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

[GaryA]

How do you know it isn't?

Strong's definitions for each word in this compound word:

The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong's says about "apo:

of separation... ...of local separation,
...after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...

of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken

of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed

of a state of separation, that is of distance...physical, of distance of place



At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.
Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.
The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

But we cannot and should not form doctrine from one word, as in pulling it out of its context. We must determine its meaning IN its context.

Paul wrote this passage with parallels:

Verse 3: Apostasisa - the man of sin revealed
Verse 6: Something restraining - might be revealed
Verses 7-8: restraining force removed - the man of sin revealed

There can be NO DOUBT that Paul's intent in "Apostasia" has to do with the man of sin being revealed. Therefore it has to do with the restraining force being "taken out of the way.

Then Paul wrote: "And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time " (AMP)

Why would Paul write this UNLESS He had just told us what or who this restraining power was? In fact, Paul DID tell us, but did it in a cloaked manner, then wrote "now you know" so people would go back and read again and discover his meaning. Just guessing, because Paul did not tell us, but is it possible he wrote this in a manner that the only people who would really understand would be those who had read his first letter?

It is an absolute truth that in verse 3b, Paul shows us the man of sin revealed.
It is just as much truth that in verses 6-8 he explains the only way that could happen: the power restraining - that power we are suppose to know now - has been taken out of the way.

A good student of the bible should then ask: HOW Paul" HOW or WHERE do you show this restraining power "taken out of the way" somewhere in verse 3a?

Is a "falling away" (from what we can't tell) equal to "taken out of the way?"
Could a "falling away" possibly in any way be a restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed too soon?

I don't see how either of these is possible. Yet it seems that Paul's intent is that hidden in "apostasia" must be that power restraining being "taken out of the way" so that in 3b the man of sin is revealed.

You are "cherry picking" greek words and Strong's definitions.

It doesn't work that way.

And - according to what you have written - the word means "separation without movement" - or, "departing while not [actually] going anywhere"...

In other words - a "falling away" of something that may do so without change-of-location.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The way you rendered the word apostasia isn't the way it is defined in the text so it isn't admissable as a sound interpretation. Nor does it fit with the narrative in 2 Thess. 2:1-3.

It's not just written as "apostasia [(a) departure]"... the phrase in this text is "hee apostasia [THE departure]"... and so we must ask ourselves WHY is the definite article used here, when this Greek word doesn't ordinarily REQUIRE it:

--the definite article ('the') is added here to point to a DEFINITE [noun-]event;

--the definite article ('the') functions to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED in the text (and the noun-event of v.1 FITS PERFECTLY), and something already known unto the recipients of the letter ('the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR' Paul wrote of in his previous letter, FITS PERFECTLY)

--Paul refers to the event (we know as "rapture") something like 8-9 TIMES, throughout these two epistles... and NOT merely in the ONE VERSE we commonly recognize, in 4:17

You're suggesting the church departs, then the man of sin is revealed, then the day of Christ and our gathering (rapture) to Him.

NO. No one is saying that the text supplies THAT SEQUENCE... you are blurring certain things together which are DISTINCT, and then suggesting *we've* said such a thing. We've NOT, however... That is NOT what we are pointing out about the TEXT.

If that's the way the verses were written it would create a contradiction in the scripture. A big no no.

Not what we're pointing out.

Try again. I'll pray for your "comprehension skills," coz the way in which you are "explaining what we've pointed out about THE TEXT," is NOT how we've ACTUALLY shown it to say!

 

[GaryA]

That is the point i was making.

Once all the components are on the table...postribs have the "force restraining" as anathema.

How silly

Not sure of exactly what you mean...?

I know what all of the words mean - just not sure of your intended application of them.

Care to expound a bit?

Just curious.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In other words - a "falling away" of something that may do so without change-of-location.

Again, the Greeks had a word for "fall"--"pipto"... and this word in this verse is NOT that word.


____________

Again,


Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon [1871] says, "apostasia - LATER FORM FOR apostasis"...

[and says, of THAT word...]

-- apo stasis = "apo [G575] =away" & "stasis [G4714] = a standing" [^ same word there ^] = "a standing away from [a previous standing]... or DEPARTURE"

...

(context determines just "WHAT KIND" of "DEPARTURE" is meant)...

 

[GaryA]

Attributes otherwise woefully lacking on this thread.

