Are all doctrines equal? Or are some primary and others secondary?

There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture. Yes, God intended ONE meaning. And there is NO such thing as a private interpretation.  If someone comes up with an esoteric interpretation of Scripture and claims that it came to them from the Holy Spirit, no matter how convincing that person is…no matter how many books he/she has sold…no matter how popular he/she is, don’t believe it. I repeat, there is only ONE meaning. Period.

God’s people are commanded to “rightly handle the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15) In order to do that we must immerse ourselves in the study of God’s Word.  We must know the Bible backwards and forwards, inside and out.  So with this in mind, listen to what Elizabeth Prata of The End Times has to say on this important subject. She writes:

As I’m going through the online lessons at Ligonier Connect, the second lesson in the course “Principles of Biblical Interpretation” opens with the teacher, RC Sproul, asking his audience if, after sharing an interpretation of scripture with a person they have ever been confronted with the rejoinder “That’s your interpretation!” Sometimes the person means to give a subtle (or not so subtle) rejoinder that really means, ‘You’re wrong!’ Most often it can mean that the person believes that there are multiple ways to interpret a specific verse or passage of scripture.

There aren’t.

Did you know that the Author of the Bible intended only ONE meaning for each and every passage of Scripture? There is only one way to interpret it and be correct. There are multiple ways to apply the verse, but only one meaning the Author intended.

For example, we know that God is three-in-one. If a person says “I interpret 1 John 5:7-8 as God being three persons in one Being” and the other person says, “No, I interpret that verse as God being only one being but three personalities at any given time,” one of these people would be wrong. One person says you should be baptized by sprinkling and another says you should be baptized by immersion, one of those people are going to be wrong because they are opposite actions. One person says the rapture will come before the Tribulation and the next person says that the rapture will come after the tribulation…well one of those is wrong. They are not both right. Contradictions mutually exclude each other.

Scripture cannot contradict itself.

Sproul said,

The right of private interpretation carries with it the responsibility of correct interpretation. Our interpretation must always be monitored and compared to the collective wisdom of others.

Now, knowing that there is only one correct interpretation of scripture puts more light on the Author than it does on the interpreter, hopefully. We know He intended one meaning. But He is God, and we are not. Because we are sinful human beings, we must approach the interpretation of the scriptures humbly. We use a systematic theology, not Bible Dip, do not strip away the context, we’re not helter skelter or haphazard about it. As noted above, the privilege of being given God’s word comes with it a responsibility to interpret it correctly.  Continue reading

, , , , , , , ,

27 Responses to Are all doctrines equal? Or are some primary and others secondary?

  1. Susan January 13, 2017 at 6:27 am #

    The problem is – who decides what is primary and what is secondary? I fully agree there is only one correct interpretation and when an epistle was written to a group of believers in the days of the New Testament church, the hearers knew exactly what it meant. That is a rule to be relied on and I ask myself the question – what did it mean to the receivers of the letter?

    Today sadly there are so many issues that even solid bible believing Christians differ on a great many topics. Sometimes in the comments section on this website I have made a hint at not being a calvinist (nor would I follow arminius) and there has been vitriolic attack come back to me. Implying I am on the road to liberalism maybe! Yet I detest anything liberal.

    I am a bible translator, well capable of looking at the meaning of words and comparing their use in different situations and understanding the contexts etc. and yet have been told by good friends who are calvinists that the word ‘World’ in John 3:16-17 means ‘the world of the elect’. Those who they say God has pre-chosen to believe in the Son. Yet I took the word ‘world’ or kosmos on face value and within it’s context and translated it as what would literally be ‘the people who live on this ground/earth’. As I understand that to be it’s meaning. I can find no other interpretation. I can only say that they interpret the word ‘world’ differently to me because they have to force their calvinistic/reformed TULIP doctrine on God’s Word. To understand John 3:16-17 the way they do, becomes ‘another gospel’ to me. I can see no possible way of making these verses apply in any other way than God’s love for the whole world.

    On returning one time from overseas service for the Lord, we found a book in our house by Sam Storms ‘beginners guide to spiritual gifts’. The book is full of unbiblical nonsense from our view. But it was given to our daughter and on questioning those secretly pushing a charismatic agenda – “oh but these things are secondary matters. We agree on the gospel”. HOWEVER in the book Sam Storms states that these are NOT secondary issues and are essential to the gospel!

