Dear Friends,
I’m reading a passage from Arethas (Fragm. in Epist. II ad Thess, 661.15): “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS· MHDEIS hUMAS EXAPA THSHi hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA PRIN TAUTA GENHTAI TOTE THN APISTIAN TWN ANQRWPWN hO DIABOLOS EISHGEN”
I wanted to compare it with 2Thes 2,2: “hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU CRISTOU”
Is ENESTHKEN in both cases a proleptic Perfect ? That means the events are still future.
My other question is the exact meaning of “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS” – I can’t handle the semantics and the syntax.
Thank you !
Peter, Germany
Isn’t this simply, in the case of 2 Thess 2:2 a proposition that is being set forth by others (that “the day of Christ is here now”) and that Paul disputes? And in the case of the Arethas, it’s a direct citation of the passage from 2 Thess. The enclosing hOTI should make it clear that this is a citation, I think.
I think this is simply saying, “This (TAUTA) is consistent with/in accordance with/implicit in (SUNUPAKOUETAI) what has been set forth previously (TOIS PROKEIMENOIS — PROKEIMAI serving as the perfect passive for PROTIQHMI).
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Carl, dear Friends,
thank you so much for your help, Carl ! That brings me a step in the right direction in understanding this phrase.
I wrote: That point was my main interest in comparing Arethas and Paul. I found another parallel that brought me to the idea of a prolepic usage of ENESTHKEN at Arethas and Paul (in 2Thes 2,2): Cyrillus wrote (Comm. in XII Prop. min., 1.188.16): “ENESTHKEN hH THS ANTAPODOSEWS hHMERA”. I think the context makes it clear that hHMERA is still future here, as Cyrillus writes (a sentence above): “EGGUS hH DIKH”.
By the way: Arethas quotes 2Thes 2,3 before he adds the passage I mentioned. “MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON. hOTI EAN MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON, KAI APOKALUFQHi hO ANQRWPOS THS hAMARTIAS, hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS.” Maybe this context can give a hint.
That’s why I’ll think the following translations make sense: – that the day of the Lord is just at hand (ASV) – as if the day of the Lord were at hand (DRA) – as though the day of Christ were at hand (GNV) – as though the daye of Christe were at hande (PNT) – as though the daye of Christ were at honde (TNT) – as that the day of Christ is at hand (WEB)
So I’m not absolutly sure the rendering “the day of Christ is here now” is right here.
Thank you for further help ! Yours Peter, Germany
I would tend to the view that in Re 1.3 that is precisely what is intended.
Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.
MAKARIOS hO ANAGINWSKW KAI hOI AKOUONTES TOUS LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS KAI THROUNTES TA EN AUTHi GEGRAMMENA, hO GAR KAIROS EGGUS.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Isn’t this simply, in the case of 2 Thess 2:2 a proposition that is being set forth by others (that “the day of Christ is here now”) and that Paul disputes? And in the case of the Arethas, it’s a direct citation of the passage from 2 Thess. The enclosing hOTI should make it clear that this is a citation, I think.
I think this is simply saying, “This (TAUTA) is consistent with/in accordance with/implicit in (SUNUPAKOUETAI) what has been set forth previously (TOIS PROKEIMENOIS — PROKEIMAI serving as the perfect passive for PROTIQHMI).
Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Dear Carl, dear Friends,
thank you so much for your help, Carl ! That brings me a step in the right direction in understanding this phrase.
I wrote: That point was my main interest in comparing Arethas and Paul. I found another parallel that brought me to the idea of a prolepic usage of ENESTHKEN at Arethas and Paul (in 2Thes 2,2): Cyrillus wrote (Comm. in XII Prop. min., 1.188.16): “ENESTHKEN hH THS ANTAPODOSEWS hHMERA”. I think the context makes it clear that hHMERA is still future here, as Cyrillus writes (a sentence above): “EGGUS hH DIKH”.
By the way: Arethas quotes 2Thes 2,3 before he adds the passage I mentioned. “MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON. hOTI EAN MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON, KAI APOKALUFQHi hO ANQRWPOS THS hAMARTIAS, hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS.” Maybe this context can give a hint.
That’s why I’ll think the following translations make sense: – that the day of the Lord is just at hand (ASV) – as if the day of the Lord were at hand (DRA) – as though the day of Christ were at hand (GNV) – as though the daye of Christe were at hande (PNT) – as though the daye of Christ were at honde (TNT) – as that the day of Christ is at hand (WEB)
So I’m not absolutly sure the rendering “the day of Christ is here now” is right here.
Thank you for further help ! Yours Peter, Germany
I would tend to the view that in Re 1.3 that is precisely what is intended.
Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.
MAKARIOS hO ANAGINWSKW KAI hOI AKOUONTES TOUS LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS KAI THROUNTES TA EN AUTHi GEGRAMMENA, hO GAR KAIROS EGGUS.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Here’s the good Greek behind it Ricky Grimsley
Here’s the good Greek behind it Ricky Grimsley
Link Hudson I dont know if your quoted extended till 2:22 but here is another all time favorite one of Ricky Grimsley The text as read in the original following the CHURCH in 2Thes clearly shows the CHURCH as the restrainer No other super wonder person is mentioned – certainly not Michael, Jackie, Perry or Terry How can ANYone read this text the way it flows in 2 Thes 2 and even begin to suggest that anyone else BUT the church is the Restrainer mentioned and meant by PAUL?