What is woefully lacking in this thread is the correct application of greek grammar and the proper interpretation of Strong's definitions.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

... [con't]

It was used in that era of "the departing of a fever" or "the departing of a boat from a dock"

(i.e. a SPATIAL / GEOGRAPHICAL 'departure'... same as its VERB form is sometimes used! )

 

[GaryA]

There can be NO DOUBT that Paul's intent in "Apostasia" has to do with the man of sin being revealed.

There can be NO DOUBT that the word [simply] means 'defection' or 'apostasy'.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[quoting old post]

Here's the lexicon info (for G646):

[quoting]

Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1889) -

ἀποστασία late form of ἀπόστασις

[this ^ says: "apostasia late form of apostasis" (i.e. the SAME WORD); my hard copy [1889] says "later form for..." (same)]



Then when you go to the entry for "apostasis" (it says under that entry):

ἀπόστασις ἀφίσταμαι

a standing away from, and so,

1.a defection, revolt, ἀπό τινος or τινος Hdt., Thuc.; πρός τινα Thuc.

2.departure from, βίου Eur.

3.distance, interval, Plat.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=a)po/stasis

[end quoting]


____________

(The word, at its most basic meaning, is simply "DEPARTURE")
_____________



^ apo stasis - made up of two Greek words (in Scripture)... examine these thoroughly (esp the 9th occurrence of "stasis / stasin" as compared with its other 8 occurrences)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1889) -

[internet info-->] "Strong first published his Concordance in 1890"


"Strong's Concordance" is like a "bare-bones" kind of resource (not meant as an insult!), barely scratching the surface, but is still good for people getting their feet wet in Bible study... it's just not the "be all, end all," see...


[there was "only so much room" to fit what was put in that Strong's Concordance when published... it didn't fit EVERYTHING that could be (legitimately) said about any given "word-entry," see...]

 

[Runningman]

It's not just written as "apostasia [(a) departure]"... the phrase in this text is "hee apostasia [THE departure]"... and so we must ask ourselves WHY is the definite article used here, when this Greek word doesn't ordinarily REQUIRE it:

--the definite article ('the') is added here to point to a DEFINITE [noun-]event;

--the definite article ('the') functions to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED in the text (and the noun-event of v.1 FITS PERFECTLY), and something already known unto the recipients of the letter ('the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR' Paul wrote of in his previous letter, FITS PERFECTLY)

--Paul refers to the event (we know as "rapture") something like 8-9 TIMES, throughout these two epistles... and NOT merely in the ONE VERSE we commonly recognize, in 4:17



NO. No one is saying that the text supplies THAT SEQUENCE... you are blurring certain things together which are DISTINCT, and then suggesting *we've* said such a thing. We've NOT, however... That is NOT what we are pointing out about the TEXT.



Not what we're pointing out.

Try again. I'll pray for your "comprehension skills," coz the way in which you are "explaining what we've pointed out about THE TEXT," is NOT how we've ACTUALLY shown it to say!

It's not just written as "apostasia [(a) departure]"... the phrase in this text is "hee apostasia [THE departure]"... and so we must ask ourselves WHY is the definite article used here, when this Greek word doesn't ordinarily REQUIRE it:

--the definite article ('the') is added here to point to a DEFINITE [noun-]event;

--the definite article ('the') functions to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED in the text (and the noun-event of v.1 FITS PERFECTLY), and something already known unto the recipients of the letter ('the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR' Paul wrote of in his previous letter, FITS PERFECTLY)

--Paul refers to the event (we know as "rapture") something like 8-9 TIMES, throughout these two epistles... and NOT merely in the ONE VERSE we commonly recognize, in 4:17



NO. No one is saying that the text supplies THAT SEQUENCE... you are blurring certain things together which are DISTINCT, and then suggesting *we've* said such a thing. We've NOT, however... That is NOT what we are pointing out about the TEXT.



Not what we're pointing out.

Try again. I'll pray for your "comprehension skills," coz the way in which you are "explaining what we've pointed out about THE TEXT," is NOT how we've ACTUALLY shown it to say!

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point, but as far as reading comprehension goes I'm doing fine.

Let's just keep it simple.

The definition accepted here is Apostasia G646. Strong's defines it as a defection from the truth. Do you reject that?

The defection from the truth comes first. Those with the truth are believers. And the man of sin is revealed. Now the day of Christ and the gathering comes. Done. (2 Thess. 2:1-3)

If you aren't willing to accept this then that's your right, but I'm not sure what your objective is anymore. You wont convince me the scripture says anything other than what is presented.