    On baptism – if the Greek word implies going right in to the water, being overwhelmed by the water and the practice of the NT time was to do so then I fail to see how it can become a sprinkling. NOW should a person be unable to get in to some water or they are living in the dessert then I have no problem with pouring water over them. It should not be so legalistic.

    It is very likely I would disagree with R C Sproul (who the author of this article quotes) on some matters of interpretation.

    One heart breaking thing for us personally is this very topic became a stumbling block to our daughter. Amongst other things. How could she trust the bible when good people she knows and loves interpret the words in such opposing ways and she went from being a bible-carrying gospel-sharing young woman to quitting on the Bible almost altogether.

    Let’s be careful brothers and sisters

    • berlorac January 13, 2017 at 11:34 am #

      Susan,

      I’m sorry you’ve run into “Calvinists” who mis-interpret John 3:16. The word for “world” in this verse is, indeed, “kosmos.” From all of the Calvinist writings I’ve read, no one has interpreted this verse the way you have heard it interpreted by some “misinformed” folks.

      John 3:16 is not the Gospel. There is not a word in it about the shed blood or the resurrection. Compare this to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which is our Gospel in this dispensation.

      All that John 3:16 says is that “whosever will” believe on the Son will have eternal life. This is a stated fact, but the question then becomes, “Who will?” Who will believe on the Son? The only answer is that those who have faith to believe CAN or WILL believe. The Son is presented to the kosmos, but only those who have faith will believe. Then the question becomes, “Who can, or does, have faith?” And this is where the “Calvinist” comes in and rightly says that passages such as John 6:44-45 and Ephesians 2:8-9 answer that question.

      • jwskud January 13, 2017 at 12:15 pm #

        Hey,
        Your cited John text:

        44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—

        Here’s where the Calvinists actually go wrong. Nowhere does this text say God only draws the elect. It only says no one can come to Christ unless drawn by the Father. And we know from texts like Jn 1:29 and 1 Tim 2:1-6, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 9, 23 and 3:9 that Christ’s sacrifice atones for the sins of the whole world and that God wants all saved. So you have to recitfy that as a Calvinist.

        Let me point you to this article, which does a wonderful job summarizing the Crux Theologorum.

        http://www.stpaulslutheranchurch.net/cruxtheologorum.html

        This article speaks to the current post. We must have all verses in harmony or there’s something wrong. Both Calvinists and Arminians are working beyond scripture and, therefore, wrong. If you are able to let this **apparent** paradox remain, you’re well on your way to being a Bible-believing Christian and not a rationalist.

  2. Manny1962 January 13, 2017 at 8:54 am #

    Amen Susan, I also do not follow either Calvin or Arminius, and I have the same traits you state, I despise anything liberal in regards to Holy Scriptures. Whom did the early Church follow before either of those two men were around? We’ve given up following The Holy Spirit and instead follow doctrines of men. If we spent time in prayer with Him, He promises He will lead us to all truths, it’s the Christian walk. Many today want to put a straight jacket on the bible to push an agenda.

