Ok. So? The man of sin is only an instrument among many. Those first four horsemen are still a part of God's wrath upon this earth, under which the Church is not appointed. The measure of His wrath is no indication of the rapture event happening at some other point along the timeline of that heptad of years.
Yes, the man of sin is given power over the saints (not the Church), who are mentioned even into chapter 18. So, if one is going to force the concept of the saints being the Church on this earth in chapter 18, thy need to explain how they arrived at that without injecting into the the text what isn't there, and yet is littered all over the book in the first four chapters. John didn't suddenly have a mental lapse. Exegetical versus eisegetical seems to be at play here. Taking FROM what is said and what is not said, versus assuming into the text what isn't there, I prefer to draw out.
Generally speaking, I'm intentionally drawing the line of distinction between the Church and the "saints" of chapters 6 through 21 by way of considering chapter 7, where the saints who die within the tribulation DO NOT have crowns (but only palm branches and white robes), even though those who were of the Church DO have crowns (and censures filled with the prayers of the saints that the saints from the tribulation do not have).
The 24 elders ARE the Church, of whom are pictured in Heaven before the Lamb even receives the scroll with the seven seals. I've been told that those are only the part of the Church that had already died... Really? There seems to be no end to the horrid practice of eisegetical interpretive methods applied by those who treat scripture as one huge allegory that they can twist, warp and play with to their heart's desire.
Those elders have their reward already, and the text draws no lines of distinction anywhere that they were only the already-dead people from the Church age. To say that the part of the Church that happens to be alive into the tribulation will not receive crowns as did the larger part of the Church that was "lucky" enough to have died before the tribulation, that's ludicrous to say the least!
No believer who dies within the timeframe of the tribulation is shown to have been rewarded with a crown on their head, and to say that there's nothing that can possibly have happened that drew that line of distinction prior to the beginning of the tribulation, I'd have to ask that person what they are NOW going to inject into the text from their own imaginations in order to try and wrestle it to their own advantage...winning at all costs, even to their own intellectual honesty.
So, as I've said, generally speaking, who out there has an answer to this that could possibly be seen as a legitimate counter that doesn't traipse right smack into the muck and mire of eisegetical error?
MM
Yes, the man of sin is given power over the saints (not the Church), who are mentioned even into chapter 18. So, if one is going to force the concept of the saints being the Church on this earth in chapter 18, thy need to explain how they arrived at that without injecting into the the text what isn't there, and yet is littered all over the book in the first four chapters. John didn't suddenly have a mental lapse. Exegetical versus eisegetical seems to be at play here. Taking FROM what is said and what is not said, versus assuming into the text what isn't there, I prefer to draw out.
Generally speaking, I'm intentionally drawing the line of distinction between the Church and the "saints" of chapters 6 through 21 by way of considering chapter 7, where the saints who die within the tribulation DO NOT have crowns (but only palm branches and white robes), even though those who were of the Church DO have crowns (and censures filled with the prayers of the saints that the saints from the tribulation do not have).
The 24 elders ARE the Church, of whom are pictured in Heaven before the Lamb even receives the scroll with the seven seals. I've been told that those are only the part of the Church that had already died... Really? There seems to be no end to the horrid practice of eisegetical interpretive methods applied by those who treat scripture as one huge allegory that they can twist, warp and play with to their heart's desire.
Those elders have their reward already, and the text draws no lines of distinction anywhere that they were only the already-dead people from the Church age. To say that the part of the Church that happens to be alive into the tribulation will not receive crowns as did the larger part of the Church that was "lucky" enough to have died before the tribulation, that's ludicrous to say the least!
No believer who dies within the timeframe of the tribulation is shown to have been rewarded with a crown on their head, and to say that there's nothing that can possibly have happened that drew that line of distinction prior to the beginning of the tribulation, I'd have to ask that person what they are NOW going to inject into the text from their own imaginations in order to try and wrestle it to their own advantage...winning at all costs, even to their own intellectual honesty.
So, as I've said, generally speaking, who out there has an answer to this that could possibly be seen as a legitimate counter that doesn't traipse right smack into the muck and mire of eisegetical error?
MM
