Pre-Mil Only Can those who were non-believers at the start of Tribulation survive the 7 years then get saved and enter the 1000 years w/o dying as martyrs?

[Jamdoc]

All of the Bible requires interpretation.

I think he means this
Revelation 1

19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Now most people say that this is a past, present, future thing.
But I have heard of one view where the "the things which are" should actually be translated "the things which they are" IE, what the verse is saying is John writes down the vision he sees, then the interpretation of the vision (given by an angel or by Jesus Himself), and then the things involving those symbols.

Example:

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

and

16 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.

so here John wrote down the things which he saw, these symbols
then

20 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.

Then Jesus explains the things which are, He explained the symbols He just showed John.

another example in Revelation 4

5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

John saw something symbolic, then John wrote down what the explanation for the symbol was.

In this way, you don't have to really interpret Revelation, if something is a symbol, it's explained what it means in the text, or it is referencing something in other portions of scripture namely old testament prophetic books.

Now yes, I understand that people will debate whether there are unexplained symbols in Revelation that require interpretation, but I think that at the very least, nobody should be debating what candlesticks represent in Revelation, Jesus told John what they represent and John wrote it down.
If you interpret the candles to mean something else well.. is that a wise thing to do? Or like Revelation 17, unfortunately people DO make this mistake and come up with their own explanation for the symbols in that chapter. Saying Babylon is a religion, when the text itself says what Babylon is, a great city that reigns over the kings of the Earth.
I'm gonna go with what the Angel, instructed by Jesus explained the symbol to be, rather than try to come up with my own explanation or listen to some human teacher who thinks he knows what it means.
The text says what it means.. why not just go with that?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Why Do We Have to Interpret the Bible? • Bible Study With Randy

Can't we just take Scripture at face-value? Why do we have to interpret the bible? Can't we just trust God to give us the correct meaning?

www.biblestudywithrandy.com

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

From a Seminary Lecture in Bibliology:

Here are the books we used for Bible Interpretation in Hermeneutics:

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

Amazon.com

All together about 1,800 pages of books on how to interpret the bible, and of course we are told to use dictionaries, bible encylopedias, do hebrew-greek word studies, and use 30 commentaries we receive with the student version of www.logos.com that we get in Seminary at DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) where I'm working on my Masters degree.

 

[dwb001]

All of the Bible requires interpretation.

Revelation has its own set of instructions on how to read it.

Did you know that?

 

[dwb001]

First, going into the Millennium isn't the same as entering into the Kingdom of God during the Millenium. Second, even if only believers enter the Kingdom, those who are mortal can have children for 1000 years so their children and not them could be the ones that side with Satan.

State your references.
I see no evidence of your claims in Revelation.

 

[d taylor]

I like the Grace Evangelical Society's attempt to explain the goats vs sheep, but it isn't still clear to me who is who. It is clear that the sheep are as they say, people who help the Jews (and possibly the Christians who come to faith during the Tribulation period but are tormented and most if not all killed by the antichrist and his arm), and goats are those who aren't, but it isn't clear to me (yet) who is being described as the goats and the sheep. I see 4 possible groups that could be in this judgement: (1) Jewish Christians who came to accept Christ during the tribulation and survived; (2) Non-Jewish Christians who came to accept Christ during the tribulation; (3) Jews who continued to reject Christ and (4) non-Jews who continued to reject Christ. I also agree that this judgement doesn't necessarily equate to the Great White throne judgement either, where a simpler division is made between those who have accepted Christ as Savior and those who rejected Christ as Savior.

We do know that in the Millenium those of us who were Christians at the first coming will return as Priests and be in our final immortal bodies during those 1000 years, and yet there will be mortal humans who survived the tribulation and continued to have children and die for generations, some of which will accept Christ (which should be a higher percentage than today because (1) Jesus and His Priests (us Christians raptured) will be hard to deny exist when we are seen every day and doing miracles constantly and (2) Satan's influence will be removed so that the ones that reject Christ won't do so because of Satan's lies, but because humanity is still inherently depraved as it has been since Adam and Eve chose poorly in the Garden and brought sin and death onto the world. But amazingly enough to create a large Army will be around at the end of those 1000 years for Satan to challenge Jesus and His army once again, though challenge isn't a good word because Satan has no chance whatsoever at winning. But Satan has been deceived by his own evil thinking ever since he decided to rebel in heaven in ages past so he apparently still suffers the delusion that he can overthrown Jesus and all us Saints, Apostles, Prophets, Believers, Angels, etc.

