• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The strong case against a pre-tribulation rapture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK... then I guess that anyone who sees the Doctrines of Grace then is by DHK 's definition a died in the wool Hyper Calvinist. Then you would consider me a Hyper Calvinist. Hmmm...this is pause for reflection.
The thing is, DHK doesn't get to rewrite historical theology. He does not have the right to make definitions and sweeping categorical pronouncements although the Pontiff in him wants to.

He rails at what he labels hyper-Calvinism when it is actually Calvinism proper. But I do think he is a monergist --not of the Calvinistic variety. Calvinists believe salvation is all of the Lord --the Author and Finisher of our faith. Whereas DHK thinks it is all of him. In DHK's estimation he was/is in charge of the salvation transaction --God didn't have anything to do with it --though He probably noted it.

Back on 4/15/08 I had said:"God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above." Boy! That God DHK's dander up! He told me that same day in reply:

"God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make,but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies..."
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You never learn. You keep on repeating utterly false characterizations.Your quote above is just about the same kind of thing PastorLarry took you to task upon 4/17/08:
"Calvinists are not headed in the same direction as Muslims.If you actually believe that,then you are revealing a gross misunderstanding that completely disqualifies you to speak. If you believe this,then you have no credibility.Stop saying it. Stop slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ. Stop spreading falsehoods about what they believe. For the sake of the gospel stop."/quote]
He is entitled to his opinion. I didn't say they are headed the same direction as the Muslims. Again I used one of the doctrines of Islam as a comparison to the hard determinism of Calvinism, i.e. "fatalism." If everything is pre-determined by God, such that man has no free will, then that is not too far away from the fatalism that the Islam teaches. It is also the position that Luke takes. Man has no choice in anything. Even God is the author of evil. Islam believes that. Note, that is a comparison. I hope you can see the difference.
You had said on 4/15/08 the following:
Election on the part of the Calvinist sounds no different than the doctrine of fatalism on part of Islam." Disgraceful on your part.
That is not disgraceful when it is true.
Can I compare you to a Catholic if you both believe in the trinity.
For example, "Like the Catholics, the Baptists believe in the trinity." It is a comparison and nothing more. That is all I have done. I didn't call you a Catholic, nor did I call anyone a Muslim.
Like Islam, you are monotheistic. Is that a false statement? It is a comparison. I make many comparisons. Why do the former ones offend you? Hard determinism has a great similarity to the fatalism of Islam. That is a true statement. Others on this board have made the same statement but have just left off the ("of Islam"). You are overly sensitive.
Calvinists believe that unregenerate people have spiritual inability.
And they are wrong. I am not afraid to say they are wrong and prove it from the Scriptures. God doesn't give commands that they unsaved are not able to obey.
"God commands ALL men everywhere to repent.
God gives this men to the unsaved. They have the ability to repent because they have the ability to exercise their own faith, that is not given them by God. Here the error of Calvinism is exposed.
BTW, this is the error that puts the Calvinist in the category of Hyper-Calvinist--the inability to respond to the gospel. Instead of Total Depravity, you believe in Total Inability. That is not biblical.
They are still without excuse before God for their sin. As Christians going out and proclaiming the law/gospel we are to tell them to repent and believe. But we also realize that the Lord through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the One who ultimately puts His elects ones under spiritual arrest.
The ministry of the Holy Spirit, according to John 16, is to convict the sinner of sin. Nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit gives faith so that the sinner can be saved.
Hyper-Calvinism is not running wild in Presbyterianism.You gave me plenty of things you called links which had nothing whatsoever to do with your incredible charges.
In the 19th century it was hyper-calvinism in general that was widely spread, especially among reformed churches.
The Dutch Reformed Church was not hyper-Calvinistic in Corrie Ten Boom's youth.Are you even aware that Abraham Kuyper left that denomination because it had departed from the confessional creeds? It was barely Calvinistic,much less hyper-Calvinistic.

