Pre-trib Rapture only, anything else incriminates God

[B-A-C]

Across several of your recent threads I've noticed a consistent pattern worth naming directly — you're not doing theology, you're doing moral philosophy and calling it theology. The difference matters.


Theology starts with Scripture and derives conclusions. What you're doing starts with a conclusion about what a good and loving God should look like by your reckoning, and then works backward to find support. That's eisegesis, and it's the same mistake the Pharisees made in John 5 — sincere, coherent, and completely wrong because the starting premise was off.


Take your hell thread. The premise is "a loving God wouldn't send people to hell and torture them forever." That sounds compassionate but it's built on at least three faulty assumptions worth examining.


First — God doesn't send anyone to hell. That framing makes God the aggressor acting on a neutral party. Scripture doesn't support that starting point. We are born fallen, Romans 3 and 5 are unambiguous on this. The default human condition without intervention is already headed toward destruction. Nobody is standing at a neutral crossroads while God shoves them toward the cliff. We were born on a train already moving toward it. God didn't build the train, didn't set the destination, and didn't put us on it. He's the one reaching in to pull people off. The miracle isn't that some people end up in the Lake of Fire — the miracle is that anyone gets pulled off the train at all.


Second — your "eternal torture" framing may owe more to Dante than to Scripture. The Bible describes the Lake of Fire as the second death, as separation, as outer darkness. More importantly, everyone lives forever — Scripture is clear on that. The question was never duration, it's destination. New Jerusalem or the Lake of Fire. Both are eternal. God isn't snuffing anyone out or vindictively tormenting passive victims. He's honoring the choice people made their entire lives. That's not cruelty — that's the only framework in which human choice has any actual meaning or dignity.


Third — if you're arguing God is responsible for who ends up there, you've just accidentally made a Calvinist argument. If God determines outcomes, He predetermined the Lake of Fire for some people. That's a harsher God than the one you're trying to defend, not a gentler one.


Which brings me to your OSAS position. You've argued God wouldn't save someone He knows will get unsaved later — which means God's foreknowledge deterministically controls salvation outcomes. That is functionally predestination regardless of what label you put on it. You can't simultaneously argue God is too loving to allow anyone He touches to be lost AND that God is too loving to send people to hell. One demands that God's sovereignty overrides human agency, the other demands that human agency overrides God's sovereignty. Pick one — you can't build a coherent theology on both.


The deeper issue running through all of your threads is this — you're evaluating God against an external standard of goodness rather than letting God define the standard. Isaiah 55:8-9 isn't a footnote, it's a foundational warning against exactly this. The same God you're defending as too loving to permit hell is the God who drowned the human race, rained fire on two cities, and commanded the deaths of women and children in Canaan. Those aren't obscure passages. They're the most famous stories in Scripture. If your theology can't accommodate the God who actually shows up in the Bible, the problem isn't with God.


We don't judge God. He judges us. That's not a minor distinction — it's the whole ballgame.

 

[KingJ]

Across several of your recent threads I've noticed a consistent pattern worth naming directly — you're not doing theology, you're doing moral philosophy and calling it theology. The difference matters.

Theology starts with Scripture and derives conclusions. What you're doing starts with a conclusion about what a good and loving God should look like by your reckoning, and then works backward to find support. That's eisegesis, and it's the same mistake the Pharisees made in John 5 — sincere, coherent, and completely wrong because the starting premise was off.

Take your hell thread. The premise is "a loving God wouldn't send people to hell and torture them forever." That sounds compassionate but it's built on at least three faulty assumptions worth examining.

First — God doesn't send anyone to hell. That framing makes God the aggressor acting on a neutral party. Scripture doesn't support that starting point. We are born fallen, Romans 3 and 5 are unambiguous on this. The default human condition without intervention is already headed toward destruction. Nobody is standing at a neutral crossroads while God shoves them toward the cliff. We were born on a train already moving toward it. God didn't build the train, didn't set the destination, and didn't put us on it. He's the one reaching in to pull people off. The miracle isn't that some people end up in the Lake of Fire — the miracle is that anyone gets pulled off the train at all.

Second — your "eternal torture" framing may owe more to Dante than to Scripture. The Bible describes the Lake of Fire as the second death, as separation, as outer darkness. More importantly, everyone lives forever — Scripture is clear on that. The question was never duration, it's destination. New Jerusalem or the Lake of Fire. Both are eternal. God isn't snuffing anyone out or vindictively tormenting passive victims. He's honoring the choice people made their entire lives. That's not cruelty — that's the only framework in which human choice has any actual meaning or dignity.

Third — if you're arguing God is responsible for who ends up there, you've just accidentally made a Calvinist argument. If God determines outcomes, He predetermined the Lake of Fire for some people. That's a harsher God than the one you're trying to defend, not a gentler one.

Which brings me to your OSAS position. You've argued God wouldn't save someone He knows will get unsaved later — which means God's foreknowledge deterministically controls salvation outcomes. That is functionally predestination regardless of what label you put on it. You can't simultaneously argue God is too loving to allow anyone He touches to be lost AND that God is too loving to send people to hell. One demands that God's sovereignty overrides human agency, the other demands that human agency overrides God's sovereignty. Pick one — you can't build a coherent theology on both.

