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

[FreeGrace2]

Neither you nor anyone can make "is come" into "about to happen."

I believe the wording is equivalent to "is finally here". Meaning, of course, it is about to happen.

What it doesn't say is that it is happening NOW, as you propose. And the phrase "bride has made herself ready" means just that. She is now ready for what is going to happen.

You are putting TIMING information into a Greek Aorist verb which has no timing.

Gots news for you's. You are correct that it infers no timing, but can be used of future events.

I could say "just happened" and be just as wrong. All we can know from this Greek word is, "marriage." We have to decide WHEN from the context. It is a FACT that John mentioned the marriage before he mentioned the Descent to earth. No posttriber can change that fact.

Doesn't matter. Again, the wording suggests what is going to happen or about to happen. Certainly NOT what IS happening now.

My point is, this HUGE bunch of people are IN HEAVEN with John when marriage is mentioned. John could have mentioned marriage AFTER Jesus descent - but He did not.

He aso didn't say the wedding occurred in heaven, as you opine. What he did say was that the bride has made herself ready, which is immediately before Christ descends with all believers to earth.

You can ignore believer's personal testimonies if you wish. But if they agree with the written word, WHY? Paul USED His person testimony all through Acts.

Where does Paul contradict my view?

we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. OF COURSE Jesus is the only doorway into heaven for both the OT and NT believers. But the OT saints had to wait out the time in Abraham's bosom until Jesus rose from the dead.

This fact changes nothing. All who are saved by Christ are IN CHRIST. Can't be otherwise. They are not second class citizens.

The truth is, if OT believers could have made it to heaven under the Law, Jesus would not have had to come. But that was IMPOSSIBLE. No sin could be totally remitted and the guilt thereof taken away until JESUS BLOOD was shed. The blood of bulls and goats could NEVER remove sin - only cover it.

The ONLY reason OT saints went to Paradise/Abe's bosom was that Christ had not yet been resurrected. No other reason.

Jesus is the doorway into heaven for the OT saints as well as for the NT, but it was done differently for each group.

A distinction without a difference.

THEY believed a Messiah was coming, WE know He came and we put our faith in His death and resurrection.

A distinction without a difference. Both groups are saved the SAME WAY. Both are IN CHRIST.

John 14, WHEN will Jesus take us to those homes He has prepared?

It's been happening EVER SINCE believers have been dying after Christ's resurrection. Where do you think the OT and NT believers go when they die, if not heaven?

I would guess you will say when the New Jerusalem comes down. Pretribbers think LONG before that. The truth is, we have to go SOMEWHERE after we are caught up just before wrath.

Every believer who has died after Christ's resurrection and ascension when to heaven. Paul made that clear with "absent from the body, and face to face with the Lord".

The next verse is, as you say, another subject. Which happens right away. How can you say that? If the marriage does not happen when John mentions it, then anyone is free to move anything in Revelation to a place they feel it fits better. Maybe HIs descend DOESN'T happen right away. That is why I have an axiom on Revelation:

"ANY theory that must rearrange John's God given chronology is immediately suspect and WILL BE proven wrong."

I haven't re-arranged anything. I pay attention to the wording. The bride gets ready, and leaves with Christ to earth for His setting up His kingdom which is when the Bema and wedding occur. That makes perfect sense.

 

[Absolutely]

yes it was kinda sudden.

The ark most likely floated before many drowned.( started up on its trek to the sky)

 

[FreeGrace2]

My challenge remains.
Post for us a postrib rapture verse.
I will wait.

Just bible

No postrib sideshow.

Yeah, right You've been challenged to prove your pre-trib theory with "just Bible" and "no pre-trib sideshow". And you have totally failed to provide any evidence at all.

So there you go.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I count on what the Bible says plainly.

No you don't. Or you would have a verse that says that Jesus takes all resurrected and raptured believers back to heaven. You have nothing.

You have no evidence for your views"""

You've been shown. You reject the truth. End of story.

0k show us IN THE BIBLE , that you claim to know, a verse supporting your postrib rapture postion.

You've been shown, but your eyes and ears are closed. Your mind is made up and you don't want the facts.