Troy, Do you realize how weak that argument is. Why are the pre-trib arguments so weak? Paul says you now who he is who restrains him. So you read your pre-trib theory– which you can’t show from any passage of scripture– into the text, and then treat that as proof. This is circular reasoning.
Pre-tribbers claim to believe in literal interpretation, but the theory is based on making allegorical interpretations of apocalyptic literature…or just reading the theory into a passage where there is no evidence for it. Other arguments are weak like arguing for a pre-trib rapture from ‘not appointed unto wrath’. God demonstrated HIs ability to pour out His judgments on those who needed them and to protect his people in Egypt, and why would the tribulational saints be ‘appointed unto wrath’ if we aren’t? The only attempt at exegesis I can recall regarding the rapture that isn’t allegorical is to interpret the apostasia as the rapture, which seems a rather bizaar interpretation that again, begs the question.
Can we deal with what Paul does clearly state in the passages in question. Paul speaks of the ‘revelation’ of Jesus from heaven in his epistles. He speaks of the ‘coming’ of Christ also. In II Thessalonians 1, he speaks of the ‘revelation’ of Christ. Chapter 2 continues the dialogue and refers to Jesus ‘coming.’
Do believe these two are the same thing?
In I Corinthians 15, the dead are made alive ‘at his coming.’ This chapter is about the resurrection. Paul addresses those who argue that there is no resurrection of the dead, argues that if that were the case Christ is not risen, and ye are dead in your sins. But Christ is risen. He is the firstfruits, the dead will rise, and he goes into detail on the transformation of the bodies of those who do not die.
The resurrection occurs at Christ’s coming in I Corinthians 15. In II Thessalonians 1, when Jesus comes, the church is here and receives rest at His coming. But at His coming, Jesus executes vengence on them that believe not. It does not say He lets them have some peace with the beast for a little while.
Why doesn’t it say that if the pre-trib rapture verse is true?
So which argument is weak?
but which argument is weak – why instead of calling the argument weak you dismantle it like I did yours from 2 Thes 1 without just calling it weak without presenting any support of Scripture against it
As a matter of fact as I red your last 40 responses all they say is
this argument is weak
this argument is too long
this argument is this or that
but in fact you present no argument or counter argument at all 🙂
It is a very funny passive aggressive way of avoidance especially when one figures out you lack a full eschatological plan and kind of cherry pick verses out of context which is #sad actually
Troy Day are you being disingenuous?
The passage you referred to does not say who the restrainer is. It does not say it is the church and a sizeable number of pretribbers say the restrainer is the Holy Spirit.
The fact that youcan read a pretrib into a passage that does not offer any evidence for it is weak. Btw if a link cobtains relavent info could you cut and paste relevant and if necessary, explain the relevance.
Nope I am being very very genius Just ask Ricky Grimsley about 2 Thes 2:2 and he will tell you like it is
I think the restrainer is Michael. It certainly isn’t the church if you are going to hold to the church being the bride….then it would say she and not he.
in all honesty I have never heard Link Hudson agree or state that the restrainer is anyone else but the antiChrist which is the classical baptist interpretation I dont think he will agree to it being Michael or anyone else I know I dont The SHE argument is easily refuted – no where the church is called SHE not but it is called body of christ Your interpretation of SHE seems to claim Christ the male head has church female body – very transgender of you Ricky Grimsley What’s next Holy Ghost is not a person? 🙂
Troy Day What are you talking about? I never heard you say that the restrainer wasn’t Santa Claus either.
Link Hudson do you agree the restrainer is Michael or are you just arguing for the sake of the argument ?
That’s exactly the stuff link was talking about.
Bottom line – the Restrainer is the church No other way
I’m not sure about that. But I don’t see a compulsion to have to name the restrainer as justification for throwing away the plain sense of the text in chapters 1 and 2 and eisegeting pretrib into the passage.
Generally Pentecostal pretribbers I have encountered say the Holy Spirit is the restrainer.
Link Hudson your last sentence is falls. It seems the pentecostals you have encountered were just baptists. No real Pentecostal believe the Holy Spirit stops operating at any time, age or dispensation. If the Holy Ghost be taken no one cannot be saved under the Tribulation Even Ricky Grimsley dont believe that The explain around way is Michael, which I think is quite wacky but some people believe that Oh Well
Why would Paul say that the day of Christ (associated with our gathering to Christ in the passage) would not come until the man of sin had been revealed if the church had to be gathered to Christ before the man of sin had to be revealed?
Let’s look at it in II Thessalonians 2
1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (ESV)
Why would anyone NOT interpret the ‘day of the Lord’ here to refer to the coming of the Lord in verse 1 unless he had been pre-programmed with pre-trib circular logic? Why isn’t this the say ‘day’ of chapter 1? A day in which the church is here when Jesus gets back.
