Rapture Question

[Dave Bussard]

Larry> At this point, I do not mean to be mean or insenstive,

NO offense taken.

Larry>...You would be publishing your work.

It is published. www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

Larry>Indeed I would be interested in reading it to see you answer the questions.

It's only $10 plus shipping!

Larry>As for the DOL, it begins just after the rapture, with the beginning of the tribulation period. This much is clear from Scripture. It is a wonder that any seriously doubt it.

Did you not read Joel 2:31?

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood BEFORE the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD (Joel 2:31).

Now where is this sign located in Matthew 24 and Revelation?

Larry>It is interesting Dave that you bring up 2 Thessalonians. Perhaps you can explain to us why the Thessalonians were unsettled to believe that they were in the DOL. If they were posttribulationists, as you are, woulnd't they have been expecting it??

How can you rely on what they THOUGHT? Some of them actually thought they were in the DOL! They were cluless. Let's not rely on what clueless people thought to come up with our doctrines.

And I am not post-trib, but pre-wrath. I believe as you do that we will not enter the DOL. And by the way, there are posties that do not think we will go throught he DOL also.

Larry>The reality is that only reason they would be troubled is if they thought they were going to be raptured before it began. Being told that they were going through the DOL (by a false teacher) was a contradiction of what Paul had taught, just as posttribulationism is.

Where did Paul teach the pre-trib rapture?

Larry>This shows the pretrib teaching is clearly compatible with Scripture, contrary to the claim of "nonsense."

Nonsense? It sounds like you are ready to debate. And also, many have disproved the pre-trib position but for some reason many just don't want to accept it.

[ December 14, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Dave Bussard:
You would be publishing your work.

I don't see the publisher here. Is there not a reputable house that would publish it?? When your opening page starts with a implicit denial of Revelation 3:10, it does not bode well for the rest of the book. Additionally your introduction mistates the point of 1 Thess 5:1-11 when it says that it teaches that the believer will not be surprised. The teaching of 1 Thess 5 is that the believer will not be overtaken as the others will ... why?? Because they were not destined for wrath. Then you deny the imminency of his coming, something that Christ himself affirms in the book of Revelation. The time that in Daniel and the gospels is in the latter days is "soon" or "coming quickly" in REvelation. There is an obvious change in tone. Revelation teaches the imminent coming, something that is not compatible with a prewrath, mid trib, or posttrib view.

Did you not read Joel 2:31?

Yes, Why?? Did you think that contradicted what I said? I am not sure what your point in bringing this up is.

Now where is this sign located in Matthew 24 and Revelation?

Matt 24:29, Mark 13:24; Rev 6:12. Why do you ask??

How can you rely on what they THOUGHT? Some of them actually thought they were in the DOL! They were cluless. Let's not rely on what clueless people thought to come up with our doctrines.

Apparently you missed the significance. Having been taught directly by Paul (in 1 Thess as well as verbally most likely), they understood Paul's teaching to be that they would be gone. They did not think that they were in teh DOL. They were confused becuase someone told them that they were in the DOL (cf. v. 2). They were surprised and confused because Paul told them differently. As I say, I think you have not fairly dealt with the implications of this passage.

And I am not post-trib, but pre-wrath. I believe as you do that we will not enter the DOL. And by the way, there are posties that do not think we will go throught he DOL also.

The DOL includes the blessing of the millennial kingdom but the prewrath rapture has a whole set of issues of its own.

Where did Paul teach the pre-trib rapture?

1 Thess 4 and 5, 2 Thess 1, 2.

Nonsense? It sounds like you are ready to debate. And also, many have disproved the pre-trib position but for some reason many just don't want to accept it.

"Nonsense" was the word that Latreia unwisely used for something he did not agree with. My point is that the pretrib rapture is far from nonsense. If someone has disproved the pretrib rapture, I have yet to see it. Perhaps one day someone will ... most likely they won't.

What we must realize is that any position you take is a matter of systematizing a bunch of different passages. There is no explicit statement. The closest is Rev 3:10 (though some have tried to apply it differently) and 1 Thesss 5:9, which has very few other options that can seriously be entertained in the context. We need to be careful to deal with all of Scripture and put it together in a way that is consistent. Doing so will show, I believe, that the tribulation is for the outpouring of God's wrath on sin and the judgment and conviction of Israel to bring them to repentance. Neither applies to the church; God explicitly promises to the church salvation from that wrath. Your prewrath view is an attempt to come halfway towards this but stops short because it fails in understanding the entire tribulation period as a period of wrath. It has defined "wrath" down.

However, I doubt that you will be persuaded and so I will likely leave it here.

[ December 14, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Dave Bussard]

Okay Larry, I'll ignore your conclusion that my publisher and I are not reputable and only address your question and then let you be (I'll even ignore your other conclusions also, as you wished). You do not understand my Day of the Lord Joel 2:31 comment, so here goes.

Joel 2:31 specifically says that the sun, moon, and stars sign will take place BEFORE the Day of the Lord. But you say the Day of the Lord begins on the same day of the pre-trib rapture (I agree with the same day issue).

But the sign of the sun, moon, and stars mentioned in Joel does not take place until the sixth seal in Revelation. And it does not appear until immediately before Christ is seen coming in Matthew 24.

So, the DOL cannot take place before the sign in Rev 6 and Matt 24 as Joel has indicated, and if the rapture takes place on the same day as the beginning of the DOL you have contradicted yourself. The rapture CANNOT take place until after the cosmic signs in Rev 6 and Matt 24 (I feel like I'm repeating myself).

Also, because you admit the Bible is right concerning the rapture and beginning of the DOL being on the same day you make a pre-trib rapture biblically impossible because “the Lord alone will be exalted” during the Day of the Lord.

The eyes of the arrogant man will be humbled and the pride of men brought low; the Lord alone will be exalted in that day (Isaiah 2:11).

If the rapture and the beginning of the Day of the Lord are on the same day, as the Bible has indicated, and if the Lord alone will be exalted during that Day, the Antichrist cannot exalt himself three-and-one-half years after a pre-trib rapture when the Day of the Lord is already in effect. Because, hey Larry, how can the Antichrist exalt himself in a time when the LORD ALONE WILL BE EXALTED? As we know, the Antichrist will, in fact, exalt himself at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th Week. This puts the pre-trib rapture in direct conflict with scripture.

www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

[ December 14, 2002, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

[ December 15, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

I know I said I wouldn't do this but I just can't help myself. Ask me a question that I have study for ... that way I won't post so soon.

Originally posted by Dave Bussard:
Okay Larry, I'll ignore your conclusion that my publisher and I are not reputable and only address your question and then let you be (I'll even ignore your other conclusions also, as you wished).

I wasn't slamming your or your publisher. I don't know either. I was asking why a reputable house hasn't published it. Nor do I wish you to ignore conclusions. I wish you would deal with them, but I don't suppose you will because of where they will take you.

Joel 2:31 specifically says that the sun, moon, and stars sign will take place BEFORE the Day of the Lord. But you say the Day of the Lord begins on the same day of the pre-trib rapture (I agree with the same day issue).

Did you mean to misquote this or just do it accidently?? The great and terrible day of the Lord probably refers to a specific outpouring of God's wrath in the tribulation. The whole tribulation period is a time of wrath. It would be very hard to conclude that the first five seals are not part of God's wraht. Furthermore, this "great and terrible day of the Lord" and teh whole tribulation period is said to be for the nation of Israel and the unbelieving nations of the earth. Why would the church, who has already repented and believed, be present for the punishment of those who have not?

Also, because you admit the Bible is right concerning the rapture and beginning of the DOL being on the same day you make a pre-trib rapture biblically impossible because “the Lord alone will be exalted” during the Day of the Lord.