I have and you have been found wanting on so many counts it's not funny.
This thread is about the rapture. Her church was reformed, a Calvinistic church, a reformed church, a Dutch reformed church, a church that would have nothing to do with kthe pre-trib or pre-mil position. Yet she came to her position, not primarily through not primarily through her study of church dogma, but because of her own experience. She believed that a belief in the rapture would harm believers by not preparing them to go through tribulation or through suffering. It is doctrine based on experience not on Bible study. That was my primary point. You major on the minors and minor on majors.
Nobody has "innate faith". That is unbiblical. You have been spreading that error for years on the BB. But it is unscriptural.
Your opinion. It is not worth much for it is wrong. God does not give faith to the unsaved. Christ compared salvation to little children who do have innate faith. You must be like them, who automatically trust their parents.
You said on 9/22/08:
"I just decided to have it,no one gave it to me. As an unbeliever it was not God that gave me faith...It didn't come from God."
I followed the command of the Bible. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
Have you never believed on Christ. The command to believe is to believe with one's own faith, not another's faith.
You told the BB world on 12/16/13:
"I never said that faith is the gift of God. God doesn't have anything to do with giving faith."
Faith is not a gift to the unbeliever. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Do you have a hard time believing the Bible?
On 9/29/08 you related this choice tidbit:
"My pet dog trusts me;has faith in me.Did God give him that faith?What kind of God do you serve?"
A bit curt, I admit. Faith is quite a general term. We all exercise faith, every day. We exercise faith in many things. Faith is confidence in the word of another. The most important thing is the object of the faith. The object of the dog's faith is me. The object of my faith is Christ, when it comes both to salvation and biblical obedience.
I have affirmed duty faith over and over in my years on the BB. Therefore you are slandering me once more. Stop it. And shame on you. You need to moderate yourself.
I have corrected you on your belief on "faith" how it is not a gift from God. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." How is that slander"?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
The thing is, DHK doesn't get to rewrite historical theology. He does not have the right to make definitions and sweeping categorical pronouncements although the Pontiff in him wants to.

He rails at what he labels hyper-Calvinism when it is actually Calvinism proper. But I do think he is a monergist --not of the Calvinistic variety. Calvinists believe salvation is all of the Lord --the Author and Finisher of our faith. Whereas DHK thinks it is all of him. In DHK's estimation he was/is in charge of the salvation transaction --God didn't have anything to do with it --though He probably noted it.

Back on 4/15/08 I had said:"God mercifully intervened and caused you to be born from above." Boy! That God DHK's dander up! He told me that same day in reply:

"God did not force me to do anything. He knew ahead of time what decisions I would make,but he didn't 'cause me' or force me to make them. I would almost put that in the class of damnable heresies..."
Now this is a slanderous post.

Why not stop this nonsense and start posting to the OP.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Now this is a slanderous post.

Why not stop this nonsense and start posting to the OP.

Pre Trib rapture fits best the biblical accounts, as the Great tribulation is primarily for God to judge current world system, and to prepare national isreal to meet the God, the Lord jesus at Second Coming!

No need for the Body to still be here!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I didn't say they are headed the same direction as the Muslims.
Yes you did. Here is what you said on 4/17/08:

"The Muslim uses the word 'fatalism.' It is an integral part of their faith. Blindly he believes that no matter what happens,good or bad, it is Allah's will. The Calvinist is headed in the same direction. Without free will,everything that happens,good oe bad,is God's will. That is fate. Man has no choice. In this respect Islam and Calvinism seem to be no different."

Pastor Larry responded the same day with:

"How many times wil you continue to repeat this utter nonsense? DHK,you know better. The first time it was bad,but we could assume that you didn't know better. You have now repeatedly been corrected on this and you continue to repeat it. This is inexcusable for civil conversation, much less for a believer."
BTW, this is the error that puts the Calvinist in the category of Hyper-Calvinist--the inability to respond to the gospel. Instead of Total Depravity, you believe in Total Inability. That is not biblical.
The two are interwoven. It is Calvinism, not hyper-Calvinism. I know against all reason that you think Charles H. Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. Yet he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in March of 1858. Here are some snips that you would do well to ponder:

"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ."

"Because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to christ unless drawn by the Spirit...They cannot and will not unless the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."

"Scores and hundreds,nay thousands of Christians have I conversed with, of different opinions,young and old,but it has never been my lot to meet with one who could affirm that he came to Christ of himself,without being drawn...With common consent,all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."
_____________________________________________________________


Her church was reformed, a Calvinistic church, a reformed church, a Dutch reformed church,
Finally you have acknowledged the truth. Corrie's church was not hyper-Calvinistic.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Yes you did. Here is what you said on 4/17/08:

"The Muslim uses the word 'fatalism.' It is an integral part of their faith. Blindly he believes that no matter what happens,good or bad, it is Allah's will. The Calvinist is headed in the same direction. Without free will,everything that happens,good oe bad,is God's will. That is fate. Man has no choice. In this respect Islam and Calvinism seem to be no different."
I stand by what I said. The emphasis is in my conclusion. In that respect Islam and Calvinism seem to be no different.
For what it is worth it is a comparison. You don't like it, too bad. I didn't call anyone a Muslim. I made an accurate comparison of the hard determinism of Calvinism. I know what it is. I have been a missionary (and still am) in Islamic nations. I know what they believe and how they react to this doctrine. Calvinists do the same thing. It is sad!
Pastor Larry responded the same day with:

"How many times wil you continue to repeat this utter nonsense? DHK,you know better. The first time it was bad,but we could assume that you didn't know better. You have now repeatedly been corrected on this and you continue to repeat it. This is inexcusable for civil conversation, much less for a believer."
He is entitled to his opinion.
The two are interwoven. It is Calvinism, not hyper-Calvinism. I know against all reason that you think Charles H. Spurgeon was not a Calvinist. Yet he preached a sermon called "Human Inability" back in March of 1858. Here are some snips that you would do well to ponder:

"The nature of man thus renders him unable to come to Christ."

"Because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to christ unless drawn by the Spirit...They cannot and will not unless the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."
Are you expecting me to defend error. You lose.
"Scores and hundreds,nay thousands of Christians have I conversed with, of different opinions,young and old,but it has never been my lot to meet with one who could affirm that he came to Christ of himself,without being drawn...With common consent,all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them."
I believe Christ draws them through the power of the Holy Spirit. When did I ever deny that? You, with your "hyper-Cal." position say they cannot be drawn unless God gives them the faith to be drawn. Totally absurd! God never gives the unregenerate any kind of faith. It is not found in the Bible. And you have never been able to prove it.

Finally you have acknowledged the truth. Corrie's church was not hyper-Calvinistic.
I never admitted to that. Why do you think you know so much about her church being more than a century removed from it? Are you omniscient?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I stand by what I said.
Your words:"I never said they are headed in the same direction as the Muslims." But you have also said:"The Calvinist is headed in the same direction." You are contradicting yourself.
He is entitled to his opinion.
Pastor Larry's opinion on the matter is perfectly correct.
Are you expecting me to defend error. You lose.
O,so your conclusion is that Spurgeon's sermon was hyper-Calvinistic? How did he get from being non-Calvinist in your estimation to being a hyper-Calvinist?
You, with your "hyper-Cal." position say they cannot be drawn unless God gives them the faith to be drawn. Totally absurd! God never gives the unregenerate any kind of faith. It is not found in the Bible. And you have never been able to prove it.
Mind if I quote you on that? Your words are sadly in error DHK.

I never admitted to that.
Yeah you did. For post after post you were insisting that the Dutch Reformed Church that she attended was hyper-Calvinistic. Then in your last post you said :"Her church was Reformed,a Calvinistic church,a Dutch Reformed church." And of course that is miles removed from a hyper-Calvinistic position.
Why do you think you know so much about her church being more than a century removed from it? Are you omniscient?
You are one funny guy. Why did you formerly regard it as hyper-Calvinistic? You subscribe to, shall I say,unique takes on established history. You have a bad habit of twisting things around on John Gill, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, Westcott and Hort, Erasmus and other historical figures. You have an especially jaundiced eye toward things Calvinistic. You are not capable in your present state to evaluate things objectively. Against all reason you have emphatically insisted that hyper-Calvinism is rampant in Presbyterianism. You are unable to document anything to substantiate that nonsense claim. You rant on like a hyper-Arminian.

I had mentioned before that Abraham Kuyper left the Dutch Reformed Church in 1886,six years before Corrie's birth. Why? Because it had drifted from its historic Reformed Confessions of Faith. It was Reformed in name only --far from being Calvinistic,much less hyper-Calvinistic.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I had mentioned before that Abraham Kuyper left the Dutch Reformed Church in 1886,six years before Corrie's birth. Why? Because it had drifted from its historic Reformed Confessions of Faith. It was Reformed in name only --far from being Calvinistic,much less hyper-Calvinistic.
You have a biased and uninformed view of history:
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica Netherlands Reformed Church, Dutch Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, Protestant church in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, the successor of the established Dutch Reformed Church that developed during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century....