The deeper issue running through all of your threads is this — you're evaluating God against an external standard of goodness rather than letting God define the standard. Isaiah 55:8-9 isn't a footnote, it's a foundational warning against exactly this. The same God you're defending as too loving to permit hell is the God who drowned the human race, rained fire on two cities, and commanded the deaths of women and children in Canaan. Those aren't obscure passages. They're the most famous stories in Scripture. If your theology can't accommodate the God who actually shows up in the Bible, the problem isn't with God.


We don't judge God. He judges us. That's not a minor distinction — it's the whole ballgame.

I will reply in detail later. For now I call this gobbledygook as.....using scriptures like these:

• Psalm 145:17 — “The Lord is righteous in all His ways.”
• Psalm 136:1 — “God is good and His mercy endures forever.”
• 1 John 1:5 — “God is light; in Him is no darkness at all.”
• Job 34:12 — “Unthinkable that He be unjust, surely God will not do wickedly.”

as limiting factors on a topic is not me not doing ''moral philosophy''. I am using didactic texts about God’s character as interpretive controls. That is theology, specifically, systematic theology.

I am treating God’s revealed character as a limiting factor. God’s nature (good, righteous, light) is ontologically fixed. Therefore, interpretations that portray Him as morally corrupt are invalid.

 

[B-A-C]

You said you're treating God's revealed character as a limiting factor. I want to start right there, because that phrase contains a hidden assumption worth examining.


Does God have limits?

His attributes aren't limits — they're descriptions of His nature. A limit is an external constraint, something that prevents you from doing what you might otherwise do. But God's justice isn't a limit on His mercy. His holiness isn't a limit on His love. They don't trade off against each other the way they do in finite beings. We have to balance strictness and compassion because we're limited creatures navigating competing pressures. God doesn't balance anything. He doesn't negotiate between His own attributes. Every act of God is simultaneously the full expression of His justice, His holiness, His mercy, and His love — all at once, without remainder, because He is One.

This is what theologians call divine simplicity, and it matters here. When you use God's goodness as a "limiting factor" on what He can do in judgment, you've imported a very human framework onto God — the idea that His attributes are in tension with each other and one has to win. But that's not the God of Scripture. That's a finite being with competing internal pressures.

Which brings me to the next problem. Even setting that aside — which parts of God's revealed character are you selecting to do the limiting?

You've chosen goodness, mercy, and light. Real attributes, and I affirm every verse you cited. But you're using those to constrain the torment passages, while refusing to let the torment passages constrain your definition of those attributes. That's not neutral methodology. That's a hierarchy you've imposed on Scripture rather than one Scripture imposes on itself.

Why does mercy override justice in your framework? Why does your intuition about what "good" means sit above the plain text of Revelation 14:10-11, where the same God your verses describe says the torment of the unrepentant rises forever and they have no rest day or night? That text is also God's revealed character. It's also didactic. Why isn't it doing any limiting?

Isaiah 6 is worth sitting with. The only attribute in all of Scripture given triple emphasis isn't love or mercy — it's holiness. If any attribute has the strongest textual claim to define God's character, holiness does. And holiness, fully expressed, doesn't flinch at eternal consequence.

So here's the direct question: you said you're using God's revealed character as a limiting factor. But God has no limits — He has a nature. And His nature, fully and simultaneously expressed in everything He does, includes eternal judgment. The Lamb and the Lion are the same Person. The Jesus who wept over Jerusalem is the same Jesus whose eyes are a flame of fire in Revelation 19.

If your theology requires God's attributes to constrain each other, you're not describing the God of Scripture. You're describing a finite being with internal conflicts. And that god — the one whose mercy has to win the argument against his own justice — isn't in the Bible.

 

[KingJ]

Take your hell thread. The premise is "a loving God wouldn't send people to hell and torture them forever." That sounds compassionate but it's built on at least three faulty assumptions worth examining.

No, that's not the premise. You are confusing me with others.

1. Scripture is clear that Hell is eternal. 2. Scripture is clear that there is fire and that it is linked to punishment. 3. Scripture is clear that God is righteous and therefore not evil. 4. Common sense is clear that torture = evil, pure evil.

I take 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = truth

You take 1 + 2 = your truth.

You are guilty of omitting scripture in arriving at your conclusions. Your posts on hell do not mention God's nature. The nature and character of the builder of a home is the most important factor to consider on hell.

Example - If we have scripture mentioning 1. Fire, 2. Weeping and 3. Hitler is the builder verse 1. Fire, 2 Weeping and 3. Mother Theresa being the builder.......it would be obvious to expect the worst type of experience in fire with weeping from Hitler and the best possible version of this with Mother Theresa.

First — God doesn't send anyone to hell.

Of course He does.

That framing makes God the aggressor acting on a neutral party. Scripture doesn't support that starting point.

I don't agree. Matt 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

We are born fallen, Romans 3 and 5 are unambiguous on this.

I don't agree. A baby goes to heaven if they die.

The default human condition without intervention is already headed toward destruction.

