22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

[Randy Kluth]

Was that the case in Old Testament times? What Premils like yourself clearly don't understand is the tremendous effect that Christ's death, resurrection and the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit has had on Satan the past 2,000 years. Premils think nothing ever changed in regards to Satan. Then what in the world are passages like Hebrews 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8 about?

Those verses need to be viewed in context. In context the author of Hebrews is talking about the defeat of Satan as lead prosecutor against the human race. His claim is that since we have all sinned, we all must die. And we may never again lay claim to eternal life.

All that ended at the cross, through the grace that Christ displayed when he forgave the sins of all those who choose to live by and through him. Then, we will experience resurrection at the end of the age.

This defeat took place at the cross, but death itself will not be defeated until Christ comes again. So your timing is off if you think death was defeated in any way other than *legally* at the cross!

As for 1 John 3.8, the context involves Christ's mission, what it is, and not anything to do with its timing. Christ's mission was to destroy Satan's impact upon the world, his temptation of the human race to sin, to then be legally condemned and ineligible for salvation. Christ defeated Satan's purpose at the cross, where he provided a way past our legal problems to inherit eternal life after all.

If you think the passage said that Christ immediately brought about the complete defeat of Satan you're wrong. It was purely a complete *legal* defeat. Final defeat will take place in stages. 1st, death will be defeated on behalf of the present Church at Christ's 2nd Coming. And then, when Satan is released from his Millennial prison, he will finally be defeated forever, being sent into the Lake of Fire.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

OK. I'll get more specific.

Can you try to do that more often? I'm sometimes not sure of what it is exactly that you're trying to say.

I have said that the Gentiles are tangentially involved with Israel, so that would explain John 3:16. However, that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said he come only for Israel and that he sent the Apostles out with precise instructions to go only to Israel.

So what?

What I really should have been saying is that John is not written to the church.

No, you really shouldn't be saying that. While it was specifically addressed to seven existing churches in the Roman province of Asia at the time, the entire church can learn things from what Jesus told them. The issues that those churches had back then are similar issues that other churches had back then and that those in the church have had ever since.

Edit: I thought you were talking about the book of Revelation which John wrote here. But, you were talking about the book of John?

It'll be interesting to see what you think about that clarification. I can almost hear you saying, "Oh, no he's changing his entire story...he doesn't know what he believes..." It couldn't possible be that I was just trying to keep things simple.

It's funny how you think you can read my mind. I'm doing no such thing. I'm open to someone clarifying what they're saying. Why would I have a problem with that? I wish people did that more often.

There is no reason to think Jesus will destroy his enemies immediately after the rapture either. How does Thessalonians indicate that?

You understand that there were no chapter breaks in the original manuscripts, right? Paul is writing about the day Christ returns from about 1 Thess 4:13 to 1 Thess 5:11. He first wrote about what will happen to believers on that day and then he wrote about what will happen to unbelievers on that day. He did the same thing in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. Do you understand that 2 Thessalonians 1:10 is speaking about the rapture and it occurs on the same day described in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9?

Now if you were to understand that there is a whole 7 year tribulation between the two events, it'd all make sense.

No, that makes nonsense of everything. And that's based on a false interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 (I assume your 7 year tribulation belief is based on you thinking the 70th week is unfulfilled?).

Like I've said many times, the entire scope of scripture must be considered when building a system of belief in your mind.

No kidding! Do you think I don't know that?

There are tons of other verses that would make it clear there is some time between the rapture and Jesus coming to earth.

I haven't seen them. Such as? Just give me a few.

Yes. Those Christians who are asleep will be raised and it does sound like those alive at that day will be changed right after. But that still has nothing to do with the throne of judgment. Nor does it have anything to do with the 7 years of tribulation. It has nothing to do with Revelation at all. It occurs before Revelation and is in fact the reason all hell will break lose at the tribulation. Christians are the light of the world. We are the only thing holding back Satan from doing the things he will do in the tribulation. Light gone...look out below!!!

This is all talk. Please back up your claims with scripture. I'm getting a bit tired of just seeing your words without any scriptural support to back them up.

It couldn't be you're doing a good job of understand me. Not a chance. At least in your world I guess.

That's right.

Good verses to be sure but they are not talking about the same throne.

LOL. See what you do? You just make claims. Back them up. You're not going to convince me of anything by just saying those verses are not about the same throne. You were acting as if Christians won't be judged (judged, not condemned, to be clear). I showed you otherwise and this is all the response I get?

1 Cor 3:15,

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
​

Nothing like that at the throne in Revelation.

Just because not every passage that talks about the day of judgment has all the same details means that each passage is talking about different judgments. Come on. If that was the case then that would mean there will be about 17 different judgment days in the future. But, scripture only speaks of one. Paul clearly said in Acts 17:31 that God has set one future day to judge everyone. That day is portrayed in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, John 5:28-29, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11 to Revelation 21:1-7.

They either enter the gate or get thrown into the lake of fire. Nothing there about just getting rid of the bad things, purification if you will, while saving the individual with all the good they did. Again, a radically different judgement for different people at different times. Mix up people and times and it all becomes as clear as mud.

Different judgment for different people at different times? Where does scripture teach such a thing? Is that what is indicated in passages like Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46 where it talks about the righteous and wicked all being gathered AT THE SAME TIME and then judged?

No, you should absolutely not ignore those verses. But you should also not ignore to whom and when each was written. You have to read and act on your own mail, not that of your neighbor.

What does it matter really who Matthew 25:31-46 was written to? It talks about the judgment of all people from all nations. To act as if it's just talking about Israel when it clearly is talking about people from all nations is clearly nonsense.

