called to Postrib?

[randyk]

I don't think it's entirely fair for someone to argue a position simply claiming he is called to do so. And yet there is one here who claims to be called into the field of eschatology, and thus owns all rights to interpret biblical eschatology as Pretribulational.


And so, I'm returning the favor, if for no other reason than to show the shallowness of such an assertion. I will likewise claim I'm "called" to the field of eschatology, and to the Postribulational position. I in fact believe this, but I certainly don't base my arguments strictly on a claimed "calling." You will find that the arguments themselves are a more compelling way for me to argue my case.


I could give you an entire testimony as to how I came to a Postrib position. I will just give you scant details. In around 1972 my brother had attended the teaching of Bill Gothard, who at the time was encouraging Christians to memorize the Bible. For some reason, my brother preached to me for a long time about my need to memorize Scriptures. I did so. One of the portions of Scriptures I memorized was the book of 2 Thessalonians.


After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position. Up to that time I had been taught the Pretrib position by friends in the Jesus/Charismatic Movement. The position I was raised up in never mentioned Pretribulationism. But having adopted, through my pastor and friends, the Pretrib position, I could *not* justify that position based on what I had memorized in 2 Thessalonians.


The following year or so I made my way to the state of CA, where I found myself listening to a Pretrib teacher on the radio. He had written a commentary on Revelation, and I began to doubt my new-found Postribulationism. I felt I couldn't be smarter than this man! I began to reconsider whether Pretribulationism was right.


So I found myself in utter confusion on the subject, and headed for the bookstore that my church had--it was a Pretrib church, but they had a school of theology, and I expected the bookstore to assist me on the matter. When I looked in the store, a fellow customer came up to me and asked what I was looking for. I told him I wanted to compare the Postrib position with the Pretrib position. He pointed out 2 books to me, which I purchased. They were books by Robert Gundry and George Ladd--what I later realized were 2 classics on the Postrib position in recent times.


I returned to a firm belief in the Postrib position, and wondered why I had had so much confusion when Ladd and Gundry made the issue so clear to me? I felt that God had spoken to me through His word in 2 Thessalonians earlier, and I had simply chosen to doubt it, due to the radio teacher's influence.


I've now been an advocate for Postribulationism for decades, despite the fact I still attend Pretrib churches. My church's denominations requires belief in Pretribulationism.

Most of my friends are therefore Pretrib in their eschatology. But in reality, none of them wants to even talk to me about the subject. My pastors, who recently resigned, both claimed they wanted to talk to me about it, but never responded to my phone or email messages. They had even given me their email addresses, claiming they wanted to talk to me about it, but never ever responded to my emails.

They persisted on preaching Pretribulationsim from the pulpit, and in Bible Studies. But they never had any answers to my Postrib position when I spelled it out in Bible studies. I would much rather argue substance than a "calling!"

[divaD]

Re: called to Postrib?

I don't think it's entirely fair for someone to argue a position simply claiming he is called to do so. And yet there is one here who claims to be called into the field of eschatology, and thus owns all rights to interpret biblical eschatology as Pretribulational.


And so, I'm returning the favor, if for no other reason than to show the shallowness of such an assertion. I will likewise claim I'm "called" to the field of eschatology, and to the Postribulational position. I in fact believe this, but I certainly don't base my arguments strictly on a claimed "calling." You will find that the arguments themselves are a more compelling way for me to argue my case.


I could give you an entire testimony as to how I came to a Postrib position. I will just give you scant details. In around 1972 my brother had attended the teaching of Bill Gothard, who at the time was encouraging Christians to memorize the Bible. For some reason, my brother preached to me for a long time about my need to memorize Scriptures. I did so. One of the portions of Scriptures I memorized was the book of 2 Thessalonians.


After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position. Up to that time I had been taught the Pretrib position by friends in the Jesus/Charismatic Movement. The position I was raised up in never mentioned Pretribulationism. But having adopted, through my pastor and friends, the Pretrib position, I could *not* justify that position based on what I had memorized in 2 Thessalonians.


