Featured The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem. .....the Church

Then realize this. You will not convert me to a Calvinist position, and neither will the others.
It does you and the others no good to call my salvation into question, call me a liar, or any other name, as has been done either by you or by others--probably more by others than by you.
It is a debate forum. Two sides can be presented. That doesn't mean one side is going to be converted.
There is a person here, for example who continues to hold, without forgiveness, that Calvinism can only be seen or received with Divine light.
That is bunk. It implies all non-Cals are unsaved. It implies that only Calvinism has the truth, and no one else does. People need to think things through before they are posted.
To accuse me (wasn't you) of holding to doctrines of demons does no good for anyone.

There has been dozens of scripture that I have offered that has gone unanswered.
Instead it is generally answered with a flurry of disagree and dumb icons which simply mean that the posters involved don't like what I posted and aren't intelligent enough to give an appropriate answer, IMO.

 

They rejected him as King. He never set up his Kingdom. He was rejected. So how was there a king without a kingdom in the time of Christ? He came as a suffering servant. And though some declared him king on one day (Palm Sunday), near the end of that same week (Good Friday) they put him to death as a common criminal. To declare one as king and anoint him as king and then accept him as king are all different things. The latter two were never accepted by the nation of Israel. They accepted him as a criminal instead.

They hear his voice as far as salvation is concerned. He didn't declare himself as a king over Satan's realm, that is, the world. He said plainly that his kingdom was not of this earth.

And is that how people treat a king? Is that how you would treat a king. They were mocking him.
He was a criminal in their eyes; treated as a criminal, and crucified as a criminal between two other criminals. The three of them were not kings!!

 

You are still hung up on this? There was no blatant fabrication. You have been making things up all this time. Go back and read what I just posted, that is my explanation, and understand the truth. Why are you going on and on about nothing??

 

And the assumption is that one view or the other has to be right.

Rather, better to embrace what the view has right, and reject where it fails. There is no one System that is 100% correct, not even Calvinism. Only Scripture can be viewed as containing Pure Doctrine, not a System or Systems of Theology.


God bless.

 

In this thread it is not just and primarily about Calvinism, it is also about Amillennialism, which I believe stands on very shaky ground. In fact the author of this site:
http://www.compellingtruth.org/amillennialism.html
believes its origin, beginning with Augustine, was influenced by the Gnosticism of the day. This particular thread has more to do with eschatology than with the Cal/Arm debate. The Amils are on very shaky ground with their non-literal approach to the Bible.
Concerning Calvinism we may disagree. Great men of God, such as Wesley and Whitefield have, throughout the centuries. God used them both.

You use the expression "all truth."
The expression comes from here:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--I believe that this is a promise specific only to the eleven and their associates, that is the writers of the scriptures, that as they penned the books of scripture God would bring into remembrance "all truth," that is everything He had told them. Nothing in the Word would be lacking.
--No one here "has all truth." We never will until we reach heaven. I don't believe that promise is for today. I agree that none of us have a complete understanding of Scripture, and therefore we disagree.

Yes, but the default is not, and never has been Calvinism. Nor is it Amillennialism.

I generally agree with that statement.

 

Those Israelites who rejected Him were not His servants. His servants rejoice to live under His authority/kingdom. Those Israelites who rejected Him 'would not have this man Lord over them.'

 

Not to some...

 

The Israelites were not his servants, they were his enemies. They crucified him as a common criminal.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

When Paul uses the word "servant" he uses the word "doulos" or the word for "slave." He was as a slave to his Master the Lord Jesus Christ, not a servant of the King ready to reign with Him at that time. That time he always considered future. In Paul's view, Christ was his Lord, but not his present king. The kingdom would be in the future.

2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

 

That's what I said, Brother. However, there were some Jews(Israelites) who were His servants(children). These are they Paul ascribed Romans 2:28-29.

 

DHK, I have gleaned from your postings you're an either/or reader, that Christ is either Lord or later King. When in fact, it is both. He is Lord, Priest, Prophet, King, Son of the most high God, &c.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.[Isaiah 9:6]

All of these are ascribed to Christ. Notice He is called a child, son, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Just because a verse may say Christ was Son of Man does not negate Him being the Son of God, King, Priest, &c.

 

I believe the context of Romans two in general is describing Jews. The true Jews are not Christians. They are Jews such as David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.
The Jew that he is describing here:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
--This Jew are those like Ahab and Jezebel. They are not true Jews. He is not speaking of Christians here.

 

He qualifies for all three offices right now. That doesn't mean exercises all the authority of all three offices.

Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
--It is evident that his present ministry is that of intercession.

Son of man is a name designated to him on earth that spoke of his humanity whereas son of God spoke more to his deity.
His authority to rule is still in the future. To allegorize so much of the OT is to do injustice to the scriptures.

How the prophecies will be fulfilled: Amillennialism goes even further than postmillennialism in spiritualizing the prophecies by claiming they will not be fulfilled literally. The peaceful kingdom (Micah 4:2-4), the lion laying down with the lamb (Isaiah 11:6-9), and the borders of the Palestinian covenant (Genesis 17:7-8) are all considered metaphors along with the thousand-year time period (Revelation 20:2-7). Instead, amillennialism teaches that the millennial kingdom is manifest either in the hearts of the saints who have died and now rest with Him (the minority view) or in the hearts of all who follow Him on earth (the most common belief). This point of view, and the scholars who originated it, is informed more by Greek philosophy than biblical truth. The popular view of Gnosticism taught that the physical was corrupted, and only the spiritual was capable of good. It was a short slide to then believe that the perfect Son of God could not rule over a physical kingdom, so His reign must be over the immaterial hearts and souls of mankind.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/amillennialism.html

 

I find it interesting that when dispensationalist talk about amill they don't actually quote amill people. They quote people that are against amill. At least when I talk to dispensationalist IL quote their own scholars. It was amazing to me to find out what Amill actually believe compared to what I had always been told they believed. Being new to the camp has been eye opening about all the untruths I was told about their view. It's a poor debate tool to not allow your opponent to define their own position. If I'm discussing with a dispensationalist I'm going to be quoting dispensationalist as that is only fair. In return I'd your going to argue against Amillenialism you should quote an Amill and then point out what you disagree with. For example I do believe that the wolf will lay down with the lamb.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

The attacks of the dispy/fundies against the amils came across as 'They don't believe the Bible because they take it figuratively' -- 'But we take it literally, and they're wrong and don't believe the Bible'!!!! while I was being taught in college. Makes for a 'good' pot stirring message that misses the mark and garners 'Amen's!!!'. Many seek to preach these types of messages to tickle ears and to present something 'that will preach and sound good'.

'I take the Bible literally' stated in these groups is nothing short of sect pride and short-sightedness. Saying amils don't believe the Bible because they see things as figurative is frankly foolish.

 

Not even close. The true Jews, biblically speaking, are both natural born Jews and Gentiles who have been circumcised in their hearts. Both are engrafted in Christ now.

 

That's like you schooling me on Calvinism when you're not even in the same solar system of what it really is. I, having come from freewillism, can tell you every weak spot(which are almost innumerable) in that system.