I am still confused as to who exactly will be these people Jesus is judging, and what that judgement means? Can they get into the Kingdom because they treated the Jews or Tribulation Martyrs decently and yet still reject Christ and wind up in hell? Do those who get rejected have any hope whatsoever or are they 100% doomed to hell at that point? I know the answer may lie in the article, but it doesn't stand out to me, so any help clarifying it from this Church in Texas who wrote the great response on which I mostly agree but don't fully yet understand, so I'd appreciate any clarification along the lines that this article is true. I am 100% sure that they are correct that this judgement does NOT NOT NOT equate to a works based salvation. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, period. Works or fruit should result in our obedience and gratitude for Jesus having saved us, so we ought to be producing tons of works and fruit, but that ultimately has zero effect on whether we spend eternity in heaven or on earth with Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit or in Heaven, or both.

The judgment of the nations is the Judgment of the sheep and goats which is a gentile judgment. No Jews will be at this judgment.
As seen in verse 31, the prelude to this appraisal of the nations is the enthronement of Jesus as Judge. Then, according to verses Matthew 25:32-33:
All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left
The word for nations can also be translated Gentiles. In fact, Biblically, from the time of Abraham onward, the nations have referred to Gentiles. It is also important to understand that the nations always refer to people who are concurrently alive on the earth. Since Jesus’ return follows the Tribulation period, this judgment of the nations, then, is an assessment of Gentiles who survive that horrific seven-year period.

 

[Jamdoc]

Revelation has its own set of instructions on how to read it.

Did you know that?

am I right that you're referring to the instruction of Revelation 1:19?

 

[RandyPNW]

there are Historic Premillennialist Posttrib as well. Post trib can be amillennial or premillennial.
Premillennial just means that Jesus comes before a 1000 year reign on Earth, post trib means He comes after the 70th week.
so you have 70th week, Jesus returns at the end, and then there's a 1000 year reign on Earth, a final rebellion, and then the GWT and Eternal state.
But because they still believe in a millennium, a post trib premillennialist would be able to contribute on a question of people who populate the millennium.

It's Amillennialists and Postmillennialists who wouldn't fit in, because in neither of their cases is there a millennial reign on Earth after Jesus returns so the question the OP asks doesn't even fit into their eschatology at all.

Pemillennial Pretrib, Pre-wrath, and Post trib will have different takes on the question but will all have answers that actually pertain to the question.

Yes, I know. You reference Dispensationalism as your source, and spoke of some who entered the Millennium without being martyrs. That makes you a Premillennial Pretribulationist, excluding the Postrib notion that the Church is in the time of Antichrist's reign.

But yes, Postribbers like myself could answer the question: will non-Christians who refuse to take the mark of the Beast and do not die as martyrs enter into the Millennium intact? I would have to say "for sure!" I think perhaps 1/3 of the earth will die, but that many, many people will be on earth who will not even be exposed to Antichrist's decree.

I think the Scriptures often depict a local event as if it is universal because there is in fact a universal effect of some kind. People across the earth will adore the Beast, but the seat of the Beast's power will be, I believe, in the heart of Europe. Certainly, many people will avoid the Beast's system, at the threat of their lives, but will survive. This is true of many in history who have lived in the kingdoms of despots with onerous decrees.

People on earth will enter into the Millennial Age in the same way those in the 20th century entered into the 21st century--alive and still mortal. It will only be the deceased believers from past ages, and the relative few who are "Raptured," who will enter into that age immortal. Where they "hang out" during the Millennium I don't claim to know. But their rule, along with Christ, will be binding on earth's inhabitants, if only in the spiritual world.

