Rapture Question

I don't see the publisher here. Is there not a reputable house that would publish it?? When your opening page starts with a implicit denial of Revelation 3:10, it does not bode well for the rest of the book. Additionally your introduction mistates the point of 1 Thess 5:1-11 when it says that it teaches that the believer will not be surprised. The teaching of 1 Thess 5 is that the believer will not be overtaken as the others will ... why?? Because they were not destined for wrath. Then you deny the imminency of his coming, something that Christ himself affirms in the book of Revelation. The time that in Daniel and the gospels is in the latter days is "soon" or "coming quickly" in REvelation. There is an obvious change in tone. Revelation teaches the imminent coming, something that is not compatible with a prewrath, mid trib, or posttrib view.

Yes, Why?? Did you think that contradicted what I said? I am not sure what your point in bringing this up is.

Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24; Rev 6:12. Why do you ask??

Apparently you missed the significance. Having been taught directly by Paul (in 1 Thess as well as verbally most likely), they understood Paul's teaching to be that they would be gone. They did not think that they were in teh DOL. They were confused becuase someone told them that they were in the DOL (cf. v. 2). They were surprised and confused because Paul told them differently. As I say, I think you have not fairly dealt with the implications of this passage.

The DOL includes the blessing of the millennial kingdom but the prewrath rapture has a whole set of issues of its own.

1 Thess 4 and 5, 2 Thess 1, 2.

"Nonsense" was the word that Latreia unwisely used for something he did not agree with. My point is that the pretrib rapture is far from nonsense. If someone has disproved the pretrib rapture, I have yet to see it. Perhaps one day someone will ... most likely they won't.

What we must realize is that any position you take is a matter of systematizing a bunch of different passages. There is no explicit statement. The closest is Rev 3:10 (though some have tried to apply it differently) and 1 Thesss 5:9, which has very few other options that can seriously be entertained in the context. We need to be careful to deal with all of Scripture and put it together in a way that is consistent. Doing so will show, I believe, that the tribulation is for the outpouring of God's wrath on sin and the judgment and conviction of Israel to bring them to repentance. Neither applies to the church; God explicitly promises to the church salvation from that wrath. Your prewrath view is an attempt to come halfway towards this but stops short because it fails in understanding the entire tribulation period as a period of wrath. It has defined "wrath" down.

However, I doubt that you will be persuaded and so I will likely leave it here.

[ December 14, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[ December 15, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I know I said I wouldn't do this but I just can't help myself. Ask me a question that I have study for ... that way I won't post so soon.

I wasn't slamming your or your publisher. I don't know either. I was asking why a reputable house hasn't published it. Nor do I wish you to ignore conclusions. I wish you would deal with them, but I don't suppose you will because of where they will take you.

Did you mean to misquote this or just do it accidently?? The great and terrible day of the Lord probably refers to a specific outpouring of God's wrath in the tribulation. The whole tribulation period is a time of wrath. It would be very hard to conclude that the first five seals are not part of God's wraht. Furthermore, this "great and terrible day of the Lord" and teh whole tribulation period is said to be for the nation of Israel and the unbelieving nations of the earth. Why would the church, who has already repented and believed, be present for the punishment of those who have not?

I think the "exaltation of the man of sin" is a mere exaltation among men. It does not have any comparison to the Lord. Here, you are conflating two things and comparing them using a false standard of comparison.

I am not convinced of this from Scripture. The DOL cannot begin until after the rapture. It might begin on the same day but I see no scriptural mandate for that. There may be a period of time.

Only because, as I say, you have assumed that the exaltation of Antichrist will be a real exaltation. Again, I don't think you can make that comparison stand up. The exaltation of God is of a completely different nature than that of Antichrist. If this is your case, it is weaker than I imagined it to be.

 

But the problem is that you have simply missed some of the most basic things in all of Scripture by looking for distinctions that cannot be supported. Consider that you claim that the Tribulation is not a period of wrath. You cannot find one verse of Scripture that supports you in that. To the contrary, the Tribulation period is called a time of testing (Rev 3:10), distress/trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1), indignation/wrath (Is 26:120; 1 Thess 1:10, Rev 6:16-17; Dan 8:19), and the DOL (Zech 14:1). The only way you get around this is by presuming your conclusion. I reject that method of study.

You argue that tribulation is what we go through and wrath is what the unbelievers go through. Yet again, you do not offer one verse of Scripture in support of that. I do not deny that believers have tribulation in this life but it is distinct in Scripture from the tribulation that is coming. It is called the Great Tribulation in theology. You commit here one of the common but disastrous exegetical fallacies. You assume that every time the word tribulation (thlipsis) is used, it refers to the same thing. You do the same thing for orge (wrath). Yet it clearly has a semantic domain from which to start and then you find the appropriate definition based on context. The Tribulation is a seven year period after the Rapture of the church that is the pouring out of God’s wrath for the purpose of judging sin and bringing Israel to repentance.

