• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Arnold Murray's Teaching

Kingdom_Come

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2004
864
18
✟1,117.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Alright, I’ll try to address this again from a couple of vantage points. First, let’s just look at what you’re saying from a logical standpoint. You are equating a person’s belief in a pre-trib rapture (or the teaching of imminence) to taking pleasure in unrighteousness. This means that a person who believes in the pre-trib rapture is guilty of what Paul phrases as taking pleasure in unrighteousness in 2 Th 2:12 according to you.

Now let’s just break this down from a simple point of logic. Under which scenario is a criminal more likely to commit a crime?

Scenario A: The criminal essentially knows where the police tend to be located. They know exactly how long it will take for the police to respond once a call to 911 is made. There are plenty of indicators they can use to let them know about how close the police are at any given moment, and so they know about how long they have to commit the crime, clean up any trace evidence and get away without getting caught.

Scenario B: The police patrol the area randomly, sporadically and frequently. A call to 911 could result in a police response ranging anywhere from 15 seconds to 15 minutes. There are few if any warning signs that they could depend on to let them know how close the police are to arriving at the scene. Therefore it is difficult to know if they will have sufficient time to pull off the caper and escape without getting caught.

Now if people are honest, I think most will say that Scenario A definitely seems more like a criminal’s dream, whereas Scenario B is more of a nightmare. I think most would agree that the criminal would be more likely to attempt the crime in Scenario A than in Scenario B.

Now the notion of a pre-trib rapture would more aptly fit Scenario B. People under this belief system have no sense of exactly when the rapture is going to take place. The Lord’s return could be just around the corner, or it could be another generation or more away. But that constant reminder of not knowing when would most likely lead to an attitude of constant vigilance. They don’t want to let their guard down and fall away only for The Lord to return at that moment and leave them behind.

Now your conclusion is counterintuitive to this. According to your logic, someone who believes in the pre-trib rapture is essentially taking pleasure in unrighteousness and therefore more likely to risk their eternal salvation. This is akin to saying the criminal would be more likely to commit a crime in Scenario B. It just doesn’t make much sense. The idea of imminence should logically serve as a deterrent to sin and unrighteousness rather than an invitation to it.

Now, while this is logical, it does not change what Scripture plainly reveals about Christ’s return. However, it does serve to demonstrate the effect believing such a thing should have on the one who believes it. The effect should be desirable in most cases, not undesirable.

Now let’s return to Scripture and see what attitude we are warned against having regarding the coming of our Lord.

“But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” (Luke 12:45-46)

“But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mat 24:48-51)

Now if we look at this parable, we see that the attitude of the evil servant is that his lord delays his coming. Now simply thinking this isn’t what gets him into trouble. He gets into trouble because of what he chooses to do now that he has convinced himself that his lord delays his arrival. He chooses to kill his fellow servants (betrayal). He pursues his wicked desires (fulfills his own lusts; goes into unrighteousness). When his lord arrives, he is judged accordingly. However, the attitude he had was not one of imminence, it was one of an expectant delay on the part of his master. He figured he had some time to kill. He had a desire to go out and sin and live it up. He may have even figured he could get it all straightened out and tidied up before his master actually arrived.

Now what attitude are we admonished to have?

“Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” (Mat 24:42-44)

We are instructed to watch. We are instructed to remain vigilant and be ever ready because we do not know what hour our Lord will come for us. Does this negate everything He just said regarding His second coming? No, it does not because we do not know what hour our soul will be required of us. “But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?” (Luke 12:20)

The point here is that our attitude in our walk with God is supposed to be one of imminence. We are supposed to watch and live as if we expect to be called for at any moment. The irony is that the very belief you condemn as receiving the mark is one which creates this very attitude of living as if any moment could be the moment.

Now, when considering your comment equating believing in a pre-trib rapture to taking the mark, if that is so, then you have condemned those that believe in it. Simply put, those that worship the beast and those who receive the mark are condemned to suffer the wrath of God according to Revelation 14. So if you are correct and those that believe in a pre-trib rapture have received the mark, then Revelation 14 says they will suffer the wrath of God and the smoke of their torment will ascend up forever and ever. It does not make a distinction whatsoever between those that receive it willingly and those that do not. Now are you going to change what this Scripture states plainly?

Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2 that God will send a strong delusion on those that take pleasure in unrighteousness that they might believe a lie and be damned. You say that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture are taking pleasure in unrighteousness. Paul makes no distinction between someone “duped” into taking pleasure in unrighteousness and one doing so willfully. Paul does not say, “except those who were ‘duped’ into an erroneous belief regarding His return”. All who believe the lie and all who are sent the delusion perish. None are spared. All who have not a love of the truth and take pleasure in unrighteousness perish. No exceptions are listed. Again, if what you say is true and believing in a pre-trib rapture is taking pleasure in unrighteousness, then they are condemned according to this passage. There is no exception.

Now since you point us in the direction of 1 Thessalonians 4, let’s go see exactly what Paul’s admonitions were.

“For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence [strong desire especially for that which is forbidden], even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” (1 Th 4:2-7)

Even here Paul defines what is considered unrighteous behavior by defining what a follower of Christ should not do. It has nothing to do with one’s understanding of the timing of The Lord’s return and everything to do with honoring His commandments.

The very attitude of those who stray and go into unrighteousness is that the Lord delays His coming, or where is the promise of His coming? Why do they adopt this attitude? They adopt it because they want to do unrighteous deeds. They want to pursue the desires of the flesh and of this world. They are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God (2 Tim 3). You cannot separate one chapter in Thessalonians from what the rest of Scripture teaches. Paul is not adding to the doctrine of Scripture. He is reiterating it. Unrighteousness in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the same as unrighteousness anywhere else in Scripture. It is to sin against God, to take pleasure in that sin and to be defiant and unrepentant of that sin.

Man says in his heart that his law is paramount. Foolish men say there is no God, therefore there is no higher law or commandment. Man’s law is supreme. We decide what is right and wrong. We decide what is acceptable and what is not. We can change and call good evil and evil good. We can make something acceptable because we are in control. We do not have to weigh our conscience down with the concept of a Higher Authority. Yet God’s law is paramount. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the Lord and He changes not. (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8). This is the difference between those who will be sent the strong delusion and those who will not. Jesus even said that the signs and wonders of that time would be so great that if it were possible even the elect would be deceived. The implication is clearly that this will not be possible. But regarding those that take pleasure in unrighteousness, they will be sent a strong delusion and will believe a lie and perish. Those that turn away from the truth, those that choose to disobey God, these are those that fall away, and they are the ones who will convince themselves that He is not coming, or He delays His coming. You are trying to twist and narrowly interpret something according to your particular belief. You are not rightly dividing the Scripture as a whole. If it weren’t so, you wouldn’t have the glaring contradiction of your doctrine of those that are ‘duped’ with what we clearly read right there in 2 Thessalonians and in Revelation. You have completely invented the idea that they will be held over to the second resurrection but will still be saved in complete contradiction to what Scripture says of those who take the mark (which according to you is believing in a pre-trib rapture)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Ti 2:15)

No matter how much someone may wish it were so, Scripture does not condemn someone for not understanding eschatology. It does not complicate the gospel with the additional requirement that one understand all the mysteries within the Scripture. It is a simple faith and belief that Jesus is The Messiah, the Son of Living and Most High God, The Word that was with God and was God and was made flesh and dwelt among us, that He is our Creator and our Redeemer. It is obedience to His commandments. For if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)

I do not believe there is any sincere believer who will reject the truth once they see it. Anyone who would deliberately refuse to accept the truth once it has been revealed to them does not have a love for the truth.
 
Upvote 0

POSTIOS

zeke37
Mar 11, 2011
406
11
✟23,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Alright, I’ll try to address this again from a couple of vantage points. First, let’s just look at what you’re saying from a logical standpoint. You are equating a person’s belief in a pre-trib rapture (or the teaching of imminence) to taking pleasure in unrighteousness. This means that a person who believes in the pre-trib rapture is guilty of what Paul phrases as taking pleasure in unrighteousness in 2 Th 2:12 according to you.
I have been following this thread, and that is not exactly what watchman is saying.

he is saying that when one has rejected the truth that Paul just taught, then they fall into that catagory.

But one must fully reject it, after bening shown the full truth.
And they must have rejected the teaching of the 2 wintesses in the time, times, half a time.
That is the key.


Some will come out of Babylon before the pagues come.
 
Upvote 0

Kingdom_Come

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2004
864
18
✟1,117.00
Faith
Pentecostal
I have been following this thread, and that is not exactly what watchman is saying.

he is saying that when one has rejected the truth that Paul just taught, then they fall into that catagory.

But one must fully reject it, after bening shown the full truth.
And they must have rejected the teaching of the 2 wintesses in the time, times, half a time.
That is the key.


Some will come out of Babylon before the pagues come.


