50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord
- Thread starter cv5
- 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.
"The falling away is a prerequisite to the man of sin being revealed"
BUT.........you earlier said the man of sin being revealed is the CAUSE of the (supposed) "falling away". You said that Christians will be anguished and distressed because they realize that they are IN the tribulation. Reread your posts. That is your absurd theory. Makes no sense anyway you slice it.
By the way that is exactly what the false preachers were telling the Thessalonians. And the Thessalonians WERE distressed......NEEDLESSLY. And that's exactly what Paul countermanded with his TRUE teaching.....Of the pre-TRIB rapture. This time in written form, formerly it was a verbal teaching. Aren't we lucky to have it in black and white nowadays?
BUT.........you earlier said the man of sin being revealed is the CAUSE of the (supposed) "falling away". You said that Christians will be anguished and distressed because they realize that they are IN the tribulation. Reread your posts. That is your absurd theory. Makes no sense anyway you slice it.
By the way that is exactly what the false preachers were telling the Thessalonians. And the Thessalonians WERE distressed......NEEDLESSLY. And that's exactly what Paul countermanded with his TRUE teaching.....Of the pre-TRIB rapture. This time in written form, formerly it was a verbal teaching. Aren't we lucky to have it in black and white nowadays?
-
1
- Show all
Hmmmm...
I find it interesting that the phrase "children of the kingdom" is only found in Matthew 8:12;13:38 - something I may not have ever paid any specific attention to.
The words/definitions for both 'children' and 'kingdom' are pretty generic. Both are plural.
On the surface of things, it appears to be an all-inclusive group.
It depends on how 'children' is related to 'kingdom'.
It will require more study...
I find it interesting that the phrase "children of the kingdom" is only found in Matthew 8:12;13:38 - something I may not have ever paid any specific attention to.
The words/definitions for both 'children' and 'kingdom' are pretty generic. Both are plural.
On the surface of things, it appears to be an all-inclusive group.
It depends on how 'children' is related to 'kingdom'.
It will require more study...
His eschatology is not relevant to the subject.
Those kinds of questions nearly always lead to a character assassination.
I didn't ask you the eschatological belief of any scholars. I simply told you I don't accept the morphing of apostasia into a
definition for the so-called "rapture". Departure from the faith does not mean departure from the earth.
It's an awkward attempt to force fit a doctrine into scripture.
Those kinds of questions nearly always lead to a character assassination.
I didn't ask you the eschatological belief of any scholars. I simply told you I don't accept the morphing of apostasia into a
definition for the so-called "rapture". Departure from the faith does not mean departure from the earth.
It's an awkward attempt to force fit a doctrine into scripture.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
[DOUBLE POST] sry...will post this again later...
Let me put it like this:
example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology
--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)
--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])
So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...
When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".
What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"... Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)
Let me put it like this:
example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology
--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)
--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])
So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...
When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".
What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"...
Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)-
1
- Show all
Along those same lines ^ , please see again the link to another post, which link I placed in Post #312 of this thread:
https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4533048
... note especially what was stated about Geo. E. Ladd [famously not a "pre-tribber"] and how he'd said if Rev5:9 could be proven to say "US" in that text, it would pretty much convince him of "pre-trib"... Well, 23 of the 24 manuscripts on that verse have it as "US," and the other leaves it blank/untranslated. [how many "translations" show this, however??]
https://christianchat.com/threads/5...ure-by-dr-john-f-walvoord.198357/post-4533048
... note especially what was stated about Geo. E. Ladd [famously not a "pre-tribber"] and how he'd said if Rev5:9 could be proven to say "US" in that text, it would pretty much convince him of "pre-trib"... Well, 23 of the 24 manuscripts on that verse have it as "US," and the other leaves it blank/untranslated. [how many "translations" show this, however??]
-
1
- Show all
I looked over my previois posts. I think you're either misrepresenting what I said or misunderstood it. I said the falling away will come first and because so many have fallen away the man of sin will be revealed.
That's what 2 Thess. 2:3 says and that's what I believe. We need to concern ourselves with what the scriptures say. They are the authority here and our preferences aren't.
That's what 2 Thess. 2:3 says and that's what I believe. We need to concern ourselves with what the scriptures say. They are the authority here and our preferences aren't.
That's how I'm seeing his "point" / posts, also.
Thus, why I am asking him, "WHAT is it that causes those finding themselves in that time period to be AWARE that they are indeed IN it and EXPERIENCING it... since it cannot be "the man of sin be revealed" as marking that AWARENESS, according to both his view and how Scripture itself is worded... so WHAT DOES MARK it, making them AWARE of its having begun??" (according to Runningman's view, I mean)
Thus, why I am asking him, "WHAT is it that causes those finding themselves in that time period to be AWARE that they are indeed IN it and EXPERIENCING it... since it cannot be "the man of sin be revealed" as marking that AWARENESS, according to both his view and how Scripture itself is worded... so WHAT DOES MARK it, making them AWARE of its having begun??" (according to Runningman's view, I mean)
-
1
- Show all
Do you think it is perhaps "in contrast to" the "many [that] will come from the east and west..."
I tend to see it so.
Do you mean that both verses have "sons" [/children] as plural (and not the word 'kingdom')? At first I was thinking you meant 'both' of THESE WORDS, but I think perhaps you didn't intend that, am I right?
Mhmm... if I'm understanding you correctly... yup.
Those TO WHOM "the kingdom" was promised (and prophesied, via OT scripture)... = )
[the earthly kingdom--see their Q of Jesus in Acts 1:6... and to which Q Jesus RESPONDS in like manner, re: its TIMING, because that was their QUESTION]
I tend to see it so.
Do you mean that both verses have "sons" [/children] as plural (and not the word 'kingdom')? At first I was thinking you meant 'both' of THESE WORDS, but I think perhaps you didn't intend that, am I right?
Mhmm... if I'm understanding you correctly... yup.
It depends on how 'children' is related to 'kingdom'.
It will require more study...
It will require more study...
[the earthly kingdom--see their Q of Jesus in Acts 1:6... and to which Q Jesus RESPONDS in like manner, re: its TIMING, because that was their QUESTION]
-
1
- Show all
[DOUBLE POST] sry...will post this again later...
Let me put it like this:
example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology
--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)
--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])
So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...
When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".
What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"... Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)
Let me put it like this:
example: The scholars of the esv translation basically have a "bent" toward Reformed Theology
--when it came to their "translating" Rev13:8, rather than sticking to what the text says ('slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world'), they allowed their "bent" to impact translation, and thus came up with their "interpretation" of that verse (as saying), "written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world" (by their view of this being "no different" from the other "similar-sounding" phrase, found elsewhere in Scripture--however, they ARE indeed different!)
--this is the point that Kenneth Wuest is pointing out in his long article I posted some pages back, about our present word under discussion ('apostasia') and how the kjv translators chose to [rather] "interpret" instead of "translate" (the word at its most BASIC meaning , apart from injecting outside "ideas" INTO this word from other texts [i.e. obtained from their surrounding contexts])
So yes, I do believe things like this can color "translation," and "interpretation," and "definitions"...
When one can easily disregard "chronology issues" (to come to the conclusions they do on the Subject of "eschatology"), why not question what else they might be looking at according to their own "bent," or "glasses," so to speak, especially when I've pointed out sources from back as far as the 1300s showing the word was translated (among some of the first English translations BEFORE the kjv) as "[a] departing," or "departure"... and how the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon shows... where it says this word is a "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" [apo stasis - 'a standing away-from'] (meaning, the same word) and defined as "departure".
What are you seeing wrong with this? I personally do not care what view he holds to, as far as eschatology, but I HAVE witnessed where one's "bent" has IMPACTED "translation" (to instead, be providing an "interpretation"... like in the above-mentioned example of the esv translators [with their "Reformed" bent] impacting the "translation" of Rev13:8... "[Lamb] slain FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEA to that of "[names] written BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"... the text actually states the FORMER of these two; whereas the esv "interprets" [not "translates"] it to be saying the LATTER. The text itself doesn't say that though! BE AWARE [and beware!] of the particular "glasses"...
Nothing wrong at all with that! if it impacts the actual text of Scripture, etc... That's all I'm saying... in agreement with ONE OF the points made, in the KS Wuest long article I posted, about our present word under discussion.)
