The Falling Away In 2 Thessalonians

God has always removed His people out before His wrath is poured out upon the unbeliever. Noah and Lot are great examples that even Jesus told us to remember. The modern Christian (especially American Christian) have equated the Great Tribulation as the period of God's wrath and they couldn't be more wrong.

 

I have never considered myself as being the brightest bulb on the block, when it comes to prophesy. I am in no way! pre-trib Rapture person. And I have read a lot of different peoples opinions on these things, and something always just doesn’t seem to fit in just right.

First! I don’t think you can make everything in Revelation, fit into a chorographical order. This is the way most try to do it. Second I don’t see all prophesies, as being dualistic, example Daniel 9:27.

As for 2nd Thessalonians 2:3, this is an Apostasy of the visible church, not a Rapture statement. 2:7 does however reveal a ceasing, of the Holy Spirits operation in restraining evil. This does not have anything to do with his administration in the church, but would probably be synonymous with a catching up of true believers. As I do not believe those truly saved will have to face God's wrath, as in 1st Thessalonians 1:10.

 

Noah was not removed before God's wrath was poured out. He was right there in the middle of it. He and his family were protected in the midst of the flood.

Lot's family did not get out scot-free. Mrs. Lot died during their flight. They were not removed. They left of their own accord. The also could have stayed and died.

 

In effect Noah was removed, or saved from the flood by the Ark, a type of Christ. Mrs lot's predicament was disobeying, and looking back, in effect she never left Sodom, but wished herself back.

Lu:9:62: And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Although we are talking of a different situation, it was God's work in delivering Lot and his family from Sodom, and the same principle applies.

 

Uh - 'scuse me. A buncha' theologizing (Did I just coin a word?), here isn't there? Not to mention a "whole lotta' lumpin' goin' on", to boot. [No, I did not coin the word "theologize". (Language Cop had me check! ) That word is a entirely legitimate, and means, in the sense I am using it, to speculate about theology.]

Let me offer that the "clear teaching" that you speak of, regarding events of the future, must not be all that apparent to all concerned, or we would not even find any reason to even have this discussion. 'Orthodoxy" has not usually been linked to any particular prophetic ideas, although I'll personally lay claim to be both fully orthodox, fully fundamental, and fully "pre trib".

Incidentally, I arrived at the 'pre trib' position, before I ever so much as heard any of the names of such as Scofield, Ironside, Larkin, Chafer, and Darby, FTR.

I might suggest you read the available essays of "The Fundamentals" as well. I claim to be fully 'fundamentalist', and one will find many there, who hold and held varying views of this subject, yet I consider all these to be "fundamental", from about as "pre trib" as one could find, for examples, in the persons of Drs. Arno C. Gabelein, C. I. Scofield, and Sir Robert Anderson, to those about far away from that viewpoint as one could find, including such as Drs. B. B. Warfield, thoroughly and completely A-millennialist, as were E. Y. Mullins and James Orr.

Orthodoxy has little to nothing to do with the size (or expense) of any "Christian ministry" as well. In fact, I will suggest that the Jerusalem church, alone, would rival, if not exceed, the largest 'megachurches' one can find today. Scripture says "the word of God spread, and the number of disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem" (Ac. 6:7), 'and again "the word of God grew and multiplied" (in Jerusalem) (Ac. 12:24), and on one occasion, Peter preached an early sermon where "about 3000" were added (to the Lord and the Jerusalem church Ac. 2:41), and on another occasion, preached a sermon so powerful, that even though he was actually arrested while preaching, forcibly removed, and tossed into the clink, 'about 5000 men believed', to say nothing of any women and children, who may have been present. (Ac. 4:4). I suggest you do understand the meaning of "multiplied" here, no??

Uh- "Big voices"? Try big enough, that when a major dispute arose, Paul and Barnabas went to this 'megachurch' of Jerusalem, to have the matter heard, and when the leaders of that church made their decision, it was expected that all churches everywhere would fall in line with her thinking, here. (Ac. 15) Now that's a big voice, and one that woud exceed any in the Chrstian world today, I suggest.

BTW, this megachurch was so 'giving' that she literally 'gave' herself into a huge financial bind. (Rom. 15:25-27), so I'll suggest that "cash" alone, does not necessarily equal 'influence'.

Now to the theological question. It centers entirely on the word "apostasia". I suggest that you are completely right, at one point, without even meaning to be. That concerns the definition as Departure - That is exactly what the word means, But the question is "departure" (or "depart") but from what. This is clearly stated in I Tim. 4:1 as "τινες της πιστεως", or "from the faith". However, no such corresponding language or direction is found in II Thes. 2:3, but the language merely says, as did the WYC, TNT, MCB, and GEN, and most all other English translations which preceded the KJV - departing. This verse does not provide the basis upon which the "pre trib" position, is built, by itself, by any means. But neither is your proposed interpretation is fatal to this position, and in fact, it was many years before I even ever heard that this might not be referring to "doctrinal apostasy", either.

And most of the verses you have here cited, are not necessarily referring to "the church", although they are referring to believers when they are persecuted.

Let's just not substitute eisegesis for exegesis.

Ed

 

As for having a view on the timing of the Rapture, it all depends on where you see tribulation. I don't think? you will find a definite line drawn in the sand on this.

