John Darby

[Naomi25]

An interesting book is L. Verduin's The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. In the book the writer looks historically at various Anabaptist preachers; it is clear that some of them anticipated what dispensationalists would feel they had found in the Scriptures.

Well, I suppose it's unsurprising that precursors of Dispensationalism might be found in history. It would be more unusual, I think, for a fully formed doctrine to be birthed all at once.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 I guess I keep coming back to 1 Corinthians 10.32 which speaks of those three different categories of people: Jews, Gentiles, and the church of God...

3 different categories of people, yes, but in very clear context: not "Christian Jews", "Christian Gentiles" and the church of God, which would be rather superfluous, would it not, having just listed all Christian believers. But very clearly Paul is talking about unbelieving Jews, unbelieving Gentiles....and then the Church of God....IN whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but one body in Christ.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Oh I think they are literal. But that they also have application to various tendencies which have occurred in church history and can occur.

For example, the letter to the church at Ephesus seems to fit the general context of the 'real live' Ephesian church in Acts and in the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians.

This is fine. However...for those who champion a strict 'literal' interpretation...indeed, those who jeer at others who do not follow said interpretation, fall upon their own interpretive sword, as it were, when they take such an uncalled view of these letters.
'Literalists' like to claim that unless told to interpret symbolically...often by the interpretation of said vision being given thereafter...that we cannot deviate from the hermeneutic of literalism. Thus when we come to the letters in Revelation and Dispensationalists take them as representing the Churches down through the ages in symbolic nature, they have, themselves, deviated from their own strict biblical standard of interpretation. And that makes what they accuse us of rather hypocritical.

 

[Enoch111]

'Literalists' like to claim that unless told to interpret symbolically...often by the interpretation of said vision being given thereafter...that we cannot deviate from the hermeneutic of literalism.

There is no one telling others to interpret symbolically or not. The symbolism, or metaphor, or figure of speech, is there for all to see. The problem arises when there is no symbolism and people start claiming that what is literal is symbolic.

Let's take this example from Revelation:

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle... And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength... The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Other than the sharp two-edged sword, what was symbolic was clearly explained. But when we go to Hebrews 4:12, we know that that sharp two-edged sword stands for -- the Word of God. The spoken Word of God goes out of the mouth of Christ as a sharp two-edged sword and exposes the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now when we turn to Revelation 20, there is no logical reason to doubt that a (or one) thousand years is literally one thousand years. The fact that this term is used SIX TIMES in seven verses should be enough to believe that it literally means 1,000 years, and a thousand years is a Millennium.

 

[Naomi25]

Well it is your bias against dispensationalism that makes you think I implied a separate judgment for Jews.

Ah. No. No it was you saying that all the Jews were already at Christ's back when he comes to judge the others that lead to that assumption. It was also the fact that you are claiming a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile that lead to that assumption.
Hear me again. You cannot claim on one hand that in Christ we are all one under the new covenant made in Christ's blood....and then go on to also claim that actually, the Jews in Christ are fundamentally different and will be 'handled' differently at Christ's coming and at the time of judgment.
Because whether or not you want to call it a 'separate judgment' or what-have-you...when you claim that there will be a difference in nature of Christ's dealing with believing Jews and believing Gentiles, you are, in point of fact, inserting a distinction there that the bible does not make.

And there are only two judgment seats anyone goes before!

The Bema seat judgment declared in Corinth.

this judgment seat is the "Bema" seat. In Pauls day in the Empire, the Bema was most commonlknown at sport events and military "parades". All were qualified and it was a place for rewarding rewards for notable action!

If you noticed this bema everyone is saved! where the great white throne is for the lost only!

YOu say I have not, but yet I post more SCripture than you !

I just gave you the scripture for two separate judgment seats!

And what is the proof that they are different judgment seats? Because they appear on different occasions in scripture? The authors of scripture talk about Christ's first advent multiple times, but that does not mean he came multiple 'first' times. The way we determine if the 'judgment' throne/s are one or two events is by defining what happens AT them. And, despite what you have pointed out, we see one event, where all are judged, good and bad.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. -2 Corinthians 5:10

We can clearly see in this passage you quoted that BOTH good and evil are spoken of in reference to the same judgment. Why would the author do that if there was a clear separation between them? At the very least, it calls into question the validity of your claim. We gain even more clarity on the point when we bring in other verses on the subject:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats...
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” -Matthew 25:31–32,46

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. -John 5:28-29

..having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. -Acts 24:15

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. -Matthew 19:28-29

And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. -Acts 10:42

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. -Revelation 20:11–15

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. -Revelation 22:12

As we can see, these passages weave together a picture of judgment that is a single event AT Christ's return. Yes, we see it being described in different formats: Matt 25 is primarily directed at those alive at his return; but still clearly for the wicked and righteous. Rev 20 shows the judgment of the dead...both wicked and righteous. It is disingenuous to suggest that Rev 20:11-15 ONLY shows the judgement of the wicked. It clearly shows the dead being judged out of 'the book of life' in direct opposition to those who are not. This judgment shows all dead being judged by what they have done and which book their names are found in. This is not simply a judgment of the wicked.

But beyond Matt 25 and Rev 20 discussing the two sides to the the judgment: living and dead, the compilation of passages about judgment only bring the conclusion that it is a single event. Not to mention other passages that speak of the 'resurrection of judgment'. This gives us an extra element to help ascertain what particular event we are talking about. Because the 'resurrection' event is also spoken about clearly in scripture as well; not only as happening AT Christ's return, but placing the resurrection of the just/unjust dead together (Acts 25:15; John 5:28-29) and also putting the resurrection of the dead together with the Rapture of the Church (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4). These texts soundly place Matt 25 and Rev 20 together in a single throne judgment event.

The conclusion is that arguing multiple throne 'events' is weak at best. There is no specificity in the texts as to timing, other than to relegate it to Christ's return. And it is a logical fallacy to demand they MUST be different events if they speak of the dead here, and the living there. That presupposes that nothing whole or complete under the sun has different components and can thus be summarized or broken down by them. When a text tells us that Christ will judge all, we know that means all....living and dead. There is a natural line of separation between the two that logically falls into one area of textual conversation or another. But without direct scriptural support to suggest the judging event is separated by time and situation; it is an interpretive error to make that assumption.

Also what do you think the judging of the peoples (sheep v. goats) is if not a judgment seat.

But the final judgment is the thronos judgment! And this has a totally different meaning! See it is not enough just to spout an English bible!

Well of course its a judgment, that's not my problem, my point is that the bible is calling it the same event as the other judgment events. As I point out above.

Mmm. 'Spouting'. You claim I'm only 'spouting' the English then give a single Greek word in return. Thorough. And convincing.
Well, let's have a look at the Greek since you're insisting upon it.
Romans 14:10, what's usually called the 'bema seat' judgment:
béma: a step, raised place, by impl. a tribunal
Original Word: βῆμα, ατος, τό
Definition: a step, raised place, by implication a tribunal

Now, what about Matt 25:31, the 'sheep and goats' judgment:
doxa: opinion (always good in N.T.), hence praise, honor, glory
Original Word: δόξα
Definition: praise, honor, glory, honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor.

thronos: a throne
Original Word: θρόνος
Definition: a throne, a (king's) throne, seat; meton: power, dominion; a potentate.

