From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 19 1997 - 22:44:31 EST
> <<If some argue for a
> post-trib rapture because of a "departure" rendering of APOSTASIA, then
> you might have an argument. I argue for a post-trib rapture
> interpretation from this passage for other reasons.>>
> I think your first post-trib should be pre-trib, at least I think that's what
> you mean. While I do not think APOSTASIA refers to the rapture (I think it is
> explained in 2:10-12), that view is not as nonsensical as you seem to make it
> if the timing of the rapture is not clear in the Thessalonians minds. Second,
> most pretribs do not teach that the rapture begins the day of the Lord or the
> seven year tribulation. They see it as beginning with the signing of the
> covenant in Daniel 9:26-27 or the first seal of Rev 6. The rapture does have
> a relationship to the Day of the Lord because it is bound with the Parousia,
> but not necessarily as the beginning of the DOL.
No, I meant post-trib there. But, its not important.
What you say is interesting. While I attended DTS ('71-'75) I know that
the predominant view was that the rapture started the day of the Lord. If
the pretribs have changed, then it certainly indicates they acknowledged
the problems with it.
Would you care to summarize for me your pretrib understanding of the these
verses (v. 1-4)? Much thanks.
Psst, oh yeah. Be sure to throw in some Greek, so nobody on the Greek
list gets his nose out of joint.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT