The Holy Spirit and the Rapture

[Darrell C]

Hello DC....

Yes I can expand on this a bit.

in jn5:Jesus explains how He is sent by THE FATHER...He is the Elect servant Of The Lord from the servant song in Isa.40-54
He always does the Fathers will. Jesus reveals the Father during His earthly ministry and as the Servant He never acts independently of the Fathers will.

This is His part in the Covenant of Redemption which was made between the Father, Son, and Spirit before the world was and is revealed in time.

I am in general agreement with this though this "Covenant of Redemption you keep speaking of has still not been addressed in regards to my posts which distinguish between the Covenants. As I said in previous posts, I view all Covenants as part of the progressively revealed Redemptive Plan of God, so don't reject the use of the term, but, I do not view all Covenants to provide the same provision.

So just reiterating that point which has gone unanswered in many posts and threads.

Now in jn 5 He explains the rapture.....

Some see this as the Rapture, I do not, based on the differences we see as well as how it doesn't fit all prophetic passages dealing with Resurrection.

then in Jn 6...he explains the timing of the rapture...the last day.

So when is that Last Day?

We have several contenders, as we see a Resurrection in the middle of the Tribulation in regards to the Two Witnesses, we see a resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs in Revelation 20 (and only believers are resurrected, and it is made clear unbelievers are not), and we see a resurrection that follows the thousand years, when the unbelievers not resurrected in the First Resurrection are raised to stand before the Great White Throne.

Which one of these is the Rapture spoken of by Christ in John 5?

He explains the objects of the rapture.....All the Father gives to Me...shall come to Me.

Agreed for the most part, though the Rapture of the Church can be distinguished from the effectual call. The general principle still applies.

He reveals the objects of God's Covenant love...

Those elected by God before the world was, He comes to die for them alone with a perfect and 100% effectual work on the cross. Then He will ascend to the throne and send the Spirit to seek and secure all those given to Him.

Agreed.

They are born from above at a point in time, made willing and able to believe savingly in the blood of the cross.

Agreed.

He then announces He will raise them up ....ON THE LAST DAY.

So which "day" is the Last Day?

One of the problems we have with making the Rapture a general resurrection is that in the Rapture...only the Church is mentioned being raised. So too with the First Resurrection.

We see that the resurrection Christ speaks about here involves both just and unjust, believer and unbeliever:

John 5:25-29

King James Version (KJV)

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


So the "Last Day" must be the resurrection taught in Revelation 20, right?

But which one?

Same thing in John 6:


John 6:54

King James Version (KJV)

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.


This is a foundational teaching of resurrection as found in the Old Testament:


Daniel 12

King James Version (KJV)

1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.


So we have to know why we see several events of resurrection, yet Christ is teaching a general resurrection here.

The answer is simple: Christ is not teaching the mysteries that are unveiled through New Testament writing. What He teaches does not negate the foundational teachings, but neither do His teachings demand only one event of resurrection. He taught within the framework of the revelation provided to men in that day, and what He teaches here remains true, because the general principles, the foundational teachings...are just as valid within the framework of New Testament revelation as they were when He taught them, and as they were when they were first given.

Christ is not teaching about the Rapture here, but the general principle that men must believe in His death to obtain eternal life. This eternal life is contrasted with the life provided to the fathers, who Christ states are dead. That state of death is contrasted with the Life the Bread of Heaven came down from Heaven to provide men with Life which does not allow for death:


John 6:49-50

King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.


The Jews are trusting in heritage for their relationship with God, yet the relationship provided through the New Covenant and the Life of the Bread of Heaven contrasted with the physical provision of manna are...different. It is the difference between shadow and reality.

All that are in the graves.....believers raised to life...unbelievers to the white throne judgment......

We can see in Revelation that there is a resurrection which is only believers, the unbelievers clearly stated not to be resurrected at this time:


Revelation 20

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


So we establish that there is more than just one general resurrection of the dead as taught in the foundational principles of the Oracles of God.

So again, when is the Last Day?

How do you explain this resurrection as compared to the final resurrection of the dead...


12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

...?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

look at the two sections and notice....nothing in 1thess4 in conflict with this, or 1 cor 15 .

We see a conflict in 1 Thessalonians 4 in regards to John 5 and 6 in that in view are believers specifically. We also see a conflict in that if it is not until the Great White Throne, where we see a general resurrection, that the Church is Raptured...what about the resurrection of the Two Witnesses and the First Resurrection? These are three separate events of resurrection. We can't place the resurrection and rapture of the Two Witnesses or the resurrection of the dead at the Great White Throne at the end of the Tribulation as we can the First Resurrection.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

These are general truths that cannot be denied. All of the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. But that has application to the salvific ministry of God...right now.

The point that we need to understand in this teaching is that Christ is the Provision for Life, that those who are dead might live. He is the Bread of/from Heaven, and the dead in view are those He came to save. This encompasses salvation and judgment from start to finish.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

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.

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44 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.

At the last day, those who have responded to the effectual call of God will be raised up at the last day. That does not deny the spiritual resurrection that takes place at salvation, where those who are spiritually dead are raised to new life. The imagery of the foundational principles of the resurrection of the dead is used within the framework of this teaching, and states a general truth concerning resurrection, but, this teaching has a focus on spiritual resurrection through faith in the Cross, which is the means of Life for those who are dead.

Neither John 5 nor John 6 have the Rapture of the Church in view.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C,

We see a conflict in 1 Thessalonians 4 in regards to John 5 and 6 in that in view are believers specifically.

That is not a conflict as Paul only needed to speak of believers to answer the concern of the Thessalonians. They wanted to know what happened to believers who have died already.
That is all he is answering. No complicated end times drama, just what happens to those who have died.

We also see a conflict in that if it is not until the Great White Throne, where we see a general resurrection,

That is not a conflict at all. As the rapture happens on the last day, then the white throne judgment.

that the Church is Raptured.

..

yes...at the last day like Jesus said.

what about the resurrection of the Two Witnesses and the First Resurrection?

Some see this as having already been fulfilled with the two witnesses being the church.

These are three separate events of resurrection. We can't place the resurrection and rapture of the Two Witnesses or the resurrection of the dead at the Great White Throne at the end of the Tribulation as we can the First Resurrection.

If this was fulfilled in church history it is not an issue.

These are general truths that cannot be denied. All of the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. But that has application to the salvific ministry of God...right now.

well yes Christians have eternal life now.

The point that we need to understand in this teaching is that Christ is the Provision for Life, that those who are dead might live. He is the Bread of/from Heaven, and the dead in view are those He came to save. This encompasses salvation and judgment from start to finish.

yes...agreed

At the last day, those who have responded to the effectual call of God will be raised up at the last day. That does not deny the spiritual resurrection that takes place at salvation, where those who are spiritually dead are raised to new life. The imagery of the foundational principles of the resurrection of the dead is used within the framework of this teaching, and states a general truth concerning resurrection, but, this teaching has a focus on spiritual resurrection through faith in the Cross, which is the means of Life for those who are dead.

yes but bodily resurrection is to follow on the last day.

Neither John 5 nor John 6 have the Rapture of the Church in view.

sure it does...what else would you call those who have done good? that is the church in Christ.

I

am in general agreement with this though this "Covenant of Redemption you keep speaking of has still not been addressed in regards to my posts which distinguish between the Covenants.

we could make progress with this when you do a bit of homework as I suggested. It is easier to discuss a teaching if we both understand what the basic teaching is.
I am waiting for you to do some basic reading on this.

As I said in previous posts, I view all Covenants as part of the progressively revealed Redemptive Plan of God, so don't reject the use of the term, but, I do not view all Covenants to provide the same provision.

You are correct that revealation is progressive, but as I said all are under the umbrella of the C.O.R

So just reiterating that point which has gone unanswered in many posts and threads.

Yes...because you have not shown you understand anything about it.
Who made this Covenant?
When did it take place?
How do we begin to know about it?
Is there any relationship between this and all other covenants?

Some see this as the Rapture, I do not, based on the differences we see as well as how it doesn't fit all prophetic passages dealing with Resurrection.

All prophetic passages can be fulfilled without doing any damage to this teaching.

So when is that Last Day?

Just like the coming of the flood. When God saves the last person who He intends to save...then cometh the end.....I am told that Methusalahs name meant, when he dies it comes.

We have several contenders, as we see a Resurrection in the middle of the Tribulation in regards to the Two Witnesses, we see a resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs in Revelation 20 (and only believers are resurrected, and it is made clear unbelievers are not),

these are clarified if it is a metaphorical reference to the church.

and we see a resurrection that follows the thousand years, when the unbelievers not resurrected in the First Resurrection are raised to stand before the Great White Throne.

This fits the postmill and amill view just fine, no conflict.

 

[DHK]

these are clarified if it is a metaphorical reference to the church.
.

To the J.W.'s the Resurrection of Christ was simply metaphorical.
It was only "his spirit" that rose from the dead.
Such error does the metaphorical interpretative style of amills and postmills lead to.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C,

We see a conflict in 1 Thessalonians 4 in regards to John 5 and 6 in that in view are believers specifically.
Click to expand...

That is not a conflict as Paul only needed to speak of believers to answer the concern of the Thessalonians. They wanted to know what happened to believers who have died already.
That is all he is answering. No complicated end times drama, just what happens to those who have died.

We also see a conflict in that if it is not until the Great White Throne, where we see a general resurrection,
Click to expand...

That is not a conflict at all. As the rapture happens on the last day, then the white throne judgment.

The Rapture cannot possibly happen on the last day due to the fact that the Rapture includes all that are in Christ, beginning with the dead, then we which remain (still alive).

And that is the point you are missing.

You try to make the Rapture of the Two Witnesses and the First Resurrection metaphors, when that is not the case. And even if they were, that wouldn't change the singular point which denies a rapture at the end of the Tribulation or at the end of the Millennial Kingdom...

There are two separate resurrections clearly stated.

Here is it again:


Revelation 20:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


You can even make the thousand years figurative, it still doesn't help your argument.

Here we see believers and unbelievers are not resurrected at the same time as the doctrine of the A-mil erroneously teaches.

This doctrine not only stands in conflict...it refutes what is actually written in the Prophecy.

that the Church is Raptured.

Click to expand...

..

yes...at the last day like Jesus said.

Not possible.

We clearly see the Two Witnessess and the Tribulation Martyrs resurrected in two separate events, separated by 3 1/2 years. We then see the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs separated from the general resurrection of the dead after the thousand years are finished. Spiritualize one thousand years, it makes no difference, the direct statement of Scripture is that they are not raised at the same time.

The foundational teaching of Christ demands they are:


John 5:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Just as it was pointed out in a response to another member, key here is understanding that at this hour...those who are dead are in view.

Not those who have been Raptured (The Two Witnesses and the Church) and Glorified (the Tribulation Martyrs).

what about the resurrection of the Two Witnesses and the First Resurrection?


Click to expand...

Some see this as having already been fulfilled with the two witnesses being the church.

Many substitutes have been offered, but none of them satisfy the text:


Revelation 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

The Church has never been commissioned to prophesy for a limited number of days.

The Church would not be considered "two" witnesses, but either one, or unnumbered.

In view are two men.


4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.


The Two Olive Trees of Zechariah were Offices and filling those Offices were...men. Specifically Zechariah and Zerrubabel.

In view are two men.


5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

The Church has never been commissioned, as a Body, to devour enemies with fire from their mouths.

In view are two men.


6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

The Church has never had the power to restrain rain as a Body.

The Church has never turned waters to blood.

The Church has never smote the earth with plagues as often as they will.

In view are two men.


7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

The Church has not been killed by the Antichrist of the Tribulation. Remember...that is what is in view, that period in which The Antichrist (not those who fulfilled this role partially (there have been numerous antichrists and still are)).

In view are two men.


8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The Church never lay in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 days.

In view is two men.


Revelation 11:9-12

King James Version (KJV)

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

At no time has the Church been "dead" period. The Church is the Church because they have the Life of Christ, which He came down from Heaven to impart to men.

In view are two men.


