-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are There Scriptures That Say...?
- Thread starter TCGreek
- Start date
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
TCGreek said:1. Are there Scriptures that say that the Church is God's Plan B, because His Plan A of establishing the Kingdom failed when the Jews rejected their Messiah?
2. I actually grew up hearing something like this.
Largely gentile Christian born-again elect saints
(the Chruch) was Plan A.
The Jewish/Israeli chosen elect saints were Plan B.
Here is my earlier writing:
-------------------------------
The Greek word 'katabole' is translated foundation
and with 'cosmos' is translated 'foundation of the world'.
In the New Testament there are 10 occurances of
'foundation of the world'. There are two conditions:
pro (before)
apo (since or from)
Seven start with 'apo'
Three start with 'pro'
The differences are doctrinaly significant:
the three starting with 'pro' has to do with
God's love of Christ, God's selection of Christ,
and Christ's selection of we Christ-ones.
1 Pe 1:20 (KJV1611): before = pro
Who verily was foreordeined before the foundation
of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.
Jesus' sacrifice for the Church (us)
was foreordained before the foundation of the world
From Strongs:
G2602
καταβολή
katabolē
kat-ab-ol-ay'
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding;
figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.
Rev 17:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the booke of life from the foundation of the world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
[BTW, the Jews (not the Christians) were "written in the book of
life from the foundation of the world".
So this passage is about Jewish/Israeli so the
Tribulation period is for the Jewish/Israeli
By contrast, the Christians were "written in the book of
life before the foundation of the world"
Foundation of the World in KJV1769:
Mt 13:35 (KJV1769): from = apo
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Matthew 25:34 (KJV1769): from = apo
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Luke 11:50 (KJV1769): from = apo
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
John 17:24 (KJV1769): before = pro
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me,
be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory,
which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me
before the foundation of the world.
God the father gave we elect saints to the Son
before (pro) the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4 (KJV1769): before = pro
According as he hath chosen us in him before
the foundation of the world, that we should
be holy and without blame before him in love:
God chose those in the Son (we Christians) before
the foundation of the world
Hebrews 4:3 (KJV1769): from = apo
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Hebrews 9:26 (KJV1769): since = apo
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Revelation 13:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
--------------------------------------
Largely gentile Christian born-again elect saints
(the Chruch) was Plan A.
The Jewish/Israeli chosen elect saints were Plan B.
He controls the consequences, yes. He doesn't "control" which shoes you will wear today. He does not "control" the sin that you will commit today.TCGreek said:1. I happened to believe that God is in control of this universe and all that happens in it.
Nebby thought he could, though, just like we all do. He only frustrates God's plan for a time. You're not implying that Nebby was obedient to God and that is why God made him eat grass, are you?2. So to speak of Plan B and so on, implies that someone has frustrated the plan of God. The last time I checked not even a pagan like Nebuchanezzar believes such (Dan 4:35).
I realize that "Johnnie one covenant." But in fact, there are 2: 1) the "gospel of the kingdom" (Christ had not come) and 2) the "gospel of grace" (Christ has come). There are huge, very notable differences:3. The dispensationalism that I see in Scripture doesn't allow for this two-path salvation of your camp.
1) in the former there was no abiding Sacrifice (hence the blood of beasts),
2) the Holy Spirit had not been "given"/"gifted" (hence their blindness in part even to this day),
3) they were "justified" -- given the righteousness of God -- but not sanctified by the Spirit.
4) their "weeks" are not ended. When they are, Dan 9:24 shall have been fulfilled including the "annointing of the Most Holy," Messiah King!
Well, take the Mosaic covenant, for instance. God said they would possess the land in blessing (remember, this is the land Abraham was unconditionally promised) IF they obeyed God. But they would lose the land, it would go fallow, and they would be scattered if the disobeyed.4. Demonstrate to me how the covenants are all conditional outside of the Abrahamic.
The new covenant is like is conditional upon belief. We enter into it only IF we believe on Christ. Believing Israel will receive it IF they believed in the OT times when they are resurrected into Messiah's earthly kingdom.
Well, except for the Noahic covenant, right?5. BTW, every other covenant in Scripture is an aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. Did you get that memo? :laugh:
skypair
True, but God has a "program" to judge them eternally in the lake of fire, right? And their "dispensation" preceded and overlaps ours (just like the Jews ours).LeBuick said:I know this was a joke but the truth is Angels were never lost so they have no need for a plan of salvation. The lost Angels with Satan are just that, lost.
skypair
skypair said:He controls the consequences, yes. He doesn't "control" which shoes you will wear today. He does not "control" the sin that you will commit today.
1. There's a great gulf between your Theology proper and mine.
Nebby thought he could, though, just like we all do. He only frustrates God's plan for a time. You're not implying that Nebby was obedient to God and that is why God made him eat grass, are you?
2. I'm just going with what Nebby said in Dan 4:35:
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'
3. Now that is the God I worship and serve!
I realize that "Johnnie one covenant." But in fact, there are 2: 1) the "gospel of the kingdom" (Christ had not come) and 2) the "gospel of grace" (Christ has come). There are huge, very notable differences:
1) in the former there was no abiding Sacrifice (hence the blood of beasts),
2) the Holy Spirit had not been "given"/"gifted" (hence their blindness in part even to this day),
3) they were "justified" -- given the righteousness of God -- but not sanctified by the Spirit.
4) their "weeks" are not ended. When they are, Dan 9:24 shall have been fulfilled including the "annointing of the Most Holy," Messiah King!
4. You and I will continue to read Scripture differently.
5. In Luke 4:16ff, Jesus fullfilled the Messiahic promised given by Isaiah.
Well, take the Mosaic covenant, for instance. God said they would possess the land in blessing (remember, this is the land Abraham was unconditionally promised) IF they obeyed God. But they would lose the land, it would go fallow, and they would be scattered if the disobeyed.
6. They had possession of the Land at one time or the other. That is what I see in the OT.
The new covenant is like is conditional upon belief. We enter into it only IF we believe on Christ. Believing Israel will receive it IF they believed in the OT times when they are resurrected into Messiah's earthly kingdom.
7. That's another soteriological battle with the NC concept.
Why? Different Bible? Different spirit? Are you still in touch with the Spirit by which you were saved? The one that was in scripture?TCGreek said:1. There's a great gulf between your Theology proper and mine.
Let's look at your next quote as an example:
Now Nebby said this AFTER the consequences, didn't he. So how does this prove that God put him into the predicament that resulted in this outcome?2. I'm just going with what Nebby said in Dan 4:35:
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'
If I might paraphrase Nebby, I see him saying "No one can disobey God without conequences. And no one can say when those cosequences come, 'What have you done?'" You know, he's not saying "what have you done" that I couldn't do as I wanted. He is saying the question is why do my own actions have this outcome?
