Featured The strong case against a pre-tribulation rapture

The thing is, DHK doesn't get to rewrite historical theology. He does not have the right to make definitions and sweeping categorical pronouncements although the Pontiff in him wants to.

He rails at what he labels hyper-Calvinism when it is actually Calvinism proper. But I do think he is a monergist --not of the Calvinistic variety. Calvinists believe salvation is all of the Lord --the Author and Finisher of our faith. Whereas DHK thinks it is all of him. In DHK's estimation he was/is in charge of the salvation transaction --God didn't have anything to do with it --though He probably noted it.

Back on 4/15/08 I had said:"God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above." Boy! That God DHK's dander up! He told me that same day in reply:

"God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make,but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies..."

 

Now this is a slanderous post.

Why not stop this nonsense and start posting to the OP.

 

Pre Trib rapture fits best the biblical accounts, as the Great tribulation is primarily for God to judge current world system, and to prepare national isreal to meet the God, the Lord jesus at Second Coming!

No need for the Body to still be here!

 

Yes you did. Here is what you said on 4/17/08:

"The Muslim uses the word 'fatalism.' It is an integral part of their faith. Blindly he believes that no matter what happens,good or bad, it is Allah's will. The Calvinist is headed in the same direction. Without free will,everything that happens,good oe bad,is God's will. That is fate. Man has no choice. In this respect Islam and Calvinism seem to be no different."

Pastor Larry responded the same day with:

"How many times wil you continue to repeat this utter nonsense? DHK,you know better. The first time it was bad,but we could assume that you didn't know better. You have now repeatedly been corrected on this and you continue to repeat it. This is inexcusable for civil conversation, much less for a believer."

The two are interwoven. It is Calvinism, not hyper-Calvinism. I know against all reason that you think Charles H. Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. Yet he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in March of 1858. Here are some snips that you would do well to ponder:

"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ."

"Because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to christ unless drawn by the Spirit...They cannot and will not unless the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."

"Scores and hundreds,nay thousands of Christians have I conversed with, of different opinions,young and old,but it has never been my lot to meet with one who could affirm that he came to Christ of himself,without being drawn...With common consent,all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."
_____________________________________________________________

Finally you have acknowledged the truth. Corrie's church was not hyper-Calvinistic.

 

I stand by what I said. The emphasis is in my conclusion. In that respect Islam and Calvinism seem to be no different.
For what it is worth it is a comparison. You don't like it, too bad. I didn't call anyone a Muslim. I made an accurate comparison of the hard determinism of Calvinism. I know what it is. I have been a missionary (and still am) in Islamic nations. I know what they believe and how they react to this doctrine. Calvinists do the same thing. It is sad!

He is entitled to his opinion.

Are you expecting me to defend error. You lose.

I believe Christ draws them through the power of the Holy Spirit. When did I ever deny that? You, with your "hyper-Cal." position say they cannot be drawn unless God gives them the faith to be drawn. Totally absurd! God never gives the unregenerate any kind of faith. It is not found in the Bible. And you have never been able to prove it.

I never admitted to that. Why do you think you know so much about her church being more than a century removed from it? Are you omniscient?

 

Your words:"I never said they are headed in the same direction as the Muslims." But you have also said:"The Calvinist is headed in the same direction." You are contradicting yourself.

Pastor Larry's opinion on the matter is perfectly correct.

O,so your conclusion is that Spurgeon's sermon was hyper-Calvinistic? How did he get from being non-Calvinist in your estimation to being a hyper-Calvinist?

Mind if I quote you on that? Your words are sadly in error DHK.

Yeah you did. For post after post you were insisting that the Dutch Reformed Church that she attended was hyper-Calvinistic. Then in your last post you said :"Her church was Reformed,a Calvinistic church,a Dutch Reformed church." And of course that is miles removed from a hyper-Calvinistic position.

You are one funny guy. Why did you formerly regard it as hyper-Calvinistic? You subscribe to, shall I say,unique takes on established history. You have a bad habit of twisting things around on John Gill, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, Westcott and Hort, Erasmus and other historical figures. You have an especially jaundiced eye toward things Calvinistic. You are not capable in your present state to evaluate things objectively. Against all reason you have emphatically insisted that hyper-Calvinism is rampant in Presbyterianism. You are unable to document anything to substantiate that nonsense claim. You rant on like a hyper-Arminian.

I had mentioned before that Abraham Kuyper left the Dutch Reformed Church in 1886,six years before Corrie's birth. Why? Because it had drifted from its historic Reformed Confessions of Faith. It was Reformed in name only --far from being Calvinistic,much less hyper-Calvinistic.