We have had these kinds of discussions ad nauseum on our overabundance of KJVO threads. They lead nowhere.
A dozen modern English versions aren't accepted
The KJV isn't accepted
Even the Greek isn't accepted so the beliefs of the translator are questioned.
(I've even consulted 2 German Bibles)
The only component that is exempt from scrutiny in your eyes is pretrib doctrine. This is unreasonable.
I'm returning to skipping past your posts.
-
1
- Show all
How do you yourself determine whether Rev13:8 says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world" OR "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world"? They MEAN entirely distinct things.
How is THAT "poisoning the well"??
(rather than "examining the scriptures, to see if these be so" )
Just to be CLEAR TO THE READERS (in case this ^ comes across differently than intended), I am not "KJVO"
And yes, I DO believe examining the text is important.
How is THAT "poisoning the well"??
(rather than "examining the scriptures, to see if these be so"
)Just to be CLEAR TO THE READERS (in case this ^ comes across differently than intended), I am not "KJVO"
And yes, I DO believe examining the text is important.
-
2
- Show all
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
i can easily play out the postrib rapture theory.
Put myself square into that doctrine, play it out and make conclusions.
I have that abilty and have spent hours in studying it.
The problem lies in " the impossibility" once the rapture verses are incorporated.
That is the issue.
Just ASSUMING there can only be one appearance.
Just ASSUMING The pretrib rapture does not merit a look.
That is unacceptable.
Iow you do not know because of "positioning without investigation"
Not me. I must investigate.
I know you dont because investigation involves questions .
Questions seek answers.
Postribs have no questions.
I do.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
i can easily play out the postrib rapture theory.
Put myself square into that doctrine, play it out and make conclusions.
I have that abilty and have spent hours in studying it.
The problem lies in " the impossibility" once the rapture verses are incorporated.
That is the issue.
Just ASSUMING there can only be one appearance.
Just ASSUMING The pretrib rapture does not merit a look.
That is unacceptable.
Iow you do not know because of "positioning without investigation"
Not me. I must investigate.
I know you dont because investigation involves questions .
Questions seek answers.
Postribs have no questions.
I do.
-
1
- Show all
On the contrary, I WELCOME for it to be thoroughly scrutinized!!
I find none of the arguments, made by the other viewpoints, to bear up anywhere close to it (same for the past 45+ yrs of my examining this and other views... though I'm willing to change to something IF SCRIPTURE ITSELF confirms another view... I've said that many times... same as was said at the intro to KS Wuest's long article! I AGREE with that! CHANGE if Scripture itself is shown to say something else! I've not seen evidence of that, just like Scripture itself does NOT SAY, in Rev13:8, "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world," but INSTEAD actually says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world." Stick with the TEXT, not one's ideas injected into the text.)
I find none of the arguments, made by the other viewpoints, to bear up anywhere close to it (same for the past 45+ yrs of my examining this and other views... though I'm willing to change to something IF SCRIPTURE ITSELF confirms another view... I've said that many times... same as was said at the intro to KS Wuest's long article! I AGREE with that! CHANGE if Scripture itself is shown to say something else! I've not seen evidence of that, just like Scripture itself does NOT SAY, in Rev13:8, "[names] WRITTEN BEFORE [pro] the foundation of the world," but INSTEAD actually says, "[Lamb] SLAIN FROM [apo] the foundation of the world." Stick with the TEXT, not one's ideas injected into the text.)
-
2
- Show all
it also says something must be taken away.
THEN the ac is revealed.
Something stopping his appearance.
Actually it only says "revealed".
" uncovered"
Has no real involvement in his power. Only that he is known TO BELIEVERS ( POSSIBLY).
Or could be to the world.
Or could be the world announces his " awesomeness" as they did with obama.( ahead of him taking power)
That alone should raise questions and assist in framing my view.
Nobody ever looks at it.
THEN the ac is revealed.
Something stopping his appearance.
Actually it only says "revealed".
" uncovered"
Has no real involvement in his power. Only that he is known TO BELIEVERS ( POSSIBLY).
Or could be to the world.
Or could be the world announces his " awesomeness" as they did with obama.( ahead of him taking power)
That alone should raise questions and assist in framing my view.
Nobody ever looks at it.