Spiritual Interpretation pt5.

[John of Japan]

Covenanter said: ↑
You may be fluent in your language ability, but that does not mean you have a clear understanding of Scripture.

Your claims to language ability were confirmed by admin when I reported your posts. I can't challenge your Greek, Hebrew & Japanese - only your English, & the tone of what they wrote in your support & what you write on the forum.

So you actually intimated to the mods that I am a liar? Wow. Even my most vocal opponents here on the BB have never done that.

I don't know what your problem is. You apparently have a grudge of some kind against me. Sorry, I'm not going to be a victim of your vendetta.

Why have you referred to my "often being used in a negative sense but only correctly understood by the context" as "almost all negative?"
Misquoting what I say does not prove your point.

Very well. I misquoted you slightly, and actually should have said my own research shows that the word is almost always used negatively. In fact, the Greek word for "carnal," sarkikos, occurs 11 times in the NT, and 9 are clearly negative, with one more being probably negative. My point still stands. You called an earthly reign of Christ "carnal," which is a negative word and therefore a slur against my Savior.

Again you misquote to make your point.

I look forward to Jesus' return for resurrection & judgment, & his "perfect reign on earth, with no crime, war, or sickness," in the new heaven & new earth.

Great. Why didn't you say so?

In a previous post you showed your comprehension limitations:

In reply you rejected my allusion to Acts 2:38

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

Seems you are just trying to prove your superiority & you had to admit:

I have never in my life tried to prove to anyone that I am superior to them. I have not tried to prove my superiority to you. I have only shown that my knowledge in one particular area--the original languages of the Bible--is superior. And the mods have agreed on that score.

I'm surprised you blame me for you not recognising a paraphrase of Peter's Pentecost sermon.

Really? You actually think me ignorant enough to not recognize that quote? Wow.

Everyone who truly repents & is baptised in the name of Jesus is saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. You can't make "repentance" a ritual. But "faith" must have an object. Plenty of people have faith in all sorts of things - gods, dreams, images, Trump, etc, but only a living faith in the Lord Jesus saves. And faith is expressed by works of faith, normally beginning with baptism.

Do you consider John the baptist was "absolutely wrong" :

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.​

You can learn more of my understanding of baptism in this hymn I wrote & posted on the forum:

You want me at this point to derail the thread and follow your rabbit trail on baptismal regeneration. Not going to do it.

In fact, I'm tired of your insults. The mods have deleted two of your personal attacks on me. You checked with the mods apparently hoping to prove me a liar about my experience in the original Greek. Now here again you are, personally attacking me. I'm done here with you.

 

[percho]

percho


Positionally we are citizens of heaven now, but we are still strangers and pilgrims here on the earth.



We still are to work to bring in the harvest.



Christian Israel


gentiles
.
blindness in part is happened to Israel


the curses of Deut / Leviticus have come upon them, see the articles offered by Kyred.


God is gathering the scattered children from all over the world.


1 cor5:7


The Spirit was poured out, not on the jew only, but all flesh.

Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.


When that was written that whole family consisted of the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

The manner in which God punished them was by them being conquered and scattered among the nations. Began with the house of Israel about 721 BC. Began with the House of Judah when the first group were taken to Babylon about 597 BC however because the Christ was to come out of Judah, Judah was around until about 70 AD then they also were scattered among the nations.

The house of Israel totally rejected the law of God given to Moses and the remembrance of them has ceased from among men.
Deut 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:
Hosea 6:10 I have seen an horrible thing in the house of Israel: there is the whoredom of Ephraim, Israel is defiled.
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein is no pleasure.

The house of Judah committed the same whoredoms as Israel and have been scattered yet because they kept the law of God, given to Moses the nations know who they are. How did Hitler know who to persecute as Jews. By their customs. Israel did not carry there customs with them.

Yet for all of this the Word of God is replete with passages that God is going to regather these people. Hosea is a story of the whore, the divorce and the reconciliation.

And because of the Word, election, God is doing this regathering in his own manner. First the Church as a people for his name. At his coming Judah and Israel and thereafter the residue of men.

I believe the church is seen in the sacred assembly day of firstfruit of the spirit and the church, Jerusalem above, Mt Zion, at the coming of the Lord, the sacred assembly day of trumpets will give birth to the kingdom of God that Satan will be chained on the sacred assembly day of atonement which will be followed by the salvation of all Israel and the residue of men.