Rev 20:11, the 'Great White Throne Judgment":
leukos: bright, white
Original Word: λευκός
Definition: bright, white, brilliant.

thronos: a throne
Original Word: θρόνος
Definition: a throne, a (king's) throne, seat; meton: power, dominion; a potentate.

Now: do you know what the Greek tells us, exactly??
It doesn't tell us that there are different thrones...luck for you, since you refused that. It most certainly doesn't tell us that there are time differences between these thrones. What the Greek does tell us, is that the authors were employing different words to describe the throne. Which is....shocking, I know.
Jesus, in Matthew, calls his own throne 'glorious'. And why should he not? Paul, in Romans, when discussing judgment, describes the throne as the highest seat of judgment there is...a 'raised tribunal'...again...shocking in the context, right?
And then John, seeing Christ's vision in Rev see the Lord's throne in brilliant startling white.

But different thrones or events? Not in the text, English OR the Greek.

 

[Naomi25]

As for the synonymous names of saints? For the most part I agree! But from Adam through the twelve tribes they were never called the elect, nor the church once.

Incorrect.
We see in Romans 9 that God's 'purpose of election' was at work even as early as Isaac and Esau. Indeed...that it "might continue" at this stage. This outright tells us that those belonging to God, even at this point, were 'elect'. We know, from other passages (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) that righteousness came by faith even then; election and faith, even from Adam through the OT were always intertwined.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— Romans 9:9–11

From the 12 tribes to Pentecost- they were never called the church or the body of Christ or the bride of Christ not once!

Why on earth would they have been? Christ, as he was called, had not yet been revealed. But you ought to say that when Christ DID appear and then revealed the New Covenant in his blood and the people he would have for himself...which in truth was nothing less that what he promised Abraham "in you ALL nations of the earth will be blessed" (in other words, all nations will be welcome into the elect in order that my purposes may be fulfilled).

From Pentecost to teh Rapture? Every one saved is called a member of the Body of Christ.

Again, incorrect.
To the Church we also see clear references to them as 'the elect':

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. -Romans 8:32–33

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. -2 Peter 1:10

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. -2 Timothy 2:10

Paul and Peter are speaking to the Church in these verses. This thoroughly refutes your claim that the Church is never called the elect.

And in case you think the chruch goes back to the OT,

Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

See will build! NOt have been building or will continue to build or keep building! Jesus saw the church as future.

It ought to be unsurprising that 'building' is primarily placed upon the Disciples shoulders, considering the nature of the 'New' covenant. They were not told by Jesus to pick up the old ministry of the prophets. No, instead Jesus had come and revealed some truly new ways the Kingdom was going to go forward and then established the new covenant to do just that. New ways of thinking, new ways of relating to God and each other and 'religion'....faith. Of course they were not 'taking over the old', but 'building'.
But that in no way means that God discarded his people or his way of 'electing' people. And we know this because the NT clearly tells us such. Faith and grace is what saved Abraham, and faith and grace is what saved the Disciples and every person since, Jew OR Gentile:

But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.” ......
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! -Romans 11:4–8,11–12

That, as all the verses shown above, clearly marks OT Jews saved by faith as 'elect', NT, Jews saved by faith 'elect' and Gentiles saved by faith 'elect'. We are also called the Church...because the Church is Christ's body. The body is who were are, elect is what we are. We were chosen BY God to become part of Christ's body.

Tribulation saints are never once called the church or the body of Christ! That is an assumption by covenantal opinion!

Ah yes. Of course...but...they are never called Tribulation Saints either...are they?

The real problem here is you are falling back onto 'names' rather than meanings. What do I mean by that? Simple: what does it mean to be a part of the body of Christ? Biblically? Concisely:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. -1 Corinthians 12:12–13

"With one Spirit we are all baptized into one body"....Jesus Christ.
In other words, anyone redeemed in Christ and baptized with the Holy Spirit, is considered the 'body of Christ'. And that includes ALL the times we, the body, are called "saints". Let's have a look at how many times we are called saints:

Matthew 27:52, Acts 9:13, Romans 8:27 ,1 Corinthians 14:33 ,2 Corinthians 1:1 , Ephesians 4:12 , Philippians 4:21 ,Colossians 1:26 ,1 Thessalonians 3:13 , 2 Thessalonians 1:10 , 1 Timothy 5:10 , Philemon 5 , Hebrews 13:24, Jude 3
Revelation 5:8

That, is just a single mention from each book the word appears in, in the NT. There are, in fact, 61 results. 15 of the 27 books of the NT apply the word 'saint' to what is irrefutably members of the Body.

So, here's your dilemma. You need to prove WHY when we come to Revelation the word 'Saint' must be suddenly employed in a different manner...because as I said, the term 'tribulation saint' is a fantasy. You also need to prove why these 'saints' are to be categorized in a different manner to the rest of the body...ie: "with one Spirit they are baptized into the Body of Christ". Because if that's how they are saved, redeemed, elected....you again, have a serious problem in your attempt to separate them from the herd, as it were.

Are we all called the elect? Yes for we are! Are we all called saints? Yes we are! For we are all sanctified ones. But the church began at Pentecost and ends at teh Ra[pture which I showed you biblically has to occur before the tribulation begins.

Uh. Huh. Some fancy logic happening.
The OT folks were never called elect (except for when the bible did it), but "we're all called elect". The Church was not "once" called elect (except all the times the bible called them that)...but "we're all called elect".
Maybe that makes sense in your brain, but nowhere else.

And no...no I don't believe you have proven biblically that the Rapture has to occur before the tribulation period. To the contrary, actually. You can attempt to start here though:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, -2 Thessalonians 2:1–3

This passage clearly says: 'that day WILL NOT COME until....UNTIL the rebellion and man of lawlessness COME FIRST.'

That ought to be a bit of a problem for you.

 

[Naomi25]

The letters to the seven churches in Asia (Minor) should be taken in their plain literal sense. Which would also mean that Jesus sent an angel to each of those churches, with the specific message recorded.

At the same time, those messages are as applicable to churches today as they were at that time. There are lessons there for all Christians in all ages.

This interpretation is quite common among Dispensationalitists and Historicists. But it is a stretch.

"The non-separatist Puritan, Thomas Brightman, was the first to propose a historicist interpretation of the Seven Churches of Revelation 2–3.[58] He outlined how the seven Churches represent the seven ages of the Church of Christ.[59] A typical historicist view of the Church of Christ spans several periods of church history, each similar to the original church, as follows:

1. The age of Ephesus is the apostolic age.
2. The age of Smyrna is the persecution of the Church through AD 313.
3. The age of Pergamus is the compromised Church lasting until AD 500.
4. The age of Thyatira is the rise of the papacy to the Reformation.
5. The age of Sardis is the age of the Reformation.
6. The age of Philadelphia is the age of evangelism.
7. The age of Laodicea represents liberal churches in a "present day" context."

Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation - Wikipedia

I agree its a stretch, and yet many Dispensationalists seem to hold this view, even though it clearly violates the literalist tenet they hold so firm.
And this is not the only place where they are forced to do so in the book. Many Dispensationalists I have spoken to have said that it is only permissible to interpret an image as symbolic, if you are then told, immediately, what the symbol is...as in Daniel. The issue, of course, with this stance, is that this leaves them with a Lord and Christ who is actually a physical Lion and Lamb at the same time...up until the point where he has a sword coming out of his mouth. It also means that at some point there will need to be a giant woman giving birth in the stars. And that Satan will be able to be held with a physical chain.
So, it appears it is fine for them to slip into interpretive stance even when no direct, outright explanation of the imagery is given in the text. They adjust their reading and understanding based upon what the text clearly calls for: an understanding of the imagery involved.
The thing that grates my cheese, is that its just fine and dandy when they do it; when we do it, we're liberal nazi's. And we're liberal's simply because we're not "reading it literally".
Pot....meet kettle.

 

[Naomi25]

No, but AMills believe Jesus comes at the end of the Millennium. Which they say we are in now.
What refutes that idea is the very different events before Jesus Returns now and what happens after the Millennium.

Such as?

 

[Naomi25]

Very lame! and very very old. There is a difference between tribulation and THE TRIBULATION. I personally prefer calling it teh 70th week of Daniel.

But to show that the wrath and Daniels 70th week and the tribulation are the same?

Matt. 24:
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Rev. 6:

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

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.

Is this the best you have?? Attacking a term men use to call a very specific ffuture time in human history and highlighting that?

But the bible calls tha t70th week of Daniel by many names.

Time of Jacobs trouble Jer. 30:7
Seventieth week of Daniel Dan. 9:27
Jehovah' s strange Work Is. 28:21
Jehovah's strange act Is. 28:21
Day of Israel's calamity Deut. 32:25, Obadiah 12:14
Tribulation Deut. 4:30
The Indignation Is. 26:20, Dan. 11:36
Overflowing Scourge Is. 28:15, 18
Day of vengeance Is. 34:8, Is. 35:4, Is. 61:2
Year of recompense Is. 34:8
Time of Trouble Dan. 12:1 Zeph. 1:15
Dasy of wrath Zeph 1:15
Day of Distress Zeph 1:15
Day of wasteness Zepn. 1:15
Day of desolation Zeph 1:15
day of darkness Zeph 1:15, Amos 5:18, Joel 2:2
Day of gloominess Zeph. 1:15
Day of clouds Zeph. 1:15, Joel 2:2
Day of thick darkness Zeph 1:15, JOel 2:2
Day of the Trumpet Zeph. 1:16
Day of Alarm Zeph 1:16

New Testament names:

Day of teh Lord 1 Thess. 5:2
Wrath of God Rev. 15:1,7, 14:10, 16:1
Hour of trial to come upon the whole earth Rev. 3:10
Great Day of the wrath of the Lamb REv. 6:16-17
Wrath to come 1 Thess. 1:10
Wrath 1 thess. 5:9, REv. 11:18
Great Tribulation Matt. 24:21, Rev. 2:22, 7:14
Tribulation Matt. 24:29
Hour of Judgment. REv. 14:7

Different names all for the same 7 years. So please do not confuse general normal tribulation with THE TRIBULATION.

Ug. You totally missed my point. I'm not saying that there will not BE a tribulation. Yes, I expect that there probably will. But can you prove that this 'tribulation' will be the wrath that people will suffer under judgment for not believing in Jesus Christ?
Because I showed that "tribulation", by name, is EXPECTED in this life (which would, by extension, include even the end times).
If "wrath" as spoken of as that which we shall "escape", is spoken of in direct correlation to the salvation and eternal life we receive IN Christ Jesus, it is an expectation for a future reality....an eternal reality of not now, but then. Thus the 'wrath' we escape is hell, not tribulation and trial here on earth.

 

[Davy]

I...at this point still see the Millennial period as happening during this time period, for various biblical reasons...which I know you will not agree with. That's fine.

That's not truly a valid idea per God's Word, because the actual Scripture evidence shows the Rev.20 "thousand years" isn't until after Christ's literal return. I won't say it's fine to disagree either, because it's not really 'me' you're disagreeing with, but God's Word. We both should be saying the same thing per God's written Word. So one of us is actually believing what 'man' says, instead of God in His written Word.

But as far as everything else, I have been leaning more...towards the Post-trib way of reading things, although I am not yet set on these things. I've been listening to some interesting people who have made some fairly convincing points. Points that I have not been able to dismiss. I like those sorts of points...they make me think!
I do think its the sort of time in human history when we all need to be watching and thinking of these things fairly hard. I imagine we'll all still be a little surprised by how it all goes down.

Probably of all the generations of man on earth in this present world, this present time is one of the most important times to be strongly into God's Word line upon line, chapter by chapter, instead of listening to men. God is very correct in the Amos 8 prophecy for the end that there would be a famine for hearing God's Word, looking everywhere and not finding it.

Just as with everything else with the devil and his children today having infiltrated outward organizations, the same has happened with many of the religious organizations. Most mainstream Christian denominations are controlled by groups in some far away city, and send Church Quarterlies to the Church telling them what to preach and what to teach in Sunday school. If the preacher veers away from those guides too far, the Church elders can get him removed, and that preacher may put his retirement pension in danger. The very 'system' that is used to ensure The Gospel Message is adhered to per Scripture is also used to limit what is taught in the Church to keep to the level of 'milk'.

This means that even though a preacher may be able to teach the "strong meat" of God's Word in his Church, he may be bound by the 'system' over him. The seminaries teach preachers to stay on the 'milk' of God's Word, and when a member asks about a seeming controversial part of The Bible, they are told to get that person back on the 'milk'. Afterall, it's true, the 'main' purpose of Christ's Church is to spread The Gospel of Jesus Christ. No denying that. But how are they going to get the "strong meat" (Heb.5) if all that is taught is the 'milk'? And I do feel for a lot of those preachers because of the situation they are in with their systems over them, as I know first hand that a lot of them are... able to get into the "strong meat" of God's Word to their congregations. But they won't because it might mean losing their job.

So how does the believer on Christ Jesus come to the "strong meat" when God Himself gives the urge to want to know by The Holy Spirit? Where do they get it from? It has to come directly... from Him, asking and praying to Him through His Son Jesus Christ for it. And then that involves serious Bible study, line upon line, chapter by chapter, using the good Bible study tools which are proven tools over time (like a KJV Bible and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as a minimum for English speaking peoples). It's truly like Apostle Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:15.

Thus attend Church to worship and fellowship, but also at home have a private Bible study period with The Father and His Son, and become a 'workman' in The Word like Apostle Paul said to Timothy, and that way it will become easy to know whether what is preached is actually God's Word, or some doctrine from a system organization controlled by a group of men in some far away city.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have repeatedly said that the Christians will occupy all of the holy land, the area from the Nile to the Euphrates. And the true Church is only those born again Christians. Not billions of people at all.
Revelation 20:4 is quite clear; ONLY the trib martyrs will be in the first resurrection. Those who remain alive when Jesus Returns, will be with Him in the Millennium. 1 Thess 4:17 and Matthew 24:31

Well I agree, teh true church is only those born again Christians. We differ on where the time line for the birth and end of the church is!

As to your second statement. On this we agree! for the church has already been in heaven as the Bible has shown you . Otherwise you are forced to concluyde that the Apostles were not part of the church, for they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel!

Also as you believe the church stays asleep for the millennial Kingdom, some facts you need to consider!

Rev. 20 shows the bride has made herself ready. YOu say that is not in heaven. Well the church is the only bride of Jesus!

If the church is not around for the millenial kingdom then the wedding of the Lamb has not come as Gods Word says and you have shown the Bible to lie! YOU can't have teh church still asleep, made ready for wedding, a thron in heaven saying the wedding is come (present not future) and have the church still asleep in teh grave.

You also made the tribulation saints different from the church saints as they get resurrected but the church doesn't! Ironic, for that is what teh Bible says, and I have been telling you all along!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I would make the call that I believe the rapture of the church within the next 30 years, noting, my calculations could be off. I believe a rapture must occur otherwise how are we going to return to reign with Christ 1,000 years if we are still here?

Well I do too! But not because of Charlemagne, and the Jewish Calendar and your formula! But because teh word of God says the Rapture has been imminent since the first century and as that 1948 started the prophetic end times again, Every day brings one day closer to the rapture.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

NO scripture says that the Lord will take His people to heaven. Why do people believe such fanciful and unscriptural ideas?
When Jesus Returns, He will be accompanied by the angel army of heaven. Matthew 16:27, Revelation 19:14

Because the bible teaches it that is why! Jesus is preparing for us a place in heaven!!!

And the Bible says to absent from the body (present) is to be present with the Lord! (present)

The doctrine of the 'rapture' is a Satanic deception. Believing it sets up people for a huge disappointment and that will cause many to fall from their faith.

YOur statement above Karez is the Satanic deception! Believers cannot fall away from the faith where they lose their salvation! People can stumble, people can know seasons of sin, but never will they fall away!

Teh Rapture is biblical- it is the snatching away of Thess.

YOU have us meeting the Lord on His way down back to earth which is without any scriptural support!

Sorry but your allegorical re-interpretations are just like man y others- false and based on misinterpreting the Scriptures as written.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ah. No. No it was you saying that all the Jews were already at Christ's back when he comes to judge the others that lead to that assumption. It was also the fact that you are claiming a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile that lead to that assumption.
Hear me again. You cannot claim on one hand that in Christ we are all one under the new covenant made in Christ's blood....and then go on to also claim that actually, the Jews in Christ are fundamentally different and will be 'handled' differently at Christ's coming and at the time of judgment.
Because whether or not you want to call it a 'separate judgment' or what-have-you...when you claim that there will be a difference in nature of Christ's dealing with believing Jews and believing Gentiles, you are, in point of fact, inserting a distinction there that the bible does not make.

sorry but everything you said here is not me! YOu are either intentionally lying or have confused me with some one else or have misread my words.

And what is the proof that they are different judgment seats? Because they appear on different occasions in scripture? The authors of scripture talk about Christ's first advent multiple times, but that does not mean he came multiple 'first' times. The way we determine if the 'judgment' throne/s are one or two events is by defining what happens AT them. And, despite what you have pointed out, we see one event, where all are judged, good and bad.

-2 Corinthians 5:10

We can clearly see in this passage you quoted that BOTH good and evil are spoken of in reference to the same judgment. Why would the author do that if there was a clear separation between them? At the very least, it calls into question the validity of your claim. We gain even more clarity on the point when we bring in other verses on the subject:

-John 5:28-29

Proof?

The biblical fact that the Bema Judgment occurs in heaven and is for believers only to judge their works to save or lose them.

Second the sheep/goat judgment which grants the saved of teh tribulation period entrance into the earthly 1,000 year kingdom and the goats who survived the tribulation are cast into hell.

Finally teh Great white throne judgment at the end of time, which is for the rest of the lost from all time!

This is SCripture and they occur all at different times!

As we can see, these passages weave together a picture of judgment that is a single event AT Christ's return. Yes, we see it being described in different formats: Matt 25 is primarily directed at those alive at his return; but still clearly for the wicked and righteous..

so it is your contention that the righteous dead do not rise from the dead until right before time ends? WOW!
REv. 20 shows the 2nd resurrection! Pulling th etext out of its context has made you make it a pretext!

REmember there was a first resurrection 1,000 years before and those who were involved in the first resurrection were called Holy.

This SECOND resurrection is the one that the second death has authority over. That is the plain reading of SCripture here. Now it isup to you to prove that this second resurrection for the white throne includes saved and lost. And you forcing other Scriptures to try to say what they don't hasn't helped your hypothesis at all!

That, as all the verses shown above, clearly marks OT Jews saved by faith as 'elect', NT, Jews saved by faith 'elect' and Gentiles saved by faith 'elect'. We are also called the Church...because the Church is Christ's body. The body is who were are, elect is what we are. We were chosen BY God to become part of Christ's body.

Yes every saved person from Adam to the last person are "Elect". But only the church born at Pentecost and ending at the Rapture is the Church, the bride of Jesus. Remember Jesus said He will build His church --future- not continuing. Saying OT saints are part of teh church calls Jesus a liar!

The conclusion is that arguing multiple throne 'events' is weak at best. There is no specificity in the texts as to timing, other than to relegate it to Christ's return. And it is a logical fallacy to demand they MUST be different events if they speak of the dead here, and the living there. That presupposes that nothing whole or complete under the sun has different components and can thus be summarized or broken down by them

No the assumption is that the separate judgments are all the same!

The bema and the sheep/goat judgment are in Front of Jesus. The white throne is before the Father!
No your conclusions are the logical fallacy! As I said and you ignored, if teh passage in JOh was the only mention of Judgment then we have a very very storn implied case for one judgment. But you reject the two judgments of REv. 20 so you are stuck with the allegorical re-interpretation of the different judgments at different times.

So you also conclude that the resurrection called the first resurrection, no one was judged then.

Then you also conclude that the return of Jesus takes place at the great white throne judgment because there is a definite judgment there. So you are a post millenial allegorical covenantalist then.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. -Matthew 19:28-29

Here is one of the reasons why you are misled. The "new world" is a mistranslation! it is palingenesia which means regeneration a renewal not a new. this is the promise made enormous times in the old and new! That the earth which was devastated by teh 21 judgments and the war of Armegeddon is REnewed and made back near to its Edenic paradise! When God the Father sets up the Great white throne judgment, after wards there are NEW not REnewed heavens and earth.

See this is taking in the whole counsel of Scripture as they are written and not retranslated.

Now: do you know what the Greek tells us, exactly??
And then John, seeing Christ's vision in Rev see the Lord's throne in brilliant startling white.

But different thrones or events? Not in the text, English OR the Greek.

