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

[TMS]

I was once in the post-trib rapture camp, but I don't see anywhere in scripture where saints go through God's wrath. We are scripturally exempt from God's wrath.

God did not stop Daniel or Joseph from going through trials but God was with them and as a result their faith was tried and made stronger.
The wrath of God was shown on the Egyptians.
Exo 7:5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
Exo 7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
Exo 7:18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.

Many of the plagues would have affected the Israelites. But in the same way that God could have protected, prepared and enabled His people to go through it, He will do the same at the end.

It takes more faith to believe that Jesus will bring us through the trials then to believe that He takes us out of the trials.
Jesus is the Blood that i can paint on my door posts, Jesus is the arc that will bring me through the flood. Jesus will walk with me in the fires.

don't think that you need to be taken away to be saved from His wrath. Jesus is the Key.

Dan 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

 

[cv5]

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

Only if you don't know what you're talking about.....

 

[cv5]

God did not stop Daniel or Joseph from going through trials but God was with them and as a result their faith was tried and made stronger.
The wrath of God was shown on the Egyptians.
Exo 7:5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.
Exo 7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
Exo 7:18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.

Many of the plagues would have affected the Israelites. But in the same way that God could have protected, prepared and enabled His people to go through it, He will do the same at the end.

It takes more faith to believe that Jesus will bring us through the trials then to believe that He takes us out of the trials.
Jesus is the Blood that i can paint on my door posts, Jesus is the arc that will bring me through the flood. Jesus will walk with me in the fires.

don't think that you need to be taken away to be saved from His wrath. Jesus is the Key.

Dan 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

Using OT accounts of Israelites to define the nature of the mystery of the Church revealed to Paul......is folly most grievous. A sure way to end up in the eschatological weeds....

 

[cv5]

That's because they errantly think the Great Tribulation is God's wrath when scripture says it is Satan's wrath but God's wrath starts at the 7th trump, Revelation 11.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come , and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

See the sixth seal Rev 6:16.....
Satan's wrath is against Tribulation Saints and Israel BTW.
God's wrath is against everybody else.....

 

[GaryA]

NOTED, thanks!



[NOTE to self: OS is perfectly "okay" with: ellipses..., brackets, "quotation marks", italics (not to mention, the slash/virgule ), parenthesis, CAPS (for condensing title), & emoji... all of which I had used in that post; the only ones I don't think I used were the underline and bold features... oh, and the SIZE feature... GOT IT! (notice I did not use them here, for OS's sake... )]

So - do you consider it a "shame" or a "waste" if you write a post that does not include "at least some of everything"...?

(haha - just teasing)

 

[ewq1938]

See the sixth seal Rev 6:16.....
Satan's wrath is against Tribulation Saints and Israel BTW.

Scripture says his wrath is against Christians, all Christians, but not against Israel. Israel rejects Jesus and Satan likes that.

 

[TMS]

Using OT accounts of Israelites to define the nature of the mystery of the Church revealed to Paul......is folly most grievous. A sure way to end up in the eschatological weeds....

ignoring the old testament is a good way to be ignorant.
I see no account in all history where God secretly raptures his people away.
I see no evidence in all scripture. i have given so much scripture to show that we can, and will go through that tribulation time, old and new T. But you have already made up your mind.

 

[randyk]

The content of the "false claim" Paul is drawing attention to in 2Th2:2, is: "that the day of the Lord IS ALREADY HERE / IS ALREADY PRESENT [PERFECT indicative - 'PERFECT TENSE - Action completed at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST, with results CONTINUING INTO THE PRESENT']"

...THAT ^ (use of the "PERFECT INDICATIVE," where Paul is referring to the CONTENT OF THE FALSE CLAIM, v.2) is not speaking merely of a point in time, and not merely of the 24-hr day of Christ's return to the earth. But of a SPANS OF TIME, that STARTED at some point IN THE PAST and its effects are CONTINUING ON into the PRESENT.

That's ^ the substance of the "false claim" (per the grammar Paul himself uses in verse 2, about that subject--a distinct subject from his v.1 subject).

That's where we disagree. Paul was not just referencing the *false claim,* but also the actual event, in which Christ is supposed to come on a literal, 24 hour day, to save his people. According to Dan 7, the Son of Man comes down from the clouds of heaven, to save his people from the Man of Sin, and to establish God's eternal Kingdom. That all takes place on *one day.*

Jesus referred to it as the "last day" of the age.

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.

The problem was that Christians were erring by denying that there were any more antichrists to come, that Christ could come at any time, even today. They believed that somehow the Kingdom of Christ was being realized in their own cultic movement.

