Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Diaste]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:08 PM, OldCoot said:

Did a little research.  Always a wise thing to do when discussing a particular point.

Until the KJV Bible came out, most major translations used departure for apostasia.  it was not until the KJV came on the scene did anyone consider that apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 meant falling away.  With all deference to James Strong, Robert Young, et al who based much of their work on the KJV writers assertions of the meanings. 

Tyndale Bible (cir 1526/1534) "a departynge fyrst"

Coverdale Bible (Cir 1539) "a departynge come firft"

Cranmer Bible (1539) "a departynge fyrst"

Geneva Bible (1557 / 1608) "a departing first"

And many others:  The Wycliff Bible (1384), The Breches Bible (1576), The Beza Bible (1583)

The Latin Vulgate uses the word discessio, which also has departure in view.  Considering the LV came on the scene roughly the 4th century, one would think they might have had a pretty firm grasp on the Greek NT and Greek word meanings and their application, being that the LV writers were 1000 years earlier than our english translations.

Notice how they are all before Darby, whom many attribute the founder of the pre-trib position.  Even though Isaac Newton a century before held the view.  As did several of the writings of 2nd/3rd century.  It would seem that "departure" was not the wishful thinking of a bunch of pre-trib nuts.   So it just might be the Greek Scholar Kenneth Wuest who I mentioned in an earlier post might actually be more on target than not.  

Based on this, the evidence would suggest that "falling away" is a relatively recent invention of the proper meaning of apostasia.  

 

Its interesting that you rely on mans wisdom. You unfailingly cite commentators ignoring the truth of scripture, afraid to look for yourself I suppose. When looking into the definitions of the terms as well as usage its clear the idea of 'departure' is valid. Since it's an English term lets look at it in both common and archaic.

noun

1.an act or instance of departing:

the time of departure; a hasty departure.

2.divergence or deviation, as from a standard, rule, etc.:

a departure from accepted teaching methods.

3.Navigation.

the distance due east or west traveled by a vessel or aircraft.

point of departure.

4. Surveying. the length of the projection, on the east-west reference line, of a survey line.

5. Archaic. death.

There is nothing here demanding a departure from one place to another, though that idea is fully acceptable, and also validly applies to departing from ideology or epistemology. So how could we know which applies in 2 Thess? By comparing terms. Here are the terms from the NT used to describe, 'leaving one place and going to another place'.  

Departed: Strong's #'s: 402, 565, 868, 1607, 1831, 3327, 3332, 4198, 5562, 5563, 

Depart: Strong's #'s: 321, 565, 630, 672, 868, 1826, 1831,  3327, 4198, 5217, 5562

Departing: Strong's #'s: 672, 867, 868, 1831, 1841

Departure: Strong's # 359

First notice the Greek term 'apostasia', Strong's 646, does not appear in the list.

The terms for 'leaving one place and going to another': anachóreó: to go back, withdraw, aperchomai: to go away, go after, apoluó: to set free, release, anagó: to lead up, bring up, exerchomai: to go or come out of, diachórizó: to separate entirely, katerchomai: to come down, dierchomai: to go through, go about, to spread, chórizó: to separate, divide, analusis: a loosing, departure, apallassó: to remove, release, etc.

In contrast 'apostasia' apostasia: defection, revolt, is not even close to the words the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to record in the NT concerning "departure". If there are several words in the Greek that could be used for 'leaving from one place to another',  why did the Holy Spirit use 'defection' in 2 Thess 2:7?  

 

 

 

[Diaste]

On 8/9/2017 at 7:16 PM, OldCoot said:

With all deference to Strong's or Young's or whoever you are posting numbers and definitions from, there are many Greek scholars who hold to what I stated on Apostasia.  You don't accept that, that's cool.  I am not concerned if what I stated you don't accept.  I am aware of many scholars standing in academic circles that do hold to what I stated.  Not sure I am aware of your standing as one who is in the same arena as they are, so I have no basis to know if you are as learned in the Greek nuances as they are, I don't accept your position.  So I guess we have a stalemate.  

The word of God does indeed stand triumphant.  But that doesn't mean your interpretation does.  Try and keep in mind, you are not the author of the text.

Not my interpretation. Not my position.  It's the words used by the Spirit in clear, simple language. But you go ahead and agree with the consensus, I'm sure it's for the best.

[OldCoot]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Not my interpretation. Not my position.  It's the words used by the Spirit in clear, simple language. But you go ahead and agree with the consensus, I'm sure it's for the best.