Some truth to this. We have a weak flesh. Sinning is a matter of time.

Nobody is standing at a neutral crossroads while God shoves them toward the cliff.

I don't agree. All under twenty are neutral to God. God is impartial Rom 2:11 and He chose to spare all under twenty in the wilderness Num 14:29.

We were born on a train already moving toward it. God didn't build the train, didn't set the destination, and didn't put us on it. He's the one reaching in to pull people off.

I don't agree. God has built everything!

The miracle isn't that some people end up in the Lake of Fire — the miracle is that anyone gets pulled off the train at all.

What a silly take on scripture. This touches on Calvinism. Why would you hold to this silly line?

We are all gifted high intelligence, free will and the ability to choose death or life. God need not intervene at all.

Second — your "eternal torture" framing may owe more to Dante than to Scripture. The Bible describes the Lake of Fire as the second death, as separation, as outer darkness.

False. You are the one who makes sure to include every scripture mentioning fire, worms and weeping out of its context and paint a picture of Dante's inferno. I mention scripture pertaining to hell in their context and add further pertinent scripture to draw the correct picture. A delicate topic like hell requires a skilled and thorough presentation.

More importantly, everyone lives forever — Scripture is clear on that. The question was never duration, it's destination. New Jerusalem or the Lake of Fire. Both are eternal. God isn't snuffing anyone out or vindictively tormenting passive victims. He's honoring the choice people made their entire lives. That's not cruelty — that's the only framework in which human choice has any actual meaning or dignity.

Not sure why you feel this is relevant. Can you quote me?

Cruelty is torture. Literally the A-Z of my issue with your view is that you teach torture. No need to grab various straws. It is literally just that. That is our only point of disagreement. Torture = evil / wicked.

In no universe, on no planet, will a being with a working brain ever think torture is not wicked. You cannot defend God as good if you imply He tortures.

Third — if you're arguing God is responsible for who ends up there, you've just accidentally made a Calvinist argument. If God determines outcomes, He predetermined the Lake of Fire for some people. That's a harsher God than the one you're trying to defend, not a gentler one.

You are bouncing all over the show and false accusations are just flying everywhere.

I do not believe in Calvinism at all. They are only correct on OSAS. That's it. Free will is real. There are 17 passages in scripture clearly stating God is impartial. Impartial = free will.

Which brings me to your OSAS position. You've argued God wouldn't save someone He knows will get unsaved later

No. I teach that someone who is saved cannot lose salvation.

I believe in true free will. When someone from free will decides to repent and accept Jesus, God judges their heart and mind Jer 17:9-12 for sincerity and if they pass they are gifted saving faith / salvation Rom 10:9, 1 Cor 12:3.

Once someone is truly saved, they are saved forever. God is not a human that makes mistakes Num 23:19.

— which means God's foreknowledge deterministically controls salvation outcomes. That is functionally predestination regardless of what label you put on it.

No. God does not know who will be saved. That is a requirement of true free will. This is why free will is such a hard discussion. But free will is scripturally sound. Therefore, we have to believe ''God does not know''. I call it ''limited omniscience'' to uphold being good. You are free to call it whatever you want. At least we agree on free will.

You can't simultaneously argue God is too loving to allow anyone He touches to be lost AND that God is too loving to send people to hell. One demands that God's sovereignty overrides human agency, the other demands that human agency overrides God's sovereignty. Pick one — you can't build a coherent theology on both.

Geesh BAC. I feel like when I type you read what I say back to front and upside down. You seem unable to separate someone believing in OSAS from a Calvinist.

If God cherry picks people for heaven, it is partiality. Just like torture, partiality is evil. Calvinism = evil.

So on your first part, I don't believe that, no. Regarding your second ''God is too loving to send people to hell''. God is good and it is good to send people unrepentant in sin to a home separate from those in heaven who hate evil and are all repentant sinners. There is nothing evil about God sending people to hell. We only disagree on what takes place in hell. You teach torture, I don't.

The deeper issue running through all of your threads is this — you're evaluating God against an external standard of goodness rather than letting God define the standard. Isaiah 55:8-9 isn't a footnote,

No BAC, you must be better than that. Now you are sounding Calvinistic. Rom 9:22 is a lot like Isa 55:8-9. God can be whoever He wants to be, do whatever He wants to do..........................this DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES. He chooses Psalm 115:3 to do what is good and right Psalm 145:17, gift us with high intelligence Heb 2:7 and be an open book for us and angels to judge Him Rev 20:10 . The rest of scripture gives context to Isa 55:8-9 and Rom 9:22.

---------------------------

As for your beliefs, since this is turning into a personal tennis game

You believe:

1. Salvation can be lost = Portrays God as evil and unjust.

This implies God is a fool that can make a mistake of grafting a saint into hell and a demon into heaven. This implies that eternal bliss is a lie. This implies that God is unjust as the thief on the cross that endured 4 hours of torment can get eternal bliss and the Christian that serves God 50 years but messes up in year 51 can go to eternal hell.