Our disagreement lies in when things will occur.

Here's what I say;
1) Rapture (caught up in the air to meet Jesus)
2) Tribulation
3) Armageddon
4) First resurrection
5) 1,000 year kingdom
6) Second resurrection
7) Everlasting kingdom on new earth

How do you see it? Particularly, where does the Christians being caught up fit with everything?

Something like this:

1) First resurrection (Christ's resurrection - Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5 or which we all spiritually have part in)
2) Tribulation (not the way you understand it, but never mind that for now)
3) Dead in Christ resurrected
4) Rapture (caught up to Christ "in the air")
5) The wrath of Christ coming down on all of His enemies (2 Peter 3:10-12, 2 Thess 1:7-9, Rev 19:17-18, Rev 20:9)
6) Second resurrection (resurrection of the wicked)
7) Judgment of all people with unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire and then...
8) Believers inheriting the eternal kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world on the new earth.

I see 3-6 all happening on the same day Christ returns and all happening quickly with the judgment happening right after that as well. But, I believe the judgment doesn't happen within the realm of time but rather happens within the realm of eternity (imagine how long it would take in the realm of time as we know it to judge all people).

 

[Rich R]

Good reference, Jeff. Once again a Premil has completely overlooked what scripture teaches. Nothing new. Jesus will be the Judge on the great white throne, as this verse, and passages like Matthew 25:31-46, make abundantly clear.

John 5:21-22,

21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
​

What does this have to do with the order of events in the end times? How does it say anything about pre, mid, or post (or whatever they're called) millennials? How in the world do they preclude Jesus from gathering Christians in the air before he comes to the earth?

If you do see anything in these verses about the order of events, it's only because of bias.

 

[CadyandZoe]

How can it be an assumption when he's talking about Israelite and Gentile believers being brought together as one entity? How can that not make you think of the church where Jew and Gentile believers are brought together as one?

It's an assumption because Paul has not stopped making general statements about Ethnic Israel. He is answering the rhetorical question he raised in 11:11.

Now who is making assumptions? I never even remotely hinted at the idea of an individual Jew being broken off in order to be replaced by an individual Gentile. That is a straw man argument.

Assumption: Paul is speaking about individuals.
Logical implication: A Hebrew was removed so a non-Hebrew might be saved.

I know you didn't say that explicitly, but that is a logical implication of your view. The following paraphrase represents the interpretation you are proposing.

You [a gentile individual] will say then, “Branches [Jewish individuals] were broken off so that I [a gentile individual] might be grafted in.”​

I maintain that Paul is not speaking about individual people because we end up with false doctrine like the one expressed above. I'm not suggesting that you believe this. In fact, I'm counting on the fact that you don't in hopes that once you see the implications of your view, you will reevaluate your position. I think we can both agree that Paul would never teach God removed an individual Jew so that an individual Gentile might be grafted in. If you agree with me then maybe you can see that Paul is NOT referring to individual people. Rather, he is making a general statement concerning Gentiles taken as a whole.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

Assumption: The tree represents those whom God is saving.
Logical implication: Salvation is granted to Hebrews when they are born.

That, in my opinion, is another logical implication of your perspective. What follows is another illustration of what happens if we assume that Paul is speaking of individual salvation.

For if you [a Gentile individual] were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree [not saved], and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree [saved by birth], how much more will these who are the natural branches [individual Jews who lost salvation] be grafted into their own olive tree?​

Paul is speaking about a cultivated tree, on which Hebrew people belong by virtue of being Hebrew. If the Olive Tree represents salvation, then Paul seems to be saying that individual Hebrews are saved on the basis that they are Hebrews. You and I don't believe this. And so this is another good reason for you to reexamine your assumptions.

Who said that? Not me. Are you talking to me here or someone else?

You didn't say that explicitly. But it is a logical implication of your position.

Of course. Why are you acting as if I've said any of these things?

I hoped that I was careful not to accuse you directly. I tried to state the clear implications of your view with out being accusatory.

No, I absolutely can not see that. What he taught regarding the branches is how salvation works. If an individual loses or is lacking faith then they are cut off. If someone puts their faith in Christ they are added to the church. Is that not what is being portrayed in Romans 11 in a figurative way? I believe so.

Your position doesn't work because it doesn't take into account a significant aspect of Paul's analogy: natural vs. wild. Paul compares natural branches which belong on the tree "by nature" and wild branches that come from another tree and are grafted on contrary to nature. He says that the Gentiles remain by faith and natural branches are cut off because of lack of faith. Now, if the tree represents salvation, then initially the natural branches are saved "by nature." The are saved by nature and only lose salvation once they fail to believe.

Now, you and I don't believe that anyone is saved by nature, so we shouldn't accept the idea that the tree represents salvation.

Why do you think he's speaking in any different context than he was in Romans 10:9-13 where he wrote about there being no difference between Jew and Gentile in regards to salvation?

Romans 10:9-13 is a side statement in a larger context. The context of chapter 10 is Paul's argument that justification by faith is not a new idea. Even Moses spoke of justification by faith in the book of Deuteronomy.

No, it does not! Can you not see that the criteria for being part of the cultivated olive tree is faith and those without faith are cut off and not part of it? How is that any different than how individual salvation works? It isn't.

