JD, evidently Abraham knew more than you give him credit for. Jesus said in John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Do you interpet his words literal or figurative? Did Jesus mean what he said and meant what he said?
I'll ask you again, do you agree with the following statement as it is relavent to the topic of this thread, "Jesus was always king of the universe from eternity past" Yes or No?
Yamil, I said some extremist dispensationalist, I didn't say all of them. I am glad you agree that Christ was always king of the universe from eternity pass. Let's see if JD agrees with that statement. How much you bet he won't agree? I too call it like I see it.
JD, You deny that Christ is the head of the church of the Old Testament believers, correct? Did he not pay the redemption for their sin? Yet you claim that they are not a part of his body, even though they believed the promise by faith in the promise of the coming Messiah. You deny that the Old Testament believers will be raised up and translated with the New Testament believers, eventhough Christ paid the ransom for both.
JD wrote: I have some questions of those who believe that all prophecy has been fulfilled except the one that predicts Jesus Christ coming back for the general judgment of all men at the end of time. First question: Where in the Scriptures does this promise occur?
I think you hit the nail on the head. Dispensationalist have a hard time accepting the eternal existence of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. From what I have gleaned from them is that Christ could not be head of the church of the OT believers because in their mind, he did not exist. The Holy Spirit didn't exist until Christ ascended into heaven. Jesus clearly stated that "before Abraham was, I am." They cannot fathom that because their mindset is engrossed in a chopped up theology, not in a the overall unity of God's plan of redemption. Not all dispensationalist are like that, mostly the extremist.
Minnow wrote: BTW DB, Did you notice that you've spelled your Pseudonym without the "n" at the end.
ooh! I never noticed. Thanks for pointing that out, it's been corrected. I cleared my cookies recently and had to re-enter my data and missed it. Thanks again.
So if Calvin is wrong on that point, could he be wrong in other areas of his theology.
I did run across a verse this morning that caught my attention concerning election.
(Num 16:5) "And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even tomorrow the LORD will show who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him."
Exactly who chose who? Arminians say, God elects me if I elect him first. Scripture says otherwise. God will cause those who He has chosen to come near to Him. God works effectually in his chosen ones to draw them to Himself.
What is the difference between historic premil and historic postmil? Also are there various views of postmil?
I still hold strongly to premil because of the hermeneutical method of literal interpretation. The basic difference between historic premil and dispensational premil is in the timing of the rapture of the church. Historically there was only one resurrection of believers, both Old Testament and New Testament. There was only one judgment, not two separate ones. Although the bible describes two, the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne, historically they were one and the same. Christ will be the presiding judge in both cases.
Let's see JD, not even Yamil agrees with you on the matter of the OT believers and he too is a dispensationalist. Both of you cannot be right, either one or the other. So before I offer any kind of apology, I need to know which one of you is correct.
Oh and BTW, hyper-Calvinist don't admit or recognize themselves as being hyper-Calvinist either, just Calvinist.
The Cure wrote: Yes. I would not ascribe to any of those things mentioned by DB neither.
Good for you. Unfortunately people like JD do. I never considered you a hyper-dispensationalist anyway. That is what happens when you throw everybody in one camp or another. Some points of Calvinism I agree with, other parts I don't. Some parts of dispensationalism I agree with and other parts I don't.
With a literal interpretation of scripture the authority for interpretation lies with the scripture. The authority in allegorical interpretation lies with the interpreter.
Yamil, for the record, it was the extremist hyper-dispensationalist views like JD that drove me away from dispensational theology. They slice and dice the word of God like a Whopper Chopper to where it has no resemblance of the unity of the Bible whatsoever. Middle of the road or moderate dispensationalist I can handle. Same goes with the Calvinist. Some I can hang with, others are so hyper that it is sad.
For the record, I hold to premil. Reason being, it adheres to a literal interpretation of Revelation rather than to an allegorical. We do understand that there is much symbolism and imagery in Revelation, but it is clearly indicated by the text of the passage. As far as historic premil or dispensational premil, I cannot claim either way. I do not draw an extreme dichotomy between Israel and the church to the point of caiming like the dispensationalist that the believing Jews of the Old Testament aren't part of the body of Christ. I do not believe like the dispensationalist that say that the believing Jews of the OT will not be resurrected at the same time as the NT saints. I do not believe like the dispensationalist that say that the believing Jews of the OT are not IN CHRIST eventhough he died to them and paid the ramsom for their sins.
