Defense of the Post-Trib / Pre-Wrath Position

[Marcus O'Reillius]

8 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

  1 hour ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

The man of lawless had been granted authority for forty two months.  That authority culminated at the midpoint abomination. 

All of this is your presumption, not supported by any scripture. Paul says nothing about the length of his time, and you should neither.

It is not in Paul's rendition.  That is why it is so important to sequence the various parallel and multiple accounts of the end-times around specific and unique events properly and not go on any single verse or account.

So HERE is where it is in Scripture.
What I wrote IS SUPPORTED by Scripture.

Rev 13:5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty- two months was given to him. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.

And Paul says:

2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so- called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

They are the same person.

I CAN put the two together because they both concern the same time and the same person.

[WilliamL]

1 hour ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

- Now you say the beast is still in the abyss.
I disagree.

Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.

That great day of judgment is yet to come: therefore, these angels are still in the abyss. The Beast is the chief one of them. He is not a man, he is a fallen angel, one of those cast into and sealed in the Abyss during the Noahic Deluge. They will not be released until the 5th Seal, after the Rapture. These are the scriptural facts.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

7 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

The Beast is the chief one of them.

That's a this means that interpretation without direct Scriptural support.

The dragon beast portrayed in Revelation 17 while said to come out of the abyss, is also an active player on the world's stage having a very physical locale in Rome.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Rev 17:12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

This precedes the midpoint abomination.

The beast which comes out of the abyss, who was and is not, and is about to come (at the time the Angel explains this to John) - is active for the whole time of the Church Age in my opinion, and is not relegated to the latter portion of the second half of the one 'seven' when the First Woe opens the bottomless pit - because - he predates that opening by being fully in existence vis-a-vis Revelation 13:1/2.

[WilliamL]

29 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

And Paul says:

2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so- called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

"...exhibiting himself that he is a god." Jesus told us that "many" false christs and false prophets will arise.

The Son of Perdition is only one of the many. The Little Horn is another, as are the Beast and the False Prophet.

The Son of Perdition comes before the Rapture, the others come after.

You lump the Son of Perdition, the Beast, the Little Horn, and the Mouth of the Beast all into the same person and call him the Antichrist, which is a great mistake. The Beast is not even human, whereas the others are.

The Son of Perdition is "brought to nothing/rendered inoperative at the shining-upon/manifestation/epiphaneia of his [Jesus'] Presence/Coming/Parousia."  That Parousia is the time of the Rapture. The Son of Perdition ceases to be a player when the Lord comes. Then the Wrath begins, after the Rapture, as you say yourself.

Deny it if you will, the scripture is clear: The Son of Perdition ceases to be a player in history when the Lord appears to take up his elect.

Edited July 27, 2016 by WilliamL

[Marcus O'Reillius]

4 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

"The Son of Perdition is only one of the many. The Little Horn is another, as are the Beast and the False Prophet.

Nope.

And the King of the North is victorious over the South and the East at Armageddon, gaining the whole world, only to lose his soul after Jesus defeats him there and captures him alive.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

7 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Deny it if you will, the scripture is clear: The Son of Perdition ceases to be a player in history when the Lord appears to take up his elect.

Anytime somebody tells me 'Scripture is clear', or 'it is clear,' - I know I"m dealing with their conclusion of their interpretation and not what Scripture actually says.

 

2Th 2:8b …whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

This one half verse by itself could lead a reader to conclude that the Day of the Lord coincides with the final destruction of the man of lawlessness.  Indeed, without the other multiple accounts of God’s Wrath in the end-times, concluding that a single stroke by the sword emanating from Jesus’ mouth as figuratively represented in Revelation 19:15 finishes the conflagration enveloping the world would be reasonable.  The conventional Post-Tribulation eschatology uses this verse myopically precluding other conditional facts and linear sequences and has the Day of the Lord be either the Day to end all, or lengthens the Day of the Lord to encompass Wrath which is not explicitly connected to it.  Looking at this verse solely leads to battling verses and without keeping the big picture in view, typifies the history of prophetic interpretation without a sequence-of-events paradigm.  Looking at the verbs can shed some light at how a sequence-of-events perspective can view this verse in light of other prophetic timelines.

The verb overthrow comes from anaireō and it means in the nominal sense: “take up,” “take away,” “make an end” (ECB p1631).  Furthermore, the word is a conjunction of aná and hairéō.  hairéō means “to take,” “to win,” “to comprehend,” or “to select” (TDNT p27).  The first part: aná lends either an emphatic meaning or the sense of “up.”  Figuratively, it means to take away violently and so to put to death, kill, slay, or murder.  The use of anaireō here by Paul is in the future tense, indicative mood, and active voice.  Jesus will do this stated as a fact

 

The verb destroy comes from katargeō and in the nominal sense it means: “to render inoperative,” “to abolish” (ECB p1659).  Bromiley says, “The provisional disarming of demonic powers will issue in their complete destruction at the return of Christ” for its use in 2Th 2:8.

The man of lawless had been granted authority for forty two months.  That authority culminated at the midpoint abomination.  Immediately afterward, “Who is like God” arises and the Two Witnesses arrive.  By their very nature being unable to be harmed, they upset the previously uncontested rule of the beast of a man.  The first thing that can be suggested by anaireō is that previous authority is violently taken away, especially when the Two Witnesses can consume any person who comes up against them. 