I think the "exaltation of the man of sin" is a mere exaltation among men. It does not have any comparison to the Lord. Here, you are conflating two things and comparing them using a false standard of comparison.

If the rapture and the beginning of the Day of the Lord are on the same day, \

I am not convinced of this from Scripture. The DOL cannot begin until after the rapture. It might begin on the same day but I see no scriptural mandate for that. There may be a period of time.

Because, hey Larry, how can the Antichrist exalt himself in a time when the LORD ALONE WILL BE EXALTED? As we know, the Antichrist will, in fact, exalt himself at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th Week. This puts the pre-trib rapture in direct conflict with scripture.

Only because, as I say, you have assumed that the exaltation of Antichrist will be a real exaltation. Again, I don't think you can make that comparison stand up. The exaltation of God is of a completely different nature than that of Antichrist. If this is your case, it is weaker than I imagined it to be.

 

[Dave Bussard]

Larry> I wish you would deal with them, but I don't suppose you will because of where they will take you.
------------------
Give me a break, Larry. I've put so much time into the study I'm blue. I used to be pre-trib. I have evaluated EVERY position there is and have found there are trickier passages that the preterists use than what pre-trib uses. I have stepped out of the box and wrestled with the issues because I really wanted to know and didn't care if I was proven wrong.
-----------------
Larry>The whole tribulation period is a time of wrath. It would be very hard to conclude that the first five seals are not part of God's wraht.
----------------
You will not find a single verse that speaks of the tribulation being wrath. Tribulation is what we experience. Wrath is what the non-believers experience after we are gone.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?"

And what was His answer?

Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed (Rev. 6:9–11).

In Rev. 6:10, the martyred saints cry, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And they are told to WAIT/REST. If God’s wrath has been poured out since the opening of the first seal, wouldn’t He already be judging those who dwell on the earth and avenging the martyrs’ blood? But, because of this passage, we clearly see that He is not judging nor avenging, and therefore is not yet pouring out end-times wrath as the pre-tribulation doctrine claims.

And then, I'm sure, you will say that because Christ has to open the seals that it must be His wrath. But this does not have to be the case. Nothing happens outside of God's control. When He opens the seals He simply alows things to happen. If a seal needed to be opened for Job to suffer TRIBULATION by SATAN, in accordance with God's will, a seal would have been opened.
---------------
Larry>Furthermore, this "great and terrible day of the Lord" and teh whole tribulation period is said to be for the nation of Israel and the unbelieving nations of the earth.
---------------
Show vereses please. But again you are confusing the DOL with the tribulation. You have no verses to connect the two. Tribulation for the believers and wrath for the non-believers is always a different thing. Have younever wondered why NO wrath is mentioned at all before Christ's coming in Matthew 24? Everything leading up to His coming in the Olivet Discours is speaking of suffering under the hand of the Antichrist.
----------------
Larry>Why would the church, who has already repented and believed, be present for the punishment of those who have not?
----------------
Again, verses please. You are confusing the DOL with the tribulation. You have no verses to connect the two.
-----------------
Larry>I think the "exaltation of the man of sin" is a mere exaltation among men. It does not have any comparison to the Lord. Here, you are conflating two things and comparing them using a false standard of comparison.

Larry again> you have assumed that the exaltation of Antichrist will be a real exaltation
-----------
A) The Lord ALONE will be exalted during the DOL (Isa. 2:11).

B) The Antichrist will exalt himself over everything that is called God and proclaims himslef to be God (2 Thess 2:4).

C) The Antichrist cannot, therefore, exalt himself and claim to be God at the midpoint of the 70th Week if the DOL is taking place.

Simple A, B, C's. Why do you ignore it? Now if you want to continue you must show verses. So far you have not done so but simply use the everyday pre-trib arguments. If we want to help the readers here, we must use scripture.