Those days were shadows of the reality of things to come in Christ that could not take place until after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Three days are past and four are still future.

I do not think the Preterist can fit that, in their Theology.

Acts 15:18

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,

Chilton is not a scholar and that is why scholars will not answer him

Mr Chilton died in 1997. I never met him. Many considered him a scholar...maybe not in your circles, or according to your understanding...

a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Someone who learns is a scholar, though the word also means someone with a lot of knowledge in one subject. If you know a lot about books, you could be called a literary scholar.

and that is why scholars will not answer him

They do not answer him because they would struggle to do so. If they seek to put down his learning and writing, but cannot answer him...that would be embarrassing ,yes?

any more than they will answer Peter Ruckman. And by the way, Ruckman (now dead) had more scholarly credentials than Chilton, with a legit Ph.D., something Chilton did not have.

I am not a judge of such qualifications, but I know that no one answers him.

I found the PDFs of Chilton's work, and looked over the commentary on Rev. It is not scholarly, though he did a great amount of research, I'll hand him that.

This is what the concern is.....the validity of his research, and others he pulled from. I am not looking at his writing style, spelling, editing, punctuation, or other external issues.....The verses do not change if he offered them, or a genius....what do the scriptures teach is at issue.

However, the book is badly in need of an editor. (I have worked at a publishing co. editing books, so I know the field.

It might be....but no one has answered it.

Where are Chilton's articles in the scholarly journals, the peer reviewed ones?

This thread is not about his articles, or peer reviewed material....
He has compiled much biblical data.....it might be mostly right, it might be mostly wrong, but he took a stand and said here is what I see being taught.

As academics say, "Publish or perish."

Chilton published a few things, he died at 45 yrs old.

My son the Ph.D. who teaches with me has had numerous articles published in the scholarly journals, essays in two festschrifts, one academic book published and another coming out this year.

Well you can be glad that your son has worked hard , and done well in his pursuits

He's a genuine scholar.

If you say so..

Chilton was not. Genuine scholar like my son see no need to answer someone with bogus degrees like Chilton

.

If he cannot answer someone who you claim is bogus....what good is the PH.D.? Is he hiding his PH.D. under a bushel?

I think it is as the preface says.....they cannot do it.
There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello Martin,
I have no problem believing Acts1,or Rev1....as written. ..no problem whatsoever.

Hello Icon,
Can you explain to me then how these verses fit into your understanding, please? That will be helpful as there's no point in going in deeper if we can't agree on the very basics.

Do you describe yourself then as a 'Reconstructionist'? I have never come across anyone who is this in the UK, so I need some input. You have mentioned a guy called Chilton; can you give me a link to some of his works? Thanks in advance.

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan,

Mr Chilton died in 1997. I never met him. Many considered him a scholar...maybe not in your circles, or according to your understanding...

a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Someone who learns is a scholar, though the word also means someone with a lot of knowledge in one subject. If you know a lot about books, you could be called a literary scholar.

You and I live in different worlds. Do you have a college degree? One in theology or Biblical studies? If you have no college training, you are speaking here in ignorance.

It's my job to train young people in these fields. Therefore I must know what is acceptable as a source for an undergrad or grad paper. If I were teaching a class on Revelation, I would not list Chilton's book in my bibliography for the students, simply because his degrees are suspect. (In the same way, I would leave out and have left out unqualified sources from my own independent Baptist circles.)

They do not answer him because they would struggle to do so. If they seek to put down his learning and writing, but cannot answer him...that would be embarrassing ,yes?

This is absolute baloney. They don't answer him because (1) he has no scholarly credentials, but only bogus degrees, and (2) he never proved his views or offered them for debate by putting them out in the peer-reviewed journals.

I am not a judge of such qualifications, but I know that no one answers him.

Few scholars try to answer Peter Ruckman either, but he had a legitimate earned doctorate. Why? Because his views (correcting the originals from the KJV, etc.) were so far out there that they were wacko.

But actually, you are wrong. A few have interacted with Chilton's work in his own dominion circles. There is even a negative review of his Revelation commentary by Greg Bahnsen, a Reconstruction scholar, here: (Covenant Media Foundation. Bahnsen says, "Because the author and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective, and because he sat through a year of my sixty-five lectures on Revelation (delivered a decade ago), many assume that his approach to Revelation is something I would commend. The reviewer in Journey (Nov-Dec 1987) saw it as 'sound' biblical interpretation, indeed 'a brilliant work.' Reluctantly, I cannot share either assessment."