Obviously we bring different perspectives to the table. I bring classic Biblical exegesis and you bring classical Calvi-gesis.4. You and I will continue to read Scripture differently.
Where do you get the idea that God makes men sin? That Nebby couldn't help but sin? Seems to me the Nebby had only himself to blame for his sin and for his judgment, but now you say he can blame God somehow.
Yes, TC -- but while it was only a promise, it cannot be appropriated as the actual thing. And this is clear in that the OT saints didn't go to heaven at death --- they went to "Abraham's bosom," right? to sheol because the blood had not/could not be applied yet.5. In Luke 4:16ff, Jesus fullfilled the Messiahic promised given by Isaiah.
Now see, if you'd been getting your theology from the Bible rather than from Johnny "One Covenant" Calvin, you'd have such a better grasp on sotierology, eschatology, dispensationalism, etc. Right now you are "hanging" everything on what you know and understand where it belongs in Calvinist thought.
Just like the Nebby situation: God controls everything but it matters how He does so. If we choose good, we are blessed. If we choose to disobey, we are cursed. But in neither of these does God "control" a person and make him sin so He can curse him. Nor does He control ("possess") a person to believe against their own will.
It is demons that possess men causing them to sin even against their own will, TC. Under the belief in "irresistible grace," your theolgy has God acting like a demon in "possessing" men (thru indwelling) to believe His gospel. Does that sound right to you?
Correlate it with obedience, TC. Ex: 70 years captivity in Babylon for 70 years of omiting the daily sacrifice.6. They had possession of the Land at one time or the other. That is what I see in the OT.
Well, let's get it right, OK? Do you have to believe in Christ in order to be indwelt by the Spirit? When did Acts 2:38 say the "gift of the Spirit" was given? Look it up ---- AFTER they heard; were "pricked;" said, "What must we do;" repented, and were baptized with Him.7. That's another soteriological battle with the NC concept.
Biblical sotierology and the new covenant are not in conflict as you suggest. It is Calvinist sotierolgoy and new covenant concept that conflict because you say God puts the HS in one BEFORE hearing or belief ("pricked") or repentance. And Calvinist sotierology says it happened this same way in the OT. No, it didn't.
skypair
skypair said:Why? Different Bible? Different spirit? Are you still in touch with the Spirit by which you were saved? The one that was in scripture?
skypair, I'm actually enjoying this discussion.
1. I'm still in touch with the Spirit's flow.
Now Nebby said this AFTER the consequences, didn't he. So how does this prove that God put him into the predicament that resulted in this outcome?
2. Skypair, my Bible tells me that God raised up one like Pharaoh to display His power (Ex 9:16; Rom 9:17).
If I might paraphrase Nebby, I see him saying "No one can disobey God without conequences. And no one can say when those cosequences come, 'What have you done?'" You know, he's not saying "what have you done" that I couldn't do as I wanted. He is saying the question is why do my own actions have this outcome?
3. Are you saying that God didn't what Nebby was going to do and only reacted after Nebby's disobedience?
Obviously we bring different perspectives to the table. I bring classic Biblical exegesis and you bring classical Calvi-gesis.
4. Let someone else be the judge of that, since we're both bias in our approach. :thumbs:
Where do you get the idea that God makes men sin? That Nebby couldn't help but sin? Seems to me the Nebby had only himself to blame for his sin and for his judgment, but now you say he can blame God somehow.
5. My friend, God DOES NOT MAKE MAN SIN. Man sin on their own but their sinning is not unknown to God.
Yes, TC -- but while it was only a promise, it cannot be appropriated as the actual thing. And this is clear in that the OT saints didn't go to heaven at death --- they went to "Abraham's bosom," right? to sheol because the blood had not/could not be applied yet.
6. We both agree on that.
Now see, if you'd been getting your theology from the Bible rather than from Johnny "One Covenant" Calvin, you'd have such a better grasp on sotierology, eschatology, dispensationalism, etc. Right now you are "hanging" everything on what you know and understand where it belongs in Calvinist thought.
7. You're giving Calvin too much credit. I owe nothing to Calvin except the term "Calvinism." The doctrines of grace are all over Scripture; if you look carefully you'll see them.
Just like the Nebby situation: God controls everything but it matters how He does so. If we choose good, we are blessed. If we choose to disobey, we are cursed. But in neither of these does God "control" a person and make him sin so He can curse him. Nor does He control ("possess") a person to believe against their own will.
8. I agree to some degree, but even you will admit that without the grace of God man would never believe. But of course, we understand the movement of that grace differently.
It is demons that possess men causing them to sin even against their own will, TC. Under the belief in "irresistible grace," your theolgy has God acting like a demon in "possessing" men (thru indwelling) to believe His gospel. Does that sound right to you?
9. What is the meaning of John 6:65?
Correlate it with obedience, TC. Ex: 70 years captivity in Babylon for 70 years of omiting the daily sacrifice.
10. Israel once enjoyed the Land but lost possession of it through disobedience. Now that is Scripture. But of course, we both agree to an eschatological Regathering.
Well, let's get it right, OK? Do you have to believe in Christ in order to be indwelt by the Spirit? When did Acts 2:38 say the "gift of the Spirit" was given? Look it up ---- AFTER they heard; were "pricked;" said, "What must we do;" repented, and were baptized with Him.
11. Regeneration by the Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit of Adoption are two different things, my brother.
Biblical sotierology and the new covenant are not in conflict as you suggest. It is Calvinist sotierolgoy and new covenant concept that conflict because you say God puts the HS in one BEFORE hearing or belief ("pricked") or repentance. And Calvinist sotierology says it happened this same way in the OT. No, it didn't.
skypair
12. I'm both covenant and dispensatonal. Now, you have to figure out how that works, yet I'm not the dispensational type as Darby or Scofield.
13. Israel is still God's people and there's a temporary hardening on her until the fullness of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25ff). God is not done with Israel.
Ditto.TCGreek said:skypair, I'm actually enjoying this discussion.
Question is --- would have He displayed it if Pharoah had asquiesed to Moses the first time? Sure. Pharoah would have been acknowledging that power of the God of the Jews that way also.2. Skypair, my Bible tells me that God raised up one like Pharaoh to display His power (Ex 9:16; Rom 9:17).