No, it is the words of the translators that translated the original, not the the words used by the HS.  A lexicon or concordance is not inspired cannon. It is simply a translation based on the view of the person putting it together.   Irregardless of the what Strong's, Young's or whomever is writing a concordance, many translators of scripture prior to them all saw the translation as simple the departure, not a falling away. And given that they were far closer to the original and more familiar with the nuances of the Greek, especially so in the case of the Latin Vulgate which was done in the 4th century, it is more than a reasonable assumption that the earlier translations got the passage right and the KJV folks and many translations to follow got the passage wrong.

And when one factors in that OT which goes to some length to show that the righteous are kept from this major time of trouble / God's wrath coming upon the earth, simply "departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 fits.  After all, the Bereans were commended for searching the scripture daily to see if what Paul was teaching them was true.  The OT was all they had.  If one is going to promote a idea that the righteous at the time the Great Tribulation shows up are required to go thru this climactic event of Daniel's 70th week, then one has to prove it from the OT as well as the NT.  The Mosaic Law required that any issue can only be determined on the testimony of two or more witnesses.  Those two witnesses for us in regards to theology is the OT and NT.   And given that Isaiah 26, Psalm 27, Zephaniah 2, etc all describe the righteous being hidden and protected from the wrath of God, either God didn't mean what He said and is a liar, or some folks screwed up in translating scripture.  The latter seems more appropriate.

Edited August 13, 2017 by OldCoot

[Diaste]

On 8/13/2017 at 8:01 AM, OldCoot said:

No, it is the words of the translators that translated the original, not the the words used by the HS.  A lexicon or concordance is not inspired cannon. It is simply a translation based on the view of the person putting it together.   Irregardless of the what Strong's, Young's or whomever is writing a concordance, many translators of scripture prior to them all saw the translation as simple the departure, not a falling away. And given that they were far closer to the original and more familiar with the nuances of the Greek, especially so in the case of the Latin Vulgate which was done in the 4th century, it is more than a reasonable assumption that the earlier translations got the passage right and the KJV folks and many translations to follow got the passage wrong.

And when one factors in that OT which goes to some length to show that the righteous are kept from this major time of trouble / God's wrath coming upon the earth, simply "departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 fits.  After all, the Bereans were commended for searching the scripture daily to see if what Paul was teaching them was true.  The OT was all they had.  If one is going to promote a idea that the righteous at the time the Great Tribulation shows up are required to go thru this climactic event of Daniel's 70th week, then one has to prove it from the OT as well as the NT.  The Mosaic Law required that any issue can only be determined on the testimony of two or more witnesses.  Those two witnesses for us in regards to theology is the OT and NT.   And given that Isaiah 26, Psalm 27, Zephaniah 2, etc all describe the righteous being hidden and protected from the wrath of God, either God didn't mean what He said and is a liar, or some folks screwed up in translating scripture.  The latter seems more appropriate.

This one idea is a deliberate convolution of the scripture: Wrath=Great tribulation. Not true. Great Tribulation occurs before the wrath of God and is a time period after the midpoint ending short of the end of the when the wrath begins. Of course scripture says we will not endure the wrath of God. I know this as well as anyone. GT is not wrath.

The rest of your arguments are mostly illogical considering the facts. I wonder what the original translators must have relied on when translating from Greek to the King's English? Greek Dictionaries?  Greek Lexicons? Greek scholars?  A concordance is an index of the Bible allowing for quick searches. The associated Greek and Hebrew dictionaries allow us to cross reference the original Greek and compare the English translation. These are necessary reference works, all of which I possess, or none of us could act upon our Berean impulses. The bible is canon and Strong's index and the associated dictionaries and lexicons give us insight into the Greek language that otherwise would be impossible. No doubt a Holy Spirit inspired endeavor as anyone can read and understand.

The earlier translations did get it right, it's contemporary Pharisees and the proclivity toward agenda driven narratives that get it wrong. The original translation did get it right; it's a departure alright, a departure from God. The root terms imply desertion, not leaving from one place to another. Aphistemi, the word building upon the two root terms translates as drawing away, withdraw, abstain. Apostasia is even stronger meaning full on rebellion. Meaning 'falling away' is apt especially since many steeped in the nuances of the Greek language say the same thing. In many different translations of the bible the idea in 2 Thess 2:3 is rebellion. None that I have seen translate apostasy as 'leaving from one place to go to another'.

It's almost as if you are saying that we should act on Berean impulse as long as we don't conclude in the opposition.  