But salvation isn't the only thing that works this way. Another, better interpretation involves knowledge of God's will for mankind and general wisdom. Remember, Paul is talking about cultivation. And what is cultivation in human terms if not education, enlightenment, teaching, experience and mentoring? In chapter 3, Paul says that the Jews have an advantage because they have the oracles of God. Elsewhere Paul writes that those sitting under Moses have a veil over their eyes so that they can't see what the Law actually means. Concerning the mysteries of God, Jesus says "whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." In other words, knowledge and wisdom build on previous knowledge and wisdom. Those who hear the word of God and believe it, attain to more knowledge. But those who refuse to believe, what knowledge they have is taken away from them.

The Olive tree represents access to God's plan and will for mankind. The Jews are on that tree naturally because God has spent a fair amount of time cultivating them as a people. When Gentiles are grafted to the tree, they have the benefit of the scriptures and all that accumulated knowledge about God's will. Now, those who refuse to believe begin to lose that knowledge until they are filled with doubt and unbelief. But those who believe and trust God's word get more wisdom and knowledge because information that is hard to understand at first, becomes easier to understand as one builds on what one has already learned.

LOL! What?!! In no way, shape or form is Paul saying that. The ones who crucified Christ were cut off from the olive tree! How can you think they are holy? My goodness, you've outdone yourself here. I thought your interpretations of Romans 9:6-8 and 1 Peter 2:9 were horrible, but this might be even worse. Come on now. I believe you're better than this.

This is exactly Paul's point. He is telling you and me that although Israel is unbelieving and an enemy to the Gospel, she is still holy to God. The Branches that are cut off are still holy branches.

Try to understand what the Bible means by "holy." In essence, the word "holy" refers to something or someone whom God has set aside for a special purpose. It is not a direct synonym for righteous, good, or saved. The Hebrew people are holy because God chose that family line for a special purpose. And Paul argues that God did not change his mind about that. He is using them for his special purpose.

Holiness doesn't mean "distinctive"; it simply means "set aside for a special purpose." Suppose I have two bowls. With the first bowl, I eat my cheerios; with the second bowl, I perform a temple service. Both bowls are exactly alike. The one I use during breakfast is common; the one I use during a religious service is holy.

The same is true of people. All people are pretty much exactly alike. Most of the word is "common" but God chose the sons and daughters of Jacob to serve a special purpose. Because God chose them for a special purpose, he considers them to be holy. Not because they are different, but because God has a special purpose for them.

The nation of Israel that includes unbelievers is not holy.

According to God they are. Out of all the families of the earth, Jacob has been set aside to serve God.

That is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Romans 11:28, Deuteronomy 7:6

Yes, and it includes Gentile believers.

Whomever God declares to be holy, is holy. Acts 10:15

So, how can the Olive Tree represent the nation of Israel when Gentile believers are not part of the nation of Israel?

Paul is answering his rhetorical question, Did Israel fall when she stumbled? (presumably she stumbled over the cornerstone.) His answer is, no. She remains holy because her root is holy. The Olive Tree represents the holy people of God. THAT tree is the one that put Jesus on the cross. In Paul's opinion, although Israel put Jesus on the cross, she remains holy because the root is holy. Natural Israel is holy because God says she is.

Yes, he did! That is implied because the ones who did not have faith were cut off.

Again, no one is "naturally saved" or "saved by nature." Paul's words, not mine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Have you ever noticed that 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn't say Jesus comes down to earth? I says we will meet him in the air. Is that significant? I think it is. I think it is highly significant.

It's difficult for me to cross you when I just noticed you agreed with me above! But being that my mission here has always been to please God and my conscience 1st, and only after that to please friends, please allow me to disagree on this particular issue. I mean no ill will.

I was a Pretrib in the past, but ended that many years ago when I memorized 2 Thessalonians. It instantly changed me--no other person's influence did this. I had been raised up in a kind of dead church, one that never once mentioned a Pretrib Rapture. So perhaps I was leery of it after embracing it due to the influence of my Pretrib friends. By the way, I still go to a Pretrib church!

You asked if Thessalonians 4 doesn't talk about a resurrection. You said yes. My Bible says Christians will be "raised." There is nothing there that mentions a resurrection. Revelation talks about two resurrections, but not Thessalonians. God purified every word 7 times. He knows the difference between "raising" and "resurrecting." It's incumbent upon the student of God's word to ferret out that difference.

Do you have any scholarly support for such an assertion? Wild, uninformed assertions cannot displace well-ground, historical arguments. "Nothing new is under the sun."

I might also remind you that the Gospels were not written to the church. They were written to the Jews, a few things about Gentiles as well, but definitely not to the church given that it didn't even exist while Jesus was here.

Well, that is flat out wrong! The Gospels were written well after Jesus made his comments to Israel. You're right, though, that the commentary in the Gospels from Jesus was largely directed to Israel at that time. But it was recorded by Jesus' apostles so that the message could be translated from Israel to the international Church! Otherwise, why are the Gospels even in our Bible?

To make it as clear as I can, the church has a radically different end than that of the Jews and Gentiles. Paul tells us what happens to Christians. John (and others) tells us what happens to the Jews and the Gentiles. The two ends are not identical in any way, shape, or form. Ours is much better!

I don't agree with Dispensationalists on this except that I agree with Israel's place in future prophecy--Israel will be restored to God and become, I believe, a Christian people. But as a Christian people they will *not* be distinguished from the international Church. Rather, they will become *part of* the international Church!

So Israel today is largely non-Christian, and the nation itself cannot be considered to be part of t he Church. But Paul's argument is that there is nevertheless a remnant from the nation that is Christian presently, making it a part of the international Church. And that is a sign that ultimately, the entire country will be Christianized.

Israel simply has had a different timing scheme than other nations. With that I'm sure you'll agree? The same thing could be said for any number of Christian nations. The nation of France became Christian before the nation of Norway. And the nation of the E. Roman Empire became Christian before the nation of Russia. Different timing schemes but the same Church!

