Christian: A house divided?

[James the Persian]

I am aware that the passage in question has been interpreted in a polyvalent sense(including Petrine primacy) by many fathers. I would dissagree with you on this one James, Sorry. I would argure that the unanimous consent of the fathers and historical testimony in general going way back to the first century and the apostolic fathers such as Ignatius and Irenaeus show this Petrine Primacy. Sorry but studying the Fathers writings and history on this doctrine is one of the reasons that made me come back and revert to the Truth of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded on the rock of Peter. Biblically also this is a no brainer. The exegesis of this passage is clear and fullfilss the davidic typology perfectly as many non Catholics Scholars have also seen.

Maybe in another forum we can engage in this. But history is pretty clear and so are the fathers to me when I read them.

Peace be with you!

Athanasius

It is not clear. This is evidently so because the two of us here both joined different churches, both based in part on our reading of the Fathers and Church history. In my case it lead me to reject utterly the Roman claims as an invalid and novel addition to the faith. In your case it caused you to accept the claims. Your experience lead you to embracing Rome, mine to its rejection and as a result I accepted Orthodoxy.

However you cut it, though, you cannot deny that Papal supremacy is far more modern than the Church (your current Pope has said as much), that more Fathers described that passage as referring to Peter's profession of faith than to his person (and I'm pretty sure that I can find statistics if you give me time), that Rome is not the only Petrine See, that she was granted primacy by an Ecumenical Council, and that one of your own Popes condemned unequivocally the idea of any one bishop ruling over the others, which is exactly what Roman ecclesiology produces. In the words of St. Gregory, such a man is the precursor of the Antichrist, in fact.

James

 

[Comprehend]

well, I think all of this discussion has done well to prove my point. Nobody can agree on anything. A house divided cannot stand. Christ said it. I believe it. The thread has devolved into everyone bickering with the other over who is right, what doctrine is right, who is wrong, etc, etc.

If the differences don't matter then why form different churches, if they do matter then we can't all be right and we are divided. If the "invisible" church is all that matters then why is there a visible church at all?

I think that there must be a physical organization to God's church, and it must be unified. Does anyone really think that God's church is going to be a disorganized bickering mess that devours and attacks itself like some mentally insane person? I just can't picture the bride of Christ scratching her own eyes out....

 

[sojourner]

well, I think all of this discussion has done well to prove my point. Nobody can agree on anything. A house divided cannot stand. Christ said it. I believe it. The thread has devolved into everyone bickering with the other over who is right, what doctrine is right, who is wrong, etc, etc.

If the differences don't matter then why form different churches, if they do matter then we can't all be right and we are divided. If the "invisible" church is all that matters then why is there a visible church at all?

I think that there must be a physical organization to God's church, and it must be unified. Does anyone really think that God's church is going to be a disorganized bickering mess that devours and attacks itself like some mentally insane person? I just can't picture the bride of Christ scratching her own eyes out....

We haven't formed "different churches." We have formed different expressions of the one Church. If Christ said it and you believe it, then why don't you believe that the Church is one, and that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it? Bickering, differences of opinion, differences of expression are just that: differences. Differences do not = division.

You are correct in saying that there must be a physical manifestation to the Church, and that it must be unified. My question to you is this: What is it that constitutes the unity of the Church? is it our agreement on all matters of faith, or is it that we all follow the same Christ?

In fact, most reputable denominations are earnestly working toward common ground with other Christians. But we are a human institution and vulnerable to human imperfections. Being perfect isn't the goal. Being followers who act in faith is the goal. I think most of us do that.

 

[Comprehend]

We haven't formed "different churches." We have formed different expressions of the one Church.

obviously there are different churches, they have different leadership, organizational structure, doctrine, and they work against each other. Don't all of the churches want to bring more members into their churches and away from the others? Then they are in opposition to each other.