  3. susan January 13, 2017 at 11:01 am #

    SUMMARY of the whole evidence relative to the THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES, 1 John 5:7.
    1. ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN Greek MSS. are extant, containing the First Epistle of John, and the text in question is wanting in 112. It only exists in the Codex Montfortii (a comparatively recent Ms.), already described. The Codex Ravianus, in the Royal Library at Berlin, is a transcript taken from the Complutensian Polyglot.
    2. All the GREEK fathers omit the verse, though many of them quote both 1 John 5:6 and 1 John 5:8, applying them to the Trinity, and Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit; yea, and endeavor to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from 1 John 5:6 and 1 John 5:8, without referring to any such verse as the 7th, which, had it existed, would have been a more positive proof, and one that could not have been overlooked.
    3. The first place in which the verse appears in Greek is the Greek translation; the Acts of the Council of Lateran, held A.D. 1215 A.D..
    4. Though it is found in many Latin copies, yet it does not appear that any written previously to the TENTH CENTURY contains it.
    5. The LATIN fathers do not quote it, even where It would have greatly strengthened their arguments; and where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally expected.
    6. Vigilius, Bishop of Tapsum, at the conclusion of the fifth century, is the first who seems to have referred expressly to the three heavenly witnesses; but his quotation does not agree with the present text either in words or in sense; and besides, he is a writer of very little credit, nor does the place alleged appear to learned men to be genuine.
    7. The Latin writers who do refer to the three heavenly witnesses vary greatly in their quotations, the more ancient placing the eighth verse before the seventh, and very many omitting, after the earthly witnesses, the clause these three are one. Others who insert these three are one add in Christ Jesus; others use different terms.
    8. It is missing in all the ancient VERSIONS the Vulgate excepted; but the more ancient copies of this have it not; and those which have it vary greatly among themselves, as may be seen in the specimens already produced.
    9. It is missing in the first edition of Erasmus, A.D. 1516 A.D., which is properly the editio princeps of the Greek text. It is wanting also in his second edition 1519, but he added it in the third from the Codex Montfortii. It is wanting in the editions of Aldus, Gerbelius, Cephalaeus, etc. It is wanting in the German translation of LUTHER, and in all the editions of it published during his lifetime. It is inserted in our early English translations, but with marks of doubtfulness, as has already been shown.
    10. In short, it stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revelation professing to have come from God.
    See Griesbach’s Dissertation on this verse at the end of the second volume of his Greek text. Halae et Londini, 1806.

    • Amy Spreeman January 16, 2017 at 10:31 am #

      Editor’s note: No, this is your last post. As Admin of this site, I choose not to deal with your snarky comments about commenting, and your unteachable spirit of not posting Catholic apologetics on this page. You’ve had your say, and those comments will stand. I do not mean to be uncharitable, but my responsibility is to the TRUTH of God’s authoritative, SUFFICIENT Word, and to the readers here. Thank you for your contributions, and know that we are praying for you to “come out of her,” meaning Rome.

  4. berlorac January 13, 2017 at 12:18 pm #

    The author, Prata, says, [[Secondly, since we do rely on the collective wisdom of others in learning the historic faith, we do not go after the lone outlier who says “I have a new way!’ Or, “I cracked a code no one has ever noticed before!” When the canon closed, so did the availability to interpret wildly new things from it that very [sic] from the historical faith.]]

    But who decides WHEN God gets to choose to reveal doctrines previously “sealed?” For example, Daniel’s final prophecies concerning the Antichrist and the Tribulation were to be “shut up and sealed till the time of the end” (Daniel 12:9). Therefore, we couldn’t expect Christians of earlier centuries to understand these things. But now, God has allowed us to understand these prophecies (since the early to mid 1800s, particularly), indicating that the time of the end is at hand. The Daniel 12 prophecy concerning the Tribulation is of the same substance as Daniel 9:24-27; therefore, we should include the 70 weeks, particularly the 70th week (the Tribulation) to have been a “sealed” prophecy, as well.

    Many decry dispensationalism because it seems to be “new,” or, as Prata says, “…a code no one has ever noticed before!” But God has determined that these things should not be revealed until the time of the end. So, who are we — who is Prata — to say that these things must not be Biblical?

    • Manny1962 January 13, 2017 at 2:08 pm #

      Hi B!

      “For example, Daniel’s final prophecies concerning the Antichrist and the Tribulation were to be “shut up and sealed till the time of the end” (Daniel 12:9). Therefore, we couldn’t expect Christians of earlier centuries to understand these things. But now, God has allowed us to understand these prophecies (since the early to mid 1800s, particularly), indicating that the time of the end is at hand. The Daniel 12 prophecy concerning the Tribulation is of the same substance as Daniel 9:24-27; therefore, we should include the 70 weeks, particularly the 70th week (the Tribulation) to have been a “sealed” prophecy, as well.”

      Couldn’t agree more, yet many, have turned away from eschatology as kingdom now heresy spreads. A cursory look at the Middle East and the East shows, without a doubt Revelation being unfurled. All the players are in place, all that awaits is The Lord’s command to begin.