This is what the concern is.....the validity of his research, and others he pulled from. I am not looking at his writing style, spelling, editing, punctuation, or other external issues.....The verses do not change if he offered them, or a genius....what do the scriptures teach is at issue.

Read the review linked to above by Bahnsen. Chilton's IM (interpretive maximalism) hermeneutics are very suspect.

It might be....but no one has answered it.

Yes, they have, as seen above.

This thread is not about his articles, or peer reviewed material....
He has compiled much biblical data.....it might be mostly right, it might be mostly wrong, but he took a stand and said here is what I see being taught.

Chilton published a few things, he died at 45 yrs old.

Irrelevant.

Well you can be glad that your son has worked hard , and done well in his pursuits

I certainly am proud of him. It's such a delight to teach with him. His office is two doors over, and we get to discuss Scripture and theology all the time as part of our job. He just sent me an interesting article on Daniel's 70 weeks, since I'm teaching eschatology.

If you say so..

Don't take my word for it. Check him out for yourself. He was mentored for the Ph.D. by well-known Greek scholar David Alan Black, who also wrote the forward to the book version of my son's dissertation: Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter: Paul A. Himes, David Alan Black: 9781625643629: Amazon.com: Books

If he cannot answer someone who you claim is bogus....what good is the PH.D.? Is he hiding his PH.D. under a bushel?

Actually, his dissertation is right out there for the world to read, as seen in the link above, so he is certainly not hiding the Ph.D. under a bushel. And he has quite a few articles already published in the journals, and his second scholarly book is being published this year.

My son is a Petrine scholar. It's not on his radar, because there is nothing in Chilton in his field. Regardless, I know he could easily answer Chilton. Edited in: In fact, his second book is on the first three chapters in Revelation, in particular about the social and cultural milieu behind the book.

Frankly, though I'm not a scholar recognized by the broader evangelical world, I believe I could easily answer it. But why should I take the time? I have various other projects I'm working on. For example, my son and I are finishing up a completely new translation of the NT into Japanese. It would be a big step down for us to write against an obscure commentary on Rev.

I think it is as the preface says.....they cannot do it.
There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond.

Absolute baloney by a probable sycophant.

Definition of "baloney" as a theological term of mine by one of my students: "Any explanation of doctrine or theology that is not founded on God's Word. (also known as finely ground pork sausage originating in Bologna, Italy)"

 

[kyredneck]

John of Japan,

Mr Chilton died in 1997. I never met him. Many considered him a scholar...maybe not in your circles, or according to your understanding...

a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

Someone who learns is a scholar, though the word also means someone with a lot of knowledge in one subject. If you know a lot about books, you could be called a literary scholar.


They do not answer him because they would struggle to do so. If they seek to put down his learning and writing, but cannot answer him...that would be embarrassing ,yes?


I am not a judge of such qualifications, but I know that no one answers him.



This is what the concern is.....the validity of his research, and others he pulled from. I am not looking at his writing style, spelling, editing, punctuation, or other external issues.....The verses do not change if he offered them, or a genius....what do the scriptures teach is at issue.


It might be....but no one has answered it.


This thread is not about his articles, or peer reviewed material....
He has compiled much biblical data.....it might be mostly right, it might be mostly wrong, but he took a stand and said here is what I see being taught.


Chilton published a few things, he died at 45 yrs old.


Well you can be glad that your son has worked hard , and done well in his pursuits


If you say so..

.

If he cannot answer someone who you claim is bogus....what good is the PH.D.? Is he hiding his PH.D. under a bushel?

I think it is as the preface says.....they cannot do it.
There may be a few brief disparaging remarks in popular paperback books about the insignificant and temporary revival of full-scale dominion theology. But there will be no successful attempt by scholarly leaders of the various pessimillennial camps to respond to Chilton. There is a reason for this: They cannot effectively respond.

OUTSTANDING POST ICON!

NO BALONEY!

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Icon,
Can you explain to me then how these verses fit into your understanding, please? That will be helpful as there's no point in going in deeper if we can't agree on the very basics.

Do you describe yourself then as a 'Reconstructionist'? I have never come across anyone who is this in the UK, so I need some input. You have mentioned a guy called Chilton; can you give me a link to some of his works? Thanks in advance.