Of course not. Foreknowing what he was going to do is not the same as making him do it ("controlling" him) though, is it? And Nebby didn't make his confession while in the midst of his freely accomplished defiance of God, did he? He only discovered God's "control" when God revealed the consequences.3. Are you saying that God didn't what Nebby was going to do and only reacted after Nebby's disobedience?
Here's a little something that might unbias you --- why do you suppose you don't know much about eschatology? Because Calvin and those you read and listen to never made the mold to "pour scripture into" on that topic. And the "whole counsel of God," once known, would reveal things the Calvinism doesn't have a "cubby hole" for (like 2 folds).4. Let someone else be the judge of that, since we're both bias in our approach. :thumbs:
We're talking about "control," TC. "Sovereignty." God created every man a sinner, so you say. Calvinism makes God make every man sin.5. My friend, God DOES NOT MAKE MAN SIN. Man sin on their own but their sinning is not unknown to God.
I do not accept that. I accept every man born innocent, sins on his own, and his own choice to sin makes him a sinner. So yes, in your construct, God does make man sin whether you aver it or not.
I want you to think of something with me -- think about the AC. IMO, he will be a Pope. He's going to use "dark sentences" which we know to be parables. When the rapture comes and he steps forward, he will convince the world that the tares are taken and the wheat must be gathered into his barn. He'll point to the Bible and claim it is HIS barn, He's Christ, and that all denoms need to join him. He's gonna "pour the Bible" into his mold just like Calvin once did!7. You're giving Calvin too much credit. I owe nothing to Calvin except the term "Calvinism." The doctrines of grace are all over Scripture; if you look carefully you'll see them.
Are the Pope's doctrines all over the Bible? Does he make a fair show of scripture such that the western world follows him as Christ vicariously and then as Christ Himself? Does he appear as Christ in Rev 6 riding his white horse onto the scene? The fact is, abuse of scripture has little to do with truth in the "No Spin Zone" of believing faith.
I believe grace makes the believer -- otherwise God is merely extending mercy (not giving men what they do deserve). But in grace, God offered what men don't deserve -- new life and glory beyond.8. I agree to some degree, but even you will admit that without the grace of God man would never believe. But of course, we understand the movement of that grace differently.
"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." One thing it means is this: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44 This is interpretted just 4 verses before: John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." We come to Him when we BELIEVE on Him.9. What is the meaning of John 6:65?
Earlier (6:36), Jesus had said, "That ye also have seen me, and believe not." Had these "come" then?? No. But if they "come," the Father has "given" them -- "translated them into the kingdom of His dear Son." Col 1:13 How? He took those He had justified for their belief in Him and transferred them into the newly formed spiritual kingdom of Christ, the church.
I found a listing of the 8 covenants in scripture. Do you want them to look at? Most of them are unfulfilled because they involve Israel in ultimate obedience to God "in Christ." That is, in the MK.10. Israel once enjoyed the Land but lost possession of it through disobedience. Now that is Scripture. But of course, we both agree to an eschatological Regathering.
Well, you keep saying that but I somehow cannot picture myself regenerated (new me) without the Spirit living in me. I might "turn over a new leaf" if filled with the Spirit. At some point in time in my journey to salvation at age 16, I know the Spirit "pricked" me and I tried to live a new life under my own power. Some people think they are saved by adopting God's rules. I tried that too.11. Regeneration by the Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit of Adoption are two different things, my brother.
To me, there is no true "regeneration" without indwelling. Perhaps you could explain your own experience of the difference.
Well, that's good. I believe it works then that you believe in 2 dispensations -- distinctives between Israel and the church which, IMO, must be observed if one is to make any sense of the plans of God. Yet you are covenantal spiritually because we both (Israel and church) come first by justification by faith in God. Where the distinction lies is that the church is also sanctified now rather than in the MK -- resurrected to new life in this life rather than after death.12. I'm both covenant and dispensatonal. Now, you have to figure out how that works, yet I'm not the dispensational type as Darby or Scofield.
That's right. Believing Israel is going to walk this earth again by the resurrection of the Holy Spirit.13. Israel is still God's people and there's a temporary hardening on her until the fullness of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25ff). God is not done with Israel.
Acts 13:34 -- you may never have noticed it before -- but when God raised Jesus from the dead/grave, Paul said that was the day God "begot" His Son -- rebirthed Him in the manner that Israel will be reborn from their graves. This is the "rebirth" that Nicodemus was supposed to know about but didn't. And this is the "then shall all Israel be saved" event Paul speaks of in 11:26. Rebirth of the OT saints from their literal graves. And we are? Reborn in the bodies we have now, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
skypair said:Of course not. Foreknowing what he was going to do is not the same as making him do it ("controlling" him) though, is it? And Nebby didn't make his confession while in the midst of his freely accomplished defiance of God, did he? He only discovered God's "control" when God revealed the consequences.
1. Neither am I saying that God coerce Nebby into sinning. I know there's a difference between foreknowing and controlling or James 1:13 wouldn't make sense. God is not responsible for sin.
Here's a little something that might unbias you --- why do you suppose you don't know much about eschatology? Because Calvin and those you read and listen to never made the mold to "pour scripture into" on that topic. And the "whole counsel of God," once known, would reveal things the Calvinism doesn't have a "cubby hole" for (like 2 folds).
2. I will agree that I'm not that well-schooled in eschatology, but it has nothing to do with Calvin. I college and seminary I was fed the Amil position on Rev 20:1ff, but I never stopped to look into these matters considerably before.
We're talking about "control," TC. "Sovereignty." God created every man a sinner, so you say. Calvinism makes God make every man sin.
I do not accept that. I accept every man born innocent, sins on his own, and his own choice to sin makes him a sinner. So yes, in your construct, God does make man sin whether you aver it or not.
3. Then you disagee with Paul that says the sin of Adam has affected all of us (Rom 5:12); we were all born with a sin nature (Ps 51:5; 58:3).
I want you to think of something with me -- think about the AC. IMO, he will be a Pope. He's going to use "dark sentences" which we know to be parables. When the rapture comes and he steps forward, he will convince the world that the tares are taken and the wheat must be gathered into his barn. He'll point to the Bible and claim it is HIS barn, He's Christ, and that all denoms need to join him. He's gonna "pour the Bible" into his mold just like Calvin once did!
4. You might be right, but we can't say anything definitive. What does Calvin have to do with the AC?
Are the Pope's doctrines all over the Bible? Does he make a fair show of scripture such that the western world follows him as Christ vicariously and then as Christ Himself? Does he appear as Christ in Rev 6 riding his white horse onto the scene? The fact is, abuse of scripture has little to do with truth in the "No Spin Zone" of believing faith.
