Dr. Stanley and Eternal Security

[J. Jump]

Is this thousand years going to take in to account Israel and ancient sacrifices?

Israel will be in view during the 1000 years. They will rule the nations as they were originally intended. As to the sacrifices I can not answer definitvely on that. It "seems" to me that if there are sacrifices during the 1000-year period it would be for a memorial, because Jesus IS THE Sacrifice once and for all. So I see no point in sacrificing the way it used to occur and for the purpose it used to occur.

Again why do you continue with your personal attacks? Do you think it helps to prove your point?

 

[Brother Bob]

John Calvin (1536)
"But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth."
"For when we apply to it the measure of our own understanding, what can we conceive that is not gross and earthly? So it happens that like beasts our senses attract us to what appeals to our flesh, and we grasp at what is at hand. So we see that the Chialists (i.e. those who believed that Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years) fell into a like error. Jesus intended to banish from the disciples' minds a false impression regarding the earthly kingdom: for that, as He points out in a few words, consists of the preaching of the Gospel. They have no cause therefore to dream of wealth, luxury, power in the world or any other earthly thing when they hear that Christ is reigning when He subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of the Gospel. It follows from this that His reign is spiritual and not after the pattern of this world." - Comm. on Acts

 

[J. Jump]

Thanks for posting more of Calvin's error .

 

[Hope of Glory]

Why you change the meaning of the words when it suits your case? Does the truth hurt?

Aorist Tense
The aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

What have I changed? I've always stated that aorist is punctiliar. It's always an event.

If you were to graph it, it would be a dot. An event, such as squeezing the trigger on a gun, would be a little dot. An event, such as building the temple, which took many years, would be a big dot.

But, it's not always past tense.

 

[Brother Bob]

What have I changed? I've always stated that aorist is punctiliar. It's always an event.

Sorry, you seem to be right on this. How do we know the word "they lived" or "reigned" is an aorist verb in Greek?

One thing I have learned for sure, this discussion has been going on since and before Saint Augustine.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed Sutton; are you a Pre-Millemiumist as J. Jump is?

No, I'm not a "Pre-Millemiumist", in the manner J.Jump may or may not be, since I don't know all he believes, but some. But I guess I would be considered a "pre-millenialist", and would happily take that moniker. What do you consider yourself, BTW, since you seem to want to 'pigeon-hole' my views?

Well, I can post just as many that disagrees with you and J. Jump! It is still just the "souls of the beheaded", regardless.

I never said anything at all about the "souls of the beheaded", but merely commented about the mis-use of the aorist tense, in the thread, until now, I believe. (BTW, J. Jump and now Hope of Glory have also weighed in on the use of the aorist tense.) Do you have any reason to think that Dr. A. T. Robertson had it wrong, aside from quoting "snips" from a website, the very author of which, actually stated that, as I quote it again, since you must have missed it the first time, apparently

If one has the mistaken concept that aorist tense means past time, many passages of the New Testament will be very confusing if not altogether nonsensical. (Corey Keating at http://www.ntgreek.org/ )

Why do you not accept that part of his presentation? Or that of Dr, Robertson? I'll quote some of that again, for you, since again, you seem to have missed it.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]"The caution must be once more repeated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar actions)"[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif] . . . "It is a vivid transference of the action to the future by the 'timeless aorist'" (quoted from A.T. Robertson[/FONT], A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, p. 835, 846 )

Is it true this doctrine didn't start until the ninetenth century by Darby?

No, the 'doctrine' starts with God. Luke first mentions the word (Gk. οικονομια ), as it applies to a steward, and Paul is the only writer to apply it to a "doctrine', specifically mentioning two dispensations by name, and implying that there were at least two more to which he does not give a name, in the context. (I Cor. 9:17; Col 1:25; Eph. 1:10; 3: 2, 9) Incidentally, the KJV wrongly renders the Gk. in 3:9, since the great majority of the 'M' texts, as well as the 'NU' texts, say "οικονομια" vs. the baseless rendering of the TR as "κοινωνια". (Hodges and Farstad, in The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text show this, as well.)

Is it also true that this was considered as a heritic doctrine until Darby and some others started the Pre-Mil in the late eighteen and early ninetenth centuries?

No. 1, "Darby and some others" did not "start" or "invent" the doctrine of "Pre-Mil", any more than Newton "started" the Law of Gravity, or Galileo, Copernicus and Brahe "invented" an earth that was round. They may have recognized that this system made logical sense, and seemed to be supported by Scripture, but I do not know this exactly. I have never read very much of Darby on the subject, personally, although somewhere I did have a book by him some thirty years ago, and assume I still have it somewhere.
No. 2 Some still consider this to be an heretical doctrine, including apparently you. That does not necessarily make it one.