Hello Martin,
Sometimes studying different topics is clear cut, nice and neat.
Sometimes it is not so clear ,which is how I think of this.
Certain teachings attract certain groups of people.
Once people break out of the dispensationalism they find themselves searching for and searching out other positions people have studied themselves into.
One of the things you find is the Covenant theologians are not afraid to explore the scriptures looking for what fits the biblical model. .
So you have those who study the law and the Christian.
Theonomy.
Then you have those who want to implement some of those ideas in society. ...Reconstructionist.
I will send some links when I get online

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Yeshua1, yes. And you already knew that, Yeshua1.

I was not asking you those questions!

 

[Yeshua1]

You and I are not reigning with Christ per Rev. 20. Even if I were an Amillennialist or Preterist, the most I could get out of Rev. 20 would be to place the reign of the saints with Christ in heaven and not on earth for a long indeterminate period of time. That still wouldn't include us since those John saw were obviously dead and then took part in the first resurrection. Moses Stuart was a Postmillennialist if I remember correctly. It's been a while since I read his Commentary on the Apocalypse. Even he said this resurrection must be literal to be true to the text. He just has people resurrected before the Millennium and reigning with Christ from heaven. I don't see any other way around the first resurrection. These lived, but the rest of the dead lived not again...The two are obviously referring to the same kind of living. They're either both literal or both spiritual.

The big question is to see whether they would to the 2 resurrections as being both physical, or one when born again, other the physical one?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hello Icon,
Can you explain to me then how these verses fit into your understanding, please? That will be helpful as there's no point in going in deeper if we can't agree on the very basics.

Do you describe yourself then as a 'Reconstructionist'? I have never come across anyone who is this in the UK, so I need some input. You have mentioned a guy called Chilton; can you give me a link to some of his works? Thanks in advance.

The reformed ones are called that, while the charasmatic ones use Dominion term!

 

[Yeshua1]

You and I live in different worlds. Do you have a college degree? One in theology or Biblical studies? If you have no college training, you are speaking here in ignorance.

It's my job to train young people in these fields. Therefore I must know what is acceptable as a source for an undergrad or grad paper. If I were teaching a class on Revelation, I would not list Chilton's book in my bibliography for the students, simply because his degrees are suspect. (In the same way, I would leave out and have left out unqualified sources from my own independent Baptist circles.)

This is absolute baloney. They don't answer him because (1) he has no scholarly credentials, but only bogus degrees, and (2) he never proved his views or offered them for debate by putting them out in the peer-reviewed journals.

Few scholars try to answer Peter Ruckman either, but he had a legitimate earned doctorate. Why? Because his views (correcting the originals from the KJV, etc.) were so far out there that they were wacko.

But actually, you are wrong. A few have interacted with Chilton's work in his own dominion circles. There is even a negative review of his Revelation commentary by Greg Bahnsen, a Reconstruction scholar, here: (Covenant Media Foundation. Bahnsen says, "Because the author and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective, and because he sat through a year of my sixty-five lectures on Revelation (delivered a decade ago), many assume that his approach to Revelation is something I would commend. The reviewer in Journey (Nov-Dec 1987) saw it as 'sound' biblical interpretation, indeed 'a brilliant work.' Reluctantly, I cannot share either assessment."

Read the review linked to above by Bahnsen. Chilton's IM (interpretive maximalism) hermeneutics are very suspect.

Yes, they have, as seen above.

Irrelevant.

I certainly am proud of him. It's such a delight to teach with him. His office is two doors over, and we get to discuss Scripture and theology all the time as part of our job. He just sent me an interesting article on Daniel's 70 weeks, since I'm teaching eschatology.
Don't take my word for it. Check him out for yourself. He was mentored for the Ph.D. by well-known Greek scholar David Alan Black, who also wrote the forward to the book version of my son's dissertation: Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter: Paul A. Himes, David Alan Black: 9781625643629: Amazon.com: Books

Actually, his dissertation is right out there for the world to read, as seen in the link above, so he is certainly not hiding the Ph.D. under a bushel. And he has quite a few articles already published in the journals, and his second scholarly book is being published this year.

My son is a Petrine scholar. It's not on his radar, because there is nothing in Chilton in his field. Regardless, I know he could easily answer Chilton. Edited in: In fact, his second book is on the first three chapters in Revelation, in particular about the social and cultural milieu behind the book.
What would be the scholarly works for full on pretierism. as thougth that viewpoint is not accepted as being othodox, but heresy?
Frankly, though I'm not a scholar recognized by the broader evangelical world, I believe I could easily answer it. But why should I take the time? I have various other projects I'm working on. For example, my son and I are finishing up a completely new translation of the NT into Japanese. It would be a big step down for us to write against an obscure commentary on Rev.