5. Yes, Bill O'Reilly. :laugh:
I believe grace makes the believer -- otherwise God is merely extending mercy (not giving men what they do deserve). But in grace, God offered what men don't deserve -- new life and glory beyond.
6. Not sure what you mean there!
"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." One thing it means is this: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44 This is interpretted just 4 verses before: John 6:40 -- "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." We come to Him when we BELIEVE on Him.
Earlier (6:36), Jesus had said, "That ye also have seen me, and believe not." Had these "come" then?? No. But if they "come," the Father has "given" them -- "translated them into the kingdom of His dear Son." Col 1:13 How? He took those He had justified for their belief in Him and transferred them into the newly formed spiritual kingdom of Christ, the church.
7. Take the readings of John 6:37, 39, 65 as plain as they are, without all the gymnastics you're doing, and see what you come up with. You will arrive at the irrefutable fact of God's sovereign drawing grace for only some from the pool of humanity.
I found a listing of the 8 covenants in scripture. Do you want them to look at? Most of them are unfulfilled because they involve Israel in ultimate obedience to God "in Christ." That is, in the MK.
8. Let's take a look at them.
Well, you keep saying that but I somehow cannot picture myself regenerated (new me) without the Spirit living in me. I might "turn over a new leaf" if filled with the Spirit. At some point in time in my journey to salvation at age 16, I know the Spirit "pricked" me and I tried to live a new life under my own power. Some people think they are saved by adopting God's rules. I tried that too.
9. What you and I believe does not change what the Scriptures mean by what it says.
10. We may not be able to put in words what happened to us at conversion but over time we might be able to fill in the blanks correctly.
To me, there is no true "regeneration" without indwelling. Perhaps you could explain your own experience of the difference.
11. My desire for God and the things of God came only after a new principle was giving to me by the Spirit in regeneration or I would not have desired God, being dead in my sins and hostile toward God (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7, 8).
Well, that's good. I believe it works then that you believe in 2 dispensations -- distinctives between Israel and the church which, IMO, must be observed if one is to make any sense of the plans of God. Yet you are covenantal spiritually because we both (Israel and church) come first by justification by faith in God. Where the distinction lies is that the church is also sanctified now rather than in the MK -- resurrected to new life in this life rather than after death.
12. My view of dispensationalism is that God has a future still for Israel and the promises made to her will be fulfilled someday.
13. So I had to surrender Covenant Theology because of all its spiritualizing/allegorizing when it came to those texts. CT approach to those prophecies had to many holes; it couldn't explain certain text properly for me.
14. In some instances CT failed to take into account the dual nature of some prophecies and the partial fulfillment of others.
15. I find the CT explanation of the NC to be weak regarding Heb 8:13ff, knowing taking into account the blessings that have come to the church age through the NC and not necessarily its complete fulfillment.
That's right. Believing Israel is going to walk this earth again by the resurrection of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 13:34 -- you may never have noticed it before -- but when God raised Jesus from the dead/grave, Paul said that was the day God "begot" His Son -- rebirthed Him in the manner that Israel will be reborn from their graves. This is the "rebirth" that Nicodemus was supposed to know about but didn't. And this is the "then shall all Israel be saved" event Paul speaks of in 11:26. Rebirth of the OT saints from their literal graves. And we are? Reborn in the bodies we have now, right?
16. God is taking a people from among the Gentiles and then He will once again turn to Israel (Acts 15:14ff; Rom 11:25ff).
OK, I agree. So if an infant is not innocent at birth, isn't God responsible, to blame, for his/her sin? There is no other option under your theology and you admit it.TCGreek said:1. Neither am I saying that God coerce Nebby into sinning. I know there's a difference between foreknowing and controlling or James 1:13 wouldn't make sense. God is not responsible for sin.
Try this: An infant is born innocent but "needy" (food, drink, love, etc.). These needs expand and are perverted into desires for things that they are not supposed to be given. They take them anyway as therein sin. "Propensity to sin" is merely an extension of the "survival instinct." The instinct is not sin but the extension of its application is.
Fed it because RT has no other, IMO. Hence the connection to Calvinism/RT.2. I will agree that I'm not that well-schooled in eschatology, but it has nothing to do with Calvin. At college and seminary I was fed the Amil position on Rev 20:1ff, but I never stopped to look into these matters considerably before.
No, sin NATURE -- not sin. I hope my description above is adequate.3. Then you disagee with Paul that says the sin of Adam has affected all of us (Rom 5:12); we were all born with a sin nature (Ps 51:5; 58:3).
Both create the "mold" for their followers. Both, in fact, have this notion that Christianity is to be enforced by gov't --- that gov't is the "second sword" that Peter showed Jesus when Jesus told the disciples to "arm themselves" when He left.4. You might be right, but we can't say anything definitive. What does Calvin have to do with the AC?
Well, I would say we have to choose grace -- you say we receive it before belief.6. Not sure what you mean there!
Well, God "draws" everyone -- "And If I be lifted up..." That doesn't mean "into Christ" but "to Christ." The purpose of my paralleling those verses was to show that "seeing" is not "believing" just as "drawing" is not "coming." But that is not what your paradigm allows, is it? Why is "drawing" restricted to some and not all per John 12:32?7. Take the readings of John 6:37, 39, 65 as plain as they are, without all the gymnastics you're doing, and see what you come up with. You will arrive at the irrefutable fact of God's sovereign drawing grace for only some from the pool of humanity.
Edenic (Gen 1:28-30, 2:15-17)8. Let's take a look at them.
Adamic (Gen 3:14-19)
Noahic (Gen 8:20-9:17)
Abrahamic (Gen 12:1-3, etal.)
Mosaic (Ex 20-23, Deut.)
Davidic (2Sam 7:4-17)
Palestinian (Deut 30:1-10)
New (Jer 31:31-37)
This is Thomas Ice's list. I've seen better..
But then we have to go back to Heb 6:1, right -- "laying again the foundations of repentance from dead works..." -- which Paul says don't do.10. We may not be able to put in words what happened to us at conversion but over time we might be able to fill in the blanks correctly.
IOW, you believe in "total depravity." You were so wicked that no one could reason with you, right? Did you have to have a demon cast out of you before you could "hear?"11. My desire for God and the things of God came only after a new principle was giving to me by the Spirit in regeneration or I would not have desired God, being dead in my sins and hostile toward God (Eph 2:1-3; Rom 8:7, 8).
I just don't understand you, TC. In Acts 2:38, 3000 did not receive the "gift" of the Holy Spirit until they had heard, been pricked, repented and been baptized. The disciples of John in Acts 19 had to receive Christ before they were indwelt by the Holy Ghost (and that's OT beleivers become NT beleivers).
How did you even get exposed to the gospel if you were so wicked? "totally depraved?" It wasn't in church was it?
Excellent!12. My view of dispensationalism is that God has a future still for Israel and the promises made to her will be fulfilled someday.
Exactly!15. I find the CT explanation of the NC to be weak regarding Heb 8:13ff, knowing taking into account the blessings that have come to the church age through the NC and not necessarily its complete fulfillment.
So let me propose this: One reason is that we church are to receive the indwelling HS now but they believing Israel in the postrib resurrection and MK. This is the beginning of understanding when YOU were indwelt because, you see, the OT saints had to die without the Spirit in order to receive Him in the resurrection. So it is with YOU! You must die -- repent -- before you can be resurrected/reborn by the Spirit of which baptism is the pattern, 1Cor 15:29. Have you been baptized since you were saved?16. God is taking a people from among the Gentiles and then He will once again turn to Israel (Acts 15:14ff; Rom 11:25ff).
skypair
skypair said:OK, I agree. So if an infant is not innocent at birth, isn't God responsible, to blame, for his/her sin? There is no other option under your theology and you admit it.
1. Though we consider babies innocent at birth, at one level, we also consider babies with a sin nature at both, whether one is a Calvinist or not, because of Rom 5:12 and so on.
2. Adam was our federal head, representing his posterity, and when he sinned we all sinned in him.
Try this: An infant is born innocent but "needy" (food, drink, love, etc.). These needs expand and are perverted into desires for things that they are not supposed to be given. They take them anyway as therein sin. "Propensity to sin" is merely an extension of the "survival instinct." The instinct is not sin but the extension of its application is.
3. An infant is born with a sin nature. Period.
Fed it because RT has no other, IMO. Hence the connection to Calvinism/RT.
4. But not every Calvinist gave into CT; for example, Spurgeon was a Covenant Premil and then we have Grudem and Macarthur who, though both are Calvinists, subscribe to classic/historic dispensationalism.
No, sin NATURE -- not sin. I hope my description above is adequate.
5. I agree.
Well, I would say we have to choose grace -- you say we receive it before belief.
6. What enables us to choose grace? This sounds an awful lot like Pelagianism.
Well, God "draws" everyone -- "And If I be lifted up..." That doesn't mean "into Christ" but "to Christ." The purpose of my paralleling those verses was to show that "seeing" is not "believing" just as "drawing" is not "coming." But that is not what your paradigm allows, is it? Why is "drawing" restricted to some and not all per John 12:32?
7. Read the context of John 12:32. Some Greeks were seeking Jesus and when Jesus made that statement, He was saying that both Jews and non-Jews would be drawn to Him, meaning all kinds of people.
Edenic (Gen 1:28-30, 2:15-17)
Adamic (Gen 3:14-19)
Noahic (Gen 8:20-9:17)
Abrahamic (Gen 12:1-3, etal.)
Mosaic (Ex 20-23, Deut.)
Davidic (2Sam 7:4-17)
Palestinian (Deut 30:1-10)
New (Jer 31:31-37)
8. Though I do not disagree with this list, unless each is explained in its proper context, the list can be a bit misleading.
But then we have to go back to Heb 6:1, right -- "laying again the foundations of repentance from dead works..." -- which Paul says don't do.
IOW, you believe in "total depravity." You were so wicked that no one could reason with you, right? Did you have to have a demon cast out of you before you could "hear?"
9. Did Paul, Lydia, the Jailer, the Ethiopian Eunuch and so on have to have demons cast out of them? Not at all! Nothing but strawman arguments! You can do better than that.
I just don't understand you, TC. In Acts 2:38, 3000 did not receive the "gift" of the Holy Spirit until they had heard, been pricked, repented and been baptized. The disciples of John in Acts 19 had to receive Christ before they were indwelt by the Holy Ghost (and that's OT beleivers become NT beleivers).
10. The book of Acts is a transitional book, for Cornelius and his received the Spirit before they were baptized in water, which is different than Pentecost. Then we have the incident with the Samaritans in Acts 8:16ff.
How did you even get exposed to the gospel if you were so wicked? "totally depraved?" It wasn't in church was it?
11. When God is ready, He draws the elect. Nothing is impossible with God. Nothing!
So let me propose this: One reason is that we church are to receive the indwelling HS now but they believing Israel in the postrib resurrection and MK. This is the beginning of understanding when YOU were indwelt because, you see, the OT saints had to die without the Spirit in order to receive Him in the resurrection. So it is with YOU! You must die -- repent -- before you can be resurrected/reborn by the Spirit of which baptism is the pattern, 1Cor 15:29. Have you been baptized since you were saved?
12. I don't see an exact parallel.
But there is a meaning to "sin nature." It is not sin guilt.TCGreek said:1. Though we consider babies innocent at birth, at one level, we also consider babies with a sin nature at both, whether one is a Calvinist or not, because of Rom 5:12 and so on.
2. Adam was our federal head, representing his posterity, and when he sinned we all sinned in him.
3. An infant is born with a sin nature. Period.
Adam is our "federal head." Scripture says on account of him all die. Even Rom 5:12 does not connect us with Adam's sin but with his death. Hear it again: He sinned -- he died -- we die because we sin. But guesss what. We even die because we don't sin -- infants, mentally retarded. Many of these do die on account of the sins of others but not their own sin.
Sin nature -- how is that guilt? We didn't create ourselves in the womb, did we? Do we sin when we dirty our diapers? :laugh:
True, but if you are going to study pure Calvinism, you won't find anything about eschatology, right?4. But not every Calvinist gave into CT; for example, Spurgeon was a Covenant Premil and then we have Grudem and Macarthur who, though both are Calvinists, subscribe to classic/historic dispensationalism.
1) Preaching. 2) "Pricking"/"conviction" (John 16:8) of the Spirit. He reproves the whole world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Spirit convicts and preaching shows the "Way out."6. What enables us to choose grace? This sounds an awful lot like Pelagianism.
Well, TC, mind your exegesis, bro. The very next verse says "this He said, signifying what death He should die." There were, indeed, Greeks, TC, but He is "putting them off" -- not seeing them. Instead He gives instruction to His disciples regarding anyone who would be His servant or follower, right? "ANY man." "ALL" inclusive. He will draw ANY and ALL men to become servants and followers.7. Read the context of John 12:32. Some Greeks were seeking Jesus and when Jesus made that statement, He was saying that both Jews and non-Jews would be drawn to Him, meaning all kinds of people.