There is a great deal of poor logic going around so let me point out something from 2 Thess 2. The Thessalonians were concerned they missed the Day of the Lord and the gathering; that's right in the first verse. How do you suppose they would understand Paul when he links the gathering and the 2nd coming, saying that day WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL..... but then says the gathering would first occur? The applied logic of pretrib demands the gathering occurs before the very selfsame gathering occurs. How could the gathering the Thessalonians were looking for occur before the gathering Paul said would only occur after the man of sin is revealed? Paul said, That day shall not come....until the main of sin is revealed.

[Justin Adams]

Yep. My position for many years. (But I will not argue this position)

The great elevator in the sky did not come down for those kids burned in that metal shed in Nigeria.

Neither did it come for those whos heads are currently impaled on their gate-posts in Indonesia.

The 'great elevator in the sky' (my tongue-in-cheek reference for preaching 'rapture' so glibly).

The great falling away may be due to false teaching of the so-called rapture. I.e. when things get really, really hot and horrible and we are not whisked away, I think many will lose faith. Hardly surprising really because easy-peasy-preachy has kept a lot of us snug in our pews and not really taking part in anything much since we will all be gone when the S*H*T*F. Just sitting there and sucking on the pew-tit of complacency.

I have some oft-times horrific images that Hollywood has blessed us with to visualize what it may be like when EVERYTHING breaks down. And there is no help anywhere. Like maybe Jerusalem, AD 70.

I am encouraged that I read a little known work about the refuge cities. No all the mod-cons you understand, but comparative safety until the final BIG battle. Then, I might hazard a guess as to the, "twinkling of an eye" scenario, where God steps in and does His Thing so that not all flesh is destroyed.

[Last Daze]

48 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

The great falling away may be due to false teaching of the so-called rapture. I.e. when things get really, really hot and horrible and we are not whisked away, I think many will lose faith. Hardly surprising really because easy-peasy-preachy has kept a lot of us snug in our pews and not really taking part in anything much since we will all be gone when the S*H*T*F. Just sitting there and sucking on the pew-tit of complacency.

No one should use their eschatology as rationale for become spiritually lethargic.  Those of a pretrib persuasion are not bound to fail should the rapture not happen as they'd hoped.  Those who have walked in the truth will have the discernment necessary to adjust.  Those who use the pretrib rapture as an excuse to become spiritually lax are the ones at risk.

The same is true for those of a posttrib persuasion, or any other trib for that matter, who are confident that they have it figured out.  If they misconstrue their confidence in their eschatology as being prepared, and become lax in their spiritual lives, they too are at risk.  Even if someone actually does have it figured out, that doesn't mean that they are prepared.

Being prepared for His return comes from walking in the Spirit first and foremost.  That's where the extra oil comes from that makes us wise.

[Justin Adams]

I could not agree more. And I do not think that a lot of people consciously use "rationale" as their basis of faith.

However, in the gas-crunch of the 70's, I saw "normal" Christians becoming quite monstrous when they had no fuel.

It behooves us to recognize the signs and warn those people. To be true Watchmen and not to assume anything. 

Whatever you or I believe, will not alter the facts one whit. It is how we use our talents that count. We must be ready in season and out of season to warn people that might put too much faith in private belief rather than in God.

"My people perish from lack of knowledge.." (paraphrased)

[OldCoot]

On 8/14/2017 at 6:44 PM, Diaste said:

This one idea is a deliberate convolution of the scripture: Wrath=Great tribulation. Not true. Great Tribulation occurs before the wrath of God and is a time period after the midpoint ending short of the end of the when the wrath begins. Of course scripture says we will not endure the wrath of God. I know this as well as anyone. GT is not wrath.

The rest of your arguments are mostly illogical considering the facts. I wonder what the original translators must have relied on when translating from Greek to the King's English? Greek Dictionaries?  Greek Lexicons? Greek scholars?  A concordance is an index of the Bible allowing for quick searches. The associated Greek and Hebrew dictionaries allow us to cross reference the original Greek and compare the English translation. These are necessary reference works, all of which I possess, or none of us could act upon our Berean impulses. The bible is canon and Strong's index and the associated dictionaries and lexicons give us insight into the Greek language that otherwise would be impossible. No doubt a Holy Spirit inspired endeavor as anyone can read and understand.

The earlier translations did get it right, it's contemporary Pharisees and the proclivity toward agenda driven narratives that get it wrong. The original translation did get it right; it's a departure alright, a departure from God. The root terms imply desertion, not leaving from one place to another. Aphistemi, the word building upon the two root terms translates as drawing away, withdraw, abstain. Apostasia is even stronger meaning full on rebellion. Meaning 'falling away' is apt especially since many steeped in the nuances of the Greek language say the same thing. In many different translations of the bible the idea in 2 Thess 2:3 is rebellion. None that I have seen translate apostasy as 'leaving from one place to go to another'.