10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

The world has never had occasion to celebrate the death of the Church.

In view are two men.


11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.


The Church is already alive eternally, because they have eternal life through the New Birth. This excludes the possibility that we can spiritualize the text, as it would stand in conflict with what Scriptures teaches about Life.

In view is physical death.

In view are two men.

In view are two men dying physically and then being resurrected.


12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.


The Resurrection they are raised in is glorification, because we know that flesh and blood dose not inherit the kingdom of God, and that men can only enter into Heaven either in spirit only, or in glorified form. Since these are resurrected and ascend to Heaven it demands a conclusion that this is a Rapture.

In view are two men.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

These are three separate events of resurrection. We can't place the resurrection and rapture of the Two Witnesses or the resurrection of the dead at the Great White Throne at the end of the Tribulation as we can the First Resurrection.
Click to expand...

If this was fulfilled in church history it is not an issue.

We know it was not.

Now you have to deny Revelation entirely. Now you are spiritualizing the very resurrection which so many try to make the Rapture.

It simply does not fit what Scripture teaches.

Please show how the Rapture of the Two Witnesses and First Resurrection was fulfilled in History.

These are general truths that cannot be denied. All of the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God. But that has application to the salvific ministry of God...right now.
Click to expand...

well yes Christians have eternal life now.

Right, so do we equate that to glorification?

Are the Two Witnesses and the Tribulation Martyrs...being saved?

No, they are already saved, they are being glorified.

The point that we need to understand in this teaching is that Christ is the Provision for Life, that those who are dead might live. He is the Bread of/from Heaven, and the dead in view are those He came to save. This encompasses salvation and judgment from start to finish.
Click to expand...

yes...agreed

Outstanding.

At the last day, those who have responded to the effectual call of God will be raised up at the last day. That does not deny the spiritual resurrection that takes place at salvation, where those who are spiritually dead are raised to new life. The imagery of the foundational principles of the resurrection of the dead is used within the framework of this teaching, and states a general truth concerning resurrection, but, this teaching has a focus on spiritual resurrection through faith in the Cross, which is the means of Life for those who are dead.
Click to expand...

yes but bodily resurrection is to follow on the last day.

Not according to Scripture.

We have the bodily resurrection of the Two Witnesses and the Tribulation Martyrs.

You are welcome to exaplain why these are not bodily resurrections, and explain, while your at it, how there is no separation between the bodily resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs and the rest of the dead (the unbelievers).

You can use the Petra Formula, and make their resurrection one day after the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs (which would absurd, lol), but you are still left with two events, not one as taught by Christ.

Just as the Gospel was a Mystery and Christ's teaching do not conflict with it, even so the Rapture was a Mystery and does not conflict with the foundational teaching Christ presented which was in the period that was still under the (Covenant of) Law.

Neither John 5 nor John 6 have the Rapture of the Church in view.
Click to expand...

sure it does...what else would you call those who have done good? that is the church in Christ.

The Rapture does not include both just and unjust.

This is the third resurrection listed in Revelation, which likely involves those from among the just who die in the Millennial Kingdom, as well as those who are not raised at the end of the Tribulation.

I
am in general agreement with this though this "Covenant of Redemption you keep speaking of has still not been addressed in regards to my posts which distinguish between the Covenants.
Click to expand...

we could make progress with this when you do a bit of homework as I suggested.

I am the only one actually supplying multiple Scriptures to support my view, and not one of them can be found to come into conflict with an Overview of Prophecy.

That stands in contrast with trying to make the Rapture occur in one general resurrection and supplying a few verses.

Again, the Scripture posted was left out. Why do you do that?

And I am not sure why I should do homework when I have presented multiple passages to support my views concerning Redemption.

Not one person has yet addressed this passage...


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


My homework has been done. I am actually handing out assignments.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It is easier to discuss a teaching if we both understand what the basic teaching is.

Agreed.

I am waiting for you to do some basic reading on this.

If you are waiting for me to read books of men...you'll be waiting forever.

Now, I am waiting for you to read the Word of God which has been given to you.

We would be in agreement concerning a "Covenant of Redemption" as a general matter, but that does not change the fact that there is appoint in time when eternal life became available to men. Because you will not address the issue but continue to offer opinions and derisive statements as to what I understand, you will continue to run in circles.

Address the points and Scripture that have already been offered...and you will save yourself a lot of trouble in more ways than one.

You are beginning to derail the conversation of the OP, which is not really a matter of the Covenant of Redemption, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit after this Age ends (and I think we can extend that to Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom equally).

As I said in previous posts, I view all Covenants as part of the progressively revealed Redemptive Plan of God, so don't reject the use of the term, but, I do not view all Covenants to provide the same provision.
Click to expand...

You are correct that revealation is progressive, but as I said all are under the umbrella of the C.O.R

And no-one is arguing that it isn't. What is argued is whether or not specific promises within periods of God's Redemptive Plan being progressively revealed were available to men in those times.

And the primary issue has been whether men were eternally redeemed in those prior periods.

So just reiterating that point which has gone unanswered in many posts and threads.
Click to expand...

Yes...because you have not shown you understand anything about it.

No, because not one of you have addressed the points and Scripture.

You yourself have said there was nothing different during those times. You said that in respect to Hebrews 1:1-2...


Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


...and now here I am having to offer up the same arguments and points because you...will not address the Scripture.

This is one of the few you have actually addressed and you said...

Your take on Hebrews 1 is also wrong......God has spoken in many times and ways...but has spoken finally in His Son......not differently.....but fully and finally ....literally in SON.

This speaks of a continuity.....one cohesive truth revealed finally and fully in the SON

...and that is precisely what the verse states.

And let's not forget your commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, where nothing is different there either, lol. But when asked if you were baptized into Moses you seem to go silent, and despite multiple attempts to point out your error simply by getting you to answer a simple question.

Your commentary can only lead to one conclusion if your denial of distinct dispensations is correct...you were baptized into Moses too, because, after all...God isn't speaking differently in this Age, right?

Who made this Covenant?

When did it take place? [/QUOTE]

Redemption of Man has been known to God before the world was formed, but...it has not always been known to man.

That is why we can distinguish between the Covenants, Iconoclast.

God demanded animal sacrifice for vicarious death in every Age except this one.

That is just a fact.

How do we begin to know about it?

It can only be known through the revelation provided by God, that is why the Bible is divided into Two Testaments.

Is there any relationship between this and all other covenants?

Of course the Redemptive Plan of God has relationship with all Covenants, lol.

Quote the Scripture and commentary...then address it. You won't, though, and we both know why. Not trying to perpetuate the animosity between us, lol, just trying to point something out. Which is what I have done in most of our conversations, which cannot be called conversation, because you talk at people, not with them. Until you let your antagonist's side into your conversations, Iconoclast, you will continue to run in circles.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Some see this as the Rapture, I do not, based on the differences we see as well as how it doesn't fit all prophetic passages dealing with Resurrection.
Click to expand...

All prophetic passages can be fulfilled without doing any damage to this teaching.

The damage is erroneously making the teaching refer to the Rapture.

There are no Rapture teachings prior to the teachings presented by the Apostles. That is why it is called a Mystery.

A Doctrine stops being a Mystery once it is revealed, just as the Gospel stopped being a mystery to the Apostles when they received the Holy Ghost, Who is the One Who has always revealed divine truth to men.

So when is that Last Day?
Click to expand...

Just like the coming of the flood. When God saves the last person who He intends to save...then cometh the end.....I am told that Methusalahs name meant, when he dies it comes.

The last day is seen here:


Revelation 20:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


Where your doctrine fails is that it does not include the Millennial Kingdom and the separation of the Tribulation Martyrs and the rest of the dead.

When the Lord returns the world does not pass away, and the unbelieving, just as in the day of Noah and Lot...are phsycially destroyed and become fodder for carrion fowl:


Luke 17:24; 34-37

King James Version (KJV)

24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.


34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.


This is seen also here...


Revelation 19:17-21

King James Version (KJV)

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.


You need to understand the parts before trying to make the Whole, or you will simply end up with a hole.

We have several contenders, as we see a Resurrection in the middle of the Tribulation in regards to the Two Witnesses, we see a resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs in Revelation 20 (and only believers are resurrected, and it is made clear unbelievers are not),
Click to expand...

these are clarified if it is a metaphorical reference to the church.

If.

If.

If.

Inescapable Futility.

The Scriptures cannot be broken.

and we see a resurrection that follows the thousand years, when the unbelievers not resurrected in the First Resurrection are raised to stand before the Great White Throne.
Click to expand...

This fits the postmill and amill view just fine, no conflict.

I agree, they do not see a conflict.

But when the Whole Counsel is included, rather than trying to build doctrine from secluded texts and spiritualizing anything that is in conflict with the doctrinal position...the conflict is readily seen.

Thanks for the response.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

To the J.W.'s the Resurrection of Christ was simply metaphorical.
It was only "his spirit" that rose from the dead.
Such error does the metaphorical interpretative style of amills and postmills lead to.

Well no one said anything about the JW so how they view Jesus or denied you obviously don't understand what a metaphor of the two witnesses would be or where its base from because you don't study that way so it wasn't really meant to be addressed to you .
I know you don't have the ability to understand those kind of things
"Darrell C,

(Agreed.)
You agree we should have a common point of discussion here.....good.

(If you are waiting for me to read books of men...you'll be waiting forever.)
However now you refuse to look at the very thing being discussed????
You want to reinvent the wheel?????
You do not want to read the "books of men"....and yet you cannot answer question 1 evidently using your own" I am DC and it's just me and my bible" method.
Question 1......Who is involved in the Covenant of Redemption?
(Now, I am waiting for you to read the Word of God which has been given to you.)
I read the word of God everyday.

(We would be in agreement concerning a "Covenant of Redemption" as a general matter,)
It would be better to be in agreement in a very specific manner.
(but that does not change the fact that there is appoint in time when eternal life became available to men. )

That issue comes after establishing the first point. What is your rush.Why proceed before we work out the first point to discuss.
I have made a large claim. There are no other covenants possible, and creation itself does not happen apart from the C.O.R. having occured. No need to rush here then is there.

(Because you will not address the issue but continue to offer opinions and derisive statements as to what I understand, you will continue to run in circles.)

What I see happening is quite different. What has been happening is you are discussing with yourself what you want to then as you do this.....you start to suggest I said things that I did not say at all.....but you edit and rewrite what....you think I might have said....or what you want to believe I said....then you ascribe a different meaning to what I said and suggest I am not responding to your post.
You did it with 1 Cor 10.....which I used for my discussion with DHK. You misunderstood what and why I said what I did......and want me to answer your caricature.


(Address the points and Scripture that have already been offered...and you will save yourself a lot of trouble in more ways than one.)
I have.

(You are beginning to derail the conversation of the OP, which is not really a matter of the Covenant of Redemption, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit after this Age ends (and I think we can extend that to Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom equally).)

I am responding to your long rambling posts.I am only on a phone now....I get to a keyboard at lunch sometime...or at night.
To go back and correct what you misrepresent is not a good use of time.....so try not to do what you are doing.
I will show it here....but you do this all the time.

(And no-one is arguing that it isn't. What is argued is whether or not specific promises within periods of God's Redemptive Plan being progressively revealed were available to men in those times.)
A discussion is a two way event.....as part of the main discussion these issues have come up.

(And the primary issue has been whether men were eternally redeemed in those prior periods.)
You have been answered.on this....you do not like the answer.
(No, because not one of you have addressed the points and Scripture.)
Sure we have....when the scriptures are on the topic.

(You yourself have said there was nothing different during those times. You said that in respect to Hebrews 1:1-2...)
Here is an example of what I just said you do....

I did not say...THERE WAS NOTHING DIFFERENT DURING THOSE TIMES. ....you say I said that...but I DID NOT.

Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


(...and now here I am having to offer up the same arguments and points because you...will not address the Scripture.)

But I Did indeed address this scripture as you now quote when I did address it. ....so do not keep repeating this falsehood. That is why no one answers you that much because you do this which is quite dishonest.

