CrowCross
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2023
- Messages
- 4,131
- Reaction score
- 1,135
- Points
- 113
This video explains the rapture mentioned in 2 Thes 2:3.
- Thread starter CrowCross
- Start date
Josheb
Well Known Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 4,900
- Reaction score
- 2,148
- Points
- 113
- Location
- VA, south of DC
- Faith
- Yes
- Marital status
- Married with adult children
- Politics
- Conservative
No, it doesn't. It explains the Dispensational Premillennial view of 2 Thessalonians apostasia and the rapture. Big difference. The Thessalonians did not think they would be physically removed from the earth, raptured to heaven, before to the tribulation (3:25). That's another Dispensational Premillennial bias. The graphic presented is a Dispensational Premillennialist graphic. Everything built on those eisegetic errors is wrong. Just because he believes the apostasia is indicative of a physical rapture does nt make it so. Furhtermore, Mr. Woods correctly and accurately reports there have always been doctrinal departures from the faith...... implying he willingly and knowingly chooses an interpretation completely different from the norm, the precedents established in scripture, the entire history of apostasies (exactly as I posted in the other thread). If there have always been doctrinal and spiritual apostacies then how can 2 Thessalonians' mention of apostasy (or departure) be unusual? Because it is accompanied by a lawless man who is operating with powers, signs, and wonders. That's how. It's right there in the text of 2 Thes. 2 and Mr. Woods has entirely ignored the correlation, choosing to ignore both the consistent, uniform scriptural history of apostasy and the specific correlates provided in in the text itself. Why? So, he can teach DPism, not scripture. Paul did not say the apostsia was different in any way other than the prospective coming of the lawless man. Woods also plays fast and loose with "signs."
Just because a word can mean something does not mean it does mean that possible meaning. Woods has again implicitly acknowledged a singular interpretation at the expanse of the prior precedents. In Acts 20, when Paul spoke of his "departure" he was not physically removed from the planet. He was also not using the word "apostasia." Woods would have us believe Paul was referring to his death but there are eight more chapters in Acts and Paul spent two to three years traveling from Ephesus in Acts 20 to Jerusalem and then Rome, and along the way he arrived at (aphixin) and departed from (aphixin) Corinth, Berea, Thessalonica, Philippi, Troas, Mitylene, Trogyllium, Miletus, Patara, Tyre. Ptolemais, Caesarea, Jerusalem. Sidon, Myra, Cuidus, Crete, Malta, Syracuse, Rhegium Puteoli, and few places I've left out because I cannot recall them all, before arriving in Rome. There were many false prophets and teachers along the way, many of which took Paul's teachings and twisted them into heresy, dragging people away in apostasy..... but none of them were the lawless man working under the power and signs of the evil one. Woods has committed several fatal errors..... and we're only ten minutes into his teaching! The irony, of course, is that he's teaching apostasy! and leading many away from the otherwise ordinary facts of the text, the context, and the uniform scriptural history of apostasia.
Then Woods appeals to "rules for a Bible College," quoting from Harvard (which is not a Bible college) ignoring the fact the rule is about doctrinal apostasia, not physical removal from the earth. I reiterate: the goal of life in Christ is to die believing in Jesus, NOT die believing in a rapture. Woods has, once again, performed a bait and switch, by suggesting we're supposed to believe 2 Thes. 2:3's apostasia has something to do with rules for a Bible College (when Bible colleges did not exist in Paul's day) because doctrinal/spiritual departures or nothing new or of particular importance. That's the fundamental premise of his argument: Doctrinal apostasy is ordinary and commonplace. It is not a concern, and therefore it can't be the concern in 2 Thes. 2:3.
So the justification of Woods' first point falls apart in many ways.