However, show me ANY rapture passage/verse you want, and I will prove to you that there is NO MENTION of Jesus taking believers back up to heaven.

Also, with those same rapture passages, I will show you that they are parallel to Second Advent verses/passages.

I dare you.

 

[Runningman]

55 pages later pre-trib rapture doctrine has been thoroughly dashed to smithereens and they are still twisting scripture. This must be what happens when someone is in love with their denomination more than the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"If the Bible clearly taught that Jesus makes a huge U-turn before the Trib and brings all believers up to heaven, it would be common knowledge that there are "3 advents".

But, since such an idea is hardly common knowledge, and you have no evidence for it, why should anyone believe it?"

Lol....rev 14 is what?

Where did I mention Rev 14?

You have no case or verses.

Said the one with no case or verses.

All your posts are generalities.

Thank you for your totally irrelevant opinion.

No specific verses in you argument.

Are you so totally unaware that you yourself have NO SPECIFIC VERSES about Jesus taking resurrected/raptured believers to heaven?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can do all the math, but the scriptures tell a different story. Want to find a resurrection in Revelation? Look for an earthquake.

Actually, the "first resurrection" is found in Rev 20:5. There isn't one before the FIRST. Except for the "firstfruits", of course.

God has left us hints that at a resurrection, there is going to be a resulting earthquake.

Since the Bible doesn't bother with hints about the resurrection, I know that the FIRST resurrection is when Christ returns.

End of story.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jesus preached the gospel to the saints in paradise after he was crucified.
The bible says he took captivity captive..took them to heaven
They, with Jesus Are the "firstfruits".

Good heavens, man. Don't you believe 1 Cor 15:23?

" But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."

Does "each in turn" mean anything to you at all? It is Christ ALONE who is described as "the firstfruits".

 

[FreeGrace2]

My words are in red. in post 1076
It would not let me put the post in a quote box

Well, you must not have said "please". I have no problem boxing quotes.

 

[FreeGrace2]

55 pages later pre-trib rapture doctrine has been thoroughly dashed to smithereens and they are still twisting scripture. This must be what happens when someone is in love with their denomination more than the Bible.

Kinda the same thing with Calvinists and Arminians with their peculiar doctrines.

 

[crossnote]

Every time I read the title of this thread, it reminds me of Paul Simon's song "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover"...

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[lamad]

"""
OK, we are in agreement here.


Could you please cite or quote the verse you have in mind. This kind of response leave one hanging. I have no idea what verse you are thinking of.


Until I have the 1 Thess 5 verse that you only refer to, I cannot make further comment. I do agree, however, that 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:17 refer to the same event. Obviously.


Exactly. And all believers since Adam are also His. Can't argue otherwise.


Well, I think your view of "in Christ" limits the scope. Everyone who ever believed is IN CHRIST'S care and salvation. That should be obvious.

btw, if you make this artificial distinction, when are the OT saints resurrected? Or ever?


I don't see how this makes any difference? Just WHO did the OT believers believe IN? Christ Himself. You are making a distinction without a difference. Everyone who has believed IN CHRIST is "in Christ". It cannot be otherwise. That makes no sense.


Glad that you bring up Moses. Let's see what the Bible says about your "distinction without a difference" idea.

Heb 11:26 - He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

So please don't tell me that Moses is not "in Christ". He believed in Him.

btw, who was with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration?

""""



Jesus preached the gospel to the saints in paradise after he was crucified.
The bible says he took captivity captive..took them to heaven
They, with Jesus Are the "firstfruits".

Main harvest is the rapture.

Your template omits marriage supper in heaven...among other things.[/QUOTE]

1 Thess 4 is cited many times as a pre-trib rapture verse By itself is is only a rapture verse, because no timing comes with it. We have to read into chapter 5 to find timing information.

Many people do not understand Paul's meaning in chapter 5 where he gives timing information. Here is how I read His rapture passage:

A SUDDENLY is coming: at a time when people are saying "peace and safety" then SUDDENLY and with no warning except a loud trumpet sound and a shout (it may sound like thunder to the world) the dead in Christ fly up out of their graves.