So yes, this is about a Christian error, and a Christian cult. But the error had nothing to do with their definition of the "day of the Lord" being any particular length of time. They all likely knew that Christ was coming on a single day, the last day of the age. Their error was in thinking that Christ could return before the Antichrist had been revealed and destroyed. In denying there were any more deceptions they themselves fell into a deception.

 

[randyk]

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

See my response to DWM. Quite simply, Jesus had told his Jewish disciples that lies would be told in the present era, trying to distract believers from the true Kingdom of God. Before the temple fell, those in Judaism were still proclaiming a false Messiah, who would deliver Jerusalem from the Romans. Jesus said that form of zealotry would fail.

Out among the Gentile Christians Paul ran into something similar. A cult group of Christians were claiming that the Kingdom of Christ was being realized in their own little cultic movement. Paul warned that this was the same kind of deception that Jesus warned about, false claims that the Kingdom has already come.

And so Paul argued that such deceptions will characterize this age all the way until the end of the age when Christ comes back to destroy Antichrist. We are not to believe any claim that the Kingdom is being realized before then.

 

[randyk]

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.

Sorry, what I see it says, and what I believe, makes perfect sense to me. Adding the destruction of Antichrist along with the revelation of Antichrist is exactly what Paul means. It's exactly what he says.

I'm not adding anything! He simply states first of all that the Antichrist has to be revealed before he is destroyed. And then Paul makes it unmistakably clear that Christ comes *at the destruction of Antichrist.* I'm not making this up!

2 Thes 2.8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Please notice in the bold that the revelation of Antichrist and the destruction of Antichrist both precede Christ's coming. And this is exactly as Daniel portrayed it in ch. 7. The Son of Man comes down from heaven after the reign of Antichrist and *at his destruction,* to set up God's eternal Kingdom, and to save his people. This is the pattern.

 

[GaryA]

It seems you didn't bother reading what I posted about that "beast". How come?

Not sure whether I have or not.

In a single post? Which post?

Do you or don't you want me to answer your question?

(that I was trying to answer)

Okay. Now - it makes sense that:

1) The beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit (Revelation 11:7) will not kill the Two Witnesses before ascending out of the bottomless pit.

2) That same beast will not ascend out of the bottomless pit before it is 'opened'. (Revelation 9:2)

Agree?

 

[GaryA]

You just proved they are the same. Can't have one without the other. They go together. Both the dead and living receive the SAME KIND of body, an imperishable one.

They are not the same [thing] - but, they do go together.

That's right - same kind of body - and, [all] receive it at the same time.

 

[ewq1938]

They are not the same [thing] - but, they do go together.

That's right - same kind of body - and, [all] receive it at the same time.

No, the dead in Christ rise first which means they become immortal before the living are changed into immortals. It's not very far apart but also is not at the same time.

 

[GaryA]

Could you just quote the specific verses (or just citations if your fingers are tired) that supports God's wrath AFTER Christ returns?

Christ Himself "dishes it out" - start with Revelation 6:16...

"wrath of the Lamb"

 

[JerryInBoston]

Only if you don't know what you're talking about.....

Thank you for confirming.

 

[GaryA]

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

Especially since the first 3-5 of the 'Seals' have been "opened" already...

 

[GaryA]

No, the dead in Christ rise first which means they become immortal before the living are changed into immortals. It's not very far apart but also is not at the same time.

Good point.

 

[GaryA]

Studying 'Olivet' seems a never-ending challenge.
My overwhelming feeling as that there are at least 2 if not 3 discussions engendered by
Christ's declaration about the Temple.
I believe that the account in Luke happens right outside the Temple, in public.
This is the immediate reaction of the disciples.

The accounts in Matthew and Mark definitely seem to occur later, when the disciples have had time to digest
what Jesus has said and then go to him 'privately' - i.e. in a completely different locale, on the Mt of Olives
as opposed to being in public at the Temple, and I think this is noted for us to take note.
I suspect that a delegation goes to Jesus first (Mark) and then
the disciples go in collectively afterwards (Matthew).

The important thing to my mind is that Jesus's declaration would have sent shockwaves through them,
and they would have considered and discussed his prophecy many a long hour.

Three separate accounts of the same singular discourse.

 

[OldSage]

Three separate accounts of the same singular discourse.

Not sure what you mean Gary

 

[OldSage]

Three separate accounts of the same singular discourse.

That doesn't hold though I am afraid.
The questions are different each time, the answer is different each time, and the location and interlocutors are different each time.

Unless you are saying that 2 out of Matthew, Mark and Luke were simply wholly inaccurate
which would be a very disturbing idea.