He then moves on to his second reason form reading the apostasia as a Physical departure from the physical earth, or what Dispensational Premillennialism calls the pre-tribulational rapture. Why is the dating of the Thessalonian letters important? Because, supposedly, Paul does not start talking about apostasy until later. That's utter hogwash. Jesus spoke of doctrinal/spiritual apostasy during his earthly ministry. Paul cannot be construed to teach anything other than what Jesus taught (without being disqualified an apostle upon whom we can rely) so it cannot be said Paul ignored Jesus' teaching until late in his life. At the core of Woods' position is an argument from silence = because we don't read of it in his earlier letter, he did not teach it. Paul did not teach about purple and yellow striped zebras, or Jesus lusting after Mary Magdelene, either (as Kazantzakis speculated). Paul did not write about Peter and the tanner at Joppa, Peter's escape from Joppa, or his death in Rome. Just because it's not contained in a letter does not mean it did not happen. More importantly, Woods is factually incorrect because Paul did write about spiritual apostasy early in his ministry. It's right there in the Thessalonian letters! Woods would see if it he read the letters as written and did not interpret them to be about a pretrib rapture! The same is true of Galatians, which preceded the Thessalonian letters by a couple of years and is very much about both apostasy and the coming of Christ. Woods cannot logically appeal to spiritual apostasies happening "all the time," and also simultaneously teach "Paul doesn't start speaking of, and warning about, the spiritual apostasy of the Church until later. It's not a topic on his mind." (14:02-14). Galatians 1:8 proves otherwise! Ironically, Woods says it's not until his letters to Timothy that Paul takes up the matter of doctrinal apostasy but 1 Tim. 6:3 mirrors Gal. 1:8! All the Galatians content about repudiating the Law as a means of salvation is very much about doctrinal apostasy that had infiltrated the Church due to Judaizers. As fellow Dispensationalist Chuck Swindoll put it,
[indent"Galatians exhibits Paul at his angriest, as he risked the good favor of the converts in those churches to make sure they were on the path of truth and not led off into deception. In fact, to emphasize the seriousness of his purpose, he took the pen from his scribe and wrote the end of the letter himself in large letters"[/indent]
Woods' point is, according to him, the supposed fact Paul is not focused on spiritual/doctrinal apostasy early on in his ministry (and, therefore the apostasia of 2 Thes. 2:3 cannot be about that kind of departure). His premise is wrong, and so too are his facts. So too is his logic because if spiritual apostasy was as common as Woods says then Paul was grossly negligent not teaching about it. Woods would have us believe Paul made mention of it to his successor but didn't consider it important beforehand. Furthermore, Woods has couched his argument about Paul's early writings in the chronology of "when the Church first started" (15:30), but if the Church started at Pentecost (as Dispensational Premillennialism teaches) then the Church had been around for at least 15 years before Paul wrote to the Galatians, close to twenty years by the time 2 Thessalonians was written. At best, Woods has been eisegetically selective with his use of scripture. At worst, he's knowingly contradicting it. In regard to the defense of his second point, Woods has contradicted scripture and Woods has contradicted himself.
Thus, Woods' justification for his second point fails.
Fifteen minutes into the 47-minute teaching Woods has committed a number of factual and logical errors, and he's misrepresented scripture several times. It's a bad teaching. It does NOT explain the rapture of 2 Thes. 2:3. What the video explains is the Dispensational Premillennial view of the pre-tribulational rapture given their eisegetic view of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and the plain, simple, undeniable FACT is that no one but Dispensational Preillennialists teach this nonsense. No one but DPism separate the rapture from the second advent of Christ. If what DPism teaches is true and correct then 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine and practice is wrong. There's no common ground. The differences between DPism's teaching here and EVERYONE ELSE'S is irreconcilable. It necessarily means the Church taught error from two millennia.
Lastly, @CrowCross, it will not matter what Dispensationalist arguments are presented - EVER - because there is always the inherent problem in which DPism makes all of Christianity wrong. The separated rapture is not the only place this happens. It just happens to be one of the most obvious. Where differences exist there can be some debate but DPism's teaching on the rapture is taught in opposition to what is otherwise held in uniformity by the Church. Every single time any modern futurist separates the rapture they are implicitly arguing against the entire history of orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. They are undercutting their own foundation because if Christianity was not correct from the beginning, then there's no reason or sense in being a Dispensational Christian.
.
Just because a word can mean something does not mean it does mean that possible meaning. Woods has again implicitly acknowledged a singular interpretation at the expanse of the prior precedents. In Acts 20, when Paul spoke of his "departure" he was not physically removed from the planet. He was also not using the word "apostasia." Woods would have us believe Paul was referring to his death but there are eight more chapters in Acts and Paul spent two to three years traveling from Ephesus in Acts 20 to Jerusalem and then Rome, and along the way he arrived at (aphixin) and departed from (aphixin) Corinth, Berea, Thessalonica, Philippi, Troas, Mitylene, Trogyllium, Miletus, Patara, Tyre. Ptolemais, Caesarea, Jerusalem. Sidon, Myra, Cuidus, Crete, Malta, Syracuse, Rhegium Puteoli, and few places I've left out because I cannot recall them all, before arriving in Rome. There were many false prophets and teachers along the way, many of which took Paul's teachings and twisted them into heresy, dragging people away in apostasy..... but none of them were the lawless man working under the power and signs of the evil one. Woods has committed several fatal errors..... and we're only ten minutes into his teaching! The irony, of course, is that he's teaching apostasy! and leading many away from the otherwise ordinary facts of the text, the context, and the uniform scriptural history of apostasia.
