So am I.
Am what? An:
Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
How is there any difference in 1 and 2?
***man is running amok, there will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace.***
So, which is it: man is running amok or there will be no end or peace?
I sure don't see much peace on earth right now.
"This is why being a Calvinist, specifically an Amill/ Postmill Calvinist, is so much more cool. We get to relax and enjoy ourselves"
Kind of a "health, wealth and prosperity" gospel, huh?
Odd, though, Paul and Peter seem to say it is a struggle and a constant awareness of our vulnerability in the battle against the world, the flesh and the devil. Our salvation is assured but I don't see anywhere the scripture says our "victorious" walk is assured. Paul says he pummels his body, he strives for the goal. Peter says, "Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world."
Of course the enemy doesn't waste time on those who are no threat to his dominion or his strongholds.
So am I.
Am what? An:
Since you wish to clear things up by muddying the water, let's keep it simple.
The millenium has not yet begun. Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus has not yet made his Second Coming. Satan has not been cast into chains for a millenium yet. The Church has not yet been completed. These things will come.
The wheat and the tares will come to maturity at the same time. You should be able to see progress in the Church too.
Too bad the Calvinists won't have a touchdown before the Second coming. Dispensationalists rejoice in anticipation of that great DISPE TD prophecied for millenia.
[quote]The average Arminian I know, who feels the need to constantly bind Satan, even though they believe that Satan is not bound in this age (kinda shows that this aberation of Arminian thought is self-defeating), walks in some fear that they will fall into Satan's hands.[/quote]
That's because Arminianism incorporates an impersonal theistic epistemology, that is, the human consciousness is at some points thought of as being surrounded by something else than the personal God.
That is in contrast to your Calvinism that states that your theistic consiousness cannot be set apart from the personal God.
As far as I know not even Lutheranism goes to this extent in its personalism of theistic consciousness, specifically in regards to its understanding of the Eucharist.
Many Arminian theologians, Watson, Miley and Curtis, have argued that a non-independent finite consciousness is a impersonal personalism.
That would seem to be the crux of the argument.
So, Jesus planted His mustard seed of the New Covenant Kingdom in the first century. As it expands over time, so too the increase of His government and of peace.
I sure don't see much peace on earth right now.
That's why I don't think we should use our own observations nor the newspaper when trying to interpret scripture. Either we rest on the promises of scripture, or we go crazy trying to fit the next FreeRep post into the book of Revelation. Blessings!
Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up!
Blessings,
PS As a preterist, I think premillenialism runs counter to scripture. (FYI)
Until now, the only people I knew who said that were RCs.
Blessings,..as a Christian I find preterism to be foolhardy.
As a born-again Christian, I find premillenialism to be counter-biblical. That's why I eventually moved away from the premill position. Preterism, though it has it's faults, is much more compatible with the scriptures than premillenialism, esp. the dispensational type, in my opinion.
Frankly, I'm not interested in your opinions as much as I am interested in your biblical hermeneutic. All you've done is spout off without quoting scripture.
Blessings...
Amen. What is creation for, if not to display the glory of God? He did not create heaven and earth to articulate His failure.