I hope some of you undecided people are getting something out of this.

www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

 

[Pastor Larry]

Give me a break, Larry. I've put so much time into the study I'm blue. I used to be pre-trib. I have evaluated EVERY position there is and have found there are trickier passages that the preterists use than what pre-trib uses. I have stepped out of the box and wrestled with the issues because I really wanted to know and didn't care if I was proven wrong.

But the problem is that you have simply missed some of the most basic things in all of Scripture by looking for distinctions that cannot be supported. Consider that you claim that the Tribulation is not a period of wrath. You cannot find one verse of Scripture that supports you in that. To the contrary, the Tribulation period is called a time of testing (Rev 3:10), distress/trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1), indignation/wrath (Is 26:120; 1 Thess 1:10, Rev 6:16-17; Dan 8:19), and the DOL (Zech 14:1). The only way you get around this is by presuming your conclusion. I reject that method of study.

You argue that tribulation is what we go through and wrath is what the unbelievers go through. Yet again, you do not offer one verse of Scripture in support of that. I do not deny that believers have tribulation in this life but it is distinct in Scripture from the tribulation that is coming. It is called the Great Tribulation in theology. You commit here one of the common but disastrous exegetical fallacies. You assume that every time the word tribulation (thlipsis) is used, it refers to the same thing. You do the same thing for orge (wrath). Yet it clearly has a semantic domain from which to start and then you find the appropriate definition based on context. The Tribulation is a seven year period after the Rapture of the church that is the pouring out of God’s wrath for the purpose of judging sin and bringing Israel to repentance.

You reference Rev 6:10, but you have clearly conflated tribulation saints and church saints. The two are not the same. You have read your assumption into Rev 6, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

I am not sure what you think the DOL is. That may be the problem here. The DOL is the period of time of judgment and blessing from God. A good resource for your study is Richard L. Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985): 231-246 and same author, “The Apostle’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A Kent, Jr., edited by G. T. Meadors (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1991), pp. 239-263. Both of these will help to clarify. The DOL and Tribulation are connected in Obad 15-16, 18; Joel 2 and 3, Zeph 1:1-3:8. All of these passages show that judgment of the Tribulation is a part of the DOL. 1 Thess 5 makes this point as well talking of the “peace and safety” and the destruction that comes suddenly like a woman in child.

Lastly, onto the exaltation of the Lord, you have conflated two things and assumed that the exaltation of Antichrist is the same as the exaltation of the YHWH. It is helpful for your argument but it is not good exegesis. The exaltation of Antichrist is a self-exaltation and will be thrown down by Christ to show that it is no exaltation.

Simple A, B, C's. Why do you ignore it? Now if you want to continue you must show verses. So far you have not done so but simply use the everyday pre-trib arguments. If we want to help the readers here, we must use scripture.

I have ignored nothing. You have gone on a quest to prove a point, not to exegete Scripture. In so doing you have lifted verses out of context, applied them to the wrong time period or wrong people, committed exegetical fallacies (as Carson calls them in his little book), failed to produce the very thing you are asking me for, a verse of Scripture that shows you to be right. Why aren’t you producing Scripture that proves your case??

I hope some of you undecided people are getting something out of this.

I do as well. Because this is an excellent case study for the authority that we give to Scripture.

 

[Dave Bussard]

Larry>Consider that you claim that the Tribulation is not a period of wrath.
-------
No, Larry, I say it is not GOD'S wrath. I claim the seals are Satan's wrath and man against man.
-------
Larry>You cannot find one verse of Scripture that supports you in that.
-------
1 I've shown you that there is not one mention of God's wrath before His coming in Matthew 24, but only Satan's wrath, or the Antichrist's wrath.

2 I've shown you how the opening of seals does not prove that it has to be God's wrath.

3 I've shown you that the 5th seal martyrs claim that His vengeance has not started yet.

4 I've showed you that God replied and told them to wait for His vengeance and judgment, but each time you simply cry "exegetical fallacies."

5 And now I will tell you that God's wrath is not mentioned until AFTER the sign of the sun, moon, and stars (sixth seal) in Rev 6.

“For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Rev. 6:17).

Please don't say that this verse means that His wrath "has come" since the first seal. The fearful men freak out and claim His wrath has come now. Just as Jesus said:

Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour HAS COME. Look, the Son of Man is betreayed into the hands of sinners.

The hour has come NOW.
---------
Larry>To the contrary, the Tribulation period is called a time of testing (Rev 3:10), distress/trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1), indignation/wrath (Is 26:120; 1 Thess 1:10, Rev 6:16-17; Dan 8:19), and the DOL (Zech 14:1). The only way you get around this is by presuming your conclusion. I reject that method of study.
----------
I say you are "presuming your conclusion."
None of your mentioned verses claim that the tribulation takes place at the same time as the Day of the Lord. Everybody, please look the verses up. Do they say the trbulation takes place at the same time as the DOL. No.

I've shown you repeatedly that the DOL cannot take place UNTIL AFTER the triple cosmic sign in Matt. 24:29 and Rev 6:12-13 because of Joel 2:31.

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood BEFORE the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
---------

Larry>You argue that tribulation is what we go through and wrath is what the unbelievers go through. Yet again, you do not offer one verse of Scripture in support of that.
---------
Yes I have Larry. Here's a little more.The tribulation is never defined in scripture as being 7 years long. It is defined Mt. 24:9-29 as a period of time, beginning at the mid-point of Daniel's 70th week, when man will oppress man. It is also said that the tribulation time period will be cut short.

Mat 24:9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

Mat 24:21 "For THEN (after the abomination of desolation) there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Mat 24:22 "Unless those days had been CUT SHORT, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be CUT SHORT.

When are the tribulation (suffering of the elect) days cut short? When the triple cosmic sign announces His return. Or rather, when He returns (Matt 24:30-31). And again, there is no mention of His wrath in Matt 24 until after the cosmis signs.
--------
Larry>The Tribulation is a seven year period
--------
No it is not. The trib is cut short as I showed above. You cannot show the trib is 7 years unless you simply apply the entire 70th week to the trib, which it is not.

A short summary for readers: Pre-wrath believes;
Seal 1-5 = tribulation/suffering (Not God's wrath)
seal 6 announces the the coming of Christ/rapture and the Day of the Lord
Seal 7 announces the trumpets and bowls which are the Day of the Lord and God's wrath against man and Satan.

That is enough for now. But I'm afraid you will once again simply cry "exegetical fallacies."

www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

[ December 15, 2002, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

[Dave Bussard]

PS It's time for you to show verses that prove pre-trib.

And I do not believe that you and I are going to change each others minds. And I am attempting to keep it friendly without this becoming personal. If you are willing, I think we should just continue for a while so that readers can come to their own conclusions by what we say. A friendly debate can only help everyone consider thoughts that they may not have before.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Dave,

I am not even sure where to begin. This stuff you have posted again is so obvious as to make me wonder whether or not you are playing the devil's advocate here. Just in reading it, I find it hard to imagine that someone is seriously saying this after having studied the Scripture.

Perhaps tomorrow I will have a few minutes to address some of the more major points. There are some that don't even need addressing really. I think they are self-refuting (like the seal's being Satan's wrath ... Why in the world would Satan send out wrath against unbelievers??? They are on his side.) There cannot be a serious scriptural argument mounted against teh tribulation being seven years in lenght. Both Daniel and Revelation affirm that. Nor can there be a serious scriptural argument leveled against the idea of God's wrath being excluded from the entire 7 year period. This is a simple matter of reading the text apart from the presupposition and bad study habits (that arise from presuppositions quite often and the necessity to support positions).

As for proof of the pretrib, the easiest proof follows a simple line of reasoning.