The words by themselves without context? No! I commend you for getting a good start here, now learn how bema was used in the first century! It was never for a criminal tribunal but as a platform in the circuses etc.. for the awarding of laurel wreaths for victors and other awards!

Thronos is where the ruling authority made judgments against people as to guilt or innocence. So in the original use of the words they are two vastly separate kinds of judgment seats!

Now as for Jesus' throne when the 1,000 year kingdom starts? Doxa has nothing to do with decisions. It describes the condition of His throne, not the nature of His Judgments! And here His throne is thronos not bema.

So seeing as you believe Jesus sits on HIs throne in Matt 25:31 as I do:

Mat 25:31

¶
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Then you have a real real problem with your Amillenial or post millenial return of Jesus! Jesus Himself it is when He returns thatat He sits on HIs glory. But if it is the same throne as the great white throne? Then Jesus has a very very very very short reign!

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

So Jesus yields the kngdom back to HIs Father and He does it after He returns. ?WOW!!!!

YOur quotes edited for space restraints.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Incorrect.
We see in Romans 9 that God's 'purpose of election' was at work even as early as Isaac and Esau. Indeed...that it "might continue" at this stage. This outright tells us that those belonging to God, even at this point, were 'elect'. We know, from other passages (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) that righteousness came by faith even then; election and faith, even from Adam through the OT were always intertwined.

REd Herring. I already said all saints are elect. I just said not all saints are part of teh Body of Christ. That began at Pentecost as Jesus foretold.

Why on earth would they have been? Christ, as he was called, had not yet been revealed. But you ought to say that when Christ DID appear and then revealed the New Covenant in his blood and the people he would have for himself...which in truth was nothing less that what he promised Abraham "in you ALL nations of the earth will be blessed" (in other words, all nations will be welcome into the elect in order that my purposes may be fulfilled).

And this is 100% true! But the OT saints are not the church or the bride of Christ! All nations are blessed! And no I ought not to say- for that is unbiblical based on the words of SCripture I in numerous amounts have posted to you!

Once again let me repeat as you seem to have a hard time remembering:

All these differences between OT Jew, church, tribulation saints etc. are for placement and role in teh 1,000 year kingdom which you deny will take place!

Paul and Peter are speaking to the Church in these verses. This thoroughly refutes your claim that the Church is never called the elect.

Another lie on you rpart! I never said the church was not called the elect! I specifically said all saved are elect, saints. But not all saints are part of the body of Christ! If you paid attention to my words you would not hav written this fabrication.

That, is just a single mention from each book the word appears in, in the NT. There are, in fact, 61 results. 15 of the 27 books of the NT apply the word 'saint' to what is irrefutably members of the Body.

So, here's your dilemma. You need to prove WHY when we come to Revelation the word 'Saint' must be suddenly employed in a different manner...because as I said, the term 'tribulation saint' is a fantasy. You also need to prove why these 'saints' are to be categorized in a different manner to the rest of the body...ie: "with one Spirit they are baptized into the Body of Christ". Because if that's how they are saved, redeemed, elected....you again, have a serious problem in your attempt to separate them from the herd, as it were.

I don't have a dilemna! Trib saints are a reality, the word saint occurs 13 times to refer to the tribulation saved! It appears you engaged in sloppy reading.

Saints are saints! All saved from Adam on are sanctified ones!(that is what saint means -just incase!) But not all saints are part of the body of Christ! That started at Pentecost and ends at the rapture! Every one else is just as elect as the church, just as saved as teh church, just as much saints as teh church, but they are not the church anymnore than the church is part of OT ISrael.

If you read your bible, Israel is the Wife of Jehovah, Teh church is the Bride of Christ. And if you know culture- then you know that there is a huge huge difference in meaning between wife and bride! Unlike today! Israel was married and will be remarried to Jehovah again, the church? We are still awaiting our wedding day to Jesus!

Uh. Huh. Some fancy logic happening.
The OT folks were never called elect (except for when the bible did it), but "we're all called elect". The Church was not "once" called elect (except all the times the bible called them that)...but "we're all called elect".
Maybe that makes sense in your brain, but nowhere else.

So calling all the people the Bible calls elect --"elect" is fancy logical happening to you? But OT saints are called elect in teh Bible, the church is called elect in the Bible , so calling us all elect is a problem to you???WOW!

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, -2 Thessalonians 2:1–3

This passage clearly says: 'that day WILL NOT COME until....UNTIL the rebellion and man of lawlessness COME FIRST.'

That ought to be a bit of a problem for you.

Why should it be a problem??? I have ben teaching this for decades!

But your problem is your using a lousy Bible for this verse. It is not a rebellion, it is a falling away! "apostasia" does not mean a rebelling, but a forsaking! It is a negat3ive form of rebellion (meaning that there is no active attempt of overthrow) but they are not synonymous in reality.

But what this apostasy means is a subject for another discussion!

 

[Naomi25]

No I am not arguing against myself.

Because I see in SCripture the church (the one body) ending in time and tribulation saints taking over! In the body there is one body and Jewish remnant entering in that body!

But the being forced, applies to the entire nation that survives as the Scriptures' I posted show you!

That would have been most difficult for you to do, seeming as though "tribulation saints" doesn't appear in scripture. And, compounding that problem, considering 'saints' is thoroughly used throughout the NT in conjunction with the "one body".
As I keep telling you; the onus is upon you to prove biblically that there is a crucial distinction between the sort of Christian these supposed 'trib saints' are, and the 'body saints' are, that one gets to receive certain promises and titles (baptized into one body of Christ in the Spirit) but the others do not. If you cannot, they are one and the same and the distinction you are attempting to foist upon them will not stand.

Well your problem in this is because you force that everything in this age has to be the same from Pentecost until Jesus returns! The Bible doesn't say that and neither should we!

I'm not forcing a single thing; what I'm doing is simply looking at what SCRIPTURE tells us this age and the next is like....and those descriptions themselves tell us where to place our expectations of these things. Like from Pentecost until Christ's return. For example:

Luke 20:34 tells us that marriage is for 'this age' but NOT for 'the age to come'.
Matt 13:32 that blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven in 'this age' NOR in 'the age to come'.
1 Cor 1:20 and 1 Cor 2:6 the rulers and their wisdom of 'this age' is passing away.
Gal 1:4 tells us that 'this age' is an evil age.
2 Cor 4:4 relates that Satan is given to be ruler over this fallen world in 'this age' but is NOT in 'the age to come'.
Eph 1:21 reassures that Christ is still Lord over Satan and all other authority, both in 'this age' AND in 'the age to come'.
Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 tell us that 'the age to come' is where we receive eternal life.

