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

Unfortunately it appears that "hard to figure out" = "you don't get it".

In my opinion, TDWs Style of posting is sublime. Beautifully parsed and emphasized.

awesome proof of a pretrib rapture

Yes, recognition of the Antichrist is given to believers and to all who have a conscience and listen to believers. The rebellious world will not accept that Antichrist is "the Antichrist," any more than they might think Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin were "the Antichrist." They will simply dismiss the biblical narrative, thinking Christians are caught up in a superstitious fantasy, because they don't want to acknowledge what sin looks like. They want to be able to indulge in it, and compromise with it, in order to have their version of "peace" in the world.

But nowhere in the Bible does it say that Antichrist is disclosed by the brightness of Christ's coming. No, it says Antichrist is *destroyed* by the brightness of his Coming. Sorry you got that wrong, but you should know that the book of Revelation was written to Christians to enable them to expose and to endure wicked men like the Antichrist, as well as antiChristian-type governments. It is a call to faithfulness and to endurance. God bless!

I think you're really making the issue quite clear.

DW starts by addressing, in vs. 1, the Day of the Rapture, and then switches to talking about a completely different "extended Day" in vs. 3, involving something else.

It is mass confusion with his effort to insert Pretrib Theology into a passage that doesn't warrant it. It's like taking a simple sentence and then arbitrarily switching various nouns to make it say something else.

Take it up with Jesus. Just tell him he made a mistake.

I will maintain my position of making men refute the bible.

I am pretrib and him being revealed has zero to do with anything but a ptetrib rapture

Then address the verses.

They are bible.

You can not get a pass by dodging and generalizing

2 Timothy 4:18 doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Paul didn't mean they he would never face attacks, hardship, of tribulation. Obviously, Paul went through a lot of physical persecution and spiritual battles.

I would have to have the Gift of Interpreting Tongues to understand your point here!

This thread creates many more questions than answers:

Multiple raptures
A whole new world of syntax
Esoteric teachings

I feel like I've been drugged and abducted by a cult

OK, then. So why would Paul even bring up the rapture in v.1 and then abandon that subject and move to something different in v.2? That doesn't make sense. And v.3 refers back to v.1 anyway.

Because the rapture will occur on a SPECIFIC DAY, to be sure. It won't be over a time period.

So you have a lot to figure out. v.1 is about the rapture, v.3 is about the timing of the rapture, but you think v.2 is about something totally different. That is confustion.

Surely teaching a secret rapture is so unscriptural that it borders on heresy?

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

He doesn't abandon that Subject after v.1.

PAUL is the one BRINGING that Subject to bear on the problem, or false claim, being disclosed in verse 2--which verse is basically saying, don't let anyone persuade you into believing "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"... not the claim "that the rapture has already taken place," and not the claim "that Jesus Himself has already come," and not the claim "that His Kingdom age has already started"--the false claim he's pointing out in verse 2 wasn't any of those ideas;

...the false claim he's actually pointing out and covering (v.2) is the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"

...which Subject we already know from his first epistle to them, that the Thessalonians "KNOW PERFECTLY" that "the day of the Lord ARRIVES" LIKE the INITIAL "birth PANG" that COMES UPON a woman... but doesn't consist of merely one birth pang... that's just the START of it (i.e. its ARRIVAL)... just like Jesus had already talked covered in His Olivet Discourse, to refer to the START of something ("the BEGINNING of birth pangs" cover a lot of ground/time, and they are just the BEGINNING of them, not the totality of them, and certainly not the END of them, i.e. both Jesus and Paul refer to this as covering a duration of time... IOW, Paul in 1Th5:2-3, when referring to the term "the DOTL" and its ARRIVAL is not referring to Christ's return to the earth at Rev19, as many suppose, but rather a point well-prior to that.)



So... the false claim, or false conveyors purporting a false claim in v.2, were not claiming "the rapture" already occurred. The text does not state that that is the Subject of the false claim... you are incorrectly supposing that to be what it entailed.