Then Woods appeals to "rules for a Bible College," quoting from Harvard (which is not a Bible college) ignoring the fact the rule is about doctrinal apostasia, not physical removal from the earth. I reiterate: the goal of life in Christ is to die believing in Jesus, NOT die believing in a rapture. Woods has, once again, performed a bait and switch, by suggesting we're supposed to believe 2 Thes. 2:3's apostasia has something to do with rules for a Bible College (when Bible colleges did not exist in Paul's day) because doctrinal/spiritual departures or nothing new or of particular importance. That's the fundamental premise of his argument: Doctrinal apostasy is ordinary and commonplace. It is not a concern, and therefore it can't be the concern in 2 Thes. 2:3.
So the justification of Woods' first point falls apart in many ways.
He then moves on to his second reason form reading the apostasia as a Physical departure from the physical earth, or what Dispensational Premillennialism calls the pre-tribulational rapture. Why is the dating of the Thessalonian letters important? Because, supposedly, Paul does not start talking about apostasy until later. That's utter hogwash. Jesus spoke of doctrinal/spiritual apostasy during his earthly ministry. Paul cannot be construed to teach anything other than what Jesus taught (without being disqualified an apostle upon whom we can rely) so it cannot be said Paul ignored Jesus' teaching until late in his life. At the core of Woods' position is an argument from silence = because we don't read of it in his earlier letter, he did not teach it. Paul did not teach about purple and yellow striped zebras, or Jesus lusting after Mary Magdelene, either (as Kazantzakis speculated). Paul did not write about Peter and the tanner at Joppa, Peter's escape from Joppa, or his death in Rome. Just because it's not contained in a letter does not mean it did not happen. More importantly, Woods is factually incorrect because Paul did write about spiritual apostasy early in his ministry. It's right there in the Thessalonian letters! Woods would see if it he read the letters as written and did not interpret them to be about a pretrib rapture! The same is true of Galatians, which preceded the Thessalonian letters by a couple of years and is very much about both apostasy and the coming of Christ. Woods cannot logically appeal to spiritual apostasies happening "all the time," and also simultaneously teach "Paul doesn't start speaking of, and warning about, the spiritual apostasy of the Church until later. It's not a topic on his mind." (14:02-14). Galatians 1:8 proves otherwise! Ironically, Woods says it's not until his letters to Timothy that Paul takes up the matter of doctrinal apostasy but 1 Tim. 6:3 mirrors Gal. 1:8! All the Galatians content about repudiating the Law as a means of salvation is very much about doctrinal apostasy that had infiltrated the Church due to Judaizers. As fellow Dispensationalist Chuck Swindoll put it,
[indent"Galatians exhibits Paul at his angriest, as he risked the good favor of the converts in those churches to make sure they were on the path of truth and not led off into deception. In fact, to emphasize the seriousness of his purpose, he took the pen from his scribe and wrote the end of the letter himself in large letters"[/indent]
Woods' point is, according to him, the supposed fact Paul is not focused on spiritual/doctrinal apostasy early on in his ministry (and, therefore the apostasia of 2 Thes. 2:3 cannot be about that kind of departure). His premise is wrong, and so too are his facts. So too is his logic because if spiritual apostasy was as common as Woods says then Paul was grossly negligent not teaching about it. Woods would have us believe Paul made mention of it to his successor but didn't consider it important beforehand. Furthermore, Woods has couched his argument about Paul's early writings in the chronology of "when the Church first started" (15:30), but if the Church started at Pentecost (as Dispensational Premillennialism teaches) then the Church had been around for at least 15 years before Paul wrote to the Galatians, close to twenty years by the time 2 Thessalonians was written. At best, Woods has been eisegetically selective with his use of scripture. At worst, he's knowingly contradicting it. In regard to the defense of his second point, Woods has contradicted scripture and Woods has contradicted himself.
Thus, Woods' justification for his second point fails.
Fifteen minutes into the 47-minute teaching Woods has committed a number of factual and logical errors, and he's misrepresented scripture several times. It's a bad teaching. It does NOT explain the rapture of 2 Thes. 2:3. What the video explains is the Dispensational Premillennial view of the pre-tribulational rapture given their eisegetic view of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and the plain, simple, undeniable FACT is that no one but Dispensational Preillennialists teach this nonsense. No one but DPism separate the rapture from the second advent of Christ. If what DPism teaches is true and correct then 2000 years of Christian thought, doctrine and practice is wrong. There's no common ground. The differences between DPism's teaching here and EVERYONE ELSE'S is irreconcilable. It necessarily means the Church taught error from two millennia.
Lastly, @CrowCross, it will not matter what Dispensationalist arguments are presented - EVER - because there is always the inherent problem in which DPism makes all of Christianity wrong. The separated rapture is not the only place this happens. It just happens to be one of the most obvious. Where differences exist there can be some debate but DPism's teaching on the rapture is taught in opposition to what is otherwise held in uniformity by the Church. Every single time any modern futurist separates the rapture they are implicitly arguing against the entire history of orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. They are undercutting their own foundation because if Christianity was not correct from the beginning, then there's no reason or sense in being a Dispensational Christian.
.
Similar threads