(This is one of the few you have actually addressed and you said...)
So...you have me not addressing, and addressing the scripture at the same time....lol.

(And let's not forget your commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, where nothing is different there either, lol. But when asked if you were baptized into Moses you seem to go silent, and despite multiple attempts to point out your error simply by getting you to answer a simple question.)

I am not going to answer you false statements as I have posted.

(Your commentary can only lead to one conclusion if your denial of distinct dispensations is correct...you were baptized into Moses too, because, after all...God isn't speaking differently in this Age, right?)
No...it is not right. In fact this rivals the monster STRAWMAN D H K constructs.
This is the problem again.
You make a fragmented and disturbed assumption, not close to what I actually said....then you chide me not playing along with this.....

















It can only be known through the revelation provided by God, that is why the Bible is divided into Two Testaments.




Of course the Redemptive Plan of God has relationship with all Covenants, lol.

Quote the Scripture and commentary...then address it. You won't, though, and we both know why. Not trying to perpetuate the animosity between us, lol, just trying to point something out. Which is what I have done in most of our conversations, which cannot be called conversation, because you talk at people, not with them. Until you let your antagonist's side into your conversations, Iconoclast, you will continue to run in circles.


Continued...[/QUOTE]

 

[Darrell C]

Well no one said anything about the JW so how they view Jesus or denied you obviously don't understand what a metaphor of the two witnesses would be or where its base from because you don't study that way so it wasn't really meant to be addressed to you .
I know you don't have the ability to understand those kind of things

The point is that this is a group that tries to make the Return of Christ a spiritual event to deny the literal Return in Revelation.

This is error, whether one is a member of a cult, or a member of an accepted group.

"Darrell C,

(Agreed.)
You agree we should have a common point of discussion here.....good.

Now how about the rest of what we do not have in common?

The "basic teaching" is not "the Covenant of Redemption," Iconoclast, the basic teaching is what was provided by the Hebrew Scriptures.

That is made clear here:


Hebrews 5:10-6:1

King James Version (KJV)

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Hebrews 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,


So show me the Covenant of Redemption in the Scriptures, and how men understood them in that day.

You can't.

That is the point you are avoiding.

You, and others here, rail against Dispensationalists, and do so knowing full well you have never once made a valid argument that shows the revelation and understanding of the Gospel in the Old Testament. It was prophesied, yes, but that is not the same as revelation of the Mysteries of the New Covenant.

(If you are waiting for me to read books of men...you'll be waiting forever.)
However now you refuse to look at the very thing being discussed????

No, Iconoclast...I refuse to read the men that have filled your head with such nonsense as you consistently teach.

Show me the Covenant of Redemption in the Old Testament.

It was not revealed unto men.

They did not understand that the revelation of promise in each Age would ultimately culminate in the Cross. They did not know about the Church.

They were not eternally redeemed.

This is just basic.

You want to reinvent the wheel?????

No, simply introduce you to the Bible.

The Word of God has remained constant, but what has changed is the doctrines of men created to support their little clubs.

You do not want to read the "books of men"....and yet you cannot answer question 1 evidently using your own" I am DC and it's just me and my bible" method.

I have answered this question repeatedly.

Here is the first response (your statements will be in blue):

Decided to run back through the thread and address the posts I did not address in order not to intrude. But, might as well.

↑
redemption for all of God's elect was certain because of the covenant of redemption.
Click to expand...

No-one has said it wasn't.

↑
the grace was fixed before the world began....
Click to expand...

No-one said it wasn't.

What was said is that it was not until Christ died that Eternal Redemption was obtained for us. And that through the Blood of Christ...not the animal sacrifices that were part of the Prior Economies.


↑
The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...
Click to expand...

We know that, but you are trying to argue that a "Covenant of Redemption" that you have imagined is somehow the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

Look at your words:

↑
The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...
Click to expand...


No kidding...that is what you have been arguing against.

When were the promises made? When were they fulfilled?

Show me Eternal Redemption in the Old Testament.


↑
God deals with man by Covenant....not dispensationalism.
Click to expand...

If you mean the Theological System...no kidding. You and your buddies are the ones arguing that, and frankly...it gets old.

Try addressing my response to the OP and you might work yourself out of that confusion and the necessity to create doctrine as you go.


God bless.

Now let's look at what you are now saying...

You do not want to read the "books of men"....and yet you cannot answer question 1 evidently using your own" I am DC and it's just me and my bible" method.

And it's simply not true. You have been answered on this and this is typical of what a conversation with you is like. You constantly force your antagonist to repeat the same things over and over.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Question 1......Who is involved in the Covenant of Redemption?

Sorry, question one was addressed in my response to the OP in "The redemption of Israel."

And my questions precede even that thread.

We can back up to find Question One in Post Tribulation Arguments, a thread completely derailed tot he topic now in view, which is just another illustration of how you derail a thread.

What happened to "The Holy Spirit and the Rapture?"

But in your mind "Question 1" is your off topic disruption.

Now I want you take the time to back up to Post #61...and see who is derailing the topic. I give a comment on your statement...

Iconoclast said: ↑
Hello DC....

Yes I can expand on this a bit.

in jn5:Jesus explains how He is sent by THE FATHER...He is the Elect servant Of The Lord from the servant song in Isa.40-54
He always does the Fathers will. Jesus reveals the Father during His earthly ministry and as the Servant He never acts independently of the Fathers will.

This is His part in the Covenant of Redemption which was made between the Father, Son, and Spirit before the world was and is revealed in time.
Click to expand...

I am in general agreement with this though this "Covenant of Redemption you keep speaking of has still not been addressed in regards to my posts which distinguish between the Covenants. As I said in previous posts, I view all Covenants as part of the progressively revealed Redemptive Plan of God, so don't reject the use of the term, but, I do not view all Covenants to provide the same provision.

So just reiterating that point which has gone unanswered in many posts and threads.

I then return to Topic, and here we are, sorting through a rant which has only the intention of self-defense and a topic you have a mania over.

Just burns you guys up to see others discussing the Rapture, doesn't it?

Well, that's okay. Maybe one day you will actually catch on.