The picture emerging is one of an age of sinful fleetingness, and another age where things are eternal.
Now, those are the biblical classifications of the 'two ages'. And you would do well to note it is not I that calls what we dwell in 'this age', but those who write the NT. It is Paul himself....AFTER Pentecost, who calls it 'this age'.
Once again, the problem for you ought to be 'where do I insert another age'? If there is truly going to be another period upon the earth after Christ's return where Satan is 'bound' and sin is...restrained to some extent, but death still walks, as does rebellion is some form....then don't you feel there ought to be an allowance for it? It is clearly not as we are now. But, clearly not as we will be in eternity.
And it still does nothing to address the absurdity of you insistence that Jews are one with us now and one with us in eternity, but apparently the 'bible tells us' that in this period between ages, they're going to be separate again? Despite Christ's work to bring down that wall of separation and to unite a one people under him?
No scripture is going to support that idea.

Shadows and types? Absolutely! The old while literal also were shadows and types for things in the New! But NO , not all types point to Jesus! Some point to the rapture, some to gentiles in the millenial kingdom and some other events. I agree the super majority point to to the Lord, but not unamimously.

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. -Luke 24:25–27

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. -2 Corinthians 1:20

It is not in Israel we find our salvation. It is not in the Rapture that we find our salvation. It is not in the Millennium that we find our salvation.
There is only one thing that we find our salvation: Jesus Christ.
So, I think you will find that all shadows and types point to him. The very rare ones that don't, are ones that still ultimately point to him. What do I mean by that? John the Baptist, for example. It was prophesied that 'Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah'. In Matt 11:14 Jesus tells us that John the Baptist 'IS Elijah who is to come'.
So, even the Prophet Elijah, who was again prophesied as returning...in John...was still pointing at Jesus Christ.
It all points at Christ. Because it's all about him; his salvational work and his glory.

Well if you wish to go further into the aspects of teh coming Kngdom for Israel I am certainly prepared to give you dozens of verses of whatr life will be like in that coming kingdom.
Teh OT covenant had spiritual aspects, so why shouldn't teh New Covenant also have many spiritual aspects. But as the many many scriptures I showed you prove: The kingdom will be here on earth and many many things will be on earth.
Farming, Building, procreation, even sinning to name just a few! And yes I agree that the kingdom and Covenant that God will force upon the survivors of Israel is the New covenant ! But as Paul declared the promise belongs to them and we gentiles are partakers of the blessings not taker overs! We are living in the time where God is calling out of the gentiles a people for Christ! This is the church! But this time period will end with the rapture!

And of course it is an earthly theocratic kingdom! Jesus is going to rule and reign over it for 1,000 years! Do I need to repost all the verses that show Jesus returning to earth to establish a kingdom? Just remember that when Jesus finally conquers death in actuality- He yields HIs throne and submits back to the Father!

Let me attempt to phrase this another way.
You admit types and shadows exist in the OT. In point of fact, Christianity in general must, lest it looses the essential tenets of faith in regards to Christ's own person and who he was. What do I mean about that? I mean the types and shadows he fulfilled. For example:
In the OT, we recognize that the Temple was a type. The sacrifices were a type, the arc of the covenant were a type. The laws were a type. The Priests were a type, the Kings were a type, the Prophets were a type, the covenants were a type.
Why? Because Christ fulfilled all these things. Hebrews basically walks us through it all, but; Christ entered once for all into the holy of holies in heaven, and made the once for all sacrifice, doing away with the 'shadow' need of both temple and sacrifice for sin. Christ fulfills the triple office of 'prophet/priest/king', standing at the head of the Church, his people, as was always intended. The arc of the covenant was a type of God's holy throne, of which Christ sat down on next to the Father once he had made payment for sins. Christ fulfilled the laws, but living them perfectly and then dying in obedience, thereby making the old covenant obsolete and bringing in the new.
All this to say: If we look at all these things in the OT and say: 'they were types and shadows of a better thing Christ bought in' but then reach the promises of the kingdom and then say 'except that...that's not shadow, that's legit'....not only does it break with all hermeneutical consistency, calling into question the very basic but essential Christian doctrine on other essential issues, but it totally ignores the fact that the FIRST thing Christ openly taught when he began his ministry is 'the Kingdom of heaven is at hand'.
The old transforms. That is the beauty of Christ and his work. The law was never going to work in human sinfulness. The law transformed into grace. The temple and all its structured systems transformed into the loving body of Christ and his singular work FOR us. And the OT kingdom promises transformed into a Kingdom Christ repeatedly spoke of...a kingdom for all that could not be 'observed' but was 'among us' all the same.
Dispensationalists have a massive hermeneutical flaw when they consistently allow Christ to transform everything else in the OT for them, but then hold onto one of the elements he spoke most often of. They then go on to insist a physical future even when the NT simply doesn't speak of it...no wonder, as Christ has already spent considerable time explaining otherwise.
When we attempt to let the OT tell Christ how to interpret the Kingdom promises, we fall into a pit of reasoning that will never let us out.

 

[Naomi25]

I already did if you bothered to read the Scriptures I posted!

Well John, 3rd JOhn , JUde, Hebrews et al.

Forgive me, but you may believe you posted verses previously that showed a distinct difference between 'church' and 'tribulation saints', but you have not.

And I'm sorry, but just saying "John, 3rd John, Jude and Hebrews" as 'scriptural proof' of these two groups is laughable at best. You expect me to peruse the whole of John and Hebrews and just pluck out your proof verse for you?
3 John is short, so I read it, and it says absolutely nothing towards your point, however, so it doesn't encourage me to persist even if I were foolish enough to. And a quick glance back through our conversation shows you haven't given the specifics of these verses to me before, so...poor form in regards to 'proof'.

YOu just refuse to see in the Scriptures that tribulation saints have a different role than the church or the saved Israel of the tribulation! For if you looked at them as written and not reinterpreted by covenantl theologians you would see the church is different from Israel, as is different from the tribulation saints.

Yes I refuse to see it, because it is not there! You rely upon what? A word in Revelation and your own doctrine telling you the Church MUST be gone by then?
Whereas scripture repeatedly calls Christians 'saints', repeatedly tells us we must endure tribulation. And repeatedly tells us that we are all of one body if we are IN Christ.
How many times must I tell you that if YOU want to make a distinction between the Church and these 'saints', then you must prove that they are not worthy to be the bride. That they are different from the other Christians who are. That they are not worthy to escape tribulation like the other Christians apparently are.
And just saying "cause the Church has to be Raptured first" is NOT a reason. Because logically, you are still then left with people who fit the body of Christ in every possible description: saved by grace, filled with the holy Spirit. There is NOTHING in scripture that says they should NOT be part of the body...regardless of WHEN they are saved. There is NOTHING in scripture saying that these people would NOT be part of the bride and therefore welcome at the marriage supper of the Lamb. And by your own reasoning, if people part of the body of Christ are promised to 'escape tribulation', then these too ought to fit the criteria. Except they conveniently don't. It's your doctrine that doesn't fit here, not the 'saints'.

I already showed you an earthly kingdom where Israel is the focal point as Scripture says it will be.

