Where does the Bible teach a pre-trib rapture?

[MB]

Just to be clear, you are the one who plainly stated you would not accept any scripture in context if it conflicts with your doctrine.

You have no credibility to declare anyone “easily fooled” or “lacking the light of truth.”

You are deceived by a false theology and your approach to scripture, which is to ignore all scripture in context which conflicts with your false theology, makes certain you will be blind on this issue until our Lord returns.

peace to you

You gonna beat him for this????s.. Oh my what a confident Calvinist. You haven't the integrity to prove your point just hit and run.A lot of Calvinist do this they have nothing of value to offer Just insults.Do you really think your insults answers any questions?
MB

 

[canadyjd]

You gonna beat him for this????s…..
MB

If someone says they will ignore all scripture in context if it conflicts with their theology, then yes, I’ll remind them of their error.

peace to you

 

[1689Dave]

Where does the word of God explicitly teach a pre-trib rapture?

Direct Quote from Walvoord in his first publication of The Rapture Question (Findlay, OH: n.d., 1957, p.148),


Ladd, in contrast to Jones, concedes that post-tribulalional rapture is an inference rather than an explicit revelation of Scripture in the following statement: "Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation." The fact is that neither posttribulalionism nor pretribulationisim is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not in so many words state either. Pretribulationism is based on the fact that it allows a harmony of the Scriptures relating to the second advent. The separation of the translation from the return of Christ to earth permits each of the two events so different in character, to have its own place. It solves the problem of the confusing and contradictory details in the post-tribulational interpretation llluslrated in the difficulty of the postribulationist's themselves to work out a harmony of prophecies related to the second advent.

Tim LaHaye said;

“One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either.”3 Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack.

“No single verse specifically states, “Christ will come before the Tribulation.” On the other hand, no single passage teaches He will not come before the Tribulation, or that He will come in the middle or at the end of the Tribulation. Any such explicit declaration would end the debate immediately.”4 LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm, 188.

 

[Dave G]

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

Sure it does.
Matthew 24, Mark 13.

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

It states it quite clearly in the above passages.

One only has to follow the sequence of events as laid out there....
"immediately after the tribulation of those days shall...."

Matthew 24:29-31.

 

[Dave G]

Where does the word of God explicitly teach a pre-trib rapture?

It does not.
According to Matthew 24 and Mark 13, it happens after.

 

[1689Dave]

Sure it does.
Matthew 24, Mark 13.

It states it quite clearly in the above passages.

One only has to follow the sequence of events as laid out there....
"immediately after the tribulation of those days shall...."

Matthew 24:29-31.

The rapture happens at the end of the world after the resurrection according to Jesus and Paul. If the pretrib-rapturists can't find bible support for their scheme, what makes you think you can?

 

[1689Dave]

Clarence Larkin, a "Yoda" among Dispies said; "In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. "... it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. ..... "The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[JD731]

Well, my point of view is a post trib pre wrath view. Contexts are important. What is at issue is the question of a pre-trib rapture. Needs to be dealt with one piece at a time.

Understanding any rapture/translation, the pretrib rapture of the church in 1 Thess 4 to heaven where Jesus is, or the post trib rapture/translation of the saved and remaining sons of Abraham, Israel, from the nations where they have been scattered back to the land of Israel, where Jesus soon will be, is dependent on one believing the words they read in the scriptures and that, my friend, is something you definitely cannot be accused of.

Let me give you a verse from the scripture to prove my point.

9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day (the day of the LORD) shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Tell me you believe that.

Here is a passage that gets it's definition from Matthew 24 and you will not be able to equate the two passages or the doctrine that they teach because you are denying what the Lord says he will do in this conversation and it is a serious offense, i believe.

5 Behold, the days come, (they are not here yet) saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.
7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
8 But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

How is he going to do that?

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

The name Jacob represents the whole family of Jacob, saved and lost and the name Israel represents the saved of the household of Jacob, prophetically speaking.

Romans 11:7
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

In this age, the church age, it is the remnant, very few in number, who are the saved and they are called the "remnant according to the election of grace." They were not initially elected by grace when God first called Abraham. The principle of grace is the highlight of this age. Righteousness will be the highlight of the following age. Hence, the King of righteousness after ALL rebels will be dispensed.

I don't think you believe this because you do not believe the words of scripture and you do not honor context.

It is as simple as that.

 

[MB]

Package deal sort of like being saved with out faith now thats a Pkg deal.
MB

Really? Why not provide the word of
God on the matter?

Based on what?

Because you say this?

You have provided no evidence that those who endure and being saved meaning what?

Nothing.

Based on the fact that there are no scriptures that you can show that you are elect. God pronounce the Jews elect but He never said that about Gentiles You want JD to show proof when you have no proof that you are elect. As much as you don't like Calvinism you're still a Calvinist and don't know it.T^here are no elections of Gentiles in scripture.

