I continue to respond to Mal Couch.

“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.” – 2Th 2:8

Couch writes,

“[W]hat they try to do is connect Christ’s appearance and His coming for the saints at the rapture with the fact that the antichrist will be around, and thus the church is here during the first part of the tribulation….[In 2 Thess. 2:8 they] camp on the words “appearance” and “coming” (parousia). Since many rapture passages use these words this proves that 2 Thessalonaians 2:8 is a rapture verse in their minds. But they are clearly wrong by the context. And it is true the word “coming” (parousia) can be used in both rapture and second coming verses.”

Since rapture passages use these exact same terms and since the apostle Paul does not anywhere distinguish this “appearance” from another one, the burden of proof for Couch and other pretribulationists is to provide evidence that Paul has a completely different “appearance” and a different “coming” of Christ in mind.
Further, notice the context of verse 8 starting in verse 1, “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him.” Every pretribber agrees that “our being gathered to him” is speaking of the rapture. But they are inconsistent by not applying it to the remaining context which includes verse 8. They build a brick wall between verse 1 and verse 8. My question to Couch is: between verse 1 and verse 8 where does Paul indicate that he is speaking of a completely different subject? We are not told by Couch.
Not only the context teaches us that the rapture is in view but other important passages connect the appearing of Christ with his coming,
“Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming [parousia]” 1John 2:28. (cf. Titus 2:13; 1Tim. 6:14; 2Tim. 4:8; Col. 3:4; 1Peter 5:4; 1John 3:2)
But Couch’s pretribulation tradition forces him not to see the context as the rapture. He cannot be consistent since that would require him to see that Paul is teaching in 2 Thess. 2 that the Church will encounter the Antichrist. Incidentally, the 2 Thess. 2 passage has caused more individuals to abandon their pretrib tradition than any other Bible passage.
Notice the amazing statement he makes next,

“Only rarely can you make doctrinal connections simply by the use of the same word(s). The most compelling key to interpretation is Context, Context, Context! And the context of this passage is clearly not a rapture context!”

Surely verse 1 is not missing in Mr. Couch’s Bible. Notice three parts of this verse, “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,” – 2Th 2:1
1) The verse begins with the word “Concerning.” Even a fifth grader understands that word introduces . . . context. So what context or subject matter is Paul introducing here?
2) Paul introduces a discussion of “the coming of the Lord and our being gathered to him.”
3) Who is he directing his teaching too? Is it “tribulation saints”? It is unbelieving Jews? Who is this discussion and exhortation relevant too? Paul says at the end of the verse, “we ask you, brothers.”
Context, Context, Context.
Couch writes,

How this is even relevant to his assertion that verse 8 does not apply to the Church we are not told; he gives no explanation, maybe only hoping it sounds good. It seems that the remaining part of his article dissipates into a handful of assertions without any effort to support them hoping that his readers will invest ultimate authority into his own word — not to mention his understanding of the Prewrath chronology of Revelation is so flawed beyond worth mentioning here.
I must note one more thing he says,

“Also what smashes their deficient view is the fact that the “restrainer” is taken out of the way before the antichrist is revealed (vs. 6-7). It is a settled issue that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit. I will not go into all the arguments on that issue here.”

I would flunk anyone who made mere assertions and then tried to back up their claim with the argument, “It is a settled issue.” I would be laughed off any debate stage if I got up there and provided nothing but, “It is a settled issue.” Pretribs can repeat “The Holy Spirit is the Restrainer” as many times they want, but it does not make it any more plausible.
Moreover, Couch is sadly ignorant of showing no familiarity with the literature on the issue of the “Restrainer.” It has been cogently argued that the Holy Spirit is not the Restrainer but in fact is Michael the Archangel.
In the April 2000 volume of The Journal of Theological Studies, C. R. Nicholl published a seminal article, “Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7),” demonstrating that Michael is the Restrainer, which would prove to put an end to the “Who is the Restrainer” debate given his convincing argumentation. Since its publication, subsequent major Thessalonian commentaries are agreeing with Dr. Nicholl’s findings (not to mention noted Jewish scholars). His article has been published in his important monograph as well, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Robert Van Kampen has argued very well for Michael in his book The Sign. It has been my observation that pretribbers are not too eager to respond as even noted by Couch above, “I will not go into all the arguments on that issue here.”
In short, Couch has shown no willingness to represent the other side accurately, let alone seriously engage Scripture and the Prewrath’s interpretation of it. Why is this? I am convinced that the reason for this is that it is much easier to distort, ignore, and give superficial interpretations, than it is to engage God’s Word and fellow believers with maturity and competence. This should not be the case, but sadly it is when Tradition has a grasp on individuals for many years.
It is unfortunate that Couch ends his article with a personal attack against a brother in Christ. He writes,

“Van Kampen’s ultimate motive was from the fact that he just plain did not like dispensationalism and the pretribulational biblically proven rapture.”

Is there any need for presuming “ultimate motives”? No. this is uncalled for.
Robert Van Kampen was motivated by a love for God’s truth. And if another believer disagrees with his interpretation that is no reason to question his heart and thus attempt to somehow discredit him in the arena of the motives of his heart rather than the arena of proper exegesis of God’s Word. This type of fallacy only reveals Mal Couch’s bankrupt method of argumentation, and thus his pretribulational position.