Israel was the 1st nation of God, and will be the last in the present age to become a Christian nation--not just a participation in the Church through a *remnant!*

If we disagree, no problem. We're brothers.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Was that the case in Old Testament times? What Premils like yourself clearly don't understand is the tremendous effect that Christ's death, resurrection and the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit has had on Satan the past 2,000 years. Premils think nothing ever changed in regards to Satan. Then what in the world are passages like Hebrews 2:14-15 and 1 John 3:8 about?

Again, I return to Peter's declaration that the devil is wandering around like a lion. In other words, he isn't chained to a stake like a dog. He is loose.

I acknowledge what you say about the effect of Christ. In fact, John calls him the light of the world. And Western Culture has lived by that light for centuries. But it does not follow, therefore, that Satan is bound. Peter says he is loose.

 

[Rich R]

.

1) First resurrection (Christ's resurrection - Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5 or which we all spiritually have part in)
2) Tribulation (not the way you understand it, but never mind that for now)
3) Dead in Christ resurrected
4) Rapture (caught up to Christ "in the air")
5) The wrath of Christ coming down on all of His enemies (2 Peter 3:10-12, 2 Thess 1:7-9, Rev 19:17-18, Rev 20:9)
6) Second resurrection (resurrection of the wicked)
7) Judgment of all people with unbelievers being cast into the lake of fire and then...
8) Believers inheriting the eternal kingdom prepared for us from the foundation of the world on the new earth.

Well, at least we agree with #8. Interesting too that #8 is one where we will no longer have doctrinal differences. We'll see what's what then. Too bad we can't make bets as to who was right and who was wrong about things when we were down here. Lot's of folks would be quite wealthy!

 

[CadyandZoe]

In post #1907 I clarify that the salvation of individuals and the salvation of nations are both biblical concepts. But we must not confuse the ideas. Both involve the need for regeneration.

An individual, to be saved spiritually, requires regeneration. But a nation, to be saved politically, only requires general conformity with the laws of God to be shown favor by God. That's how it worked in the OT, and that's also how God operates in the NT.

A nation can be a rather "mixed crowd" and still conform to the will of Christ. Not all need to be regenerated for this to happen, since even non-Christians can be persuaded to obey moral law. This will not get them saved, but it will contribute to good works and to the health of the country, along with God's blessings.

I do think a lot of the confusion on this subject comes from an unwillingness, by some, to properly distinguish between spiritual and political salvation. In the OT Israel gives us a great example of political salvation without 100% spiritual conformity by the people. That is, many of them, we know, were not truly in their heart conformed to the love of God. But at times they were willing to obey God in important matters, and so enabled the nation, as a whole, to be blessed.

What Paul is alluding to is this promise from God that Israel would experience a final political salvation, not because all Jews must become regenerated, but rather, because at present the vast majority of Jews reject Christ. When Christ returns, his claim is that the dominant ungodly majority will be defeated, and the righteous remnant will began to dominate.

That will lead not to the salvation of only one county in Israel, or one city, but rather, to the deliverance of an entire country. "All Israel" will be saved, not meaning that every individual will be regenerated, but that the entire land and people will be brought into conformity to the will of Christ so that they will from henceforth no longer be dominated by ungodly foreigners.

I must say that it's been difficult for me to convey this fairly simple concept due to the enormous confusion and resistance that exists in this regard. We've had many centuries of resistance to the idea Jews can become Christian as a people. I find that appalling. But it's the reality, and I have to deal with it.

I feel your frustration.

 

[Keraz]

The Gospels are still OT where God deals with His chosen people, Israel and nobody but Israel.

The mistake made by you and many others is to think that Israel is only the Jewish people, in the State of Israel, or still in dispersion.
This belief ignores the truth of the 10 Northern tribes, sent into exile by Assyria, circa 722-715 BC. They were given a set, decreed time to be in exile; Ezekiel 4:4-5 of 390 years and Judah, the Jews exile was for 40 years. They were both multiplied for their continued sins. Leviticus 26:21-28
So; for the House of Israel, their exile is 2730 years, which is complete about now and for the House of Judah, their exile was 1960 years, [40 + 7X7] from 70 AD to 2030 AD; the Return of Jesus.
These Bible truths show how it is the descendants of the ten Northern tribes who Jesus came to save and we Christians are the successful result of His Mission. WE Christians are the Israelites of God.

You "Add" to scripture

Not one word in Revelation 20:1-6 teaches of a literal mortal kingdom on this earth for 1,000 years as you teach and believe

"Not One Word"

Plain reading of Revelation 20:1-7 shows how wrong you are. That prophecy cannot be in heaven for Eternity, as a specific time period is given, in six instances: of a thousand years.
You are discredited and to continue with your false assumptions is a waste of space here.

Good reference, Jeff. Once again a Premil has completely overlooked what scripture teaches. Nothing new. Jesus will be the Judge on the great white throne,

Seems you have overlooked a fair bit! Daniel 7:9-10 proves you wrong and Revelation 20:11 clearly refers to God the Father, to whom Jesus, the Son, has just handed back the Kingdom and all of His authority. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

I have just refuted 3 false beliefs here, with scriptural proofs. Will any of you admit your errors?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Those verses need to be viewed in context.

I agree. This will probably be the only thing I agree with in your entire post, but we'll see.

In context the author of Hebrews is talking about the defeat of Satan as lead prosecutor against the human race. His claim is that since we have all sinned, we all must die. And we may never again lay claim to eternal life.

Is that what he's talking about? Let's actually look at the text to see if it says what you're saying here or something else.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

So, what this is saying, which you didn't reference at all, is that by His death, Jesus broke or destroyed the power of him who had held the power of death, which was the devil. Again, you said nothing about this for some reason. It makes me wonder if you were reading a different passage. And then the author (most likely Paul, IMO) indicated that the result of this was setting free people who had previously been "held in slavery by their fear of death" which the one who held the power of death took full advantage of back then. So, how exactly can this not relate to Satan's binding? Christ's death had a tremendous impact on Satan, as passages like this indicate. Premils seem to not understand that. I believe Satan needed to be bound in order for his slaves to be set free. This is something Jesus Himself touched on when he talked about the strong man (representing Satan) having his goods (representing those Satan had power over) spoiled (Matt 12:26-29).

All that ended at the cross, through the grace that Christ displayed when he forgave the sins of all those who choose to live by and through him. Then, we will experience resurrection at the end of the age.

This defeat took place at the cross, but death itself will not be defeated until Christ comes again. So your timing is off if you think death was defeated in any way other than *legally* at the cross!

Do you actually think I believe death was defeated in any other way than that? Of course not. But, just read what you said here. You say nothing about the effect Christ's death had on Satan even though that is what the passage is about. Unbelievable.

As for 1 John 3.8, the context involves Christ's mission, what it is, and not anything to do with its timing.

Say what now? How can it not be saying anything about the timing? Did He come around 2,000 years ago to destroy the works of the devil only to have to wait who knows how long to actually start doing so? That's ludicrous. No, He began destroying the works of the devil long ago at His first coming and has been doing so ever since. And He will finish the job when He returns.

Christ's mission was to destroy Satan's impact upon the world, his temptation of the human race to sin, to then be legally condemned and ineligible for salvation. Christ defeated Satan's purpose at the cross, where he provided a way past our legal problems to inherit eternal life after all.

And why would you not think this has anything to do with Him binding Satan?

If you think the passage said that Christ immediately brought about the complete defeat of Satan you're wrong.

Randy, my goodness. You say some ridiculous things sometimes. Why in the world would you think that I'm saying Satan was completely defeated at that point? Of course I'm not saying that. But Christ began defeating him back then. That's my point.

It was purely a complete *legal* defeat. Final defeat will take place in stages.

No kidding! I'm not saying otherwise.

1st, death will be defeated on behalf of the present Church at Christ's 2nd Coming.

Wait a minute. I thought the first stage was Christ's death and resurrection? Is that not what the passages we're talking about here indicate? And then another stage would be the gospel being preached through the power of the Holy Spirit. That has contributed to Satan's defeat as well, hasn't it? But, here you are placing the first stage in the distant future after His first coming? That makes no sense.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's an assumption because Paul has not stopped making general statements about Ethnic Israel. He is answering the rhetorical question he raised in 11:11.


Assumption: Paul is speaking about individuals.
Logical implication: A Hebrew was removed so a non-Hebrew might be saved.

I know you didn't say that explicitly, but that is a logical implication of your view. The following paraphrase represents the interpretation you are proposing.

You [a gentile individual] will say then, “Branches [Jewish individuals] were broken off so that I [a gentile individual] might be grafted in.”​

I maintain that Paul is not speaking about individual people because we end up with false doctrine like the one expressed above. I'm not suggesting that you believe this. In fact, I'm counting on the fact that you don't in hopes that once you see the implications of your view, you will reevaluate your position. I think we can both agree that Paul would never teach God removed an individual Jew so that an individual Gentile might be grafted in. If you agree with me then maybe you can see that Paul is NOT referring to individual people. Rather, he is making a general statement concerning Gentiles taken as a whole.


Assumption: The tree represents those whom God is saving.
Logical implication: Salvation is granted to Hebrews when they are born.

That, in my opinion, is another logical implication of your perspective. What follows is another illustration of what happens if we assume that Paul is speaking of individual salvation.

For if you [a Gentile individual] were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree [not saved], and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree [saved by birth], how much more will these who are the natural branches [individual Jews who lost salvation] be grafted into their own olive tree?​

Paul is speaking about a cultivated tree, on which Hebrew people belong by virtue of being Hebrew. If the Olive Tree represents salvation, then Paul seems to be saying that individual Hebrews are saved on the basis that they are Hebrews. You and I don't believe this. And so this is another good reason for you to reexamine your assumptions.


You didn't say that explicitly. But it is a logical implication of your position.
I hoped that I was careful not to accuse you directly. I tried to state the clear implications of your view with out being accusatory.


Your position doesn't work because it doesn't take into account a significant aspect of Paul's analogy: natural vs. wild. Paul compares natural branches which belong on the tree "by nature" and wild branches that come from another tree and are grafted on contrary to nature. He says that the Gentiles remain by faith and natural branches are cut off because of lack of faith. Now, if the tree represents salvation, then initially the natural branches are saved "by nature." The are saved by nature and only lose salvation once they fail to believe.

Now, you and I don't believe that anyone is saved by nature, so we shouldn't accept the idea that the tree represents salvation.

Romans 10:9-13 is a side statement in a larger context. The context of chapter 10 is Paul's argument that justification by faith is not a new idea. Even Moses spoke of justification by faith in the book of Deuteronomy.

But salvation isn't the only thing that works this way. Another, better interpretation involves knowledge of God's will for mankind and general wisdom. Remember, Paul is talking about cultivation. And what is cultivation in human terms if not education, enlightenment, teaching, experience and mentoring? In chapter 3, Paul says that the Jews have an advantage because they have the oracles of God. Elsewhere Paul writes that those sitting under Moses have a veil over their eyes so that they can't see what the Law actually means. Concerning the mysteries of God, Jesus says "whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him." In other words, knowledge and wisdom build on previous knowledge and wisdom. Those who hear the word of God and believe it, attain to more knowledge. But those who refuse to believe, what knowledge they have is taken away from them.

The Olive tree represents access to God's plan and will for mankind. The Jews are on that tree naturally because God has spent a fair amount of time cultivating them as a people. When Gentiles are grafted to the tree, they have the benefit of the scriptures and all that accumulated knowledge about God's will. Now, those who refuse to believe begin to lose that knowledge until they are filled with doubt and unbelief. But those who believe and trust God's word get more wisdom and knowledge because information that is hard to understand at first, becomes easier to understand as one builds on what one has already learned.


This is exactly Paul's point. He is telling you and me that although Israel is unbelieving and an enemy to the Gospel, she is still holy to God. The Branches that are cut off are still holy branches.

Try to understand what the Bible means by "holy." In essence, the word "holy" refers to something or someone whom God has set aside for a special purpose. It is not a direct synonym for righteous, good, or saved. The Hebrew people are holy because God chose that family line for a special purpose. And Paul argues that God did not change his mind about that. He is using them for his special purpose.

Holiness doesn't mean "distinctive"; it simply means "set aside for a special purpose." Suppose I have two bowls. With the first bowl, I eat my cheerios; with the second bowl, I perform a temple service. Both bowls are exactly alike. The one I use during breakfast is common; the one I use during a religious service is holy.

The same is true of people. All people are pretty much exactly alike. Most of the word is "common" but God chose the sons and daughters of Jacob to serve a special purpose. Because God chose them for a special purpose, he considers them to be holy. Not because they are different, but because God has a special purpose for them.

According to God they are. Out of all the families of the earth, Jacob has been set aside to serve God.
Romans 11:28, Deuteronomy 7:6


Whomever God declares to be holy, is holy. Acts 10:15


Paul is answering his rhetorical question, Did Israel fall when she stumbled? (presumably she stumbled over the cornerstone.) His answer is, no. She remains holy because her root is holy. The Olive Tree represents the holy people of God. THAT tree is the one that put Jesus on the cross. In Paul's opinion, although Israel put Jesus on the cross, she remains holy because the root is holy. Natural Israel is holy because God says she is.



Again, no one is "naturally saved" or "saved by nature." Paul's words, not mine.

I found that very insightful and well thought out. I'm having to reorganize my thoughts. Thanks!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you somehow think I didn't already know this? Of course context is very important and I believe you frequently miss the context in scripture. But, you already knew that, right?

Why are you isolating Romans 9 instead of including it with Romans 10 and 11? Paul wasn't making a point in Romans 9 and then changing the subject in Romans 10. You understand that, don't you? Here is what Paul said in Romans 10 where he was expanding on what he was saying in Romans 9:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How is the context of the passage above different from this passage:

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Clearly, the context is the same. So, with that in mind, let's take another look at Romans 9:6-8 in light of this understanding that the context is the same in Romans 9-11 as it is in Galatians 3.

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Look at the similarities between this passage and Galatians 3:26-29. Both speak of who are the children of God and who are Abraham's seed/offspring. In Romans 9:6-8 Paul indicates that those who are the children of God and Abraham's seed/offspring are those who are part of the Israel of which not all of the nation of Israel are part. How can these children of God/Abraham's seed be identified? Galatians 3:26-29 makes that easy for us. They are those who have faith in Christ and belong to Christ and that includes Jews and Gentiles.

Yes, I agree with this.

This is a baseless claim based on your doctrinal bias.

Oh, really? Then explain this:

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage alone proves you wrong. So, try again.

Oh, really? Is that what Romans 10:9-13 is about? Is that what this passage is about:

Romans 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.

Like the Romans 10 passage, this passage is talking about Jews and Gentiles being brought together as one as the people of God. That is that Romans 11 is about as well. So, I could not possibly disagree more with you on this.

Wrong. Did you somehow not read the passages above that I quoted? Clearly, Paul was not just talking about the nation of Israel in Romans 9 as you claim. You are seeing what you want to see instead of what Paul actually said.

You are taking verses in isolation, which isn't helpful. (and my post is short because I am exhausted. Literally. I need to take a break for a few days to build back my strength. Thanks for your patience, attention and dialogue. I enjoyed it. I'll be back in a few days when I have rested. I hope you understand.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Seems you have overlook a fair bit! Daniel 7:9-10 proves you wrong

Don't just say things like this to me. Explain how that proves me wrong. I'm not just going to accept your words. You obviously don't accept what John 5:22 says. Why do you just completely ignore John 5:22? Do you just pick and choose which verses you accept and throw the rest out?

Daniel 7:9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. 10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. How does this prove me wrong exactly? Notice the description of "the Ancient of Days" on the throne here and compare it to this:

Revelation 1:12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

Clearly, both passages are speaking about Jesus. So, again, how does this passage prove me wrong when I say that Jesus is the Judge on the great white throne?

and Revelation 20:11 clearly refers to God the Father, to whom Jesus, the Son, has just handed back the Kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Where does it refer to God the Father? You keep making claims without backing them up. If you're going to make claims like this then stop being lazy and quote the text and show it.

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

Where does this reference God the Father exactly? Show me. Your words mean nothing without scriptural support. If this is speaking of the same thing as Daniel 7:9-10, as we both believe, then I already showed you that Daniel 7:9-10 is showing Jesus on the throne.

I have just refuted 3 false beliefs here, with scriptural proofs. Will any of you admit your errors?

You only refuted one false belief and that was because it was an incredibly weak argument that he made that is easy to refute. The other 2 you didn't come anywhere near refuting. Only in your dreams. In contrast, I have just refuted your belief that the Father sits on the great white throne by showing scripture that shows Jesus sitting on the great white throne. I used scripture to back up my view and you used hot air to back up yours.

 

[Rich R]

Do you have any scholarly support for such an assertion? Wild, uninformed assertions cannot displace well-ground, historical arguments. "Nothing new is under the sun."

The only scholarly support I have are in the verses themselves.

1 Thess 4:14-18,

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

I see the word "rise" in verse 16. I don't see the word "resurrection" though. Personally, that is all the support I need for saying Christians will be raised and not resurrected.

There is another clue in verse 15 that is relevant and that is the truth that Christians are said to be asleep, not dead. Resurrections are for the dead. Risings are for those who sleep.

Well, that is flat out wrong! The Gospels were written well after Jesus made his comments to Israel. You're right, though, that the commentary in the Gospels from Jesus was largely directed to Israel at that time. But it was recorded by Jesus' apostles so that the message could be translated from Israel to the international Church! Otherwise, why are the Gospels even in our Bible?

Did you perform the morning animal sacrifice today?

The Gospels, like the entire OT are for our learning (Rom 15:4). For example, we can learn that Israel did sacrifice animals morning and evening. We can learn about the significance of those sacrifices. We can learn a lot from understanding those sacrifices. Nonetheless, the church does seem to think, and rightfully so, that they don't have to actually perform the sacrifices. They're a bit selective in what they consider their duties, but at least they acknowledge that some things are different now than they were back then.

I'm terrible sorry, but I must continue to declare that the Gospels say a few times that Jesus came for Israel, not the Gentiles, and certainly not the church since it wasn't even in existence when Jesus spoke the words in John. The words Jesus spoke were meant for Israel. True, he did say a few things about Gentiles, but again zero about the church. It was still a secret when Jesus was here (1 Cor 2:7 and others).

If we disagree, no problem. We're brothers.

Ditto! So nice to hear that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are taking verses in isolation, which isn't helpful.

Is that not what you were doing by divorcing Romans 9 from Romans 10 and 11? I'm showing enough verses to refute your claims. I don't think it's fair to expect me to go over every single verse in Romans 9. I have gone above and beyond already to back up my view. If that isn't enough for you, then that's just too bad because I can only do so much. I'm not going to write an entire commentary for you.

(and my post is short because I am exhausted. Literally. I need to take a break for a few days to build back my strength. Thanks for your patience, attention and dialogue. I enjoyed it. I'll be back in a few days when I have rested. I hope you understand.

Of course I understand. Everyone here can post as much or as little as they want, of course. It's entirely up to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree. This will probably be the only thing I agree with in your entire post, but we'll see.

Is that what he's talking about? Let's actually look at the text to see if it says what you're saying here or something else.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

So, what this is saying, which you didn't reference at all, is that by His death, Jesus broke or destroyed the power of him who had held the power of death, which was the devil. Again, you said nothing about this for some reason. It makes me wonder if you were reading a different passage.

No conspiracy to hide facts here. We just read it differently depending on our presuppositions.

And then the author (most likely Paul, IMO) indicated that the result of this was setting free people who had previously been "held in slavery by their fear of death" which the one who held the power of death took full advantage of back then. So, how exactly can this not relate to Satan's binding?

From my pov, liberating people from the fear of death is not the same thing as *defeating death." The biblical notion of "defeating death" in prophecy places that event at the Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the saints at that time. So the "victory over death" takes place at Christ's 2nd Coming, whereas our victory over the "fear of death" is available presently, since Jesus overcame death on our behalf at the cross.

Christ's death had a tremendous impact on Satan, as passages like this indicate. Premils seem to not understand that. I believe Satan needed to be bound in order for his slaves to be set free. This is something Jesus Himself touched on when he talked about the strong man (representing Satan) having his goods (representing those Satan had power over) spoiled (Matt 12:26-29).

This is the old argument Amils make that the "binding of the strong man" constitutes the "binding of Satan." Similar language, but in my view not the same thing. We can cast out demons, but we cannot cast Satan out of the world. In order to exorcise a demon, we have to rely on the fact Christ demonstrated his willingness to exercise power on behalf of grace. That means, he acts benevolently on behalf of people who still have a Sin Nature. People can be liberated from demon possession even though they may have sinned in order to arrive at that state.

The victory at the cross enables Jesus to bind Satan case by case, individual by individual, because they are instances of grace, though not final deliverance from Satan, nor final deliverance from death. I tend to think of this "binding of the strong man" as a precursor to the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming of Christ. Otherwise, you'll be saying that every time someone is delivered of a demon that Satan has been cast out of the world. And obviously, Scriptures don't say that!

Do you actually think I believe death was defeated in any other way than that? Of course not. But, just read what you said here. You say nothing about the effect Christ's death had on Satan even though that is what the passage is about. Unbelievable.

I'm not anticipating all of your questions. I've now answered them, unless you have more?

Say what now? How can it not be saying anything about the timing? Did He come around 2,000 years ago to destroy the works of the devil only to have to wait who knows how long to actually start doing so? That's ludicrous. No, He began destroying the works of the devil long ago at His first coming and has been doing so ever since. And He will finish the job when He returns.

Aren't we saying the same thing here, that Jesus has been doing acts of deliverance from Satan throughout the entire age until Satan is finally defeated at the end of the age?

I never said Jesus hasn't been doing works of deliverance! Acts of grace began with the cross, when Jesus rose from the dead on behalf of our future inheritance, and then distributed his Spirit to his Church to broadcast forgiveness of sin and gifts of redemption to be offered to the entire human race. Saying that is not denying that Jesus has "started" to do acts of grace! I'm only arguing that this is not the final defeat of Satan, but only preliminary acts of grace that precede the final defeat of Satan.

Randy, my goodness. You say some ridiculous things sometimes. Why in the world would you think that I'm saying Satan was completely defeated at that point? Of course I'm not saying that. But Christ began defeating him back then. That's my point.

Then we're just saying the same thing, using different verses. In fact, Amils and Premils have basically the same theology--just a different eschatology. But I do think it's important to use the right biblical language.

 

[Rich R]

While it was specifically address to seven existing churches in the Roman province of Asia at the time,

No, not all the seven churches did exist when John wrote. Revelation was rejected for some time precisely because many realized that several of the churches mentioned in Revelation didn't exist at that time. Of course those guys never considered that they would exist in the future, namely when the events of Revelation commence.

Do you recognize that not all churches in the Bible are Christian churches? That's a very fundamental to our discussion.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The only scholarly support I have are in the verses themselves.

1 Thess 4:14-18,

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

I see the word "rise" in verse 16. I don't see the word "resurrection" though. Personally, that is all the support I need for saying Christians will be raised and not resurrected.

There is another clue in verse 15 that is relevant and that is the truth that Christians are said to be asleep, not dead. Resurrections are for the dead. Risings are for those who sleep.

You will need to resort to a Greek scholar to prove that. That may make sense in English, but the words were written in Greek. So you can't argue the use of English words alone to determine what it can or cannot mean in the Greek.

The most important thing for me, not being knowledgeable of the Greek, is *context* Context is king! So, if the passage is speaking of rising from the dead, then it can't mean "rising from sleep," even if that is a legitimate use of the word. Can the English word "rising" apply to "resurrection?" Of course!

Did you perform the morning animal sacrifice today?

The Gospels, like the entire OT are for our learning (Rom 15:4). For example, we can learn that Israel did sacrifice animals morning and evening. We can learn about the significance of those sacrifices. We can learn a lot from understanding those sacrifices. Nonetheless, the church does seem to think, and rightfully so, that they don't have to actually perform the sacrifices. They're a bit selective in what they consider their duties, but at least they acknowledge that some things are different now than they were back then.

I'm terrible sorry, but I must continue to declare that the Gospels say a few times that Jesus came for Israel, not the Gentiles, and certainly not the church since it wasn't even in existence when Jesus spoke the words in John. The words Jesus spoke were meant for Israel. True, he did say a few things about Gentiles, but again zero about the church. It was still a secret when Jesus was here (1 Cor 2:7 and others).

Oh, I think you've misunderstood me completely! I completely agree with you that the words of Jesus contained in the Gospels were directed towards the Jewish People. But the record of these conversations were recorded and kept by the Apostles *later,* on behalf of the International Church! That is, it was not recorded just for Israel, but much more, for Christianity at large.

So the question is, how do Jesus' conversations to Israel apply to the International Church? Paul said that the things that happened to Israel happened for the purpose of being an example for us all.

1 Cor 10.6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Ditto! So nice to hear that.

Oh yes, few there are who can disagree and "love one another." That's my choice to do that, and hope others feel the same. God bless.

 

[Rich R]

Not sure how you got to here:

WE Christians are the Israelites of God.

from here:

This belief ignores the truth of the 10 Northern tribes, sent into exile by Assyria, circa 722-715 BC. They were given a set, decreed time to be in exile; Ezekiel 4:4-5 of 390 years and Judah, the Jews exile was for 40 years. They were both multiplied for their continued sins. Leviticus 26:21-28
So; for the House of Israel, their exile is 2730 years, which is complete about now and for the House of Judah, their exile was 1960 years, [40 + 7X7] from 70 AD to 2030 AD; the Return of Jesus.

These Bible truths show how it is the descendants of the ten Northern tribes who Jesus came to save and we Christians are the successful result of His Mission.

 

[Rich R]

Oh, I think you've misunderstood me completely!

Not impossible for sure!

I completely agree with you that the words of Jesus contained in the Gospels were directed towards the Jewish People. But the record of these conversations were recorded and kept by the Apostles *later,* on behalf of the International Church! That is, it was not recorded just for Israel, but much more, for Christianity at large.

So the question is, how do Jesus' conversations to Israel apply to the International Church? Paul said that the things that happened to Israel happened for the purpose of being an example for us all.

1 Cor 10.6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Oh yes, few there are who can disagree and "love one another." That's my choice to do that, and hope others feel the same. God bless.

As you said, we can learn things from the Gospel despite the fact they are not written to us (Rom 15:4). But being for our learning does not necessarily mean everything there is meant to be our guide in faith and practice. There is a world of difference between our age of grace and that of the law. The law was still the standard for salvation when Jesus was here. That didn't change until the day of Pentecost. The subject of our conversation is a good example of the differences, namely the church has a radically different ending than that of Israel and that of the Gentiles.

We are raised and changed and ascend into the air to be with Jesus. Jews and Gentiles go through the tribulation and then there are two resurrections. The church is the subject of neither of those resurrections. We will have been with Jesus for some time before either of those occur.

Also, if you look you can find at least two places where Paul specifically said we are saved from the wrath to come. In the Greek it is even more plain. It basically says we will be far away from the wrath to come.[/QUOTE]