 

You have a biased and uninformed view of history:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410259/Netherlands-Reformed-Church


As the article points out: Reformed = Calvinistic, and most likely hyper Calvinistic depending on where the church is. The Dutch seemed to be extreme in that area. We have some Dutch Reformed churches in our area. The members don't have a clue what biblical salvation is. They rely heavily on works. If, perchance one may come to salvation, they usually leave the church and go to a Bible-believing church where they will be able to grow as a believer in Christ.

 

Are you feeling a little sluggish? When you try to prove something from the various links you come up with there needs to be some relevance. There was not even a single mention of any form of the word hyper-Calvinism. You have done this kind of thing so many times in the past. And then in reply you say something along the lines of :"If you don't like the truth. If you don't like my links,I can't help you."

"Most likely hyper-Calvinistic" is your bare conjecture having no correlation to the article whatsoever.

When you want to try and prove something your link has to at least mention the subject DHK.

 

Pre-trib is man-made tradition.

But the Bible says "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather His elect" in Matt 24.

So we have the post-trib version in the actual Bible.

And no pre-trib version.

Post trib "needs" a text that says the saints are gathered to Christ AFTER the tribulation and before it or in the middle of it.

Post trib has such a verse.

"immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather His elect" in Matt 24.

What do the other options have??



in Christ,

Bob

 

[/QUOTE]

Which is where your solution dies a crib death.

Paul states that he is trying to give information that will not allow Christians to be so easily deceived by a letter supposedly from Paul - stating that they "missed the rapture".

Therefor Paul says "That day will NOT come UNTIL" and then gives a long list of events that must happen first.

This is the perfect way to prevent all the deception that would be of the form "oops! Rapture happened last week and you missed it".

Giving a list of events that would follow the rapture at some unspecified later time - would not stop the deception at all. It would be useless.

And this is so obvious - it is impossible to miss the point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Personally, I hope to be raptured soon and not to die at all, much less in a crib. :smilewinkgrin:

Can I explain it French or some other language. The English is plain enough. I already quoted to you A.T. Robertson who also explained the same view I have, but in the Greek. So what is wrong with the comprehension in English Bob?
You are either deliberately not understanding the plain English here, or deliberately twisting the words to deceive others. That is plain to see.

Look at the Scripture. It is plain to see:
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
--In this verse the coming of the Lord "and our gathering together with him" is the rapture. It is a verse of comfort.

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
--The "day of Christ" like the term "Day of the Lord" is a more general term referring not only to the Second Coming but also the Tribulation. He is telling them not to be shaken in mind, that is, worried or troubled by false teachers who are teaching that these things have already taken place (full preterists). These events haven't taken place. This verse isn't speaking of the rapture, but the Second Coming. They haven't seen these things, therefore be assured you haven't missed the rapture.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
--Now he starts that timeline beginning with the Tribulation but after the rapture. "That Day"--that day refers back to the "day of Christ" in verse two, not to the coming of Jesus Christ in verse one. The rapture takes place first.
That day, the Day of Christ, will not come unless there is a falling away first. Jesus said: "When I come, will I find faith?" There will be a "falling away" from the faith.
Then the anti-christ will be revealed--after the rapture. All that is mentioned in the rest of that verse is related to the Jews not the Christian. Christians don't worship in the Temple!!

 

Indeed - which is why your suggestion fails right out of the gate.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

--In this verse the coming of the Lord "and our gathering together with him" is the rapture. ---

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

============================

It is the "English" that is tripping you up as well as the Greek.

The subject is the rapture.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,


The problem to be avoided - is the wild claim that "oops! you missed it" coming to them by false teachers or a fake letter.

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

Obviously Paul is equating "the day of Christ" with his "subject" which He call "The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Hi"




Solution: Take note of the events that must come FIRST - the solution stops all from being deceived in any way --

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed


Conclusion No one would then believe a lying report that "the rapture has come last week and you missed it".


pre-trib rapture does not survive "the details in the text".

Pre-trib rapture has no "solution" for the problem that they are trying to avoid which is the "oops! you missed the rapture it was last week" deception.

Pre-trib rapture promoters are left uselessly talking about events AFTER the rapture -as if THIS would stop someone from being fooled in a "OOPS! the rapture was last week and you missed it" scenario.

Obviously.

in the text.

In English and in Greek.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Perhaps A.T. Robertson will help you with these two verses:

Verse one speaks of the rapture. It happens first. Read it carefully.
Then verse two:

Christ comes as a thief in the night. The things following verse one happen after the rapture. Don't be shocked by the words taught by the false teachers that these things are about to happen now. The rapture must happen first. The believer will not go through them. They need not to be troubled about the false teacher's doctrine: "pious fraud" he calls it.

