No Pre-Trib Rapture, The Church Will Be Present On Earth To See The Tribulation And Second Coming

[Timtofly]

Paul was talking about much more than Satan. I'm not sure what believing in Satan has to do with this? I don't see that as the message here. We are to be aware of counterfeits--that's what both Jesus and Paul were concerned about when exhorting the Church to stay alert.

It is not believing in Satan, or even believing Satan exists. It is about Satan being exposed.

 

[Timtofly]

You may have been ... but Jesus was not.


Where do you come up with this stuff? Clearly not from anywhere in scripture. Look how ridiculous your reasoning is:

You're claiming that Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31 use the word Day to mean a single 24-hour period, but just TWO verses later, in 2:2 it means something entirely different.

How do people convince themselves of such nonsense? My only assumption is that you were taught this by somebody who was also clueless who was taught by somebody that was clueless or intentionally leading people astray. It all traces back to the wolf somewhere back down the line. Not everyone who makes these claims is innocently mistaken.

Use scripture verses to support your outlandish claims. Anybody can slop-up a post filled with assumptions and completely unsupported claims. You don't hold yourself to a very high standard when discussing the business of Almighty God if you don't present scripture to show yourself approved. (2 Timothy 2:15)

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

 

[Timtofly]

Believe me, I understand this one! But it isn't always noble to ignore truth for the sake of a wife.



I believe the Bible too, and I realize that's what you're really saying. But I don't think it's good to be an ultra-literalist, taking obviously-symbolic things literally. When you see 4 strange beasts in the book of Daniel, that is seen in a vision, you don't have to think that 4 strange beasts will appear as such literally. In context, they are being used symbolically.

Some things, like the 144,000, seem symbolic to me. The 12 tribes of Israel are forever gone. This implies a symbolic meaning to me.

Other things we need to take literally, such as Jesus' literal bodily resurrection, his virgin birth, our future immortalization, etc. Context is king.

Twelve tribes have always been symbolic, even in the dreams Joseph had. Symbolism does not rule out that God has preserved generations of people from the 12 tribes. God certainly does not declare all over for Isreal way before the Babylonian captivity. He does symbolically many times, calling them a whore, and unfaithful, and a branch, cut off.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Twelve tribes have always been symbolic, even in the dreams Joseph had. Symbolism does not rule out that God has preserved generations of people from the 12 tribes. God certainly does not declare all over for Isreal way before the Babylonian captivity. He does symbolically many times, calling them a whore, and unfaithful, and a branch, cut off.

No, 12 Tribes have not always been symbolic. When they actually represented 12 self-governing communities, they were literal jurisdictions of 12 regions each. But when 12 Tribes come to represent the future Jewish People, no longer divided into 12 jurisdictions, they are being used symbolically to represent all of the Jewish People without distinction. It's just that the emphasis is on their origins with the 12 tribes of Israel, to show that God has literally fulfilled His promise to all of these tribes by granting them a posterity. The 144,000 therefore represent the fact that all Israel will literally consist of people who descended from all 12 original tribes. They can all equally claim that the nation of Israel is their inheritance. Israel is therefore being protected in times of trouble by the faith of those in Israel who believe in Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The (Two Witnesses) Of Revelation Chapter 11 Will Be Before The Antichrist His Entire Time In Jerusalem, 1260 days, or 42 months, bringing all plagues as Often as they will, a complete remake of Moses/Aaron against Pharaoh of Egypt

I personally believe the book of Revelation is only speaking of a single period of 3.5 years, followed by a brief period of time in which armies are mobilized to Armageddon. I believe that because the 3.5 years of Antichristian rule is based on Dan 7, where we are told the same, that there will be a final 3.5 years period of Antichristian rule.

Dan 7.25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

This is repeated again in Dan 12.

Dan 12.7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”

Dan 12.11-12 is something else. Daniel 12, I believe, sums up the book of Daniel, emphasizing not just one, but two of the major events on Israel's horizon at that time--the coming Antichrist to end the age of Israel's struggles and the problem of Antiochus 4. Both were still future in Daniel's time, and were to be of great concern to the Jews.

Though the reign of Antiochus 4 and the reign of Antichrist are roughly the same length of time, the 3.5 years of Antichrist's reign is expressed as strictly a 3.5 year period, or 1260 days. The reign of Antiochus 4, by contrast, extends slightly longer, to 1290 days.

Revelation describes this 3.5 year period of Antichristian rule more specifically as 42 months or 1260 days. Though this is the length of time Antichrist rules without impediment or opposition, I think his rule actually extends beyond that, though in a period when his absolute authority is being lost.

Nations gather to Armageddon in opposition to him, culminating in a world war. This is purely speculative, but I know the 1260 days is actually extended to account for the 2 Witnesses remaining dead in the streets of Jerusalem. And I know it takes time for armies to be mobilized to the Middle East. And I also know Christ will return on an unknown day.