I. The purpose of the Tribulation
1 Judgment on confirmed sinfulness Joel 3:13, Rev 14:15, Rev 9:20-21, etc.
2 Chastisement of Israel Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1
3 Repentance of Israel Rom 11:26; Zech 12:10; Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1
4 Repentance of Gentiles Rev 7:9-17.
5 The overthrow of Gentile dominion and Antichrist Rev 16:17-21; Rev 18; Rev 19:19; Ps 2:1-3; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:20-21

All of these purpose preclude the existence of the church at that time.

II. The lack of any mention of the Church in the Tribulation.
III. The lack of coherence in passages from a posttrib/prewrath position (1 Thess 4, 5; 2 Thess 2).
IV. The doctrine of imminency.

All of these issues from Scripture point to a pretribulation rapture of the church so that God's purposes can be carried out.

 

[Dave Bussard]

Larry, you obviously do not understand the other positions (at least not pre-wrath). This is proven when you say things like:

There are some that don't even need addressing really. I think they are self-refuting (like the seal's being Satan's wrath ... Why in the world would Satan send out wrath against unbelievers??? They are on his side.)

It's hard to debate somebody when I keep having to spend all my time re-explaining the basics and re-addressing the same little points so that we can move on. I never said that Satan sends out wrath against his own. Satan's wrath is aginst those that refuse his mark. Even you cannot deny that.

I think you should just take a month and read three books because a pastor should be aware of what's out there. Even Walvoord will admit that pre-trib is only a good possibility that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

The Rapture Question Answered Plain and Simple by Robert Van Kampen

Before God's Wrath by H.L. Nigro

The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church by Marvin Rosenthal

But please feel free to post your main reasons for a pre-trib rapture and I will try to find time to answer them in this upcoming busy week.

Dave

 

[Nimrod]

No one has answered my question!

In Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Was this fullfilled in light of Scripture IN
1 Kings 4:21 "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt:"

If no why so?

 

[Dave Bussard]

Nimrod

I barely have time to debate a single pre-tribber. I certainly don't have the time to also debate an amiller or postmiller (which ever you are). Maybe somebody else does, though.

Sorry

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Nimrod:
No one has answered my question!

In Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Was this fullfilled in light of Scripture IN
1 Kings 4:21 "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt:"

If no why so?

No. The answer comes from reading the texts in question. Gen says from the river of Egypt and 1 Kings says unto the border of Egypt. Thus, two different boundaries are in question. Additionally, Genesis says that teh land will be owned; 1 Kings says it was merely reigned over yet still inhabited by others. Thus the texts in question answer the questions you raise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Dave Bussard:
Larry, you obviously do not understand the other positions (at least not pre-wrath). This is proven when you say things like:

I am familiar with the basics of these positions. That is why I am opposed to them. I generally do not take positions on things I know nothing about. If I do, I generally preface them with a disclaimer about my lack of knowledge. I do not know all the ins and outs of the various positions. I know enough to compare them.

It's hard to debate somebody when I keep having to spend all my time re-explaining the basics and re-addressing the same little points so that we can move on. I never said that Satan sends out wrath against his own. Satan's wrath is aginst those that refuse his mark. Even you cannot deny that.

I feel the same way which I why I hesitate to address much of the stuff you mention above. It is so out of order with Scripture so as to wonder why it is being seriously suggested, if indeed it is. You are the one who said the wrath was Satan's. God describes the tribulation as his judgments. In this, you have whether intentionally or not, contradicted the teaching of Scripture on the source of tribulation. I agree that Satan persecutes and even kills those who refuse his mark. That is only a small part of the tribulation and is not what we were addressing (unless you changed the subject and I missed it).

Even Walvoord will admit that pre-trib is only a good possibility that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

BINGO -- I said this earlier in this thread ... All of these positions are constructions based on exegesis. There is no explicit statement regarding the timing of the Rapture. The closest is Rev 3:10 which is a very strong argument.

But please feel free to post your main reasons for a pre-trib rapture and I will try to find time to answer them in this upcoming busy week.

Already have done so.

 

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
No. The answer comes from reading the texts in question. Gen says from the river of Egypt and 1 Kings says unto the border of Egypt.

