Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists

Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists.

Anyone looking for direct scripture support of the famed Pre-Trib Rapture will come up empty handed. Admits Rapture heavyweight John Walvoord in his book called The Rapture Question (Findlay, OH:1957, p.148). He agrees with G. E. Ladd saying;

"Ladd, in contrast to Jones, concedes that post-tribulalional rapture is an inference rather than an explicit revelation of Scripture in the following statement:

"Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation."

“The fact is that neither posttribulalionism nor pretribulationisim is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not in so many words state either.”

“Pretribulationism is based on the fact that it allows a harmony of the Scriptures relating to the Second Advent.”

“The separation of the translation from the return of Christ to earth permits each of the two events so different in character, to have its own place.”

“It solves the problem of the confusing and contradictory details in the post-tribulational interpretation illustrated in the difficulty of the postribulationist's themselves to work out a harmony of prophecies related to the second advent."

Another Rapture heavy-weight, Tim LaHaye says the same:

"One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either."

Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack). “That’s Not in the Bible” Gary DeMar

So despite the fact millions of books claiming the rapture flew off the shelves in the face of the failed prophecies surrounding them, why do millions of Christians believe as scripture truth the claims put forth by these?

If you believe in the pre-trib rapture, how do you support it with scripture when these cannot?

Depends on who you consider to be "Top Dogs" I guess. lol



Here's a post I made awhile back (making a point in the vid about something Geo E Ladd had said):

[quoting that post]

Dr David Hocking showed Marv Rosenthal (I believe it was) about the manuscript evidence (re: Rev5:9-10; with v.9 saying "US" ['having redeemed US']) had to acknowledge "agreement" [that David Hocking was right and Scripture does say that, per the manuscript evidence Hocking pointed out], but then Rosenthal proceeded to publish his already-written "pre-wrath book" anyway, despite being informed of these facts:

[see this vid:


(approx 9-min vid total)

--note also in this video that he mentions something Geo E. Ladd [...] had said about this passage/esp verse 9]

[end quoting that post]


____________

I also know that at one point Walvoord agreed with [the point I'd provided made by Kenneth S Wuest re: the wording in 2Th2:3 referring to our Rapture], at least for awhile he held to the likelihood of that view on the wording, and I forget when (and why) he later felt he wasn't firm on that (I won't post that big long article by Wuest in this post, regarding that word)...

will just maybe place here briefly the entry from the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (1871 ?) under "apostasia"... which says, "later form for apostasis" (and then under "apostasis" says, "a standing away from […] 2. departure or removal from. […]" . So Wuest's long article covers that subject.

I have more...

For the readers [/readers' sakes], Gary DeMar holds to "Dominion Theology / Reconstructionism" (I would hardly consider him a "top dog"... his views are so far "off" -- be aware [and beware] of this )

He's only pointing out what the top dogs say. Is it true? Yes.

It only takes one direct quote from scripture to prove there will be a pre-trib rapture. Where is it?

Dominion Theology is not biblical

it's 'mongrel' theology...not top dog

(I have nothing against mixed breed dogs...I just don't like mixed theology)

As I see it, you are misunderstanding the quote you provided by LaHaye. He's not making the point that there aren't any scriptures supporting pre-trib; instead, he is saying there is (in his view) not a singular passage of scripture stating (in one place) "rapture, then 7 yrs take place, then 2nd Coming to the earth," but that the length of time between the two must be ascertained by comparing scripture with scripture (what I've been labeling as parallels ).


My posts (on this) have shown that BOTH 2Th2:3-9 AND Dan9:27a/b/c[26b] cover the entire 7-yr period (rather than what is COMMONLY thought that 2Th2 covers, as being only 3.5 yrs. NOT.); and that it also provides the SEQUENCE (what happens when, in relation to what other thing [so, as I see it, 2Th2 PROVIDES the SEQUENCE!]); and that's just 2Th2. (I already mentioned Rev5:9 in my earlier post... so that makes TWO PLACES, on this Subject so far...)

In view of my posts above, here again is the article by Kenneth S Wuest:

[quoting my old post]


"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"

"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest

"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.

"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]

"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.

"The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.
With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."

"The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [I would say, "must precede the [7-yr] tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it)]. And we have answered our questions again. It might be added that the reason why Paul merely speaks of a pretribulation rather than a preseventieth week rapture is that he is addressing himself to the needs of the Thessalonian saints and is not explaining the particular place of the rapture in the prophetic program of God."

--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60

[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 ]

[end quoting that post]

[quoting another source]

[ quote ] "In the first century, we see apostasia used by the historian,
Josephus, in a political sense (Jos. Vit., 43) to
signify a rebellion against civil authority. However,
the term was also used during this time to describe a
fever departing from an ill person, and a boat departing
from a dock." --JB Hixson [ end quote ; bold mine]


IOW, a "spatial/geographical 'departure'" is a completely legitimate use of the word. (see again the entry at Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon I provided earlier)


And another quote taken from Hixson's article:

[ quote ] "This view is shared by such notable scholars as Tommy Ice, Tim LaHaye, J. Dwight Pentecost, Kenneth Wuest, Allen MacRae, E. Schuyler English, Stanley Ellison, H. Wayne House, and others." [ end quoting ]

Some may find these two videos helpful in their study of this topic.