The following year or so I made my way to the state of CA, where I found myself listening to a Pretrib teacher on the radio. He had written a commentary on Revelation, and I began to doubt my new-found Postribulationism. I felt I couldn't be smarter than this man! I began to reconsider whether Pretribulationism was right.


So I found myself in utter confusion on the subject, and headed for the bookstore that my church had--it was a Pretrib church, but they had a school of theology, and I expected the bookstore to assist me on the matter. When I looked in the store, a fellow customer came up to me and asked what I was looking for. I told him I wanted to compare the Postrib position with the Pretrib position. He pointed out 2 books to me, which I purchased. They were books by Robert Gundry and George Ladd--what I later realized were 2 classics on the Postrib position in recent times.


I returned to a firm belief in the Postrib position, and wondered why I had had so much confusion when Ladd and Gundry made the issue so clear to me? I felt that God had spoken to me through His word in 2 Thessalonians earlier, and I had simply chosen to doubt it, due to the radio teacher's influence.


I've now been an advocate for Postribulationism for decades, despite the fact I still attend Pretrib churches. My church's denominations requires belief in Pretribulationism.

Most of my friends are therefore Pretrib in their eschatology. But in reality, none of them wants to even talk to me about the subject. My pastors, who recently resigned, both claimed they wanted to talk to me about it, but never responded to my phone or email messages. They had even given me their email addresses, claiming they wanted to talk to me about it, but never ever responded to my emails.

They persisted on preaching Pretribulationsim from the pulpit, and in Bible Studies. But they never had any answers to my Postrib position when I spelled it out in Bible studies. I would much rather argue substance than a "calling!"

This was an excellent post. I enjoyed reading it. Some things you and I don't see eye to eye on. Fortunately this doesn't appear to be one of those things.


According to Pretrib, the church is not even supposed to be here during the GT. Also according to Pretrib, those left behind can be saved during the GT. Anybody with any good common sense would know what that equals, if that were the case. It would equal the church goes through the GT, regardless, because when one gets saved, regardless when that might be, that equals being a part of the church at that point. Therefore Pretribbers are contradicting their position by claiming the church doesn't even go through the GT, while at the same time they proving it does by claiming those left behind can get saved after the church has been removed.

[Cyberseeker]

Re: called to Postrib?

Cant go far wrong with Robert Gundry and George Ladd. Just add Kim Riddlebarger to the list and (like me) you'll have gone the full circle.

[pdun459]

Re: called to Postrib?

Thank you for this post. What is your definition of Post-trib?

I also was a Pre-tribber for a long time because that's what everyone taught me when I didn't know any better. Now I lean towards pre-wrath, but can also see mid-trib as a possibility. 2 Thessalonians pretty much clinches it—the rapture won't happen until after the man of sin is revealed:

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed. . ."—2 Thes. 1-3.

For the Pre-trib scenario to even be possible, the man of sin has to be revealed at the very beginning of the great tribulation. But after examining all the scriptures and hearing all the arguments, this position just doesn't hold up. Besides this, nowhere in scripture is a secret rapture taught. Those who teach it have twisted the scriptures to make them say what they want them to say. They've brainwashed and deluded most of the Church. In them the scripture is fulfilled:

". . .because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. . ."—2 Thess. 2:10-11.

[divaD]

Re: called to Postrib?

Thank you for this post. What is your definition of Post-trib?

I also was a Pre-tribber for a long time because that's what everyone taught me when I didn't know any better. Now I lean towards pre-wrath, but can also see mid-trib as a possibility. 2 Thessalonians pretty much clinches it—the rapture won't happen until after the man of sin is revealed:

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed. . ."—2 Thes. 1-3.

For the Pre-trib scenario to even be possible, the man of sin has to be revealed at the very beginning of the great tribulation. But after examining all the scriptures and hearing all the arguments, this position just doesn't hold up. Besides this, nowhere in scripture is a secret rapture taught. Those who teach it have twisted the scriptures to make them say what they want them to say. They've brainwashed and deluded most of the Church. In them the scripture is fulfilled:

". . .because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. . ."—2 Thess. 2:10-11.