 

"Most likely hyper-Calvinistic" is your bare conjecture having no correlation to the article whatsoever.
--It is relative to my experience with the Dutch Reformed here who are so hyper Calvinist that they aren't even saved, and don't preach the gospel any more. They rely on a "gospel of works." The Dutch Reformed may have not gone down the trail that far by the end of the 19th century but it was on its way. The Calvinist trail ends in death.

 

Verse one does not say the rapture happens first. Verse one says the chapter is on the subject of the rapture.

And in that chapter we are told that the rapture will not happen until a number of other things happen first.

Thus the "solution" is provided that fixes the problem of the heresy where a message is received of the form "oops! The rapture happened last week and you missed it!".

Paul states that this information telling the saints all the things that must happen before the rapture - fixes the problem.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Your interpretation is wrong for a number reasons:
1. You are so biased and brainwashed that now you call "the truth" heresy. Astounding!
2. You ignore some of the obvious passages of Scripture which defeat your argument.
a. Christ says over and over again: I come quickly; as a thief in the night; when no one expects me; at a time when ye no not; etc. We do not know the time of his coming. It will be sudden, unexpected. This is indicative of the rapture happening at any time before the tribulation.

b. The Second Coming will not happen that way. It will happen when expected--at the end of a set period--seven years of Tribulation; when Israel is beset by her enemies; when Christ will come to deliver Israel; when Israel is looking for deliverance from her Messiah; when the whole world fears the Coming of Christ, and would prefer to die instead.

Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Then Christ will come at the end of the Tribulation.
But the rapture will happen seven years before. The saints do not go through the Tribulation. The rapture comes, before the Tribulation; it is the first resurrection. We are saved from wrath.

 

Apparently this point was obvious to Robertson as well...

Vs 1

as applied to the Second Coming of Christ...
Paul is referring to the rapture


Vs 3
The second coming not only is not “imminent,” but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of 2 Thessalonians 2:2.


Robertson's comments are not so out of line with the post above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Albert Barns -

The main object of 2 Thessalonians 2:2. It became, therefore, necessary to state the truth on the subject, in order to free their minds from alarm; and this purpose of the apostle leads to one of the most important prophecies in the New Testament. The chapter comprises the following points:
I. An exhortation that they would not be alarmed or distressed by the expectation of the speedy coming of the Saviour; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2.
II. A statement of the truth that he would not soon appear, and of the characteristics of a great apostasy which must intervene before his advent; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.
In this part of the chapter, the apostle shows that he did not mean to teach that that event would soon happen, by stating that before that there would occur a most melancholy apostasy, which would require a considerable time before it was matured.
(a)That day would not come until there should be a great apostasy, and a revelation of the man of sin; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.



Matthew Henry

Verses 1-4
If errors arise among Christians, we should set them right; and good men will be careful to suppress errors which rise from mistaking their words and actions. We have a cunning adversary, who watches to do mischief, and will promote errors, even by the words of Scripture. Whatever uncertainty we are in, or whatever mistakes may arise about the time of Christ's coming, that coming itself is certain. This has been the faith and hope of all Christians, in all ages of the church; it was the faith and hope of the Old Testament saints. All believers shall be gathered together to Christ, to be with him, and to be happy in his presence for ever.

We should firmly believe the second coming of Christ; but there was danger lest the Thessalonians, being mistaken as to the time, should question the truth or certainty of the thing itself. False doctrines are like the winds that toss the water to and fro; and they unsettle the minds of men, which are as unstable as water. It is enough for us to know that our Lord will come, and will gather all his saints unto him.
A reason why they should not expect the coming of Christ, as at hand, is given. There would be a general falling away first, such as would occasion the rise of antichrist, that man of sin. There have been great disputes who or what is intended by this man of sin and son of perdition. The man of sin not only practises wickedness, but also promotes and commands sin and wickedness in others; and is the son of perdition, because he is devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument to destroy many others, both in soul and body. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now; so the antichrist here mentioned, is a usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims Divine honours.

Vs 5-12
... These prophecies have, in a great measure, come to pass, and confirm the truth of the Scriptures. This passage exactly agrees with the system of popery, as it prevails in the Romish church, and under the Romish popes

 

I have mentioned to you before that those in Barnes and Matthew Henry's era were almost all post-millennial. Thus you give no evidence at all.
Try refuting the evidence I provided here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2076911&postcount=197