2. God tortures the wicked in hell = Portrays God as pure evil.

You seem to just quote all the scripture Google gives you on fire, worms and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Leaving the reader to assume the worst about God and hell. You never quote Jesus's description of the kind of torment one will endure in fire in hell explained in detail in Luke 16:19-31. That worms are personal, implying a conscience. That separation is the reason for weeping and gnashing teeth Luke 13:28. That punishment will match the crime Rom 2:6.

3. No rapture = Portrays God as a liar and evil

You don't need theology to grasp that SEVEN years at the end of SIX days before an exact ONE THOUSAND years is not an unknown date. You need Math. Saying that Rom 10:9 is incompatible with Rev 14:9-11 is not ''moral philosophy'' it is a logical fact. Expecting God to not abandon those He has justified Gal 2:16, is not ''moral philosophy'' it is believing scripture that explains what a Christian is.

it's a foundational warning against exactly this. The same God you're defending as too loving to permit hell is the God who drowned the human race, rained fire on two cities, and commanded the deaths of women and children in Canaan. Those aren't obscure passages. They're the most famous stories in Scripture. If your theology can't accommodate the God who actually shows up in the Bible, the problem isn't with God.

I am glad you touch on these. This would make a very good thread topic. I discuss these kinds of topics with atheists and god-bashers all the time.

You need to be specific and consider all that took place with each incident of the ''appearance'' of evil by God. When you do that you will find that what God did was good and righteous.

In every instance you mentioned, God was patient, slow to anger and when He did, His wrath was not torturous. The fires of Sodom were high like a furnace. Meaning people did not suffer over many hours. They had quick deaths (15-30 seconds) after inhaling carbon monoxide. The flood, same thing. It took Noah 50-120 years to build the ark. The wicked people on earth had all this time to repent and make right with God. When the rains finally came, they drowned. Drowning is anywhere from 20 seconds to five minutes. There is no evil / torture by God as all the wicked that have been destroyed, endured quick deaths.

There are worse passages that a Christian needs to defend God on. Those that speak to plagues. But this is not difficult to defend Him on as we know that plagues come as a last ditch attempt by God to get people to repent.

This is why if you read Revelations and the plagues mentioned therein, you will find many passages that mention ''they repented not'' after a plague hits earth.

We don't judge God. He judges us. That's not a minor distinction — it's the whole ballgame.

Absolute croc. We serve God because we judge Him as good.

You make me want to question your Christianity. Why are you a Christian BAC?

-----------------

Be better BAC, stop misrepresenting God as evil! You are guilty of lazy exegesis of scripture on the above topics mentioned.

 

[KingJ]

You said you're treating God's revealed character as a limiting factor. I want to start right there, because that phrase contains a hidden assumption worth examining.


Does God have limits?

His attributes aren't limits — they're descriptions of His nature. A limit is an external constraint, something that prevents you from doing what you might otherwise do. But God's justice isn't a limit on His mercy. His holiness isn't a limit on His love. They don't trade off against each other the way they do in finite beings. We have to balance strictness and compassion because we're limited creatures navigating competing pressures. God doesn't balance anything. He doesn't negotiate between His own attributes. Every act of God is simultaneously the full expression of His justice, His holiness, His mercy, and His love — all at once, without remainder, because He is One.

This is what theologians call divine simplicity, and it matters here. When you use God's goodness as a "limiting factor" on what He can do in judgment, you've imported a very human framework onto God — the idea that His attributes are in tension with each other and one has to win. But that's not the God of Scripture. That's a finite being with competing internal pressures.

Which brings me to the next problem. Even setting that aside — which parts of God's revealed character are you selecting to do the limiting?

You've chosen goodness, mercy, and light. Real attributes, and I affirm every verse you cited. But you're using those to constrain the torment passages, while refusing to let the torment passages constrain your definition of those attributes. That's not neutral methodology. That's a hierarchy you've imposed on Scripture rather than one Scripture imposes on itself.

Why does mercy override justice in your framework? Why does your intuition about what "good" means sit above the plain text of Revelation 14:10-11, where the same God your verses describe says the torment of the unrepentant rises forever and they have no rest day or night? That text is also God's revealed character. It's also didactic. Why isn't it doing any limiting?

Isaiah 6 is worth sitting with. The only attribute in all of Scripture given triple emphasis isn't love or mercy — it's holiness. If any attribute has the strongest textual claim to define God's character, holiness does. And holiness, fully expressed, doesn't flinch at eternal consequence.

So here's the direct question: you said you're using God's revealed character as a limiting factor. But God has no limits — He has a nature. And His nature, fully and simultaneously expressed in everything He does, includes eternal judgment. The Lamb and the Lion are the same Person. The Jesus who wept over Jerusalem is the same Jesus whose eyes are a flame of fire in Revelation 19.

If your theology requires God's attributes to constrain each other, you're not describing the God of Scripture. You're describing a finite being with internal conflicts. And that god — the one whose mercy has to win the argument against his own justice — isn't in the Bible.

This post is derailing the thread. I will respond to it in a new one.

 

[Bill]

After many discussions on this topic, I have come to believe that three key truths strongly support a pre-tribulation rapture and substantially settle the question.

​

1. The Rapture Date Is Completely Unknown​

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” — Matthew 24:36

Jesus declared that a specific day and hour would be completely unknowable. Not known to men or angels, but known only to the Father.

This creates a serious interpretive boundary. We cannot mix with this verse any scripture speaking to a resurrection at the end of the tribulation.

Scripture reveals a prophetic pattern built into creation itself.

• God created in six days and rested on the seventh (Genesis 2:2–3).
• “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8).
• The reign of Christ is described as a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1–6).

The seventh “day” in prophetic history is explicitly defined: one thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ.

If the seventh day equals 1,000 years, and Scripture uses the day-as-a-thousand-years principle (2 Peter 3:8), then the six preceding “days” correspond to six thousand years of human history.

Six days = 6,000 years.
Seventh day = 1,000-year reign.

Within that framework, the tribulation occurs at the very end of the sixth day. The closing seven-year period before the seventh-day kingdom begins.

It is not a random era. It is the final segment of the sixth millennium.

And Scripture does not leave its length ambiguous:

• Daniel’s seventieth week (Daniel 9:27)
• 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6)
• Forty-two months (Revelation 13:5)
• Time, times, and half a time (Revelation 12:14)

The tribulation is mathematically defined.

If Matthew 24:36 refers to Christ’s visible return at the end of that seven-year period, which itself sits at the very end of the sixth 1,000-year “day”, then once the tribulation begins, the return could be calculated. Seven years from the covenant confirmation of Daniel 9:27. Countable. Measurable. Predictable.

But Jesus said the day and hour are not knowable. Therefore, the event described in Matthew 24:36 cannot be the conclusion of a timed seven-year sequence at the end of the sixth millennium.

2. God Does Not Leave Nor Forsake Us​

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” — Hebrews 13:5

This is not poetic encouragement. It is covenant assurance. The present Church is not in probation. We are not spiritual candidates awaiting final evaluation.

Scripture says:

• We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1).
• We are sealed by the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13–14).
• We have passed from death unto life (John 5:24).
• We are not appointed to wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9).
• We are delivered from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Our loyalty has already been demonstrated, not by works, but by faith:

“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” — Romans 10:9.

That faith is itself enabled by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now consider the tribulation.

Revelation describes a period where:

• The beast is given authority over the saints (Revelation 13:7).
• Economic and social exclusion is enforced (Revelation 13:17).
• Refusal of his mark results in torment and for many, execution (Revelation 13:15).

This is not ordinary persecution. It is a concentrated, global unleashing of satanic power during a time of divine judgment.

To leave sealed, justified children under the unrestrained dominance of the dragon and the beast, after declaring them accepted, redeemed, and no longer under wrath, would not be abandonment.

A loving father does not prove his faithfulness by leaving his children in the custody of a known predator.

Many quote Job in opposition to this fact. Job was tested, sure, but he was not a sealed, Spirit-indwelt member of the completed Body of Christ. Job lived before the cross, before Pentecost, before the sealing ministry described in Ephesians.

The present Church is uniquely positioned in redemptive history. We are called the Bride (Ephesians 5:25–27), not probationary servants awaiting review.

There is no further loyalty to prove. Faith in Christ has already marked the boundary.

If God removes restraint (2 Thessalonians 2:7) and permits the full manifestation of lawlessness, yet leaves His justified children in that environment, the promise of Hebrews 13:5 would be hollow comfort.

3. God Does Not Lie​

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” - Numbers 23:19

Scripture presents salvation in the present dispensation as settled and secure:

• Faith in Christ results in salvation (Romans 10:9).
• Believers are sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).
• We are complete in Him (Colossians 2:10).
• We have eternal life (John 3:16).

The language is definitive.

Now let's examine the tribulation.

Revelation 14:9–11 declares that anyone who receives the mark of the beast will drink the wine of God’s wrath.
Revelation 20:4 honors those who refused the mark and were executed for it.

Under tribulation conditions, allegiance is visibly tested. Refusal is required. Endurance is demanded (Revelation 14:12; Matthew 24:13).

If the present sealed Church enters that dispensation, then a problem emerges.

A believer who has confessed Christ and believed in His resurrection, fulfilling Romans 10:9, would still face irreversible condemnation if they receive the mark Rev 14:9-11.

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.". - Rom 10:9

In that scenario, faith alone would not suffice. The governing conditions would shift.

The tribulation saints operate under an economy of endurance and visible allegiance during open satanic rule. But the present Church has been promised justification by faith alone, sealing by the Spirit, and exemption from wrath.

If that sealing can be overridden by a later administrative shift, then it was conditional. If it was conditional, it was not presented honestly. God would be a liar.

God does not guarantee salvation through faith and then later introduce additional conditions for the same sealed body.

If He did, the stability of the gospel would fracture. And Numbers 23:19 forbids that conclusion.

God does not lie.
God does not revise.
God does not overstate His promises.

Conclusion​

These three truths stand together:

• The coming event is completely unknown in timing.
• God does not abandon His children.
• God does not lie about salvation or security.

If the present, sealed, justified Church enters the tribulation. The climactic outpouring of divine wrath and satanic dominance. Then those three truths are strained to the breaking point.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

All Rapture teachings are false teachings.

