Don’t Ignore Or Dismiss The LORD’s Return; You Could Be Caught Unprepared And Be Left Behind To Deal With The Beast = Matthew 24;32-42, Revelation 13

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As usual, you are fighting with the Book. Your greatest enemy when it comes to Catholic doctrine is the Bible. It exposes theological error. Mary was a sinner. To think other is blasphemy. Only God is sinless.
And yet, you STILL cannot mount a Scriptural refutation of my arguments.
Of my greatest enemy is the Bible – then PROVE me wrong using the Bible.

Give me a point-by-point refutation of the exegesis I gave about Mary and the Ark in post #147.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And yet, you STILL cannot mount a Scriptural refutation of my arguments.
Of my greatest enemy is the Bible – then PROVE me wrong using the Bible.

Give me a point-by-point refutation of the exegesis I gave about Mary and the Ark in post #147.

I did. One needs spiritual eyes to see to see the truth. Man tells you what is truth. God tells we Protestants what is truth. That is the big difference. You have no Scripture that teaches Mary was sinless or that she ascended up bodily into heaven. Nothing! What does that matter to you? The Pope can say otherwise and that is enough for you.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who cares when? It is contrary to Scripture. No Pope can override Scripture.
I do.
I'm establishing the fact that you're a liar
I think I've also proven that you don't have a valid refutation of the Catholic position.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I did. One needs spiritual eyes to see to see the truth. Man tells you what is truth. God tells we Protestants what is truth. That is the big difference. You have no Scripture that teaches Mary was sinless or that she ascended up bodily into heaven. Nothing! What does that matter to you? The Pope can say otherwise and that is enough for you.
As usual – your responses are laden with platitudes – but ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Let me know when you’re ready to have a grown-up discussion where you actually have to present some evidence.
Because so far – you’ve been schooled by a Catholic . . .
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As usual – your responses are laden with platitudes – but ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Let me know when you’re ready to have a grown-up discussion where you actually have to present some evidence.
Because so far – you’ve been schooled by a Catholic . . .

This is a Bible forum not the Pope's forum. You have no Scripture and therefore the debate ends. In fact, you espouse deeply anti-biblical error. You venerate and communicate with Mary (the dead). This is necromancy. That is witchcraft.

I will not derail this thread. I have demonstrated God's truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL. I got that info from the Vatican's own site. The Pope is obviously not as infallible as you pretend.

WRONG.
The document that YOU referenced from 1950 was the definition of the Assumption - not the Immaculate Conception, which was defined almost 100 years PRIOR to that.

Ummmm, who's "LOL"-ing now??
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG.
The document that YOU referenced from 1950 was the definition of the Assumption - not the Immaculate Conception, which was defined almost 100 years PRIOR to that.

Ummmm, who's "LOL"-ing now??
I am not getting into your childishness. I am done with you.

Ye must be born again!
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a Bible forum not the Pope's forum. You have no Scripture and therefore the debate ends. In fact, you espouse deeply anti-biblical error. You venerate and communicate with Mary (the dead). This is necromancy. That is witchcraft.

I will not derail this thread. I have demonstrated God's truth.
WRONG.
This is a Christianity forum - and your complete cowardice is noted.

ANYBODY who reads my post #147 - which YOU ran from a like a scared cat is bursting with Scripture.
You're just NOT able to refute it . . .
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG.
The document that YOU referenced from 1950 was the definition of the Assumption - not the Immaculate Conception, which was defined almost 100 years PRIOR to that.

Ummmm, who's "LOL"-ing now??

Hello! What did I originally say? Read it!

"Where does it say Mary ascended up into bodily? Where is your Scripture. Nowhere! It was a delusion invented by Pope Pius XII defined it in 1950."
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello! What did I originally say? Read it!

"Where does it say Mary ascended up into bodily? Where is your Scripture. Nowhere! It was a delusion invented by Pope Pius XII defined it in 1950."
Even Wikipedia, in ALL of its secular glory disagrees with you . . .

"The Immaculate Conception is the belief that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception.[1] It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church.[2] Debated by medieval theologians, it was not defined as a dogma until 1854,[3] by Pope Pius IX in the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus."


 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
James White in blue.

Contrary to you guys, we hold that all Christian doctrines are important, and to be preserved with the utmost care and reverence.

Again, that cuts both ways.

