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

I should think you have a better occupation than "cheerleading?" Can we just visit the arguments, rather than declare the battle over prematurely? I've argued this with TDW for years on another forum, and he has *never* won! I respect the man, but I don't feel that he's done much more than confuse an otherwise simple biblical eschatology.

But the verse doesn't say "that day". Just "on the day". But whatever.

I've emboldened the part that I think is wonderfully said! I've felt the same way for many years. It's absolutely incredible that something spoken so simply can be completely distorted in order to create a new theology, a new eschatology!

For many centuries good Christians read 2 Thessalonians and *never* read "apostasia" as the Departure of the Church from the earth in a Pretribulational Rapture! You have to wonder how effective the Holy Spirit is if He can't even communicate to the Church what Paul meant for 1800 years!

And why so suddenly John N. Darby is privileged to see what few have seen before, to initiate a brand new eschatology in Christian history. It makes one wonder!

I've found it fascinating, and recognize that theology is either a revelation or a bondage. And if the error is a bondage, it is not easily exposed, even if it seems simple to you or me.

Those who hold to a Pretribulation eschatology are, I believe, in a kind of bondage. They are utterly unable to see things from another point of view. So it requires kindness, prayer, and persistence in speaking the truth. Thank you for what you're doing. As peripheral as this topic is to more important topics like Salvation, it is still a part of God's word. And Paul considered it important enough to write this letter.

The real danger is that there are religious movements that get proud and begin to declare themselves the voice of God or the move of God on earth, assuming an attitude that they are the advancement of God's Kingdom on earth presently in some almost militant kind of form. Zealotry and battling with carnal weapons to achieve spiritual fulfillment is not God's Kingdom, but rather, a false Messiah.

That was Paul's concern, that we would get high on ourselves, and miss the real enemy of our souls. Christ is who we need to look to, because he will defeat the foe in his own time, and not when we choose to declare it.

Something like "concerning our gathering to Him, that day won't come until we depart to be gathered first..." Just doesn't sit well with reason.

Well, that didn't take long!!




NO. That's NOT what it would say... (you *have* to be joking, right?? Twinsy with FrGr2??)


[I heard that ringer! ]



No, it would not be saying as you suggest ^ , but instead (in modern parlance):

"3 Look guys, the trib can't be present till our exit takes place *FIRST* [you know, verse 1's SUBJECT!] and the man of sin arrives on the scene..." and NEITHER have happened. Clear as a bell. DING DING!! Ding-a-ling! (it's ON RECORD... TAPED!! ; ] )

Well, that didn't take long!!




NO. That's NOT what it would say... (you *have* to be joking, right?? Twinsy with FrGr2??)


[I heard that ringer! ]



No, it would not be saying as you suggest ^ , but instead (in modern parlance):

"3 Look guys, the trib can't be present till our exit takes place *FIRST* [you know, verse 1's SUBJECT!] and the man of sin arrives on the scene..." and NEITHER have happened. Clear as a bell. DING DING!! Ding-a-ling! (it's ON RECORD... TAPED!! ; ] )

You are calling the entire "Great Tribulation" period the "Day of the Lord," including the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, and the 2nd Coming. But this is not what Paul actually said.

Hi randyk... Please allow me to correct one small point of your above paragraph. I'm not calling "OUR RAPTURE" "the Day of the Lord," I'm saying [rather, pointing out the text] "our Rapture *FIRST*" ["THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*"] before the "day of the Lord can BE PRESENT" to unfold upon the earth, with His "INFLICTING VENGEANCE ON those who...," which is a TIME-PERIOD (which was what the false conveyors were PURPORTING "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... It wasn't), rather than MERELY "a singular 24-hr day" (i.e. wrath / "INFLICTING VENGEANCE ON" on merely the 24-hr "day" of His "RETURN". No.)

You and I simply are not going to come to any semblance of agreement on this particular point because (yes, I know your viewpoint of the "long GREAT tribulation [since the first century, unfolding]")... because... I cannot overlook the following few important points:

--Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 is saying "[to SHEW unto...]...things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (NOT unfolding over the course of some near-2000-yrs)

--SAME ^ *time-period* ("IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]") that "AVENGE *IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]*" is speaking of in Lk18:8 (parallel to the words "[WITH His mighty angels...] ... INFLICTING VENGEANCE ON..." over the course of that SAME *time-period* (i.e. 7-yr Trib leading UP TO His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19)

--SAME ^ *time-period* ("IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]") that Rom16:20 says (to the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY), "shall CRUSH Satan UNDER YOUR FEET *IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]*" (recall, "Know ye not that *WE* SHALL JUDGE ANGELS" 1Cor6:3[14])

--that "kings go out to battle" (think: Rev19) on a very specific day, in scripture... and one can actually trace out "2520 days" [7 yrs of 360 days each] in Revelation from the first SEAL to His "RETURN" to the earth Rev19; and that the "NO MAN KNOWETH" [know] was written in the "PERFECT TENSE" (so that this verse [and parallels], speaking of His Second Coming to the earth, is NOT saying "no one WILL EVER know" nor "no one CAN EVER know"... but that Rev1:1 is actually saying "[The] Revelation OF JESUS CHRIST, which GOD GAVE UNTO HIM [unto Jesus] TO *SHEW* UNTO..." is "further information" that He did not have access to BEFORE His ASCENSION / EXHALTATION, but now He is DISCLOSING (in 95ad)

--and so much more I could say, but this is already so lengthy that it's doubtful you'll do anything but *skim* it, thus missing the reasonings (in part) I am supplying for my not being convinced of your viewpoint...