The only Time that we will Be taken up is when Jesus returns where we will meet him in the air.

 

[joestue]

Absolute croc. We serve God because we judge Him as good.

if God is God..

we should serve him regardless if we deem him good or not.

does the clay have the right to complain to the potter?

 

[joestue]

1. Salvation can be lost = Portrays God as evil and unjust.

This implies God is a fool that can make a mistake of grafting a saint into hell and a demon into heaven. This implies that eternal bliss is a lie. This implies that God is unjust as the thief on the cross that endured 4 hours of torment can get eternal bliss and the Christian that serves God 50 years but messes up in year 51 can go to eternal hell.

2. God tortures the wicked in hell = Portrays God as pure evil.

You seem to just quote all the scripture Google gives you on fire, worms and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Leaving the reader to assume the worst about God and hell. You never quote Jesus's description of the kind of torment one will endure in fire in hell explained in detail in Luke 16:19-31. That worms are personal, implying a conscience. That separation is the reason for weeping and gnashing teeth Luke 13:28. That punishment will match the crime Rom 2:6.

For what its worth, I do not recall anyone on this forum actually claim God is the one doing the tormenting in hell. Since you probably don't believe God created evil, then, who did? So would not the author of evil, is the one doing the tormenting in hell? or do they all torment themselves?

Personally, and i've not shared this with anyone in real life yet, i think that sin hardens hearts and so in hell.. you're going to stay there as long as it takes to un-harden your heart, and allow your spirit to die, as in cease to exist. the more you sin in life, the longer that process is going to take.


You keep going back to this arbitrary 50 years of service 1 year of rebellion.
That's just not how it works. when a person chooses to turn from God and corrupt themselves to the point of losing their salvation, its a calculated intention.

 

[B-A-C]

We serve God because we judge Him as good.

That's an interesting statement, but I'd gently push back on the framing. Scripture doesn't really present us as judges evaluating God's goodness and then deciding to serve Him based on our verdict. That subtly places us above Him.

Consider what God says to Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). The whole point is that Job had no standing to sit in judgment of God — and Job repented for even framing his questions that way.

Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us that God's thoughts and ways are so far above ours that our "judgment" of Him would be laughably inadequate at best.

Paul is even more direct in Romans 9:20 — "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'"

There's a meaningful difference between perceiving God's goodness and judging Him as good. The first is worship. The second quietly puts the creature above the Creator.

We serve God because He is Lord — because of covenant, grace, and the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). His goodness is something we gratefully acknowledge, not a qualification He must meet to earn our service.

 

[joestue]

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"'

had a similar question asked of me, when i was complaining to God about certain matters.

i saw a butterfly in a vision and was asked "do you command the butterflies? -neither shall you command me"

 

[B-A-C]

1. Scripture is clear that Hell is eternal. 2. Scripture is clear that there is fire and that it is linked to punishment. 3. Scripture is clear that God is righteous and therefore not evil. 4. Common sense is clear that torture = evil, pure evil.

I take 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = truth

You take 1 + 2 = your truth.

Show me this is the Bible. Your assumption? Or scripture? Your loginc or scripture?

1. Salvation can be lost = Portrays God as evil and unjust.

Feels good to say? Unbiblical, show me in Bible, else its just your opinion.

You seem unable to separate someone believing in OSAS from a Calvinist.

Because there is no difference.

2. God tortures the wicked in hell = Portrays God as pure evil.

Your opinion? Or scripture? Show me.

 

[KingJ]

if God is God..

we should serve him regardless if we deem him good or not.

does the clay have the right to complain to the potter?

Incorrect. You can respect and be thankful to a 'god' that made you and is both 'good and bad'. But to serve such a god, well that would make you a special kind of person. Imagine serving a god in Greek mythology. You can, sure, but imagine being '''that''' person.

 

[KingJ]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

All Rapture teachings are false teachings.

The only Time that we will Be taken up is when Jesus returns where we will meet him in the air.

You can say that, but my OP proves there is one. Believing in it is as simple as believing 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[KingJ]

For what its worth, I do not recall anyone on this forum actually claim God is the one doing the tormenting in hell.

When it comes to this topic, it is important to understand that there is a very thin line. 1. God is perfectly good and righteous in all His ways 2. Everything that takes place is by His design. He placed the devil with Adam and Eve.

There will be torment that takes place in hell and it will take place because God allows it to. That does make Him part and parcel of it. This is why as a Christian, it is of paramount importance to properly understand and explain exactly what the bible does say about the torment in hell. As I explain in my OP here: What to expect in hell

Since you probably don't believe God created evil, then, who did? So would not the author of evil, is the one doing the tormenting in hell? or do they all torment themselves?

God did create evil, but God does not 'do' evil. Very important difference to understand. Creating evil is a necessity when you create a highly intelligent being that as being good requires you to gift true free will. Evil and the ability to 'do' evil is required for free will to exist.