In the 17th century a theological controversy arose over the Calvinist doctrine of predestination—i.e., that God has already elected or chosen those who will be saved. The followers of Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch professor and theologian, rejected a rigid version of this belief and argued that humans are free to a limited extent to effect their own salvation; in contrast, the followers of Franciscus Gomarus, a Dutch theologian, upheld a particularly strict version. To settle the controversy, the Synod of Dort (1618–19) was convened. It produced the canons of Dort, which condemned the theology of the Arminians (also called the Remonstrants) and set forth a strict interpretation of predestination. These canons, along with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, came to constitute the theological basis of the Dutch Reformed Church.


In 1798 the Dutch Reformed Church was disestablished as the country’s official religion, but it remained partly under government control. In 1816 King William I reorganized the church and renamed it the Netherlands Reformed Church. Theological disputes in the 19th century resulted in schisms, one of which led to the formation in 1834 of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands; nevertheless, the Netherlands Reformed Church remained the most influential Protestant church in the country, though it did not become the largest until the 20th century.


On May 1, 2004, after nearly 20 years of negotiations, the Netherlands Reformed Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands merged with the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The united church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, became the largest Protestant church in the country, claiming 2.5 million members in the first decade of the 21st century.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/410259/Netherlands-Reformed-Church


As the article points out: Reformed = Calvinistic, and most likely hyper Calvinistic depending on where the church is. The Dutch seemed to be extreme in that area. We have some Dutch Reformed churches in our area. The members don't have a clue what biblical salvation is. They rely heavily on works. If, perchance one may come to salvation, they usually leave the church and go to a Bible-believing church where they will be able to grow as a believer in Christ.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As the article points out: Reformed = Calvinistic, and most likely hyper Calvinistic depending on where the church is.
Are you feeling a little sluggish? When you try to prove something from the various links you come up with there needs to be some relevance. There was not even a single mention of any form of the word hyper-Calvinism. You have done this kind of thing so many times in the past. And then in reply you say something along the lines of :"If you don't like the truth. If you don't like my links,I can't help you."

"Most likely hyper-Calvinistic" is your bare conjecture having no correlation to the article whatsoever.

When you want to try and prove something your link has to at least mention the subject DHK.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I had to go back a couple of pages to remind myself what the subject of this thread is. Here's my take:

I once held to the pre-trib rapture, assuming that there wasn't any other view.

Then, one Sunday night, my young pastor preached on the subject, and said he was post-trib, not pre-trib.

Right after the benediction, several of us headed for him to challenge his statement. He grinned and held up his hand. "Guys, we're not going to debate this here. You have an assignment. I want you to find a clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture verse which teaches a pre-trib rapture. Bring it with you when we gather again."

Shoot, I thought, this will be easy. So, when I got home, I went to get all those scripture verses and make my list.

Uh, I couldn't find any.

Needless to say, I abandoned the pre-trib view.

Pre-trib is man-made tradition.

But the Bible says "immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather His elect" in Matt 24.

So we have the post-trib version in the actual Bible.

And no pre-trib version.

No, there is no definitive verse. However, there is no definitive verse for post trib, mid trib, .

Post trib "needs" a text that says the saints are gathered to Christ AFTER the tribulation and before it or in the middle of it.

Post trib has such a verse.

"immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days... he will gather His elect" in Matt 24.

What do the other options have??



in Christ,

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
And no wonder Scofield struggled to get pre-trib out of 2Thess -- it flatly refutes the pre-trib rapture as does Matt 24.


1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.



1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

That is the rapture it is the subject of the chapter. It takes place as Paul says AFTER all the events he lists in the chapter.

And Paul does not want the church to be deceived so he says that they should not be expecting that rapture event before the events he then lists that precede it.



Which destroys the chapter in favor of man-made tradition because Paul is providing proof/reason/evidence/data that they can use to NOT believe wild stories of the form "The rapture has happened and you missed it".

Paul says that you will know this is a lie because there are a number of things that must happen BEFORE that rapture event.

The great apostasy of the dark ages would have to come BEFORE 2Thess 1 rapture that takes place at the visible coming of Christ.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition

The papacy would arise FIRST - BEFORE the rapture.

We all see that clearly in our history. We all know that in fact the dark ages DID come and we all know that the Papacy DID arise and that the rapture has not yet happened.

Paul was right!

Note: the vs 1 rapture does not happen UNTIL the list that follows takes place -- not the other way around. The other way around would be of no help at all in debunking the "rapture happened and you missed it" wild claims that Paul was trying to shoot down..