The verb anaireō cannot be used in its normal figurative sense of being put to death, slain, killed, or murdered because the anti-Christ is not killed on the earth.  Whether the first instance of Christ's coming on the Day of the Lord in a Pre-Wrath eschatology or at the last day of the one ‘seven’ at Armageddon even in a classical Post-Trib eschatology; Jesus does not kill the anti-Christ on earth.  This fact of interpretation stands upon Revelation 19:20 where the beast of a man is captured alive, and thrown while still alive into the Lake of Fire along with the false   

To use anaireō in its nominal sense, Jesus would ‘make an end’ of the anti-Christ which suggests a process.  Overthrowing him from his previous authority, removing his “power,” would be first part of the process which would come with the Two Witnesses who defy the anti-Christ; he is powerless over them.  As the end-times proceed under a Pre-Wrath eschatological framework, making an end is a process whereby God’s Wrath reduces the anti-Christ’s world to a shadow of its former self.  Final victory is Pyrrhic; he conquers the Kings of the South and East only to find himself facing the Lord of Hosts which ends with his capture.

Finally then, the anti-Christ is destroyed utterly.  He is judged just as is determined in Revelation 11:18, “The time has come for…destroying those who destroy the earth.”  He is judged before God and thrown into the Lake of Fire.

2^nd Thessalonians 2:8 describes a sequence-of-events:

• The man of lawlessness is revealed.

• Jesus will make an end of him.

• He is utterly destroyed.

Taken by itself, 2Th 2:8 could be read as happening very quickly.  However, with additional revelation of God’s Wrath, which Paul does not address other than to assure the Church it does not face it, the Bible expressly states that it takes time; in the case of the first Woe, it takes five months alone.  Other desolations which God has decreed may take longer as will be suggested later so that the entire remaining period of the second half of the one ‘seven’ will go until the end is poured out upon the desolator.

[WilliamL]

So I am debating with a clone? a computer program? You just repeated verbatim what you posted earlier.

You ignore what Jude says about who is in the Abyss. You restate what Paul says in 2 Thes. 2:8, changing its meaning. You ignore what the scripture actually says about who the eighth king is, that scripture says he ascends from the Abyss, and that the Abyss is not opened until the 5th Trumpet. In short, you, not I, are the one who comes to the scriptures with a preconceived understanding, which is ultimately founded upon your interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27. That is your linchpin. If/when your interpretation fails there, your whole edifice collapses.

4 hours ago, WilliamL said:

The Son of Perdition is "brought to nothing/rendered inoperative at the shining-upon/manifestation/epiphaneia of his [Jesus'] Presence/Coming/Parousia."  That Parousia is the time of the Rapture. The Son of Perdition ceases to be a player when the Lord comes. Then the Wrath begins, after the Rapture, as you say yourself.

Paul began this passage saying "concerning the Parousia/coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him [= the Rapture]." Verse 8 says the Son of Perdition will cease to have power at, or by, the Parousia. Not 1260 days after. Not some period of time after. When the Lord comes (= the Parousia) to gather us in the Rapture, the Son of Perdition will then cease to have any power. The Wrath begins immediately at that point. The Son of Perdition is not a player therein, whereas the Beast is. Ergo, the Son of Perdition is not the Beast.

Once again, the Hebraic-era type portrays the latter-day fulfillment of the type. Judas the son of perdition disappeared from the scene right at the time Jesus appeared to his disciples. So will it be again for the latter-day son of perdition: he will disappear from the scene when Jesus appears to his disciples.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

So I am debating with a clone? a computer program? You just repeated verbatim what you posted earlier.

Well you didn't read any of it.  That is actually an in-depth look at what the language says.  Paul does not say the anti-Christ is utterly destroyed the instant Jesus returns.
 

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

Verse 8 says the Son of Perdition will cease to have power at, or by, the Parousia.  Not some period of time after. When the Lord comes (= the Parousia) to gather us in the Rapture, the Son of Perdition will then cease to have any power. 

It doesn't say that.  You say that.  I gave you the word study I did.  I can put it out again if you'd just read it.
 

[WilliamL]

1 hour ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

It doesn't say that.  You say that.  I gave you the word study I did.  I can put it out again if you'd just read it.

I read it thoroughly, both times. You (mis)interpret the passage based on your presumptions, not on what it actually says. For instance, you say,

9 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

The man of lawless had been granted authority for forty two months.  That authority culminated at the midpoint abomination. 

Two presumptions you  have read into the verse.

9 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

The verb anaireō cannot be used in its normal figurative sense of being put to death, slain, killed, or murdered because the anti-Christ is not killed on the earth.

Two more presumptions read into the verse.

9 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

This fact of interpretation stands upon Revelation 19:20 where the beast of a man is captured alive...

Two more presumptions read into the verse.

When you interpret a verse with a whole bag of presumptions about how the End Times will play out, all you are going to see is what you want to see. Which is exactly what you did with this verse: you reinterpreted key verbs to fit your previous conclusions about the End Times. In doing so, you utterly denied the translation that you have long claimed is the best, the NASB, in favor of your own unique interpretations.