Is it also true that John Calvin considered this to be a false doctrine?

I have no real idea, but would think that the 'covenant theology' he seems to advocate would suggest that to be true. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Thanks for posting more of Calvin's error .

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Sorry, you seem to be right on this. How do we know the word "they lived" or "reigned" is an aorist verb in Greek?

"Canst thou speak Greek?" (Acts. 21:37d , KJV) :laugh: :laugh:

One thing I have learned for sure, this discussion has been going on since and before Saint Augustine.

Sure, and the doctrine of the deity of Christ has been discussed for the same amount of time, and some still do not believe it, as well. Likewise the doctrine of "justification by faith" has always been taught in Scripture. Luther did not "invent" this teaching, but merely recognized the import of it. Today, the main discussion seem to center on Biblical inerrancy. These points of discussion change all the time. Yet the Bible has never changed what it says on this or any subject.

I've now cooled off a bit, and my back is feeling better, so back to the hayfield.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

One thing I have learned for sure, this discussion has been going on since and before Saint Augustine. Sure, and the doctrine of the deity of Christ has been discussed for the same amount of time, and some still do not believe it, as well. Likewise the doctrine of "justification by faith" has always been taught in Scripture. Luther did not "invent" this teaching, but merely recognized the import of it. Today, the main discussion seem to center on Biblical inerrancy. These points of discussion change all the time. Yet the Bible has never changed what it says on this or any subject.

I've now cooled off a bit, and my back is feeling better, so back to the hayfield.

Ed

Agree, but the others were not considered heretic until ninetenth century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Sorry, you seem to be right on this. How do we know the word "they lived" or "reigned" is an aorist verb in Greek?

"Canst thou speak Greek

Well, seems I have something in common with them back then.

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Ed Sutton; are you a Pre-Millemiumist as J. Jump is?
No, I'm not a "Pre-Millemiumist", in the manner J.Jump may or may not be, since I don't know all he believes, but some. But I guess I would be considered a "pre-millenialist", and would happily take that moniker. What do you consider yourself, BTW, since you seem to want to 'pigeon-hole' my views?

You have such a way with words Ed.

Well, I can post just as many that disagrees with you and J. Jump! It is still just the "souls of the beheaded", regardless. I never said anything at all about the "souls of the beheaded", but merely commented about the mis-use of the aorist tense, in the thread, until now, I believe. (BTW, J. Jump and now Hope of Glory have also weighed in on the use of the aorist tense.) Do you have any reason to think that Dr. A. T. Robertson had it wrong, aside from quoting "snips" from a website, the very author of which, actually stated that, as I quote it again, since you must have missed it the first time, apparently

Never met a man yet, who had it all right, including him, or me and you.

Quote:
If one has the mistaken concept that aorist tense means past time, many passages of the New Testament will be very confusing if not altogether nonsensical. (Corey Keating at http://www.ntgreek.org/ )
Why do you not accept that part of his presentation? Or that of Dr, Robertson? I'll quote some of that again, for you, since again, you seem to have missed it.

You are the one who took us off on the journey of "aorist", you need to explain why first?

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]"The caution must be once more repeated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar actions)"[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif] . . . "It is a vivid transference of the action to the future by the 'timeless aorist'" (quoted from A.T. Robertson[/FONT], A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, p. 835, 846 )

Others say there is no tense to the word "aorist". Seems you are real close to this Robertson?

Is it true this doctrine didn't start until the ninetenth century by Darby? No, the 'doctrine' starts with God. Luke first mentions the word (Gk. οικονομια ), as it applies to a steward, and Paul is the only writer to apply it to a "doctrine', specifically mentioning two dispensations by name, and implying that there were at least two more to which he does not give a name, in the context. (I Cor. 9:17; Col 1:25; Eph. 1:10; 3: 2, 9) Incidentally, the KJV wrongly renders the Gk. in 3:9, since the great majority of the 'M' texts, as well as the 'NU' texts, say "οικονομια" vs. the baseless rendering of the TR as "κοινωνια". (Hodges and Farstad, in The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text show this, as well.)

Thats your interpetation I was talking about was considered "heretic", until ninetenth century.

Is it also true that John Calvin considered this to be a false doctrine? I have no real idea, but would think that the 'covenant theology' he seems to advocate would suggest that to be true. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Ed

As much as your quoting Robertson.

Quote:
Is it also true that this was considered as a heritic doctrine until Darby and some others started the Pre-Mil in the late eighteen and early ninetenth centuries?
No. 1, "Darby and some others" did not "start" or "invent" the doctrine of "Pre-Mil", any more than Newton "started" the Law of Gravity, or Galileo, Copernicus and Brahe "invented" an earth that was round. They may have recognized that this system made logical sense, and seemed to be supported by Scripture, but I do not know this exactly. I have never read very much of Darby on the subject, personally, although somewhere I did have a book by him some thirty years ago, and assume I still have it somewhere.
No. 2 Some still consider this to be an heretical doctrine, including apparently you. That does not necessarily make it one.