Paul prevents the deception that the "rapture has happened and oops! you missed it" by showing that a list of things must come first. This was the defense the cure for the false rapture errors.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed,




And so God gathers His elect just as Christ said .
In Matt 24 we have
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
[/QUOTE]



Paul is addressing the Thessalonians about false teachers. They are still present on the earth looking forward to the rapture (our gathering together to Him [in the air]). What follows will happen after the rapture.
The rapture is the first thing mentioned here. The rest of the events follow.

Which is where your solution dies a crib death.

Paul states that he is trying to give information that will not allow Christians to be so easily deceived by a letter supposedly from Paul - stating that they "missed the rapture".

Therefor Paul says "That day will NOT come UNTIL" and then gives a long list of events that must happen first.

This is the perfect way to prevent all the deception that would be of the form "oops! Rapture happened last week and you missed it".

Giving a list of events that would follow the rapture at some unspecified later time - would not stop the deception at all. It would be useless.

And this is so obvious - it is impossible to miss the point.

in Christ,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Which is where your solution dies a crib death.
Personally, I hope to be raptured soon and not to die at all, much less in a crib. :smilewinkgrin:
Paul states that he is trying to give information that will not allow Christians to be so easily deceived by a letter supposedly from Paul - stating that they "missed the rapture".

Therefor Paul says "That day will NOT come UNTIL" and then gives a long list of events that must happen first.
Can I explain it French or some other language. The English is plain enough. I already quoted to you A.T. Robertson who also explained the same view I have, but in the Greek. So what is wrong with the comprehension in English Bob?
You are either deliberately not understanding the plain English here, or deliberately twisting the words to deceive others. That is plain to see.

Look at the Scripture. It is plain to see:
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,
--In this verse the coming of the Lord "and our gathering together with him" is the rapture. It is a verse of comfort.

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
--The "day of Christ" like the term "Day of the Lord" is a more general term referring not only to the Second Coming but also the Tribulation. He is telling them not to be shaken in mind, that is, worried or troubled by false teachers who are teaching that these things have already taken place (full preterists). These events haven't taken place. This verse isn't speaking of the rapture, but the Second Coming. They haven't seen these things, therefore be assured you haven't missed the rapture.

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
--Now he starts that timeline beginning with the Tribulation but after the rapture. "That Day"--that day refers back to the "day of Christ" in verse two, not to the coming of Jesus Christ in verse one. The rapture takes place first.
That day, the Day of Christ, will not come unless there is a falling away first. Jesus said: "When I come, will I find faith?" There will be a "falling away" from the faith.
Then the anti-christ will be revealed--after the rapture. All that is mentioned in the rest of that verse is related to the Jews not the Christian. Christians don't worship in the Temple!!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DHK

Paul is addressing the Thessalonians about false teachers. They are still present on the earth looking forward to the rapture (our gathering together to Him [in the air]). What follows will happen after the rapture.
The rapture is the first thing mentioned here. The rest of the events follow.



BobRyan said:
Which is where your solution dies a crib death.

Paul states that he is trying to give information that will not allow Christians to be so easily deceived by a letter supposedly from Paul - stating that they "missed the rapture".

Therefor Paul says "That day will NOT come UNTIL" and then gives a long list of events that must happen first.

This is the perfect way to prevent all the deception that would be of the form "oops! Rapture happened last week and you missed it".

Giving a list of events that would follow the rapture at some unspecified later time - would not stop the deception at all. It would be useless.

impossible to miss



Can I explain it French or some other language. The English is plain

Indeed - which is why your suggestion fails right out of the gate.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

--In this verse the coming of the Lord "and our gathering together with him" is the rapture. ---

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

============================

It is the "English" that is tripping you up as well as the Greek.

The subject is the rapture.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,


The problem to be avoided - is the wild claim that "oops! you missed it" coming to them by false teachers or a fake letter.

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

Obviously Paul is equating "the day of Christ" with his "subject" which He call "The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Hi"




Solution: Take note of the events that must come FIRST - the solution stops all from being deceived in any way --

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed


Conclusion No one would then believe a lying report that "the rapture has come last week and you missed it".


pre-trib rapture does not survive "the details in the text".

Pre-trib rapture has no "solution" for the problem that they are trying to avoid which is the "oops! you missed the rapture it was last week" deception.

Pre-trib rapture promoters are left uselessly talking about events AFTER the rapture -as if THIS would stop someone from being fooled in a "OOPS! the rapture was last week and you missed it" scenario.

Obviously.

in the text.

In English and in Greek.

In Christ,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
[/I]
Pre-trib rapture promoters are left uselessly talking about events AFTER the rapture -as if THIS would stop someone from being fooled in a "OOPS! the rapture was last week and you missed it" scenario.
Perhaps A.T. Robertson will help you with these two verses:
A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures
2 Thessalonians 2:1

Touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (huper tês parousias tou Kuriou (hêmôn) Iêsou Christou). For erôtômen, to beseech, see on 1Th 4:1,12. Huper originally meant over, in behalf of, instead of, but here it is used like peri, around, concerning as in 2Th 1:4; 1Th 3:2; 5:10, common in the papyri (Robertson, Grammar, p. 632). For the distinction between Parousia, Epiphaneia (Epiphany), and Apokalupsis (Revelation) as applied to the Second Coming of Christ see Milligan on Thessalonian Epistles, pp. 145-151, in the light of the papyri. Parousia lays emphasis on the presence of the Lord with his people, epiphaneia on his manifestation of the power and love of God, apokalupsis on the revelation of God's purpose and plan in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus. And our gathering together unto him (kai hêmôn episunagôgês ep' auton). A late word found only in II Macc. 2:7; 2Th 2:1; Heb 10:25 till Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 103) found it on a stele in the island of Syme, off Caria, meaning "collection." Paul is referring to the rapture, mentioned in 1Th 4:15-17, and the being forever with the Lord thereafter. Cf. also Mt 24:31; Mr 13:27.
Verse one speaks of the rapture. It happens first. Read it carefully.
Then verse two:
A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures
2 Thessalonians 2:2

To the end that (eis to). One of Paul's favourite idioms for purpose, eis to and the infinitive. Ye be not quickly shaken (mê tacheôs saleuthênai humas). First aorist passive infinitive of saleuô, old verb to agitate, to cause to totter like a reed (Mt 11:7), the earth (Heb 12:26). Usual negative and accusative of general reference humas with the infinitive. From your mind (apo tou noos). Ablative case of nous, mind, reason, sober sense, "from your witte" (Wyclif), to "keep their heads." Nor yet be troubled (mêde throeisthai). Old verb throeô, to cry aloud (from throos, clamour, tumult), to be in a state of nervous excitement (present passive infinitive, as if it were going on), "a continued state of agitation following the definite shock received (saleuthênai)" (Milligan). Either by spirit (mête dia pneumatos). By ecstatic utterance (1Th 5:10). The nervous fear that the coming was to be at once prohibited by mêde Paul divides into three sources by mête, mête, mête. No individual claim to divine revelation (the gift of prophecy) can justify the statement. Or by word (mête dia logou). Oral statement of a conversation with Paul (Lightfoot) to this effect as from us. An easy way to set aside Paul's first Epistle by report of a private remark from Paul. Or by epistle as from us (mête di' epistolês hôs di' hêmôn). In 1Th 4:13-5:3 Paul had plainly said that Jesus would come as a thief in the night and had shown that the dead would not be left out in the rapture. But evidently some one claimed to have a private epistle from Paul which supported the view that Jesus was coming at once, as that the day of the Lord is now present (hôs hoti enestêken hê hêmera tou kuriou). Perfect active indicative of enistêmi, old verb, to place in, but intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. So "is imminent" (Lightfoot). The verb is common in the papyri. In 1Co 3:22; Ro 8:38 we have a contrast between ta enestôta, the things present, and ta mellonta, the things future (to come). The use of hôs hoti may be disparaging here, though that is not true in 2Co 5:19. In the Koiné it comes in the vernacular to mean simply "that" (Moulton, Proleg., p. 212), but that hardly seems the case in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1033). Here it means "to wit that," though "as that" or "as if" does not miss it much. Certainly it flatly denies that by conversation or by letter he had stated that the second coming was immediately at hand. "It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes 2Th 1:3-2:17, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes 2Th 3" (Frame). It is enough to give one pause to note Paul's indignation over this use of his name by one of the over-zealous advocates of the view that Christ was coming at once. It is true that Paul was still alive, but, if such a "pious fraud" was so common and easily condoned as some today argue, it is difficult to explain Paul's evident anger. Moreover, Paul's words should make us hesitate to affirm that Paul definitely proclaimed the early return of Jesus. He hoped for it undoubtedly, but he did not specifically proclaim it as so many today assert and accuse him of misleading the early Christians with a false presentation.
Christ comes as a thief in the night. The things following verse one happen after the rapture. Don't be shocked by the words taught by the false teachers that these things are about to happen now. The rapture must happen first. The believer will not go through them. They need not to be troubled about the false teacher's doctrine: "pious fraud" he calls it.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Are you feeling a little sluggish? When you try to prove something from the various links you come up with there needs to be some relevance. There was not even a single mention of any form of the word hyper-Calvinism. You have done this kind of thing so many times in the past. And then in reply you say something along the lines of :"If you don't like the truth. If you don't like my links,I can't help you."