What I wonder is, was not Jesus a believing Jew and didn't he die under the Old Testament dispensation. If the Old Testament believers are not in Christ, then what are they?
DJC49 wrote: Now here's one of the "ideas" that needs to be tossed into the arena -- let's see if it has a fighting chance: Acts 13:48 (KJV) "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Do you see that? As many as WERE ORDAINED to eternal life ... believed!
In addition to DJC49
(Rom. 8:29) "For whom he (God the Father) did foreknow, he (God the Father) also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son (Jesus Christ), that he (Jesus) might be the firstborn among many brethren."
(Rom. 8:30) "Moreover whom he (God the Father) did predestinate, them he (God the Father) also called: and whom he (God the Father) called, them he (God the Father)also justified: and whom he (God the Father) justified, them he (God the Father) also glorified."
JD wrote: The Spirit that was breathed into Adam was his "life". It gave him ability to commune with God one on one and to have fellowship with him.
So you admit that until God quickened Adam, breathed into him the breath of life, that he was unable to commune with God and have fellowship with God.
Same thing applies spiritually. Until God breathed life into Adam, Adam was unable to hear, speak, walk, etc.
JD wrote: When he died, what happened? Adam hid himself from God because he had no longer the means for this sme type of fellowship and communion. It did not mean he had no ability to hear the call of God because he did hear him unless you are prepared to deny the bible record. He not only heard him, he responded to him and was saved, God clothing him with the skins of animal sacrifice.
Who came looking for who? Did Adam seek after God or did God seek after Adam.
Secondly, I don't see anywhere where Adam confessed his sin before God, but passed the buck and blamed his wife.
Thirdly, who provided the covering? Did Adam make the coats of skin or did God provide it by His grace?
It takes lots of talent to be able to contradict oneself in the same post. The dehhvastating truth is that every time spiritual death is mentioned in the Bible, nothing is said about total inability. So wherever they get their definition, one thing is for sure: its not from the Bible. But of course, the Calvinist does not really care what the Bible actually states.
What contradiction? You conveniently left out the fact that I made about the inability is a RESULT of being dead. Dead means DEAD, the absence of life.
Anyway I don't know why I am having a cnversation with you, you are banned. If you are a man of honesty and integrity, HONOR IT!
DJC49 wrote: Yeah, sure, ... PLEASE continue! That's some of the FINEST eisegesis I've ever read! You're REALLY good at it. I can't WAIT to read what you do with the 5 husbands of Jn 4:18
With all this numerology, he sounds more like the dispensationalist who are trying to set dates and predictions of when Christ is coming back. Of course I don't believe that Kevin is a dispensationalist, but dispies are big on nunerology.
Yamil accuses us of redefining words like "dead" to mean "dead". Afterall if the word "quicken" means to "make alive" it would suffice to say that dead means dead. Inability is the result of being dead. He is under the impression that we believe that dead means inability. That's how warped their thinking is and twist the truth.
A dead person is unable to respond because he is dead.
DJC49 wrote: But, in my estimation, it certainly is a HIGHLY suspect way of coming to the conclusion that Christ's birth coincided with the Feast of Booths! The whole scheme of this "numbers system" of yours smacks of kabbalism; and I find it highly UNtrustworthy and a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
But are you willing to accept the Word of God. I presented a similar time frame yesterday without any kind of numeric scheme, but based on biblical facts. It seems to me that you are more than willing to accept the dates of the pagan RCC to establish the birth of Christ and have the nerve to say to Kevin.
"The whole scheme of this "numbers system" of yours smacks of kabbalism; and I find it highly UNtrustworthy and a bunch of mumbo-jumbo."
Do you know the difference between justification and regeneration?
Evidently not, because if you did you would see that they are not the same. Justification is where God pardons us from sin and declares us righteous. Regeneration is where God quickens the unbeliever who is dead in tresspasses and sin, gives him a new heart and frees his will. Justification is salvation. Regeneration is the new birth. Regeneration is not salvation.
Mike wrote: How far does "What God has not ordained, he forbids" go? All areas of life and activity? Worship methods only? To whom does he forbid it? All? Believers only? RP generates more questions than answers, it seems, at least for me.