PAUL is the one bringing the Subject of our Rapture (v.1) to bear on the problem expressed in v.2, "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative--'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►). In certain contexts the results are PERMANENT."--note: Caps original in the quote I just copied & pasted directly from Grk grammar site). The "day of the Lord" kicks-off with the "JUDGMENTs" aspect, before summing up with the "BLESSINGs" aspect... both transpiring OVER TIME (first the "IN THE NIGHT"/"DARK"/"DARKNESS" aspect [aka what we call the "7-yr Trib" aka "70th Week"]; then the "SUN of righteousness ARISE" and "reign GLORIOUSLY" aspect [aka the "BLESSINGs" aspect we call the "MK age"--His 1000-yr reign]).

The false claim entails that this is what is already here, having already ARRIVED, and 1Th5:2-3 tells the MANNER of its ARRIVAL that the Thessalonians already "KNOW PERFECTLY," according to that context (1Th5:1-3). Note: I do not say that they "know perfectly" it HAS ARRIVED, in 1Th5:1-3, which @randyk mistakenly assumed was my point, in another post. That hadn't been the point I was making there.

The reason that Paul refers to the Subject of our rapture event in verse 1, and the Subject of the false claim in verse 2 (having to do with a distinct Subject--the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"--an earthly-located time-period) is because in v.3 he is then going to make the point regarding how the one fits in relation, time-wise/sequence-wise, to the other.

He is not at all abandoning the Subject of v.1 (Rapture), as you suggest would be the case according to my view; it only seems so to you because you are mis-defining the Subject of the false claim spoken of in v.2, and are therefore mislabeling what v.3a is starting off with. If we can separate v.3 into 3 parts, for the purpose of properly identifying each part (which you are not properly identifying or properly connecting), then this can be more easily seen... which I may make a post on again, later, for this post is already so long I'm pretty sure you won't even want to read what all I've put here already, let alone any more... lol



Paul, in these 3 verses, is telling how the one Subject (v.1's) fits in relation, time-/sequence-wise, to the other Subject (v.2's false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" i.e. the "JUDGMENTs" aspect [unfolding upon the earth over a duration of time] that "the DOTL's ARRIVAL" and "IN THE NIGHT" section consists of...).

Paul is not in any way abandoning the Subject of "rapture" after v.1... but showing why "the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" (v.2) cannot be true; he does so in v.3 where he refers to both of those Subjects and declaring the correct SEQUENCE of those two items.

The problem enters when people mis-label v.2's Subject and therefore mis-label v.3a's Subject (which is the same)... and the veering off the track of what Paul is actually conveying turns into a major misstep in interpreting this passage that is difficult to rectify in ppl's minds... so that they suggest things such as you have, that I'm saying something I'm NOT saying: that Paul abandons talking about "rapture" after v.1... but I've never made such a point. You only think I have because of your not grasping what v.2 (and therefore v.3a) are communicating, which is NOT as you suggest it is... (IOW, the false claim Paul brings up in v.2 is NOT that the rapture already occurred--the actual words in that verse do not convey such an idea... You are reading that idea INTO the text of verse 2, the Subject of the false claim... )

if it were the logical assumption, then it would follow that Christ's coming would be pre-trib, since the unfaithful and therefore deceived are those marked and the faithful are those beheaded...but if Christ's coming destroys the antichrist...how can he, then, commence his campaign

You should also conduct a study on the "first resurrection". Its priority, phases, and components.

Surely teaching a secret rapture is so unscriptural that it borders on heresy?

He doesn't abandon that Subject after v.1.

PAUL is the one BRINGING that Subject to bear on the problem, or false claim, being disclosed in verse 2--which verse is basically saying, don't let anyone persuade you into believing "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"... not the claim "that the rapture has already taken place," and not the claim "that Jesus Himself has already come," and not the claim "that His Kingdom age has already started"--the false claim he's pointing out in verse 2 wasn't any of those ideas;

...the false claim he's actually pointing out and covering (v.2) is the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"

So... the false claim, or false conveyors purporting a false claim in v.2, were not claiming "the rapture" already occurred. The text does not state that that is the Subject of the false claim... you are incorrectly supposing that to be what it entailed.