Then Paul gives us a paradigm - bring up two different groups of people that get two vastly different results:
1. This alive and IN CHRIST get "salvation:" they get caught up and "get to live together with Him." (So shall we ever be with the Lord." This phrase proves Paul has not changed subjects. He is still talking about the rapture.

2. Those alive and NOT "in Christ" get "sudden destruction." I wondered about that and bugged God about it because it seemed the sudden destruction would come at the same moment as the rapture. I then discovered that when there is a resurrection, there is an earthquake. That made sense to me. When the dead in Christ are risen, that will cause a worldwide earthquake - because the dead in Christ are found the world around. That earthquake is Paul's "sudden destruction: it comes at the same moment those who are alive are caught up.

Then Paul seems to hint that the sudden destruction is the start of God's wrath: that He, God, would not set any appointments for us with His wrath. Not to mention, a few verses before, Paul mentions the day of the Lord - just as if the wrath we have no appointments with is the start of the DAY.

Then when we study the 5th seal martyrs of the church age in Revelation, We discover another hint to rapture timing: they are told they most wait for the very last one killed as they were. I bugged God a lot about that too. I finally understood it: as they were - as church age martyrs. They have to wait for the very last church age martyr before judgment comes. Then the very next thing John wrote is the 6th seal start of judgment! I think the rapture then MUST come between the 5th and 6th seal. (I am not alone in that belief.)

For further proof, John then saw the raptured church in heaven as that great crowd, right after that (chapter 7) Therefore, it is not just Paul, I see that Paul and John agree. The rapture then will come JUST before wrath, and probably as the trigger for the start of the DAY.

I do agree, however, that 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:17 refer to the same event. Obviously. Since this is true, what we learn from one passage must be added to what we learn from the other: this resurrection of the dead is ONLY for those who died "IN Christ." Old Testament saints don't fit because they died before Christ came.

Yes, all the Old Testament believers are "his" but they never were born again while they were alive. That was impossible then. They all died with "Adam" spirits. The "church, the Body of Christ on earth" is of a different group. That is why Paul specified those "In Christ." It is the church - the bride of Christ - that is caught up at the rapture. God was "married" to Israel but divorced them. Daniel 12 shows us that the Jews will be raised after the days of GT. (verses 1 & 2)

"In Christ" refers ONLY to those who are born again: with a NEW human spirit inside. We could say our new spirit has GOD'S DNA. Adam spirits (people not born again) have Adam's DNA. The truth is, Jesus said to see heaven we MUST be born again. That means a change in our spirit man or woman. God puts to death the old Adam spirit and recreates a new human spirit. This was not possible until Jesus died and was raised from the dead. This makes the New Testament church a different group from the Old. They all died with sins covered, but NOT REMOVED. The blood of bulls and goats could never remove sins.

 

[lamad]

"""
OK, we are in agreement here.


Could you please cite or quote the verse you have in mind. This kind of response leave one hanging. I have no idea what verse you are thinking of.


Until I have the 1 Thess 5 verse that you only refer to, I cannot make further comment. I do agree, however, that 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:17 refer to the same event. Obviously.


Exactly. And all believers since Adam are also His. Can't argue otherwise.


Well, I think your view of "in Christ" limits the scope. Everyone who ever believed is IN CHRIST'S care and salvation. That should be obvious.

btw, if you make this artificial distinction, when are the OT saints resurrected? Or ever?


I don't see how this makes any difference? Just WHO did the OT believers believe IN? Christ Himself. You are making a distinction without a difference. Everyone who has believed IN CHRIST is "in Christ". It cannot be otherwise. That makes no sense.


Glad that you bring up Moses. Let's see what the Bible says about your "distinction without a difference" idea.

Heb 11:26 - He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

So please don't tell me that Moses is not "in Christ". He believed in Him.

btw, who was with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration?



Jesus preached the gospel to the saints in paradise after he was crucified.
The bible says he took captivity captive..took them to heaven
They, with Jesus Are the "firstfruits".

Main harvest is the rapture.

Your template omits marriage supper in heaven...among other things.

When will the OT saints rise? I bugged God a lot about that too. From Daniel 12, 1& 2, we know it is after the days of GT. And from Jesus we can guess "on the last day."