 

[GaryA]

Is a "falling away" (from what we can't tell) equal to "taken out of the way?"
Could a "falling away" possibly in any way be a restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed too soon?

I don't see how either of these is possible.

Well, let's see...

If we start with the standard assumption that it is the Holy Spirit that is "taken out of the way" - and, consider the following two ways that this could possibly "come about":

1) If [virtually] all Christians on the earth were killed - for, say, not worshipping the beast - then, the "effectual working" of the Holy Spirit would be reduced to zero. (or, nearly)

2) If there was a great "falling away" from the faith - then, the "effectual working" of the Holy Spirit would be reduced to zero. (or, nearly)

Yes - I can see very clearly how either one (or both) of these occurances could bring about such a result...

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The definition accepted here is Apostasia G646. Strong's defines it as a defection from the truth. Do you reject that?

See my Posts #768 & #769, just above yours.

--Post #768 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4536227




--Plus see the Greek scholar (detailed article) I quoted earlier in this thread.

--Plus, see the "stasis / stasin" word [that is, 'apo stasia' MINUS its prefix 'apo'] in its 9th occurrence, as compared with its 8 other occurrences.



Then I'd be more than happy to discuss with you. = )

 

[Truth7t7]

It's not just written as "apostasia [(a) departure]"... the phrase in this text is "hee apostasia [THE departure]"... and so we must ask ourselves WHY is the definite article used here, when this Greek word doesn't ordinarily REQUIRE it:

--the definite article ('the') is added here to point to a DEFINITE [noun-]event;

--the definite article ('the') functions to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED in the text (and the noun-event of v.1 FITS PERFECTLY), and something already known unto the recipients of the letter ('the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR' Paul wrote of in his previous letter, FITS PERFECTLY)

--Paul refers to the event (we know as "rapture") something like 8-9 TIMES, throughout these two epistles... and NOT merely in the ONE VERSE we commonly recognize, in 4:17



NO. No one is saying that the text supplies THAT SEQUENCE... you are blurring certain things together which are DISTINCT, and then suggesting *we've* said such a thing. We've NOT, however... That is NOT what we are pointing out about the TEXT.



Not what we're pointing out.

Try again. I'll pray for your "comprehension skills," coz the way in which you are "explaining what we've pointed out about THE TEXT," is NOT how we've ACTUALLY shown it to say!

Please Explain To The Forum "When" This Departure Has Or Will Take Place?

 

[Truth7t7]

There can be NO DOUBT that the word [simply] means 'defection' or 'apostasy'.

I Agree 100%, As They Willfully Disregard Truth

The Greek "Apostasia" (Departure/Falling Away) isn't a Pre-Trib Rapture Of The Church To Heaven, it's that simple

Apostasia: (Defection From Truth) (Apostasy) (Falling Away) (Forsake)

Lexicon :: Strong's G646 - apostasia

Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).

2 Thessalonians 2:3KJV
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Well, let's see...

If we start with the standard assumption that it is the Holy Spirit that is "taken out of the way" - and, consider the following two ways that this could possibly "come about":

Not exactly.

The text states,

"the one restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [/come to be]. AND THEN [kai tote]..."


(I've pointed out in past posts how this is PARALLEL LANGUAGE to that found in Lam2:3-4 [in context also of "wrath" words]; and it nowhere suggests that "His right hand" suddenly disappears from existence. )

No one is suggesting "the Holy Spirit" will vanish totally from off the earth, but that His "RESTRAINING ROLE," which is "AT PRESENT" (not always, not forever), will be LIFTED (at and for a specific period of time)... NOT His role in "salvation" (gettin' ppl saved. )

Let's clear that up, right away. TONS of ppl will be coming to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture"... in fact, "our Rapture" event will be a primary IMPETUS that points Israel to their Messiah and their coming to faith IN HIM (WELL-BEFORE the final end of the Trib makes it TOO LATE for anyone to do so [/come to faith])

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Except there aren't 3 Advents. Just two.

context...

depends on who (and where) will His "presence / parousia / advent / arrival" is said to be, in any given context

No. Jesus comes to earth TWICE. The first time as a baby, to be the "suffering servant". The second time as "King of kings, and Lord of lords".

 

[Truth7t7]

FreeGrace2 said:
Except there aren't 3 Advents. Just two.

No. Jesus comes to earth TWICE. The first time as a baby, to be the "suffering servant". The second time as "King of kings, and Lord of lords".

Jesus Christ Returns The Second Time As Righteous Judge!

Jesus Christ Returns In Fire And Final Judgement, Dissolving This Existing Earth By Fire, Immediately After The Tribulation.

This Existing Heaven And Earth Will Be (Replaced) By The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, A New Creation, At The Return Of Jesus Christ!

(Behold, I Make All Things New)

2 Peter 3:10-13KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

1 Corinthians 3:13KJV
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9KJV
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Malachi 3:2KJV
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Psalm 46:6KJV
6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

Psalm 50:3KJV
3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Psalm 97:5KJV
5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isaiah 66:15KJV
15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Zechariah 14:12KJV
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Nahum 1:5-6KJV
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Revelation 20:9KJV
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

No. Jesus comes to earth TWICE.

Well, He came back to the earth after His FIRST ascension ON His resurrection day (ON FIRSTFRUIT--Lev23:10-23 / 1Cor15:20), and He then "appeared" to ppl in various settings over the course of some "40 days"... so there's that. = )


["this is now the THIRD TIME that Jesus shewed Himself to [/was revealed unto] His disciples, after that He was risen from the dead." Jn21:14]


But we basically AGREE that He ONLY come TWO TIMES to the earth... (I've not suggested otherwise).

What I'm saying is, that when the 2Thess2:1 thing happens ("OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" [LIKE Numbers 10:4]), not everyone in the world will PARTICIPATE! NO! However, when 2Th2:8b thing happens everyone in the world WILL see THAT!! ("[His] MANIFESTATION" v.8b... which verse is purposely CONTRASTING with v.1!! Like it or not ... and I gather you do NOT like it! Oh well!)

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
The words "that day" refers to the Second Advent, obviously. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

No, in v.3a ('that day') is speaking of the FALSE IDEA that the false conveyors had been saying (in v.2)... "[purporting / alleging] that the day of the Lord IS HERE / IS PRESENT" (not "Jesus Himself"... not His Second Coming to the earth... not His Kingdom... not our Rapture... but a "TIME-PERIOD").

The "day" is real. The context is clear about that.

1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,

The red words refer to the Second Advent, when Jesus comes back as King of kings, and Lord of lords.
The blue words refer to the gathering, or as some call it, the rapture.

2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Here, Paul is clearly telling the congregation that the Second Advent HASN'T OCCURRED YET. Some had claimed that it had already occurred.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.

Again, red words refer to the Second Advent.
Blue words clearly state that the Second Advent (and gathering, from v.1) WON'T occur UNTIL THE REBELLION (Trib) occurs.

Verse 1's Subject (Paul's Subject) is DISTINCT FROM v.2's Subject (the false conveyors' Subject)

No. "that day" from v.1 was being FALSELY claimed as to have already occurred.

Paul was telling that NO, "that day" has NOT OCCURRED YET.

... and Paul is telling how these TWO *DISTINCT* items "fit" (in relation to each other) SEQUENTIALLY (3x in context)

This doesn't make sense. Nor does your argument.

 

[Truth7t7]

It's not just written as "apostasia [(a) departure]"... the phrase in this text is "hee apostasia [THE departure]"... and so we must ask ourselves WHY is the definite article used here, when this Greek word doesn't ordinarily REQUIRE it:

--the definite article ('the') is added here to point to a DEFINITE [noun-]event;

--the definite article ('the') functions to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED in the text (and the noun-event of v.1 FITS PERFECTLY), and something already known unto the recipients of the letter ('the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR' Paul wrote of in his previous letter, FITS PERFECTLY)

--Paul refers to the event (we know as "rapture") something like 8-9 TIMES, throughout these two epistles... and NOT merely in the ONE VERSE we commonly recognize, in 4:17



NO. No one is saying that the text supplies THAT SEQUENCE... you are blurring certain things together which are DISTINCT, and then suggesting *we've* said such a thing. We've NOT, however... That is NOT what we are pointing out about the TEXT.



Not what we're pointing out.

Try again. I'll pray for your "comprehension skills," coz the way in which you are "explaining what we've pointed out about THE TEXT," is NOT how we've ACTUALLY shown it to say!

Please Explain To The Forum "When" This Departure Has Or Will Take Place?