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

Okay, thanks for your thoughts. Here are mine, and where I believe you go wrong.
1) Saying *all* take the mark of the Beast is a generalized statements without specification. In other words, it's a kind of "universalist" statement that was meant to be applied not universally, but only universally within the stated context. Since Antichrist's Empire is limited to 10 states in Europe, it is *his policy* within his dominion to impose this requirement, and only those who are within reach of his police state. Obviously, Christians resist, which is the entire *purpose* of the book--to encourage resistance. Praise is offered for those who resist, meaning that the Church is obviously still on earth within the Antichristian Empire!

2) Matt 25 will have to be addressed later.

3) Matt 24 is oftten miscontrued with respect to those "taken" and those "left behind." It is my conviction that both parties are "taken" in judgment by the Romans. The Romans conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and either took captive the Jews or left a few to keep the fields for them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Rapture. This is easily discernible by viewing Luke's version--Luke 17.

Yes, I do believe in ultimate escape from divine wrath. That is at the resurrection, which takes place on the *last day* of this age. That's all those passages teach, ie Lot and Noah--nothing about a Pretrib Rapture.

Sorry, but Rev 14 does *not* teaching that the Son of Man comes *during* the Tribulation! These are previews of what Dan 7 taught about the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, when he comes to destroy the Antichrist, the Man of Sin.

On the contrary, 1 Thes 4 has the dead rising simulttaneously with the living. The preempting of the living to state the fact of the rising is not done to separate the 2 events into two different time periods! No, it is to state that the dead will not be left out of the glorification event. Yes, the dead must rise 1st in order to participate with the living in the *same event!*

I'd much rather associate with the Early Church Fathers than with you and Darby! I do agree that there was dienchantment about Israel in the Early Church Fathers. There was equally disenchantment about Israel in Acts 1, when the apostles asked Jesus when Israel would be restored.

This was the whole basis of the Olivet Discourse, the concern by Jesus' Disciples that if Jerusalem was to be destroyed, how on earth can God's promises for Israel be fulfilled? But Jesus answered that by reaffirming that he would come back to destroy the antichristian control over this world, and to restore the rightful rule of his people. Both the Church and national Israel would be sustained.

It wasn't just the Early Church that was Postrib. The Reformation was also Postrib. Pretrib for the most part hasn't existed in Christian history until the time of Darby. Pretrib is a modern novel doctrine--something you should seriously question. Is it even in the Scriptures? Certainly not! It has to be "read into" the Bible. It has to be *assumed.* This is *not* legitimate Bible interpretation.

Suit yourself.

"""Yes, I do believe in ultimate escape from divine wrath. That is at the resurrection, which takes place on the *last day* of this age. That's all those passages teach, ie Lot and Noah--nothing about a Pretrib Rapture."""

Both were removed PREJUDGEMENT.

Jesus used both stories.
Neither has lot or noah REMOVED AFTER FLOOD / FIRE.
postribbers need lot and noah REMOVED AFTER judgement.
So you need that factored in.

In fact, with noah, he was carried over a mile into the sky, via the water, then RETURNED AFTER the flood.

Pretrib rapture. Fits perfect.
Postribbers are not even aware that they need lot and noah delivered after judgement.
That alone is huge.

"""It wasn't just the Early Church that was Postrib. The Reformation was also Postrib. Pretrib for the most part hasn't existed in Christian history until the time of Darby. Pretrib is a modern novel doctrine--something you should seriously question. Is it even in the Scriptures? Certainly not! It has to be "read into" the Bible. It has to be *assumed.* This is *not* legitimate Bible interpretation."""

I dont know why postribs embrace the fallable men that are long dead. The early church was rife with error.
End times was deceptive to them. Israel was destroyed and the jews scattered.
They got it wrong.
But some saw through it. Early on some believed a pretrib rapture.

I think as far back as 300 ad they found writings.
Hardly anyone goes there anymore since we know those claims by postribs are error and have been debunked.

Postribs need to check things out.