You reference Rev 6:10, but you have clearly conflated tribulation saints and church saints. The two are not the same. You have read your assumption into Rev 6, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

I am not sure what you think the DOL is. That may be the problem here. The DOL is the period of time of judgment and blessing from God. A good resource for your study is Richard L. Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 231-246 and same author, “The Apostle’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A Kent, Jr., edited by G. T. Meadors (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1991), pp. 239-263. Both of these will help to clarify. The DOL and Tribulation are connected in Obad 15-16, 18; Joel 2 and 3, Zeph 1:1-3:8. All of these passages show that judgment of the Tribulation is a part of the DOL. 1 Thess 5 makes this point as well talking of the “peace and safety” and the destruction that comes suddenly like a woman in child.

Lastly, onto the exaltation of the Lord, you have conflated two things and assumed that the exaltation of Antichrist is the same as the exaltation of the YHWH. It is helpful for your argument but it is not good exegesis. The exaltation of Antichrist is a self-exaltation and will be thrown down by Christ to show that it is no exaltation.

I have ignored nothing. You have gone on a quest to prove a point, not to exegete Scripture. In so doing you have lifted verses out of context, applied them to the wrong time period or wrong people, committed exegetical fallacies (as Carson calls them in his little book), failed to produce the very thing you are asking me for, a verse of Scripture that shows you to be right. Why aren’t you producing Scripture that proves your case??

I do as well. Because this is an excellent case study for the authority that we give to Scripture.

 

Dave,

I am not even sure where to begin. This stuff you have posted again is so obvious as to make me wonder whether or not you are playing the devil's advocate here. Just in reading it, I find it hard to imagine that someone is seriously saying this after having studied the Scripture.

Perhaps tomorrow I will have a few minutes to address some of the more major points. There are some that don't even need addressing really. I think they are self-refuting (like the seal's being Satan's wrath ... Why in the world would Satan send out wrath against unbelievers??? They are on his side.) There cannot be a serious scriptural argument mounted against teh tribulation being seven years in lenght. Both Daniel and Revelation affirm that. Nor can there be a serious scriptural argument leveled against the idea of God's wrath being excluded from the entire 7 year period. This is a simple matter of reading the text apart from the presupposition and bad study habits (that arise from presuppositions quite often and the necessity to support positions).

As for proof of the pretrib, the easiest proof follows a simple line of reasoning.

I. The purpose of the Tribulation
1 Judgment on confirmed sinfulness Joel 3:13, Rev 14:15, Rev 9:20-21, etc.
2 Chastisement of Israel Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1
3 Repentance of Israel Rom 11:26; Zech 12:10; Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1
4 Repentance of Gentiles Rev 7:9-17.
5 The overthrow of Gentile dominion and Antichrist Rev 16:17-21; Rev 18; Rev 19:19; Ps 2:1-3; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:20-21

All of these purpose preclude the existence of the church at that time.

II. The lack of any mention of the Church in the Tribulation.
III. The lack of coherence in passages from a posttrib/prewrath position (1 Thess 4, 5; 2 Thess 2).
IV. The doctrine of imminency.

All of these issues from Scripture point to a pretribulation rapture of the church so that God's purposes can be carried out.

 

No one has answered my question!

In Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Was this fullfilled in light of Scripture IN
1 Kings 4:21 "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt:"

If no why so?

 

No. The answer comes from reading the texts in question. Gen says from the river of Egypt and 1 Kings says unto the border of Egypt. Thus, two different boundaries are in question. Additionally, Genesis says that teh land will be owned; 1 Kings says it was merely reigned over yet still inhabited by others. Thus the texts in question answer the questions you raise.

 

I am familiar with the basics of these positions. That is why I am opposed to them. I generally do not take positions on things I know nothing about. If I do, I generally preface them with a disclaimer about my lack of knowledge. I do not know all the ins and outs of the various positions. I know enough to compare them.

I feel the same way which I why I hesitate to address much of the stuff you mention above. It is so out of order with Scripture so as to wonder why it is being seriously suggested, if indeed it is. You are the one who said the wrath was Satan's. God describes the tribulation as his judgments. In this, you have whether intentionally or not, contradicted the teaching of Scripture on the source of tribulation. I agree that Satan persecutes and even kills those who refuse his mark. That is only a small part of the tribulation and is not what we were addressing (unless you changed the subject and I missed it).

BINGO -- I said this earlier in this thread ... All of these positions are constructions based on exegesis. There is no explicit statement regarding the timing of the Rapture. The closest is Rev 3:10 which is a very strong argument.

Already have done so.

 

What was the border of Egypt at the time of King Solomn?

Is this your literal translation? Because the KJV says "I given this land". No where do I see owned.

Solomn was "given" power or authoirty over the Land.

I would have to say, I disagree with your literal translation, it seems to me you spirtualized it.