 

[marks]

Would you like to try to respond to the arguments, or do you have no answers? Most people can see the problem I'm posing. God says Christians cannot suffer the Tribulation Period because it's "God's Wrath." Christians are portrayed as suffering under Antichrist during that period of time. Any response to that?

Would I like to try to respond? Do I have no answers? Why do you have to write like that?

OK. To your content.

That's not an agrument I make.

Some point to "we are not appointed to wrath", which is most likely, I think, referring to the wrath of God during the 70th week. However, it could also be referring to the wrath of final judgment. While I think the first interpretation is the most likely, I make it a point to separate those passages which I consider debateable, and stay with those that seem to me to make unambiguous statements.

In this instance, we are not appointed to wrath. However, Romans and Ephesians speak of wrath that is on all sinners, and the Revelation speaks of wrath upon a certain people at a certain time, and Thessalonians does not distinguish. So, I don't use that argument in considering my view.

Much love!

 

[Timtofly]

No, 12 Tribes have not always been symbolic. When they actually represented 12 self-governing communities, they were literal jurisdictions of 12 regions each. But when 12 Tribes come to represent the future Jewish People, no longer divided into 12 jurisdictions, they are being used symbolically to represent all of the Jewish People without distinction. It's just that the emphasis is on their origins with the 12 tribes of Israel, to show that God has literally fulfilled His promise to all of these tribes by granting them a posterity. The 144,000 therefore represent the fact that all Israel will literally consist of people who descended from all 12 original tribes. They can all equally claim that the nation of Israel is their inheritance. Israel is therefore being protected in times of trouble by the faith of those in Israel who believe in Christ.

Those literal 144k do literally represent their tribes. They are not all of Israel. There are millions of Israelites today.

 

[marks]

Revelation 9:1-6 KJV
1) And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2) And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3) And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4) And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5) And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6) And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

All who are alive on the earth at this time who do not have the seal of God in their foreheads will suffer this fate.

Revelation 7:1-4 KJV
1) And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
2) And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3) Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4) And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

According to this passage, there will be 144,000 men of Israel who will have this seal.

So then there will be 144,000 on the earth who will be protected from this plague, and they will all be Isrealites, sealed before the sounding of the trumpets. If the gentile church is present on the earth at this time, not being Jews, they will not have this seal of God in their foreheads, and therefore would be subject to this locust plague for those 5 months.

Any other conclusion will not have Scripture to support it. That believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit, this does not equal "having the seal of God in their foreheads". The angel brought "the seal of the living God", which is not the same thing as that the Holy Spirit indwells us when we believe. This is something an angel brings out of the east. And it is used to seal 144,000 of Israel.

Much love!

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 KJV
1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Which day won't come? The day of Christ. And of our gathering to our Lord Jesus Christ? Don't be shaken in mind as though the day of Christ (lit.) has arrived. Why would they be shaken in mind by the Day of Christ arriving? And in particular concerning His coming, and our being gathered to Him?

If they understood that they would be gathered to Christ at the Day of Christ, then this would be telling them the time was now, so that's good news. If they understood that they would be gathered after the Day of Christ, then this would still be good news, telling them they were truly getting closer.

It's only if they understood that that they would be gathered before the Day of Christ that they would be troubled, as that is the only viewpoint which would conflict with that news, that the Day of Christ is come, that is, has arrived.

That day - the day of Christ - will not come except the apostasia come first, and the man of sin is revealed. Apostasia has a strong background usage of rebellion, but literally means departure. That day will not come except the departure come first.

Is that statement intented to settle the issue raised just before it?

My understanding of this passage is expressed in,

"You are getting letters and speakers telling you, "this is now the Day of Christ", and you are troubled about that, because you know I told you that the rapture will be first, and then the Day of Christ, which is the Day of the LORD, which is a day of wrath.

Don't pay attention to them, because the Day of the LORD won't come except the departure come first, and the man of sin be revealed."

1) Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Much love!

@Randy Kluth



Much love!

 

[marks]

This shows the utter inconsistency of Pretribbers, who say, absolutely and without exception that the Church, or Christians, *cannot* go through a time of God's Wrath--they have to be raptured out of the earth. And in the very next instance they acknowledge that Christians, ie the Church, are on the earth suffering the opposition and persecution of the Antichrist!

If one cannot see the hypocrisy in this, I have to wonder how they manage it? I'm not calling anybody a liar or hypocritical in character--just holding to an inconsistent doctrine and in that particular sense acting in a hypocritical way.

This isn't me.

Saying "utter inconsistency of Pretribbers" is the fallacy of overgeneralization.

People can make all the logical arguments they want about how this or that can't happen or must happen or whatever, the only thing that matters is what does the Bible tell us?

We will not be the recipients of God's wrath, but neither will Israel in the wilderness. There does not have to be some exclusion period where no one of God's people can be on the earth because it's wrath time. Israel will be kept safe, nourished, and Christians can be just the same, if that were what the Bible said will happen.

It doesn't though.

There's no hypocrisy in holding a dispensational viewpoint that encompasses the clear differences in the conditions before and during the 70th week. There are some very clear differences that many people seem to ignore. Calling it hypocrisy is more just not understanding the point of view, or so it seems to me.

Personally I've found it very meaningful to come to understand each of the major points of view from the inside, as it were. I can offer meaningful and reasonable arguments for pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, post trib, no trib, and no rapture. The same arguments their proponents use.

I've found that understanding the different views and their Scriptural support is very useful in determining where that support breaks down, and doesn't actually support.

But I know I do go on, I'll try to be succinct.

Lesser instances of God's wrath take place all the time, every day--wherever there are grievous examples of human sin that men refuse to repent of. Surely, some wrath will take place during the time of Antichrist's reign.

The only place I can think of God revealing His wrath in the current time is,

Romans 1:18-26 KJV
18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

From what I see the way God's wrath is on people today is that He gives them up to their depravity.

Do you know other places that speak of God's wrath today?

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

This isn't me.
We will not be the recipients of God's wrath, but neither will Israel in the wilderness. There does not have to be some exclusion period where no one of God's people can be on the earth because it's wrath time. Israel will be kept safe, nourished, and Christians can be just the same, if that were what the Bible said will happen.

If the argument is that the Church *cannot* be on the earth during the time of Wrath, ie during the Tribulation Period, then it is indeed inconsistent to admit that the Church is here being persecuted by the Antichrist! I'm sorry--you can't defend that. You can't just say--well, that's what the Bible says. If that's what the Bible says, then your claim is wrong, that the Church can't be here during the Tribulation Period.

But thanks for making the effort.

The only place I can think of God revealing His wrath in the current time is,

Romans 1:18-26 KJV
18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...

From what I see the way God's wrath is on people today is that He gives them up to their depravity.
Do you know other places that speak of God's wrath today?
Much love!

Yes, God's wrath is stated to be presently revealed against people in rebellion against God, including Gay people. How is that "wrath" being revealed? It is revealed through plagues like AIDS, and through a variety of curses God sends upon men who continually rebel against His word in their hearts.

All of history is being presently determined by God's word, both good and evil. God controls even all the evil that is being done. Some suffer in their innocence, and some suffer in their guilt. We all live on the same planet.

When you read the OT Scriptures you recognize that the entire history of Man, with his Sin Nature, is under judgment from God. The pain women suffer in childbirth, and vanity suffered by men in their work--it is all the product of God's judgment against the original sin.

When we live lives in separation from God, we suffer some of the curses of God's pronouncements against independent living. God is patient, kind, and long-suffering, but He doesn't let anybody get away with sin. To one degree or another, we suffer the consequences of sin. We reap what we sow.

Whether natural disasters, wars, or plagues, they are all governed by God, and directed as a judgment. Who is guilty and who is innocent is a matter of discernment. We shouldn't judge quickly. We shouldn't judge by appearances alone. But we should know that *everything* in history and in the universe is being controlled, intelligently, by an omnipotent God.

So the point is, God's Wrath is happening all the time, and special periods of Wrath can be identified when a major episode takes place, in a natural disaster, a war, or a plague. We all live through these times, both innocent and guilty. We are not exempt from these times, is my point.

Where Pretribbers mess up, I believe, is when they recognize and rightly point out that there are times when God does indeed discriminate between the righteous and the wicked. There have been times when God leads His faithful people to escape from a judgment directed only at the wicked.

Noah escaped the Flood, Lot escaped Sodom, and the Jewish Church escaped the 70 AD disaster inflicted upon Jerusalem. There are indeed times like this. The church at Philadelphia escaped a large-scale judgment in their time.

But none of this indicates Christians escape the time of Tribulation, so-called. The reign of Antichrist Christians are encouraged to faithfully resist. They are bragged on by God because they "love not their lives unto the death."

We should not do harm to the book of Revelation by re-writing this story in Pretrib form. Pretrib is not in the Bible, and this simple idea of escaping some episodes of divine judgment do not warrant a whole-scale change to a new doctrine.

 

[marks]

If the argument is that the Church *cannot* be on the earth during the time of Wrath, ie during the Tribulation Period, then it is indeed inconsistent to admit that the Church is here being persecuted by the Antichrist! I'm sorry--you can't defend that.

What I'm saying is I don't make this my discussion. I don't see Scripture speaking in those terms so I don't either.

And nowhere does it say the church will be there with the antichrist, that the church will be persecuted by the beast.

Much love!

 

[marks]

How is that "wrath" being revealed? It is revealed through plagues like AIDS, and through a variety of curses God sends upon men who continually rebel against His word in their hearts.

According to the Bible, it is revealed in God giving them over to their sin. Aids and other diseases are the natural consequences of sin.

This is according to Scritpure.

So the point is, God's Wrath is happening all the time, and special periods of Wrath can be identified when a major episode takes place, in a natural disaster, a war, or a plague. We all live through these times, both innocent and guilty. We are not exempt from these times, is my point.

And where is the Scripture teaching us this?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The pain women suffer in childbirth, and vanity suffered by men in their work--it is all the product of God's judgment against the original sin.

Are these identified in the Bible as God's wrath?

Much love!

 

[marks]

then it is indeed inconsistent to admit that the Church is here being persecuted by the Antichrist!

So then a key aspect of pre-trib rapture timing view is that the church will not in fact be on the earth being persecuted by the antichrist, or more specifically the beast, or the dragon, Satan. So there is no inconsistency.

I am of the opinion that the rapture of the church will precede the sealing of the 144,000, which precedes the plagues and judgments and persecutions of the 70th week. I don't hold this view based on thinking that "the church cannot be on the earth at that time", which is a reason I don't see stated in Scripture.

There are reasons which I do see, and I've posted a couple of them.

Much love.

 

[marks]

But thanks for making the effort.

Sorry to disappoint!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Are these identified in the Bible as God's wrath?

Much love!

To me, is does. It really depends on how you define God's "wrath," and what synonyms you would think appropriately go with "wrath."

For example, I see God's word, in visiting "eye for eye," as an example of God's "wrath." I see His judgment against mankind, in obtaining a Sin Nature, as an example of God's "wrath." I see reaping what we sow as an example of God's "judgment," or "wrath."

Normally, we look at particularly large-scale judgments from God as an example of what we would call "divine wrath." We would look at the Flood of Noah, or the Destruction of Sodom, as examples of "divine wrath."

It really depends on what synonyms you're hanging this argument on. Is a small judgment from God against David "divine wrath?" Is God's delivery of Israel over the Assyrians a matter of "divine wrath?"

For me, it's "all of the above." I suppose we could just look up "wrath" or "anger of God" in a search to find out what God views as His wrath. But I think there are degrees of divine anger, which makes things a bit harder to pinpoint what others may view as "divine wrath."

 

[marks]

Dispensational aspect to the 70th week

At the sheep/goats judgment, Jesus divides those who did and those who did not care for the needs of His brothers, the Israelites. Those who did care for their needs are declared righteous on that basis.

Our righteousness declared directly from our faith. For these, it is declared from their works. Now, I understand that works show faith, that we do things because we believe the message we are told.

However . . . our instruction to being saved is to believe in Jesus, receiving Him. These will apparently be receiving new instruction, as their judgment is based in other criteria.

I would surmise that the two witnesses who will be present and prophesying to Israel will declare that these are God's chosen people and to act accordingly. Those who obey will of necessity have to defy the beast to do it.

The church doesn't "fit" into the 70th week.

Much love!

 

[marks]

To me, is does. It really depends on how you define God's "wrath," and what synonyms you would think appropriately go with "wrath."

For example, I see God's word, in visiting "eye for eye," as an example of God's "wrath." I see His judgment against mankind, in obtaining a Sin Nature, as an example of God's "wrath." I see reaping what we sow as an example of God's "judgment," or "wrath."

Normally, we look at particularly large-scale judgments from God as an example of what we would call "divine wrath." We would look at the Flood of Noah, or the Destruction of Sodom, as examples of "divine wrath."

It really depends on what synonyms you're hanging this argument on. Is a small judgment from God against David "divine wrath?" Is God's delivery of Israel over the Assyrians a matter of "divine wrath?"

For me, it's "all of the above." I suppose we could just like up "wrath" or "anger of God" in a search to find out what God views as His wrath. But I think there are degrees of divine anger, which makes things a bit harder to pinpoint what others may view as "divine wrath."

To me, God's wrath is a certain specific thing, spoken of in certain places in certain ways.

The only synonyms I'd base an argument on would be those laid out in the Bible.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But I think there are degrees of divine anger, which makes things a bit harder to pinpoint what others may view as "divine wrath."

This is why I like to stay strictly with Scripture, and what it says is God's wrath. But it's like I said, I don't make this a part of my reasoning for pre-trib rapture.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry to disappoint!

I'm not as sarcastic as many others are. I really meant it. I'm happy you're willing to brave an answer even when you aren't always able to give a satisfying answer to me.

Of course, whether you've satisfied yourself is your business. And I recognize that satisfying me is not the important thing.

I'm hoping that you look, objectively, at the argument, Pretrib makes, that the Church *cannot* be here during the time of God's Wrath, ie during the Reign of Antichrist. Clearly, you admit that the Jewish Church is indeed here!