"""It wasn't just the Early Church that was Postrib. The Reformation was also Postrib. Pretrib for the most part hasn't existed in Christian history until the time of Darby. Pretrib is a modern novel doctrine--something you should seriously question. Is it even in the Scriptures? Certainly not! It has to be "read into" the Bible. It has to be *assumed.* This is *not* legitimate Bible interpretation."""

You have no verses.
All you are doing is shootting as many messangers as you can.

I bring verses

You reframe.

That is why i put out my challenge. Show me one verse.

No " darby ,last trump, lahaye, church fathers, i feel, i think,"

That is all conjecture and extra biblical.

I've been posting evidence/proof of Postrib from the Scriptures since the mid-70s. There is zero evidence/proof for a Pretrib Rapture in Scriptures, with respect to *explicit theological or doctrinal statements.* Lacking clear, explicit Scriptural statements, saying in effect that the Rapture of the Church precedes the rule of Antichrist, we must conclude that Pretrib Doctrine is "read into" the Scriptures, and is not really supported by the Scriptures.

Not only is all NT eschatology based on postribulational Dan 7, and the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man to destroy Antichrist, but 2 Thes 2 positively declares that we are "deceived* if we believe Christ's day of coming can be *before* the rise and death of Antichrist!

That is as clear and explicit biblical theology and doctrine as any other. So your illusion remains an illusion, and you can spout it for another 30 years if you want?

You can try to mismanage the words all you want, but what Paul said in 2 Thes 2 cannot say Postrib any better in the words that he used. It can be taken other ways only by seriously disturbing the sense of what he's saying, and by assuming other issues, not mentioned, are involved.

Paraphrase: "That day, ie the coming of Christ for his Church, will not happen unless Antichrist appears first and is destroyed."

Actual quote: "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. "

"""Sorry, but Rev 14 does *not* teaching that the Son of Man comes *during* the Tribulation! These are previews of what Dan 7 taught about the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, when he comes to destroy the Antichrist, the Man of Sin"""

Have you read it?
144k FIRSTFRUIT jews in heaven during the trib. Thats how it starts.
A few verses later ...MAIN HARVEST OF JEWS.
Now that is by Jesus , sitting on a cloud.
Are you aware that postribs have NO WHERE to go with rev 14?
Think about it. You guys say " one coming, on horses, with power, military type power, to destroy the antichrist ....WITH BILLIONS OF HORSES BLACKENING THE SKY.

Transpose that postrib model,(your very model) onto rev 14.

Pssssst...it is impossible.

So you do have 2 verses?

As we have said many dozens of times the Church is nowhere to be found in Matthew 24. It is impossible to maintain a correct end time eschatology unless you FIRST realize that fact.

"""On the contrary, 1 Thes 4 has the dead rising simulttaneously with the living. The preempting of the living to state the fact of the rising is not done to separate the 2 events into two different time periods! No, it is to state that the dead will not be left out of the glorification event. Yes, the dead must rise 1st in order to participate with the living in the *same event!*"""

1 thes 4 describes a different event than rev 14.

And both are different than rev 19.

Go back and read all three.

Try to transpose all 3 into one.

You can do it.
But not honestly.
Transposing all 3 events into one is error. Forcefitting.

Btw
None of that darby invoking is doing a thing.
Zero.
I know he is key somehow to your doctrine...but it is weird.

You cut them out, didn't you?

I quoted 2 Thes 2, which is certainly more than 2 verses.
The issue is: the Coming of the Lord for the Church, and the day that happens.
The concern: Paul didn't want Christians to believe that day would take place unless 1st Antichrist appeared. Then Christ would actually come to destroy Antichrist.
Conclusion: the day of Christ's coming for the Church takes place at the destruction of Antichrist, and not before. Otherwise, Paul indicates we are deceived.

The other passage I gave you was Daniel 7, where the Son of Man comes from the clouds to *destroy Antichrist.* Most all of NT eschatology, which often references this passage, directly or indirectly, is based on that.

Look up "revealed"

You have revealed at the end of the trib.