II. Historical review of millennial thinking in Christian theology.
A. Early church (c. 100-250) - millennium not emphasized. Variety of views.

B. Early reaction to view of earthly millennium.

1. Origen (c. 185-254) attributed such thinking to heretic, Cerinthus

2. Montanist heresy (c.175) had excesses of earthly millennial views.

3. Rampant speculation to calculate end time.

C. Augustine (354-430) rejected his previous earthly millennial position and interpreted

"1000 years" of Rev. 20 as symbolic of entire period from first coming of Christ to

second coming of Christ.

1. Council of Ephesus (431) condemned earthly millennium interpretation as heretical

superstition.

2. Became orthodox view of Church for centuries.

D. Reformation (sixteenth century) - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists accepted symbolic

interpretation of "1000 years." Regarded Catholic Pope as Antichrist.

E. Seventeenth - nineteenth centuries - gradually revived earthly millennium view.

F. Nineteenth & twentieth centuries.

1. J.N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren), followed by D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside

(Dallas Theological Sem.), developed theological system of Dispensationalism

incorporating earthly millennium and pre-tribulation rapture of Church. Became a

primarily American theological phenomenon.

2. Majority of theological community (Post-millennial and Amillennial) has regarded

Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.

BTW, since you seem to want to 'pigeon-hole' my views?

I suppose you could label me Amillennial, being that I believe the thousand year reign is over. I don't care for labels though.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Others say there is no tense to the word "aorist".

I've never seen a Greek scholar make this claim. I've seen a small hanful of others claim this so they can ignore passages such as Acts 16:31 and apply works (without calling them works) to getting saved.

Here's a Brief Bio of Robertson

 

[Brother Bob]

I've never seen a Greek scholar make this claim. I've seen a small hanful of others claim this so they can ignore passages such as Acts 16:31 and apply works (without calling them works) to getting saved.

I thought you said it was like a "dot", or did I misread?

Hope of Glory; If you were to graph it, it would be a dot. An event, such as squeezing the trigger on a gun, would be a little dot. An event, such as building the temple, which took many years, would be a big dot.

 

[J. Jump]

I suppose you could label me Amillennial, being that I believe the thousand year reign is over.

Brother Bob see again I'm not understanding where you are coming from. Here you state that the 1000-year reign is over, but you keep insisting up and down that Christ is reigning now. So which is it? Is the 1000-year reign over or are we currently in it?

By the way I'm still waiting on those two Revelation texts that you have not addressed. Are you going to do that?

 

[Brother Bob]

I suppose you could label me Amillennial, being that I believe the thousand year reign is over. Brother Bob see again I'm not understanding where you are coming from. Here you state that the 1000-year reign is over, but you keep insisting up and down that Christ is reigning now. So which is it? Is the 1000-year reign over or are we currently in it?

By the way I'm still waiting on those two Revelation texts that you have not addressed. Are you going to do that?__________________

The thousand years pertains to the "beheaded souls", the reign of Christ, there is not end. There is a end and its over of the "beheaded souls".

Sorry, you will have to refresh my mind on the two texts.

 

[J. Jump]

The thousand years pertains to the "beheaded souls",

So what did these beheaded souls reign over? And how did that happen when it talks about these beheaded souls coming out of the great tribulation which hasn't happened yet?

 

[J. Jump]

Sorry, you will have to refresh my mind on the two texts.

Revelation 2:26-27 - And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers:

Here it is again. Who is the He that overcometh Brother Bob? Who is the He that keepth His works unto the end. When is the end?

When did this person receive the power to rule the nations with Christ? When have the nations been broken to shivers?

Quote Brother Bob:
Also, He will rule with a rod of iron is you either follow the Lord and keep His Commandments or you will suffer His wrath.
So up until the time of the writing of Revelation that wasn't true?

Quote Brother Bob:
He rules with a rod of Iron now and in the end. You either believe or suffer His wrath.
So the United States is currently suffering His wrath? How is that Brother Bob? How is Canada suffering His wrath. How about England? Austrailia?

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote Brother Bob:
Also, He will rule with a rod of iron is you either follow the Lord and keep His Commandments or you will suffer His wrath.
So up until the time of the writing of Revelation that wasn't true?

Quote Brother Bob:
He rules with a rod of Iron now and in the end. You either believe or suffer His wrath.
So the United States is currently suffering His wrath? How is that Brother Bob? How is Canada suffering His wrath. How about England? Austrailia?

It is not with Christ, but it is Christ and you will suffer His wrath for nonbelief.