A splendid essay I urge all to read is found here:
Unfortunately, the prevailing evangelical mind-set today is dispensationally afflicted. Consequently, it is fundamentally pessimistic regarding the progress of contemporary history. Around the turn of the century, the influential dispensationalist R. A. Torrey summarized the wish of developing dispensationalism. He declared: "The darker the night gets, the lighter my heart gets." Torrey stated this on the basis of his eschatology of despair. His dispensationalism saw the future in the hands of an approaching personal Antichrist, who would arise in the looming Great Tribulation. His hope, his delight, his wish was for the "imminent" Return of Christ. He felt these horrible events would set the stage for and thereby hasten the Lord's Return. In his view, the worse things became, the sooner Jesus would come. Millions of Christians hold his view today. Because of this, this century, which has witnessed the triumph of dispensationalism among evangelicals, has also witnessed the triumph of humanism in culture at large. There is a measure of cause-and-effect here. As Christians retreat from culture in anticipation of society's collapse, humanism has been sucked into the void left by Christianity's leadership absence. But I hasten to declare: Postmillennialism is not mere wishful thinking. It is, as a matter of revelational fact, a certain hope. It is as sure as God's Word. In the final analysis, all of Scripture is eschatological in orientation, for all of Scripture deals with the progress of redemption..." God created the world to bring glory to Himself. He created man to reflect His sovereign dominion. And He redeems man to restore him to righteous dominion over the world and Satan. By every godly measure postmillennialism should be wishful thinking for the believer. That is, it should be the Christian's wish that the Gospel of Jesus Christ make overwhelming and victorious progress in the earth. It should be our wish that the world be overflowed with the righteousness of God through our diligent, God-blessed labor. It should be our wish that peace arise as a result of the gracious transformation of human nature under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Why would a Christian wish for anything less?
Please consider how much easier it is for the politics of this world to defeat Christ if we believe He has already lost the battle.
Cheer up, man. The battle's been won. He has risen!
If you read the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the only thing that is clear is that Christian theology was in a state of flux. Christian theology was not well-defined until after the Nicene council - hence, we have Origen's inquiries regarding the preexistence of souls, universal salvation, and a hierarchical Trinity. (It is by no means clear that Origen himself held any of these views, but one must approach the man cautiously. His followers adopted these extreme views, and those followers got him posthumously anathematized.) Origen had little use, however, for what he considered the crude chiliaism of Justin Martyr et al.
Not exactly. And besides those church fathers who were premil where not dispensational premil. In fact you folks might describe what they believed as "replacement theology", properly know as supersessionism.
"...and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:9b-10)
Since we are in His kingdom, and since we are His priests, shouldn't we be reigning on the earth?
Let's roll!
Keep your armour.
Here is a excerpt from a commentary on Ephesians 6: 10-13.
The writer seems to think that Satan is loose and that we should be on guard, trusting God for the protection, not relax and enjoy.
10. "Finally. Resuming his general exhortations, he again enjoins them to be strong, — to summon up courage and vigor; for there is always much to enfeeble us, and we are ill fitted to resist. But when our weakness is considered, an exhortation like this would have no effect, unless the Lord were present, and stretched out his hand to render assistance, or rather, unless he supplied us with all the power. Paul therefore adds, in the Lord. As if he had said, “‘You have no right to reply, that you have not the ability; for all that I require of you is, be strong in the Lord.” To explain his meaning more fully, he adds, in the power of his might, which tends greatly to increase our confidence, particularly as it shews the remarkable assistance which God usually bestows upon believers.
If the Lord aids us by his mighty power, we have no reason to shrink from the combat. But it will be asked, What purpose did it serve to enjoin the Ephesians to be strong in the Lord’s mighty power, which they could not of themselves accomplish? I answer, there are two clauses here which must be considered. He exhorts them to be courageous, but at the same time reminds them to ask from God a supply of their own deficiencies, and promises that, in answer to their prayers, the power of God will be displayed.
11. Put on the whole armor. God has furnished us with various defensive weapons, provided we do not indolently refuse what is offered. But we are almost all chargeable with carelessness and hesitation in using the offered grace; just as if a soldier, about to meet the enemy, should take his helmet, and neglect his shield. To correct this security, or, we should rather say, this indolence, Paul borrows a comparison from the military art, and bids us put on the whole armor of God. We ought to be prepared on all sides, so as to want nothing. The Lord offers to us arms for repelling every kind of attack. It remains for us to apply them to use, and not leave them hanging on the wall.
To quicken our vigilance, he reminds us that we must not only engage in open warfare, but that we have a crafty and insidious foe to encounter, who frequently lies in ambush; for such is the import of the apostle’s phrase, THE WILES (Tao) of the devil.
