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; (2 Thessalonians 2)

I said earlier that I will alternate between pre and posttrib arguments, refuting each.

The link at the bottom is coming from the pretrib position.

I disagree with this article, though I am of a pretrib persuasion, because the article is flawed.

Also I don't think eschatology should be argued when there are more important things to talk about.

Refuting pretribulation arguments doesn't prove posttribulationism and refuting posttribulational arguments doesn't prove pretribulationism or any view in between. I think that all it proves is that you shouldn't be wasting your time refuting these arguments, majoring on the minors, but rather should be focusing on what Christ said is important.

I will attempt to end all my refutations with what is really important so that we don't end on a non-essential.

A few quotes from this article will be critiqued, but it is up to you if you want to read the whole article.

This article is basically flawed because it:

1) Attempts to go outside of scripture to the greek of other literary works to prove their point.

For the refutation of this method, go to Homosexuality and the Historical Method at my site at:

http://cuf5.tripod.com

Even though I focus on the Historical/Hysterical Method it is also a criticism of any method that goes outside scripture to prove its point.

However, this article does briefly go to the Septuagint, and that does make a good point.

2) The article is also willing to give up the normal plain sense interpretation of a 'departure' as from THE faith i.e., falling away, for their particular view which is a departure from the earth.

I have always held to the view that if a greek word has multiple meanings then all those meanings should apply, unless context or the teachings of scripture elsewhere says otherwise.

They opt for a departure from the earth in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 at the expense of a doctrinal departure, which is what most if not all translations say.

The article says: "There is nothing in the Pauline letters to suggest that he expected the church to apostasize, and, in particular, he is confident of the ability of the Thessalonians to endure…"

This is not true, though I believe in the eternal security of the believer, Paul does say in other scripture that some 'will depart from the faith.

Read my message entitled: When Jewish Wannabes Attack What They Don't Understand

at http://cuf5.tripod.com

The faith that some will depart from is preceded by a definite article in First Timothy Four. So in other words, it does not say that some will depart from faith, but that some will depart from The Faith. Almost like departing a church, the church is not part of you but just where you go on Sundays.

This sounds like The Faith was never really a part of those that departed from it.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1 John 2:19)

Paul does speak of a doctrinal departure in scripture, so one cannot argue that Paul never spoke of it, especially so that you can argue for a 'departure from the earth'

If one opts for a spatial departure I don't see that this necessitates a rejection of a doctrinal departure spoken of here.

This is just one more example of eschatologists forsaking the essential for the nonessential.

We can look at the church even now and see a doctrinal departure from The Faith.

Check out: 'The Apostasy and the Laodicean Dilemma at http://contenderministries.org

Part of this article says:

"Do you notice the Laodicean Syndrome in your church? Have you spoken out to your pastor or your congregation? We cannot afford to idly stand by and allow a social gospel to replace the true gospel of Jesus Christ. In Matthew 7:22-23, Jesus said, "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ " We cannot let this happen, and we are instructed not to. Jude 3-4 says, "Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." We are ordered to contend for our faith – to defend it against those who would pervert the gospel. Paul’s instructions to Timothy are just as applicable to all Christians today, 'Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.' (2 Timothy 4:2)

Are you prepared to contend for your faith? To do so carries risks. You risk being labeled a "fundamentalist," "intolerant," or "divisive." We must accept the risk, and be soldiers for Christ. The alternative is to face Him and hear Him say, "I never knew you."

Now a spatial departure may happen but it does not rule out the doctrinal departure that is presently happening.

If and I mean if churches and egroups that are moderated by Christians who are allowing heretics and unbelievers free reign and even moderatorship in their groups, experience a pretrib rapture, then only heretics will be running their groups.

If I get raptured, I have files in my files section that automatically post in my oldest and biggest egroup and they supply the essentials, even IF I'm gone.

I have a website that also defends the faith.

The article at the link below argues for a spatial departure in 2 Thessalonians 2;3, but I don't see proof. of this.

They are relying on information outside scripture, that could be grammatically wrong, to prove their case.

The greek words, apostasia from 2 Thess. 2;3 AND Aphistemi from 1 Timothy 4:1 are two separate greek words though they are related.

Looking at the prefix 'apo' we can see that the prefix, apo is what the beginning of both aphistemi and apostasia come from.

apo=; a primary particle; 'off' i.e. away...it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal.

The question still remains what are they a departure from.

First Timothy Four is clear that it is a doctrinal departure.

Second Thessalonians is not really saying what kind of departure this is.

So neither camp can point to these greek words to prove their point eschatological view.

What is important and crystal clear is that there is a doctrinal departure predicted and happening even today and that is what we should be battling against.

Do you know that there are pretrib, posttrib, prewrath folks that don't know the Lord?

Why aren't you paying attention to that?

For the whole pretrib article go to:

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/05_15_journal/2001v5n15_id05.htm

BJ Maxwell