Posted on 02/04/2011 11:29:26 AM PST by RJR_fan
Bottom Line (last few paragraphs):
Based on the continuity of themes—wealth, kingdom, inheritance—Jesus’ teaching to the disciples should be considered of one piece with the parable of the rich fool. The section of Scripture, Luke 12:13–34, should be taken as a whole. And the immediate message was the disinheritance of Israel, and the transfer of the Kingdom to the New Testament church. This blessing, we are told, is the “Father’s good pleasure” (12:32).
yet still retaining your own freewill is actually quite obtainable.
Much of what we understand and believe comes down to the definitions. For example here, you entertain the notion of "freewill" but outside of some warm and fuzzy feeling, what exactly is it?
When you say that God "...saw the future course we would take..." you have a definition of God that is alien to what I believe Scriptures reveal, and that is a God who is not, or at one time was not omniscient. To be omniscient means that God isn't surprised to learn something new. To say that God "...saw and then..." means that God is reactive, that there was the proverbial fork in the road and up until He saw what route you would take He was only able to guess and thus not be able to plan. Let's say that God needed someone to evangelize to person 'X'. He would have chosen you but had to wait and see what you would do before He made His plan. Whether He had to wait in real-time or look down a Tunnel-O'-Time device, the responsive action still remains. He had to look before He knew. That is not a God Who is omniscient, it is a god that is still learning.
Which then leads to why there is a "pre-" before "destined". If God reacts, even in advance, to some decision of yours, one could argue that you were then "destined" to do such-and-such, but there is no way that you can logically say "pre" because that would mean that you were destined to do something before the decision was even made. Free Will theory by logical necessity rejects the "pre-" in "destined".
Then we have the word "Elect", which means "chosen by God" and in Ephesians we know that this took place in Eternity past. Election is clearly dependent on the will else it wouldn't be "election" it would be something else. The Free Will theorist may acknowledge "Election", but as you pointed out here, the Will that ultimately made Election for you effective, was not God's but yours. If you are the final arbiter of your own salvation, then God had no part in your Election, rather, he was compelled by obligation to save you as a result of your own choices. To say otherwise is to deny the reality that all that call upon the name of the LORD will be saved. He didn't say, calling upon the name of the LORD one might be saved. The difference is mechanical vs personal.
If you want to believe that your salvation was ultimately a result of your own will, then you can't logically accept the standard definitions for "elect", "omniscient", "eternity", "predestined" and "will", they must be changed to something else.
Furthermore when the Scriptures say that we were born wicked, hate God, hate His commandments, couldn't please God, don't seek Him, love our sins too much, can't understand the Bible, blinded to the truth by Satan and by God, and would prefer to be crushed by stones than worship God, how does that describe our will? It describes a will that never on its own would understand and choose life through Christ. Yet the Freewill theorist claims that he somehow is/was immune from that characterization, somehow changed the will without provocation to believe what the Scripture said we "call foolishness". That is really dramatically changing the Biblical definition of the heart and will of the natural man.
In Isaiah, Jeremiah and in Romans our LORD refers to Himself as the "Potter" while "we" are the "clay". In the picture, our LORD predestines a lump of clay to be either a vessel of Wrath or vessel of Glory. He elects some clay to be defiled, and elects other lumps to become His treasure. He makes each vessel according to His eternal purpose. To say that the Potter looked down some Tunnel-O'-Time device to see if the commode was used as fine china, and the salad bowl used as a chamber pot denies the intention of the Potter and makes the whole illustration ludicrous because only the insane and perverted would drink out of a filthy toilet bowl and defecate on priceless china plates. Hence we read:
Isaiah 29:16 "Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, "He did not make me"? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?
So this isn't even a doctrine that Paul made up, it was true even before the New Covenant - God from eternity past decided for His own Purpose who He would bestow His grace and mercy to save.
John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
Here's another deliberate mistranslation.
Psalm 22 (KJV)
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
From the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible)
(17) For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
(18) I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
(19) They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.
(20) But Thou, O YHWH, be not far off; O Thou my strength, hasten to help me.
(21) Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog.
(22) Save me from the lion's mouth; yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen do Thou answer me.
From the KJV
Psalm 22
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
From the Hebrew
kiy sebhâbhuniykelâbhiym `adhath merê`iym hiqqiyphuniy kâ'ariy yâdhay veraghlây
from the Hebrew
738 'ariy ar-ee' or (prolonged) earyeh {ar-yay'}; (in the sense of violence); a lion:--(young) lion, + pierce (from the margin).
