Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[xzins]

1. I understand your first question to be "what is the order and the nature of the various resurrections?"

2. I understand your 2nd question to be "what is the 2nd death?"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[xzins]

:>)

[Seven_0]

Yes. That is a good start, I doubt that you will be more critical than I will.

[xzins]

The "symbolic" bible hermeneutic carried to a logical end. Nothing prevents saying ANYTHING is symbolic unless one adopts consistent rules for determining actual bible symbolism.

Protestants believe Mary was a virgin in the technical sense but the Church of Scotland allows for a liberty of opinion on the issue as long as basic Church doctrine is adhered to.

However, in 1994 a former Moderator, the Very Rev James Weatherhead, sparked a huge row among traditionalists when he declared in a sermon in St Giles' in Edinburgh that the virgin birth was "symbolic" and that the Bible need not be taken literally.

[gdebrae]

Is this the same group mentioned in I Thess 4? In my pre-wrath rapture view, yes. The great multitude of Rev 7:9-17 were raptured as per 1 Thes 4:16,17 and 1Cor 15:52.

Have you considered Romans 8:18-25 in relationship to the above texts? Philippians 3:20-21 may be relevant also.

[fortheDeclaration]

The verb gegenetai in 1 John 5:1 is a perfect passive, 3rd person singular from genao.

So?

The Perfect shows a state of completion, thus, when you believe you are 'begotten of God' (Jn.1:12)

You have a nice day also.

[fortheDeclaration]

The "symbolic" bible hermeneutic carried to a logical end. Nothing prevents saying ANYTHING is symbolic unless one adopts consistent rules for determining actual bible symbolism. Protestants believe Mary was a virgin in the technical sense but the Church of Scotland allows for a liberty of opinion on the issue as long as basic Church doctrine is adhered to. However, in 1994 a former Moderator, the Very Rev James Weatherhead, sparked a huge row among traditionalists when he declared in a sermon in St Giles' in Edinburgh that the virgin birth was "symbolic" and that the Bible need not be taken literally.

Amen! The Bible becomes whatever we want it to be.

[fortheDeclaration]

I made only a quick reading of the post, but did you leave out the judgement of the Church (1Cor.3:13, Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10) which occurs after the Rapture (during the Tribulation)?

You are correct that we will be rewarded for our deeds and the unbeliever will stand on his own works (not sins)

[drstevej]

It was a response to your statement...

***Beside the fact that only one translation I found (NRS) translated it as the 'begotten' as the perfect (has been), every other translation translated it as is (NASb, NIV, KJV, Geneva,) ***

My point is that is is indeed a perfect despite your observation of translations. If temporal give some indication of the amount of time that may intervene.

Place these terms in sequence and indicate whether the sequence is logical temporal or both. justification, regeneration and faith.

[drstevej]

Ignore previous post (cut and paste placement error).

It was a response to your statement...

***Beside the fact that only one translation I found (NRS) translated it as the 'begotten' as the perfect (has been), every other translation translated it as is (NASb, NIV, KJV, Geneva,) ***

My point is that is is indeed a perfect despite your observation of translations.

Place these terms in sequence and indicate whether the sequence is logical temporal or both. justification, regeneration and faith. If temporal give some indication of the amount of time that may intervene.

[fortheDeclaration]

Thats what we Calvinists are trying to say, though sometimes, I suspect, our words get in the way.

It isn't complicated when you follow what the Bible says, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'.

Only the Calvinistic notion of total inability (not depravity) makes Regeneration necessary before faith, since a spiritual 'dead' man cannot believe anything about God until he is first born again.

That is not a 'logical' point, that is a 'theological' point, which separates Calvinists from non-Calvinists who believe in salvation by faith and faith alone and then one is regenerated, justified, redeemed, adopted, etc.

[fortheDeclaration]

My point is that is is indeed a perfect despite your observation of translations.

Granted it is a perfect, but the translators knew that as well. Clearly context had some imput in how they decided to translate that perfect (as it often does)

Place these terms in sequence and indicate whether the sequence is logical temporal or both. justification, regeneration and faith. If temporal give some indication of the amount of time that may intervene.

First faith and then all the others (regeneration, justification, adoption, etc) happen immediately at the moment you believe.

The point is that faith must precede salvation, since it is by faith that we are regenerated,(born again) we are not regenerated to have faith.

[drstevej]

You really did not answer my request.

Place these terms in sequence and indicate whether the sequence is logical temporal or both. justification, regeneration and faith. If temporal give some indication of the amount of time that may intervene.

I'll give you my response (as an example).

Regeneration
Faith
Justification.

Purely logical sequence all three are sumultaneous. There is no intervening time.

ftD. let me help you. You say faith is first. So is it...

Faith
Regeneration
Justification

OR

Faith
Justification
Regeneration

You say faith precedes the rest (I take this is temporally as well as logically) how about the other two in the sequence?

[Corin Stormhands]

Are you an adult male? (The comment wouldn't be surprising coming from some females).

Are you really an insensitive b*tch or do you just play one one FR?

You know xzins, I've had about enough of this for now. I was wrapped up with our church Christmas production all weekend and I walk back in on a Monday morning and see these comments from MPI.

The spirit of the Calvinist Inquisition lives on.

I'm taking a break from this forum. Maybe I'll see you back here after the New Year.

[xzins]

Understood Corin.

Don't judge by just those 2 or 3. There are many others on these threads (and some new ones!) who do have a compassionate, respectful approach.

It was nice of you to drop in.

X

[gdebrae]

One analogy, for fun. We have two children. One via natural birth and one via adoption. Both are Johnsons. Both are heir to the Johnson fortune (such as it is). We are one family. Yet these two are distinct and participate in the blessings of the Johnson family through different routes. Our family tree has a natural and an adopted branch. We love them both dearly.

But as you say, you are one family.

That is precisely what Paul says in Eph 2 and 3 and in Gal. 3,4 and in II Cor. 3 and in Acts 13.

Furthermore, Ezekiel 16 makes very clear that Israel was ADOPTED, not birthed by God, else he would commit incest by marrying her. "the Ammorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite." God found her as an abandoned infant left to die.

Furthermore John 3 makes very clear that believers are born from above, by the Spirit.

Apparently Israel is adopted and the church is birthed.

In Phil 3 Paul lists all the advantages of Jewish birth and faith but then claims that he considers them manure for the sake of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. Now why would Paul, Peter and other Jews abandon the superior blessings of belonging to OT Israel for the inferior blessings of belonging to the church?

According to your analogy Paul certainly was grossly wrong in Phil. 3 as well as the other passages listed above.

[wai-ming]

I recently heard a comment about Calvinism at a speech by a political advisor. I think it was supposed to be a joke, but I didn't "get it." Could someone well-versed in Calvinism please explain. Here's the gist of what the speaker said:

My grandfather was a Calvinist. He had a miserable life, but he lived with the secret joy that in the end, everyone else would get what was coming to them.

[RnMomof7]

Since it is appointed unto man, once to die, can we count the rapture as a death too? Sorry to be picky, but it seems there is always something that does not fit.

You are right ...that inabilty to " fit" things together made me look at it again..the idea of animal sacrifices in the temple did it for me

[lockeliberty]

So, how many did ya knock down?

Do ya bow hunt?