Furthermore, you're gonna have to do a lot of squirming because "all" and "whole world" and "whosoever" etc. are EVERYWHERE in scripture and you can't keep avoiding their common meanings with carnal rationalizations.
Well, let's just pick one with which we are familiar -- the Abrahamic covenant. We know it was unconditional. We know it involved the land of Canaan from Egypt to the Euphrates. We know Abraham never possessed it (Acts 7:5). So we know the promise is unfulfilled --- but we know that Abraham will be resurrected to receive it one day in the MK with those who went to his "bosom" at death. Does that not "divide" the 2 folds? We shall have been raptured to OUR inheritance, NJ, already.8. Though I do not disagree with this list, unless each is explained in its proper context, the list can be a bit misleading.
My point was that when Jesus spoke to a person possessed, it was the demon who answered as if the person could not himself hear. OK, it was not well taken or well received. But neither is your deafness without indwelling by the Spirit. You are leaning on 1Cor 2 which does not say what your theology avers. The gospel presented simply can be heard by the lost. It is the "hidden wisdom of God" that they cannot hear until they are saved spiritually -- "spiritual men."9. Did Paul, Lydia, the Jailer, the Ethiopian Eunuch and so on have to have demons cast out of them? Not at all! Nothing but strawman arguments! You can do better than that.
Well, yes. That doesn't negate any of the other "steps." Hear -- pricked/convicted -- repent in the name of Christ -- receive the "gift." I don't believe that Paul thought baptism to be that important either seeing he baptized only a few. That was not his ministry, he said.10. The book of Acts is a transitional book, for Cornelius and his received the Spirit before they were baptized in water, which is different than Pentecost. Then we have the incident with the Samaritans in Acts 8:16ff.
Acts 8:16 is one of 4 instances where Peter used the "keys to the kingdom" to bring salvation to 1) Judeans, 2) Samarians, 3) God-honorers, and 4) the ends of the earth. In these cases, Peter's hands were like an holy endorsement.
Nobody said it was impossible, TC. The issue is, does He desire to overcome our will or not? Has God placed limits on what He will do with His omnipotence, His omniscience, and His omnipresence and can we see that in scripture?11. When God is ready, He draws the elect. Nothing is impossible with God. Nothing!
Well, the question about baptism was curiosity on my part. So...?12. I don't see an exact parallel.
But here's the parallel you are looking for:
OT: belief .... physical death .... physical resurrection to newness of life by "gift" of the Spirit
NT: belief ... spiritual death .... spiritual resurrection/born again by "gift" of the Spirit
Do you see now?
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
skypair said:But there is a meaning to "sin nature." It is not sin guilt.
1. We both agree that we are all born with a sin nature; whatever that means!
Adam is our "federal head." Scripture says on account of him all die. Even Rom 5:12 does not connect us with Adam's sin but with his death. Hear it again: He sinned -- he died -- we die because we sin. But guesss what. We even die because we don't sin -- infants, mentally retarded. Many of these do die on account of the sins of others but not their own sin.
2. What death are you talking about? Physical or spiritual?
Sin nature -- how is that guilt? We didn't create ourselves in the womb, did we? Do we sin when we dirty our diapers? :laugh:
3. Depends on how much we dirty the diapers. :laugh:
True, but if you are going to study pure Calvinism, you won't find anything about eschatology, right?
4. I don't know what you mean about pure Calvinism. Calvin depends infant baptism in his institutes. Something I will never agree to, so I really don't know what you're talking about. There're so many things in John Calvin's teaching that myself and many other Calvinists do not agree to.
5. Calvinism must not be confused with everything John Calvin taught; I'm more for the doctrines of grace.
1) Preaching. 2) "Pricking"/"conviction" (John 16:8) of the Spirit. He reproves the whole world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Spirit convicts and preaching shows the "Way out."
6. I don't doubt that.
Well, TC, mind your exegesis, bro. The very next verse says "this He said, signifying what death He should die." There were, indeed, Greeks, TC, but He is "putting them off" -- not seeing them. Instead He gives instruction to His disciples regarding anyone who would be His servant or follower, right? "ANY man." "ALL" inclusive. He will draw ANY and ALL men to become servants and followers.
7. Sovereign election is all over Scripture, my friend. Read both the Old and New Testaments.
Furthermore, you're gonna have to do a lot of squirming because "all" and "whole world" and "whosoever" etc. are EVERYWHERE in scripture and you can't keep avoiding their common meanings with carnal rationalizations.
8. You can't keep avoiding the meaning of whoever and so on for your theology.
Well, let's just pick one with which we are familiar -- the Abrahamic covenant. We know it was unconditional. We know it involved the land of Canaan from Egypt to the Euphrates. We know Abraham never possessed it (Acts 7:5). So we know the promise is unfulfilled --- but we know that Abraham will be resurrected to receive it one day in the MK with those who went to his "bosom" at death. Does that not "divide" the 2 folds? We shall have been raptured to OUR inheritance, NJ, already.
9. Much of your dispensationalism I will never find agreement with; it's not necessary.
My point was that when Jesus spoke to a person possessed, it was the demon who answered as if the person could not himself hear. OK, it was not well taken or well received. But neither is your deafness without indwelling by the Spirit. You are leaning on 1Cor 2 which does not say what your theology avers. The gospel presented simply can be heard by the lost. It is the "hidden wisdom of God" that they cannot hear until they are saved spiritually -- "spiritual men."
10. I don't know what your pneumatology is when it comes to salvation, but you need to get it right.
Well, yes. That doesn't negate any of the other "steps." Hear -- pricked/convicted -- repent in the name of Christ -- receive the "gift." I don't believe that Paul thought baptism to be that important either seeing he baptized only a few. That was not his ministry, he said.
11. Baptism is import, for Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19, but it must not be misplaced.
Acts 8:16 is one of 4 instances where Peter used the "keys to the kingdom" to bring salvation to 1) Judeans, 2) Samarians, 3) God-honorers, and 4) the ends of the earth. In these cases, Peter's hands were like an holy endorsement.
12. I agree with what you said, for I've always felt the same about Acts as a transitional book.
Nobody said it was impossible, TC. The issue is, does He desire to overcome our will or not? Has God placed limits on what He will do with His omnipotence, His omniscience, and His omnipresence and can we see that in scripture?
13. Only what God reveals in His Word I can go with and try to understand, but I'm always brought back to what Paul says in Rom 11:33-36.
Sorry -- physical death. That was the point -- we aren't born with sin guilt but even innocent, infants die on account of Adam's sin if no other (vs. abortion say).TCGreek said:2. What death are you talking about? Physical or spiritual?