1) lion
a) pictures or images of lions
King James Word Usage - Total: 80 lion 79, untranslated variant 1
Can you guess what verse is the VARIANT? (after clicking the link, there will be a column on the right, click on psalms and you will see that this particular verse is the only one where the word wasn't translated properly.)
Why, it's this one.... For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Either this person in question was pierced by a lion, or the word pierced doesn't belong in the verse at all. And what does (from the margin) mean? It means that someone wrote pierce in the margin of some manuscript, so that when it was transscribed later, the word pierced could be inserted. And it was. Since verse 21 of the KJV correctly translates the word into lion, it would seem that the word pierce/d does not belong in verse 16 of the KJV at all.
Also, in case you wonder why the verses are off by 1, its because the first verse from the Tanach is used like an intro in the KJV. The first verse from the Tanach is:
If you are going to use any html like (b) at all then you must use paragraph breaks (P)
Powerless only insofar as being able to deceive the nations.
Prior to Christ's coming, all the nations, with the exception of Israel, were in total darkness wrt the gospel message of salvation.
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)The nations were blinded by Satan. But once Christ came, all that changed. Paul tells us in Colossians:For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. (Eph. 5:8)
3 We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,The gospel was no able to go out into the entire world unimpeded. Satan has been powerless to stop it.
4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints;
5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,
6 which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; (Col. 1)
Some folks are confused about the language of Rev. 20, but it does not demand a view that Satan is absolutely powerless, just powerless to stop the spread of the gospel.
[I'm having a hard time seeing your comments due to formatting issues with your post.]
So why did you bring it up?
I didn't say there isn't a reign of Christ. I said nowhere in this passage can you find a reign of Christ on the earth prior to the new heavens and new earth.
I think its more than that.
Just as there is a mark or sign of the beast, there is a mark or sign of YHWH. First, the mark of YHWH.
Exodus 13 (KJV)
9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD's law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.
Exodus 13
16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 6
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
Deuteronomy 11
18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
from the Hebrew
226 'owth oth probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literally or figuratively), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.:--mark, miracle, (en-)sign, token.
1) sign, signal
a) a distinguishing mark
b) banner
c) remembrance
d) miraculous sign
e) omen
f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
from the Hebrew
2903 towphaphah to-faw-faw' from an unused root meaning to go around or bind; a fillet for the forehead:--frontlet.
1) bands, phylacteries, frontlets, marks
Deuteronomy 11
18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;
(Obedience is the test of true love for G-d. Adam and Eve disobeyed, and were kicked out of the Garden. Abraham obeyed and it was counted unto him as righteousness)26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
(G-d gives you us a choice)27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
from the Greek
5480 charagma khar'-ag-mah from the same as 5482; a scratch or etching, i.e. stamp (as a badge of servitude), or scupltured figure (statue):--graven, mark.
1) a stamp, an imprinted mark
a) of the mark stamped on the forehead or the right hand as the badge of the followers of the Antichrist
b) the mark branded upon horses
2) thing carved, sculpture, graven work
a) of idolatrous images
The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words defines charagma as:
charagma, a scratch or etching, i.e. stamp (as a badge of servitude), or sculptured figure (statue):- graven, mark.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states the following with regard to this Greek word:
charagma [mark, stamp]
Marking is common in antiquity (cf. slaves, and the branding of devotees with the marks of deities).
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains gives insight into the meaning of charagma when it states:
A strictly literal translation of ‘the mark of the beast’ might imply ‘a picture of the beast’ or ‘a mark made by the beast.’ A more satisfactory indication of the relationship between ‘mark’ and ‘beast’ would be ‘a mark showing one’s relationship to the beast’ or ‘a mark of loyalty to the beast’ or ‘a mark of the party of the beast.’
The mark is almost certainly a symbolic stamp or sign and is not to be taken literally as many blindly claim. This mark will be SYMBOLICALLY placed on - OR INSIDE - the forehead and/or right hand. The mark historically symbolizes servitude or allegiance to the one from whom the mark is received. The mark symbolizes the relationship existing between those that decide to receive it and the Beast (or his agents) from whom it is received. It shows the recipients of the mark to be loyal to the Beast and among his willful followers. The harlot of Revelation 17:5, historically and almost universally accepted as representing Rome and the evil Babylonian mystery religion that has continuously opposed the true faith, "bears on her forehead the mark of her true nature in a mysterious allusion to Babylon." One cannot "receive" something unless they "accept" it, which implies willingness. Thus, the mark is not forced, though there may be various levels of persuasion used. Ultimately, those that receive the mark do so of their own free will. In short, it is a spiritual mark, which exposes the hearts and minds of those receiving it. It shows to whom they willingly give their allegiance.