Israel was never the focal point. Israel was the delivery vehicle. And yes, that makes the special, it makes them blessed, and loved. But it was never about them, it was about 'the offspring'. It always was. From the protoevangelium in the garden, when God promised the 'head-crusher', the one who would come from the woman and crush the head of Satan, to the promise to Abraham that 'through him all nations would be blessed'. To David, who was promised an everlasting heir on his throne. It was ALL about Jesus.
The problem people fall into with "Israel" and an earthly kingdom, is basically the exact same one Israel itself fell into. They, based on their own scriptures, expected their Messiah to come blazing in, swords drawn and to lay waste to the Romans and to set up a marvelous earthly kingdom were the Jews would reign under him over all the dirty Gentiles on the planet.
The NT is full of Christ trying to realign their gaze...of him AND the Kingdom. It was never supposed to BE that.

I already showed you that the church is to be kept from the time of Jacobs trouble, the 70th week of Daniel, or the tribulation! I already gave you the verses that shows the reason for the tribulation itself!

No, you most certainly haven't. You showed some verses that spoke OF Daniel's 70th week. I've always found it interesting that Dispensationalist, who are such sticklers for 'literalism', are happy to wack a great big gap in there when it really doesn't say anything about a gap between the 69th and 70th week.
But, regardless...let's go with the assumption that the 70th week IS still ahead of us, and it will be a time of tribulation. That still doesn't prove that the Church will be gone. To do that you have to prove 2 things: that Christ comes in a two-stage return, which you haven't. And that Christians are promised no tribulation...which you cannot.
And considering 2 Thess 2, and Matt 24:21, which are pretty pointedly saying "after" the tribulation, your case is looking weak.

OT saints have a different role in the millennial kingdoms- which you don't believe i neither even though that time frame is mentioned 5 times!

YOU are so used to be inculcated into thinking symbolic, you forget that literal also is true. The Lion lying with the Lamb. Is that symbolic or a restoration of the earth before the fall? I know this is literal!

I assume you're speaking of Isaiah 65 here?
Let me just address, for a minute, the true problem behind the 'literalistic' hermeneutic.
What's the difference between 'literal' and 'real'?
People who insist on reading scripture in a strict 'literal' way, cannot do so, in actual fact. Look:

See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
they and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.
. -Isaiah 65:17-25

This passage is often used as a proof text for the Millennium. See! They say: a time when there are babies, and death, sin, punishment. But the animals are in harmony, and work is bountiful and easy!
The problem is...IF being read in a STRICTLY literal way, this interpretation is impossible. Because the passage BEGINS by telling you WHERE and WHEN this time IS.
"SEE, I CREATE A NEW HEAVENS AND A NEW EARTH"
This should force any and every 'literalist' into reading this text a different way. They ignore it, however, because they've already determined where and when they want it to be by the rest of the verse.
By accepting that imagery and description is still very REAL, even if not 'literal', we find texts lead us, not the other way around.
Thus Isaiah is telling us that, yes, God HAS made a 'new heavens and new earth'...and then he goes on to paint a picture about it. Are we forced to take these images 'literally'? No. Does that make them any less 'real'? Absolutely not. So, when we are promised no more infant deaths, we know death has no sway. When it is described in a manner that 'if a man died at 100, that would be considered young!' We know death has no sway. Likewise, when we're told that a man failing to reach 100 is 'accused', we know that life is everlasting and death has no sway! And, ultimately, death is the consequence of sin...."the power of sin is death". Where death holds no sway, sin is no longer present.
The beginning of this text allocates how we read it. Still very real, very true, very important. But if we attempt to read it 'literally', we end up in trouble and in contradictory places.

But let me ask you this.

Who are Jesus brethren in Matthew 25? Jesus makes a differentiation between them and the sheep? so show me from SCripture whom you think the sheep are and who the brethren of Jesus are?

I'm assuming you mean this verse:

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ -Matthew 25:40

Jesus himself tells us whom he considers his 'brothers'.

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” -Matthew 12:50

Christians.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. -Romans 8:29

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, -Hebrews 2:11

 

[Naomi25]

Very lame! and very very old. There is a difference between tribulation and THE TRIBULATION. I personally prefer calling it teh 70th week of Daniel.

But to show that the wrath and Daniels 70th week and the tribulation are the same?

Matt. 24:
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

Rev. 6:

12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?


19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

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.

Forgive me, but...why would you insert Rev 6 INTO the middle of the Matt 24 passage? With absolute no indication you were doing so. Someone not familiar with either texts would have easily assumed that you were quoting Rev 6 as ending in "for then shall be great tribulation", which is just wrong. Please be more careful with your quoting of scripture. It matters.

The problem with these two passages is: there doesn't appear to be much to link them. Yes, both describe tribulation, however, there are critical differences that separate them:

“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. -Matthew 24:15–23

In point of fact, this passage ends with "if people tell you Christ has returned, don't believe it". If we look at Revelation, we see a different reality all together.

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” -Revelation 6:12–17

It is unavoidable that Christ HAS returned at this point, as ALL inhabitants on the face of the earth slaver with fear and attempt to hide themselves from his 'face'.
And here we reach that critical difference. AT this unmistakable theophany, when the world at large sees him who is seated on the throne AND the Lamb, we are told: "the great day of their wrath HAS COME.
Now, isn't that interesting? What's all that that has been going on beforehand, you know, in the first 5 seals? That's been some pretty bad stuff, right? War, death, famine, plague. But not, apparently, wrath. Because that "comes" when He does.

Is this the best you have?? Attacking a term men use to call a very specific ffuture time in human history and highlighting that?

No, I'm highlighting a weakness you doctrine has. You say we escape the tribulation. I showed where the bible says the opposite. I'm well aware you also like to say it's escaping God's wrath, but as shown above, that's not a really well nailed down idea either.

 

[Naomi25]

But the bible calls tha t70th week of Daniel by many names.

Time of Jacobs trouble Jer. 30:7
Seventieth week of Daniel Dan. 9:27
Jehovah' s strange Work Is. 28:21
Jehovah's strange act Is. 28:21
Day of Israel's calamity Deut. 32:25, Obadiah 12:14
Tribulation Deut. 4:30
The Indignation Is. 26:20, Dan. 11:36
Overflowing Scourge Is. 28:15, 18
Day of vengeance Is. 34:8, Is. 35:4, Is. 61:2
Year of recompense Is. 34:8
Time of Trouble Dan. 12:1 Zeph. 1:15
Dasy of wrath Zeph 1:15
Day of Distress Zeph 1:15
Day of wasteness Zepn. 1:15
Day of desolation Zeph 1:15
day of darkness Zeph 1:15, Amos 5:18, Joel 2:2
Day of gloominess Zeph. 1:15
Day of clouds Zeph. 1:15, Joel 2:2
Day of thick darkness Zeph 1:15, JOel 2:2
Day of the Trumpet Zeph. 1:16
Day of Alarm Zeph 1:16

Once again...I'm not arguing against a time in history where tribulation will get back. Or that its even call a time of tribulation, or distress, or trouble, or whatever name you can dig up.
I'm saying that as Christians, we are TOLD to expect tribulation, trial, hardship, persecution...our cross.
I'm also saying that when you conflate tribulation with 'escaping the wrath to come', you are mixing up two separate things: tribulation that comes on a fallen world from many different sources...and the wrath God pours out on the wicked WHEN he comes 'on that day' to judge them finally.

