Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

[agedman]

The contrived argument here is that the quote does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

Perhaps you missed what I quoted, so here it is again:
“Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3)

Again, I am using your technique of emphasis so that you wouldn't miss it this time.

It proves the point I was making, and disproves your statement, "It speaks of a singular Apostle..."

That is unless you are going to make the "It" mean something that "It" doesn't, which is similar to what a current presidential candidate's husband tried to do with the word "is."

 

[Darrell C]

Perhaps you missed what I quoted, so here it is again:
“Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” (Adv. Hær., iii. 3)

Again, I am using your technique of emphasis so that you wouldn't miss it this time.

It proves the point I was making, and disproves your statement, "It speaks of a singular Apostle..."

That is unless you are going to make the "It" mean something that "It" doesn't, which is similar to what a current presidential candidate's husband tried to do with the word "is."

Here is my statement again:

The contrived argument here is that the quote does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.


Here is the context in which it is stated:

Where did someone say the Apostles were premillennial in this thread. I do believe that, seeing that John was an Apostle, and that the Apostles would have all been in agreement, but, where is that mentioned in this thread?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Post 63
Click to expand...
This...

↑
I have not come across a single written account from those who were either taught directly or the immediate ones taught by Polycarp and others influenced by the direct teaching of John that were not Pre-millennial.
Click to expand...

...does not say "...the Apostles were pre-millennial." It speaks of a singular Apostle and those who learned from him.

There is no plurality of Apostles here, and you did not say...

"...the Apostles were pre-millennial."

What you say afterward has nothing to do with your error on this point (and I am referring to the argument you are now contriving, not the original statement in view).

So once again, you are not using a technique I employ. I try to own up to my error when I commit it. You are simply trying to justify your error.


God bless.

 

[agedman]

Ok, reading comprehension skills are an issue.

When you raised the issue, I posted one source, to put the matter to rest. But, you continued.

So, lets check the reading skills and see what level you may be functioning.

I quoted one who knew Polycarp - first hand - that Polycarp knew first hand both Apostles and many eye witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ.

THEREFORE, taking that the Apostles were not characters that would tolerate error, AND taking that Polycarp was Pre-mil as well as Paul and John, AND taking that Polycarp was held in the highest esteem by all Asia Minor, AND taking that all associated with Polycarp were (best history can establish) Pre-mil, it is therefore mere basic reading comprehension, extrapolation, and inference skills that brings the reader to the conclusion that the Apostles were in fact pre-millennial.

Why are you even arguing that point?

Perhaps you don't hold to the Apostles being pre-mil, and that is fine. To consider that I have contrived (meaning the intent to deceive) by making that statement is an attribute placed upon my character that are unwarranted.


I will be bold and proclaim so that no one misunderstand my rational is not deceitful and perhaps only Darrell will lack.

Pre-mil was THE FIRST doctrine of eschatology of the EARLIEST churches - that is historically accurate. Had that doctrine been in error, the Apostles would have spoken out most clearly on the matter - they are shown in Scriptures to even appose the Lord and be quite outspoken especially in matters they considered error. Polycarp new, first hand many of the apostles, and those that were eye witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ - that is historically accurate and documented. Polycarp was Pre-mil - that is historically accurate and documented. Therefore, had Polycarp been in error, he would most certainly been corrected and would have complied with the teaching of the many eye witnesses to the Lord Jesus Christ which includes Apostles.

Is there any contrivance in the above?

Nope.

 

[Aaron]

While I am not dogmatic about it, I think the Martyrs in view are those killed during the Tribulation, based on the surrounding text. It is given at the end of the tribulation, with correlation to the beast:


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


Only in this Age do we see the witness of Jesus, which begin after the Holy Ghost in the Ministry of Comforter had come:


Acts 1:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


It is possible that one might consider all saints that have been martyred throughout history, but I take the position that only Tribulation Martyrs are in view. And while the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is rejected my many, the view I take has all martyrs, as well as those who were not martyrs, resurrected in the Rapture of the Church prior to the beginning of the Tribulation.

Revelation simply does not have a resurrection which fits the terms of the teaching concerning the Rapture of the Church. It can't be the First Resurrection, because the physically living saints are not glorified at this time. That then denies the general resurrection of the Great White Throne, because no mention of the unjust is in view in the Rapture. We could consider the Mid=Tribulation view, and speculate the Church is Raptured when the Two Witnesses are, but again, only those two seem to be in view.


God bless.

So then the beheading spoken of in Revelation 20 is a figure of speech. Even those who have been killed by means other than decapitation are included.

So, martyrdom is the issue, not the strictly rigid method of decapitation?

 

[Aaron]

In regards to the resurrections, again we distinguish between spiritual and bodily resurrection in regards to the saints. They are two distinctly different resurrections.


God bless.

Yes. There is a yet future bodily resurrection.

 

[Darrell C]

So then the beheading spoken of in Revelation 20 is a figure of speech. Even those who have been killed by means other than decapitation are included.

So, martyrdom is the issue, not the strictly rigid method of decapitation?

What we can say is that is refers to those killed. Some take the view only those actually beheaded are in view, I view it as a reference to death, as the term "blood" is used. A hyper-literal view would see both as restricted to that use, though this denies that metaphor is often used in Scripture to illustrate a teaching.

It is interesting that the use of an axe is used by John the Baptist to speak about the judgment coming to those who do not repent:


Matthew 3:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Doesn't mean that the judgment to fall will actually incorporate an axe, and in like fashion the beheading of Revelation 20 likely refers simply to the smiting which results in the loss of life. Maybe every believer raised here will have been beheaded by Antichrist's regime, I don't know. All I can be dogmatic is they lost their lives for their testimony of Christ.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Ok, reading comprehension skills are an issue.

When you raised the issue, I posted one source, to put the matter to rest. But, you continued.

So, lets check the reading skills and see what level you may be functioning.

I quoted one who knew Polycarp - first hand - that Polycarp knew first hand both Apostles and many eye witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ.

THEREFORE, taking that the Apostles were not characters that would tolerate error, AND taking that Polycarp was Pre-mil as well as Paul and John, AND taking that Polycarp was held in the highest esteem by all Asia Minor, AND taking that all associated with Polycarp were (best history can establish) Pre-mil, it is therefore mere basic reading comprehension, extrapolation, and inference skills that brings the reader to the conclusion that the Apostles were in fact pre-millennial.

Why are you even arguing that point?

Perhaps you don't hold to the Apostles being pre-mil, and that is fine. To consider that I have contrived (meaning the intent to deceive) by making that statement is an attribute placed upon my character that are unwarranted.


I will be bold and proclaim so that no one misunderstand my rational is not deceitful and perhaps only Darrell will lack.

Pre-mil was THE FIRST doctrine of eschatology of the EARLIEST churches - that is historically accurate. Had that doctrine been in error, the Apostles would have spoken out most clearly on the matter - they are shown in Scriptures to even appose the Lord and be quite outspoken especially in matters they considered error. Polycarp new, first hand many of the apostles, and those that were eye witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ - that is historically accurate and documented. Polycarp was Pre-mil - that is historically accurate and documented. Therefore, had Polycarp been in error, he would most certainly been corrected and would have complied with the teaching of the many eye witnesses to the Lord Jesus Christ which includes Apostles.

Is there any contrivance in the above?

Nope.

Maybe you should start a thread.

Not sure I can explain it any better than has been explained.

Now you are contriving arguments that stand in direct conflict with what I have actually said.

I could care less about Polycarp, nor any other ECF that came along.

What I am interested in is what God has said, and while Polycarp may have reiterated what God has said, he is not a Bible Writer, is not in the Bible, and is therefore...irrelevant to the discussion in view. Perhaps a reread of the OP would clarify that.

Speaking of reading skills, here are a few examples of one being inattentive to what they are reading:

Perhaps you don't hold to the Apostles being pre-mil, and that is fine.

What I believe on this point has arisen several times in this disruptive rabbit trail...

Where did someone say the Apostles were premillennial in this thread. I do believe that, seeing that John was an Apostle, and that the Apostles would have all been in agreement, but, where is that mentioned in this thread?

How many times does this have to be said before you are sure what I believe?

To consider that I have contrived (meaning the intent to deceive) by making that statement is an attribute placed upon my character that are unwarranted.

IT is either contrived or you are simply unable to track a discussion, you choose. I did try to get you to see your error, rather than having to deal with all of this nonsense, yet you still persist.

You responded as though I was speaking to you, the post was in response to Aaron's post. The quote of your statement the reference to the question in view...

Where did someone say the Apostles were premillennial in this thread? I do believe that, seeing that John was an Apostle, and that the Apostles would have all been in agreement, but, where is that mentioned in this thread?

You are right, I did make a mistake, I used a period instead of a question mark, so perhaps your confusion is my fault after all.


God bless.

 

[Aaron]

What we can say is that is refers to those killed. Some take the view only those actually beheaded are in view, I view it as a reference to death, as the term "blood" is used. A hyper-literal view would see both as restricted to that use, though this denies that metaphor is often used in Scripture to illustrate a teaching.

It is interesting that the use of an axe is used by John the Baptist to speak about the judgment coming to those who do not repent:


Matthew 3:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Doesn't mean that the judgment to fall will actually incorporate an axe, and in like fashion the beheading of Revelation 20 likely refers simply to the smiting which results in the loss of life. Maybe every believer raised here will have been beheaded by Antichrist's regime, I don't know. All I can be dogmatic is they lost their lives for their testimony of Christ.


God bless.

When the Apostle says, "I die daily," what did he mean?

And what of Christ's metaphor that all disciples must "take up their cross"?

 

[Darrell C]

When the Apostle says, "I die daily," what did he mean?

And what of Christ's metaphor that all disciples must "take up their cross"?

We're getting a little off track, nevertheless, I will address these but keep in mind this is a quick response (I need to get going) so you need to allow me to retract anything stupid I might say in my haste.



This...

1 Corinthians 15:30-32

King James Version (KJV)

30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.


...falls into a larger context in which Paul is giving the greatest teaching about resurrection of the dead. There are those that are doubting the resurrection of the dead...


1 Corinthians 15

King James Version (KJV)

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.


His point in the first quote is "Why would I put myself at risk if there is no resurrection of the dead?"

"I die daily" falls into that context as a statement meant to point out "That we risk our very lives for the sake of the Gospel on not just a daily, but on an hourly basis...should be a testimony of our faith in the resurrection of the dead."

This verse is translated a little differently in other versions:

1 Corinthians 15:30-32

New International Version (NIV)

30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I face death every day-yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.

Footnotes:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:32 Isaiah 22:13

So the short answer would be that Paul is not expressing that he literally dies, nor implying a spiritual death he is dying, but that he is risking his life and that should be evidence of his faith in the Gospel. The larger context encompasses the doubts of some in resurrection of the dead.

And I will address the other question in a separate post.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And what of Christ's metaphor that all disciples must "take up their cross"?

This one is a little easier in my view.

The "Cross" of Christ was the very reason He came. As believers we don't presume to compare what we are meant to do with the Atonement itself. The cross we bear will never be the Cross of Christ.


Matthew 10:37-39

King James Version (KJV)

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I would suggest that in view is simply one laying down their lives for a singular purpose, the purpose here is following Christ. Christ set the same example as seen in Philippians 2 in that for the sake of others He came to die. He did not view His equality with God a thing to be grasped, which would be paralled by us in loving father or mother, son or daughter more than Christ.

This speaks of the priority of following Christ over all other concerns, rather than a literal taking up of a literal cross. While it would apply to following Christ to the point of losing our lives (v.39), that doesn't mean we consider ourselves as having "taken up a cross" simply because we are followers. That is not what I see in view here, but rather...a genuine following of the Lord which places our own physical lives to be as inconsequential in the eternal perspective, just as Christ's Own attitude was not one where He failed to lay His life down for our sakes.

I have come under fire several times for saying that we did not die on the Cross with Christ. Christ died alone on the Cross, and while our sins may have been placed on Him, we are the scapegoats. We are the ones set free to live, rather than dying for our sins. We don't view the Atonement as a combined effort of God and man, but the singular effort of Sovereign God in all aspects of salvation. This is the same perspective I would take concerning the Lord's teaching here, we have to be careful not to apply a "spiritual meaning" which conflicts with other elements of Redemption. The "crosses" we bear will never contribute to our salvation, and they are strictly temporal in nature (which is not to deny spiritual warfare, simply distinguishing them as occurring in our lifetimes).

God bless.

 

[Aaron]

So the short answer would be that Paul is not expressing that he literally dies, nor implying a spiritual death he is dying, but that he is risking his life and that should be evidence of his faith in the Gospel. The larger context encompasses the doubts of some in resurrection of the dead.

I'm not suggesting he literally dies. I was pointing out his assessment of the risks and costs of discipleship.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I would suggest that in view is simply one laying down their lives for a singular purpose, the purpose here is following Christ.

Which is, in truth, a manner of death. There is only one reason the Christian life is disadvantageous in this world, and that is because of wicked men and systems in place which force many to bow the knee to baal, so to speak, if they would prosper materially, or live freely. And even in states which, for a time, are friendly to the church, modes of persecution at the hands of private groups and individuals abound.

When one takes up his cross, he is accepting the persecution, and, in a true sense, laying down his life. It's what is in the heart that matters. Temptation at the point of a gun is in many ways less trying than those temptations in which the only reward of faithfulness appears to be an indeterminate life of sorrow and suffering.

God is not unjust to see it as it is, and to lay the blame at the feet of wicked men.

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!​

All Christians, in some form, will have to lay down their lives—have to die—for their faith.

 

[Aaron]

When John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ, as you say, it isn't limited to those who were physically decapitated, but also those who were killed, and, as I say on the authority of the Apostles, whose suffering was for the testimony of Christ.

That's all Christians. Well—not the nominal ones, anyway.

 

[Aaron]

Now, the Millennium begins with the binding of Satan. Is there an account in the writings of the Apostles where that was made manifest?

 

[Darrell C]

Have to get back to these tomorrow, Aaron, I'd rather not rush the answers, though I will say pretty much agree with the first one.

God bless.

 

[percho]

Relative to the OP:
Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom?

I am Pre-Millennial. I believe from Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ until Christ returns God is calling out of the nations a people to rule with Christ, a people for his name.

And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up andsaid to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. “So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, “and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Acts 15:7-9 NKJV
V 14 “Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. V 16 ‘After this I will return
After this taking out a people for his name Christ will return and establish his kingdom to rule on the earth with those who are called by his name. Notice, the residue, the rest of mankind seek the Lord and the Gentiles who are called by his name.

Will establish his kingdom. V 16 And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up; ----- For a millennium

Who are ruled over? V 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says theLORD who does all these things.

15:17 ὅπως ἂνἐκζητήσωσιν οἱκατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸν κύριον καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς λέγεικύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα πάντα

 

[percho]

Now, the Millennium begins with the binding of Satan. Is there an account in the writings of the Apostles where that was made manifest?

If I may reply. Do not know about with the Apostles but I believe it is found in the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur

The feast of trumpets is the return of Christ and the resurrection of the people for his name. The next feast in ten days, Yom Kippur.

. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: The High Priest represented Christ the High Priest. He went into the Holy of Holies. Christ ascended to Heaven. The HP came back out of the Holy of Holies. Christ returns, Lev 16:21,22 And Aaron (the HP) shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: ----For a thousand years -----and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

I find it interesting that goats are used and not lambs on Yom Kippur,

 

[Aaron]

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Mat 12:22-29

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.​

 

[Aaron]

So far, we have seen that there has been a resurrection, albeit spiritual. We are told that all they that are raised in the First Resurrection are blessed in that the Second Death (the Lake of Fire, Rev 21:8) has no power.

All the redeemed of earth are partakers of that blessing.

We also see that Christ has bound the strong man to spoil his house.

These things have happened.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C said: ↑
So the short answer would be that Paul is not expressing that he literally dies, nor implying a spiritual death he is dying, but that he is risking his life and that should be evidence of his faith in the Gospel. The larger context encompasses the doubts of some in resurrection of the dead.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting he literally dies. I was pointing out his assessment of the risks and costs of discipleship.

But we also keep in mind the larger context has a thrust of reassuring believers that there will be a resurrection of the dead.

So we cannot equate that resurrection, defined by Paul as bodily resurrection, with the spiritual resurrection which takes place when we are born again.

We have to address each passage dealing with resurrection in it's own context. The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 deals with the glorification of the saints, whereas the resurrection of 1 Thessalonians deals with the Church, as a whole, being raised when Christ returns for her. The resurrection of the Two Witnesses deals with the rapture of the Two Witnesses. The resurrection called the First Resurrection deals with the resurrection of Tribulation Martyrs, and is a separate event from the resurrection of the dead just prior to the Great White Throne Judgment.

But here Paul makes it clear that it would be futile for him to preach the Gospel if there was no resurrection of the dead. "Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Or in other words, live it up, because this is all you get folks. Paul addresses that error on the part of the Corinthians, and it is not a new error to Bible Doctrine. The Sadducees rejected anything supernatural, as well as a resurrection.

↑
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.


I would suggest that in view is simply one laying down their lives for a singular purpose, the purpose here is following Christ.
Click to expand...

Which is, in truth, a manner of death. There is only one reason the Christian life is disadvantageous in this world, and that is because of wicked men and systems in place which force many to bow the knee to baal, so to speak, if they would prosper materially, or live freely. And even in states which, for a time, are friendly to the church, modes of persecution at the hands of private groups and individuals abound.

When one takes up his cross, he is accepting the persecution, and, in a true sense, laying down his life. It's what is in the heart that matters. Temptation at the point of a gun is in many ways less trying than those temptations in which the only reward of faithfulness appears to be an indeterminate life of sorrow and suffering.

God is not unjust to see it as it is, and to lay the blame at the feet of wicked men.

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

All Christians, in some form, will have to lay down their lives—have to die—for their faith.

And while I understand some of my brethren see it this way, Aaron, I do not. The purpose of salvation and the new birth is that we might have life, and life more abundantly (than what we had prior to salvation).

One may be persecuted and not bereft of his joy of salvation, and in fact that faith evidences his salvation in the midst of persecution.

No man can force us to bow the knee to Baal, and we see that God has always had a remnant...who did not do that.

Paul is the shining example given to us in Scripture of a man of faith in the midst of persecution, some taking the view that on one occasion he literally died (and not talking about his execution). And still Paul distinguishes in teaching between the spiritual aspects/elements of salvation and those teachings which concern bodily resurrection.

So I do not equate the tribulation we are promised in this world with the Tribulation Period prophesied. As I said, I can understand how one could embrace a view that views these things from a spiritual perspective, but I don't think those views can be reconciled to the Whole Counsel. Thus I seek to discuss them with people. And here recently there has been a little more productive discussion on the issue, which is a good thing. It is necessary for us to understand first what our antagonist believes, then why. I think many views are reasonable on the surface, but, I think when we bring the Whole Counsel to the Table, there are a number of issues which should point out weaknesses or strengths of each view.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

When John saw the souls of those who were beheaded for the testimony of Christ, as you say, it isn't limited to those who were physically decapitated, but also those who were killed, and, as I say on the authority of the Apostles, whose suffering was for the testimony of Christ.

Agreed:

Revelation 6:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.



Revelation 7:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?

14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.


Revelation 20:4

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

That's all Christians. Well—not the nominal ones, anyway.

The nominal Christian would have to be defined, as to whether we mean they are saved or false professors (different people use the term differently).

Regardless, it is doubtful the nominal Christian will be found having died for the testimony of Christ. I think if we view the nominal Christian as one that is saved, then I would place them in the category of Tribulation Martyr, because at that point it will be a "Worship Antichrist or die" situation. It may be that "beheading" draws the line between believers in that period that die as a result of refusal to deny Christ as opposed to the believers that die as a result of the judgments imposed on the earth (i.e., dies in an earthquake or has a meteor fall on them).

One of the issues I reserve as a non-dogmatic position at this point is the resurrection of the dead at the Great White Throne judgment. I have for years tentatively viewed this as a resurrection of only unbelievers, but have changed in my view in the past year or so due to a few points of interest. Primarily, though, I lean to there being believers raised at this time in fulfillment of certain prophetic teachings in regards to resurrection. So the First Resurrection may be for only those who directly die for their testimony of Christ, which would not include those who are born again at this time who die as a result of Tribulation judgments with no martyrdom associated with their deaths.

God bless.