Midtrib is essentially the same thing as Pretrib. The GT is only 3.5 years in length, and not 7 years like many claim. The GT initially begins in the middle of the 70th week, therefore placing it in the latter half of the 70th week. If one were raptured midtrib, that would equal being raptured Pretrib, since both positions have one being raptured before the GT begins, thus they essentially mean the same thing. In order to even logically be raptured midtrib, one would have to be raptured in the middle of the 3.5 years. Yet no one concludes that. The idea of midtrib comes from the false notion that the GT is 7 years rather than 3.5 years.

As to Prewrath, that would still fall under post trib, at least as far as I can tell.

[Pesachpup]

Re: called to Postrib?

I don't think it's entirely fair for someone to argue a position simply claiming he is called to do so. And yet there is one here who claims to be called into the field of eschatology, and thus owns all rights to interpret biblical eschatology as Pretribulational.


And so, I'm returning the favor, if for no other reason than to show the shallowness of such an assertion. I will likewise claim I'm "called" to the field of eschatology, and to the Postribulational position. I in fact believe this, but I certainly don't base my arguments strictly on a claimed "calling." You will find that the arguments themselves are a more compelling way for me to argue my case.


I could give you an entire testimony as to how I came to a Postrib position. I will just give you scant details. In around 1972 my brother had attended the teaching of Bill Gothard, who at the time was encouraging Christians to memorize the Bible. For some reason, my brother preached to me for a long time about my need to memorize Scriptures. I did so. One of the portions of Scriptures I memorized was the book of 2 Thessalonians.


After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position. Up to that time I had been taught the Pretrib position by friends in the Jesus/Charismatic Movement. The position I was raised up in never mentioned Pretribulationism. But having adopted, through my pastor and friends, the Pretrib position, I could *not* justify that position based on what I had memorized in 2 Thessalonians.


The following year or so I made my way to the state of CA, where I found myself listening to a Pretrib teacher on the radio. He had written a commentary on Revelation, and I began to doubt my new-found Postribulationism. I felt I couldn't be smarter than this man! I began to reconsider whether Pretribulationism was right.


So I found myself in utter confusion on the subject, and headed for the bookstore that my church had--it was a Pretrib church, but they had a school of theology, and I expected the bookstore to assist me on the matter. When I looked in the store, a fellow customer came up to me and asked what I was looking for. I told him I wanted to compare the Postrib position with the Pretrib position. He pointed out 2 books to me, which I purchased. They were books by Robert Gundry and George Ladd--what I later realized were 2 classics on the Postrib position in recent times.


I returned to a firm belief in the Postrib position, and wondered why I had had so much confusion when Ladd and Gundry made the issue so clear to me? I felt that God had spoken to me through His word in 2 Thessalonians earlier, and I had simply chosen to doubt it, due to the radio teacher's influence.


I've now been an advocate for Postribulationism for decades, despite the fact I still attend Pretrib churches. My church's denominations requires belief in Pretribulationism.

Most of my friends are therefore Pretrib in their eschatology. But in reality, none of them wants to even talk to me about the subject. My pastors, who recently resigned, both claimed they wanted to talk to me about it, but never responded to my phone or email messages. They had even given me their email addresses, claiming they wanted to talk to me about it, but never ever responded to my emails.

They persisted on preaching Pretribulationsim from the pulpit, and in Bible Studies. But they never had any answers to my Postrib position when I spelled it out in Bible studies. I would much rather argue substance than a "calling!"

Your presentation here is but one of an innumerable attempts by a post-tribber to "prove" that their position is correct (that I have read) by merely focusing their defence of their view that the pretrib position is wrong, and therefore, theirs is the correct position. I see this from both sides of the argument. Pre-tribbers do the same thing with the post-trib position. Essentially, one justifies their position by simply showing that the others position is wrong, i.e. I am right BECAUSE you are wrong, [not because "I" have proven my position to be right, but because I have proven yours to be a flawed position]. The problem is, there are not just two positions. Both arguments succeed because IMO, both are wrong. You said this:

"After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position."