 

[Jamdoc]

Why Do We Have to Interpret the Bible? • Bible Study With Randy

Can't we just take Scripture at face-value? Why do we have to interpret the bible? Can't we just trust God to give us the correct meaning?

www.biblestudywithrandy.com

one of the reasons I have little faith in human interpretations of the bible and how they're taught is because of theological SYSTEMS like dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists will deny what the bible clearly says because it conflicts with a doctrine that they hold and so they will cherrypick verses and say "that's not to the church that's for Israel"
Like pretribbers love to use select verses of Matthew 24, but if you point out other verses in the discourse they'll say "oh but that's for Israel not the Church" even though the Olivet Discourse was not to unbelieving Jews but to Jesus' disciples, privately.
in worse cases people will even claim that letters of Paul weren't to Christians but to unbelieving Jews, like Romans, they feel that "rightly dividing" means cherrypick individual verses out of context and discard as "that's for Israel" anything that doesn't fit their doctrine. Each epistle says who the epistle is for in the opening statements, and the entire letter is to that addressee

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes, I know. You reference Dispensationalism as your source, and spoke of some who entered the Millennium without being martyrs. That makes you a Premillennial Pretribulationist, excluding the Postrib notion that the Church is in the time of Antichrist's reign.

But yes, Postribbers like myself could answer the question: will non-Christians who refuse to take the mark of the Beast and do not die as martyrs enter into the Millennium intact? I would have to say "for sure!" I think perhaps 1/3 of the earth will die, but that many, many people will be on earth who will not even be exposed to Antichrist's decree.

I think the Scriptures often depict a local event as if it is universal because there is in fact a universal effect of some kind. People across the earth will adore the Beast, but the seat of the Beast's power will be, I believe, in the heart of Europe. Certainly, many people will avoid the Beast's system, at the threat of their lives, but will survive. This is true of many in history who have lived in the kingdoms of despots with onerous decrees.

People on earth will enter into the Millennial Age in the same way those in the 20th century entered into the 21st century--alive and still mortal. It will only be the deceased believers from past ages, and the relative few who are "Raptured," who will enter into that age immortal. Where they "hang out" during the Millennium I don't claim to know. But their rule, along with Christ, will be binding on earth's inhabitants, if only in the spiritual world.

no I'm not, I'm a historic premillennialist pre-wrath.

 

[dwb001]

am I right that you're referring to the instruction of Revelation 1:19?

That would be the instructions on how to write Revelation.
No Rev 1:3 and 22:9.

These verses speak against interpreting Revelation as you would other books.

 

[Diamond7]

But according to our textbook, some will enter the millennium that get saved during the tribulation, refuse the mark of the beast, survive and yet do not have to be martyred.

There is a reward for being martyred, but it can not be a condition for salvation.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

[RandyPNW]

no I'm not, I'm a historic premillennialist pre-wrath.

Okay, thanks for updating me. I heard you said you had been "programmed" by Dispensationalists, or at least that's what I thought I heard you say. My apologies!

 

[Jamdoc]

That would be the instructions on how to write Revelation.
No Rev 1:3 and 22:9.

These verses speak against interpreting Revelation as you would other books.

those aren't instructions on interpretation

 

[Jamdoc]

Okay, thanks for updating me. I heard you said you had been "programmed" by Dispensationalists, or at least that's what I thought I heard you say. My apologies!

yeah, that's what I'd been taught but I've rejected that teaching because of reading the bible myself

 

[dwb001]

those aren't instructions on interpretation

Yes they are.
Well, in fact they are a message about not interpreting Revelation.
Do you not agree that Revelation is unique (one of a kind) in the New Testament?
A book like none of the others.

Or maybe Rev 22:18-19 would help to flesh out how to read Revelation.
Does that help?

 

[Jamdoc]

Yes they are.
Well, in fact they are a message about not interpreting Revelation.
Do you not agree that Revelation is unique (one of a kind) in the New Testament?
A book like none of the others.

Or maybe Rev 22:18-19 would help to flesh out how to read Revelation.
Does that help?

Not particularly, because Revelation contains a ton of references to previous scripture, and it does have a lot of symbols. If you toss out those references and interpret them as literal you come up with a bunch of things that make no sense, but if you do use the scripture to scripture interpretation, like Revelation 11's 2 witnesses being symbolized as 2 olive branches and 2 candlesticks, then it makes sense. Revelation 1 has Jesus explain that the candlesticks are churches. and Zechariah 4 explains the 2 olive branches as 2 annointed ones (prophets), so 2 prophets, and 2 churches.

or like one of my critics always points out claiming I think that Jesus is going to have a literal sword coming out of His mouth, when scripture would interpret that to be the Word of God is the sword of the spirit.

I support using scripture to interpret scripture what I don't support is someone's intuition or hunches or gut feels that they claim is the Holy Spirit told them to interpret something as a symbol when the text doesn't give it as a symbol, in either it's context, or referring back to previous scripture.
and I say that because if you ask 10 Amillennialists what their 'spiritual discernment' tells them what a symbol in Revelation means, they will give you 10 different answers, or they will all use the same theologian's source that they read.
The Holy Spirit would not give them 10 different answers.

 

[RandyPNW]

yeah, that's what I'd been taught but I've rejected that teaching because of reading the bible myself

So did I. I was raised in a rather dry--perhaps dead Lutheran church. I had faith, but it was sorely lacking in knowledge of the life in Christ. That theology was not Dispensationalist. But when in my teens years I backslid and came back to living like a Christian I embraced friends around me, all of whom were Dispensationalists.

After a year or so I began to memorize the Scriptures, and memorized, among other things, 2 Thessalonians. As I read and re-read that book in order to memorize it I realized Paul was teaching Postribulationism. And so, I've been a Postribulationist ever since.

There was a time when I started to doubt Postrib, largely because I had moved to Orange County CA, a hotbed of Pretribulationists. I read Chuck Smith's commentary on Revelation and figured, "I can't be smarter than Smith!"

But after wandering around in a daze, confused and dejected, I decided to study the subject. I went to a local Christian bookstore, where someone out of the blue came up and offered to help me find what I was looking for. I told him I was trying to understand the disagreement between Pretrib and Postrib, and the guy showed me two books on Postrib--this was a Pretrib bookstore! (Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA was Pretrib, and had a school of theology with a bookstore.)

The books were GE Ladd's "The Blessed Hope," and Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation." They've turned out to be classics on the subject from a Postrib point of view. Since then I felt convicted that I should choose to believe *explicit statements* in the Scriptures, instead of trying to read preconceived theology back into the Scriptures.

Ladd has since deceased, but I recently gathered the boldness to email Gundry, and he's still going. I asked him if there were any new works on Postrib, and he thought there was only a few.

Take care!

 

[dwb001]

Not particularly, because Revelation contains a ton of references to previous scripture, and it does have a lot of symbols. If you toss out those references and interpret them as literal you come up with a bunch of things that make no sense, but if you do use the scripture to scripture interpretation, like Revelation 11's 2 witnesses being symbolized as 2 olive branches and 2 candlesticks, then it makes sense. Revelation 1 has Jesus explain that the candlesticks are churches. and Zechariah 4 explains the 2 olive branches as 2 annointed ones (prophets), so 2 prophets, and 2 churches.

You are getting closer or farther away with the above statements.
Do you think that John is deliberately describing what Zechariah saw... or are they both describing the same thing... or are they describing different yet similar things?
Because the Zechariah olive branches may or may not be the same as the Zechariah olive trees. And the branches of Zechariah are very different from anything in Revelation.

or like one of my critics always points out claiming I think that Jesus is going to have a literal sword coming out of His mouth, when scripture would interpret that to be the Word of God is the sword of the spirit.

What if it is not the sword of the spirit but something else?
You would be altering the words of Revelation to fit your theology instead of letting the word shape your ideas.