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. {ESV}
What day will not happen unless the apostasy first occurs? What day will not happen unless the man of lawlessness is revealed? The day described in verses 1-2 in the same chapter. Jesus already predicted the love of many waxing cold and the rise of false prophets as occurring BEFORE the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24.
Suppose you lived before pre-trib was basically invented and really knew the passages of scripture here. Is there any way someone could convince you of a pre-trib scenario based on what Paul wrote here? Isn’t the logic so convoluted? Where is the justification in Christian for Jesus sort-of coming back and then going back up?
Paul uses ‘His coming’ to describe the event when the ‘dead are made alive.’ The rapture occurs right after the dead in Christ rise in I Thessalonians.
Troy Day A lot of pre-trib beliefs don’t stand up to scrutiny if we examine them in light of scripture.
#funny now you are just making things up 🙂
Troy Day name one thing.
staying in heaven being on of many
Troy Day i never said pretribbers believed that they would stay in heaven forever.
still its a made up thing no one believes
Troy Day yeah I am pointing out I’ve seen certain peoole, amils I think, dexcribe tge ‘rapture teaching’ that way?
you are not answering my question again Neither is Ricky Grimsley who is stuck on Michael being the restraner I cannot agree with that Biblically #sorry
I am reading a lot of good discussion about who the restrainer is, but has it been settled as to who or what is being restrained.
Link Hudson Rico Hero Ricky Grimsley again pls make note of the Greek Paul uses and its English translation proper
The departure in 2Thes is the the Greek noun, apostasia It is used only twice in the New Testament in 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3 and in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia lit. to depart from] Moses.”
The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, andHebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from inquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 andLuke 4:13).
This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.” They were as follows:
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
The Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.”
The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.
Also quite important for us is the fact that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to
a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.
In light of this grammatical point, it is observed that the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernable notion. And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].
This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”
Show me one English translation that says what you want it to say and if not…..tell me how every translator got it wrong until now.
I showed you 7 already – pls read before you post
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
Troy Day how the word was translated in previous English translations yas little or nothing to do with what it means unless we think those translations were inspired. Ice used two names for the same teanslation and double counted when he made that argument. I don’t know of any Tyndale onlyists.
When used as a verb isn’t it generally clear whete one departs from and where too? The use of the definite article fits well with the ‘apostasy’ understanding of it.
From other passages, we know that in the end the love of many will growcold. We know that Paul predicted a departing from the faith following doctrines of demons.
In terms of the plain sense of the text the gathering unto Christ is likely a reference to the rapture. It makes sense to understand the day of Christ to refer to the return of Christ and yhe rapture. If ‘the departing’ must occur before the rapture, then it cannot be the rapture.
In Matthew 24 the love of many wax cold and the tribulation occur before the sign of the Son of Man coming and the gathering of the elect. Notice the clouds in this passage and in the I Thess. rapture passage.
There is no pretrib rapture event described. Near the end of the book, we see Jesus on a white horse. The we read about the “first resurrection”. Paul teaches the resurrection of the dead in Christ immediately preceded the rapture.
I cannot find any passage that shows the rapture occurring before the tribulation. If there is, please show me. There needs to be some kind of justification, Biblicallt, for retranslatingnthe text of II Thess.2. If you cannot show pretrib in any other passage that lays out the chronology (without just assumming it) then why argue for this interprtation?
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
all give us their plain sense of interpretation
Are you smarter than
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
??? I dont think so
Troy Day I am not saying ‘departing’ is a bad translation. Use of that word in translation does not change the meaning of the passage.
It is just silly to argue what a first century Greek passage means based on how it was translated over 1000 years later. Don’t you see the problem with the logic?
You know, since the first century was BEFORE the 14th century.
So now the English of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale are silly and not good enough for you 🙂 Got it! Like I told you some times ago if you dont accept the Bible there’s nothing you can be told anymore
What about Clement of Rome and the rest of the church fathers who wrote about pe-trib rapture Would you say they were wrong too so you can make yourself right?
Clement of Rome 68 or 97 AD
In Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians: “Let us take (for instance) Enoch…Noah…and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark. On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodore when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him.”
Ephraem the Syrian (4th century AD) of the Byzantine Church wrote about the Lord’s return as being imminent in his sermon “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” He stated, “All saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” Pseudo-Ephraem claims that his sermon was written by Ephraem of Nisibis (306 A.D.—373 A.D), considered to be the greatest figure in the history of the Syrian church.”
The Shepherd of Hermas (95-150)
“You have escaped from the great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt in the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming. If then ye prepare yourselves, and repent with all your heart, and turn to the Lord, it will be possible for you to escape it, if your heart be pure and spotless, and ye spend the rest of the days of your life serving the Lord blamelessly.”
Victorinus (Well known by 270 and died in 303 A.D.)
His commentary notes in Revelation 6:14 indicate a pretrib reference: “‘And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.’ For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away. ‘And every mountain and the islands removed from their places’ intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid persecution.”
