Documentary—7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I don't disagree that God can and does often preserve His people; however, what does Luke 17 actually say about Lot:
"Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."
God's judgment fell on the very day Lot left Sodom. So we have two options: 1) the rapture occurs just before God's bowls of wrath are poured out—the pre-wrath view; or 2) God will pour out His wrath after the pre-trib rapture. If we use Lot as an example of a pre-trib rapture, God will unleash His wrath at the beginning of the seven-year period. But this is unsupported by scripture.
What is supported by scripture is there will be time of tribulation that all will go through (including believers) followed by God's final wrath near the end of the seven-year period. This actually does conform to the Lot scenario.
"Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."
God's judgment fell on the very day Lot left Sodom. So we have two options: 1) the rapture occurs just before God's bowls of wrath are poured out—the pre-wrath view; or 2) God will pour out His wrath after the pre-trib rapture. If we use Lot as an example of a pre-trib rapture, God will unleash His wrath at the beginning of the seven-year period. But this is unsupported by scripture.
What is supported by scripture is there will be time of tribulation that all will go through (including believers) followed by God's final wrath near the end of the seven-year period. This actually does conform to the Lot scenario.
I've read this and heard it a lot from pre-trib "scholars," but where does this idea come from in the Bible? We know there are "saints" who go through the tribulation. But other than because of the belief there will be a pre-trib rapture, how do we know these are "tribulation saints" and not "regular" saints?
This is both true and it very well could be the other way around via the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians. I indeed think Paul was mainly trying to comfort them about their loved ones having died. Thus he says they will be raised first, then will be changed in 1 Cor. 15, but the fact is, you can't tell a mili-second of times (lol) difference. If I and my wife walk through a door hand in hand and my left foot breaks the door's imaginary line first did we go in at the same time? Yes, of course, Paul's just trying to give them assurance, the dead and the living will be taken to heaven at the same time basically.
But, in 2 Thess. 2 we see Paul in his second letter unto them chastizing them for fearing they were in the Day of the Lord. Then he says THAT DAY can not come unless there is a DEPARTURE [of the Church.......not of the faith) and then the Anti-Christ comes forth, THEN and only then can the Wrath of God fall, so do not worry guys !!
But, in 2 Thess. 2 we see Paul in his second letter unto them chastizing them for fearing they were in the Day of the Lord. Then he says THAT DAY can not come unless there is a DEPARTURE [of the Church.......not of the faith) and then the Anti-Christ comes forth, THEN and only then can the Wrath of God fall, so do not worry guys !!
2 Thessalonians presents a major problem for the pre-trib theory. The idea that "departure" means "rapture" is nothing more than grasping at straws.
Apostasia is always used in a non-spatial sense, such as a political rebellion or apostasy from the faith, not a spatial sense as in departing from one place to another. Therefore, apostasia cannot mean rapture.
Apostasia is always used in a non-spatial sense, such as a political rebellion or apostasy from the faith, not a spatial sense as in departing from one place to another. Therefore, apostasia cannot mean rapture.
Another fatal argument against this idea comes from the text itself:
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him (rapture), we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (departure=rapture) comes first. . ."
In other words, by your theory, the rapture can't come until the rapture comes first.
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him (rapture), we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (departure=rapture) comes first. . ."
In other words, by your theory, the rapture can't come until the rapture comes first.
-
1
- Show all
The model of lot is the town was in normal trade and civilian activities. Lot removed but leaving some family behind. Sodomy had a stench rising to heaven.
Just as in all rapture verses. Normal activities then Gods people taken out.
What is postribs banner verse?
"AFTER THE TRIB".
" After the trib...white horses and Jesus COMING...NOTHING " GOING""
Postrib simply insert the rapture there.
Therefore " after the trib" ( if we try and fit noah in), we have noah taken away AFTER THE FLOOD.
That would be the postrib rapture model of Jesus returning after the trib and a supposed rapture...(that ain't there at all with noah)...and can NOT be made to fit.
Midtrib and postrib rapture NEED all the destruction of the plagues and ac verses avoided or removed in order for the " business as normal...then the rapture" dynamic to fit.
You simply can not get any traction with the setting and context and time frame.
Postrib rapture doctrine is not very well thought out.
Just as in all rapture verses. Normal activities then Gods people taken out.
What is postribs banner verse?
"AFTER THE TRIB".
" After the trib...white horses and Jesus COMING...NOTHING " GOING""
Postrib simply insert the rapture there.
Therefore " after the trib" ( if we try and fit noah in), we have noah taken away AFTER THE FLOOD.
That would be the postrib rapture model of Jesus returning after the trib and a supposed rapture...(that ain't there at all with noah)...and can NOT be made to fit.
Midtrib and postrib rapture NEED all the destruction of the plagues and ac verses avoided or removed in order for the " business as normal...then the rapture" dynamic to fit.
You simply can not get any traction with the setting and context and time frame.
Postrib rapture doctrine is not very well thought out.
Another fatal argument against this idea comes from the text itself:
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him (rapture), we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (departure=rapture) comes first. . ."
In other words, by your theory, the rapture can't come until the rapture comes first.
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him (rapture), we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (departure=rapture) comes first. . ."
In other words, by your theory, the rapture can't come until the rapture comes first.
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;
The idea that the Holy Spirit is the "restrainer" is fraught with difficulties. There are other better explanations.
For example, are there "tribulation saints" during the tribulation? If so, where does it say God won't honor His promise of filling believers with the Holy Spirit during the tribulation. If He goes up at the rapture, how will "tribulation saints" receive the Holy Spirit. And if they do receive the Holy Spirit, He was never the restrainer in the first place because Antichrist has obviously been revealed by now and the Holy Spirit's still here.
For example, are there "tribulation saints" during the tribulation? If so, where does it say God won't honor His promise of filling believers with the Holy Spirit during the tribulation. If He goes up at the rapture, how will "tribulation saints" receive the Holy Spirit. And if they do receive the Holy Spirit, He was never the restrainer in the first place because Antichrist has obviously been revealed by now and the Holy Spirit's still here.
Yea, I generally agree. Daniel 12:1 is an important passage, and so are the following two verses. Although it is my view that this main harvest of the gentiles occurs during tribulation, closer to the the approximate start of the Time of Jacob's Trouble. I think it will occur when the woman (Israel) goes into travail, before the midpoint, while in the midst of Daniel's 70th week.
I think the chosen remnant bride will return with the Lord to share the gospel with those who were not prepared for the glorification event, so they can be ready for the harpazo. Some of these will need to undergo further refining, as more tribulation comes upon those who were not prepared for glorification/transfiguration.
God tells us to always get our understandings: Here a little, there a little, line upon line precept upon precept. I have DESTROYED your theory with my 5-year-old blog on this site before. It's basically a waste of time. Your type is too stiff-necked, you see what you want to see, which is why I never take anything you post or mid-trib guys say about Eschatology seriously, if you can't understand the simple things, you will surely never understand the more complex things of God. This is EASY TO DESTROY, but the facts are the whole bible points to the pre-trib rapture of the Church, you just can't comprehend that.
Is the Falling Away a False Teaching?
I have evolved with many studies on this. I used to argue to all that there had to be this great Falling Away also. All because of this passage. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I do agree that the world gets far eviler towards the (now) end, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, and as Peter said, there will be scoffers in the last days, etc., etc. But I do not think the true church can “Fall Away”, either you are of Christ/God or you are not, and will get left behind by the Bridegroom. Anyway, here is my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a “Falling Away” from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.
Mr. Ice has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”
The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).
This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”
They were as follows:
1.) The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2.) The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3.) The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4.) The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5.) The Great Bible (1540)
6.) The Beeches Bible (1576)
7.) The Geneva Bible (1608)
Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure" also. The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the "false teachings of Catholicism".
One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:
Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.
In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”
And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.
I do not think this has anything to do with a Falling Away. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for 1100 some odd years at the time, they were taking a swipe at the Catholic Church. Petty politics it seems was more important than facts.
Is the Falling Away a False Teaching?
I have evolved with many studies on this. I used to argue to all that there had to be this great Falling Away also. All because of this passage. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I do agree that the world gets far eviler towards the (now) end, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, and as Peter said, there will be scoffers in the last days, etc., etc. But I do not think the true church can “Fall Away”, either you are of Christ/God or you are not, and will get left behind by the Bridegroom. Anyway, here is my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a “Falling Away” from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.
Mr. Ice has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”
The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).
This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”
They were as follows:
1.) The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2.) The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3.) The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4.) The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5.) The Great Bible (1540)
6.) The Beeches Bible (1576)
7.) The Geneva Bible (1608)
Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure" also. The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the "false teachings of Catholicism".
One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:
Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.
In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”
And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.
I do not think this has anything to do with a Falling Away. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for 1100 some odd years at the time, they were taking a swipe at the Catholic Church. Petty politics it seems was more important than facts.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I predict pre-tribbers will hate it. Others might learn something from it. Still some pre-tribbers might be convinced to change their mind but I'm not holding my breath. If someone can't be convinced by this film, I don't know what it will take. 