I support using scripture to interpret scripture what I don't support is someone's intuition or hunches or gut feels that they claim is the Holy Spirit told them to interpret something as a symbol when the text doesn't give it as a symbol, in either it's context, or referring back to previous scripture.
and I say that because if you ask 10 Amillennialists what their 'spiritual discernment' tells them what a symbol in Revelation means, they will give you 10 different answers, or they will all use the same theologian's source that they read.
The Holy Spirit would not give them 10 different answers.

That is why I go with what is written... but I see something that no one else has mentioned.
Revelation is a dictated work.
John did not reference anything.
John did not include anything.
John did not write in code to hide anything.

Whatever is written is what John saw. If we alter what John saw we might (with all good intentions) change the meaning of the vision.
Revelation has the instruction to "keep" the words of the prophecy. That means to not alter. Not to over littoralize nor to over metaphorise.
If anything looks like a reference to an older work... it is probably because they both are seeing the same thing... but John is the one with authority(in my opinion)... because he is closer to the fulfillment and also that Jesus Himself dictated much of the vision.

 

[Jamdoc]

So did I. I was raised in a rather dry--perhaps dead Lutheran church. I had faith, but it was sorely lacking in knowledge of the life in Christ. That theology was not Dispensationalist. But when in my teens years I backslid and came back to living like a Christian I embraced friends around me, all of whom were Dispensationalists.

After a year or so I began to memorize the Scriptures, and memorized, among other things, 2 Thessalonians. As I read and re-read that book in order to memorize it I realized Paul was teaching Postribulationism. And so, I've been a Postribulationist ever since.

There was a time when I started to doubt Postrib, largely because I had moved to Orange County CA, a hotbed of Pretribulationists. I read Chuck Smith's commentary on Revelation and figured, "I can't be smarter than Smith!"

But after wandering around in a daze, confused and dejected, I decided to study the subject. I went to a local Christian bookstore, where someone out of the blue came up and offered to help me find what I was looking for. I told him I was trying to understand the disagreement between Pretrib and Postrib, and the guy showed me two books on Postrib--this was a Pretrib bookstore! (Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, CA was Pretrib, and had a school of theology with a bookstore.)

The books were GE Ladd's "The Blessed Hope," and Gundry's "The Church and the Tribulation." They've turned out to be classics on the subject from a Postrib point of view. Since then I felt convicted that I should choose to believe *explicit statements* in the Scriptures, instead of trying to read preconceived theology back into the Scriptures.

Ladd has since deceased, but I recently gathered the boldness to email Gundry, and he's still going. I asked him if there were any new works on Postrib, and he thought there was only a few.

Take care!

I came out pre wrath, because post trib left problem passages that don't get reconciled.
In particular Luke 17's days of Noah and days of Lot comparisons. Both Noah and Lot were taken to safety just before the wrath of God. they endured mocking and persecution no doubt, Noah building an ark and nobody believed him that there was going to be a flood.
Not to mention, Jesus gives pictures of normal life, totally ignorant to coming judgement.
If the trumpets and bowls have been going off prior, it wouldn't catch anyone by surprise, and people wouldn't be building and planting and planning weddings while everything's on fire and people are being tormented by demons and breaking out in loathsome sores and 100 pound hailstones are falling.

Both pre trib and post trib hang onto some verses of scripture to defend their position, and fudges with definitions like what is the wrath of God we're protected from, and will ignore verses or claim those verses the other side uses don't mean what they say.

Pre wrath will agree with all the verses, they'll say "amen we're not appointed to wrath" and "amen, after the tribulation of those days" simultaneously.

On topic for this thread, I think my interpretation of the parable of the 10 virgins and Amos 8 only work in a pre-wrath context.

Most people think Amos 8 is about something historical to begin with, but if you read it, it is talking about the Day of the Lord, and the Parable of the 10 virgins.. hard to work with as pretrib, because the 5 foolish virgins aren't told to wait until after the tribulation, they're refused, and for post trib, they don't believe that anyone goes to heaven (just up to the sky then right back down, somehow they ignore Revelation 19 having much people in heaven and Revelation 7 and Revelation 15 having saints in heaven)

and both of them, in the context that I read them together... are not very encouraging about people coming to faith after the rapture.