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-ancient-church-fathers-believed-in-pre-trib-rapture/
Troy Day Troy Day, no it is silly to say a translation from 1300 proves what a first century Greek text means. It is dishonest for you to say I called Tyndale, etc. silly. You have a doctorate. Your arguments should make more sense than that. If you write something foolish, we can see it. Do you consider the posters here to be idiots?
Those quotes you gave– Hermas’ comment is not pretrib. If the church is in the presence of the beast, that is not pre-trib. Victorinus–many pretribbers also believe in the destruction of the earth to be replaced with the new heaven and the new earth at the end of the millenium. There is not enough context there to argue for pretrib. The only one that fits with pre-trib is Ephraem the Syrian. With all the people who have lived and wrote, someone is bound to get a little confused with the order in a passage like Matthew 24, a writer or scribe or someone.
The real issue is what the Bible teaches. I have given you plenty of scriptures that present a problem for pre-trib.
Jesus in Matthew 24 puts the sign of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect AFTER the tribulation of those days.Paul refers to the coming of Christ and our gathering until him also in II Thessalonians 2:1. Do you care to comment on that?
I know pre-tribbers have some ways of trying to deal with the difficulties. You linked to a page that contained several arguments, including trying to stretch the parousia out to a long period of time. I assume that is what you are referring to, since you did not say which aspect of the page you believed in.
My question is, what is the motivation for having to make these passages work with pre-trib? It is a plain sense reading to say the ‘departing’ or ‘apostasy’ occurs after the coming of Christ and our gathering unto him in II Thessalonians 2. What is the motivation for having to interpret the passage different from the plain sense of it? Why must we interpret difficult passages for pre-trib around pre-trib in the first place?
My point is, there are plenty of verses, when taken in a plain sense reading together, indicate that the saints are resurrected at or immediately after the coming of Christ. Where are the scriptures that lay out a pre-trib timeline? Where is the scripture that teaches pretrib that serves as the justification for working so hard to make scriptures fit with pre-trib.
I smarter than all of these put together. All Christians will face Tribulation. The end.
Yes all Christian who cant cut it in the Rapture will face the Tribulation True that
Troy Day roy Day The ancient church fathers believed how? Don’t think Hank did it that way! http://endtime-prophecy.com/?p=15
Some did as I quoted some didnt The ones on your link are selected a-mils like Augustine, whom I dont really count a church father more of a catholic church father
Gary Micheal Epping Rico Hero A.J. Bible who would yall say is the restrainer mentioned in 2 Thes 2:22
Troy Day without redefining the apostasia, can you give us one verse that says the rapture occurs pretrib. I have shown you scripture that puts it at Jesus’ coming.
you and Ricky Grimsley should learn how to mark yourself safe after a storm Maybe FB should offer you a special option to mark yourself safe after the Rapture Hey The Babylon Bee how about an article on marking yourself safe after the Rapture? I know I will not need to use it How about you Rico Hero Gary Micheal Epping A.J. Bible ???
I will be safe forevermore after the rapture.
Make sure you have that FB option installed
Nah.
mark yourself safe I tell ya
Troy Day how
Maybe the restrainer is not a person, but two events; “for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition (2TH 2:3)”
Gary Ricky Grimsley believes to be Micheal
Troy Day I know. Some say the restrainer is Michael, others say it is the church or the Holy Spirit. But maybe the restrainer is an event! Who exactly is the restrainer and what is being restrained? Verse 1 seems to say that what is being restrained is ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.’ And then verse 3 seems to say that the restrainer is a ‘falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed.” Or maybe I am being too literal.
which event would that be
Troy Day The two events in verse 3.
No argument there but I do see the Greek in 2:2 anticipating a person to be a restrainer or in the case of the Church an institution perhaps? Either way the 2 events are in a need for a doer in order to get them done #GetErDoneLord
The “lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thess 2:7 NKJV) in Paul’s time were the apostate church leaders preaching ” as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come.(v2). In this case , it was Paul restraining the lawlessness from these apostates from spreading. The true church is always the one restraining lawlessness. Imagine if the church is taken out of the way! Lawlessness will run riot. To the point when the anti christ sets up the abomination of desolation and claims to be God.
Troy Day Do you realize that if the ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him’ is being restrained by the revelation of the ‘man of sin,’ then the rapture can not happen until after the start of the Great Tribulation. Food for thought.
I believe the Restrainer is the Church
Troy Day an idea you eisegete into the text justifies your interpreting the Bible to have a 7 year parousia (coming) or two second comings and two gatherings to Christ?
eisegete? east gate?
Troy Day How is the Church restraining the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ?
restraining the appearance of the evil one by being present – once gone nothing the man of evil will manifest
Link Hudson just moments ago Rico Hero published the original AG statement on the rapture From what I understand one cannot be AG member and not adhere to the actual AG teaching which states
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul called the Rapture “our gathering together unto him.”
The Greek word for “gathering” is the same as the one used for “assembling” in Hebrews
10:25, referring to the assembling of Christians for worship. It is a picture of the saints
congregating around Christ at His coming for them.