      • berlorac January 13, 2017 at 2:32 pm #

        Hey Manny, we know that the 200 million man army from the east (Revelation 9:13-16, Revelation 16:12) has to be largely made up of Chinese because there is no other place in the east that could raise that large of a contingent.

        And now, I’ve been hearing more about the “church” growth in China. They’re saying that Christianity will become very prominent in China in the next decade. The problem is, it’s mostly Pentecostal/signs and wonders based, not unlike Africa.

        The question is, does this signs and wonders “faith” set up these people to follow the Antichrist? I’m not saying no one in China is saved, but a religion based on signs does not bode well for those in its grip.

  5. Manny1962 January 13, 2017 at 3:25 pm #

    Remember the Antichrist will be ushered in peacefully, perhaps they’ll follow him for a short while, Mao did say he didn’t fear a nuclear war as China could field an army of two hundred million….. So prophetic. Today, the orient has pivoted away from US military influence, long time ally Phillipines have basically kicked out the US and had been engaging in military excercises with China, so has Malaysia. The trend is readily apparent. We will see how things will develop this year.

  6. Q January 13, 2017 at 6:19 pm #

    In practice breaking things into primary vs secondary issues is only a start.

    Concerning spiritual things it seems to me that in practice the issue becomes –

    1. Where can a believer attend church on a regular basis i.e., worship together and fellowship?

    2. Where can a believer not attend church on a regular basis i.e., stay in fellowship, consider a brother or sister in Christ but not necessarily worship together?

    3. Where does a believer see something (teaching or practice) heretical enough to contend for the faith i.e., outside the faith, unable to worship or fellowship together?

    Just to kind of make my point clearer, don’t we as believers have to put the following things, among others (listed in no particular order), under one of those three questions above?

    Doctrines Essential to Salvation (what are they)

    Baptism Essential to Salvation

    Non Transparent Finances

    NAR Teaching

    Purpose Driven or Seeker Friendly Churches

    Calvinism

    Paedobaptism

    Infant baptismal regeneration

    Roman Catholicism

    Inerrancy of Scripture

    Mormonism

    Women Pastor and/or Elders

    Women Deacons

    Word of Faith

    Lack of Accountability

    ….

    Examples would be I have a friend who is a pastor whom I consider a brother in Christ yet find his church Constitution and Bylaws very authoritarian and full of the Doctrines of Grace and his sermons always include the sovereignty of God or some form of TULIP so although I see him as a brother it is not where I would attend on a regular basis. I could say the same about a church with closed finances or lack or accountabilty…

  7. Sola Scriptura January 13, 2017 at 10:10 pm #

    1 John 5:7 can be traced back to at least 157 AD, where it was included in the Waldensians “italic” bible, along with the original Latin Vulgate, or”common” Bible, not to be confused with Jerome’s much later and fraudulent Vulgate, exposed by Erasmus to be choc full of catholic doctrine that was not in any legitamite Greek text.
    This passage is also found in manuscript r, which dates to the 4 or 500’s and was quoted by early church leader Tertullian and Cyprian in the 2nd century,, and at least 4 other early church leaders up through the 8th century. It is also contained in the 8th century Codex Ravianus…and many more. That explains why the 47 scholars on the KJV committee (I have read all of their CV’s) chose to include it.

    Greisbach is one of the greatest destroyers of the word…and sits comfortably in the pantheon of Satan along with Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf, Aland, Metzger and many others. It may be hard to see through the pseudo-intellectual fog of textual criticism now, but let me assure you, wether in this life or the next…you will.

  8. Dave January 14, 2017 at 8:22 am #

    Forgive my ignorance, but I thought “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Tim. 3:16. ALL SCRIPTURE!

    “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” Isa 28:10.

    This notion of primary and secondary issues of scripture (doctrine) is why so many do not understand and know how to rightly divide the Word of God. No wonder there exists so much confusion within the body of Christ. Who are we to determine in God’s Word what is primary and what is secondary? There is arrogance in man’s determination to establish this. As for me, the Word of God (all doctrine) is ALL primary! I don’t need someone with an academic mind set to tell me what is and what is not primary. Many a believer have stumbled due to error in secondary doctrine. Satan is brilliant in his strategies to deceive the Church.

    • Q January 19, 2017 at 6:19 pm #

      Dave,

      The bible does talk about weightier issues of the law is clear not all sin is equal (there are greater and lesser punishments) but I do agree Satan has and is using so called secondary issues to spread false teaching.

      BTW have you ever thought Isaiah 28:10 is widely misunderstood?

    • Marinus L April 2, 2017 at 8:39 pm #

      Dave. You are right. Satan is using the ignorance of many Christians to go against one another. Just read the comments, I ask myself do they even read the Bible, I am a believer of the doctrines of grace. This gives me a much better understanding the meaning of the gospel. And when the Bible says that God chose you, I don’t wrestle with it and I don’t think what about my “free will”?
      It gives me a better understanding what “foreknowledge ” means, it does not mean foresight. Etc,etc,etc You are right “all scripture ” is important according to 2 Tim. 3:16,17. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,(17) THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK.
      Satan wants you to think that it is ok to skip certain part of the Bible, don’t fall for this desception.

  9. Edwitness January 26, 2017 at 3:31 pm #

    It’s generally a legalistic understanding of God’s covenants and His dealings with men that encourages interpretation inconsistent with the scripture’s meaning. The Biblical concept of justice and the negative connotation the church has interpreted it to mean is just one example of this.

    Jesus is a judge. So were those God set up over Israel. Their function was and Jesus’ is to meet out justice for those they are tasked with judging. God gives the description and definition of this being done in Judges2:16- “Nevertheless the Lord raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.”
    And vs.18- “And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and DELIVERED them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.”

    These scriptures explain for us the duty of a judge. And we find here that this duty is to DELIVER God’s people from their enemies. So Biblical justice is deliverance.

    And since Jesus is the final, once for all time judge for mankind. He has executed justice once for all time through His death and resurrection so He might deliver them from their enemy death, from death to life, all who place their trust in Him.
    This then is the Biblical definition of justice given to us by God Himself. And any interpretation of scripture pertaining to justice must be understood in this way. That when God exercises His justice for those who trust in Him, He delivers them from their enemies.

    Just one example of how legalism has crept into the doctrines of the church by encouraging a legalistic interpretation of the scriptures.

    Blessings:-}

    • rascott247 January 26, 2017 at 10:20 pm #

      Ed, Biblical justice is restitution (Num 5:5-10, Lev 5:14-19) —restoring damage done to a godly order. There is also to be impartiality in administering Biblical justice (Deut 16:18-19, Lev 19:15). Deliverance (salvation) is the outcome for believers but eternal condemnation is the outcome for those who never believe in Christ for everlasting life—both outcomes are just and Godly order will be restored. The Great White Throne will be justice but will not be deliverance.

      Jesus paid the restitution and has been granted authority to execute judgment and give life and He gives life to those who believe on Him for it. Recognizing the legal aspects to justice and that Christ’s sacrifice satisfied God’s just requirements (in both outcomes) does not make one a “legalist”. Legalism is thinking that God blesses us because of what we do or don’t do rather than understanding that God has given us (believers) all blessings in the heavenlies He just doles them out as we mature and develop the capacity to handle them.

      • Edwitness January 26, 2017 at 11:25 pm #

        Rascott247,
        “…but eternal condemnation is the outcome for those who never believe in Christ for everlasting life…”
        This is the wrath/condemnation of God. Not justice.
        “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
        “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;” Rom.1:18
        Blessings:-}

        • rascott247 January 26, 2017 at 11:57 pm #

          Thanks for the reply Ed. The unbeliever is condemned already as Jn 3:36 says but the offer of life is there for them if they come to faith (it was for me). By eternal condemnation I mean the second death (too late to given life) which surely awaits those who will not trust in Christ for life. Both verses you quote use wrath as present tense not an eternal sense and Rom 1:18 is not limited to unbelievers; believers can suppress truth in unrighteousness (many do) and face the consequences of wrath for ungodliness. Wrath is the outpouring of God’s discipline or judgment on human beings in time, i.e. within history. There is present wrath and wrath to come but I find nowhere that God’s wrath is eternal i.e. present after good and evil is permanently separated. Can you find me a passage that states that the second death (eternal condemnation given at the GWT judgment) is wrath?