Absolute baloney by a probable sycophant.

Definition of "baloney" as a theological term of mine by one of my students: "Any explanation of doctrine or theology that is not founded on God's Word. (also known as finely ground pork sausage originating in Bologna, Italy)"

 

[Iconoclast]

You and I live in different worlds. Do you have a college degree? One in theology or Biblical studies? If you have no college training, you are speaking here in ignorance.

It's my job to train young people in these fields. Therefore I must know what is acceptable as a source for an undergrad or grad paper. If I were teaching a class on Revelation, I would not list Chilton's book in my bibliography for the students, simply because his degrees are suspect. (In the same way, I would leave out and have left out unqualified sources from my own independent Baptist circles.)

This is absolute baloney. They don't answer him because (1) he has no scholarly credentials, but only bogus degrees, and (2) he never proved his views or offered them for debate by putting them out in the peer-reviewed journals.

Few scholars try to answer Peter Ruckman either, but he had a legitimate earned doctorate. Why? Because his views (correcting the originals from the KJV, etc.) were so far out there that they were wacko.

But actually, you are wrong. A few have interacted with Chilton's work in his own dominion circles. There is even a negative review of his Revelation commentary by Greg Bahnsen, a Reconstruction scholar, here: (Covenant Media Foundation. Bahnsen says, "Because the author and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective, and because he sat through a year of my sixty-five lectures on Revelation (delivered a decade ago), many assume that his approach to Revelation is something I would commend. The reviewer in Journey (Nov-Dec 1987) saw it as 'sound' biblical interpretation, indeed 'a brilliant work.' Reluctantly, I cannot share either assessment."

Read the review linked to above by Bahnsen. Chilton's IM (interpretive maximalism) hermeneutics are very suspect.

Yes, they have, as seen above.

Irrelevant.

I certainly am proud of him. It's such a delight to teach with him. His office is two doors over, and we get to discuss Scripture and theology all the time as part of our job. He just sent me an interesting article on Daniel's 70 weeks, since I'm teaching eschatology.
Don't take my word for it. Check him out for yourself. He was mentored for the Ph.D. by well-known Greek scholar David Alan Black, who also wrote the forward to the book version of my son's dissertation: Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter: Paul A. Himes, David Alan Black: 9781625643629: Amazon.com: Books

Actually, his dissertation is right out there for the world to read, as seen in the link above, so he is certainly not hiding the Ph.D. under a bushel. And he has quite a few articles already published in the journals, and his second scholarly book is being published this year.

My son is a Petrine scholar. It's not on his radar, because there is nothing in Chilton in his field. Regardless, I know he could easily answer Chilton. Edited in: In fact, his second book is on the first three chapters in Revelation, in particular about the social and cultural milieu behind the book.

Frankly, though I'm not a scholar recognized by the broader evangelical world, I believe I could easily answer it. But why should I take the time? I have various other projects I'm working on. For example, my son and I are finishing up a completely new translation of the NT into Japanese. It would be a big step down for us to write against an obscure commentary on Rev.

Absolute baloney by a probable sycophant.

Definition of "baloney" as a theological term of mine by one of my students: "Any explanation of doctrine or theology that is not founded on God's Word. (also known as finely ground pork sausage originating in Bologna, Italy)"

Thanks for the links and the feedback I'll digest them and get back to you later

 

[kyredneck]

I was not asking you those questions!

Lol, something about the shallow attempt to malign and redundancy of the question reminded me of you I guess.

 

[Covenanter]

In episode 4. Little progress was made. We will try and explore those scriptures leading up to Rev.6:12-17.....is it understood as literal activity?
That is....stars falling to earth? The heavens rolling up like a scroll?
Or is this language being employed to convey that a literal change of governmental administration has taken place?
.........
Premillennialism beliving persons are welcome to comment scripturally at any time....waiting for the rapture should not restrain you from commenting on these texts.

Jesus prophesies these events as occurring during the great tribulation before the destruction of the temple.
e.g.

Mat. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Luke 26:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. 29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. 30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. ​

The imagery of Matthew uses the language of Isaiah 13 in the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. (Daniel 5)

The direct language of Jesus in Luke 23 echoes that of Isaiah 2, e.g.