James, c’mon! You guys obviously don’t care about the importance of all doctrines equally, by the very nature of Protestantism and perspicuity, and the compromised necessity which many hundreds of sects presses upon you. You have sought to produce a counter-example here, but “all” doctrines? It just ain’t so!

It seems that in point of fact, it’s a matter of “those doctrines that we have decided, over the process of time, and often times due to mere historical considerations rather than any apostolic mandate, are important and we insist everyone believe in them. But on those issues where we haven’t made up our mind, well, those items really aren’t that important.”

The result of this is that the Roman Catholic believes that the Bodily Assumption of Mary is something that must be accepted; but you can hold all sorts of views on whether God is sovereign in the matter of salvation and what that means, and that’s okay.


Mary’s Assumption is important because it is intimately related to (and flows from the consequences of) her Immaculate Conception, which has considerable scriptural support (yes, mostly deductive and implicit). The Immaculate Conception, in turn, is necessary by virtue of Mary being the Theotokos; all of Mariology being subsumed under the category of Christology, and Christ-centered always in Catholic theology and dogmatic pronouncements. Christology (particularly the Incarnation and Virgin Birth in this case) is very important, as I think all here would agree. I know you won’t buy this reasoning process because it is foreign to you, but please try to understand the Catholic Church’s rationale for what it does.

This Christ-centeredness is seen in the history of the Church. First, the Trinity was defined (Nicaea, 325), then the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople, 381). At the Council of Ephesus in 431 Theotokos was defined because the fullness of Christ’s divinity was questioned by the Nestorians (virtually all reputable Protestant church historians readily agree with this interpretation). Once the Christological definitions were hammered out, Mariology developed much more rapidly, but they were still Christological in the sense of the Theotokos definition of 431. And that’s why all Marian doctrines are important, Protestant protestations (which is well-nigh your essence, it often seems) notwithstanding.

Now I think everyone can see that the Bodily Assumption is a non-biblical doctrine, defined on the basis of “tradition,” whatever that might be.

It is not explicitly stated, as all agree, but implicitly, in the sense of being, e.g., deduced from the Immaculate Conception, and the notions of resurrection and the consequences of death due to original sin, yes, it is biblical. Thus it is not “non-biblical,” as are, e.g., sola Scriptura and the canon of the NT. Nor is it at all intrinsically contrary or “foreign” to the overall teachings of Scripture (it involves no violation of biblical teachings per se, whether one questions its actuality or not).

I hope no one would actually argue that the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:15) and that it was passed down through the ages until defined not so long ago.

It is part of Divine, public Revelation, which ceased with the Apostles, yes. It is the most difficult Catholic doctrine to find in the earliest centuries, I admit (how’s that for honesty?), but not an insurmountable obstacle, as are so many of Protestant difficulties.

That kind of argument is too easily refuted.

As are many, many Protestant arguments!

So we have a doctrine that was defined on the basis of ecclesiastical authority, made binding upon all people,

This is precisely the case with the NT canon, yet you guys accept that (from us, by the way) without any qualms or doubts, not even the slightest. Is this not inconsistent?

that is not to be found even “implicitly” in Scripture.

Ah, but it is. All things work together . . .

Yet a Roman Catholic has “certainty” about this doctrine, because his/her ultimate authority says “believe this.”

Yeah, when the true Church of Jesus Christ proclaims something as true, I believe it, just as when your master Calvin, or the Westminster Confession, or whatever authority you choose to adhere to, says something, you believe it, or if you dissent on a particular, you place yourself above Calvin or the Confession, and become your own pope, in effect infallible (if not, then your belief is somewhat arbitrary, isn’t it?). You act as if all authority is somehow a priori unacceptable, which is an impossible position to maintain without lapsing into skepticism, even perhaps solipsism. And don’t neglect the place of faith, either, which obviously cannot be reduced to mere reason or whim.

I have found it most strange that Roman Catholics are continually griping about such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary, and Papal Infallibility, being used to “beat” them over the head. I’ve had more than one apologist say, “Hey, I didn’t bring up those irrelevant topics, White did!” And I normally just sit there scratching my head. Why? Because I’d think the relevance is too obvious to be questioned.

In passing, as examples for the sake of argument, sure, but not in depth at this point, as the ostensible topic is “Re: the existence of (oral) tradition in the NT.” Clearly, the very presence of Anglicans and Orthodox and Lutherans in this group presuppose that there are representatives here who espouse some sort of tradition not identical with Catholic Tradition.