Without simply attacking the pretrib position, show me how 2 Thess 2 proves your position. I am asking you to expound on it defence of the post-trib position. [FYI, I am neither pretrib, non-trib, nor do I hold to the traditional post-trib position].

Be Blessed
The PuP

[divaD]

Re: called to Postrib?

Your presentation here is but one of an innumerable attempts by a post-tribber to "prove" that their position is correct (that I have read) by merely focusing their defence of their view that the pretrib position is wrong, and therefore, theirs is the correct position. I see this from both sides of the argument. Pre-tribbers do the same thing with the post-trib position. Essentially, one justifies their position by simply showing that the others position is wrong, i.e. I am right BECAUSE you are wrong, [not because "I" have proven my position to be right, but because I have proven yours to be a flawed position]. The problem is, there are not just two positions. Both arguments succeed because IMO, both are wrong. You said this:

"After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position."

Without simply attacking the pretrib position, show me how 2 Thess 2 proves your position. I am asking you to expound on it defence of the post-trib position. [FYI, I am neither pretrib, non-trib, nor do I hold to the traditional post-trib position].

Be Blessed
The PuP

2 Thessalonians 2:2 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;


for that day shall not come. I would think that is referring to the day of Christ mentioned in verse 2.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,


I would also think the day of Christ is referring to the coming mentioned in verse 1.

What does the text say in verse 3? Does it not say that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition? Wouldn't that mean exactly what it states, that except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, that day shall not come before all of these things are fulfilled first?

[Pesachpup]

Re: called to Postrib?

2 Thessalonians 2:2 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;


for that day shall not come. I would think that is referring to the day of Christ mentioned in verse 2.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,


I would also think the day of Christ is referring to the coming mentioned in verse 1.

What does the text say in verse 3? Does it not say that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition? Wouldn't that mean exactly what it states, that except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, that day shall not come before all of these things are fulfilled first?

Though I agree with the reference to "that day", the problem is, "at hand" does not mean near/ imminent (eggus, G1451) as in the following:

Verse list:
Mat 24:33 KJV So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is NEAR, even at the doors.
Mar 13:29 KJV So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is NIGH, even at the doors.
Luk 21:30-31 KJV When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now NIGH at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is NIGH at hand.

But the words "at hand" is the word enistemi, G1764, which means, that it "is present". The day of Christ, being present, is not referring to a single day [such as the rapture, or 2nd advent], but is referring to a period of time. That period of time is referring to the revelation of the man of sin and the associated wrath. When Paul said, "now you know what is holding things up, (the falling away) ", it is this tidbit of info that Paul just gave them, that clarifies the matter, that is keeping him from being revealed, aka, the day of Christ. And because it is NOT a (single) day, but a period of time, the one that is being revealed, is not the DAY of the rapture or the DAY of the 2nd advent. It is the revealing of thee man of sin and not Christ that is preventing the day of Christ from coming. Paul is equating the day of Christ (as a period of time) with the revelation of the man of sin. This is expounded on in the remaining parts of 2 Thess 2 (from verse 7 and following) as the wrath of God, in the form of deception, being poured out on those who rejected the truth and instead had "pleasure in unrighteousness".

Be Blessed
The PuP

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

This was an excellent post. I enjoyed reading it. Some things you and I don't see eye to eye on. Fortunately this doesn't appear to be one of those things.


According to Pretrib, the church is not even supposed to be here during the GT. Also according to Pretrib, those left behind can be saved during the GT. Anybody with any good common sense would know what that equals, if that were the case. It would equal the church goes through the GT, regardless, because when one gets saved, regardless when that might be, that equals being a part of the church at that point. Therefore Pretribbers are contradicting their position by claiming the church doesn't even go through the GT, while at the same time they proving it does by claiming those left behind can get saved after the church has been removed.