Continued...

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C




(Now how about the rest of what we do not have in common?

The "basic teaching" is not "the Covenant of Redemption," Iconoclast,)
Sure it is....if you knew what it was you would not say this.
I ask you yet again......who was involved in the Covenant of Redemption?????
Is this question to hard for you?
You speak about this COR.........but cannot begin to describe it when asked?????

(So show me the Covenant of Redemption in the Scriptures, and how men understood them in that day.)

(You can't.)
But I can.....as soon as you give any indication you know what it is....we can move forward.
Keep in mind.....I have not asked you to believe it.
I have just asked you to state what the basic teaching is....even if you do not believe it.

(That is the point you are avoiding.)
I have no need to avoid anything here.

(You, and others here, rail against Dispensationalists, )
All of us were dispensational before.....

(No, Iconoclast...I refuse to read the men that have filled your head with such nonsense as you consistently teach.)

So there it is.....you want to remain ignorant of these things...see....here it is.
Why should I answer someone who desires to remain ignorant? That is why I said....no point going forward. ...

(Show me the Covenant of Redemption in the Old Testament)
Sure......as soon as you describe it...

(It was not revealed unto men.)
Job does not agree with you and that is the oldest. Look in the O T...... he said......I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVETH...
PRETTY HARD TO KNOW YOU NEED A REDEEMER IF THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE OF HIM AS YOUR REDEEMER.
I could do a whole seminar on it from.JOB alone...
How does Bildad ask this question in JOB 25:4-6....without you supposed mysteries



(They were not eternally redeemed.)

Everyone was.
(The Word of God has remained constant, but what has changed is the doctrines of men created to support their little clubs.)
Your hatred slowly comes to the surface.....you hate the teachings....so you think the ostrich defense will work











Continued...[/QUOTE]

 

[Darrell C]

(Now, I am waiting for you to read the Word of God which has been given to you.)
I read the word of God everyday.

So do Mormons.

(We would be in agreement concerning a "Covenant of Redemption" as a general matter,)
It would be better to be in agreement in a very specific manner.

How is that possible when you dodge every attempt to discuss it?

For the record, Iconoclast, "wavey wavey, laugh laugh" is not a reasonable response to the questions posed to you.

(but that does not change the fact that there is appoint in time when eternal life became available to men. )

That issue comes after establishing the first point. What is your rush.Why proceed before we work out the first point to discuss.

Do I seem like I am rushing? lol

I have made a large claim.

Large wasn't the word I was thinking, lol.

There are no other covenants possible,

Well, then you had better let the Lord know He made a mistake in Scripture, because He is the One that instituted all of the Covenants.

I can describe all of the Covenants with names and show where they were established, now you do the same thing with the Covenant of Redemption.

and creation itself does not happen apart from the C.O.R. having occured.

Great. Scripture?

No need to rush here then is there.

No, but you might want to notice I am quoting every word you say, whereas you never fully quote anything I say.

We have an example of that type of discussion in Scripture, and it begins with "Hath God said..."

We see another example where it begins "If thou be the Son of God..."

I will say you are doing better, Iconoclast, but, you still need to learn how to execute a thorough response. This involves addressing everything your antagonist presents.

(Because you will not address the issue but continue to offer opinions and derisive statements as to what I understand, you will continue to run in circles.)

What I see happening is quite different.

That is rather obvious in the Public Record.

What has been happening is you are discussing with yourself what you want to then as you do this.....you start to suggest I said things that I did not say at all.....

Same tired and dishonest argument that is always tossed out there, but the Public Record makes it clear...

Darrell C said: ↑

I will address this in detail when I get back, but will point out that your using the Father's as proof of eternal redemption falls short.

Christ states that those same fathers at of the manna and were...dead. This is contrasting the Bread of Heaven, Who is the Source of eternal life, with the physical provision of manna provided, not to the world...but to Israel.

Those are the fathers, and reliance on that heritage is irrelevant to salvation in Christ, and it is still irrelevant to whether Israel was eternally redeemed.

No-one is denying the consistency of God's Redemptive Plan, what is in view is whether Israel was, prior to the Cross...eternally redeemed.

And you don't have anything to prove to me, but, what you are proving is that you refuse to address the issues raised, thereby perpetuating the same nonsense argued for years on this forum by the same people, you being one of them.

While I would love to have you address my initial response to the OP, I can see where that is not really a possibility for you, because it brings the OP to the heart of the issue.

So go ahead, continue dodging the issues that are relevant, and understand your are proving something one day I hope you will regret.

And again, I will address this post in detail when I return, it will be first on the list.


God bless

.

I was not using the discussion about....our father's to prove that point. It was to answer the poster who missed it's significance. ....

Can you not e v en be honest with this? Where did I suggest such a thing? This I s why people ignore your posts.....let me say what I do.....you say what you want to.

The question has been answered. ....lk 1 speaks to the issue....vs 73,74....if your theology cannot welcome it.....it is not my problem it is on you.

You completely miss the fact that the discussion centered on the Redemption of Israel (the thread title would have clued you in).

Now...here is what you said...

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.
He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

All God's elect are eternally redeemed by the accomplished redemption at the cross.

And question 1 in that thread was...

Darrell C said: ↑
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Click to expand...
This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

And you still have not answered, to my knowledge, why you consider the unbelieving horde to be the "spiritual fathers."

I understand the forum ahs lost a few posts, so could you answer that one simple question at this time?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

but you edit and rewrite what....you think I might have said....or what you want to believe I said....

How is quoting every word you say...editing?

Rewriting?

True sometimes parsing can lose the context, and if that is pointed out then I have no problem admitting to it and apologizing.

But that seldom happens. I can think of only one instance in recent memory.

then you ascribe a different meaning to what I said and suggest I am not responding to your post.

You have not addressed anything I have said in my posts. There is only a defense of yourself.

I want you to address the points and Scripture, Iconoclast. BW did so...why don't you do the same?

You did it with 1 Cor 10.....which I used for my discussion with DHK. You misunderstood what and why I said what I did......and want me to answer your caricature.

