Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
***I don't think I said we could be vanquished as far as salvation is concerned, but like Calvin, I think we can be vanquished from the battle by being compromised by sin or defeat. That's why the writer of Hebrews says "laying aside every weight and the sin that so easily besets us, let's run the race..."***
Run the race to what? Bind Satan? I think you are way out on a limb trying to defend the idea of binding Satan, now. Even if I have a personal battle to bring my own sin into subjection and run my own personal race, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan. That is, unless you seem to believe that somehow Satan sits on my left shoulder and Jesus is sitting on my right.
I'm still looking for this battle against Satan? All I see is the remains of what the Lord did and a horde of Dispyies chasing shadows.
Incorrect. I simply look at Augustine's systematic theology of the early church. It is this same general theology that was confirmed by the Council of Orange 100 years later. It was also the theology of the Reformation and the rejection of Rome 1000 years later. I'm not awe struck by Augustine simply because he wrote an number of documents that were later used by Luther and Calvin. Augustine had his share of problems as well as Luther and Calvin IMO. However, there can be no mistaking the Reformed belief was the consistent doctrine of the western church-one that was officially rejected by the RCC 500 years ago and much of Protestantism today.
"In any case, there is some evidence that historical premillennialism was the position of the early church. However, there is strong evidence that there was a belief in the rule of the Son of David from Jerusalem for a thousand years."
You've made this statement and there are articles to the contrary. From an analytical perspective the only way I would be able to tell which is correct is to go through 1000 years of writings and find out for myself. A task that I'm not quite sure I'm anxious to do at this point. Even if I did it wouldn't matter. History has shown that simply because a majority holds a particular view does not mean they are correct. Certainly if I thought that I wouldn't be "ranting and raving" about the ever popular Arminianism. I can only search the scriptures and see for myself. That is what sola scriptura is all about.
Will a temple be rebuilt? I don't know. It could be.
Will the Jewish sacrifices be pleasing to God? Unequivocally, NO!
Do you honestly think that the Jewish people do not now want to have a rebuilt temple?
It is part of their religion. After all, they are not Christians, and they do not accept the authority of our message or history.
Be careful not to unwittingly adopt the presuppositions of the dispensationalists. While a "temple" might be built humanly speaking, no legitimate temple will be rebuilt. That is a fabrication.
Amen. This from Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" --
..."This is the true universalism of the Scriptures — the universal Christianization of the world and the complete defeat of the forces of spiritual wickedness. 'This, of course, does not mean that every individual will be saved, for many are unquestionably lost. Just as in the salvation of the individual much possible service to Christ is lost and many sins are committed through the period of incomplete salvation, so it is in the salvation of the world. A considerable number are lost; yet the process of salvation is to end in a great triumph, and our eyes are yet to behold "the glorious spectacle of a saved world." The words of Dr. Warfield are very appropriate here: "The human race attains the goal for which it was created, and sin does not snatch it out of God's hands; the primal purpose of God with it is fulfilled; and through Christ, the race of man, though fallen into sin, is recovered to God and fulfills its original destiny." 2
"So while Arminianism offers us a spurious universalism, which is at best a universalism of opportunity, Calvinism offers us the true universalism in the salvation of the race. And only the Calvinist, with his emphasis on the doctrines of sovereign Election and Efficacious Grace, can look to the future confidently expecting to see a redeemed world."
The third and final temple is Jesus Christ. Look for no other.
My first 666 which equals 18 which equals 9.
On 9/25/2005, which equals 23 which equals 5.
9 minus 5 equals 4 which is my birthday.
Must be magic. 8~)
***And only the Calvinist, with his emphasis on the doctrines of sovereign Election and Efficacious Grace, can look to the future confidently expecting to see a redeemed world."***
Exactly, my sister. Amen!
While the Dispyies are looking to get out of the world via the rapture, we Calvinists for the most part (there are a few Dispensational Calvinists) are occupied with reigning over that which Christ has given us, eagerly awaiting his return to judge the earth.
Exactly. The Puritans knew that and they created the New World out of the Old.
Eyes on heaven; hands on earth; hearts on Christ.
You're correct. I wasn't adopting the presuppositions of the dispensationalist as much as not being clear. There is NO legitmate temple remaining to be rebuilt. That is not to say that a physical temple will NOT be rebuilt. But if some "future" temple is built it will have no bearings on scripture nor will it be a valid temple contrary to what some will say. The church is God's temple according to scripture.
2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Yes, I believe the Jewish people want to have a rebuilt temple-some more than others. Contrary to what some will say about "God's chosen people" the Jews are just as lost as the Hindus, the Budhists, or the Muslims. They are without hope without Christ. Sorry if this sounds like "hate speech".
The Jews can worship all they want in their reconstructed temple, they can burn all the incense they would like, they can kill the fatted calf. None of that will matter. They must repent and turn to Christ for their salvation. And if they turn to Christ for their salvation burning incense or killing the fatted calf in the temple will still mean nothing. Christ paid the penalty and there are no works or sacrifices you can give to God that makes any difference.
Those are the rules.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent" -- Matthew 27:50-51"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
I would appreciate it if as many Freepers as possible would head over to http://www.lastdays.com/ and flood its creator, John Roberts, with e-mail denouncing his Leftist articles and preaching to him the Good News of conservatism. Please let me know if you will do this. Thanks.
here's my "wild and zany explanation":
The death that Christ came to put away was spiritual death, the same death that Adam died when he ate of the friut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He did this via His blood in the New and Everlasting Covenant. No metaphor there.
Hades, the temporary holding place of the dead (sheol, paradise) was then emptied of the dead (they were "resurrected"), who were then judged and brought either into eternal life ("Heaven") or everlasting destruction ("hell"). Hades was also thrown into the lake of fire, along with (spiritual) death, the last two enemies.
Blessings
But it will still be a temple for the Jews, won't it?
And it would then be a place where one could sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is god.
Wouldn't it?
And even the old temple was not that great a place. As Stephen remembered, "What place shall you build for me....God does not dwell in temples built with hands..."
The old temple was just a picture of things to come.
And do you think sacrifices are significant? They never were. For, "I would have mercy and not sacrifice."
I had to drop down one post to answer to avoid the triple6. :>)
***Eyes on heaven; hands on earth; hearts on Christ.***
That's a good way of saying that.
***Hades, the temporary holding place of the dead (sheol, paradise) was then emptied of the dead (they were "resurrected"), who were then judged and brought either into eternal life ("Heaven") or everlasting destruction ("hell"). Hades was also thrown into the lake of fire, along with (spiritual) death, the last two enemies.***
So, since spiritual death is no more, everyone who is born today is born spiritually alive!?!?
Gads!
Revelation 20:14 says that this is the second death.
The death that Christ came to put away was spiritual death, the same death that Adam died when he ate of the friut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Here you have Adam dying the second death, first, and the first death, second. Interesting. It is appointed unto men, once to die. Did Adam die twice? How can spiritual death come before spiritual birth?
But it WON'T be And it would then be a place where one could sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is god.
You're taking:
Too literally.
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.