What was the border of Egypt at the time of King Solomn?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Thus, two different boundaries are in question. Additionally, Genesis says that teh land will be owned;
.

Is this your literal translation? Because the KJV says "I given this land". No where do I see owned.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

1 Kings says it was merely reigned over yet still inhabited by others.

Solomn was "given" power or authoirty over the Land.

I would have to say, I disagree with your literal translation, it seems to me you spirtualized it.

 

[Dave Bussard]

Larry>God describes the tribulation as his judgments.

NO HE DOESN'T. You have never produced a verse that says the tribulation is His wrath. This is exactly what I keep waiting for but you keep saying the same thing over and over without showing proof.

Please pick the best verse you have, show the entire verse, and then explain why you believe it says "the tribulation is God's wrath." Not the 70th week, and not the DOL, but the tribulation.

[ December 16, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Dave Bussard ]

 

[Sularis]

*Sigh*

When will the Lord come
- Like a thief in the night
Will the church face the wrath of the Tribulation
- no we are not appointed unto wrath

Rapture - goes to marriage feast
Tribulation goes on during marriage feast
Marriage feast ends to have the Millenium setup
Then final Apocalypse

You people should try out this link be patient tho
it takes time to load the next screen and if you click to fast it will hang

http://www.e-sheep.com/apocamon/

I await the cries of heresy

 

[Dave Bussard]

Larry>I already did [reply].
------
Oh, I didn't realize that your 4 points (listed below) was your proof.

Larry's proof of pre-trib
I. The purpose of the Tribulation
II. The lack of any mention of the Church in the Tribulation.
III. The lack of coherence in passages from a posttrib/prewrath position (1 Thess 4, 5; 2 Thess 2).
IV. The doctrine of imminency.

Okay Larry, I'll start backwards and work my way to the top. Here is every "imminency" passage that I can find in pre-trib books and the web. I will let all who are reading this thread read the passages and come to your conclusions. The only comment I really need to make at this time is that the only way one can conclude the below verses teach that Christ could come "at any moment" and "that nothing has to take place first" would be by assuming much. Not one verse says what you are teaching Larry.

The "imminent," any moment, and nothing must take place first, rapture passages

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him (Matt 24:42-44).

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words (1 Thess. 4:17-18).

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am (John 14:1-3).

"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts1:11).

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed (1 Cor. 1:7).

But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ…(Phil. 3:20).

…and to wait for his Son from heaven…(1 Thessalonians 1:10).

…while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…(Titus 2:13).

…he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Hebrews 9:28).

Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life (Jude 21).

When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory…(Col. 3:4).

…to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time…(1 Timothy 6:14-15).

Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be self-controlled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed (1 Peter 1:13).

And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming (1 John 2:28).

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure (1 John 3:2–3).

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed…(1 Cor. 15:51–52).

Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near (Philippians 4:5).

Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door (James 5:7-9)!

I am coming soon (Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20)!

So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled (1 Thess. 5:6).

If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord (1 Corinthians 16:22)!

www.leftbehindwhen.injesus.com
www.whowillbeleftbehindandwhen.com

 

[Bible-belted]

"I think "nonsense" or whatever Latreia used is over the top for this discussion."

Compared to the idea presented that people who reject pretrib silliness are igorant of pretrib teaching as presented by pretribbers, nonsense is quite mild I think.

"Neither is it an arrogant idea that those who don't believe it have never read it. In the reading I have done, the questions by and large and not dealt with in a substantial way."

Those two sentences have nothing in common. How does a failure (as perceived by you at any rate) have any bearing on whether a person should be assumed to have not read pre-trib materials?

"Walvoord is not poorly argued. It is written on a popular level. When I read it, I remember thinking that he stated points that could be easily proven from Scripture but didn't take time to reference the scriptural proof. I was disappointed in that. Overall though, his points dealt with the various arguments in a substantial way. Stanton deals with Ladd and answers the objection, at least to my satisfaction."

Wlavoord IS poorly argued. He writes on a popular level, yes. But a bad argument is a bad argument whatever level it is written for. I was not referring to a lack of support for his points, but rather that the arguments are poor. Simple as that.

"By referencing Bonhoeffer, I assume you refer to the ad hominem argument that pretribs desire to avoid persecution. That argument has been dealt with so much and shown to have no biblical support. Our concern is not with persecution or tribulation; it is with what Scripture says. Of course, this discussion always gets a little heated because some cannot imagine that others are right."

Nothing so shallow. And may I point out that this is further evidence of the arrogance I mentioned before. Yo assume a shallow argum,ent or a shallowness on the part of thiose differing with you. Bad form.

At any rate Bohoieffer simply pointed out how out of step a pretrib raptuer is with the teching of the NT on deiscipleship. This has nothing to do with a pretribers deisre to avoid persecution (which is real, though not universal) or the fact that there is no biblical basis for pretrib arguments prsecution. It has everything to do with the fact that pretrib rapture is quite inconsistent with the NT teaching regarding discipleship.

It is irnonic that one would claim that the concern is with what scripture says all the whiler failing to notice that pretrib rapture is utterly out of step with scriptural teaching.

"A while back I wrestled through this issue having read some posttrib stuff. Having wrestled through it, I am more firmly than ever committed to the pretrib rapture because, as I say, it is the only one that deals with all of Scripture fairly."

So you are mmore convinced in your IMO wrong) opinion. Congratulations.

"It is uninformed to say that Pretrib deals with what Scripture doesn't say rather than what it does. It is disappointing to see such arguments used as "proof" or "support" for a position."

But it does make a lot of arguments based on importing assumptions into specific texts. It would be worse than uninformed to deny that. There is no positive support fro a pretrib rapture. You have to assume it. And there is no reason to do so.

"Posttribs make great appeals to silence, the main one being that "Scripture never says Christ will come back before the rapture" while at the same time failing to produce a verse that denies it. All the while, they use verses that clearly have other possibilities and even other probabilities to support ... and they say we proof text."

This is a most pitiful argument.We should not be silent where Scripture is? We should feel free to read in whatever we want as long as it is not explicitly denied? Terrible interpretation technique! But that is what pretrib relies on. Not content with what Scripture says, a pretribber must posit what it woould say or should say. if we assume a pretrib rapture. nice circular argument. Utterly without exegetical merit of ocourse and biblically bankrupt.

"As one who has read the posttrib arguments and found them utterly and totally unconvincing and unable to deal with Scripture in a consistent way, I will only say that you can hold whatever position you want, but remember, it is not emotions that matter -- it is the text of Scripture."

Again, you are talking to people who have looked at the pretrib idea from the mouths of pretribbers and found it to be utteryl without biblcial support. Pretib utterly fails to deal with discipleship ina n NT context, it fails to find a solid exegetical basis, relying on the assumptiuon of its correctness.

You are right that emotions matter not. But no opne here has argued that way. You have again made an arrogant assumptuion about thosde who differ with you. And you have failed to provide a shred of evidenc but instead have made the kinds of ad hominem type arguments without substantiation that youseem to decry.

"You guys can hold your position and believe what you want."

As can you.

"However, do not pretend that the pretrib position is poorly argued for or has no support."

I'm not pretending. I am staitng a fact.

"It clearly does have support whether you agree with it or not."

Thw question is not whether it can be supported in theory, bt whether it can be supported using legitimate exegetical means. In theory you are right, it si supportable. But using sound exegesis. And that would be true whether I agreed with it or not. Bad arguments are bad objectively. So whether an argument supports what I beleive or not, i have to say its bad if it is. I have never seen a retribber make that admission even when confronted with the facts.

"You may prefer a different interpretation because of you own preferences. But realize that there are other interpretations that do justice to the passages in question."

That's funny. You stand on scripture but I stand on preference. Such arrogance renders a discussion with you pointless.