[further quoting]

"Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure:

"But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period."

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]


_______

This SEQUENCE is repeated 3x in 2Th2 and is the SAME SEQUENCE that 1Th4-5 had also provided!


[bear in mind that "the DOTL" is an earthly time-period of long duration which INCLUDES the 7-yr trib, and STARTS with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]". Very often the mis-defining of terms leads one "off course" of what is actually being conveyed]

I have a question about one of the titles of the videos in Post #10.

Where the title says, "Where Did Rapture Theology Come From...", is Witherington [I think that's his name] suggesting there is no such thing as "Rapture" [as we commonly think of it] at all (at any time)??



[p.s. I've mentioned in past posts (maybe even recently) about how Paul uses a variety of terms and phrases in 1 & 2 Thess to speak of (what we call) "our Rapture"... not merely the ONE VERSE/WORD we commonly think of... but something like TEN TIMES in those two epistles!]

There are two raptures.
1) Church (pre-trib) 1 Thess 4v16-18, Luke 21v34-36, Revelation 3v10 (to the faithful church)
…..then woman (Israel) flees into the desert where God protects her Revelation 12v5-6 (Church raptured then Woman flees)
2) Israel (post trib) Matthew 24v29-31

[continuing my posts; quoting from them again]


Consider a related word in Hebrews 9:8-9a -

"the Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy places, the first tabernacle having yet a standing [*stasis / stasin G4714], which is a simile [/a parable] in regard to the present time [...]" - Heb9:8-9a

so, my argument has been, that the above ^ bolded word is more akin to the idea being expressed in 2Th2:3 [in a somewhat opposite sense, as in "apo [away from] *stasis [a standing]" (i.e. "a standing away from [from a previous standing]")] THAN it does to its OTHER 8x mentions where "stasis/stasin [of 9x total]" speaks of "INSURRECTION, a POPULAR UPRISING; figuratively, CONTROVERSY -- DISSENSION, insurrection... UPROAR; STRIFE; Definition: REBEL, REVOLUTIONIST" [per parts of BibleHub, under that entry]

(whereas here in its NINTH mention/occurrence, does NOT mean that at all! But to insist that it would have an identical meaning [to the other 8x], here in its ninth mention [Heb9:8-9a, quoted above], would be folly)

https://biblehub.com/greek/4714.htm [see listing of its 9 OCCURRENCES AT RIGHT SIDE]

[end quoting]

Correct. Jesus comes back once, visibly, to everyone as described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19. The two chapters describe the same event. This has been the historic confession of the church since basically the resurrection, and is still the belief of the overwhelming majority of Christians today.

First, may I ask, where you say "Correct," am I right to assume you mean to answer my specific question about "Witherington's viewpoint" being "there is NO SUCH THING as 'our Rapture [IN THE AIR]'"... is that what you are answering there?


Secondly, the phrasing you use, "Jesus COMES BACK once"... I do not believe any pre-tribber (myself included) disagrees with that. Both Matthew 24 AND Revelation 19 are speaking of THAT (Matt24:29-31 parallels Isaiah 27:12-13 and Deut30:3-4 re: Israel [who never lifts off the ground--this is at His Second Coming TO THE EARTH, i.e. His "RETURN" (like in Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 ["when he will RETURN FROM the wedding" ...THEN the meal] I mentioned in other threads, and another passage with that word)]; That is His VISIBLE "return" which is what His SECOND "ascension" in Acts 1 [VISIBLY] was referring to (not His EARLIER "[ACTIVE] ascension" ON Firstfruit/His Resurrection Day [fulfilling Lev23:10-12], some "40 DAYS" EARLIER! )

1 Thess 1:10
New King James Version
and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
Mt 24:40
New King James Versioh
0Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
As is the great flood, Sodom and Gomorra and other scenarios, God does not pour His wrath out on His children. Yes, there will be martyrs and the persecuted who will be rewarded in Heaven, but as for God's wrath TO COME, it's for the sinful, not His kids.
Also, if you'd like see this classis debate on the Rapture @https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PRkWEb_V_Q&t=4s
Oh yeah, I stand by this

If by rapture you mean a disappearance of all believers to heaven at some chronological point in time before the visible second coming of Christ to judge the nations as described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19, correct. Such an event simply does not exist.

As far as Matthew 24:40, he specifically addresses the context of that in the second video.

As far as “God loves the church too much to let it go into tribulation”... “And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.” (Matthew 24:22). We’re here, and are getting martyred. The end times are shortened to keep us all from being martyred.

[EDIT to ADD to my last post]

^ IOW, Jesus in His Olivet Discourse (incl'g Matt24), is NOT covering the Subject of "our Rapture" AT ALL;
but instead is covering the Subject of His Second Coming TO THE EARTH, FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom (and the specific, limited [future] time period that leads UP TO *THAT* [except for about 11-12 verses in Lk21:12-24a about the events of 70ad])

Tim Lehay? Isn't that the left behind guy? Horrible, I was in a church one time that watched the movie series together. I watched a short bit of the first part and it sucked horrifically.