I was just saying that to my knowledge, Calvin never looked into eschatology. He pretty much followed his Catholic roots on that -- that Israel was replaced and the church was the kingdom of Christ waiting to convert the world for His return.4. I don't know what you mean about pure Calvinism. Calvin depends infant baptism in his institutes. Something I will never agree to, so I really don't know what you're talking about. There're so many things in John Calvin's teaching that myself and many other Calvinists do not agree to.
So we are "cool" :thumbs: that the Spirit's job before we believe is to convict and convince us to believe and repent -- He is not at the "stage" indwelling some hearers and not others?6. I don't doubt that.
Exactly. So is free will/volition ("Choose ye this day..."). So now that we know that, how do we apply each?7. Sovereign election is all over Scripture, my friend. Read both the Old and New Testaments.
Here's my position: WE choose Christ (free will), GOD chooses our purpose (sovereign election). God foreknew/foresaw this all before creation.
Application: Israel. God didn't choose all of them to salvation -- once He established His relationship with them, He chose them as instruments of His will.
Application: God did not send Moses, Paul, etc. to carry out His will until each had chosen to believe on Him.
Let's see. Give me something to avoid. :laugh: The ones I've heard so far -- things like "of every kind" -- bring words into the verse that are not there and that violate the meaning in the text. But go ahead -- gimme your best shot!8. You can't keep avoiding the meaning of whoever and so on for your theology.
It's not salvific, to be sure. It does have some practical application in how you live your life (law or grace or some amorphous combination like we find in Catholicism "spilling over" into RT). Furthermore, you will continue to be an "incomplete" Christian somewhere short of the "measure of Christ" that God has "elected" you to, Eph 4:7-14. I recommend this passage to your prayerful consideration if you are a leader in your church.9. Much of your dispensationalism I will never find agreement with; it's not necessary.
TC, you are saying "regeneration" does not equal "indwelling."10. I don't know what your pneumatology is when it comes to salvation, but you need to get it right.
We know how we are "generated" -- sperm, egg, etc. What causes REgeneration? "Seed," heart -- "Regenerated, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." 1Pet 1:23 The seed/Word has to be received in order to conceive/generate a new life. It is NOT the Holy Spirit that is the "seed," it is the word which, if believed, brings forth new life and the "gift" of the Holy Spirit.
True.11. Baptism is import, for Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19, but it must not be misplaced.
It is, indeed. We need to draw upon what Christ said and what the episltes say to sort it out.12. I agree with what you said, for I've always felt the same about Acts as a transitional book.
skypair
TCGreek said:1. Are there Scriptures that say that the Church is God's Plan B, because His Plan A of establishing the Kingdom failed when the Jews rejected their Messiah?
2. I actually grew up hearing something like this.
Actually I Would say that Jesus' has always been the "A plan" that has been declared in several stages of God's "A plan" for our redemption.
He is the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.
Implying that it was God's plan from the get go.
Then He became the chief cornerstone that was rejected.
The contextual use of CHIEF implies to me that God wanted this stone to be the planned starting point upon which He would build His church. God did not reject this plan it was man who rejected it.
Those that were to be the first to receive His plan would now become the last. And the last to hear of His plan would be the first to start building on His cornerstone.
I believe that this is the reason that the foundation of New Jerusalem is built upon the message of the Apostles and the gates of the city are built by the 12 tribes of Israel as they are the last entrants. As a result, the building is still built by God's original blue print.
skypair said:We shall have been raptured to OUR inheritance, NJ, already.
We're going to inherit New Jersey? I hope God cleans it up first.
skypair said:Sorry -- physical death. That was the point -- we aren't born with sin guilt but even innocent, infants die on account of Adam's sin if no other (vs. abortion say).
1. Are we born with a sin nature?
I was just saying that to my knowledge, Calvin never looked into eschatology. He pretty much followed his Catholic roots on that -- that Israel was replaced and the church was the kingdom of Christ waiting to convert the world for His return.
2. Calvin scholars have pointed to the seminal Covenant Theololy, which was later developed.
So we are "cool" :thumbs: that the Spirit's job before we believe is to convict and convince us to believe and repent -- He is not at the "stage" indwelling some hearers and not others?
3. That is what I was saying all along. :thumbs:
Exactly. So is free will/volition ("Choose ye this day..."). So now that we know that, how do we apply each?
Here's my position: WE choose Christ (free will), GOD chooses our purpose (sovereign election). God foreknew/foresaw this all before creation.
4. In the compatibilist position, Lk 22:22, Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27, 28, that though teaching the predetermined will of God, man is still 100% responsible for his actions.
Application: Israel. God didn't choose all of them to salvation -- once He established His relationship with them, He chose them as instruments of His will.
Application: God did not send Moses, Paul, etc. to carry out His will until each had chosen to believe on Him.
5. But there was always a remnant chosen for Salvation (Rom 9:6).
Let's see. Give me something to avoid. :laugh: The ones I've heard so far -- things like "of every kind" -- bring words into the verse that are not there and that violate the meaning in the text. But go ahead -- gimme your best shot!
6. I believe you are well familiar with the Scriptures use of all and so on. I've argued along with many others that all men in John 12:32 refers to both Jews and non-Jews, precisely because the context points in that direction (John 12:20ff).
It's not salvific, to be sure. It does have some practical application in how you live your life (law or grace or some amorphous combination like we find in Catholicism "spilling over" into RT). Furthermore, you will continue to be an "incomplete" Christian somewhere short of the "measure of Christ" that God has "elected" you to, Eph 4:7-14. I recommend this passage to your prayerful consideration if you are a leader in your church.
7. No one is ever going to be complete in this life and see the end of their salvation. Completeness is only found in Christ, who is our hope of glory (Col. 1:27).
8. Ultimately, Christ is my eschatology and in Him I'm complete (Col. 3:4), my dear brother.
TC, you are saying "regeneration" does not equal "indwelling."
9. I can't find that in the Bible.
We know how we are "generated" -- sperm, egg, etc. What causes REgeneration? "Seed," heart -- "Regenerated, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." 1Pet 1:23 The seed/Word has to be received in order to conceive/generate a new life. It is NOT the Holy Spirit that is the "seed," it is the word which, if believed, brings forth new life and the "gift" of the Holy Spirit.
10. Jesus says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). The Spirit is involved in our regeneration from start to finish (Titus 3:5). The Spirit uses the Word to bring this about from start to finish.
Survival instinct, the desire to protect SELF, becomes sin nature. Survival instinct is not sin. The way we learn to manipulate it is.TCGreek said:1. Are we born with a sin nature?
"Developed" is, indeed, a good description. It was conceived, though, in the minds of men whereas God's word does not mention it. It developed from one observation -- that ALL men are saved by faith. But there was not covenant given to that effect.2. Calvin scholars have pointed to the seminal Covenant Theololy, which was later developed.
So rather than say that God "foreknew" that Judas would betray Jesus, you are willing to say that God made Judas betray Jesus and then to blame Judas for something he had no control of? Have you ever heard the saying "With authority comes responsibility?" How do you think this can be legally and justly violated by God? Again Calvinism leaves us with a question that it is willing to ignore so long as its paradigm remains intact, right?4. In the compatibilist position, Lk 22:22, Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27, 28, that though teaching the predetermined will of God, man is still 100% responsible for his actions.
[quore]5. But there was always a remnant chosen for Salvation (Rom 9:6).[/quote] I believe you added the words "chosen for," right? I can't find those words where you cite them.
TC, I am aware of contextual uses of "all." And I suppose that we must change "world" in the previous verse to mean then only some of the world -- now is the judgment of only some of this world and Satan was only prince of some of this world, right?6. I believe you are well familiar with the Scriptures use of all and so on. I've argued along with many others that all men in John 12:32 refers to both Jews and non-Jews, precisely because the context points in that direction (John 12:20ff).
And I must assume that you don't believe Jesus will draw all men to Him even though we know that, by the time of the GWT EVERYONE will have come to bow hefore Him. But that couldn't have been what He meant, right?
"...not as if I had already attained but I..." Of course, you are right. But you should continue to strive in the right direction, shouldn't you?7. No one is ever going to be complete in this life and see the end of their salvation. Completeness is only found in Christ, who is our hope of glory (Col. 1:27).
Good! Study His words then. Mt 13, Mt 24-25, John 14:1-4, etc.8. Ultimately, Christ is my eschatology and in Him I'm complete (Col. 3:4), my dear brother.
Regeneration is mentioned 2 times: Mt 19:28 speaking of the OT saints being brought back to life from the dead by the Spirit at the end of the age. It is the day Isa 66:7 says they will be "born in a day" (really, REBORN in a day -- poatrib).9. I can't find that in the Bible.
The other is Titus 3:5 -- "saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Spirit." This describes our washing by hearing and our rebirth because of faith (same as OT saints who already believed and are then resurrected to new life.).
Yes, but He does not birth us before He washes/convicts and turns us to Christ.10. Jesus says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). The Spirit is involved in our regeneration from start to finish (Titus 3:5). The Spirit uses the Word to bring this about from start to finish.
skypair
skypair said:Survival instinct, the desire to protect SELF, becomes sin nature. Survival instinct is not sin. The way we learn to manipulate it is.
1. Are you Darwinian? So we are not born with a sin nature? Interesting!
So rather than say that God "foreknew" that Judas would betray Jesus, you are willing to say that God made Judas betray Jesus and then to blame Judas for something he had no control of? Have you ever heard the saying "With authority comes responsibility?" How do you think this can be legally and justly violated by God? Again Calvinism leaves us with a question that it is willing to ignore so long as its paradigm remains intact, right?
2. God is able to foreordain and yet remain blameless. Judas did what he did because he was the son of perdition. He did it.
I believe you added the words "chosen for," right? I can't find those words where you cite them.[/QUOTE][quore]5. But there was always a remnant chosen for Salvation (Rom 9:6).
3. What then were they chosen for? (Rom 11:5, 6)
TC, I am aware of contextual uses of "all." And I suppose that we must change "world" in the previous verse to mean then only some of the world -- now is the judgment of only some of this world and Satan was only prince of some of this world, right?
4. "World" refers to the sinful system of humanity, whether Jews or non-Jews.
And I must assume that you don't believe Jesus will draw all men to Him even though we know that, by the time of the GWT EVERYONE will have come to bow hefore Him. But that couldn't have been what He meant, right?
5. Those at the GWT are there because of their rebellion in sin.
Regeneration is mentioned 2 times: Mt 19:28 speaking of the OT saints being brought back to life from the dead by the Spirit at the end of the age. It is the day Isa 66:7 says they will be "born in a day" (really, REBORN in a day -- poatrib).
6. I find it amusing the way you use Regeneration of the DEAD OT saints. What can a dead person contribute to her regeneration?
The other is Titus 3:5 -- "saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Spirit." This describes our washing by hearing and our rebirth because of faith (same as OT saints who already believed and are then resurrected to new life.).
7. Paul doesn't say that, but you must import your own theology to the text.
Yes, but He does not birth us before He washes/convicts and turns us to Christ.
8. The whole process of salvation in the now is itself a rebirth.
Now what makes you so sarcastic. Is there "survival instinct?" Did you cry when you were hungry? when you hurt? when you wanted attention? when you didn't get your way? See how that works?? See the progression toward sin?TCGreek said:1. Are you Darwinian? So we are not born with a sin nature? Interesting!
That's the theory, anyway. In your estimation, Judas got his monaker before he was born, not after Jesus named him? But I see that Jesus already foreknew that he was a devil -- He even said so. The point is, God didn't "twist Judas arm," Satan did. But you put God in Satan's place. I suppose he was born possessed like every other infant?2. God is able to foreordain and yet remain blameless. Judas did what he did because he was the son of perdition. He did it.
Ha! I thought you had cited the wrong verse so I looked back and forth without discovering it! :laugh: Yes, this remnant is according to NT belief. They are the "natural branches" that were not "cut off" and replaced because these DID believe on Christ! Even in the trib there will be this "remnant" -- the 2 witnesses. All other believers will be raptured!3. What then were they chosen for? (Rom 11:5, 6)
Yes, in some cases it does. And "all" doesn't always mean "all." But let's be wise about this. CONTEXT, right?4. "World" refers to the sinful system of humanity, whether Jews or non-Jews.
Your point is? We ALL rebelled in sin, right?5. Those at the GWT are there because of their rebellion in sin.
They already had. They believed in their first life. Only not "contribute," just choose.6. I find it amusing the way you use Regeneration of the DEAD OT saints. What can a dead person contribute to her regeneration?
Just trying to be helpful. Go ahead, what DID he say?7. Paul doesn't say that, but you must import your own theology to the text.
Not really. What if it is "aborted" as so many are today? Suppose they are "drawn" but "draw back?" You speak as if only the elect respond so that the process is "seamless," as they say. Wrong! All are drawn -- only some complete the "process."8. The whole process of salvation in the now is itself a rebirth.
skypair
Last edited by a moderator: