Oh, HEAVEN HELP US ALL!!! Not this stupid game again....
Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
Being facetious works both ways! Tell me, without the cutesy names, when you made your decision to trust Christ for your salvation, did you hear or read something, or did you just feel an urge? If you heard or read something, then you made a decision, intelligent or otherwise, based on the information you had. If you had an urge, chances are it was also based on information you had received at some time. God is clear in His Book that it is the Word that saves, not anything our intellect conjures up on its own, or by some clever words of some man. Salvation is by grace through faith, plus nothing. As you truthfully state, if it were otherwise, we'd potentially have something to brag about before God. The only thing we have to brag about, is the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
My statement that saving faith, as well as faith in general, is based on an intelligent understanding of God's Word it true, otherwise we can scratch Ro. 10:17 out of the Book. That's because we need to know what the gospel is that saves today and what in the Scriptures applies to us today so we can live in the position we have "in Christ." If that's a "dumb" understanding, then I guess I'm dumb, but I'd much rather have an intelligent understanding of God's Word, wouldn't you. This has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism, although I figured my comment would trigger a reaction from at least the Calvinists. So thanks.
All of these posts merely assert the premillennial position. They contain your presuppositions twisted around to sound like arguments, whereas they are not true arguments at all. Lurkers are noticing this, even if you don't notice it.
Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.
***
John 5:25 describes Christian conversion itself as involving the dead coming to life. If you are a Christian, you know from experience what He was talking about, so, please don't make this discussion unduly difficult. It's patently obvious that regeneration is being presented as a kind of spiritual resurrection.
(This is precisely what Paul was talking about in Ephesians 1:18-2:7.)
In short, John 5:24 is formally paired to v.25 to show that v.25 is characterizing regeneration as a spiritual resurrection from a state of spiritual death. And please notice that literal/material resurrection from the state of physical death is not covered until vv.28-29.
Notice also that v.25 is stylistically coupled to v.28. This means that the larger passage is contrasting two different senses of resurrection. The first one (v.25) is that spiritual resurrection phenomenon which is regeneration. The second one is the bodily, material resurrection episode at the end of time.
Do you see this? You surely need to see it. It's not all that difficult, IMHO. But people believe only what they want to believe. And premills don't want to believe what they are looking at--precisely because John 5:25-29 is definitely presenting the amillennial position! (It's pretty funny when you realize what is going on!)
FR's premills should be honest enough to admit that John 5:25-29 does stand as at least a potential key for understanding the two "resurrections" in Revelation 20--because there is no hermeneutically solid reason to presuppose that Revelation 20 is to be read in an exclusively literal/materialistic way. (Saying, in effect, "Hey, I believe Revelation 20 is literal!" doesn't impress me even if it impresses you.)
Once the halfway honest premill concedes that John 5:25-29 might be the key to understanding the resurrections in Revelation 20, I have the amillennial clincher for him. It consists in the fact there is only ONE resurrection in John 5:28-29.
This incontrovertible fact utterly destroys the premillennial theory for Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 is emphatically arguing for the amillennial position against the premillennial position.
So is Ephesians 1:18-27 and 2 Peter 3 and Luke 19:11-25.
(And these are just a few of the reasons why our Protestant forefathers were amills.)
I submit that if you continue to be a premill, you do so in flagrant defiance of God. So, I am resolved to be completely unimpressed by your Christianity until you repent of this.
And just what "treasures" do you mine that apply to us, or do all the treasures apply equally to all people throughout all ages in the Bible? My contention is that while all the Bible is for us, as your reference from Proverbs would indicate, all the Bible is not written to us nor is about us. Therefore, 2Ti. 2:15 tells us we need to study to understand the divisions God placed in His Book, so we know His will for us for today. Rightly dividing the Word "helps" minimize the confusion division that exists in Christendom. Thanks for the encouragement.
Oh, HEAVEN HELP US ALL!!! Not this stupid game again....
Dream on doc. Lurkers notice you saying that the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth doesn't exist.
Star and grace have real arguments because they follow the actual words of the text.
The bottom line is the same as it has been for some time: Do you interpret John 5 in light of the further revelation of Revelation 20, or do you interpret Revelation 20 in the light of John 5.
I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written. Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.
Oh get over yourself Woody. Your stupid word game is not "discussing the gospel."
Speaking of twisting words. I only stated that there are something like 14 gospels in the Bible; nowhere did I say I believed any other than the gospel of grace.
The kingdom of God is not coming to earth; it has already come: Matthew 12:28-30 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad
First, I responded to this passage in a post long ago, maybe it was in reply to you, I don't recall, so I'll address a different issue here. In verse 28, note it says "if" and in your quote it says "surely". In the KJV, the "surely" is translated "then." An if-than connection is always a conditional statement. In this instance, it is a hypothethical senario that would become reality if they would believe that He is their Messiah. Christ was telling the religious leadership/intelligensia what they should have known about Him and what He was doing from the prophetic scriptures, particularly how Israel needed to be cleansed of demons and sicknesses before the kingdom came. But they didn't any more than you do by believing that the kingdom of God is here on earth today, at least by inference from your statement.
The kingdom wasn't there then, and it's not here yet today. They knew, or at least should have known, that Christ had to suffer first, which had been prophesized by many OT writers, especially Isaiah, before His glory. They also should have known that the prophesized Great Tribulation, or the day of Jacob's trouble (day of wrath) had to occur before the kingdom would come. They also should have known by prophecy that Christ would return in glory at the end of the Great Tribulation to establish His throne (David's) and His Kingdom. Peter states in 1Pe. 1:9-12 that the prophets themselves didn't understand the meaning of, and the timing of the "sufferings of Christ" and the "glory that should follow." The "glory" refers to returning in glory to establish the kingdom.
The foretaste of the kingdom began for the "little flock" of true Jewish believers in Acts 2-5, but it ceased when Israel blasphemed the Holy Ghost, when the unpardonable sin was committed by the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Had the program continued, the great tribulation was the next event in Israel's prophetic calendar followed by the kingdom. Thus the kingdom is not here as yet, but will be established in the future. This is according to the Bible, not some twisting of scriptures to support an end times position.
Now, one more time, the gospel has a proper name that is exactly 5 words and the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words. Can you do it?
I indicated before that if you want to enlighten me, that's fine. I would like to see your version of the gospel.
P.S. The rest of your post is just as contrary to the gospel as the part I chose to address.
I'm sincerely sorry you feel this way, but hopefully you'll yet see the light.
doc ????
You'd better clarify, and damn quick.
There is only one Gospel in Scripture. "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be damned!" (Gal 1:8, my translation).
The only possible explanation I can see, giving you all the benifit of the doubt, is if by your statement you mean there are 14 distinct references to the Gospel, such as "the glorious gospel of the Blessed God." (1 Tim. 1:11). But something tells me that is not what you mean....
Woody, I don't have time right now to respond to your less than gracious comments. However, what is your understanding of Ro. 10:17? This is one of the most plain verses in the Bible.
Ro. 10:17 is very similar to what Christ stated in John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." Now, tell me that faith comes by any method other than hearing, and as Christ said, learning, in order to "come to" Christ.
Christ goes on in John 6:63 to state, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." How's this different than Ro. 10:17? And, if you got "life" and you got it from other than the Word of God, you got something other than what Christ was speaking about.
Apparently you believe God saved you without you responding to His Word. I suppose you think that's His grace because you've always been saved. How wrong that is since we're all born spiritually dead and need life. Christ, Himself, said that His words are "life." Furthermore if by grace God saved you from your birth, or possibly before, then His grace doesn't apply to all, which flies in the face of His statement through Paul that His will is for all men to be saved,1Tim. 2:4, not some, or only Calvinists, or Baptists, or Catholics or Jews or ... Compare this verse with Mt. 20:28 where Christ says He came to "give his life a ransom for many." I suppose you consider yourself one of the "many" not one of the "all." This is where you need to "rightly divide" the Word for understanding of the difference in these verses. Otherwise, which one do you believe?
But then, I believe it when God says His grace and salvation is freely available to all that believe the gospel (1Cor. 15:1-4) of God's grace. To believe implies that a decision was made to believe and that no decision is a decision not to believe the Word. Foolish me, I guess!
Right. But it's impossible to interpret John 5:25-29 in the light of Revelation 20--at least, it's impossible when a premill is the one who is doing it. The problem is, premillennialism does not constitute an interpretation of John 5:25-29 but an outright contradiction of that text.
To say that premillennialism is an honest interpretation of John 5:25-29 is a lie.
(You might be inclined to say. "Well, that's just your position." But my position is correct, xzins. You need to repent of your silly position. You need to re-read John 5:25-29 with an honest spirit which you don't even have.)
I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written.
This is smarmy nonsense dressed up to sound reasonable. I am not fooled by your phony hermeneutics. You are just presupposing that Revelation "further explains" John 5:25-29 and does so in the specific way of a literalistic/materialistic reading.
But that literalistic/lmaterialistic approach to the text is precisely what you can't defend. It's just a presupposition. And you are foolishly proud of your literalism. Pardon me, but that makes you a kind of Christian Pharisee, IMHO.
And as I said earlier, your whole interpretive theory is revealed to be bankrupt in that it is impossible for you to harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 flatly, even emphatically contradicts your premillennial understanding of the millennium. (So does 2 Peter 3.)
Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.
This is another example of the demonic fraud of premillennialism. Your claim is hermeneutically ridiculous. You have no right whatsoever to argue that a later text surely interprets an earlier text. This is NOT a principle of sound hermeneutics. It is an utterly foolish misrepresentation of the doctrine of progressive revelation.
***
In short, you have made two monumental hermeneutical blunders:
1) You have presupposed that Revelation 20 is to be read in a strictly literalistic/materialistic way. You can't even begin to prove that this approach is correct. (And the fact that the Lord delighted to use metaphor as a way of sealing His enemies in their confusion is a warning that you must abandon you literalistic/materialistic presupposition. Ah, but every time we warn you with this Truth, you get more stubborn. [Well, guess what? That's perfectly okay with me.])
2) You have presupposed that hermeneutics is a relatively simple matter of figuring out which text was written first--then reading both texts literally, then ignoring the fact that this approach actually rapes the first text!
Notice that these two errors interlock to reinforce each other.
You don't see any problem, of course. It's because you have a carnal contempt for sound hermeneutics. Your denominational pride has incapacitated your discernment.
So, if you want me to regard you as a Christian, you are going to have to recant an awful lot of stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.