These are [not] the only examples of your “Sacred Tradition” we can come up with. They are doctrines that are manifestly not a part of the biblical record;

“Manifestly”? Speak for yourself.) An absolutely indisputable example of that would be, rather, the Canon of the NT, which you accept as a “gift” from the Tradition of your Catholic forefathers.

they are manifestly not a part of the beliefs of the early Church,

As you insist on this digression, I toss out just one example of a Marian doctrine present in “kernel” form (at the very least) in the Fathers (in this case, from the 4th century):

You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother. (St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8)

O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun’s splendor, rays or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth. (St. Ephraem, “Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God”)
(cited from Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion [London: Sheed & Ward, 1965] )

At this point of Church history (before 373), you’ll recall, neither the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the Two Natures of Christ were fully developed or dogmatically defined in Council. Yet you would deny the legitimacy of Marian dogmatic developments – hardly a coherent position.

continued here
 
Last edited:

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
5,399
2,199
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
James White in blue.

Contrary to you guys, we hold that all Christian doctrines are important, and to be preserved with the utmost care and reverence.

Again, that cuts both ways.

James, c’mon! You guys obviously don’t care about the importance of all doctrines equally, by the very nature of Protestantism and perspicuity, and the compromised necessity which many hundreds of sects presses upon you. You have sought to produce a counter-example here, but “all” doctrines? It just ain’t so!

It seems that in point of fact, it’s a matter of “those doctrines that we have decided, over the process of time, and often times due to mere historical considerations rather than any apostolic mandate, are important and we insist everyone believe in them. But on those issues where we haven’t made up our mind, well, those items really aren’t that important.”

The result of this is that the Roman Catholic believes that the Bodily Assumption of Mary is something that must be accepted; but you can hold all sorts of views on whether God is sovereign in the matter of salvation and what that means, and that’s okay.


Mary’s Assumption is important because it is intimately related to (and flows from the consequences of) her Immaculate Conception, which has considerable scriptural support (yes, mostly deductive and implicit). The Immaculate Conception, in turn, is necessary by virtue of Mary being the Theotokos; all of Mariology being subsumed under the category of Christology, and Christ-centered always in Catholic theology and dogmatic pronouncements. Christology (particularly the Incarnation and Virgin Birth in this case) is very important, as I think all here would agree. I know you won’t buy this reasoning process because it is foreign to you, but please try to understand the Catholic Church’s rationale for what it does.

This Christ-centeredness is seen in the history of the Church. First, the Trinity was defined (Nicaea, 325), then the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople, 381). At the Council of Ephesus in 431 Theotokos was defined because the fullness of Christ’s divinity was questioned by the Nestorians (virtually all reputable Protestant church historians readily agree with this interpretation). Once the Christological definitions were hammered out, Mariology developed much more rapidly, but they were still Christological in the sense of the Theotokos definition of 431. And that’s why all Marian doctrines are important, Protestant protestations (which is well-nigh your essence, it often seems) notwithstanding.

Now I think everyone can see that the Bodily Assumption is a non-biblical doctrine, defined on the basis of “tradition,” whatever that might be.

It is not explicitly stated, as all agree, but implicitly, in the sense of being, e.g., deduced from the Immaculate Conception, and the notions of resurrection and the consequences of death due to original sin, yes, it is biblical. Thus it is not “non-biblical,” as are, e.g., sola Scriptura and the canon of the NT. Nor is it at all intrinsically contrary or “foreign” to the overall teachings of Scripture (it involves no violation of biblical teachings per se, whether one questions its actuality or not).

I hope no one would actually argue that the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:15) and that it was passed down through the ages until defined not so long ago.

It is part of Divine, public Revelation, which ceased with the Apostles, yes. It is the most difficult Catholic doctrine to find in the earliest centuries, I admit (how’s that for honesty?), but not an insurmountable obstacle, as are so many of Protestant difficulties.

That kind of argument is too easily refuted.

As are many, many Protestant arguments!

So we have a doctrine that was defined on the basis of ecclesiastical authority, made binding upon all people,

This is precisely the case with the NT canon, yet you guys accept that (from us, by the way) without any qualms or doubts, not even the slightest. Is this not inconsistent?

that is not to be found even “implicitly” in Scripture.

Ah, but it is. All things work together . . .

Yet a Roman Catholic has “certainty” about this doctrine, because his/her ultimate authority says “believe this.”