Where do we find the very worst earthquake ever? It is on the last day, the 7th vial. I am convinced the OT saints will rise on the last day of the Jewish age, on the last day of the 70th week that will END the Jewish age: the 1260th day from the midpoint.

Everyone who has believed IN CHRIST is "in Christ". It cannot be otherwise. That makes no sense. If the OT saints could have been born again and eligible for heaven, that Jesus did not have to die: period and end of story.

Difference? Paul's gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
OT believers believed in a coming Messiah that would save them. They had no earthly idea that Jesus would die as their passover lamb. Of course it makes sense. Paul laid this out very well in Hebrews. The blood of bulls and goats could NEVER remove sins. Jesus HAD to shed His blood or no one could be saved. They learned this while in Abraham's bosom. We learned it to become born again.

please don't tell me that Moses is not "in Christ". He believed in Him. If Moses could have been born again, they Jesus would not have had to die. Moses believed in a coming Messiah who would save them. Not even Moses had any idea that the Messiah would die as their Passover Lamb.

I have always said that posttribbers cannot find any way to get to the marriage in heaven.

 

[lamad]

Kinda the same thing with Calvinists and Arminians with their peculiar doctrines.

Ha ha ha! "Smashed to smithereens! Well, maybe in some minds! I could say the same thing about posttrib rapture doctrine. It has zero legs propping it up.

 

[Runningman]

Kinda the same thing with Calvinists and Arminians with their peculiar doctrines.

Yes. I think it's because of their particular way they read the Bible.

So far I've witnessed mostly dispensationalism and some dual covenant theology in this thread. Because of this they'll sometimes reject plain text verses that contradict pre-trib ideas by twisting scripture to make it apply to a different dispensation (time period). For example, one person kept saying "church age" and then failed to show scripture for what the church age is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They almost always have to invent a 3rd or even sometimes a 4th advent of Christ because the pre-trib is very hard to wrap up neatly without it. Even when they do this they find it impossible to prove. That's why despite your numerous requests for verses they'll never give you one because it doesn't exist.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

My bad. Sorry. It happens.

I agree, it happens. = )

re:

[Post #915] TheDivineWatermark said:
You have either GOT to be joking...
OR you have somehow gotten ME mixed up with ANOTHER POSTER (like T7t7 ??) who does NOT believe there will be a literal Millennium (per the numerous times it is mentioned there in Rev20... not to mention referenced in other passages).

https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4536878

... however, I must admit, you've accomplished something truly extraordinary:

in that post of yours, Post #906

( https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4536840 "[#906] FreeGrace2 said: 'But, sinc DW denies the reality of the Millennium in Rev 20, where 1,000 years is mentioned 5 times, with reference to ending and "are over", there's no use in trying to help him with any facts. His mind appears to be made up already, but without facts'"),

...you've succeeded in getting an Amillennianlist to side with you against someone supposedly [according to your mixed-up post] ON HIS *OWN* SIDE OF THE DEBATE (Amill)... "Runningman" who gave your incorrect post (about my supposedly being Amill) a hearty "thumbsup".


Stunningly hilarious! LOL


How does this even happen?!

(unless people aren't really READING each others' posts, or else don't grasp their own position on the Subject! )


[not even the first time in this thread that such a thing has taken place, either! ]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

For example, one person kept saying "church age" and then failed to show scripture for what the church age is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I doubt you're referring to me (since it would be rare for me to use that specific term), but in just about every post I put, when speaking on that topic ("the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY"), I almost always supply at least the following reference which I expect the interested reader/student-of-scripture to LOOK IT UP: "Ephesians 1:20-23 WHEN [as to its existence]"




[see also" "having been CREATED IN Christ Jesus..." and "...TO CREATE IN Himself..." and "...NEW CREATION..." (etc)]

 

[VCO]

Kinda the same thing with Calvinists and Arminians with their peculiar doctrines.

There you go, dragging up another smelly DEAD HORSE.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

They almost always have to invent a 3rd or even sometimes a 4th advent of Christ because

...and you've not yet provided a TEXT stating "SECOND advent".

If there is such a text, then please supply it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ On that ^ Subject:

Kolistus was entirely correct, in his Post #64, https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4530318

...to which I concurred in my Post #84 - https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4530378