12. For we wrestle not. To impress them still more deeply with their danger, he points out the nature of the enemy, which he illustrates by a comparative statement, Not against flesh and blood. The meaning is, that our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight with men. There we resist human strength, sword is opposed to sword, man contends with man, force is met by force, and skill by skill; but here the case is widely different. All amounts to this, that our enemies are such as no human power can withstand. By flesh and blood the apostle denotes men, who are so denominated in order to contrast them with spiritual assailants. This is no bodily struggle.
Let us remember this when the injurious treatment of others provokes us to revenge. Our natural disposition would lead us to direct all our exertions against the men themselves; but this foolish desire will be restrained by the consideration that the men who annoy us are nothing more than darts thrown by the hand of Satan. While we are employed in destroying those darts, we lay ourselves open to be wounded on all sides.
To wrestle with flesh and blood will not only be useless, but highly pernicious. We must go straight to the enemy, who attacks and wounds us from his concealment, — who slays before he appears. But to return to Paul. He describes our enemy as formidable, not to overwhelm us with fear, but to quicken our diligence and earnestness; for there is a middle course to be observed. When the enemy is neglected, he does his utmost to oppress us with sloth, and afterwards disarms us by terror; so that, ere the engagement has commenced, we are vanquished.
By speaking of the power of the enemy, Paul labors to keep us more on the alert. He had already called him the devil, but now employs a variety of epithets, to make the reader understand that this is not an enemy who may be safely despised. Against principalities, against powers. Still, his object in producing alarm is not to fill us with dismay, but to excite us to caution. He calls them princes of the world; but he explains himself more fully by adding — of the darkness of the world. The devil reigns in the world, because the world is nothing else than darkness. Hence it follows, that the corruption of the world gives way to the kingdom of the devil; for he could not reside in a pure and upright creature of God, but all arises from the sinfulness of men.
By darkness, it is almost unnecessary to say, are meant unbelief and ignorance of God, with the consequences to which they lead. As the whole world is covered with darkness, the devil is called “the prince of this world.” (John 14:30.) By calling it wickedness, he denotes the malignity and cruelty of the devil, and, at the same time, reminds us that the utmost caution is necessary to prevent him from gaining an advantage.
For the same reason, the epithet spiritual is applied; for, when the enemy is invisible, our danger is greater. There is emphasis, too, in the phrase, in heavenly places; for the elevated station from which the attack is made gives us greater trouble and difficulty. An argument drawn from this passage by the Manicheans, to support their wild notion of two principles, is easily refuted. They supposed the devil to be an antagonist deity, whom the righteous God would not subdue without great exertion. For Paul does not ascribe to devils a principality, which they seize without the consent, and maintain in spite of the opposition, of the Divine Being, — but a principality which, as Scripture everywhere asserts, God, in righteous judgment, yields to them over the wicked. The inquiry is, not what power they have in opposition to God, but how far they ought to excite our alarm, and keep us on our guard.
Nor is any countenance here given to the belief, that the devil has formed, and keeps for himself, the middle region of the air. Paul does not assign to them a fixed territory, which they can call their own, but merely intimates that they are engaged in hostility, and occupy an elevated station.
13. Wherefore take unto you. Though our enemy is so powerful, Paul does not infer that we must throw away our spears, but that we must prepare our minds for the battle. A promise of victory is, indeed, involved in the exhortation, that ye may be able. If we only put on the whole armor of God, and fight valiantly to the end, we shall certainly stand. On any other supposition, we would be discouraged by the number and variety of the contests; and therefore he adds, in the evil day. By this expression he rouses them from security, bids them prepare themselves for hard, painful, and dangerous conflicts, and, at the same time, animates them with the hope of victory; for amidst the greatest dangers they will be safe. And having done all. They are thus directed to cherish confidence through the whole course of life. There will be no danger which may not be successfully met by the power of God; nor will any who, with this assistance, fight against Satan, fail in the day of battle."
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.