Wrath against the body of Christ?

Then why oh why would he commit wrath against His Own Body?

Have you not read we are His Body? The Bride. The Church. His Body.

So drop your notion of the church going through the great tribulation.

We are leaving so very soon. Dont be asleep and not awaiting his return. Dont be looking around for the Antichrist to be your time clock and 3 1/2 more years or 7 years. Jesus didnt say look around He said LOOKUP.

Can you not see that the death and torture then and now of Christians are not at Gods hand?

Jesus loves His Body His Bride His Church and Jesus' is ready to bolt in and call us out.

Be ready brother and sisters. Dont be incredulous at His reurn. Be expecting it eagerly.

With much love to all of you!

Ehat you wrote is not biblical truth.

We will go through the tribulation of the seals and trumpets but will be raptured before the bowls of wrath are poored out.

1 Thessalonians 5:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Corinthians 15:52 King James Version (KJV)
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Unconverted Israel will go through the bowl judgments and will be saved in the end.

Linda I agree with you, but others may not be persuaded of the pre tribulation rapture. I find it's best not to start these threads because they only lead to dissension and arguments.

God bless you sister.

"Pre- and posttribulationists agree that a host of saints, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, will be present on earth during the tribulation. Therefore, whatever problems pretribulationists may turn up regarding the presence of the Church in a period of divine wrath are their own problems, too; for whether or not the tribulational saints belong to the Church or to another group of redeemed people, they also have escaped God's anger by virtue of the blood of Christ, who underwent their judgment for them (Rev 7:14). Will Jewish and Gentile saints suffer God's wrath during the tribulation, according to pretribulationism? If not, neither would the Church have to suffer God's wrath during the tribulation. If so, arguments against the suffering of wrath by the Church apply equally to tribulational saints of other sorts."

"Or, if tribulational saints will receive shelter within the period of divine wrath, may not the same hold true if Christians enter that period, i.e., if Christians turn out to "be" saints of the tribulation? Romans 8:1 assures that there is no condemnation, or judgment, to them that are in Christ Jesus...does it not also include deliverance from that type of judgment...which is characterized by the pouring out of the vials of the wrath of God? But would not tribulational saints belonging to the Church nevertheless be in Christ? Would not His blood justify them (Rev 7:14!)? If not, how would they be saved? If so, why would they be in the tribulation, if the pretribulational line of reasoning is correct?"

"We can hardly answer that endurance of the tribulation constitutes a penalty for failure to believe in Christ prior to the tribulation. Such an explanation would merely side-step the problem of the way in which any person saved by the blood of Christ could be subject to divine wrath. Tribulational saints might and should be individually raptured immediately upon conversion in order to escape divine wrath if it is true that earthly presence during the tribulation will necessarily entail the endurance of divine wrath. Many will be saved during the tribulation who had no previous opportunity to believe. Some hold that "only" such people will be converted during the tribulation (II Thess 2:11-12). Are we to think that those saints will have to endure God's wrath because the Church failed to preach the Gospel to them before the tribulation - while the guilty Church goes scot-free?"

(From "The Church and the Tribulation" - by Robert Gundry - 1972)

IM glad the Church is not going through the great tribulation.

We in America get that luxury.

In Africa, they starve you, kill you, mame you, shut down your churches and treat you like animals.
In China they imprison you, beat you, starve you, tempt you to rat out other Christians to save yourself.
lots more places and lots more Christians didn't get that message. Since they aren't privy to the secret rapture and didn't know about the get-out-of-tribulation texts they have to die for their faith, die without food, clothing, arms, legs, eyes, face...all because Jesus must think we in America are his body and the rest of those 'other people' don't qualify for our Christian-package-deal.

It's not good for God's glory to allow an American to suffer, but those Africans, Chinese and plenty of others God must not take any one of them to account, why who cares if Sudanese Children are hacked to death for being Christian, naa...who cares burn them alive. But we in America should not suffer to drive less than a 2016 car.

Good thing the secret rapture is going to get me out of harms way, seriously how is God glorified in allowing me to drive an old car?

Im glad there's no way we americans could possibly suffer, otherwise God could be called an abuser.

All anecdotal, no scripture to refute a rapture just the testimony of millions who didn't seem to get the 'memo'.

Good one Marvin. Not to mention the hosts and hosts of believers killed and tortured in the worst ways imaginable and documented in Fox’s. No rapture for them!