Personally, and i've not shared this with anyone in real life yet, i think that sin hardens hearts and so in hell.. you're going to stay there as long as it takes to un-harden your heart,

It is good to believe that hard hearts can be rehabilitated. It is Christianity 101. Universalism is a very sound thought. This is why a Christian has to properly explain why God does not support universalism. God judges hearts and minds at depths of intent as only He can Jer 17:9-11. When He send someone to an eternal home it is because they are 'sold out full measure' to a love or hatred of what is evil. Hardened heart = fully sold out to evil. Unable to ever truly repent of sins.

and allow your spirit to die, as in cease to exist. the more you sin in life, the longer that process is going to take.

Now you are referencing annihilationism. This is a better belief to hold to than 'eternal torture'. But, what I have against it is that it is still evil as it suggests no 'true free will'. We should all be able to live on with the decisions we have made. Accept Jesus or be annihilated is not free will. And no free will implies God is evil. You cannot defend God as good if there is no true free will.

You keep going back to this arbitrary 50 years of service 1 year of rebellion.
That's just not how it works. when a person chooses to turn from God and corrupt themselves to the point of losing their salvation, its a calculated intention.

You keep missing the point being made. If I do exactly what the criminal next to Jesus did and go on to serve God even one second more than that criminal did, I deserve to go to heaven / paradise just as he did. If God does not send me to heaven, God IS unjust. Fact. 1 + 1 = 2.

I could stand in a court and argue that by God keeping me on earth for longer, to serve Him, He did so knowing I would fall or at the risk of me falling. Imagine that. Not only unjust but also devious.

This is why it should be crystal clear to all that Christianity is all about depth of intent. Not length of service.

 

[KingJ]

That's an interesting statement, but I'd gently push back on the framing. Scripture doesn't really present us as judges evaluating God's goodness and then deciding to serve Him based on our verdict. That subtly places us above Him.

Judging that God is good places us above Him?

If you judge Trump as good, are you suddenly the president?

God gave us high intelligence Heb 2:7 and the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22. He gave us the tools to judge all things including Him 1 Cor 2:15.

We have many examples in scripture where God is judged.

1. Moses and the Golden Calf – Exodus 32–34​

After Israel worships the golden calf (Exodus 32), Moses intercedes and appeals to God’s covenant promises. God relents from immediate total destruction (Ex. 32:14). Later, judgment still falls, and God reveals His character as “merciful and gracious… yet by no means clearing the guilty” (Ex. 34:6–7).
Outcome: God’s justice and mercy are both vindicated.

---

2. Abraham and Sodom – Genesis 18:16–33​

Abraham questions whether God will “sweep away the righteous with the wicked” and appeals to God’s justice: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25). God invites the discussion and agrees to spare the city for the sake of ten righteous.
Outcome: God demonstrates that His judgment is measured and just.

---

3. Job – The Book of Job​

Book of Job
Job repeatedly challenges God’s justice (Job 3; 13; 23). When God answers (Job 38–41), He reveals divine wisdom beyond human comprehension.
Outcome: Job repents of presumption (Job 42:1–6) and confesses God’s wisdom and righteousness.

---

4. Habakkuk’s Complaint​

Book of Habakkuk
Habakkuk questions why God tolerates injustice and then why He would use Babylon as judgment (Hab. 1). God answers that “the righteous shall live by faith” (Hab. 2:4).
Outcome: Habakkuk ends in worship: “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord” (Hab. 3:18).

---

5. Jeremiah’s Complaint​

Book of Jeremiah
Jeremiah asks, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper?” (Jer. 12:1). God responds by revealing deeper purposes and coming judgment.
Outcome: Though troubled, Jeremiah affirms God’s righteousness (Jer. 17:7–10).

---

6. Jonah and Nineveh​

Book of Jonah
Jonah is angry that God spares Nineveh (Jonah 4:1–3). He implicitly judges God’s mercy as excessive. God corrects him, revealing His compassion even for Israel’s enemies.
Outcome: God’s mercy is shown to be consistent with His character.

---

7. Gideon’s Testing of God​

Book of Judges
Gideon questions whether God is truly with Israel (Judg. 6:13). He asks for signs with the fleece (6:36–40). God patiently confirms His word.
Outcome: Gideon sees that God is faithful and delivers Israel.

---

8. Asaph Wrestling with Prosperity of the Wicked – Psalm 73​

Book of Psalms
Asaph almost stumbles when he sees the prosperity of the wicked (Ps. 73:2–13). In the sanctuary, he perceives their final end.
Outcome: He concludes, “You guide me with your counsel… God is the strength of my heart” (73:24–26).

---

9. Israel After the Exile – Nehemiah 9​

Book of Nehemiah
In a public confession, Israel reviews their history and acknowledges: “You have been righteous in all that has come upon us” (Neh. 9:33).
Outcome: They judge God’s past judgments as just and deserved.

---

10. Paul Anticipating Human Objection​

Epistle to the Romans
In Romans 3:5–6 and 9:19–24, Paul raises the human objection: “Is God unjust?” He responds emphatically: “By no means! For then how could God judge the world?”
Outcome: God’s righteousness is defended against human moral challenge.

 

[KingJ]

Consider what God says to Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:4). The whole point is that Job had no standing to sit in judgment of God — and Job repented for even framing his questions that way.

Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us that God's thoughts and ways are so far above ours that our "judgment" of Him would be laughably inadequate at best.