If the "different expressions" as you call them are meaningless, then will you commit to saying that it makes absolutely no difference what Christian denomonation you belong to? The various Christian denomonations disagree, they all say it matters. Do you think a Catholic thinks it is fine to be a Baptist or a Baptist thinks it's fine to be a Mormon? No. So obviously it matters, each church is working to take converts into itself and necessarily away from others. They are directly opposed to each other.

If Christ said it and you believe it, then why don't you believe that the Church is one, and that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it? Bickering, differences of opinion, differences of expression are just that: differences. Differences do not = division.

I do. But all of them can't be Christs church, that is the whole point of the thread. I do not think God's church would be a disorganized mess that works against itself. Do you?

You are correct in saying that there must be a physical manifestation to the Church, and that it must be unified. My question to you is this: What is it that constitutes the unity of the Church? is it our agreement on all matters of faith, or is it that we all follow the same Christ?

How about an organized structure and leadership to start with. There is no authority and no structure in Christianity, it is every man/church for themselves. They do not work together as the body of Christ should but against each other devouring each other. You can't all follow the same Christ if you all have different doctrine. Christ laid out one plan not 10,000 and if the way doesn't matter then he wouldn't have taught it. Does baptism matter or not, what kind of baptism, are there supposed to be apostles or not? why did Christ set up his church with a prophet and apostles then? Does it matter? Does one need authority from Christ to administer or not? Sacrament or no sacrament? I could go on and on and on.

In fact, most reputable denominations are earnestly working toward common ground with other Christians. But we are a human institution and vulnerable to human imperfections. Being perfect isn't the goal. Being followers who act in faith is the goal. I think most of us do that.

Ok. so they are working toward common ground but still trying to take each others members. What I am saying is if the differences do not matter as you guys keep saying, then why did people leave to form new churches in the first place? Can you really say it makes zero difference to any Christians if they are Catholic, Baptist, Quaker, Lutheran or Mormon?

 

[may]

I think that there must be a physical organization to God's church, and it must be unified. quote] the true organization is very organized in all parts of the earth and they are at unity matthew 24;45-47.

 

[Comprehend]

the true organization is very organized in all parts of the earth and they are at unity matthew 24;45-47.

Well thanks for noticing. I didn't know JW's paid such close attention to the LDS chruch.:hug:

 

[Baerly]

Matt 12:25 (KJV)
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:

Christians disagree with each other on practically everything; baptism, the nature of God, sacrament, which bible to use, etc., etc. It is amazing to consider that so many people understand a single book so differently. As I thought about this, I decided to ask ...

Is Christianity a house divided?

Great Question: The lesson below came from The Gospel Preceptor. I hope this will answere your question with the word of God (John 17:17).

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Christianity Is Not Denominational[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Jesse Sewell[/SIZE][/FONT]

The word "church" in the New Testament is translated from ekklesia and means "called out," "assembly," etc. It might refer to any kind of "called" meeting or "assembly" or "congregation. The ekklesia of the Lord would be the "called out," the "assembly," or the "congregation' of the Lord, and refers to those people who have been called by the Lord through the gospel out of the service of Satan and into the service of God and righteousness. This idea is indicated in John 15:18-19: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated be before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." God's church — ekklesia — consists of those chosen out of the world, all of them, with the exception of a single one.

The word "church" has three phases of meaning in the New Testament. First, it is applied to local congregations or called out assemblies of the Lord, as in Acts 15:41: "And he want through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches." When it is used in this way, it carries the idea of of organization, that is, the idea of the "called out" of a given community organized together after the New Testament pattern for the worship of God and the service of humanity.

"And when they had appointed them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed" (Acts 14:23).

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them" (Acts 15:4).

"And it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren" (Acts 15:22).

Second, the word "church" is used in reference to local congregations or churches in a given province or political division. "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied" (ActsActs 9:31).

"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquilla and Prisca salute you much in the Lord with the church that is in their house" (1 Cor. 16:19).

"Moreover brethren, we make known unto you the grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1).

Third, the word is employed to designate the entire congregation of the Lord, all of the called out of the earth. "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

"And he is the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18).

When the word "church" is used in its second and third phases of meaning — referring to churches in a given territory or to the universal church — it does not carry with it any idea of organization. There is no suggestion or intimation in the word "church", or otherwise in the New Testament, that God willed the organization of the congregations of any territory or of the entire world in any manner. There is no suggestion of any kind of church organization in the New Testament that is higher than the local congregation with its elders and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

This idea of the church is presented in numerous figures of speech in the New Testament. We have the "vineyard" with Christ as the husbandman and the called out as the "vines" (John 15:1-2). There is also the figure of the vine and the branches with Christ as the true vine and each saved individual a branch in the vine (John 15:5-6).

Then we see the figure of a sheep-fold with Christ as the great shepherd and the redeemed as the sheep (John 10:15-16). Again, it is presented as a sheep-fold with Christ as the door by which the sheep enter (John 10:7-9).

The idea of the called out body of Christ — the church of Christ — is also presented in the figure of a family with God as the Father, Christ the elder Brother, and all of the "called out" as brethren in the family, heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ (1 Tim. 3:14-15; Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:26-27; 4:7).

And then we have the figure in which the church is presented as a human body. "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first born from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). In all these figures we have the picture of oneness, unity, and harmony.

The idea of division is not once suggested. We do not see the picture of a vineyard divided into a hundred different blocks with each conducted in such a way that conflicts with the others. We see a great vineyard, all arranged in a most harmonious manner, conducted under the direction of one husbandman for His glory.

We do not see Christ as many vines with distinct, separate clusters of branches in each vine, with each of these vines growing and producing separate fruit. Instead, we see one great, glorious vine, Jesus Christ, with every redeemed soul a branch in Him, saved and sustained by Him, and bearing the same kind of fruit for Him.

We do not see a sheep-fold divided up into several hundred small flocks, each conducted by a different shepherd, and in competition with each other. Instead, the Bible shows us one great wonderful sheep-fold with one shepherd, Jesus Christ.

We do not see several sheep-folds with as many different doors. The Bible shows us only one sheep-fold with only one door and all of Christ's called out entering in through that one door.

We do not see in the divine picture several hundred separate families, with different fathers and at variance with each other. The church of the New Testament is not portrayed as a group of different families all claiming God as Father, but a single unified family.

We do not see five or six hundred separate, distinct human bodies, with five or six hundred heads, or with Christ as head of all of them while they war, contend and fight one another. in all of these divine pictures, there is not the faintest intimation that suggests division or such a thing as denominational Christianity. In all of the pictures there is oneness, harmony, cooperation and undenominational Christianity.

The church of Christ is not a denomination. You can be a Christian, serve God according to His word, live a life devoted to Him, die and go to heaven without ever belonging to a denomination.

 

[Comprehend]

Great Question: The lesson below came from The Gospel Preceptor. I hope this will answere your question with the word of God (John 17:17).

I don't see how the article addresses the question. I am asking whether Christianity *today* is a house divided, not in biblical times. Also, everyone already seems to agree that the church is *supposed* to be one. We are discussing whether it actually is.

 

[athanasius]

It is not clear. This is evidently so because the two of us here both joined different churches, both based in part on our reading of the Fathers and Church history. In my case it lead me to reject utterly the Roman claims as an invalid and novel addition to the faith. In your case it caused you to accept the claims. Your experience lead you to embracing Rome, mine to its rejection and as a result I accepted Orthodoxy.

However you cut it, though, you cannot deny that Papal supremacy is far more modern than the Church (your current Pope has said as much), that more Fathers described that passage as referring to Peter's profession of faith than to his person (and I'm pretty sure that I can find statistics if you give me time), that Rome is not the only Petrine See, that she was granted primacy by an Ecumenical Council, and that one of your own Popes condemned unequivocally the idea of any one bishop ruling over the others, which is exactly what Roman ecclesiology produces. In the words of St. Gregory, such a man is the precursor of the Antichrist, in fact.

James

It depends on what you mean by Papal Supremacy? The Papacy and her universal leadership and authority has always existed in the early Church in seed like form in the early church as the early Writings of Popes(Like Pope Clement Of Rome Circa Ad 80) in the first century clearly showed.

The Papal office and our(the early churches) understadning of it did develop and grow organically as all doctrines of the church(like the Trinity) do(Again Read John Henry Newman, a good English scholar, on this in his essay on the develpment of christian doctrine). So no problem there either. When you bring up the one Roman Pope who denied one bishop ruling over another, I hope your NOT referring to Pope GREGORY THE GREAT and his rebuke of John the Faster(archbishop fo Constantinople). That Argument has been refuted amply over and over again by Catho0lic historians and apologist. It takes nothing to look into history and see that the east and its bishops did recognize the Pope of Rome as having a special primacy and presidency over the whole Church. The Tome of Pope Leo is a great example of this , also are the writings of the eastern Bishop of antioch St Ignatius(a apostolic Father) who also attest to this.

 

[sojourner]

obviously there are different churches, they have different leadership, organizational structure, doctrine, and they work against each other. Don't all of the churches want to bring more members into their churches and away from the others? Then they are in opposition to each other.

So what? The Church, itself, does not lie in the leadership, organizational structure, or doctrine. The Church lies in the people. The leadership, organizational structure and doctrine are expressions of Church -- not the Church itself.

If the "different expressions" as you call them are meaningless, then will you commit to saying that it makes absolutely no difference what Christian denomonation you belong to? The various Christian denomonations disagree, they all say it matters. Do you think a Catholic thinks it is fine to be a Baptist or a Baptist thinks it's fine to be a Mormon? No. So obviously it matters, each church is working to take converts into itself and necessarily away from others. They are directly opposed to each other.

Of course it makes a difference what denomination I belong to, because each denomination is a different expression of what it means to be Church. Some expressions resonate with me more than others, thus helping me to minister more effectively.

But all of them can't be Christs church, that is the whole point of the thread.

Why not? Unless, of course, you're placing the identity of the Church on the organization and not on 1) Christ and 2) the people who follow Christ.

How about an organized structure and leadership to start with. There is no authority and no structure in Christianity, it is every man/church for themselves. They do not work together as the body of Christ should but against each other devouring each other. You can't all follow the same Christ if you all have different doctrine. Christ laid out one plan not 10,000 and if the way doesn't matter then he wouldn't have taught it. Does baptism matter or not, what kind of baptism, are there supposed to be apostles or not? why did Christ set up his church with a prophet and apostles then? Does it matter? Does one need authority from Christ to administer or not? Sacrament or no sacrament? I could go on and on and on.

In other words, the organizational structure is more important to you than 1) Christ and 2) the people who follow Christ.

What if there were some sort of disaster, and all those in authority in the Church were killed off, leaving only 20 people, scattered around the globe, who were Christian -- along with every church building, every work of literature, and every other expression of Church destroyed? Would that mean that the Church had perished? Or would the Church still be present in the 20 survivors, who would constitute the "remnant?" I think that, while you'd be busy lamenting the loss of the Church from the face of the earth, I'd be busy connecting with people and following Christ.

 

[may]

Well thanks for noticing. I didn't know JW's paid such close attention to the LDS chruch.:hug:

As one of Jehovahs witnesses i pay close attention to the Faithful class of people spoken of in matthew 24;45-47,and in my eyes they are Jehovahs witnesses , Jesus is feeding them lots of good spiritual things and they are feeding me with lots of good spiritual things and all these good things are based on the bible.... nice

 

[Comprehend]

As one of Jehovahs witnesses i pay close attention to the Faithful class of people spoken of in matthew 24;45-47,and in my eyes they are Jehovahs witnesses , Jesus is feeding them lots of good spiritual things and they are feeding me with lots of good spiritual things and all these good things are based on the bible.... nice

I knew you were talking about JW's I was just joking.

 

[Comprehend]

So what? The Church, itself, does not lie in the leadership, organizational structure, or doctrine. The Church lies in the people. The leadership, organizational structure and doctrine are expressions of Church -- not the Church itself.

ok. Then the *people* of the church are a house divided. makes no difference to me. Ya'll still don't agree on anything.

Of course it makes a difference what denomination I belong to, because each denomination is a different expression of what it means to be Church. Some expressions resonate with me more than others, thus helping me to minister more effectively.

aaaaah yes. of course it does. but I thought you just finished saying that the church isn't the organizational structure or doctrine. Now it is again? regardless, you are seriously saying that yes it matters but only because some *resonate* more with you than others? that doesn't sound too terribly convincing, and how much a particular church resonates with you has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven by following it's teachings. it sounds to me like you are weaseling out of this one.

Why not? Unless, of course, you're placing the identity of the Church on the organization and not on 1) Christ and 2) the people who follow Christ.

not at all. the emphasis is on Christ. He taught either that baptism is necessary or not (for example) now if it is necessary, then if you belong to a church that does not baptize, you are out of luck aren't you? that is exactly why it matters. Christian churches all teach different things. They can't all be right unless Jesus said "oh, well. whatever you guys decide sounds good to me." which I don't think he did.

In other words, the organizational structure is more important to you than 1) Christ and 2) the people who follow Christ.

wrong again. Christ and what he taught is most important. as I said, is baptism necessary or not? Continued revelation or not? Prophets and apostles or not? Did Christ teach baptism? Did he say it was necessary? did he have any other requirements or was it just whatever anybody feels like doing is great with Jesus?

What if there were some sort of disaster, and all those in authority in the Church were killed off, leaving only 20 people, scattered around the globe, who were Christian -- along with every church building, every work of literature, and every other expression of Church destroyed? Would that mean that the Church had perished? Or would the Church still be present in the 20 survivors, who would constitute the "remnant?" I think that, while you'd be busy lamenting the loss of the Church from the face of the earth, I'd be busy connecting with people and following Christ.

of course not. LDS believe in continued revelation from God. God would simply continue revealing his will to a new leader. That is the beauty of his structure. Revelation is the rock his church is built upon.

 

[sojourner]

ok. Then the *people* of the church are a house divided. makes no difference to me. Ya'll still don't agree on anything.

In what way are we divided? Because we happen to disagree, or because we have differences? yet, despite all those differences, we still follow the same Christ. And on that one essential, we are in unity.

aaaaah yes. of course it does. but I thought you just finished saying that the church isn't the organizational structure or doctrine. Now it is again? regardless, you are seriously saying that yes it matters but only because some *resonate* more with you than others? that doesn't sound too terribly convincing, and how much a particular church resonates with you has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven by following it's teachings. it sounds to me like you are weaseling out of this one.

Don't obfuscate what I'm saying. Denomination matters as it relates to a vehicle for faith, not faith, itself. I don't believe in the denomination. I believe in Christ. How I voice that belief in Christ is what the denomination does for me. I don't "go to heaven by following the Church's teaching." I go to heaven by the grace of God in Christ. If I can sense that grace in a deeper way by joining a congregation of a particular denomination, that's what I'm going to do. But that has nothing to do with the imparting of the grace, itself.

He taught either that baptism is necessary or not (for example) now if it is necessary, then if you belong to a church that does not baptize, you are out of luck aren't you? that is exactly why it matters. Christian churches all teach different things. They can't all be right unless Jesus said "oh, well. whatever you guys decide sounds good to me." which I don't think he did.

I have never known of a legitimate Christian church that did not baptize. Your example is moot. The Church teaches faith in Christ. All else is corollary.

Christ and what he taught is most important. as I said, is baptism necessary or not? Continued revelation or not? Prophets and apostles or not? Did Christ teach baptism? Did he say it was necessary? did he have any other requirements or was it just whatever anybody feels like doing is great with Jesus?

I agree that Christ is most important. Everything else you said sounds a whole lot like you're placing too much emphasis on the organization and doctrine. Organization and doctrine are vehicles for faith -- not faith in and of themselves.

LDS believe in continued revelation from God. God would simply continue revealing his will to a new leader. That is the beauty of his structure. Revelation is the rock his church is built upon.

Faith is the rock upon which Christ has built his Church. Read your Bible. Your thinking is skewed here, because you're placing way too much emphasis on the revelation of the Apostles, in other words, the structure and organization, instead of upon faith, where the emphasis properly belongs.

You would like to think that the Church is divided, because that's the only way the revelations of the Prophets and Seers carry any weight for you. Since I'm not weighed down by that brick, I'm free to be faithful and to find that faith validated by the whole people of God.

 

[may]

I knew you were talking about JW's I was just joking.

i knew you were joking, ............ i just like to push the channel that Jesus is using LOL. they are abundant with true knowledge Daniel 12;4 its all happening in these last days.

 

[Comprehend]

In what way are we divided? Because we happen to disagree, or because we have differences? yet, despite all those differences, we still follow the same Christ. And on that one essential, we are in unity.

Don't obfuscate what I'm saying. Denomination matters as it relates to a vehicle for faith, not faith, itself. I don't believe in the denomination. I believe in Christ. How I voice that belief in Christ is what the denomination does for me. I don't "go to heaven by following the Church's teaching." I go to heaven by the grace of God in Christ. If I can sense that grace in a deeper way by joining a congregation of a particular denomination, that's what I'm going to do. But that has nothing to do with the imparting of the grace, itself.

I have never known of a legitimate Christian church that did not baptize. Your example is moot. The Church teaches faith in Christ. All else is corollary.

I agree that Christ is most important. Everything else you said sounds a whole lot like you're placing too much emphasis on the organization and doctrine. Organization and doctrine are vehicles for faith -- not faith in and of themselves.

Faith is the rock upon which Christ has built his Church. Read your Bible. Your thinking is skewed here, because you're placing way too much emphasis on the revelation of the Apostles, in other words, the structure and organization, instead of upon faith, where the emphasis properly belongs.

You would like to think that the Church is divided, because that's the only way the revelations of the Prophets and Seers carry any weight for you. Since I'm not weighed down by that brick, I'm free to be faithful and to find that faith validated by the whole people of God.

Sojourner - I have to apologize. I started this thread mostly because I wanted to see what mainstream christianity (MSC) thought about the question. I already knew what my opinion was and it wasn't my intent to actively argue my point of view. As a LDS I have a drastically different view on the question than you do and I see that it isn't going to really solve anything to continue arguing with you. I have my view, but I wanted to see everyone elses. You have explained your view well and I should not have argued against it but rather listened. Again, I apologize.

Comprehend

 

[RCD1950]

I am not so sure what my opinion is yet, I am still trying to think this out and I really want to see what "mainstream" christians have to say about it.

I understand the idea of the visible and invisible church. hristians have beliefs that are so different that they are incompatable with eachother yet continue to call themselves a single church. I am wondering how this can be. maybe something I need to understand first is why do christians consider themselves to all belong to the same (invisible) church when their beliefs are so completely different, and I am not talking about little differences.

when you say that the "church resides in the heart of every true believer" I would ask how it can be that they believe such radically different things and it remain one church?

Jesus asked Peter who did he believe he was. Peter answered, 'the son of God'; and for that answer, was blessed by Jesus.
The totality of our asperations (for an eternity of love and prosperity) rest not on what we know or believe...but in Whom. For even if we knew all knowledge and truth, we -- like the tragic Lucifer -- are apt to be corrupted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Therfore it is by faith (and faith alone) that a Christian stands wherein all other philosophies incur the 'stumblingblock' of 'the law', or works. Our works will follow our faith...but our salvation (prosperity) does not rest upon either what we do (or don't do) or what we believe re all the different nuances of doctrine and interpretation.
It is a theory of mine that the second coming will be a paradigm shift in the way (specific) individuals view reality itself. "He will appear a second time...to them that look for His coming", seems to allude to such.
The 'rapture', where certain individuals will be whisked away from danger ('at the last trump') while concurrently being forewarned to "think it not strange concerning the firery trial that shall try your faith", seems to imply that the chosen will be here...but they won't. I note beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder...and so is ugly. It is not farfetched to believe that 'belief' could create a subjective version of reality (skeptics might call such belief delusional); yet ask any schizophrenic if what they see and hear is 'real'...and they will tell you darn quick that it is there.
We cut our spritual teeth on the writings of Carlos Casteneda (back in the early 70's), and the premise of those very popular books (best sellers,all) was that reality is, absolutely, what you believe it to be.
When Jesus says that if you have faith, you can cast a mountain into the sea...is he just joking? I doubt, given the monumental risk of unbridled ridicule and loss of (sane) credibility on the part of aspiring believers, He would have indulged in humor. I think He was making a crucial point...and I think that point is sinking in for a lot of us in this 'information age'. And I think as such, 'subjective reality' might be the crux of this 'invisible' second coming and rapture, where "two will be by the well...and two on the roof", it most certainly implies and literally means exactly that "behold, the kingdom of heaven cometh not with observation...it is within". That is the only way that some people will see it and experience the 'delivery' in its power...and others won't.
It is obvious that all people will witness the objective reality of the dire circumstance of worldy conditions (as Babylon the great falls--due to the very divisions you speak of in your commentary). That will not detract from the fact that for one group (believers), prophecy fulilled -- though 'trying' -- will add to the power of faith...while for non-believers, they are left only to lamentations and hopelesness.
I also point out (as in Casteneda's writings...which we never figured out whether they were true experiences or fiction by a hell of a good writer) that he did -- in 'the teachings' say that one's 'view of the world' must be torn down, for the real (just different) version of reality to take hold and become reality.
Lets all hope and pray -- and focus -- that the love (unity) and fulfillment that we desire to experience toward all of creation, with all the necessary evils and seeming contradictions being put into their rightful place in this amazing puzzle, as this thing unfolds before our very eyes...that we will ultimately 'reap what we sew', that our personal heaven will, by Grace, be realized, and our fondest hope fulfilled.
One more story. I once asked may son (having drove him to the brink with my rant on "The Bible Code") that if he had a choice between two lives...which would he take? One life would be 'normal'...successful...good and loving wife and kids, earthly happiness, great job, house, all the amenities of contemporary 'prosperity'; that he would do what successfull and blessed people do...grow old and die...and watch it all fade away...hoping (not knowing)for the best.
The other life would be lived amidst the mind-altering and indescribale power of the 'tribulation'...withthe rightful fear that such engenders. But (as promised) by Our Lord in that second coming, in the end, after incomprehensible psychological 'trauma', that one (most certainly) would be changed...and what if Our Lord (as promised, if we submit) just took over what was left of our minds (perception is reality) and we became creatures with an appreciation and wisdom and love, and that we did live and experience the most dramatic and meaningful event ever to happen on the face of this earth and be a part of the chosen who lay the foundation of truth for that 'kingdom of heaven on earth', and that we absolutely knew (not just believed or hoped) that all the suffering and loss of loved ones and the burdens humanity has borne to get us to this indescribable point...that it all lay before our feet and that truly "all things happen for the good of them that love God...then...which life would he take. I never got an answer.
I have chosen for myself; I hope I've not bitten off more than I can chew. It remains to see if (my) belief truly becomes reality. In that light, being totally aware of just what is at stake (my soul...I'm a rowdy, redneck guy, I'll probably lose it, and bomb the Muslim brethren), I have never felt more thankful to worship at the feet of my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ, Firstborn of Men, only begotten, the simplistic end all of philosophy and the search for Truth...and to simply bear withness to that which I believe, in good faith toward the brotherhood of humaity and with the fond hope for a mercy that I most certainly, have no justified right to, other than my soul's good intent.
Love and best wishes.