The supernatural removal of godly individuals from earth is not unknown in
Scripture. The outstanding event in the life of Enoch was his miraculous disappearance
from earth after years of walking with God (Genesis 5:21-24). The author of Hebrews
called this experience a translation, bypassing death (Hebrews 11:5).
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/pp_4182_rapture.pdf?token=AWwBLA7PundJL8_qR8RIF2rI1smr9rYwn-0lZLvV2x9zqa7vu97j5Kikcj9iTot6jwSOJCO40yOuJrIWfQuSkn6-gmZCA-Os9u3mu3lOqk2tfSW5MyitgMyqSScSBKjZpJWkEkoPUciDWFA9cyo7wbw3NxrY9VXr1ZW_LSxYrxBaHw
The quote doesn’t say when. The quote fits better with post-trib than pretrib, since the Bible teaches that the resurrection occurs at Jesus’ coming, not seven years before HIs coming.
Yes the quote doesnt say when the pre-Trb rapture will happen but makes pretty clear AG is all pre-trib See the PDF Rico Hero and Terry Wiles posted earlier
I wouldn’t know about it, and the one in the post we are responding to is password protected.
No you wouldnt know – you would want us to know that you are smarter than the people who put up out AG eschatology and somehow they missed it while you didnt Try again
Troy Day Are you saying that one can’t be a an AG member unless they adhere to this pretrib teaching? It so, it would seem likewise that one could not be an AG member if they did not adhere to a young earth position concerning creation.
Gary Micheal Epping what do you think as AG member? I am arguing the Greek of this OP however, when one becomes AG member or grows up AG as Link Hudson claims they are either exposed to AG teachings OR if become member promise to adhere to AG teachings – one way or the other I have not a clue how one grows up AG and never hears pre-Trib teaching
As an AG member, I think it is important to have articles of the faith to unite the fellowship. But, I think it is health to allow members to thin outside the denominational box. Otherwise, the resolution in 1977 on creation might never have been altered as it was in 2010. I know Peter would not like that, as he is whole-heartedly fighting to try and get YEC reinstated. I grew up baptist with heavy duty teachings on the pretrib rapture. Also was exposed to it after I joined the AOG.
is it important we all adhere to our faith?
No doubt.
Troy Day Because you remember wrongly Troy. It would be strange indeed to grow up in the A/G in the 1980’s without hearing of the idea of the pre-trib rapture. Maybe nowadays. I don’t recall hearing it in Hawaii at about 8 months or so of night services I attended when our church did not meet Sunday night.
I did see a preacher get knighted to some sort of denominational position. When he got ordained, the next guy up in the heirarchy tapped a sword on his shoulders. A PH denomination in Hawaii had a denominational official who had people call him ‘Apostle Greg’, too.
Gary Micheal Epping, Troy Day, As I recall, I was a ‘junior member’ of an A/G as a teen. That’s the extent of my A/G membership. And I was pre-trib back then. As far as I know, A/G members are not required to believe everything in all the position papers. The doctrinal statement, as you know, is the 16 fundamental truths statement. The thing in there one might argue pre-trib from is ‘imminent’, but if 2000 years can be ‘soon’ and ‘a little while’, post-trib, mid-trib, and pre-wrath positions could be ‘imminent’ couldn’t they? I don’t really have a dog in that fight though.
Does the A/G require members to sign or state that they agree with all 16 points?
About the time I could have become a full-fledged member, I started going to college and my family movied north of UGA up in the Nicholson area, and we attended a Congregational Holiness church. I joined without them giving me any requirements. They gave me the handbook the next week. It contained something against praying in tongues at will, and rules against ‘mixed bathing’– but the youth and young adults went up to the former PTL club and all slid down that water, male and female.
I really learned a lot and benefited a lot from my time in the A/G, and learned a lot of scripture in Bible Quiz.
Naah I dont remember wrongly 🙂 Link Hudson FB helps with having a nice search option that confirms you said it Just learn to use and it will make a world of difference
Troy Day Go ahead and search it Troy and show me how you got that impression. I am a human being and I could have left out the word ‘not’ or something like that or worded something poorly, but I think it just as likely that you misread or remember wrongly.
I may have said I went to Pentecostal churches where eschatology was not taught in detail or words along those lines. I have also mentioned some churches not focusing much on the resurrection in the past. But I can’t think of any, except with some exceptions in the past couple of decades especially with the seeker sensitive types I’ve encoungered, where there ws no mention of the rapture.
I have heard some in-depth treatment of pre-trib rapture in the A/G, in one of the churches I attended at least.
At Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, I recall Jimmy Swaggart teaching on end times, talking about the rapture and the resurrection. They had a Bible college and some of the professors and staff members would teach Sunday school. When I was about 12, I started taking adult Sunday School classes, and I took an end-times class. And we had a guest speaker John G. Hall who had a giant dispensational chart. Jimmy Swaggart believed in a rebuilding of the literal city of Babylon, but other than that his ideas seemed to fit with the other teacher’s theories. That was in the space of about 2 years. Elsewhere, I’ve heard pre-trib rapture taught on in some churches, but mostly it pops up a bit in sermons here and there without being the topic of the sermon. I suspect there are many churches that do not go into detailed exposition of the entire pre-trib theory from the pulpit.