Paul is even more direct in Romans 9:20 — "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'"

There's a meaningful difference between perceiving God's goodness and judging Him as good. The first is worship. The second quietly puts the creature above the Creator.

We serve God because He is Lord — because of covenant, grace, and the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). His goodness is something we gratefully acknowledge, not a qualification He must meet to earn our service.

I don't agree BAC, please see my posts above to @Joestoe.

God being good is essential to us serving Him. I will when I get some time create a new thread discussing this in much more detail. It is a very important topic.

 

[KingJ]

You said you're treating God's revealed character as a limiting factor. I want to start right there, because that phrase contains a hidden assumption worth examining.


Does God have limits?

His attributes aren't limits — they're descriptions of His nature. A limit is an external constraint, something that prevents you from doing what you might otherwise do. But God's justice isn't a limit on His mercy. His holiness isn't a limit on His love. They don't trade off against each other the way they do in finite beings. We have to balance strictness and compassion because we're limited creatures navigating competing pressures. God doesn't balance anything. He doesn't negotiate between His own attributes. Every act of God is simultaneously the full expression of His justice, His holiness, His mercy, and His love — all at once, without remainder, because He is One.

This is what theologians call divine simplicity, and it matters here. When you use God's goodness as a "limiting factor" on what He can do in judgment, you've imported a very human framework onto God — the idea that His attributes are in tension with each other and one has to win. But that's not the God of Scripture. That's a finite being with competing internal pressures.

Which brings me to the next problem. Even setting that aside — which parts of God's revealed character are you selecting to do the limiting?

You've chosen goodness, mercy, and light. Real attributes, and I affirm every verse you cited. But you're using those to constrain the torment passages, while refusing to let the torment passages constrain your definition of those attributes. That's not neutral methodology. That's a hierarchy you've imposed on Scripture rather than one Scripture imposes on itself.

Why does mercy override justice in your framework? Why does your intuition about what "good" means sit above the plain text of Revelation 14:10-11, where the same God your verses describe says the torment of the unrepentant rises forever and they have no rest day or night? That text is also God's revealed character. It's also didactic. Why isn't it doing any limiting?

Isaiah 6 is worth sitting with. The only attribute in all of Scripture given triple emphasis isn't love or mercy — it's holiness. If any attribute has the strongest textual claim to define God's character, holiness does. And holiness, fully expressed, doesn't flinch at eternal consequence.

So here's the direct question: you said you're using God's revealed character as a limiting factor. But God has no limits — He has a nature. And His nature, fully and simultaneously expressed in everything He does, includes eternal judgment. The Lamb and the Lion are the same Person. The Jesus who wept over Jerusalem is the same Jesus whose eyes are a flame of fire in Revelation 19.

If your theology requires God's attributes to constrain each other, you're not describing the God of Scripture. You're describing a finite being with internal conflicts. And that god — the one whose mercy has to win the argument against his own justice — isn't in the Bible.

I have created a new thread to discuss this topic here - Can God do evil?

 

[KingJ]

Pre-trib is evil to the core. I hate it with a passion. It's the most deceitful teaching in Protestantism today.

As you can tell from my OP, I don't agree . But I am open for discussion. Please could you explain why you say this.

 

[Bill]

You can say that, but my OP proves there is one. Believing in it is as simple as believing 1 + 1 = 2.

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

I guess we will see.

I do have a question for you though, as you seem to be a believer in it. So what happens when not all of your family goes, let's say it's just you and not your spouse or your children. Jesus teaches that the greatest gift that you can give to another is your own life, are you going to ask the Lord to leave you behind and let one of those guys go instead of you? Do you have the faith to believe that God will be with you while you are here on the planet if someone else goes in your place?

And just because you deem someone worthy of going, what if God chooses not to take them? Is there a backup plan for those people who don't make it?

 

[KingJ]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

I guess we will see.

I do have a question for you though, as you seem to be a believer in it. So what happens when not all of your family goes, let's say it's just you and not your spouse or your children. Jesus teaches that the greatest gift that you can give to another is your own life, are you going to ask the Lord to leave you behind and let one of those guys go instead of you? Do you have the faith to believe that God will be with you while you are here on the planet if someone else goes in your place?

And just because you deem someone worthy of going, what if God chooses not to take them? Is there a backup plan for those people who don't make it?

Very good questions, thanks Bill. I love interrogating a belief with logic.

I believe that all children and mentally handicapped will also be raptured. They will be tested in the millennium.

As for my friends and such, God is a righteous judge Job 34:12 that can judge depths of intent of heart and mind Jer 17:9-11. If He decides to not rapture someone it is because they have not yet passed a test of heart and mind for sincere repentance of sin.

We need to understand that the tribulation period is a necessary period as anyone who rejects Jesus is an individual that will require a tribulation level filtering process to come right with God.

Many Christians need to grasp that God is looking for depth of intent heart over works. You can sit in church every Sunday for 100 years and still be far from God. Still not love God.

I mean for arguments sake, look at how so many Christians do not see a problem in misrepresenting God as evil and unjust. It's like they just don't know Him or grasp what really matters.