"Most likely hyper-Calvinistic" is your bare conjecture having no correlation to the article whatsoever.

When you want to try and prove something your link has to at least mention the subject DHK.
"Most likely hyper-Calvinistic" is your bare conjecture having no correlation to the article whatsoever.
--It is relative to my experience with the Dutch Reformed here who are so hyper Calvinist that they aren't even saved, and don't preach the gospel any more. They rely on a "gospel of works." The Dutch Reformed may have not gone down the trail that far by the end of the 19th century but it was on its way. The Calvinist trail ends in death.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Verse one speaks of the rapture. It happens first. Read it carefully.
.

Verse one does not say the rapture happens first. Verse one says the chapter is on the subject of the rapture.

And in that chapter we are told that the rapture will not happen until a number of other things happen first.

Thus the "solution" is provided that fixes the problem of the heresy where a message is received of the form "oops! The rapture happened last week and you missed it!".

Paul states that this information telling the saints all the things that must happen before the rapture - fixes the problem.

in Christ,

Bob
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Verse one does not say the rapture happens first. Verse one says the chapter is on the subject of the rapture.

And in that chapter we are told that the rapture will not happen until a number of other things happen first.

Thus the "solution" is provided that fixes the problem of the heresy where a message is received of the form "oops! The rapture happened last week and you missed it!".

Paul states that this information telling the saints all the things that must happen before the rapture - fixes the problem.

in Christ,

Bob
Your interpretation is wrong for a number reasons:
1. You are so biased and brainwashed that now you call "the truth" heresy. Astounding!
2. You ignore some of the obvious passages of Scripture which defeat your argument.
a. Christ says over and over again: I come quickly; as a thief in the night; when no one expects me; at a time when ye no not; etc. We do not know the time of his coming. It will be sudden, unexpected. This is indicative of the rapture happening at any time before the tribulation.

b. The Second Coming will not happen that way. It will happen when expected--at the end of a set period--seven years of Tribulation; when Israel is beset by her enemies; when Christ will come to deliver Israel; when Israel is looking for deliverance from her Messiah; when the whole world fears the Coming of Christ, and would prefer to die instead.

Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Then Christ will come at the end of the Tribulation.
But the rapture will happen seven years before. The saints do not go through the Tribulation. The rapture comes, before the Tribulation; it is the first resurrection. We are saved from wrath.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
[/I]

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,

--In this verse the coming of the Lord "and our gathering together with him" is the rapture. ---

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.


3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

============================

It is the "English" that is tripping you up as well as the Greek.

The subject is the rapture.

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,


The problem to be avoided - is the wild claim that "oops! you missed it" coming to them by false teachers or a fake letter.

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

Obviously Paul is equating "the day of Christ" with his "subject" which He call "The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him"


Solution
: Take note of the events that must come FIRST - the solution stops all from being deceived in any way --

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed


Conclusion No one would then believe a lying report that "the rapture has come last week and you missed it".


pre-trib rapture does not survive "the details in the text".

Pre-trib rapture has no "solution" for the problem that they are trying to avoid which is the "oops! you missed the rapture it was last week" deception.

Pre-trib rapture promoters are left uselessly talking about events AFTER the rapture -as if THIS would stop someone from being fooled in a "OOPS! the rapture was last week and you missed it" scenario.

Obviously.

Apparently this point was obvious to Robertson as well...

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Verse 1
Touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (υπερ της παρουσιας του Κυριου ̔ημων̓ Ιησου Χριστου — huper tēs parousias tou Kuriou ‛hēmōn' Iēsou Christou). For ερωτωμεν — erōtōmen to beseech, see note on 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:12. υπερ — Huper originally meant over, in behalf of, instead of, but here it is used like περι — peri around, concerning as in 2 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:10, common in the papyri (Robertson, Grammar, p. 632). For the distinction between Παρουσια Επιπανεια — ParousiaΑποκαλυπσις — Epiphaneia (Epiphany), and Παρουσια — Apokalupsis (Revelation) as applied to the Second Coming of Christ see Milligan on Thessalonian Epistles, pp. 145-151, in the light of the papyri. επιπανεια — Parousia lays emphasis on the presence of the Lord with his people, αποκαλυπσις — epiphaneia on his manifestation of the power and love of God, και ημων επισυναγωγης επ αυτον — apokalupsis on the revelation of God‘s purpose and plan in the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus.


