Millenium or Eternal Salvation

[J. Jump]

The Kinsman redeemer is a "type" of Christ.

Exactly. The picture is the redeemer is redeeming someone that is already in his family. The book of Ruth is not a book about everlasting life, but what happens to a saved person after they are saved.

Everlasting life merely starts your journey it is not the end of the journey or we need not stick around any longer.

Very early on in the book we get a picture of two types of Christians. One type runs the race of the faith and the other turns back. Then at the end of the book we see that only one type of Christian becomes part of the bride. The other does not.

If we are not a part of the bride of Christ we will not rule and reign with Him in His coming kingdom.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Exactly. The picture is the redeemer is redeeming someone that is already in his family. The book of Ruth is not a book about everlasting life, but what happens to a saved person after they are saved.

Based on what scripture?

Very early on in the book we get a picture of two types of Christians. One type runs the race of the faith and the other turns back. Then at the end of the book we see that only one type of Christian becomes part of the bride. The other does not.

What passages are you speaking of.

If we are not a part of the bride of Christ we will not rule and reign with Him in His coming kingdom.

Scripture

 

[J. Jump]

The book of Ruth. I sound like a broken record.

As for your second question the rulership of the earth was intended for the man and woman together as a team. Israel is seen as a bride with the Father being the Husband (that can also be seen in Ruth). And Christ the second man will have a bride as well.

Let "them" have dominion. That hasn't changed. Christ is not a "them" yet He is a Him. Another reason why His reign with the rod of iron has not commenced yet as some would have us to believe.

 

[npetreley]

I sound like a broken record.

We finally agree on something!

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The book of Ruth. I sound like a broken record.

This lacks specificty. Just to claim a book proves nothing.

As for your second question the rulership of the earth was intended for the man and woman together as a team. Israel is seen as a bride with the Father being the Husband (that can also be seen in Ruth). And Christ the second man will have a bride as well.

This lacks scripture

Let "them" have dominion. That hasn't changed. Christ is not a "them" yet He is a Him. Another reason why His reign with the rod of iron has not commenced yet as some would have us to believe.

This lacks scripture

 

[J. Jump]

This lacks specificty. Just to claim a book proves nothing.

Just go read the book. My goodness.

This lacks scripture

Last time I checked the book of Ruth was Scripture.

This lacks scripture

I am sure you are well aware that "Let them have dominion" can be found in Genesis 1. Do I really need to quote it for you.

This is becoming silly.

 

[J. Jump]

We finally agree on something!

More childish wise cracks from you. What a surprise.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Just go read the book. My goodness.


Last time I checked the book of Ruth was Scripture.


I am sure you are well aware that "Let them have dominion" can be found in Genesis 1. Do I really need to quote it for you.

This is becoming silly.

What is silly is not being specific. Without specificity you have not supported your position and it has no value.

 

[J. Jump]

What is silly is not being specific. Without specificity you have not supported your position and it has no value.

2T you are already committed to my position being incorrect. Why do I want to waste my time in laying all the specifics out for you when you aren't going to believe them anyway? Another thing I can't understand about you folks. You want everything laid out for you when you've already said you aren't going to believe it.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

2T you are already committed to my position being incorrect. Why do I want to waste my time in laying all the specifics out for you when you aren't going to believe them anyway? Another thing I can't understand about you folks. You want everything laid out for you when you've already said you aren't going to believe it.

Then why engage at all with vagueness?

 

[J. Jump]

Then why engage at all with vagueness?

Why ask your questions when you really don't want and/or care what the answers are?

 

[npetreley]

Another thing I can't understand about you folks. You want everything laid out for you when you've already said you aren't going to believe it.

It's called challenging the person to back up what they say they believe. If you can't back it up, it must not be a very tenable position.

 

[J. Jump]

It's called challenging the person to back up what they say they believe.

I wonder why we are the only ones that have to do this. Why do you not have to back up what you believe? And by the way we have done this over and over and over and over again. Yet you all keep saying how much you don't believe it and yet you keep wanting more.

If you can't back it up, it must not be a very tenable position.

That may be so, but just because someone chooses not to participate doesn't mean they aren't capable.

 

[npetreley]

I wonder why we are the only ones that have to do this. Why do you not have to back up what you believe? And by the way we have done this over and over and over and over again.

No you haven't. You keep repeating the same nonsense, but anytime someone pokes a hole in it, you ignore the flaw. There are several outstanding rebuttals to your logic about "eternal" and the subjunctive. None of you KSers have ever addressed these rebuttals. I don't see how you can. You got nailed and you have nothing.

 

[J. Jump]

No you haven't.

Well that may be true in your mind, but it doesn't make it so.

You keep repeating the same nonsense,

Kettle meet pot.

There are several outstanding rebuttals to your logic about "eternal" and the subjunctive.

Well I haven't seen anything other than my scholar is better than you scholar. Sorry that doesn't count as outstanding rebuttal at least in my mind.

I don't see how you can.

That's just it. You don't see and you don't want to see.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

replying with scripture and no characterizations of others views have more weight.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The entire book of Ruth is about redemption.

Redemption is a family matter. It's not how one gets into the family.

Redemption and being born from above are not the same things.

Unless God gave us faulty types.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

The entire book of Ruth is about redemption.

Redemption is a family matter. It's not how one gets into the family.

Redemption and being born from above are not the same things.

Unless God gave us faulty types.

Are you suggesting that one must be saved in order to then get redeemed?

 

[Accountable]

The entire book of Ruth is about redemption.

Redemption is a family matter. It's not how one gets into the family.

Redemption and being born from above are not the same things.

Unless God gave us faulty types.

I'm just joining in. Sorry I've been away for a while. While the tension is so thick in this blog room, let me try to cool it down with this good news. I have been preaching in villages this week. As of this evening we have seen over 200 believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen!

With that said, let me now say this.... Hope of Glory is right on target with his blog concerning Ruth. Ruth was in the family starting in chapter one. So was Orpah but time will not permit to deal with both. Ruth, as a family member recieved her "position" of redemption at a later time. Was she "born" into the family twiced? No. This would be contrary to scriptures. How could someone possibly have a problem with this?

Than you for your Blog H.O.G.
Sometimes the simplicity is looked over.

 

[J. Jump]

As of this evening we have seen over 200 believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen! Glad to know they will be receiving the whole counsel of the Lord as well my friend!!! By the way I PMed you let me know if you didn't get it.