19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.​

We need to note that the same word in Hebrew (erets - Strong H776) & Greek (ge - Strong G1093) is translated "earth" & "land" so we need to understand from the context whether the whole earth is intended or the land of Israel.

When Jesus warns "the tribes of the earth" he is using a word (phyle - G5443) used for the tribes of Israel. He is prophesying the destruction of the temple. The tribes of the land would certainly be mourning.

The warning of Mat. 24 is echoes in Rev. 1:7

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth (tribes of the land) shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

Is it that difficult to SEE ? To understand? Paul echoed Isaiah's warning given in that glorious vision in Isa. 6, Acts 28:

24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. 25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, 26 saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 27 for the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. ​

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for the links and the feedback I'll digest them and get back to you later

Okey dokey.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

……you're getting WARMER!

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,
21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,
23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Eph 1

5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: Eph 2

5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
6 and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Rev 1

LOL! Show me a resurrection in A.D. 70, and I'm converted. Those who are reigning were resurrected, they "came to life," as the NASB translates. They were dead because they had been beheaded for their testimony. How can that be spiritual? This is the first resurrection...the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. How do the rest of the dead live after the thousand years? I suspect you interpret that as a literal resurrection. Those verses you are quoting were written years before Revelation was written, and it is obviously metaphorical as they were not literally dead. True...but metaphorical nonetheless. In Rev. 20 we have beheaded people who were literally dead being raised. Just an honest question....Why couldn't there have been a resurrection of the dead and a change of the living at that time?

 

[Iconoclast]

"Martin Marprelate,

Do you describe yourself then as a 'Reconstructionist'?

No...but I read what they offer...I consider the point of view. Martin...
I look at full preterists, but I am not a full preterist.
I look at Christion reconstruction a bit, but I am not with them.
I look at Theonomy, but I am not there with them.

In other words I want to understand each view...then hold on to what seems most biblical.

I have never come across anyone who is this in the UK, so I need some input. You have mentioned a guy called Chilton; can you give me a link to some of his works? Thanks in advance.

David Chilton: Free Books to Download

this site offers some free downloads...

 

[Iconoclast]

John of Japan,"]

Hello John

You and I live in different worlds.

...Yes we do, but that is the beauty of it all.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

You will help and reach people I will never reach. You already have. I cannot do what you do, in the way you do it.
I enjoyed a presentation you made in Friendship Baptist of Cincinnati about 5 yrs ago showing your families work in Japan.

Do you have a college degree? One in theology or Biblical studies? If you have no college training, you are speaking here in ignorance.

I am ignorant of many things for sure. I am not one to frequent academic circles....I get to speak with the non academic, non PH.D. types.

It's my job to train young people in these fields. Therefore I must know what is acceptable as a source for an undergrad or grad paper. If I were teaching a class on Revelation, I would not list Chilton's book in my bibliography for the students, simply because his degrees are suspect. (In the same way, I would leave out and have left out unqualified sources from my own independent Baptist circles.)

I do not want to speak against "formal education". I respect those who attain and excel in certain fields. That being said....formal education, even attaining a PH.D. does not necessarily translate to biblical understanding.

This is absolute baloney. They don't answer him because
(1) he has no scholarly credentials

,

John....Are you saying by this that unless someone has a PH.D. they cannot be self taught and attain to biblical understanding?

I am attending a small rural church where the believing brethren struggle to read, much less attain any advanced level of educational.
Should I write Ichabod over the church? Or....try and edify each and every person as opportunites present themselves.

When you addressed those people in Ohio...you spoke plainly to them, you communicated your heart and desire to see spiritual fruit...
[could I be critical of your theology....sure, but you are not the enemy]
I could enjoy and appreciate what you were getting across to them, and I could enjoy it. I have a better idea of who you are, and how to pray for you and your translation work. I know God has raised you up for that work and given you a proper helpmeet.

but only bogus degrees, and (2) he never proved his views or offered them for debate by putting them out in the peer-reviewed journals.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there are many more of us out here who are more or less self taught. This does not count?