The thousand years pertains to the "beheaded souls", So what did these beheaded souls reign over? And how did that happen when it talks about these beheaded souls coming out of the great tribulation which hasn't happened yet?
__________________

I told you it was when Christ died for our sins. You take that as a loss to the devil, but I take when Christ died, Him conquering over death, hell and the grave a win for all the saved, and future saved. Christ obtain the victory by dying for our sins, how about that. I figure those souls felt pretty good about that time, they were going to receive the white robes, did you know that the "white robes" came from the blood of the Lamb?

What did they reign over? They obtain the victory that had been promised them.

Rev 12:5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Rev 5:9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

J. Jump; This vision was given in a chronological order

 

[J. Jump]

It is not with Christ, but it is Christ and you will suffer His wrath for nonbelief.

That simply will not work. Look at the text again.

He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;

This is talking about the one that overcomes. The overcomer is going to rule and reign with Christ. So when does this person rule and reign?

I told you it was when Christ died for our sins.

So Christ ruled a 1000 years at the time of the cross. Can you explain that to me?

I figure those souls felt pretty good about that time, they were going to receive the white robes, did you know that the "white robes" came from the blood of the Lamb?

How many souls were beheaded for Christ's sake prior to His death? All I can think of is one. So how did that one soul that was beheaded turn into multiple and agan what did they reign over? It says reigned with him.

You said they obtained something. That's not what the text says. The text said they reigned with Christ. What did Christ and those souls reign over at the time of the cross. You still have a TON of explaining to do because none of this makes an ounce of sense, and I don't think I'm going to be the only person that says as much.

 

[Brother Bob]

That simply will not work. Look at the text again.

He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;

Rev 12:5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Rev 5:9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;


I know it won't work in your theology, for you don't believe He is King and ruling NOW!

 

[J. Jump]

I know it won't work in your theology, for you don't believe He is King and ruling NOW!

You keep ignoring the text Brother Bob. Revelation 2 is not talking about Christ, but the one that overcomes. Christ is going to give him/her the authority just as it was given to Him by His Father. So when did these overcomers rule the nations Brother Bob? It can't be at the cross, because the text is future not past tense, so you are not going to be able to claim that. So at best this reign happened some time after 50 AD.

Can you tell me when Christ and the overcomers ruled after 50 AD?

And please quit accusing me of not accpeting Christ as King. This is becoming childish and unbecoming on your part. Deal with the text and leave off the personal attacks.

By the way Brother Bob how many times can you lie about a person before you lose "your" salvation? Or do you not think lying is something that can be done by a Christian?

EDIT: Let me just add this as well. The more I read your post the more it doesn't make sense. So if Christ is ruling now how is Satan also ruling? The earth has two rulers at the same time? And if Christ is ruling the nations why is His rule leading to so much turmoil and corruption. Surely if Christ was at the head of the nations governments wouldn't be killing their own people and getting away with it? Would they? Surely nations wouldn't be developing weapons that can destroy the earth 20-plus times over? Would they? Surely if Christ was ruling the nations there wouldn't be corruption in Africa where leaders take aid money and line their pockets? Would there?

Do you really believe Christ is ruling the nations at this time Brother Bob? If so how do you explain all of this being allowed by Perfection?

 

[Brother Bob]

26: And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28: And I will give him the morning star.
29: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches

Simply saying that the devil and evil will not have the power over God's children who through Christ have the victory. It happens when someone is "born again".

1Jo 5:4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith


Rev 1:6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Quote:
J. Jump; This vision was given in a chronological order

By the way Brother Bob how many times can you lie about a person before you lose "your" salvation? Or do you not think lying is something that can be done by a Christian?

Why? have you been lying?

EDIT: Let me just add this as well. The more I read your post the more it doesn't make sense. So if Christ is ruling now how is Satan also ruling? The earth has two rulers at the same time? And if Christ is ruling the nations why is His rule leading to so much turmoil and corruption. Surely if Christ was at the head of the nations governments wouldn't be killing their own people and getting away with it? Would they? Surely nations wouldn't be developing weapons that can destroy the earth 20-plus times over? Would they? Surely if Christ was ruling the nations there wouldn't be corruption in Africa where leaders take aid money and line their pockets? Would there?

Do you really believe Christ is ruling the nations at this time Brother Bob? If so how do you explain all of this being allowed by Perfection?

Mat 6:24¶No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Christ is the King of the Saved, time is coming He will destroy everyone else. If you do not become a part of the Kingdom before death, you will go to a devil's hell.

1Cr 15:25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Cr 15:26The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

You have posted nothing that will stand up to scrutiny. You need to get away from those people who are teaching you such stuff and learn the true doctrine of the Lord.

You admit the thousand year reign has nothing to do with our salvation. Yet you spend your life talking about it. (edit)