Yes, it's always heartening when someone you often disagree with actually agrees with you on something! Thanks for entering your thoughts here. I feel the same way, and I would add that even Pretribbers admit that there is a "Tribulation Church." They are those who were "left behind."

This seems to contradict the whole reason for arguing against a Tribulation Church! If Christians are supposed to be given to "escape" this period of time, and if they are not supposed to experience any of "God's Wrath," and if we are told we will be "kept from the hour of trial," why then would God go ahead and let this happen even to those who were left behind? Are promises and assurances given to the Church before the Tribulation different than promises and assurances given to those during the Tribulation?

And what about those Christians who have already gone through this kind of tribulation, who have had to face a variety of antichrists throughout history? Did they "escape" their own age of tribulation? No? Were they kept from their own "hour of trial?" No. Did their going through great persecution indicate they faced "God's wrath?" No!

As Cory ten Boom said, the Pretrib Doctrine is a deception perpetrated by well-meaning, but misled theologians and scholars, who wanted to believe that Christ died for the Church so that the Church wouldn't have to suffer. We have that in the Peace and Prosperity Movement too. One thing I'm clear on--Christ said we were not greater than him. If he had to suffer, we have to suffer too. If we truly hold up his name and his spirit, we will indeed be opposed, and will have to suffer a measure of tribulation.

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

Cant go far wrong with Robert Gundry and George Ladd. Just add Kim Riddlebarger to the list and (like me) you'll have gone the full circle.

I'm not familiar with Riddlebarger, but I understand that he is from my old haunt, the Orange County area. I lived in Anaheim for awhile. And it seems he's Amillennial and Reformed in theology. I'm fully on board Reformed Theology, but not with Amil, although the church I grew up with was in that mold.

Surely Riddlebarger was exposed to Ladd, since the latter was a professor at Fuller T.S., and Riddlebarger attended. Anyway, Reformation Theology is clearly on the side of Postrib, and naturally, I agree with that. The Reformers believed that the RCC was, in fact, the Antichrist. So clearly, to them, they had not been "Raptured" out of the Tribulation, since they found themselves right in what they believed was the middle of it!

[Cyberseeker]

Re: called to Postrib?

Yes, Riddlebarger is Amill, but he writes with an emphasis that appeals to premillennialism/posttribers. Get his book, ‘The Man of Sin’ if you enjoy a good read.

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

Thank you for this post. What is your definition of Post-trib?

I also was a Pre-tribber for a long time because that's what everyone taught me when I didn't know any better. Now I lean towards pre-wrath, but can also see mid-trib as a possibility. 2 Thessalonians pretty much clinches it—the rapture won't happen until after the man of sin is revealed:

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed. . ."—2 Thes. 1-3.

For the Pre-trib scenario to even be possible, the man of sin has to be revealed at the very beginning of the great tribulation. But after examining all the scriptures and hearing all the arguments, this position just doesn't hold up. Besides this, nowhere in scripture is a secret rapture taught. Those who teach it have twisted the scriptures to make them say what they want them to say. They've brainwashed and deluded most of the Church. In them the scripture is fulfilled:

". . .because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie. . ."—2 Thess. 2:10-11.

You have presented a couple of my cardinal arguments vs. Pretrib.
1) Pretrib is a "Secret Rapture" supported not by explicit biblical teaching, but rather, by private revelation read into biblical symbolism.
2) 2 Thes 2 is explicit Postrib Theology, as you have properly pointed out. To get it to say something else requires an incredible amount of "doctoring."

My definition of Postrib is simply Christ's return at the end of the age, in the context of Antichrist's defeat. That is how it is presented in Dan 7, the Olivet Discourse, and 2 Thess. The book of Revelation itself is the product of numerous smaller visions, each of which is based on Dan 7--Christ comes at the end of the age.