It's almost as if you are saying that we should act on Berean impulse as long as we don't conclude in the opposition.  

There is a great deal of poor logic going around so let me point out something from 2 Thess 2. The Thessalonians were concerned they missed the Day of the Lord and the gathering; that's right in the first verse. How do you suppose they would understand Paul when he links the gathering and the 2nd coming, saying that day WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL..... but then says the gathering would first occur? The applied logic of pretrib demands the gathering occurs before the very selfsame gathering occurs. How could the gathering the Thessalonians were looking for occur before the gathering Paul said would only occur after the man of sin is revealed? Paul said, That day shall not come....until the main of sin is revealed.

 

I would contend that the wrath starts right out of the gate at the 1st seal.  The Father hands off the scroll to Yeshua.  He then opens the seals.  Simple logic would say that if He hadn't opened the seals, then the events of each seal would not occur.  Therefore, the events directly related to Yeshua's actions, and would imply that it is part of the wrath of God.  Judgement and wrath do not require an affirmative action by God. It can come from God removing His restraint and allowing events to transpire. 

If the earlier translators got it right about departure as opposed to falling away, that is true, then the departure must occur before the man of sin can be revealed.  That departure would imply the removal of the righteous.  And V6 would affirm that.  Adding to the passage by stating it is a departure from God is taking liberties with the text to support a presupposition.  (be careful how you sling around the name Pharisee)  The only way the word can be used in that context is if there was a definite article stating what was being departed from.  Like in Acts 21:21, where apostosia is used and the definite article, Moses (the Law), is mentioned.  In that instance it would be correct to say "departing from Moses (the Law).  But the passage in 2 Thes 2:3 does not express what is being departed from.  Kenneth Wuest and many other Greek scholars have explained this quite well, much better than I have here.

With verse 6 saying that the one who restrains (Holy Spirit who indwells the believers) is taken out of the way after He has handed off the Church to the Messiah, similar to a linebacker stepping aside and allowing the opposition into the backfield in a football game, the 1st seal explicitly shows this man of sin coming forth with a covenant in hand.  The first mention of "bow" in scripture, back in Genesis, was when the Lord set a Bow in the air to symbolize He would never destroy the earth by water again.  A covenant God made.  The law of first mention, a hermeneutical principle, applies.  Likewise, the Bow the rider has in the 1st seal is a covenant.  This affirms Daniel 9:27

And Isaiah 26 and Zephaniah 2 explicitly state that the righteous are hidden from that day of wrath.  Which going back to what I stated in the first paragraph, is the seals being opened.

Edited September 15, 2017 by OldCoot

[BobRyan]

3 hours ago, Last Daze said:

The same is true for those of a posttrib persuasion, or any other trib for that matter, who are confident that they have it figured out.  If they misconstrue their confidence in their eschatology as being prepared, and become lax in their spiritual lives, they too are at risk.  Even if someone actually does have it figured out, that doesn't mean that they are prepared.

Being prepared for His return comes from walking in the Spirit first and foremost.  That's where the extra oil comes from that makes us wise.

It is true that the amount of knowledge one has is useless if at the end they have no connection to Christ.

But Christ gives us this information about the future "for a reason".

For the people before the flood - everything depended on what they would do with the warnings God sent through Noah. Living on the other side of the planet from Noah while claiming to be "spirit filled" and "informed" would not get them anywhere, when the rain started to fall.

For the people living in John the baptizer's day - simply ignoring John and being "comforted" by the fact that they have the right church, and the right Bible - would get them nowhere.

[Last Daze]

58 minutes ago, BobRyan said:

It is true that the amount of knowledge one has is useless if at the end they have no connection to Christ.

But Christ gives us this information about the future "for a reason".

For the people before the flood - everything depended on what they would do with the warnings God sent through Noah. Living on the other side of the planet from Noah while claiming to be "spirit filled" and "informed" would not get them anywhere, when the rain started to fall.

For the people living in John the baptizer's day - simply ignoring John and being "comforted" by the fact that they have the right church, and the right Bible - would get them nowhere.

I agree.  Understanding the things to come is beneficial, but it is secondary to our walk with the Lord.  Too often our emphasis is misplaced.

In Matthew 24:25 Jesus says, "Behold, I have told you in advance."  So, there is merit in being aware of what's to come or He wouldn't have bothered to tell us.  This can be a problem, however, if our eschatology becomes a source of pride.