PAUL is the one bringing the Subject of our Rapture (v.1) to bear on the problem expressed in v.2, "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative--'ACTION COMPLETED at a SPECIFIC POINT of TIME in PAST (●) with results CONTINUING into the PRESENT (▬►). In certain contexts the results are PERMANENT."--note: Caps original in the quote I just copied & pasted directly from Grk grammar site). The "day of the Lord" kicks-off with the "JUDGMENTs" aspect, before summing up with the "BLESSINGs" aspect... both transpiring OVER TIME (first the "IN THE NIGHT"/"DARK"/"DARKNESS" aspect [aka what we call the "7-yr Trib" aka "70th Week"]; then the "SUN of righteousness ARISE" and "reign GLORIOUSLY" aspect [aka the "BLESSINGs" aspect we call the "MK age"--His 1000-yr reign]).

The false claim entails that this is what is already here, having already ARRIVED, and 1Th5:2-3 tells the MANNER of its ARRIVAL that the Thessalonians already "KNOW PERFECTLY," according to that context (1Th5:1-3). Note: I do not say that they "know perfectly" it HAS ARRIVED, in 1Th5:1-3, which @randyk mistakenly assumed was my point, in another post. That hadn't been the point I was making there.

The reason that Paul refers to the Subject of our rapture event in verse 1, and the Subject of the false claim in verse 2 (having to do with a distinct Subject--the false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]"--an earthly-located time-period) is because in v.3 he is then going to make the point regarding how the one fits in relation, time-wise/sequence-wise, to the other.

He is not at all abandoning the Subject of v.1 (Rapture), as you suggest would be the case according to my view; it only seems so to you because you are mis-defining the Subject of the false claim spoken of in v.2

and are therefore mislabeling what v.3a is starting off with. If we can separate v.3 into 3 parts, for the purpose of properly identifying each part (which you are not properly identifying or properly connecting), then this can be more easily seen... which I may make a post on again, later, for this post is already so long I'm pretty sure you won't even want to read what all I've put here already, let alone any more... lol

Paul, in these 3 verses, is telling how the one Subject (v.1's) fits in relation, time-/sequence-wise, to the other Subject (v.2's false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" i.e. the "JUDGMENTs" aspect [unfolding upon the earth over a duration of time] that "the DOTL's ARRIVAL" and "IN THE NIGHT" section consists of...).

Paul is not in any way abandoning the Subject of "rapture" after v.1... but showing why "the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" (v.2) cannot be true; he does so in v.3 where he refers to both of those Subjects and declaring the correct SEQUENCE of those two items.

The problem enters when people mis-label v.2's Subject and therefore mis-label v.3a's Subject (which is the same)... and the veering off the track of what Paul is actually conveying turns into a major misstep in interpreting this passage that is difficult to rectify in ppl's minds... so that they suggest things such as you have, that I'm saying something I'm NOT saying: that Paul abandons talking about "rapture" after v.1... but I've never made such a point. You only think I have because of your not grasping what v.2 (and therefore v.3a) are communicating, which is NOT as you suggest it is... (IOW, the false claim Paul brings up in v.2 is NOT that the rapture already occurred--the actual words in that verse do not convey such an idea... You are reading that idea INTO the text of verse 2, the Subject of the false claim... )

Precious friend, our Great GRACE Departure {aka "rapture"}, will
Certainly be NO secret. The UNbelieving world "left behind" Will
Certainly KNOW "something took place," and how MANY WILL REJOICE
when those aggravating Christians "preaching JESUS CHRIST," are
Finally Gone!?

Be Blessed!

You're making no sense. Paul begins v.1 with "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,"
Did you see it? Concerning is how he began the verse. So he was talking about the rapture, as you have agreed to. That is the sole subject of the verse. "concerning the rapture"
Yet, you then go into some ridiculous idea that Paul then changes the subject entirely and addresses something else, which cannot be the rapture. That makes no sense. Hopefully some day that will become clear to you.