1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
The antichrist and other antichrists were already around when John wrote his epistle.antichrist from the Greek
500 antichristos an-tee'-khris-tos from 473 and 5547; an opponent of the Messiah:--antichrist.
1) the adversary of the Messiah
anti from the Greek
473 anti an-tee' a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
1) over against, opposite to, before
2) for, instead of, in place of (something)
a) instead of
b) for
c) for that, because
d) wherefore, for this cause
The antichrist is an:
- adversary of Messiah
- usurper of Messiah
- instead of Messiah
- opposite to Messiah
- in place of Messiah
but then dispensationalism when through it extremist phase of dichotomizing everything in the Bible – kingdom of heaven/God, earthy/heavenly people, wife of Jehovah/bride of Christ, etc, - the effect was to cross the line, or come very close, to reintroducing some ancient heresies.
I'm currently reading Marsden's book "Fundamentalism and the American Culture". Fascinating text as he traces through the history of the American Religion, its Dispensationalism, how and why it went there. Though I am familiar to much of the history from reading generations of Dispy texts and 19th century biblical writers, reading it from Marsden's perspective surely explains this wierd allegiance to a problem ridden theological system.
It is very much a cultural phenomena that exploits fleshy vanities.
As you have observed here, one of the peculiarities of the system had to do with trying to make the Bible a science book, that by carefully picking away at texts one can create doctrines. By carefully noting and distinguishing when the Holy Spirit was "on","in" or "with" a subject, one could explain dispensations and come to deep Scriptural truths previously unknown. I think this is called "applying the Bacon Principles" to the Scriptures (Francis Bacon, not Homer Simpson's favorite food)
Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you gentlemen, that will make matters much more clear from now on.
I'm not saying that God is or ever has been less than omniscient, I'm saying that because He is omniscient, the freewill choices that we make come as no surprise to Him. The defining measure of freewill, as I understand it, is that we believe we have a choice, even if we don't. Another way of explaining it is that to God, our life appears as a single, straight path while to us it appears as a crooked path with many detours and intersections where we think we could have made a different decision.
This extends even to our salvation. We see it as something that either may or may not happen, while God, being omniscient, knows what our choice will be and has already elected us to salvation even before we existed. It's not a surprise to God, yet it may be a surprise to us.
Finally, while I agree that there is a will in us that does not desire to be reconciled to God in any way, I also believe that there is a part of us, a remnant of our creation if you will, that desires to be reunited with God. I know that the Bible teaches that we are all corrupted by our sin nature, and I don't dispute that, but I'm not sure that the original Spirit that God breathed into Adam has been corrupted and I believe it wishes to return to it's Maker. For me, it's not a matter of if we are corrupted or not, but a question of if we yield to that corruption or if we listen to the Spirit.
2Th 2:6 KJV - And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 2Th 2:7 KJV - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 2Th 2:8 KJV - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
It's just that I believe that there is a day coming when Satan's power is completely removed and bound, not just restrained.
The Bible does not paint a picture of an absolutely powerless Satan during the “thousand years.” Folks read too much into the imagery of Rev. 20:3, but the boundary conditions are clearly mentioned, “so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished.”
By way of contrast, we have these words of Jesus:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.Jesus has all authority on earth, not Satan. As a result of this authority, Jesus commands His disciples to go into all the nations, teaching and baptizing. Satan no longer has the power to deceive the nations. The strongman has been bound. The kingdom of God has come. All the evidence points to the fact that we are in the “thousand years” of Rev. 20.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matt. 28)
24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, "This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons."Proof of the kingdom is that Christ had the power of demons, including Satan. As far as deceiving the nations are concerned, Satan is in the abyss awaiting judgment.
25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 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. (Matt. 12)
Isa 2:1-4 KJV - "[1] The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. [2] And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. [3] And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. [4] And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
That sounds a whole lot like the thousand year reign of Christ. It also sounds a lot like they're on Earth, especially that part where it says that "...And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob..." and again where it states that "...for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."
I guess you could try to say that Christ did all this already, except for that part in verse 4 where it says "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
You really don't believe that this has happened yet do you? Do you honestly believe that the nations have put down their weapons and are not fighting against each other now do you? I think that it's pretty clear that there's an earthly reign of Christ and, according to Revelation 20, it takes place during the thousand years immediately following the Time of Jacob's Trouble.
Isa 2:3 KJV - "[3] And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."
This cannot be the new heaven and the new earth, due to the fact that we will be inhabiting our new bodies at that time and will not need instruction on how to please God, as all corruption will have put on incorruptability.