I did understand what you said:

Iconoclast said: ↑
↑
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post

No real answer to what? To you derailing the thread??
This thread is not on dispensationalism!

This thread is on the difference between Israel and the church.
The OP reads this way:

Note: Not one mention is made of dispensationalism. Your hatred of it can't stop you from berating it every time you get the chance. Thus you are simply derailing the thread.

There is a difference between the those under the law and those under grace (when Paul planted NT churches). Israel existed under the law. She was God's chosen people at that time. Christ came. She rejected Christ as her Messiah. She even rejected Paul as God's messenger. Thus Paul said: "From henceforth I go to the Gentiles."

Paul still prayed for the nation of Israel. Therefore the nation of Israel still existed. The Church never replaced Israel, nor is it an extension of Israel. They are totally separate one from the other. Paul would be deluded to pray for something that does not exist (Rom.10:1-5; 9:1-5). All the attention of the world is focused on that tiny parcel of land now called the nation of Israel. To deny its existence is to deny history, and the current state of affairs today.
Click to expand...

This has been answered many times but you do not welcome the answer....
What you did not answer is simple......

Why did Paul address the gentiles in 1 Cor 10 and tell them their spiritual father's in the faith were from Israel.....:laugh::laugh:...simple question...give it a try

Where do you see that in 1 Corinthians 10? That these fathers were "spiritual fathers?"


1 Corinthians 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Nope, not there.

And not sure if what you are reading from has this...

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


I have a Spiritual Father. And it is not this lot, as you claim for yourself.

Let's see another passage on your spiritual fathers...



Hebrews 3:7-12

King James Version (KJV)

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.


18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.



How are these "spiritual fathers?"

Please explain.

And I will ask again...were you baptized into Moses?

Please answer the question.


God bless.

You speak of it again here...

1 Cor 10....does address the topic as the poster introduced lk 1 into the mix.
He did so with a shallow understanding which is corrected when we see how The Holy Spirit uses the "fathers".....revmac was the only one honest enough to state the obvious that gentiles were always part of God's Covenant Redemption.

Yet, just as you charge DHK with not addressing this issue, then charge me, it is pretty clear you are simply not being honest with yourself. It's either that or you really just understand what you are saying.


Continued...

 

[blessedwife318]

How is quoting every word you say...editing?

Rewriting?

True sometimes parsing can lose the context, and if that is pointed out then I have no problem admitting to it and apologizing.

But that seldom happens. I can think of only one instance in recent memory.

Really!! Because I have called you on spitting my sentences apart to make it sound like I said something I didn't. I've never gotten an apology for that. Usually you just ignore that I have pointed out that you spit my sentence apart.

 

[Darrell C]

(Address the points and Scripture that have already been offered...and you will save yourself a lot of trouble in more ways than one.)
I have.

No, you simply have not. You have done everything but address the issues.

Here it is again, ready? Hold on...

No-one in Israel was eternally redeemed. Everyone in the Church is.

(You are beginning to derail the conversation of the OP, which is not really a matter of the Covenant of Redemption, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit after this Age ends (and I think we can extend that to Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom equally).)

I am responding to your long rambling posts

Not true, you are derailing the thread as you do in every thread that mentions a Rapture.

.I am only on a phone now....I get to a keyboard at lunch sometime...or at night.

Take your time, there is no rush.

To go back and correct what you misrepresent is not a good use of time.....

Does this mean you are going to repent?

And start addressing the issues?

so try not to do what you are doing.
I will show it here....but you do this all the time.

Hollow, very hollow.

You cast the unbelieving fathers as spiritual fathers.

They fell in the wilderness, because of unbelief.

(And no-one is arguing that it isn't. What is argued is whether or not specific promises within periods of God's Redemptive Plan being progressively revealed were available to men in those times.)
A discussion is a two way event.....as part of the main discussion these issues have come up.

Yes, they have come up.

And still waiting for you to address them.

Were the promises bestowed in the Old Testament? A very simple question one can even answer on a phone.

(And the primary issue has been whether men were eternally redeemed in those prior periods.)
You have been answered.on this....you do not like the answer.

I haven't been answered.

You asking me to explain the Covenant of Redemption, which you know full well is a concept you learned from men...doesn't address the points and Scripture I have presented.

And since you have derailed this thread for now, let's look at some things that went unanswered...

As the original target I can tell you that this thread is about the difference between Israel and the Church.

You two just haven't picked up on it yet.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not eternally redeemed until Christ died.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not have the Atonement, hence all of the sacrifices they were commanded to effect for atonement.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not under the New Covenant.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not trust in the Shed Blood of Christ which is required for relationship with God under New Covenant standard.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not confess that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) were not aware of the Hidden and Secret Wisdom of God, the Mystery of the Gospel.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did not know that Christ being a Covenant unto the Gentiles referred to Gentile Inclusion because that too was a Mystery.

The faithful of Israel and Gentiles (pre-Law and under Law) did die in faith...

...but they were not made perfect in regards to remission of sins.

I could go on, but, maybe you get the point(s).

Show me where these points have been answered.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Really!! Because I have called you on spitting my sentences apart to make it sound like I said something I didn't. I've never gotten an apology for that. Usually you just ignore that I have pointed out that you spit my sentence apart.

Please point those out. We will see if your charge is true.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

Well no one said anything about the JW so how they view Jesus or denied you obviously don't understand what a metaphor of the two witnesses would be or where its base from because you don't study that way so it wasn't really meant to be addressed to you .
I know you don't have the ability to understand those kind of things.

Since you were the one unable to address the point made it is not I that is unable to understand the Scriptures.
Let me put it in a way you can understand.
Concerning metaphors, allegories, and the allegorical method of interpretation in general:

It was unknown until Origen, a heretic, invented it.
It was Augustine, one of the fathers of Catholicism, that popularized it.
Cults like the J.W.'s use it to deny basic fundamental doctrines like the resurrection of Christ.

Origen lived in the fourth century. For the three centuries before that time the Bible was always taken literally by all the ECF. The allegorical method of interpretation was unknown until it was introduced by a heretic.

Concerning the two witnesses of Revelation 11, what God has said, I believe.
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

--There are two men who prophesy for 3 and 1/2 years. They are dressed as many of the OT prophets were, in sackcloth. They are men. They preach. They have a particular dress.

Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
--God warns the Gentiles not to lay a hand on these two men; not to kill them. They are human. They can be killed. They can be "hurt."

Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
--In spite of God's warning the Antichrist kills them anyway.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city,
--There will be such evil at that time that they will just let their bodies lie in the street. There is no allegory, no metaphor here. This is exactly what God says will happen.

Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
--In fact they will rejoice over their deaths, even rejoice to see their bodies dead.
Abhorrent isn't it. But this is exactly what ISIS does today. They rejoice when they can behead a Christian. There is a genocide going on in the middle east. The inhumane acts of the Muslim extremists rejoice as they wipe out one Christian community after another, putting to death one Christian after another, delighting in raping their women before killing them.

There is no allegory here; only the absolute depravity of man, angered by the message of God.

The identity of one of those messengers is already given.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

 

[Darrell C]

(No, because not one of you have addressed the points and Scripture.)
Sure we have....when the scriptures are on the topic.

Every Scripture presented to you is in direct response to what you have said.

But if that makes you feel better...

(You yourself have said there was nothing different during those times. You said that in respect to Hebrews 1:1-2...)
Here is an example of what I just said you do....

I did not say...THERE WAS NOTHING DIFFERENT DURING THOSE TIMES. ....you say I said that...but I DID NOT.

In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.

Now let's see some quotes from those posts:

Well, to start, I would agree post #11 is wrong, and contradicts the very topic, so I have to admit you are correct in your assessment of Post # 11.

Post #12-

The passage you quoted is irrelevant to the prophesy of Zacharias.
Read a book on hermeneutics.

Nothing wrong there. DHK points out your response Is irrelevant to his own. He is correct.

Post #13- You are again correct...this post also is wrong.

DHK said: ↑
The passage you quoted is irrelevant to the prophesy of Zacharias.
Read a book on hermeneutics.

You can remain in denial.....Lk 1 speaks of the Holy covenant;;;


Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham

The Holy Spirit has him prophesy about the Covenant as it was passed on to ABRAHAM

The same Holy Spirit has Paul tell us...the heathen gentiles were always part of the gospel as revealed in the Abrahamic covenant....
connect the dots.....or not:wavey::wavey: the rest of us believe it:thumbs:

Post #14-

Iconoclast said: ↑
You can remain in denial.....Lk 1 speaks of the Holy covenant;;;


Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham

The Holy Spirit has him prophesy about the Covenant as it was passed on to ABRAHAM

The same Holy Spirit has Paul tell us...the heathen gentiles were always part of the gospel as revealed in the Abrahamic covenant....
connect the dots.....or not:wavey::wavey: the rest of us believe it:thumbs:

Yes. Luke was the one doing the writing. Zacharias was the one doing the speaking. He was, in fact, prophesying of the ministry of his son, John the Baptist--nothing to do with NT Gentile believers. He was speaking of Israel, and specifically mentioned the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Israel, himself as an OT prophet and the coming of his son, John, the last of the OT prophets.
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.
He is speaking of Israel all throughout. The "us" refers to Israel, and no one but Israel. You are in denial to that fact. This is before Christ was even born. There was no "church" at this point in history. It didn't even exist. This is still an OT "dispensation." It is a time when they are under the law, and not under grace. Later when John would be born, and when Jesus would be born, both mothers would respectively go to the priests and offer sin offerings on behalf of their own selves. Why? Christ had not yet died and shed his blood, or paid the price.

Nothing wrong here. DHK makes a distinct point which addresses the topic. You should read it again, he is trying to teach you a few basic principles.


Don't go away, we need to look all the way through post #19.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Post #15- again, you are right. This is error...

Again, no one will get to heaven without the shed blood of Jesus Christ. You look at the cross as an one time event, and it did happen in time, but it has eternal consequences. His blood covered the sins of those who died in faith pre-cross, as they were looking towards Christ and His redemptive work of the cross. We look back at the cross. It was a one time event in time that covers all the sins of all His sheep, pre- and post-cross.

The error is that it imposes eternal redemption prior to the Cross. That was DHKs point, as well as my own.

Post #16-

Darrell C said: ↑
That is true, however...when did men start going to Heaven?


God bless.

Enoch? Probably as soon as the first believer took his or her last breath.

If I was in error in my statement...why did you not address it? Because you simply sill not address the points and Scripture.

Post #17-

DHK said:
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

Right again, Iconoclast...this poster is in error. And he was addressed. You could have addressed the response, instead of thinking "You're wrong!" is a response to the points and Scripture.

You're right again in Post # 18-

Rom 1:16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Darrell C won't yield to Scripture. Ignore him.

Backbiting is wrong, can't argue with you there.

And finally, Post # 19-

Iconoclast said: ↑
This proves my point....you are without understanding concerning the Covenant of redemption....you have no idea.....


22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

This distinguishes two Ages, what came before, and what was occurring in Paul's day.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.



They were not called God's People...that is a primary thrust of this prophecy. That is why Paul's teaching of the twain made one is presented.

There were men of faith among both Jew and Gentile, but Israel was the distinct People of God in that Age.

Iconoclast said:

↑

What were the gentiles grafted into????
gal3
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The only understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is on Paul's part...not Abraham's. The Gospel was a mystery, previously unknown, previously unrevealed...the Hidden and Secret wisdom of God.

The revealing of the Gospel did indeed begin in the Old Testament Prophecy, by means of Prophecy, but understanding was kept secret.

There is a point in time when we can see that the Gospel was revealed, and this through the Spirit of God sent down from Heaven, the Comforter.


Galatians 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


God bless.

It's always the same story, you have addressed the posts and you are the victor.

The reality is that, just as in this thread, you have no contribution to offer this community except disruption and discord among the brethren.

Now I have addressed you word for word, and quoted you exactly as you have stated your case. I have given links that others can verify I am not just stating opinion, but relaying the facts.

You need to learn to do this, and truly I want you to, because we should all be concerned with the truth.


Continued...