Jesus said neither man, or the Angels in Heaven had any idea. So its a little hard to figure, anyone has the correct answer. We are told in Matthew 24, that as the times draw near we will be able to discern them, but as for the Rapture ??.

So we are just told to be prepared, and watching for the coming of the Lord.

 

Noah and his family were saved from the flood - so bascially, they were removed.

Also, Lot and his family were delivered from Sodom by the angels. Otherwise, they would have stayed and been killed with the others.

 

1. Calling people who have a different endtime view than you "false prophets" is way over the top. I don't call amils false prophets. You can disagree but saying they are "false prophets" is pretty strong. It's akin to say they are heretics.

2. I personally don't know any pre-trib rapture person who uses this passage to show the rapture. They usually use 1 Thess. 4.17:

Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

 

Marcia, you are a terrific writer and have a wonderful command of the language. You do not need to torture the language to prove your point. But you and Samuel Owen do so when you insist that being protected from the flood waters while in the middle of the flood waters is the same as being removed from the flood waters.

And when you contend that Lot and his family are another picture of the rapture, you do the same thing again. Lot, wife and daughters left Sodom on their own. The Bible does not say they were removed by angels. If there is a rapture as you believe, then those who are removed will leave, whether they look back or not. But none will die in the midst of the flight from the earth.

 

Well, thanks for those words. Usually when written at the beginning, such words foreshadow a criticism. :laugh:

But they were protected! It was either death or life, and the were given life. They were not in the waters but on them. However you want to term it, it is a type of deliverance.

I beg to differ.

Gen 19:
15When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away in the punishment of the city."

16But he hesitated. So the men seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city.
17When they had brought them outside, one said, "Escape for your life! Do not look behind you, and do not stay anywhere in the valley; escape to the mountains, or you will be swept away."
18But Lot said to them, "Oh no, my lords!
19"Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown me by saving my life; but I cannot escape to the mountains, for the disaster will overtake me and I will die;
20now behold, this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved."
21He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this request also, not to overthrow the town of which you have spoken.
22"Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there." Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar.
23The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

 

FTR, Lot had at least three (and perhaps more) additional daughters and sons-in-law that perished in Sodom. (Gen. 19:12-14)

Ed

 

Marcia, you are correct that the angels threw Lot out of the city, and I am wrong. But note what happened after that. They took him out of the city but not out of danger. One urged him to flee to the mountains for safety, but Lot wanted to go to Zoar instead. So they let him.

So it was Lot himself who took his wife and daughters out of danger.

Regarding Noah, yes, he was on the water, not in the water. He was protected from the flood, but was still in the flood. He was not snatched from the earth away from the flood.

I'm not argung pro/con rapture here. I'm just saying these are notvery good pictures of such a rapture.

 

HP: Were the disciples that were martyred, protected? Have the millions of believers that have been tortured and murdered protected? Will God simply forsake protecting His children in the tribulation when so many will lose their lives at the hands of the antichrist and his cohorts?

How can we place a handle and balance between ‘Gods protection’ which so often is the case, and His allowing evil to befall believers on this earth which also sadly is the case? I say sadly, not because it must not be necessary in some way for God to allow such suffering, but because suffering is always sad to a degree at least from the vantage point we are necessitated to see it.

Where is the promise that claims that we will not suffer at the hands of the ungodly, even to the point of our lives being taken? Does not Scripture clearly state that they will kill us, thinking they do God a service in the end?

 

Well, according to the bolded area and since the only churches that claim to be the viable visible church is the Catholic and Orthodox churches would that then make the Reformation the great falling away?

I personally believe that the falling away already occured if you read Church history because during Calligula and Nero's persecution of Christians many did recant their faith and no longer followed Christianity. And there hasn't been persecution of the church like it since.

 

And he was safe from the destruction! The point is, he was delivered out of Sodom, the city that was destroyed.

The point is, he was protected. He was not killed in the Flood, which was God's wrath on the earth.

Well, I have to disagree.

 

I don't think these were examples of God's wrath. They were examples of punishment and other things God was doing.

But special cases of God's wrath have been the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Flood is pretty obvious since it destroyed the whole earth and practically everyone on it, except Noah and his family.

Sodom and Gomorrah are spoken of as special cases, too, where God would no longer look upon the evil there. Everyone was destroyed except Lot and part of his family.

 

I never said Christians would never suffer! Of course, Christians have suffered and will suffer.

I'm talking about God's wrath on sin given in specific ways, according to what God says. There are those of us who believe the Tribulation is an expression of God's wrath such as what He showed via the Flood and destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah.

These incidents were announced by God beforehand as cases where He could no longer look upon the evil that was being done.

 

Both Noah and Lot are perfect pictures of Gods deliverance, as was that of Moses and the Hebrews from Pharaoh. Who suffered the wrath of God.

Was this a rapture, no. But it was a taking away from the wrath to come. Will all the Saints leave this world alive, no. And nowhere; is a promise made like that in Scripture.

In the beginnings of the Church many believers died, really horribly. Today in some parts of the world, they still do. Before the Rapture I suspect many more will.
There will be no greater reward than that for one who gives his life, for a testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ.

If that makes you uncomfortable, or uneasy, maybe you are in the wrong Church and the wrong Pew.