 

*Sigh*

When will the Lord come
- Like a thief in the night
Will the church face the wrath of the Tribulation
- no we are not appointed unto wrath

Rapture - goes to marriage feast
Tribulation goes on during marriage feast
Marriage feast ends to have the Millenium setup
Then final Apocalypse

You people should try out this link be patient tho
it takes time to load the next screen and if you click to fast it will hang

http://www.e-sheep.com/apocamon/

I await the cries of heresy

 

"I think "nonsense" or whatever Latreia used is over the top for this discussion."

Compared to the idea presented that people who reject pretrib silliness are igorant of pretrib teaching as presented by pretribbers, nonsense is quite mild I think.

"Neither is it an arrogant idea that those who don't believe it have never read it. In the reading I have done, the questions by and large and not dealt with in a substantial way."

Those two sentences have nothing in common. How does a failure (as perceived by you at any rate) have any bearing on whether a person should be assumed to have not read pre-trib materials?

"Walvoord is not poorly argued. It is written on a popular level. When I read it, I remember thinking that he stated points that could be easily proven from Scripture but didn't take time to reference the scriptural proof. I was disappointed in that. Overall though, his points dealt with the various arguments in a substantial way. Stanton deals with Ladd and answers the objection, at least to my satisfaction."

Wlavoord IS poorly argued. He writes on a popular level, yes. But a bad argument is a bad argument whatever level it is written for. I was not referring to a lack of support for his points, but rather that the arguments are poor. Simple as that.

"By referencing Bonhoeffer, I assume you refer to the ad hominem argument that pretribs desire to avoid persecution. That argument has been dealt with so much and shown to have no biblical support. Our concern is not with persecution or tribulation; it is with what Scripture says. Of course, this discussion always gets a little heated because some cannot imagine that others are right."

Nothing so shallow. And may I point out that this is further evidence of the arrogance I mentioned before. Yo assume a shallow argum,ent or a shallowness on the part of thiose differing with you. Bad form.

At any rate Bohoieffer simply pointed out how out of step a pretrib raptuer is with the teching of the NT on deiscipleship. This has nothing to do with a pretribers deisre to avoid persecution (which is real, though not universal) or the fact that there is no biblical basis for pretrib arguments prsecution. It has everything to do with the fact that pretrib rapture is quite inconsistent with the NT teaching regarding discipleship.

It is irnonic that one would claim that the concern is with what scripture says all the whiler failing to notice that pretrib rapture is utterly out of step with scriptural teaching.

"A while back I wrestled through this issue having read some posttrib stuff. Having wrestled through it, I am more firmly than ever committed to the pretrib rapture because, as I say, it is the only one that deals with all of Scripture fairly."

So you are mmore convinced in your IMO wrong) opinion. Congratulations.

"It is uninformed to say that Pretrib deals with what Scripture doesn't say rather than what it does. It is disappointing to see such arguments used as "proof" or "support" for a position."

But it does make a lot of arguments based on importing assumptions into specific texts. It would be worse than uninformed to deny that. There is no positive support fro a pretrib rapture. You have to assume it. And there is no reason to do so.

"Posttribs make great appeals to silence, the main one being that "Scripture never says Christ will come back before the rapture" while at the same time failing to produce a verse that denies it. All the while, they use verses that clearly have other possibilities and even other probabilities to support ... and they say we proof text."

This is a most pitiful argument.We should not be silent where Scripture is? We should feel free to read in whatever we want as long as it is not explicitly denied? Terrible interpretation technique! But that is what pretrib relies on. Not content with what Scripture says, a pretribber must posit what it woould say or should say. if we assume a pretrib rapture. nice circular argument. Utterly without exegetical merit of ocourse and biblically bankrupt.

"As one who has read the posttrib arguments and found them utterly and totally unconvincing and unable to deal with Scripture in a consistent way, I will only say that you can hold whatever position you want, but remember, it is not emotions that matter -- it is the text of Scripture."

Again, you are talking to people who have looked at the pretrib idea from the mouths of pretribbers and found it to be utteryl without biblcial support. Pretib utterly fails to deal with discipleship ina n NT context, it fails to find a solid exegetical basis, relying on the assumptiuon of its correctness.

You are right that emotions matter not. But no opne here has argued that way. You have again made an arrogant assumptuion about thosde who differ with you. And you have failed to provide a shred of evidenc but instead have made the kinds of ad hominem type arguments without substantiation that youseem to decry.

"You guys can hold your position and believe what you want."

As can you.

"However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support."

I'm not pretending. I am staitng a fact.

"It clearly does have support whether you agree with it or not."

Thw question is not whether it can be supported in theory, bt whether it can be supported using legitimate exegetical means. In theory you are right, it si supportable. But using sound exegesis. And that would be true whether I agreed with it or not. Bad arguments are bad objectively. So whether an argument supports what I beleive or not, i have to say its bad if it is. I have never seen a retribber make that admission even when confronted with the facts.

"You may prefer a different interpretation because of you own preferences. But realize that there are other interpretations that do justice to the passages in question."

That's funny. You stand on scripture but I stand on preference. Such arrogance renders a discussion with you pointless.