1Cr 15:50 KJV - "[50] Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
There is an assumption here that we may not share. Can you show me from the Bible why it is that you think these events have not happened? From the Bible. Not from common sense, or human understanding, or any other such contrivance.
That sounds a whole lot like the thousand year reign of Christ.
Again, I think we are dealing with your assumptions here. Rev. 20, the “thousand years” passage says nothing about mountain upheavals, etc. And if it did, there is a strong possibly that the language would be best taken figuratively, as most of the book of revelation is about images and symbols.
Besides, it still seems as if you haven’t come to grips with the fact that the “thousand years” of Rev. 20 says nothing about Christ reigning literally on the earth. It seems like a major oversight.
You really don't believe that this has happened yet do you?
I believe the language is figurative and describes with images and symbols the reign of Messiah. (Do you honestly think these are literal swords being beaten into literal plowshares in our future? How many armies or criminals use swords these days?) Since Jesus is presently reigning, subduing all the nations, these prophecies are in the process of all being fulfilled, spiritually speaking.
All the OT prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the fuller revelation of God through Jesus Christ, the very Word of God, in the New Testament. Folks get into trouble with they try to isolate verses and apply human wisdom to the text.
I appreciate the opportunity for the interchanging of ideas regarding our faiths, as they are similar, but intrinsically different on the point of who Messiah is.
I am not surprised that you continue to sound so antagonistic against my concept of Yehoshua as Mashiac, to the point of implying that anyone who believes Yehoshua haMashiac is of the synagogue of Satan and has the Mark of the Beast. I have given you my points on what I believe and why I believe it respectfully and understand you have a G-d given right to believe in the manner that you do, but I think I’m sure you are mistaken as to who you’re allies are.
There is a dividing line being drawn in the sand in these last days. Islamic forces have vowed to destroy, namely Jews, as well as Christians. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I wrote my thesis in college on how Judaism set the course for Western Civilization to be born. The G-d-given freedoms we now enjoy are thanks, first off, to G-d and Israel. I reckon that no other people have made more contributions to our world and our society. It is sad you view my belief system with hostility and accusation, since I consider your people our greatest friend and ally and I would fight to defend Israel’s cause and right to the land the L-rd YHWH himself swore to your ancestors, but it was all with the intent that, Israel, a nation of kings and priests, would share the God of Israel to the world, not so that the nation would become an esoteric club only accessible by birth-right, but to educate the heathen on serving the Living G-d and entering a relationship with the Creator and Father of ALL humanity. Israel was given a high calling and great responsibility.
Thank you for sharing and may the L-rd bless you and keep you.
Sooner than you might expect, the New World order and its governments, beginning with the United States, will issue a decree to the world to accept Sunday as the official day of worship in an effort to appease the wrath that has begun to unfold upon the world through natural disaster and societal upheaval, and you and I will be forced to hold the same ground, the right to worship G-d on His appointed Holy Day, the Seventh-Day sabbath and if you and I are still alive you can remember this warning.
Shalom and the L-rd makes His face shine upon you.
Can I show that it hasn’t happened yet, strictly based upon the Bible? Not as such.
Can I show that it hasn’t happened yet based upon the Bible, combined with a knowledge of history? Yes.
But just to show how contrived that you’re trying to make this, can you prove that Christ existed using nothing more than the Bible? No, you cannot.
You can prove that He existed, and that the Bible is a reliable witness to the events of His life, ministry, death and resurrection via supporting historical evidence, eye witnesses and circumstancial evidence, but proving His existance via strictly Biblical sources cannot be done.
Now, understand that I do not mean that the Scriptures are not trustworthy. In fact, I find it to be just the opposite. It’s entirely trustworthy because it has been proven via historical evidence and other evidences.
Furthermore, in answer to your question about do I believe that men will beat their swords into plowshears, literally, in the future?
No, but I do believe that men will recycle their weapons into peaceful pursuits, which is the correct understanding of that verse. After all, while the firearm is a recent development, the image of the sword has been a symbol for warfare, both in the Bible as well as secular texts, for ages and continues to this very day. So again, I ask you, do you see nations recycling their arms into peaceful uses and not fighting against each other, just as the verse said?
Yes, I can.
but proving His existance via strictly Biblical sources cannot be done.
I don’t know why you would say that. The Church has been doing it for 2000 years now. The Bible records faithful witnesses. The Bible is an infallible source. Therefore, Christ’s existence is proved by the testimony of true witnesses captured in an infallible source. That fact that some people do not accept that testimony or infallible source does not impeach the source, or the truth contained in that source.
So, I don’t agree with your premise. If you are trying to argue based on extra-biblical testimony, that will only go so far. The Bible alone gives us everything we need for faith and practice.
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.