My goodness, UL, I’d have to write a book to deal with all your points. I’ll only try to clarify one thing you said: namely, that I said the 2nd coming is not multiple events, yet I had multiple events in my description.
When I said the 2nd coming is not multiple events, I mean a coming or rapture, whatever you want to call it, as an “event” taking place years before the the other “event,” the coming we see in Rev. 19.
Pretribs have that first “event” taking place seven years before the other “event.” Mid-tribs have their first event taking place 3 1/2 years before the other event. Not sure how many years the prewraths have their first event taking place before the latter event, some say 1 1/2 years.
But at any rate, they are two separate events - that’s what I meant by multiple events. Your “multiple events,” i.e., ...
1. Christ descends from heaven to the earth
2. resurrects and raptures the saints on the way down
3. defeat his enemies at Armageddon
are not my “multiple events.” Mine are different aspects of the same “event,” called variously in the scripture, appearing, coming, revelation, the last day.
As to the units of time involved in the three you mentioned, the first two take place in the twinkle of an eye (1 Thess. 4). Number three? I don’t think it will take the Lord very long to dispose of his enemies...do you?
“I don’t think it will take the Lord very long to dispose of his enemies...do you?”
No. But the question is not “what can He do?”, but “what does He say He will do?” We could argue that it makes sense for God to create the universe in three days rather than six, but He chose six.
My point is that all of the various paradigms about the timing of Christ’s return sound good and have an internal consistency. But when we open the Bible, we often find that our paradigms do not fit.
That is why I suggest a study on the topic of the Day of the Lord. There are many scriptures that describe what will happen during this period, what precedes it, and how the second coming is connected to it.
The traditional post-trib view does not allow time for the Day of the Lord to occur if it is placed after Daniel’s seventieth week. I’m not sure how there can be any dispute that the return of Christ happens when that Day arrives.
The pre-wrath view is a post-trib view, but it is held that the Great Tribulation does not last for the entire second half of Daniel’s seventieth week, and that this seven year period is completed by the Day of the Lord.
To me the differences between the various views come down to the questions: “What is the Day of the Lord?” and “When is it in relation to Daniel’s seventieth week?”
However, I find that views other than pre-wrath, prefer to generalize or gloss over the meaning and significance of the Day of the Lord when it is really the crux of the matter.
Much more is said in scripture about this Day than even the abomination of desolation and Daniel’s seventieth week.
The main reason that I usually engage in this debate is because I want to hear all of the arguments against my views so I can study the alternatives and be sure I am subscribing to the most well-supported. There are many things I do not understand about prophecy, but I do believe there are practical implications in terms of our witness and conduct and a correct view of the gospel, dispensations, etc.
The consequence of error on this subject may be to expect Christ’s return too soon or too late, and thus be unprepared. We are commanded to both watch and be ready, as well as to wait patiently.
So I appreciate your feedback and Biblical insights even if we do not reach an agreement.