But he is saying that they will be punished by being denied part in the first resurrection. However, they will be saved in the second resurrection. Where is the Scripture for this? He has said that believing in a pre-trib rapture is taking the mark. Now Scripturally, Revelation 14 makes clear what happens to those who worship the beast, and those who take the mark. Yet he claims that this is not what will happen to those who innocently believe in the pre-trib rapture which he says is taking the mark. What he says has to line up with Scripture. You can’t say that believing in a pre-trib rapture is taking the mark in one sentence but claim that they will still be saved in the next unless you are willing to go against what Scripture says. If they have received the mark as he says, then they are subject to God’s wrath and the smoke of their torment will ascend up forever as we are told in Revelation 14.

He is clearly ignoring what Paul himself says about the state of mind and the state of the hearts of those upon whom the delusion is sent. Paul makes it clear it is on those who do not have a love for the truth. He makes it clear that it is upon those who take pleasure in unrighteousness. These people are deliberately defying God. It has nothing to do with their understanding of the timing of The Lord’s return. There are plenty of other Scriptures which explain this same concept including many parables of Jesus. Yet he is taking an isolated and narrow ‘interpretation’ of this passage which not only is refuted by the passage itself, but the Scripture as a whole.

One’s belief about the timing of the Lord’s return should come from Scripture just as their understanding of what unrighteousness is should also come from Scripture, but misunderstanding the concept of the timing of The Lord’s return no more condemns one than understanding it automatically saves one. Yet he is hinging one’s salvation upon their understanding of this doctrine by claiming they will be lost or punished in some way if they don’t understand it. There are things that one must believe and must obey to be saved. This is not one of the things listed.

I personally do not believe anyone who truly believes in and loves God will reject any truth once they come to understand it. While there may be a few who would actually reject it, I think most believe what they do because it is what they have been taught. Others sincerely think it’s Scriptural. If someone has genuinely received a revelation and has rejected it, then God is their judge.
 
Upvote 0

Kingdom_Come

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2004
864
18
✟1,117.00
Faith
Pentecostal
You are in gross error.
Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

People have the mark of the beast prior to the first vial of God's wrath is poured onto them. Yet, the reign of the beast does not occur until the 6th vial.


Wrong.

“And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.” (Rev 16:10-11)

This happens when the fifth angel pours out his vial. He is already sitting upon the seat of power in his kingdom at this point. Clearly he’s already in power before the sixth vial, and since the mark and the worshipping of the image of the beast has already taken place by the time of the pouring out of the first vial, seems pretty clear he was already in power at that time as well.
 
Upvote 0

Tim Myers

Regular Member
Mar 26, 2011
1,769
84
✟2,382.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Wrong.

“And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.” (Rev 16:10-11)

This happens when the fifth angel pours out his vial. He is already sitting upon the seat of power in his kingdom at this point. Clearly he’s already in power before the sixth vial, and since the mark and the worshipping of the image of the beast has already taken place by the time of the pouring out of the first vial, seems pretty clear he was already in power at that time as well.

Saying that I am wrong is speaking with your pride. I just showed you in my prior post your gross error. Apparently, you did not read it. So, I will post it again for you -
Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
Prior to God pouring out His first vial of wrath, men already had the mark of the beast. Now, it seems to me that, if you believe the Word of God, you should be acknowledging that your claim, which was that folks don't take the mark of the beast until the reign of Satan, is completely false.

In fact, the Thessalonians, who invented the 'any moment' doctrine, took the mark of the beast way back then. That is why Paul is correcting them in 2 Thes. 2, so that they would not miss the first resurrection. Paul also explains the seriousness of such false doctrine by explaining that those taught that truth [v.2-4] and reject it will be given the spirit of delusion so that they might be damned and perish.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

POSTIOS

zeke37
Mar 11, 2011
406
11
✟23,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Saying that I am wrong is speaking with your pride. I just showed you in my prior post your gross error. Apparently, you did not read it. So, I will post it again for you -
Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
Prior to God pouring out His first vial of wrath, men already had the mark of the beast. Now, it seems to me that, if you believe the Word of God, you should be acknowledging that your claim, which was that folks don't take the mark of the beast until the reign of Satan, is completely false.
Hi Watchman 2,
I usually agree with you, but in this case, Why?
What above shows that?
The scripture shows that the vials are poured on those that have the mark.
Obviously they are in Satan's reign time.
Do you believe that vial 1 commences on Satan's first day here/begins the trib? I do not.

In fact, the Thessalonians, who invented the 'any moment' doctrine, took the mark of the beast way back then. That is why Paul is correcting them in 2 Thes. 2, so that they would not miss the first resurrection. Paul also explains the seriousness of such false doctrine by explaining that those taught that truth [v.2-4] and reject it will be given the spirit of delusion so that they might be damned and perish.
They did not break the first commandment back then, did they?
The mark of the beast is based on the same principles that the mark of God is based on.
God's mark is about KEEPING the first commandment and REMEMBERING the conditions in which God has delivered His people.
I reference Ex13, Deut6 &11

it seems to me that not keeping the first commandment has to pay into the "mark of the beast".

I don't think that the Thesselonians broke the first commandment back then, so I have to disagree with you for now, unless you can show me where I err.
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi Watchman 2,
I usually agree with you, but in this case, Why?
What above shows that?
The scripture shows that the vials are poured on those that have the mark.
Obviously they are in Satan's reign time.
Do you believe that vial 1 commences on Satan's first day here/begins the trib? I do not.

The first 4 vials of God's wrath are dispensed upon those that took the mark of the beast in effort to get them to repent thereof their false belief systems [rapture, preterism, etc.]. After the fourth vial, one sees this comment -
Rev 16:9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
The fifth vial represents the implementation of the one-world order.
Rev 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
This is the first beast of Rev. 13.
Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
The horns are explained in Rev. 17.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
The first beast of Rev. 13 is the one-world reign of the fallen angels. What happens to this one-world reign??
Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
The one-world order receives a deadly wound from one head [region]. It is healed by Satan himself, after Satan is revealed. Satan's revealing takes place half way through this time frame of the fallen-angel controlled one-world gov't.

Though the one-world order is ruled by the fallen angels, who are working for Satan, at the 5th vial, Satan's, defacto, reign does not commence until the 6th vial [6th trump and 6th {chronological} seal as well].

They did not break the first commandment back then, did they?
The mark of the beast is based on the same principles that the mark of God is based on.
God's mark is about KEEPING the first commandment and REMEMBERING the conditions in which God has delivered His people.
I reference Ex13, Deut6 &11

it seems to me that not keeping the first commandment has to pay into the "mark of the beast".

I don't think that the Thesselonians broke the first commandment back then, so I have to disagree with you for now, unless you can show me where I err.

The mark of the beast is a belief -- one that would lead to the worshipping of Satan. That is why Paul chastized the Thessalonians for inventing the 'any moment' doctrine. So, if you wish to correlate it to the breaking of the first commandment, you can see how rapture does just that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

POSTIOS

zeke37
Mar 11, 2011
406
11
✟23,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

first vial, worshiping him coming out the gate. right?
what am i missing?
I am a SC student well versed.
I wanted a simple answer, not a study on the obvious, no offense.
 
Upvote 0

Kingdom_Come

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2004
864
18
✟1,117.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Saying that I am wrong is speaking with your pride. I just showed you in my prior post your gross error. Apparently, you did not read it. So, I will post it again for you -
Rev 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
Prior to God pouring out His first vial of wrath, men already had the mark of the beast. Now, it seems to me that, if you believe the Word of God, you should be acknowledging that your claim, which was that folks don't take the mark of the beast until the reign of Satan, is completely false.

In fact, the Thessalonians, who invented the 'any moment' doctrine, took the mark of the beast way back then. That is why Paul is correcting them in 2 Thes. 2, so that they would not miss the first resurrection. Paul also explains the seriousness of such false doctrine by explaining that those taught that truth [v.2-4] and reject it will be given the spirit of delusion so that they might be damned and perish.


No,

You have shown no such thing. First, you said that his reign does not begin until the 6th vial. Please prove this Scripturally. I have already shown that his kingdom is shown to be in existence at the pouring out of the 5th vial. Logically, it would then have already been in existence by the pouring out of the 6th. Yet you claim his reign does not occur until the 6th. Second, you are claiming that he is not in power at the pouring out of the first vial. Please prove this Scripturally. Please point to the Scripture in that passage of Revelation which shows the rise of the beast, or the beginning of the man of sin’s reign at any of the vials.
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

first vial, worshiping him coming out the gate. right?
what am i missing?
I am a SC student well versed.
I wanted a simple answer, not a study on the obvious, no offense.

O.K. Thanks for letting me know. It will save time.

They worship his 'image' -- not Satan defacto. Rapturists worship the one that will fly them away. Since Satan is still in heaven and not present in person, rapturists only worship his image at this time.

The word 'image' in Strong's -
G1504
εἰκών
eikōn
i-kone'
From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.
Rapturists worship the representation of Satan -- the false messiah, which is the one to rapture them away.
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No,

You have shown no such thing. First, you said that his reign does not begin until the 6th vial. Please prove this Scripturally. I have already shown that his kingdom is shown to be in existence at the pouring out of the 5th vial.


If you think that Satan's reign comes into existence at the 5th vial, then you have proven your original claim, which was that the mark of the beast is not taken until Satan's reign, to be false. As Rev. 16:2 clearly proves, folks have taken the mark of the beast prior to the first vial of God's wrath.

So, lets get your acknowledgement of error regarding your original claim.


Logically, it would then have already been in existence by the pouring out of the 6th. Yet you claim his reign does not occur until the 6th. Second, you are claiming that he is not in power at the pouring out of the first vial. Please prove this Scripturally. Please point to the Scripture in that passage of Revelation which shows the rise of the beast, or the beginning of the man of sin’s reign at any of the vials.

See Post No. 59 in this topic. The one-world gov't, ruled by the fallen angels, comes into existence at the 5th vial. Though the 10 kings do Satan's bidding, Satan is not yet revealed until after the deadly wound is dealt upon this one world order.

Hence, Satan's actual reign does not commence until the 6th vial, 6th trumpet, and 6th [chronological] seal. It is half way through Satan's tribulation time.
 
Upvote 0

POSTIOS

zeke37
Mar 11, 2011
406
11
✟23,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
O.K. Thanks for letting me know. It will save time.

They worship his 'image' -- not Satan defacto. Rapturists worship the one that will fly them away. Since Satan is still in heaven and not present in person, rapturists only worship his image at this time.

The word 'image' in Strong's -
G1504
εἰκών
eikōn
i-kone'
From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.
Rapturists worship the representation of Satan -- the false messiah, which is the one to rapture them away.
Again Brother, what in the scripture (vial 1) suggests any time before Satan is here defacto, or before the Lord returns?

Image is the being, defacto, IMO. Image of God is Christ.
Isn't it possible for all the wrath to be poured "real quick" when Christ comes back?

so how can I be sure that your opinion is solid, and mine faulty?
 
Upvote 0

Kingdom_Come

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2004
864
18
✟1,117.00
Faith
Pentecostal
If you think that Satan's reign comes into existence at the 5th vial, then you have proven your original claim, which was that the mark of the beast is not taken until Satan's reign, to be false. As Rev. 16:2 clearly proves, folks have taken the mark of the beast prior to the first vial of God's wrath.

So, lets get your acknowledgement of error regarding your original claim.



Read what I asked again. I asked simply that you point to the Scripture in that passage of Revelation which shows the rise of the beast, or the beginning of the man of sin’s reign at any of the vials. I never said I believe it starts at the 5th. What is disproven by the fact that it is in existence at the 5th is your claim that it occurs in the 6th.




See Post No. 59 in this topic. The one-world gov't, ruled by the fallen angels, comes into existence at the 5th vial. Though the 10 kings do Satan's bidding, Satan is not yet revealed until after the deadly wound is dealt upon this one world order.

Hence, Satan's actual reign does not commence until the 6th vial, 6th trumpet, and 6th [chronological] seal. It is half way through Satan's tribulation time.


In fact, prove Scripturally what you just said. Where does it say that the beast’s reign begins at the 6th vial?

Your understanding of Revelation seems to be seriously lacking. To keep it simple, all of the vials are poured out during the reign of the man of sin leading up to Armageddon. His reign does not begin at the pouring out of any of them because he is in power from the time the first one is poured out. So your conclusion is not the only one that can be drawn nor is it even the most likely based on the text.
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Again Brother, what in the scripture (vial 1) suggests any time before Satan is here defacto, or before the Lord returns?

As a SC student, you should be well-versed in the fact that Satan's appearance is not until the 6th vial. The fact that the mark is received prior to vial one proves that it is before Satan's appearance, which is vial 6.

The entire purpose of the first 4 vials of God's wrath is to get rapturists to repent before Satan and his angels are released from heaven.

Image is the being, defacto, IMO. Image of God is Christ.

Since you know that Satan does not appear until the 6th vial, you already know that, at the 1st vial, they cannot be worshipping Satan defacto.

Isn't it possible for all the wrath to be poured "real quick" when Christ comes back?

No -- Christ's return is the 7th vial.