Based on my background, I cannot see myself saying that I grew up not hearing pre-trib taught in the A/G. That’s not true, and it is not something I would say, unless I omitted a word in a post or worded it poorly. But I don’t knwo what you are talking about.
naah dont have that much time to spend on you but aint it nice this discussion is not about you and what you believe but about the Pentecostal doctrine of the pre-trib RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH
Gordon Fee, the well known AOG theologian, has some very different ideas on the rapture as well as the whole book of Revelation. Evidently the AOG allows other views on the rapture to exist in addition to the pretrib position..
well there is a fine line between Abandoning your roots or rethinking your theology http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/abandoning-your-roots-or-rethinking-your-theology/
Speaking of denominations in general, some roots, traditions, and theologies need to be abandoned if they are not in line with the bible. However, it is difficult to change a tradition unless people in authority allow members to think outside the theological box. Otherwise, there is no mechanism for change. to occur. As an example, I have two friends that used to be baptists. At one point, they were touched in a church service and began to speak in tongues. They were told to quiet down by the Elders and were quickly escorted out. They were told that their behavior was unbecoming of a christian, as tongues were of the devil. Eventually, they left and joined an AOG church. This is a common practice in many churches. Either follow the rules or go elsewhere. Yet today, the Baptist have somehow reevaluated their position on speaking in tongues, and now allow missionaries to do so. Yes, it is important to have the means to rethink our theologies. https://www.charismanews.com/us/49661-southern-baptists-change-policy-on-speaking-in-tongues
I wasnt speaking of denominational root per se Such may or may not exist at any point of time in history My main concern here is that WHEN the Pentecostal tradition is being bombarded with new teachings as often is done with 2 Thes 2 one may just loos faith
I agree. Change should not occur with every new teaching that comes down the pike. But, there should be a built in mechanism to allow for change. Otherwise bad theologies can get set in stone with no means to change them.
Troy Day Faith should be in the word of God, not denominational positions.
If you are part of the AG you must adhere to to the doctrinal teachings – that’s the whole point If you are not Pentecostal and just visiting you are free to believe yourself BUT one cant simply discard the doctrinal teaching and still claim to be Pentecostal – thats all
Troy Day Just to be clear, can you tell us what you think an AG member must adhere to? The four core cardinal doctrines, the 16 fundamental truths, position papers, and/or other statements?
Gary it is a part of our organizational requirement I give you from the chapter on Congregations the part on Self-governing churches
A church is qualified for General Council affiliated status if it:
accepts AG doctrines,
adopts a standard of membership,
has an active voting membership of at least 20 persons,
adopts a governance model that prevents a pastor or governing body from “exert[ing] dictatorial control over a church”,
has an adequate number of spiritually qualified members to fill the offices of the church,
has made provision for a pastor who is a credentialed minister in good standing with the General Council.
Terry Wiles may confirm that a church that does not accept AG doctrines and its standard of membership cannot qualify to be part of the fellowship This is very much true since our beginnings in 1914 whereas the aspotolic churches were booted out One can of course attend for whatever reason However, membership in the fellowship is on the basis of accepting AG doctrines as the one Rico Hero clearly cited with the positional paper
Futhermote the assembly shall recognize that the District Council and the General Council have the authority and right to approve scriptural doctrine and conduct; also to disapprove unscriptural doctrine and conduct and to withdraw their certificates of membership if deemed necessary. See Article IX of the Bylaws of The General Council of the Assemblies of God.
I was always taught that the 16 fundamental truths (which include the four core doctrines) are the doctrines that a prospective new member must adhere to in order to join. In addition, the position papers are official statements from the General Presbytery on a controversial issues. Correct me if i am wrong.
How else would one be kicked out for heresy? There has to be a membership fail proof in doctrine right?
True, based on the 16 fundamental doctrinal truths. And you add to not only join the church, but also to be used to kick an existing member out of the church when needed.
and not just the 16 – any positional paper is an interpretation of the 16 we agree upon How else should a church stand together if not agreeing on doctrines? And what else distinguish us from any other secular or religious organization if not the agreeing upon our common doctrines?
hey Gary Micheal Epping so apart from the doctrinal adherence – and BTW AG calls its fellowship members and adherents SO both categories include adhering to doctrine – but apart from that HOW do we interpret the fact that the doctrinal paper Rico Hero presented interprets 2 Thes as pre-Trib rapture – I dont think I know more than all AG scholars to propose alternative rendering Do we take the paper as THE official AG Pentecostal interpretation of the 2 Thes passage or do we deviate from the official doctrine and adhere to some private interpretation?
Troy Day I have already agreed that the 16 fundamental truths are the key doctrines. However, the positional papers are NOT truths but a position that is currently held and subject to future change.
they are scholarly interpretation of the truths We cannot see them as separate from the doctrinal truths – the papers cannot be seen as something separate or independent from our doctrines as they emerge from them as their non-private interpretations
Troy Day If you are going to kick a member out of fellowship, it had better be based on the 16 truths, and not a recent ‘scholarly interpretation.’ As an example, a member in 1980 could have been in violation of the 1977 position paper on the doctrine of creation for following the heretical gap theory and kicked out of the fellowship. Yet his buddy of the same following was in good graces in 2012 after the changes that took place in 2010 to the doctrine on creation. And what about the Preterist member that was in violation in both instances? Best to stick with the fundamental 16 truths if you are going to kick someone out.