Let's think this out a bit....There are advantages to spending time focused on instruction in a seminary setting. Pray, lectures,sermons, bible studies and fellowship are all good.
At the end of the day.....you are...
1]praying
2] reading
3] listening
4]meditating
5]writing
6]discussing
7] debating

the scriptures....
Can someone give themselves to these things outside of a formal setting?
It might take longer, or there might be some diversions, but I am going to suggest that the overwhelming majority of believers are on this path.
God has designed the local church and the one another verses for this purpose.
Am I against seminary?...No....I do see several areas of weakness with that paradigm however.

Few scholars try to answer Peter Ruckman either, but he had a legitimate earned doctorate. Why? Because his views (correcting the originals from the KJV, etc.) were so far out there that they were wacko.

I think this is a different issue however.

But actually, you are wrong. A few have interacted with Chilton's work in his own dominion circles

.
I meant premillennial persons will not take this on,
In Covenant theology, Christian reconstruction, theonomy circles , they go at each other all the time. They are not afraid to examine each others ideas, trying to come to truth.

 

[Yeshua1]

John of Japan,"]

Hello John


...Yes we do, but that is the beauty of it all.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

You will help and reach people I will never reach. You already have. I cannot do what you do, in the way you do it.
I enjoyed a presentation you made in Friendship Baptist of Cincinnati about 5 yrs ago showing your families work in Japan.


I am ignorant of many things for sure. I am not one to frequent academic circles....I get to speak with the non academic, non PH.D. types.


I do not want to speak against "formal education". I respect those who attain and excel in certain fields. That being said....formal education, even attaining a PH.D. does not necessarily translate to biblical understanding.


,

John....Are you saying by this that unless someone has a PH.D. they cannot be self taught and attain to biblical understanding?

I am attending a small rural church where the believing brethren struggle to read, much less attain any advanced level of educational.
Should I write Ichabod over the church? Or....try and edify each and every person as opportunites present themselves.

When you addressed those people in Ohio...you spoke plainly to them, you communicated your heart and desire to see spiritual fruit...
[could I be critical of your theology....sure, but you are not the enemy]
I could enjoy and appreciate what you were getting across to them, and I could enjoy it. I have a better idea of who you are, and how to pray for you and your translation work. I know God has raised you up for that work and given you a proper helpmeet.


Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there are many more of us out here who are more or less self taught. This does not count?

Let's think this out a bit....There are advantages to spending time focused on instruction in a seminary setting. Pray, lectures,sermons, bible studies and fellowship are all good.
At the end of the day.....you are...
1]praying
2] reading
3] listening
4]meditating
5]writing
6]discussing
7] debating

the scriptures....
Can someone give themselves to these things outside of a formal setting?
It might take longer, or there might be some diversions, but I am going to suggest that the overwhelming majority of believers are on this path.
God has designed the local church and the one another verses for this purpose.
Am I against seminary?...No....I do see several areas of weakness with that paradigm however.


I think this is a different issue however.

.
I meant premillennial persons will not take this on,
In Covenant theology, Christian reconstruction, theonomy circles , they go at each other all the time. They are not afraid to examine each others ideas, trying to come to truth.

Interesting thing is that in most reformed circles, especially those of classical Covenant theology views, bothReconstruction and Theonomy are looked at as being high suspect!

 

[Iconoclast]

Interesting thing is that in most reformed circles, especially those of classical Covenant theology views, bothReconstruction and Theonomy are looked at as being high suspect!

The thing about your tweet is....you never answered this;

y1 said;

The OT prophets foretold that when the King Messiah was to reign, that all nations would come up to Him to pay Him homage, thatthe law of God would be written upon all hearts , that all weapons would be destroyed and turned into ploughshares, none of that was meant to be literal? And daniel saw that when the rock came, all the Kingdoms of man would be crushed then?
Click to expand...
I asked you....
Do you think this big rock is going to be literal?

then this;

Yeshua1 said: ↑
The plain and literal meaning of the bible becomes whatever we want it to mean!
Click to expand...
You keep posting as if you want to contribute....

Tell us your plain and literal meaning on these passages...or stop posting such ignorant tweets....
..."I will put in play" portions of Days of Vengeance...commenting on Chapter 6 for your consideration;
6:11-14
that Israel’s time has run out: The stars fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind
(Job 9:7; 13ccl. 12:2;

lsa. 13:10; 34:4;

Ezek. 32:8;

Dan. 8:10;

Joel 2:10; 3:15);

you did not answer...answer each one...you claim it is all literal then you say this????

They might have been actual events,"but it seemed like" something else??? that would not be a strictly literal meaning then, correct?
That means you would be doing the same thing you are complaining about.