SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Wrath against the body of Christ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5616
NC, USA

 Re:

//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.


_________________
Todd

 2018/8/15 7:10Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1162
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


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.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/8/15 9:46Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2201


 Re: The simple and basic simplicity of it all sits right before our eyes

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.


_________________
David Winter

 2018/8/15 11:57Profile
TakeUptheCross
Member



Joined: 2016/8/10
Posts: 242
Germany

 Re:

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.

 2018/8/15 17:22Profile
UntoBabes
Member



Joined: 2010/8/24
Posts: 1033
Oregon

 Re:

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.



_________________
Fifi

 2018/8/15 18:06Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1162
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:

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.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/8/16 11:24Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4527


 Re:

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?"


_________________
Christopher

 2018/8/17 1:14Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5616
NC, USA

 Re:

Sounds fair to me.


_________________
Todd

 2018/8/17 7:13Profile
Gloryandgrace
Member



Joined: 2017/7/14
Posts: 1162
Snoqualmie, WA

 Re:


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.


_________________
Marvin

 2018/8/17 9:30Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4527


 Re:

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.


_________________
Christopher

 2018/8/17 20:16Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy