Your Actions Tell What You Are

Agreed, and by choosing self, he chooses hell.

Well, ultimately in your theology, he does have to leave man on his own, in order for him to make a free decision to choose or reject. So in that momemt of decision, man is left to his own devices. God does not interfere at that point, ergo man is left on his own.

 

I think you have made a convincing argument that the promised land is the rest. But as you see in Heb 4, we have not entered into that rest any more than they have. What is that rest?

Psalms 132:13-14
13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
14 This is my rest forever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.

God is going to dwell in Zion for a thousand years, that is the rest that remains for the people of God. That millennial sabbath is the fulfillment of that rest.

 

If Psalm 132:13-14 is referring to the MK, then why does it say, "This is my rest forever"? I looked at several different translations and they all say forever or ever and ever. Why do none of them say for "a really long time," which is what the MK is? Aren't we supposed to interpret Scripture literally?

 

Deuteronomy 15:17
17 Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

Will this servant continue to serve his master throughout all eternity? Forever generally means a really long time, age lasting. Sometimes forever means a thousand years. Regardless, God may continue to dwell there after the millennium, but the rest is in Jerusalem.

 

Yes, but that's because they have believed the lie from the god of this world...the same lie Adam and Eve believed.

I'm referring to drawing, not the decision left up to man to make. Man isn't created...and then left to themselves from birth. God draws all men (John 12:32). What man does with the truth given is another subject.

 

Won't there be a new heavens and new earth after the MK? Why would he continue to dwell in a place that no longer exists (the old earth)? Could it be that these verses in Psalms are referring to the New Jerusalem in Rev. 21:2 and not to the MK?

 

Could be that New Jerusalem appears at the beginning of the kingdom. God loves Jerusalem.

 

In the Psalms reference God is talking to His nation, those of Hebrew decent.

In Hebrews that reference written to the Hebrew is for those of Hebrew decent. The Book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews.

In Matthew Jesus speaks to His people, His Nation, for He said I only came for my own, those of Hebrew decent.

Are these verses written to us, or for our information, and understanding? We cannot fool God, for He knows who is of the Nation Israel, the "tree that was axed", those of Hebrew decent, whom He is coming back to deal with.

 

I guess in reading Rev. 21:1 where it says, "Then" - I take that to mean in sequence. Rev. 20 talks about the MK and "then" appeared the new heavens and new earth. I see no reason to conclude that Rev. 21 should be put in sequence ahead of ch. 20.

 

Rom 8:20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,

God in His Sovernity, created man with a choice to choose good or vanity. God only made man subject to vanity, but was not His will that man would choose vanity, but if man did choose vanity, then God also created man subject to Hope. (which is Jesus Christ).

It was God's work when He created man, not now. It is now that God saves man, if he will believe in Jesus.

Believing in Christ to be saved, is the "work" of God, and is how He created man.

 

Is this "Kingdom Church", or "Body Church" talk? You speak of what James presents.

Shouldn't we thank our "lucky stars" that we in Him have been justified through Him, and HIS WORKS.

Those of the "Kingdom Church" will show us their works, just as James says. My Apostle whom Christ revealed the "Body Church" to says no such thing.

 

Could not happen that way.

 

"Believe" in John 6:29 is in the present tense. Present, Active, Subjunctive.

It may or may not happen, and it can stop.

What happens when a saved person stops believing?

 

Matthew 21:43: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The offer of the Kingdom was withdrawn from Israel as a nation, and given to the Gentiles. (Not salvation. Gentiles could always be saved.)

But, the offer of the Kingdom is ours, so these verses are now applicable to us.

 

I highlighted part of your quote.

Yes, we should interpret it literally.

So, why do we force "forever" into it?

According to the RMAC:

1) as far as, even to, until, up to, while, as far as (preposition)
1a) of space
1a1) as far as, up to, even to
1b) in combination
1b1) from...as far as, both...and (with ‘min’ - from)
1c) of time
1c1) even to, until, unto, till, during, end
1d) of degree
1d1) even to, to the degree of, even like
2) until, while, to the point that, so that even (conjunction)

In the LXX, the word is "age".

In English, "ever" etymologically is from a "long life". "For ever" meant a long time. It did not mean "interminable" until some time in the 19th century, and this idea is of US origins.

So, interpret it literally: The concept of "forever and ever" the way we use it today is not in that verse.

 

Why do you assume it's an either/or situation?

We're told that we are justified forever by his death on the cross.

We're also told that we need to justify ourselves by our works.

Contradiction in Scriptures, or are they for something different?

Or do you just ignore one of the two?

 

Lot was righteous because he was/is a believer.

He wasn't perfect.

Before I was saved I was a riotous drinker.
No one ever had to trick me into drinking enough to get drunk.
I am also a father and I don't even want to contemplate what he did with his daughters no matter how drunk.

Apart from that the very attitude of his daughters suggests a moral weakness on his part in not teaching them godliness or faith in God to continue the human race after their conclusion that the world had ended

Yes he was righteous/just (because he was/is a believer) but he wasn't perfect.

HankD

 

We're righteous because we're obedient to God's commandments.

Doesn't mean we're perfect, or that we don't stumble greatly.

But, that's our aim.

That's why Lot was righteous. He walked in the ordinances of the Lord.

Perfect?

Obviously not.

But, righteous, because of his works.

 

PHP 3:7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

 

Notice it doesn't say nations, but a nation. Gentiles are the nations today, so what one Holy nation do you think will bring forth the fruits?

No doubt, but only as a proselyte, never to be allowed into the inner court of the Temple, until God showed what He had hidden.

Again, can you correctly name that one nation, of today, Jesus tells us about?

I am of "rapture" (Body Church belief), Pre-Trib then comes Millennium Kingdom. The "Kingdom Church" of a nation will have to go through the tribulation. This is prophesied and will come about. Future in the Millennium will cover lots of Gentiles as a nation, with the Jews to have priority, but not today. We are still in the "Times of the Gentile".