New Testament names:

Day of teh Lord 1 Thess. 5:2
Wrath of God Rev. 15:1,7, 14:10, 16:1
Hour of trial to come upon the whole earth Rev. 3:10
Great Day of the wrath of the Lamb REv. 6:16-17
Wrath to come 1 Thess. 1:10
Wrath 1 thess. 5:9, REv. 11:18
Great Tribulation Matt. 24:21, Rev. 2:22, 7:14
Tribulation Matt. 24:29
Hour of Judgment. REv. 14:7

Different names all for the same 7 years. So please do not confuse general normal tribulation with THE TRIBULATION.

See, this presupposes that the 'Day of the Lord' is not the day of Christs return, but a 7 year period. Which is interesting of a 'literalist' to wack a 7 year period on a 'day' description. I'm well aware that in the OT the DOTL was used in terms of coming judgments...sometimes of enemy nations, sometimes upon Israel itself. But it often used it for the end of days as well. In the NT, we consistently see it referring to that last day:

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.-1 Thessalonians 5:2-3

The day of the Lord is coming 'like a thief' a phrase that clearly links it to 'the Rapture'. But, what happens to the sinful? Not 'tribulation'...but 'sudden destruction'. This is talking about final wrath and judgment...the lake of fire. Not 7 years of tribulation.

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction....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.-2 Thessalonians 2:1–3,8

Now concerning our gathering to Christ...the Rapture. Paul connects it, again, with the 'day of the Lord'. This 'day of the Lord' will NOT come, UNLESS the rebellion comes FIRST and the man of lawlessness is revealed, whom the Lord kills BY HIS APPEARING. In other words...the rebellion must happen before any such 'gathering', as must the man of sin. When Jesus returns, that is 'the Day of the Lord', when he gathers his people and kills the man of sin.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. -2 Peter 3:10

Again, the 'day of the Lord' is referred to as coming 'like a thief'...another clear reference to what many like to call the Rapture. And it is also clearly linked with the renewal of the cosmos.
In short: the Day of the Lord can not be proven in the NT to be a whole 7 year period. At all. That is supposition and assumption. Pure and simple.
Again, I'm not denying that the bible teaches there will be both tribulation, or great tribulation at the end. I'm just saying you can't prove we won't be here.
I'm also saying that the verses that promise an escape of wrath...is very clearly talking about the wrath that, as you so well pointed out above in Rev 6...comes upon the wicked AT the return of Christ. Not in a previous 7 year period on earth.

 

[Naomi25]

NO it doesn't assume you and I endure it! It may not happen for another 150 years!!! What it means is that the survivors of all the woes that fell upon the earth between the seal judgments, trumpet judgments, bowl judgments and the genocide the antichrist declares against Jews and christians. Or the people in the midst of the tribulation period! This passage does not identify the who are those.

But we know there are three classes of people that survive

The goats, the sheep, and Jesus' brethren who the sheep aid.

Nice try to swap the name of the lake of fire with the term wrath! But that pig don't fly!!!!

NO where can you find eternal torment in the lake of fire called wrath except if it is forced upon this and the other passage! And also that makes you a silly reader!

Not every time we see the word "salvation" in English is it used of being saved eternally! Context determines meaning and here since the word is "soteria" which in Scripture is more commonly used of being delivered from something. SOZO is almost exclusively used in the eternal salvation sense.

Unless of Course you believed women get saved by having children.

1 Timothy 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

also as given the fact Scripture refers multiple times to teh tribulation as the wrath of God and never the lake of fire, it becomes moot.

As for Romans 5:9. You make this verse nonsensical! We have been saved by His blood, so we are going to be saved more???????

Well as we have a throng of people in heaven already, and Paul taught the Church in Corinthians that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord- Unless you are saying Jesus isn't in heaven, this is the only place the wife can be.

also give a biblical defense as to why this passage doesn't flow chronologically.

As for the Bride? Look at Scripture a little more closely again:

Rev. 19:7
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

At this point which happens before Jesus returns to earth- Gods Word says Jesus bride has made herself ready! If some of the Body of Christ are still on earth then His bride is not ready! Unless you wish to assume that they have had their works judged on earth (the Bema Scriptures shows just for the Bride).

NO you need to prove that there is not a pre trib rapture for the church and that when it says the Bride is ready to wed, it means not all but most because some are still stuck on earth. Also how did all them christians get in heaven?????????

I do not call them Christians at all! They are Tribulation saints. Just like I do not call saved OT Jews Christians. They are Jewish saints. Same as I do not call teh saved from Adam to the founding of Israel Christians. They are OT saints. YOu need to show they are called Christians and why when God promised tro deliver them from the wrath to come- they are there enduring the wrath that has come (Rev. 6)

What you call my "assumptions" are based on a literal, historical , grammatical understanding of Scripture. It takes each word at its normal, usual meaning unless the passage requires its secondary or tertiary meaning in English!

YOur problem is you force teh saints in the Trib to be Christians and yet they are never called the church, the bride, the body or another term used to describe us saved from Pentecost to present.

and no you have not presented verses that prove there is no pre trib rapture. YOu assume they mean that because you force the saved to be called Christians when they are not called that once in SCripture!

Matter of fact- the beheaded in the trib are not called the bride - but are called kings and priests of Jesus! The throng in heaven- they are not the bride for they are announcing her!

and you use a strawe man by attacking the fact that it is assumed that teh wedding scene in REv. 19 is in heaven. where is your biblical evidence it is not? I use the natural normal flow of teh passage. What do you use to assume it isn't?

Well accepting the Bible as written, there can be no other answer!

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

So if we accept the Bible as written and not reinterpreted, some of the dead were resurrected at this point in time! Then 1000 years later teh rest of the dead were risen.

this all happens after Jesus returns to earth! So where di the Bride in heaven come from and where did the throngs of people in heaven come from??????? Assumptions on your part.

The Bible says there is a gap of 1,000 years between the two resurrections in REv. 20, So I teach it! YOu cannot , other than by assumption, say this is not to be understood literally.

As for the books and the Lambs book?

Everyone is written in teh Book of Life (or living), and then the deeds of the lost are also recorded. The Lambs book of Life is only for the church. NO saved people at this final resurrection. Remember God HImself said that those resurrected here, the second death has authority over them. YOu and other covenatlists add that this doesn't mean every person resurrectd teh second death has authoirty over them. And that simply cannot be true biblically unless one re-interprets Gods Word!

You know...inevitably, in every conversation, one reaches a point where one has had enough. Clearly you will not be reasoned with or convinced, no matter what or how I present scripture... which is your due. And I don't feel a single thing you've given has been logical or faithful to God's word or his salvational plan as clearly laid out in scripture. So...I think, considering my view OF your view, it's actually rather a compliment to be called a 'silly reader', even if it were intended as an insult.
I think, in the end, we can trust for God to be true, and his plan to be true, even if human reasoning struggles to comprehend it...and while I am confident in my understanding of it, I am more comforted by his truth ultimately coming to pass.
I just hope that you are too, even if it does not come in a way you expect.
At this point, I'll leave the conversation, as it's going nowhere.