It seems just as Seinfeld had the "soup nazi” who decided who got soup we have "rapture nazis” who decide who gets raptured.

The "Left Behind” books have blinded lots and lots of folks.

//Then why oh why would he commit wrath against His Own Body?//

Maybe it's a childhood complex because His Father committed wrath against Him by putting him on a cross for you and me.

Oh nutty, you got this wrong!!!

Todd, Marvin, no offense to you, but that's a strawman argument if I ever heard one. No pastor in his right mind would tell his congregation "you'll never suffer; God will rapture you out before that happens" like raptures happen every day. In fact, no theologian says that there will be raptures before anyone suffers. We are promised trials and suffering. The rapture is a one off event that happens prior to the tribulation.

Nigel I have no issue with the belief in a pre-trib rapture- I believed it for years and it may be what indeed happens.

What I find distatesful is the idea that we western Christians who have it made and have never been persecuted need to be rescued from torture and death when so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the ages have experienced very great tribulation indeed.

In other words, if Pre-trib is true it is not so us spolied western Christians don’t get our darling little knees scuffed up.

Nigel, you are forgetting the underlying premise of this sister's Pre-trib rapture argument. She is saying if Christ allows his body the church to go through the tribulation, he is committing violence against his body..just as a troubled person would cut, abuse his body or be suicidal.

Are you seeing this?

This kind of thinking, if it's consistent will reject the cross of Jesus as an act of violence on the Father's part, and take the blood and suffering out of Christianity..

We already see many churches who have gone down that path.

Hi Nigel: my argument was pure ad populum argument, it was not a logical assessment, it could not stand up when critiqued, nor could you use it to defeat even the worst argument for a pre-trib rapture.

My point is, pretribulatonalism focuses on getting the Church out before God's wrath falls on the world.
But God's wrath is already being and has been poured out in the world in various ways. One of the major faults of a pre-trib teaching is to dismiss any wrath or judgment from God as merely 'the devils work', but when we are all gone, then God will act.

This premise is false, yet pre-trib grounds it assumptions on this very premise. It's surrounded by scripture texts and with emotional or exhortative preaching, yet at the end of the day what I am hearing is God's not judging or pouring out wrath now, only later will it come.

It is true some eschatological events concerning the wrath of God have not yet been fulfilled, but that does not validate the aforementioned premise nor does it validate the doctrine itself.
This premise is exploited and used to sooth worried saints into believing their troubles will never go beyond the discomforts of a 'normal life'.
We are exhorted to 'look up', yet, do not saints in horrible persecutions 'look up'?

Brother Marvin, may I ask you a personal question?
Why do I find myself grabbing the dictionary every time you post something?
No offense, I was half kidding 😊

Hi Fifi: years ago a good brother in the Lord once told me "Marv, you need to gain a better vocabulary than the 6 words you use again and again, it will make for better preaching"

So, I took it to heart and try to add vocabulary.

now-a-days you just say "ok google" and get your definition. I had to look it up.

Well, Marvin

What will make for better preaching?

We should start a whole new thread for that question?
Don't you think that better preaching should aim at reaching your hearer'soul and mind. And since most people are iliterate in this age in which we live, in order to reach their mind you really need to use a language they understand. As for reaching their souls you only need the unction from above.

I find your posts so annointed and edifying, but sometimes long and heady.

If good preaching needed vocabulary, as this well meaning brother advised you, then poor Peter the fisherman couldn't have had a chance.

You and Katz(my favorite preacher) would make good friends in heaven.

In a very short assessment, the ungodly will suffer the wrath of God, the Church will suffer persecution from the ungodly. This simple premise is found through-out scripture. When the ungodly suffer in the final days due to the wrath of God, the Church will suffer by reason of the persecution initiated and controlled by the Beast.

The Church may endure both the harsh realities of God's wrath toward the wicked and endure the harsh realities of keeping the faith in the face or terrible persecution.

God's people have suffered along with the wicked, God's people have been spared even while the wicked perish, both of these scenarios will play out in various ways in the last days. There's one body, one Bride, One Chosen people and they are those who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. It is these who are written in the Lambs book of Life and it is these that will overcome the beast, the false prophet and all the ungodliness present in the world.

A rapture makes a distinction between the bride and the 'tribulation saints' where there is none. The Rapture removes part of the body while yet declaring the remainder will suffer. All is relegated to a very short span of time and in that time various literal interpretations of Revelation must come into play. Yet, what is paramount in the Christian faith is absent in the teachings of the rapture. Bearing one anothers burdens...nope were getting out. Preaching the gospel to the lost...nope were getting out, demonstrating the love of God in the worst situations...nope were getting out.

All because we are not appointed to wrath. Yet the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness...even the homosexual being given over to his lusts is God's wrath and we feel it, read a news report and see that God's wrath is present and we are still here and must endure their lies, endure their political positioning, endure their plans to proselytize our children, endure their public displays of rebellion to God and Church. This is only one aspect of wrath in action and we are right in the middle of it.

The red scourge in China, the inquisition in Europe, the genocide in Africa...suffering in the body of Christ has never been predicated by the announcement of 'wrath upon the wicked', it was predicated upon the sinful nature of man "they will kill you and think they are doing God a service"

It is because of these things I refuse the rapture as a means to elude the Cross as Fifi said and give false hope of deliverance when the scriptures declare explicitly otherwise.

//nope we're getting out. //

I like that!
Not as spiritual advise but a style of speech.

//In a very short assessment,//

😂

Edited)

If I could I would forever eradicate this idea of "comfortable christianity" from peoples minds.

If you truly give your life to Jesus, you are not promised an easy path. In fact, you are promised rejection, persecution, trials, tests etc. If you want to live for Jesus, the devil will be as mad as a hornet; he will throw everything he's got at you.

I spend most days alone. I have no friends, no one I can confide in. I try my best to tell others about Jesus, but most times they laugh at me or throw it back in my face. I am gossiped about, ridiculed. Just recently someone called me a "crazy old man" at work (I'm 32! go figure); last week someone tried to get me fired for evangelizing at work. Sometimes it seems like satan floods my mind with depressing, discouraging thoughts. (But I'm not in prison being beaten so I guess it's not really suffering.)

But in spite of all that, Jesus is with me. I feel His presence; His incredible love has kept me alive.

I will confess that I still lean toward a belief that the Lord will gather His bride before the wrath of God is poured out upon the entire world. Of course, I would never declare that leaning to be a doctrinal truth.

I don't think that God will pour out His wrath upon the believers or unbelievers alike. If God saved Noah and Lot from the judgment of God pouring out around them, then I believe that the same will likely be the case with the Bride of Christ when God is pouring out the trumpet and bowl judgments upon the entire Earth.

That said...

I don't believe that Christians are free from suffering.
I don't believe that Christians are free from tribulation.
I don't believe that Christians are free from persecution.

I do believe that persecution of the Bride will increase exponentially as we approach the coming of the Lord.
I also believe that believers are persecuted terribly around the world for their faith in Christ Jesus.

However, I also have come to the point where I don't think that I will ever know with absolute certainty the manner by which the end with come.

In fact, I believe that the focus of the Church is wrong. The Church should not focused upon mapping out the end times with absolute declarations or timetables but in preparing believers to be ready -- ready to die or suffer for the cause of Christ -- at any time.

When pastors teach about the end times, I don't think that they should make doctrinal absolutes about it (other than those truths that are clear even to children who read the Word of God). Instead of teaching "no rapture" or "yes rapture," perhaps Biblical teachers should introduce various views by which some think that the end will come about.

The key, of course, is to be prepared and to never lose focus of Jesus Christ -- especially in the midst of trials and tribulations.

.

//Instead of teaching "no rapture" or "yes rapture," perhaps Biblical teachers should introduce various views by which some think that the end will come about//

Wouldn’t that be nice? The best Bible teachers do this. But it is rare.

Putting it very short, I see the problem is deeper than an eschatological perspective. I see the problem as a lack of knowledge of who God is.

Todays preaching...not all of course and with some awesome exceptions....depict God as never showing wrath only love, never anger only peace, never disapproval only acceptance, never judgment always mercy. There is no God in the bible like that, but that is one fabricated from pick-and-chose texts by various popular teachers that has moved across the body of Christ in American.

If something calamitous happens, it was a natural event, if something horrible occurs to a great group of people its a work of the Devil. God of course is playing the Deist-god, where he is out of town, sorry he couldn't help, his hands were tied because someone didn't pray hard enough.
In short, God is never involved, never has anything to say and never can be thought of as a judging, fearful, righteous King. He is the friend of sinners, definitely not the judge of sinners.

To me, it's this sort of thinking that makes a good seed-bed to plant rapture teaching, because the rapture has got all of God's wrath positioned in a 7 year period...and the Church is out of town for good.

You cannot learn to discern the voice of God in disasters, calamities when you think God had nothing to do with it and accordingly has nothing to say about it.
So all is a guessing game, all is a puzzle a conundrum that cannot be solved either by the bible or history, it is answered by the humanist materialist or by the politicists analyzing it all in terms of human wisdom and knowledge.

We get nothing but bologna.

Introduce the rapture and bang, now we don't have to interpret anything, all we need to do is ignore it until we get out of here. That's what we do.

With all the numerous theories being bantered about and taught it's no wonder God's gift to us of laying it out in a basic, simple and easy to understand manner has been lost. I'm thinking the early church and most of the church over the centuries would be scratching their head and a bit baffled over the controversy.

All the living and dead saints will be raised and translated at the last trumpet (I Cor 15:51-52; I Thess 5:16; Matt 24:31) at the second coming of Christ. There are no other trumpets referred to after the trumpet Jesus referenced in Matt 24:31.

But now you have debates about is it really a trumpet referred to or what really does "last" mean? I mean, last could have a lot of meanings you know, so maybe we should discuss what last really means. Does last really mean last? Even though He purposefully inspired the word last to be used how do we know God really meant last? You know, maybe there is more than one last trumpet. The simple thing to do it seems would be to just accept it and believe last means last and trumpet means trumpet. God is not the author of all this jibble jabble confusion and opposing views.

If we teach if you believe this it is okay and if someone else believes that it is okay also. That is really basic relativism - if it works for you it is okay and if something else works for someone else that is okay also. How is that teaching truth?

Then you have the anomaly being taught that after a rapture tribulation believers are not going to be part of the church nor will they be indwelt by the Holy Spirit even though they have faith in Christ and His atonement. Many things have been taught in church history but never this! Never!

At His second coming, Jesus comes and raises the righteous dead and glorifies the living and dead at the last trumpet. It's basic biblical truth profoundly easy to understand because God meant it to be easy to understand.

Hm... I think there is confusion between - "the wrath of God" and "persecution through Antichrist". I believe these are two separate things.

Edit to add:
For example Daniel 11:31-35 speaks about persecution, also Revelation 12:17, Rev 13:7

Rev 15:1-3, wrath of Godis filled up with the seven plagues and the saints that have overcome the beast are no longer on the earth.

Rev 14:9,10 - those who follow the beast will drink of the cup of the wrath of God.

Also Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6 indicate that the wtath of God comes on the "children of disobedience".
Rev. 6:16, 17 - "hide us from the wrath of the Lamb". Can't imagine any true Christian saying that. We await His coming, not His wrath!

That is my current understanding of Scripture.

Quote
//When the ungodly suffer in the final days due to the wrath of God, the Church will suffer by reason of the persecution initiated and controlled by the Beast.//

Quote
//I think there is confusion between - "the wrath of God" and "persecution through Antichrist". I believe these are two separate things.//

AMEN,
But the original post doesn't seem to see that distinction.

Rev13:7,15

7 It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

Overcome them in v.7 = Kill them in v.15

Rev 11:7
7 When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, OVERCOME THEM and KILL THEM.

1 Thess 5:4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

So as I read about wrath being "not appointed to believers" it is in the context of being children of God, saved, sons' of light, over against those who are ungodly. The comparision is between the saved and the unsaved.

So, as I read the base text for a rapture=because we are not appointed to wrath, I find it faulty.

What I do find is wrath poured out on Egypt...the Isrealites were there, wrath on neighboring pagan tribes...the Israelites were there, Wrath upon Babylon Israel was there.

Point is, God pours out his wrath in the presence of his people. This I find explicit in the scripture.

Now, according to revelation I don't see an eschatological change...meaning "this really bad wrath" means the Church is getting pulled out, but I don't read that at all, I read the Beast persecutes the Church and kills them, overcomes them for a time.

I'm not sure where the goofiness that asserts " well you're just looking for anti-Christ I am looking for Christ"! comes from?
No, I am looking to Christ, am also seeking to know and understand the word of God...that same word that says we will be persecuted and that same word that says I am to look to Jesus the author and finisher of my faith.

I find John teaches in Revelation what Moses taught in Exodus, Deuteronomy etc that God pours out his wrath on the Nations and we see what happens when God does it.

To me that Thessalonians text looks like a proof-text that was pulled from context and made a pre-text for a doctrine that seems to contradict all texts.

Hi David (docs),

You wrote: "If we teach if you believe this it is okay and if someone else believes that it is okay also. That is really basic relativism - if it works for you it is okay and if something else works for someone else that is okay also. How is that teaching truth?"

"Relativism" is very different from a church, pastor or even denomination deciding against taking an absolute positional stand -- a set of "must-believe" standards -- on such matters like specific eschatology or any other non-essential doctrine.

Over the last fifteen years that I've been a part of this SermonIndex community of believers, I've come to understand that there are many different beliefs among believers. I've seen and, unfortunately, been a part of some terribly divisive debates over doctrine.

Think of the list of divisive topics:

- Calvinism/Arminianism/Predestination
- Eschatology (Rapture v. Great Tribulation)
- Bible versions (i.e., King James Only)
- Head coverings (and other questions about Biblical modesty)
- Music
- Women in ministry
- Gifts of the Spirit (e.g., tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.).
- Celebrating Christmas or other holidays
- Tithing or no tithing
- Voting in elections

This list could go on and on. Obviously, most believers develop opinions on most of these (and other) issues. These opinions also obviously are derived to after much prayer and study.

It is my opinion that churches -- local, a greater fellowship or the true "Church" as a whole -- shouldn't take a definitive doctrinal stand (a required acceptance so to speak) on issues that are either somewhat unclear from Scriptures or still debated among the different believers in the Body of Christ.

While many people (including pastors and church leaders) will agree that these are non-essential issues, most of them tend to have a habit of being "essential" when it comes to fellowship or ministry in a local fellowship.

For instance, if my wife and I visited many of the churches where they practice the "head covering," we would likely be welcomed with open arms. They would probably treat us as sincere believers too (especially if they got to know us). However, some of those churches would prohibit us from taking a part (or leadership role) in ministries simply because we don't share the same persuasion about the head covering.

Now, neither of us would EVER think of telling people what they should believe about that issue. We wouldn't try to instruct believers either way. However, I still suspect that this would not be enough to permit us to participate in any sort of ministry within certain local bodies of believers that widely embrace this practice.

Most churches -- local independent bodies or congregations that are part of larger fellowships
or denominations -- often have sets of beliefs that are central or core teachings of the church. Many describe them as a list of what "we believe." Membership is often contingent upon believers agreeing to or aligning with such beliefs. Yet, if you look at those lists, there are often non-essential doctrines or teachings listed among them.

When it comes to eschatology, "I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE" is still a viable answer.

I suspect that many of the early believers in the first and second centuries -- often without even access to the texts of the Gospels, Acts or the Epistles -- may not have known (with specificity) exactly how the Lord would return. We do have writings from different early church individuals, but most of these lack clarity of specificity in such matters.

When I say that churches might avoid taking stands on certain issues, I'm referring to telling believers what is a "truth" that isn't undeniably clear from the Word of God. Moreover, is it really necessary for churches to tell believers what they MUST believe in every last issue of non-essential doctrine?

So, if I am asked by people about eschatology, my response is more like this:

Will there be a rapture before the tribulation?
I don't know.

Will believers be forced to endure the tribulation/wrath of God?
I don't know.

What do you know?
I know that we all must set our eyes upon Jesus Christ and be prepared for whatever may come.

At this point, I could discuss the different notions that people have regarding the return of the Lord.

Do you think that this is an acceptable way of approaching the issue or do you think that it amounts to "relativism?"

Sounds fair to me.

Hi Chris:

you said...Think of the list of divisive topics:

- Calvinism/Arminianism/Predestination
- Eschatology (Rapture v. Great Tribulation)
- Bible versions (i.e., King James Only)
- Head coverings (and other questions about Biblical modesty)
- Music
- Women in ministry
- Gifts of the Spirit (e.g., tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.).
- Celebrating Christmas or other holidays
- Tithing or no tithing
- Voting in elections

This discussion forum might as well fold up its tents and shut down if disagreements=divisiveness means such subject matter should not be discussed.

No, I say the complete opposite, it's because of these subjects God gets us to think about his word in ways we would have never thought of. Our frictions do not hurt us.

I will openly say it, I don't care 1 iota if someone gets ruffled because either I or someone else defends their own view of a scripture. I say get over it. Christianity is not and never has been about 'saying the nice and man-pleasing thing'.

It pleases the carnal self to remain unchallenged, un tested, all our ideas are never given any scrutiny.

Now, if some (including myself) get silly or carnal about a disagreement...its not the Bible's fault, not the discussions fault and not the fault of God who put it there, its ours and we should own it.

Chris...really? is the way to peace nothing more than a sentimental attachment to one another? No, the realities of discussion boards demonstrates our weaknesses and really how much we need each other despite our differences.

Hi Gloryandgrace (Marvin),

I think that you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that we shouldn't be able to discuss or even debate various doctrinal issues (obviously motivated with a love for God, the truth and one another). Over the years at SermonIndex (and as a believer), I've learned quite a bit as my heart tries to remain pliable about what I do or do not know about a great many things.

Rather, my concern lay with declaring something to be a doctrinal "TRUTH" when it is little more than a persuasion that is still debated. Obviously, I am not speaking about those things that are essential to the faith. Nor am I referring to issues that are exceedingly clear from the Word of God to the Body of Christ.

The change in a debate is when people begin to make absolute declarations about a matter that aren't quite so absolute or indisputable.

For instance, the ideas that there will be a "rapture" OR that believers will be forced to live on the Earth during the period where God's wrath is poured out upon the planet is based upon interpretations of Scripture. Why? The Bible doesn't give a step-by-step timetable of events with the clarity by which the Body of Christ can largely agree.

Another great danger is in how we approach someone with a different view on such matters. Do we view them as less spiritual, less prayerful or generally uninformed believers? That is a great danger -- especially when both sides of a debate view the other with the same lens of haughtiness.

This has nothing to do with sentimentality. It has nothing to do with a desire for truth over the love for one another. Rather, it is the danger in taking an absolute position on certain things that aren't absolutely clear from the Word of God and then demanding that others live by what we think to be that "truth."

We can always discuss or debate various issues. I think that it isn't a problem (though it often turns into one). Rather, my issue is when some brother or sister joins such a discussion and proclaims their view as the "truth" and, in doing so, implies that others are following after a lie.

Moreover, I do take issue with denominations, fellowships or local congregations that set out a list of "must believe" doctrines that are non-essential and not entirely clear among all believers -- and then use that as a determination of fellowship, membership or a required adherence for ministry.

The Lord has blessed me with many things. He's given me a keen mind and intelligence. He's allowed me to gain an extensive formal education. He's provided the means for me to educate myself informally and without malice or prejudice. He's provided many tools too for study of His Word. He's allowed me to develop (slowly) a better understanding of biblical languages, customs and history.

I have learned much from fellowship with other believers, Bible teachers, pastors, etc. Yet, all of these things also serve to make me more clearly aware of what I don't know too. Whether or not I think that some things are more likely true than others, I do know that I am not certain enough to stake a position upon it or try and force that opinion upon a congregation.

I hope this makes what I was trying to say just a bit more clear. I welcome (and enjoy) being challenged in such things. I just cannot declare such things to be an undeniable truth if it is, in fact, more of a prayerful and studious opinion or persuasion. I would not make it a prerequisite for local fellowship or ministry in the local church either.

Some things that stand out to me in Revelation regarding the saints.

In Revelation 13 when the beast is being worshipped by all whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life, it is given to the beast to make war with the saints and overcome (kill) them, John writes "Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints."

And then in Revelation 14 an angel speaks about those who worship the beast and receive his mark will drink of the wine of the wrath of God which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger, John writes "Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus."

And then in Revelation 16 when the bowls of the wrath of God are being poured out, John writes ("Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garments, lest he walk about naked and men see his shame.")

And then in Revelation 20 we read of "the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life [they were dead not raptured] and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead [believers and unbelievers] did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the FIRST Resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the FIRST Resurrection, over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Mary

Confer:

Rev 14:9-10 (If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and ***in the presence of*** the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.)- my emphasis

with:

1 Thess. 7-10 (and to give relief to you who are afflicted [d]and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, ***away from the presence of the Lord*** and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed””for our testimony to you was believed. --my emphasis

Chris: That was really well said, thanks for that explanation and another reason why I enjoy reading your posts.

I agree Marvin! I find this to be so true: "The biggest communication problem is that we don’t listen/read to understand. We listen/read to reply.” -Stephen R. Covey