As a SC student, you should know that the entire Satan's tribulation time is shortened to 5 months, of which half of that time would be Satan's reign. Hence, the 5th and 6th vial lasts 2.5 months each according to SC teaching.

As for the first 4 vials of God's wrath, it is not detailed as to how quick they will come, one after another. But, because the purpose thereof is to get rapturists to repent, I would surmise that, in order to be an effective message, they will be poured out in fast order.

so how can I be sure that your opinion is solid, and mine faulty?

You must be a fairly new student to SC. One comes before six -- so, obviously, the mark is received prior to Satan's reign. The mark has been received by some throughout the church age.
 
Upvote 0

Watchman_2

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
331
5
✟497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Read what I asked again. I asked simply that you point to the Scripture in that passage of Revelation which shows the rise of the beast, or the beginning of the man of sin’s reign at any of the vials. I never said I believe it starts at the 5th. What is disproven by the fact that it is in existence at the 5th is your claim that it occurs in the 6th.







In fact, prove Scripturally what you just said. Where does it say that the beast’s reign begins at the 6th vial?

Your understanding of Revelation seems to be seriously lacking. To keep it simple, all of the vials are poured out during the reign of the man of sin leading up to Armageddon. His reign does not begin at the pouring out of any of them because he is in power from the time the first one is poured out. So your conclusion is not the only one that can be drawn nor is it even the most likely based on the text.

Let's get your acknowledgement of error regarding your original claim that folks do not take the mark of the beast until Satan's reign. Once I have your acknowledgement of error, I can address the remainder of your issues.
 
Upvote 0

POSTIOS

zeke37
Mar 11, 2011
406
11
✟23,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
As a SC student, you should be well-versed in the fact that Satan's appearance is not until the 6th vial.
No offence meant brother....
I am well aware of the theory....
as for fact, that remains to be proven...at least to me.

The fact that the mark is received prior to vial one proves that it is before Satan's appearance, which is vial 6.
wel, no it does not. . I need proof.
SAYING vial 6 is his appearance, is hearsay, not proof.
too many folks around here, just say stuff, and call it proof.

even SC students do that.
The entire purpose of the first 4 vials of God's wrath is to get rapturists to repent before Satan and his angels are released from heaven.
Not just rapturists.
And while I was indeed taught that, I still do not see proof of that.
I am not saying you are wrong either.

Since you know that Satan does not appear until the 6th vial, you already know that, at the 1st vial, they cannot be worshipping Satan defacto.
But I do not know that. Help me to know that. I know you say that.
The bibe says they worshiped his image.
If you are linking this to Rev13s first beast, then I can see the connection. I still need more tho.
I link that first vial and the mark, to the second beast and his actions.

No -- Christ's return is the 7th vial.
possibly.
an argument can be made.
A study that I recently did seems to suggest ALL the vials are poured out AT Christ's return. They might last a while and account for the extra days of Daniel.

As a SC student, you should know that the entire Satan's tribulation time is shortened to 5 months, of which half of that time would be Satan's reign. Hence, the 5th and 6th vial lasts 2.5 months each according to SC teaching.
again, speculation.
The shortened time might or might not be 5 months.
You yourself just stated you beieve the shortened time was the latter half, not the first.

I was taught that too.
I doubt the first half, is shortened aswell...

As for the first 4 vials of God's wrath, it is not detailed as to how quick they will come, one after another. But, because the purpose thereof is to get rapturists to repent, I would surmise that, in order to be an effective message, they will be poured out in fast order.
Again, rapturists are not the issue alone.
everyone is.

Preterists,
mid tribbers,
all the rest,
and the posties that need it.

The deceived children of God are not limited to rapturists.

I am just not sure if the vials are poured out before the Lord's return, right at it, or right after.

You must be a fairly new student to SC.
not at all. lotsa years. He is still my favorite teacher (Dennis too).

One comes before six --
lol. who rides the first horse in the first seal.
Brother, please do not act that way towards me.
I do not expect that from SC students.
And there are some here.
so, obviously, the mark is received prior to Satan's reign.
so, by that logic, that means that the pre trib crowd is right in their assumption that one comes before 6 in the seals (question).

The mark has been received by some throughout the church age.
Well then we should be able to prove that. IMO The mark is specific to Satan and his reign.

I think it is worth the study to find out if the wrath is poured before Christ comes or after.

I think Rev18:4 shows a part of the picture.
No mention of rapturists only.
and the plagues come on a fallen babylon. Past tense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0