of the beast, and the Bible does not say all that refuse the mark of the beast will be martyred, which implies some Christians will escape martyrdom."""
It says all on the planet do take it..

No, it doesn't say that at all. You are guilty of eisegesis.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Rapture timing, Christ's second coming, pre trib, mid trib, pre wrath, post trib ... Faithful Christians can be too dogmatic and lose sight that there is simply no explicit textual support for either position. All sides cobble together passages that fit their timing position, but if it was explicitly stated, there would be but one position. Be ready, for you know not when. Peace. ✌

2 Thess 2:1-3 doesn't need to be "cobbled together". It's the pretribbers who have to try to "cobble it apart", so it doesn't say what is so clear about the timing of the rapture, which is AT the Second Advent.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That the church is gone pre-opening of the seals is speculative.

Yes, all of the pretrib view is speculative, esp since there are no verses that show Jesus taking resurrected and raptured believers to heaven.

That is their sole focus; believers being taken out of the world before the Trib. Yet they have NO verses that say that.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

2. if it's a quote, you don't need to put your "announcements" before and after the quote. Just quote the verses.

[re:2Th1:7-10]

When you've quoted it, your comment about it had explained it as: the singular 24-hr day that Jesus returns / His Second Advent.

I'm saying that the passage does not refer merely to that singular 24-hr day, as you have suggested it does.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TDW: Paul is not "switching gears" from the subject [subjectS] he was ALREADY COVERING in Chapter 1.

Then WHY v.1?

Of course your view is that he changed gears. If you accept v.1 as the Second Advent and rapture, then v.2 IS a change of gears.

In Chapter 2, Paul is covering the SAME SUBJECTS he already talked about IN CHAPTER 1. (He's not "changing gears" suddenly in 2:1, nor, from there, in 2:2).




Recall also how I've mentioned in past posts that Paul, in these TWO epistles, refers to the event we commonly call "Rapture" something like 8-9 times, not merely the ONE VERSE we commonly think of: 1Th4:17 (with the word "harpazo / snatch / rapture / caught up [G726]")...

...so I think you agree with me that 2Th2:1 is also a reference to that Subject... and I'm saying Paul is CONTINUING to cover the SAME SUBJECTS he already was covering in 2Th chpt 1.

If you read again my post covering 2Th1:7-10, perhaps you can detect yet another reference Paul makes to that Subject [relatedly], as ONE of the Subjects he is carrying on over into chpt 2 (in 2:1 and 2:3b-first-part-of-verse; etc).

He's not starting an entirely *new* Subject in v.1 (2:1), as I believe you are suggesting here (where I bolded your quote above).

 

[Absolutely]

That the church is gone pre-opening of the seals is speculative.

It is bible

check out the challenge i made on this board years ago.

"show me one verse pointing to a postrib rapture...one verse."
I have pleaded for years...no takers!!!!!!!!

(there should be 50 the way they declare us wrong.)

 

[Absolutely]

^ @JerryInBoston,

why would you say that the "24 elders" (IN Heaven) are saying, "hast redeemed US to God by thy blood out of EVERY..." in Rev5:9, BEFORE the FIRST SEAL is opened (when Jesus WILL "STAND to JUDGE" Isa3:13, Rev5:6, etc)??



--and where did they get those "stephanous / crowns"? (recall, Paul had said he would be awarded one "IN THAT DAY" and not to him only--and that's not referring to the day he DIED and was thus immediately "present with the Lord")

--and why is it said of them "having been clothed in white garments [G2440 - himatiois ]"?? (same word found in Rev3:5 in "the things WHICH ARE" section, per 1:19b [chpts 2-3], where that chpt 3 reference is speaking toward a "future tense" thing [i.e. toward the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book, per Rev1:19c])

--and why are they shown sitting on "thrones"??

eeeeeewwwww bad to the bone devine one.
left him speechless

 

[Absolutely]

randyk said:

Actually, I think the problem is that you try to maneuver some alien sense of a Day of the Lord and transfer it into 2 Thes 2, where a 24 hour day is *in context.* To thus excise a foreign concept of a "day" as a "time period" from elsewhere and place it, awkwardly, into 2 Thes 2, confuses the passage and is an illegitimate way of interpreting, when the actual context suggests only a 24 hour day.

This smacks of an interpretive fallacy, wherein a word or phrase is thought to be applied uniformly from context to context, instead of allowing the context itself to determine how that word or phrase is being applied. After all, that's how words and phrases work. They can be used in a technical sense uniformly in several different locations, or they can obtain their own unique meaning, where the new context justifies that particular use.

The Day of the Lord does have a technical eschatological use. But it by no means does not obtain that use uniformly only because every place it speaks of eschatological things the same phrase is used. The Day of the Lord can be used as an extended time period and used in an eschatological sense for the Millennium. Or the same phrase can be used in an eschatological sense for the 24 hour day in which Christ returns. The *context* determines how it is to be used, and you are trying to bypass that.

Your error, and I see you do this all the time, is forcing a migration of common terms into places without regard for the different contexts, and for the different meanings that may imply. In this case, our sense of the "day of the Lord" in 2 Thes 2 is in context a reference to the literal day Christ comes back for his Church, and does not reference the Millennium at all, nor the 3.5 years of Antichrist's rule, nor any length of time beyond the day of Christ's coming itself. Sorry, this is, I believe, where you err.

Ok, what is the false claim paul is combating?
What were the thesolonians believing that was untrue?

again what was the false belief??????

 

[Absolutely]

Rapture timing, Christ's second coming, pre trib, mid trib, pre wrath, post trib ... Faithful Christians can be too dogmatic and lose sight that there is simply no explicit textual support for either position. All sides cobble together passages that fit their timing position, but if it was explicitly stated, there would be but one position. Be ready, for you know not when. Peace. ✌

i hear you.

but if you read the thread we lay it out DECISIVELY.

we have put to rest every false position
are you aware of the PRETRIB VERSES?