I have friends who basically sympathize with Postrib Theology who are PreWrath and MidTrib. My problem is mostly with PreTrib, although as I mentioned, most of my closest friends are PreTrib, since I go to a church that is PreTrib. It shows you that for me Cardinal Salvation Doctrines take great precedence over Eschatological differences!

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

Yes, Riddlebarger is Amill, but he writes with an emphasis that appeals to premillennialism/posttribers. Get his book, ‘The Man of Sin’ if you enjoy a good read.

I would like that. I've been in a great reading mood lately!

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

Midtrib is essentially the same thing as Pretrib. The GT is only 3.5 years in length, and not 7 years like many claim. The GT initially begins in the middle of the 70th week, therefore placing it in the latter half of the 70th week. If one were raptured midtrib, that would equal being raptured Pretrib, since both positions have one being raptured before the GT begins, thus they essentially mean the same thing. In order to even logically be raptured midtrib, one would have to be raptured in the middle of the 3.5 years. Yet no one concludes that. The idea of midtrib comes from the false notion that the GT is 7 years rather than 3.5 years.

As to Prewrath, that would still fall under post trib, at least as far as I can tell.

Prewrath is very much a Postrib perspective. The difference is very minor, in my opinion. It acknowledges that God's People are not destined for Wrath at Christ's Coming, and so believe that the Church will be spared some of the final outpouring of judgment. For me, God's Wrath, poured on on an ungodly world at Christ's Coming, will kill Christians too, but does not constitute "suffering God's wrath." We are simply the victims of "friendly fire," or "collateral damage." Innocent civilians often suffer in great numbers in a large-scale war. Their deaths do not in any way indicate their guilt in that conflict.

[randyk]

Re: called to Postrib?

Your presentation here is but one of an innumerable attempts by a post-tribber to "prove" that their position is correct (that I have read) by merely focusing their defence of their view that the pretrib position is wrong, and therefore, theirs is the correct position. I see this from both sides of the argument. Pre-tribbers do the same thing with the post-trib position. Essentially, one justifies their position by simply showing that the others position is wrong, i.e. I am right BECAUSE you are wrong, [not because "I" have proven my position to be right, but because I have proven yours to be a flawed position]. The problem is, there are not just two positions. Both arguments succeed because IMO, both are wrong. You said this:

"After memorizing this book I was surprised that it taught, explicitly, the Postrib position."

Without simply attacking the pretrib position, show me how 2 Thess 2 proves your position. I am asking you to expound on it defence of the post-trib position. [FYI, I am neither pretrib, non-trib, nor do I hold to the traditional post-trib position].

Be Blessed
The PuP

I completely reject your view that my Postrib is based on opposition to the opposing view, or to Pretrib. I without bias memorized 2 Thes. I had no axe to grind, and no theological grounding on any position, except that my more recent pastor was Pretrib and taught that. And so, I was converted to a position opposite to that which I had been biased towards! No way was I attempting to disprove Pretrib when I memorized 2 Thes! You are projecting a theory, which in my view is absolutely untrue.

2 Thes 2 speaks for itself. That's why I began to embrace Postrib. There will be no "Rapture" of the Church, ie assembling to Christ, until after the Appearance of the Man of Sin, and until Christ comes to actually Destroy Him. I emphasize the Destruction of Antichrist because some declare that the only significant thing that must precede Christ's Coming is the Appearance of Antichrist. But that isn't true. It is both his Appearance and his Destruction that is prominent in Paul's teaching here.

Furthermore, as I've studied this out after my "California experience," I began to develop a logical approach towards distilling reliable biblical theology. I try to work from the past towards the future, in understanding the development of NT doctrine. I try to find Paul's basis, for example, for his doctrines as he worked forward from OT Law.

When I use this formulation with eschatology, I find that all NT eschatology is based on Dan 7 in its more structural elements. Dan 7 contains it all, the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds, the previous attacks of the Antichrist against God's People, and the coming of the Kingdom of God at that time. Revelation contains all of these elements, as does every other NT passage that refers to it in detail.