You need to rethink what you are saying.

so 2 chapters?
Your basis for all end times is that?
Are you aware of the actual rapture verses? 1 thes 4, mat 25, mat 24, acts1, etc?

Absolutely correct. As has been stated multiple times on this thread the Church is one and done. A specific group of Saints in a timely dispensation, with infallibly abrupt boundary conditions.

The Church begins at Pentecost and ends at the Rapture. The boundary conditions are the concomitant specific actions of the Holy Spirit.

Yes Jesus comes after the trib to destroy the ac.

We both believe that

Study the meaning of the word "prolepsis." I 1st read it from George E. Ladd, in his commentary on Revelation, I believe. Rev 14 references the Son of Man and the clouds, which is exactly what 1 Thes 4 refers to. Both, therefore, refer to Dan 7, which is the 1st mention of the Son of Man descending from heaven with the clouds.

1 Thes 4.16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Rev 1.7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him."

Rev 14.14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man.

Dan 7.13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. "

All of these are related, by virtue of their reference to Dan 7, where the Son of Man descends from heaven with the clouds. Since the context for that passage is Postrib, and refers to the destruction of Antichrist, we have to assume that that formed the basis for Paul's argument against Pretrib. Like Jesus he didn't want to see Christians trusting in false Millennial movements on earth, proclaiming to be the New Age!

I'm sure we have a lot more than that in common!

"""3) Matt 24 is oftten miscontrued with respect to those "taken" and those "left behind." It is my conviction that both parties are "taken" in judgment by the Romans. The Romans conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and either took captive the Jews or left a few to keep the fields for them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Rapture. This is easily discernible by viewing Luke's version--Luke 17."""

Oh no DEFINATELY AND POSITIVELY THE RAPTURE.

Re read it:
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Amen
We are brothers for sure.

Kudos to you my friend

Brother, I don't need to re-read it--I memorized the whole message back in the 70s. Now, I no longer have it memorized, and my memory is, in fact, failing. But I don't need to re-read it. I know it better than most people.

It does *not* have to do with the Rapture. The Rapture happens at the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, to gather his people. If you compare all versions of the Olivet Discourse, in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17;21, you will find that the gist of this Discourse deals with the generation of Jesus' Apostles, who are being warned concerning the times that they will live through. They will lose their country, because the Romans will be sent by God in judgment against a backslidden nation.

The Romans had an eagle symbol on their staffs, or standard. They worshiped it as a god. And so, Jesus referred to the hunting eagle, hovering over Jerusalem, ready to take the "corpse." Jesus was asked, by his Disciples, where this would happen. He said it would happen where the corpse would be, referring to Israel, killed by the Romans. It would happen in Jerusalem.

It would be a time when true believers in Christ would have to take leave asap. Some would leave immediately, and some at the last moment. Those remaining in Jerusalem to the last moment were stuck, and would likely die. Those captured were either killed, taken captive, or left behind to keep the fields for the Romans.

One thing that is quite clear to me, and not to many, is that Christ was not willing to focus on eschatology, since it was a distraction away from the present requirements of God. We are not to indulge unduly in excessive prognostications about the future, getting wrapped up in speculations about when and where, and what symbol means what. We are not to be about "times and seasons."

Rather, Jesus used the message of his coming Kingdom to focus on his own day, and on the situation his future apostles would have to face. And so, his Coming is also used as if a foreshadowing of the end of the age. As Israel would be judged, so will the world be judged. And as the Son of Man is coming at the end of the age to judge the pagan Gentiles, so he is coming in the days of the Apostles to judge backslidden Israel. In this way the coming of Christ is viewed in parallel.

Some believe this is Preterism. But I'm not a Preterist. I view the Discourse as Jesus wanted it to be viewed, as an historical prophecy dealing with the time at hand--not with questionable future dates and events.

Yea, most of my Christian brothers and friends are Pretrib. My pastor, a good friend, is Pretrib. When we get finished arguing, we have a cup of coffee and change the subject. Actually, though this pastor is very willing to meet and discuss, I can tell he doesn't like arguing. I'm of a different mold!