Yeah, when the true Church of Jesus Christ proclaims something as true, I believe it, just as when your master Calvin, or the Westminster Confession, or whatever authority you choose to adhere to, says something, you believe it, or if you dissent on a particular, you place yourself above Calvin or the Confession, and become your own pope, in effect infallible (if not, then your belief is somewhat arbitrary, isn’t it?). You act as if all authority is somehow a priori unacceptable, which is an impossible position to maintain without lapsing into skepticism, even perhaps solipsism. And don’t neglect the place of faith, either, which obviously cannot be reduced to mere reason or whim.

I have found it most strange that Roman Catholics are continually griping about such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary, and Papal Infallibility, being used to “beat” them over the head. I’ve had more than one apologist say, “Hey, I didn’t bring up those irrelevant topics, White did!” And I normally just sit there scratching my head. Why? Because I’d think the relevance is too obvious to be questioned.

In passing, as examples for the sake of argument, sure, but not in depth at this point, as the ostensible topic is “Re: the existence of (oral) tradition in the NT.” Clearly, the very presence of Anglicans and Orthodox and Lutherans in this group presuppose that there are representatives here who espouse some sort of tradition not identical with Catholic Tradition.

These are [not] the only examples of your “Sacred Tradition” we can come up with. They are doctrines that are manifestly not a part of the biblical record;

“Manifestly”? Speak for yourself.) An absolutely indisputable example of that would be, rather, the Canon of the NT, which you accept as a “gift” from the Tradition of your Catholic forefathers.

they are manifestly not a part of the beliefs of the early Church,

As you insist on this digression, I toss out just one example of a Marian doctrine present in “kernel” form (at the very least) in the Fathers (in this case, from the 4th century):



At this point of Church history (before 373), you’ll recall, neither the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the Two Natures of Christ were fully developed or dogmatically defined in Council. Yet you would deny the legitimacy of Marian dogmatic developments – hardly a coherent position.

Who cares! It is anti-scriptural. Hello!
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you believe there is a rapture of the Church, followed by seven-year tribulation, followed by a third coming of the Lord?
God is omnipresent.
God has Many “names and titles”.

The Son of Man was SENT to Earth,
ONCE. (Without Power)
The Son of Man RETURNED to Heaven, ONCE. (With Power)
The Son of Man SHALL RETURN to Earth, ONCE. (With Power)

What Scriptural TEXT reveals the Son of Man Being SENT or COMING TO EARTH a THIRD TIME, for you to ask such a Question?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David in NJ

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's the whole point, its not the Second Coming as in Jesus coming to the earth a "second time", its the 2nd Advent. The Rapture thus can happen before the 2nd Advent, Jesus comes to meet us in the are, just as the scriptures say, and of course that is my whole point, this is not his second coming, its a misnomer, thus the ignorance is all yours. Rev. 19 can not happen without a Pre Trib Rapture, I don't know why I waste time with people who obviously are not called unto Prophecy.

Again, the 7 Feasts prove the TIMING of the Pre Trib Rapture but you refuse to admit the obvious, but who cares, you will have to answer for your untruths.

From the beginning of mankind, God REVEALS His Knowledge TO mankind, bit by bit, little by little ( Same as human men do with their Children, teaching knowledge bit by bit.)

God Created AND Made Heaven and Earth…
Created Heaven and Earth.
Then we Learn Heaven is NOT “singular”, Heaven, but rather was MADE the Heaven(S), “plural”.

The plurality of the HEAVEN(S) Reveals a DIVISION “Based upon WHO,” “what specific BEINGS Occupy a specific “portion” of Heaven as “their ESTATE/ habitat”.

* Three (layers of sorts)…
High Heaven….Gods Estate…no man can see or enter.

Upper Heavens…holy angels Estate…men can see but not enter.

Lower Heavens…men can see, men can enter for brief times, (and aids for conditioned air to breath).

Lower Heavens….?? Where is the LINE from Earth to the Lower Heavens?
* Clues….Less Oxygen, (difficulty breathing without aids); Clouds, (difficulty seeing through thick Clouds).

* Fact: Nothing new. Men for centuries have climbed to mountain peaks IN the Clouds of the Lower Heavens.

* Fact: Nothing new. Men for decades have flown IN the Lower Heavens IN mechanical air ships, breathing conditioned air.

* Fact Nothing new. For 2,000 years + the Word of God EXPRESSLY Revealed:
1) A Great Tribulation FROM Heaven FROM God, WAS sent down upon the Earth, TO DESTROY unrighteous men WITH the Earth.
2) Eight persons (of ALL the people ON Earth) were found (by God), Worthy to BE SAVED FROM, being destroyed WITH the Earth.
3) The Eight Worthy Persons were GIVEN an ESCAPE PLAN to BE EXCEPTED FROM being destroyed WITH the Earth.
4) The Eight Persons FOLLOWED the ESCAPE Plan given them, By God.
5) The Eight Worthy Persons, were LIFTED UP ABOVE the EARTH and it’s Highest mountain Peaks, TO THE CLOUDS of the Lower Heavens.

6) Warning. God SHALL ONCE AGAIN destroy unrighteous men upon the face of the Earth, WITH the Earth.
7) Warning. The Knowledge of an Escape Plan has been given ALL men upon the face of the Earth.
8) The ESCAPE PLAN, IS Expressly and Exclusively Applicable TO: ANY Person…
CONVERTED “IN” Christ.

9) Nothing new. The DAY and HOUR God SHALL once Again Send down From His ESTATE, High Heaven, His Tribulations and Wrath upon the unrighteous Inhabitants UPON the face of the Earth….IS an UNKNOWN DAY and HOUR.
10) Nothing new. THOSE “righteous” who Prepared According to Gods instructions, SHALL be LIFTED UP ABOVE the face of the Earth, TO the Clouds of the Lower Heavens, WHILE the unrighteous inhabitants upon the face of the earth ARE Destroyed With the Earth….
Exactly as the Knowledge of the Word of God, spoken, written, recorded, published, distributed, (for centuries) has Revealed.

Nothing new…

Ecc 1:
[9] The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Nothing new….

Matt 24:
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Nothing new…

Matt 18:
[3] And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

WHAT a person CALLS BEING RISEN UP off the face of the Earth….Called up, Summoned up, Caught up, Rapturo, Raptured….. is Irrelevant….

The BOTTOM LINE IS….The POINT IS:
THE PREPARED, According TO Gods WORD, ORDER and WAY, are NOT Appointed to Suffer Gods Tribulations, Wrath, Destruction.

The PREPARED “IN CHRIST” ARE Appointed to ESCAPE Gods SECOND and LAST Destruction of mortal mankind upon the face of the Earth!

Obviously according to Gods Revealed Knowledge….MANY WILL Choose to Hear, Learn, Read…..Yet FEW WILL Chose to BECOME PREPARED (IN Christ), to ESCAPE Gods Great Tribulations and Wrath to be sent down from Heaven.

The astounding PART….IS men who CLAIM to BE PREPARED, are increasingly becoming the PLATFORM SPOKESMAN FOR teaching and preaching that the PREPARED IN CHRIST, ARE LEFT UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH to suffer Gods anger, tribulations, wrath along with the Unrighteous….


Bizarre and False!
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
5,840
1,211
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The astounding PART….IS men who CLAIM to BE PREPARED, are increasingly becoming the PLATFORM SPOKESMAN FOR teaching and preaching that the PREPARED IN CHRIST, ARE LEFT UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH to suffer Gods anger, tribulations, wrath along with the Unrighteous….

Bizarre and False!

Not one person teaches that so the falseness is fully your own strawman fallacy. The rapture happens AFTER satan's wrath during the GT, at the second coming. There is not one Christian on the Earth during God's wrath. You don't understand when the rapture happens nor when God's wrath happens.
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Not one person teaches that so the falseness is fully your own strawman fallacy. The rapture happens AFTER satan's wrath during the GT, at the second coming. There is not one Christian on the Earth during God's wrath. You don't understand when the rapture happens nor when God's wrath happens.

Astounding you have heard all mens teaching….KUDOS!!!
I can’t say I remotely even know all men.


Actually the Rapture is the Lord Catching UP to Him in the clouds the Converted IN Christ…

and the 1st Resurrection AFTER Christs millennial reign, is God Raising UP to the face of the Earth, those Saved during the Tribulation.

Remember….Jesus SAVES, however God Raises UP and Jesus Raises UP whom they will.

John 5:
[21] For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son Quickeneth whom he will.

The Lord Catches UP those IN Christ.
1 Thes 4:16-17…..^^ RAPTURE.

God Raises UP after the millennial reign those Saved during the Tribulation.
1 Thes 4:14……^^ FIRST RESURRECTION.

ORDER and WAY of God.