MB

 

[MB]

Clarence Larkin, a "Yoda" among Dispies said; "In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. "... it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. ..... "The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

Typical Calvinist trying to prove a doctrine is wrong with out scripture.
MB

 

[MB]

So Jesus' elect are not His church at His sole second appearing, Matthew 24:29-31? Acts of the Apostles 1:11, Hebrews 9:28, Titus 2:13.

None I repeat none of your verses prove election. The elect are part of the church but not all. You are more Calvinist than Aarminian.
MB

 

[1689Dave]

Typical Calvinist trying to prove a doctrine is wrong with out scripture.
MB

It shows how cozy you are with Antichrist according to the Reformers.

 

[MB]

It shows how cozy you are with Antichrist according to the Reformers.

Calvinist can never prove anything with scripture because they know it contradicts there philosophy. So they try to insult the disagreements of otherss. Such a childish thing to do. Like a spoiled child they try to defame and shame you in to conversion to Calvinism. This tactic doesn't work on me, it just makes all the more determined. Your philosophy does not have any truth. I'd call it doctrine but it's not a doctrine.
MB

 

[JD731]

If someone says they will ignore all scripture in context if it conflicts with their theology, then yes, I’ll remind them of their error.

peace to you

Post a quote please.

 

[37818]

Understanding any rapture/translation, the pretrib rapture of the church in 1 Thess 4 to heaven where Jesus is, or the post trib rapture/translation of the saved and remaining sons of Abraham, Israel, from the nations where they have been scattered back to the land of Israel, where Jesus soon will be, is dependent on one believing the words they read in the scriptures and that, my friend, is something you definitely cannot be accused of.

Let me give you a verse from the scripture to prove my point.

9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day (the day of the LORD) shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Tell me you believe that.

Here is a passage that gets it's definition from Matthew 24 and you will not be able to equate the two passages or the doctrine that they teach because you are denying what the Lord says he will do in this conversation and it is a serious offense, i believe.

5 Behold, the days come, (they are not here yet) saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness.
7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
8 But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.

How is he going to do that?

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

The name Jacob represents the whole family of Jacob, saved and lost and the name Israel represents the saved of the household of Jacob, prophetically speaking.

Romans 11:7
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

In this age, the church age, it is the remnant, very few in number, who are the saved and they are called the "remnant according to the election of grace." They were not initially elected by grace when God first called Abraham. The principle of grace is the highlight of this age. Righteousness will be the highlight of the following age. Hence, the King of righteousness after ALL rebels will be dispensed.

I don't think you believe this because you do not believe the words of scripture and you do not honor context.

It is as simple as that.

None of that requries a pre-trib rapture. Anyway you need to be more precise.

 

[1689Dave]

Calvinist can never prove anything with scripture because they know it contradicts there philosophy. So they try to insult the disagreements of otherss. Such a childish thing to do. Like a spoiled child they try to defame and shame you in to conversion to Calvinism. This tactic doesn't work on me, it just makes all the more determined. Your philosophy does not have any truth. I'd call it doctrine but it's not a doctrine.
MB

If you could understand scripture above the level of free will and Law, you would gladly be a Calvinist.

 

[MB]

None of that requries a pre-trib rapture. Anyway you need to be more precise.

How does Christ return with all His saints if part of them are on earth?
MB

If you could understand scripture above the level of free will and Law, you would gladly be a Calvinist.

Not ever is it going to happen and you sir are a perfect example of what I will never be a Calvinist. There is nothing about you I would want to be like.
MB

 

[37818]

Based on the fact that there are no scriptures that you can show that you are elect. God pronounce the Jews elect but He never said that about Gentiles You want JD to show proof when you have no proof that you are elect. As much as you don't like Calvinism you're still a Calvinist and don't know it.T^here are no elections of Gentiles in scripture.

MB

It is an issue of interpretation. Only the elect are gathered in Matthew 24:31, ". . . shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. . . ."
The rapture is mentioned as such only in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, ". . . shall be caught up . . . ." The Latin ". . . rapiemur . . . ." Now Matthew 24:31 is after the tribulation, verse 29.

 

[1689Dave]

How does Christ return with all His saints if part of them are on earth?
MB

Not ever is it going to happen and you sir are a perfect example of what I will never be a Calvinist. There is nothing about you I would want to be like.
MB

If we believed in the same Christ, you would love me.

 

[37818]

Not ever is it going to happen and you sir are a perfect example of what I will never be a Calvinist. There is nothing about you I would want to be like.
MB

I am not a Calvinist.

How does Christ return with all His saints if part of them are on earth?

He has to appear first, Hebrews 9:28, Titus 2:13, 1 John 3:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:14.