Kick someone out? Are A/G’s supposed to be churches or branches of a man-made denomination. If they are churches they should not kick people out for anything that is not justified to kick someone out of a chruch according to scripture. If they are teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh or are in unrepentent fornication, it makes sense to disfellowship them. But even if someone is a preterist, is that justification to kick them out of church?
Link Hudson I agree. I was just putting forth a hypothetical example of what could occur with changing positional papers. Both Troy and myself might have been in trouble before 2010 according to the example.
positional papers are written as interpretation of the 16 truths They are not remote research but emerge from the AG tradition and praxis and are there to help us understand what we believe better And yes as approved by the Council they are official – therefore agreed upon Otherwise the Council would not approve them to start with
Troy Day The A/G has moved from a loose affiliation of Pentecostal churches to a more centralized denomination. There were those who did not like the idea of a doctrinal statement other than the Bible to start with, or so I have read, but the Oneness movement led to that decision. Then it was a loose fellowship with a doctrinal statement and Bible Colleges. You probably know a lot more about what it is like now than I do.
Does the denomination require that members of individual churches sign or acknowledge belief of all 16 fundamental truths? For those who are ordained A/G, is there a requirement that they believe in every position paper? Those papers are lengthy enough where it is likely that there is at least a line here and there that just about every A/G preacher would not completely agree with.
Do you agree that elders are pastors, for example? It seems like you disagreed with me on that. I came across a reference to that in the A/G paper on divorce, and I believe another paper addresses that.
I strongly disagree on the centralized denomination Terry Wiles Anyone who claims that especially lately has not a clue what AG stands for The separation of districts or regions with international representatives in the general assembly is a clear example WAGF and what is stands for proves that as well Centralized in the terms of Link’s cog or episcopal church is no match for our international global organization
Troy Day Hahaha. Link’s…episcopal church. As far as ecclesiology, I am more in line with my thinking with house church people. I spent more time in the A/G than in the COG. For some reason I got the impression that you were COG, so I would mention it when we first started our discussions.
The A/G is not nearly as centralized as the COG (Clevland) in the US at least, btw, just maybe a little more than it used to be. Again, you probably know more about this than I do.
Link Hudson did you ever read Pentecost as I recommended ? You are no cog thats for sure They have practical commitments too It is yet to establish if you are even AG more of a bapticostla church hopper as it seems
Link Hudson Troy Day is more COG than AG on the subject of sanctification. Troy Day
naah not really – you read the truth on Sanctification without the word DAILY and its all entire Not only I adhere to our truths but I go a step further to finish it entirely http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/assemblies-of-god-too-believe-in-entire-sanctification/
Gary Micheal Epping If you have to agree to believe something to be a member, you have to agree with that.
It would seem unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that everyone would adhere to the position papers. If that were enforced, the A/G would be rather small.
Troy Day I had a look at a paper maybe a decade or two ago on the topic of spiritual warfare by an A/G sister who talked about I Corinthians 10 being about warfare over ideas. As I recall, it did not agree with some of the modern so-called ‘spiritual warfare’ stuff. I was thinking that was an A/G position paper, but I could be mistaken. Are you familiar with it? Did you agree with it?
Do you disagree with A/G position papers that equate elders with pastors?
Back in the day, the A/G called itself a movement, not a denomination. How tightly do you think it needs to enforce some of the details of doctirnal conformity, like the position papers/
its very SIMPLE – AG has made an effort to provide an official scholarly interpretation of 2 Thes that coheres with our doctrine. You either believe it as AG or you are something else – bapticostal, reformed, liberal or else but not AG if you disagree
According to what you say, it must be assumed that you were not true AG before 2010 because of your stance against the 1977 position paper on the creation doctrine, since you follow the deviant Gap theory.
How do you mean Gary? My understanding of Gap Theory has been clarified many ol times I am not aware of any document that relates it to our foundation truths per se All and while the pre-Trib rapture has been with AG doctrine since its start and has been affirmed on so many occasions that any one arguing otherwise just stands corrected by thousands of pages of documents BUT again what is important here is 2 Thes 2 – how else but pre-Trib could one translate and interpret it without being against Pentecostal doctrine?
You do know that Gap theory was not allowed in the 1977 decree, but only allowed in the 2010 paper. So, yes, you have only recently become a full fledged AG member. Don’t you remember Peter Fiske has already told you about all of this from Ken Ham’s article reaction to the 2010 AOG positional paper change on Creation. I will include the link below, along with some comments that that show YEC was the only stance of the AOG prior to 2010.
AG’s response then states the following: “It should be remembered that the original paper of 1977 similarly chose not to adopt a particular creation theory, no doubt because Assemblies of God believers in fact espouse a wide variety of creation theories and each one feels their particular approach should be the one adopted in an official position paper. The Commission did not feel it was wise to present a paper sufficiently comprehensive to argue to case for and against the various theories.”