And our gathering together unto him
(kai hēmōn episunagōgēs ep' auton). A late word found only in 2 Maccabees. 2:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; Hebrews 10:25 till Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 103) found it on a stele in the island of Syme, off Caria, meaning “collection.” Paul is referring to the rapture, mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, and the being forever with the Lord thereafter. Cf. also Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27.

Verse 3
Let no man beguile you in any wise (μη τις υμας εχαπατησηι κατα μηδενα τροπον — mē tis humas exapatēsēi kata mēdena tropon). First aorist active subjunctive of εχαπαταω — exapataō (old verb to deceive, strengthened form of simple verb απαταω — apataō) with double negative (μη τισ μηδενα — mē tis, mēdena) in accord with regular Greek idiom as in 1 Corinthians 16:11 rather than the aorist imperative which does occur sometimes in the third person as in Mark 13:15 (μη καταβατω — mē katabatō). Paul broadens the warning to go beyond conversation and letter. He includes “tricks” of any kind. It is amazing how gullible some of the saints are when a new deceiver pulls off some stunts in religion.

For it will not be (οτι — hoti). There is an ellipse here of ουκ εσται — ouk estai (or γενησεται — genēsetai) to be supplied after οτι — hoti Westcott and Hort make an anacoluthon at the end of 2 Thessalonians 2:4. The meaning is clear. οτι — Hoti is causal, because, but the verb is understood. The second coming not only is not “imminent,” but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of 2 Thessalonians 2:2.



Vs 1

as applied to the Second Coming of Christ...
Paul is referring to the rapture


Vs 3
The second coming not only is not “imminent,” but will not take place before certain important things take place, a definite rebuff to the false enthusiasts of 2 Thessalonians 2:2.


Robertson's comments are not so out of line with the post above.

in Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Albert Barns -

The main object of 2 Thessalonians 2:2. It became, therefore, necessary to state the truth on the subject, in order to free their minds from alarm; and this purpose of the apostle leads to one of the most important prophecies in the New Testament. The chapter comprises the following points:
I. An exhortation that they would not be alarmed or distressed by the expectation of the speedy coming of the Saviour; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2.
II. A statement of the truth that he would not soon appear, and of the characteristics of a great apostasy which must intervene before his advent; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.
In this part of the chapter, the apostle shows that he did not mean to teach that that event would soon happen, by stating that before that there would occur a most melancholy apostasy, which would require a considerable time before it was matured.
(a)That day would not come until there should be a great apostasy, and a revelation of the man of sin; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.



Matthew Henry


Verses 1-4
If errors arise among Christians, we should set them right; and good men will be careful to suppress errors which rise from mistaking their words and actions. We have a cunning adversary, who watches to do mischief, and will promote errors, even by the words of Scripture. Whatever uncertainty we are in, or whatever mistakes may arise about the time of Christ's coming, that coming itself is certain. This has been the faith and hope of all Christians, in all ages of the church; it was the faith and hope of the Old Testament saints. All believers shall be gathered together to Christ, to be with him, and to be happy in his presence for ever.

We should firmly believe the second coming of Christ; but there was danger lest the Thessalonians, being mistaken as to the time, should question the truth or certainty of the thing itself. False doctrines are like the winds that toss the water to and fro; and they unsettle the minds of men, which are as unstable as water. It is enough for us to know that our Lord will come, and will gather all his saints unto him.
A reason why they should not expect the coming of Christ, as at hand, is given. There would be a general falling away first, such as would occasion the rise of antichrist, that man of sin. There have been great disputes who or what is intended by this man of sin and son of perdition. The man of sin not only practises wickedness, but also promotes and commands sin and wickedness in others; and is the son of perdition, because he is devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument to destroy many others, both in soul and body. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now; so the antichrist here mentioned, is a usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims Divine honours.

Vs 5-12
... These prophecies have, in a great measure, come to pass, and confirm the truth of the Scriptures. This passage exactly agrees with the system of popery, as it prevails in the Romish church, and under the Romish popes

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top