          • Edwitness January 27, 2017 at 3:03 am #

            Except for the fact that you believe Christians can suppress the truth in unrighteousness, I agree with what you said. Because I believe the Christian is one because of relationship with Jesus Christ. And that relationship is righteousness. Gal.3:21. And since a Christian is one because of relationship with Jesus, he can not be unrighteous. That is, without relationship with Jesus.
            Blessings:-}

          • rascott247 January 27, 2017 at 3:35 am #

            Thanks again for the reply Ed
            A Christian is counted as righteous they are not made righteous. This is the difference between imputation and impartation. There is character transformation that takes place after salvation as a result of spiritual growth but that is not justification that is sanctification. Wrath is presently revealed against ALL ungodliness. Believers are not exempt from the consequences for ungodliness (liver disease for alcoholism/ lung cancer for smoking/STD for fornication, etc.). Are you telling me that Christians cannot partake in these activities? and if they do they are not suppressing the truth about the consequences of doing so?

            Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
            —Then Paul says to Christians (already justified) — Romans 5:9-10 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, WE SHALL BE SAVED FROM WRATH through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, HAVING BEEN RECONCILED, WE SHALL BE SAVED BY HIS LIFE.

            “Much more than” demands that being saved from wrath is not automatically part of being justified and the salvation from wrath is by His life not through His death. Justification is through His death.

          • Edwitness January 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm #

            You’re very welcome Rascott,
            From day one a Christian IS righteous. Because righteousness IS the relationship. And without the relationship we are not saved.
            Gal.3:21-
            “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”
            In this verse Paul makes life and righteousness synonymous.
            And
            John 17:3- “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

            If life is righteousness and life is knowing Jesus, then righteousness IS relationship.

            This is why God said to Abraham that he was righteous. Because he trusted God. And trust is our side of the relationship with God. He agrees toward man with His love. Our response, as was Abraham’s is to trust Him. = RIGHTEOUS.

            “Are you telling me that Christians cannot partake in these activities? and if they do they are not suppressing the truth about the consequences of doing so?”

            No. I am telling you that you don’t understand what righteousness is.

            “Much more then, (not than) having now been justified by His blood…” This is a one time for all act.
            And since justified and righteous are the same Greek word, to be justified means to BE MADE righteous.

            And your interpretation of Rom.1:18 is not accurate. The suppression of truth in unrighteousness has nothing to do with the suppression of the consequences of sin. It is addressing the fact that these people have rejected the truth that God IS who He says He is. It is their rejection of God, the truth, that results in the consequences described later in the chapter. In fact the end of the chapter says they know that very thing. “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
            That doesn’t sound like someone trying to deny there are consequences for sin.

            Sanctification is the process of growing from faith to faith, and from glory to glory that Paul describes in this very chapter. I agree with you that sanctification is not righteousness/justification.

            Being MADE righteous from day one is our assurance that once we are saved we are always saved.

            Blessings:-} brother

      • Edwitness January 26, 2017 at 11:42 pm #

        You have proven my point once again:-)
        Blessings:-}

  10. Marinus L February 27, 2017 at 11:04 am #

    Maybe somebody can help me understand.
    My question is,” Where did the 144,000 and the vast crowd, as described in Rev. 7:9, where did they come from? If all believers were taken up during the first half of tribulation. Just wondering.

    • berlorac February 27, 2017 at 2:13 pm #

      Hey Marinus, only the Church, which is His Body, is taken up pre-Trib. Those who are left are not Christians.

      The Tribulation is a time of “Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7). Israel will be the focus of God’s dealings in the Trib (Revelation 12), but the whole world will come under the judgments.

      During this time, many will be saved (Revelation 6:9, Revelation 7:9-10). But those who are saved during the Trib are not the Church. This is a different company of believers, those who believe the Gospel as preached by the angel (Revelation 14:6-7), or by the two witnesses (Revelation 11:1-3), or any number of those who will come to salvation during that time.

      The 144,000 is a specific group of Jewish believers whom God will set apart.

      • Manny1962 February 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm #

        Amen brother! Amen! Never have I seen so much coming together so fast! Maranatha!

      • Marinus L February 27, 2017 at 8:59 pm #

        @ berlorac. Thank you.

Leave a Reply