It is clear that the two witnesses have completed their ministry before the seventh trumpet/bowl judgments/third woe. It is less clear exactly when 144,000 complete their ministry and are gathered unto the Lord. Have you formulated an opinion or theory on this matter? I am wondering whether all of the Tribulation Saints (all of them having been martyred and none remaining) and the 144,000 (removed) are no longer on the earth before the seventh trumpet and bowl judgments.

Can you take a moment and expand on your midtrib/Fifth trumpet first woe theory?

You and I simply are not going to come to any semblance of agreement on this particular point because (yes, I know your viewpoint of the "long GREAT tribulation [since the first century, unfolding]")... because... I cannot overlook the following few important points:

--Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 is saying "[to SHEW unto...]...things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (NOT unfolding over the course of some near-2000-yrs)

All that theatrics, and not a single acknowledgement that you've changed the word, from the *day of Christ's coming for the Church* to "the Tribulation?"

"Quickly"

I explained some of it EVER SO BRIEFLY in a different post, way back... and truthfully, I think I'd rather not go into all that in THIS thread... it's just so time-consuming it seems...

But I'll point out a cpl things and see if this helps you see my perspective:

[recall]
--Dan12:12's "BLESSED" (where I believe the CONTEXT is speaking of "STILL-LIVING" saints at the time of His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom [with those saints ENTERING the kingdom age in their MORTAL bodies])... is parallel with about 8 or so other "BLESSED" passages speaking of the same time-slot and same circumstances (re: "still-living" saints on the earth, ENTERING the MK age);

--Rev20:4a's wording (distinct from v.4b's persons) is parallel the wording in Dan7:22... which I believe ALSO refers to "still-living" saints at the time of Christ's "RETURN" to the earth (see the TIMING-words in v.25, and the description in v.27); whereas Rev20:4b is speaking of the ones who were MARTYRED / BEHEADED in the SECOND HALF of the trib (when the MOTB is in effect), who will be "resurrected" (and will be "as the angels"--not marrying or producing children, like the "still-living" saints will still have the capacity to do in / during the MK age)



...IOW, I do not believe EVERY saint will be "killed" during the trib years... Is that the only point you were aiming for... or another??

"The day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY" are the SAME TIME-PERIOD, when used in the SAME CONTEXTS throughout Scripture

(and Paul is doing the same thing here in THIS context, chpts 1 & 2)

Is it any wonder that for 1800 years the Church read 2 Thes over and over and over again, and *never* saw a smidgeon of Pretrib teaching? You mention one guy who had a Pretrib Theology, but no serious systematic Pretrib Theology emerged in history until Darby. I wonder why? Maybe because in reading these passages, a Pretrib Rapture simply isn't there? If so, then maybe we should stop assuming it is there, you think?

Brother, you're a good guy, and have a good heart. But you're wrong on this one, and I hope to convince you to abandon Darbyism. He isn't worth it.

The Day of the LORD is the Second Coming and not the RAPTURE.

I have asked DWM for years to stop adding so many embellishments to his posts, due to the confusing array of misdirections that that can involve. Instead of letting a verse speak for itself, we read DWM's misdirections, which is the whole point of his doing that! He *cannot* let the Scriptures speak for themselves, because they *do not say* what he wants them to say!

Also, I've complained to him for years that he gathers up bits of prophecy or eschatology from all over the Scriptures to apply in a single passage. That would be fine if he applied them with a proper systematic theology.

Instead, he redefines the "day of Christ's coming" in one place as a "day of the Lord" in another place. And obviously, there have been days of the Lord in the past that had nothing whatsoever to do with Christ's coming. And even if they did have something to do with Christ's coming, they may, in context, be referring to other elements other than just Christ's coming.

And quite frankly, just because an OT prophecy refers to the Messianic Kingdom and mentions the "Lord's day" it does not infer that the "Lord's day" has to always be used the same way. This would be applying an Interpretive Fallacy. In *every passage* in which the "Lord's day" is referred to, it has to be defined within its own context. One cannot confuse two separate passages, even if they are referring to a similar time.

A true lesson in interpretation is to apply a statement in its immediate context--not just search throughout the Bible to find the definition for a word that we want to apply in a particular passage. There may be, in the OT, a "day of the Lord" that can apply to the entire Messianic Kingdom in the totality of its age. But that doesn't mean it has to be applied the same way in other passages dealing with that time period.

It certainly doesn't mean the "day of the Lord" applies in this way to 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2, where the day specifically referred to is the day in which Christ defeats the Antichrist with the "breath of his mouth," and delivers his people by gathering them to himself.

This is, in its immediate context, a specific and literal day, just as it is shown in the original blueprint in Dan 7. There, the Son of Man comes down from heaven to establish God's Kingdom and to destroy the Man of Sin. This is a *specific day* Paul is referring to, and cannot include the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule, since the very purpose of the coming of the Son of Man is to destroy the Antichrist.

Precious friend(s), please explain the following CHANGE!:

Rev_19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Why?:

Rev_19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him that sat on the horse, and against His army.

Perchance, on the way, were ONE "of the ARMIES {Body Of CHRIST?}" assigned
their Heavenly positions of reigning and rulership, "vacated" by the fallen angels?

Thanks. Be Blessed!