Ham responds, “First of all, as documented above, a statement on AG’s very own website clearly clarified the 1977 statement as teaching six literal days and a young earth. Now AG is arguing for the acceptance of a ‘wide variety of creation theories.’ However, in doing so the AG denomination is now taking a particular position—one that allows all positions. However, as stated above, arguing for this view actually eliminates the position that Genesis only teaches six literal days and a young earth. Just as there can be only one position on the Resurrection and virgin birth, there can only be one position on Genesis.”
So, there you have it, as told by Peter himself. We can not cut Peter any slack, as his new site is politicalizing the situation to put pressure on the AOG to change the stance back to a literal six days and a young earth. If he is successful, you may not be true AOG for long. https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/09/15/assemblies-of-god-denomination-responds-but-what-does-it-really-mean/
I do know that but as I said above to which of the 16 truths would you relate it? Its obviously not essential neither it was for our early AG in 1914 The pre-rapture of the church however has always been that important As I already made my point
Troy Day We are talking about the position papers on the doctrine of creation in both 1977 and 2010. You have already said that AOG members must adhere to the position papers. If you are going to ride the high horse on the pretrib rapture, you must ride it on the doctrine of creation too. Ask Peter, he will tell you as he told me that the Gap theory is a heresy and those that profess it are false teachers. All of that is in the archives somewhere. However, if you were to ask my opinion, I would have to say both Fiske and Ham are full of baloney.
Again – which of the 16 truths do you see related to those papers on Gap Theory?
Troy Day I am relating it to the position papers on creation, which YOU SAID WE MUST ADHERE TO.
I understand that well Which of the 16 truths do you feel they interpret that makes them essential ?
Troy Day I don’t know, as I did not write the papers but only read them.. On the AOG site, it says, “As the need arises to make a statement on a controversial issue, a study is done and a report given to the General Presbytery for approval as an official statement of The General Council of the Assemblies of God.” Maybe the position papers should not be considered along side the 16 doctrinal truths, as they are subject to change and politicalizing by people like Peter. Only the 16 fundamental truths are unchanging over time, as they are based entirely on the Bible.
it has to be a paper in reference to a doctrine – lets say there is a paper against smoking/drinking ; must members adhere? Terry Wiles has the answer
but lets say its a positional paper on life on Mars – oh well
Or I’ve long argued against positional papers on POLITICAL issues like migration or Israel – ppl will always divide Are these doctrine?
well there is NO question rapture is a doctrinal teaching so not only we adhere to it but need papers to explain what exactly is the Biblical background and why we believe it
Gary Micheal Epping here they are again the 16 truths to WHICH one of them do you feel the Gap Theory papers were written THE rapture papers were written in relation to truths 13-16 etc
http://familywc.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/16-Fundamental-Truths.pdf
I have already been looking at those on the AOG website iin my earlier posts. I have never said the position papers define doctrine along side the 16 fundamental truths. I asked you that question. You are the one that made the statement that prospective new AG members and existing members must adhere to both. It is fine with me if you want to retract or revise that. I was always taught that a new member or a member in good standing must adhere solely to the 16 fundamental truths, especially the 4 core truths.
You asked me a question and I answered it but your question proves nothing yet Gap Theory is not a good example of what you are trying to prove because there too many variables but yes I see your point I just dont see how you relate to the essential truths – maybe you can answer my question to which of the truths do you relate Gap Theory – again not a good example
on the other hand AG has not however at least not yet changed position on pre-Trib rapture so there you have it as adhered among us so is our doctrine as well
Troy Day It is the POSITION PAPER on pretrib rapture that Rico posted, not a reference to one of the 16 fundamental truths.
actually this OP is about the official AG interpretation of 2 Thes as Scripture for the pre-trib Rapture As far as I know it has not changed until today and here it is again
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 Paul called the Rapture “our gathering together unto him.”
The Greek word for “gathering” is the same as the one used for “assembling” in Hebrews
10:25, referring to the assembling of Christians for worship. It is a picture of the saints
congregating around Christ at His coming for them.
The supernatural removal of godly individuals from earth is not unknown in
Scripture. The outstanding event in the life of Enoch was his miraculous disappearance
from earth after years of walking with God (Genesis 5:21-24). The author of Hebrews
called this experience a translation, bypassing death (Hebrews 11:5).
This official AG interpretation of 2TH would refer back on the AOG website to Fundamental Truth #” 13. THE BLESSED HOPE
“The resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in Christ and their translation together with those who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord is the imminent and blessed hope of the church.” I have no problem at all with that statement.
Yes Lord come quickly – cog also simply say pre-mil in their statement of faith leaving it open to pre/post trub BUT just like AG they too have positional papers clarifying that they are pre-trib and so say their leaders too so members still adhere
But all arguments aside the whole removal of pre-trub rapture started in post WW2 when NAEA / NAE National Association of Evangelicals started requiring statement of faith for membership and had problem with the whole pre-Trib