The Son of Man returns with and for his people

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
10,854
3,275
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't believe God knows everything.
Your statement is in the realm of Blasphemy IMHO

Matthew 9:4KJV
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

Colossians 1:16-17KJV
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zao is life

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,781
2,438
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your statement is in the realm of Blasphemy IMHO
I understand--we all say "God knows everything." But maybe He didn't want to know everything just so that He could give Man the opportunity to decide for himself? Otherwise, the fix was in, and it's all a charade. Your opinion is just an opinion, but I can understand.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,580
1,871
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I don't believe God knows everything.
Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

So you don't believe that God foreknew that Jesus would be delivered as described in verse 23?
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
6,018
1,229
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why on earth would God ask Man to not eat of the forbidden fruit if He knew that he would do so?

I wouldn't say God "asked" Adam not to. Anyways, if God didn't state it was wrong, then it wouldn't have been wrong. It had to be stated as wrong ie: do not eat of it or else...


God was trying to spare Man from death, but death was there as the solution to the possibility Man would sin.

God created Adam to age and die, so that death was natural. It was the spiritual death Adam died that day he ate, that is what man should avoid.
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
3,133
1,235
113
Africa
zaoislife.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
God doesn't have an elect Nation in the middle east called Israel as you suggest
God does not have an elect country in the Middle East called Israel.

God has an elect nation in the Middle East and Far East and South East Asia and Australia and New Zealand and South America and Africa and Europe and Canada .. and EVEN IN THE USA :cool: It even includes some Jews in the Middle East!!!!

Wow. Imagine that.

A.K.A Kingdom.

Of Christ.

I don't know what you think I said.

Maybe you should have followed the conversation.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The verses you quoted support my contention that Spiritual Israel is comprised of those "descended from Israel." Did you miss that or something? Paul is talking about his brethren, his kinsmen. (verse 2) who lean on the descent from Abraham with regard to the promise God made to Abraham and his descendants. In that context, he tells you, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Again, a reference to a child born from Abraham's own body. (Genesis 15:4) The Jews are not incorrect with regard to physical descent. Paul makes this very point at the beginning of his argument.

Romans 9:1-5
I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

We see from the above passage that the promise belongs to Paul's brethren, his kinsmen of the flesh. The adoption of sons belongs to them. Every item in Paul's list above belongs to his kinsmen. We won't understand what Paul says from here to chapter 12 unless we anchor our minds with the first five verses of chapter 9.

Paul is not suggesting that Physical descent is irrelevant. Bear in mind that he is talking about a subdivision of those born of Israel, i.e. Jacob. Among those born to Jacob, there exists a subgroup of people who are the children of promise.

Paul is making a different point here in Galatians 3, than he made in Romans 9. Here the question is centered on God's promise to Abraham with regard to his blessing. Gentiles are included in that promise because God promised Abraham, "In you, all the families of the earth will be blessed.” And the question here is, "Who are Abraham's seed?" We are all children through faith. Romans 4.

Paul addresses God's promise to Jacob in Romans 9. This chapter answers to the question, "who is a child of Israel with respect to God's promise to Israel. Galatians 3 is talking about a promise God made to Abraham; Romans 9 is talking about a promise God made to Israel (Jacob.) Thus, Paul can argue that descent from Abraham is not the sole criterion with respect to the promise made to Jacob.

Granted, all those who have the faith of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile are sons of Abraham and stand to inherit the blessing of Abraham. Abraham is the father of all those who believe. Romans 4:9-12 And according to Genesis 12, the blessing applies to all of the families of the earth.

Nonetheless, In his epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle places all believers in Christ; By contrast, in his epistle to the Romans, the Apostle recognizes a subgroup of Israel's children to be the children of promise. These are two different subjects. Why? God not only made a promise to Abraham; he also made a promise to Jacob.

When is the time? Let's review. The middle section of Paul's epistle to the Romans is structured as a series of rhetorical questions. For instance, beginning in Romans 6, he asks, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" Here in chapter 9, the argument progresses to the next question, which is implied, "What are we saying then, Did the word of God fail?"

This presents a question to Bible students. What particular word, what particular promise is in view here? In the first five verses, Paul indicates that "the adoption of sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. But that is only part of the answer. The rest of the answer is found at the end of his argument.

Romans 11:26-27
and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is My covenant with them; When I take away their sins.”

The promise above is yet to happen. That particular promise God made to Israel is the promise Paul has in mind when he says, "It isn't as if the word of God has failed." And here, in this context, removing ungodliness from Jacob involves much more than forgiving the sins of Jacob's descendants. Removing ungodliness from Jacob involves destroying the ungodly.

You and I disagree on the overall narrative in Romans 9-11, mainly because we disagree on the question Paul intends to address.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Gospel continued to be preached to the Jews first and alone for 3 1/2 years after Jesus' death and resurrection (Acts 3:25,26; Acts 13:46). Thereafter, beginning with the conversion of Cornelius, the Gentiles were included (Acts 11:18).

Gentiles have been full and complete recipients of the Gospel since that time.

God is not a racist.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

That is not limited to salvation. It extends to the entirety of Christian life experience for every person in every nation.
We aren't talking about Christian life; we are talking about Jewish life.
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,781
2,438
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wouldn't say God "asked" Adam not to. Anyways, if God didn't state it was wrong, then it wouldn't have been wrong. It had to be stated as wrong ie: do not eat of it or else...




God created Adam to age and die, so that death was natural. It was the spiritual death Adam died that day he ate, that is what man should avoid.
Well, I hadn't thought of that one before! I always thought that physical death was a punishment for sin?
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,781
2,438
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Acts 2
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

So you don't believe that God foreknew that Jesus would be delivered as described in verse 23?
I believe, as I said, that Jesus' atonement was "in the works" in case Man chose to sin. God did not, in my view, predetermine Man to fail, to disobey God's word, to sin. Otherwise, God would *not* have asked Man *not* to sin!

Christ was predetermined as a "backup plan" from eternity. But from the perspective of time, Christ was predetermined from the beginning, when Man sinned.

We do have a hard time understanding free will and its indiscriminate and unpredictable nature in the context of an infinite God, who we automatically assume must've pre-planned everything, including evil. But the truth is, since God is infinite we just don't know what kind of limitations He has imposed upon Himself in time.

Perhaps it is only in eternity that He has full knowledge, and that within the span of time all kinds of free choices can be made that are unpredictable? In that case, every incongruency must be corrected from an eternal point of view. Justice will always prevail, even though in time there are setbacks.

Let's say that in eternity, God has preplanned a perfect ear of corn. Yet within time God has created all kinds of possibilities, including Man's ability to cooperate with God in cultivating this corn, eating this corn, and thanking God for this corn. But in creating Man, God did not want to get glory from robots, and so gave Man the ability to say yes or no to the ear of corn.

So within time Man had the ability to set back the plan to have an ear of corn. From the perspective of eternity it would always end up producing that ear of corn harvest. But from the vantage point of time, God created the possibility of setbacks by free agents, which would always be auto-corrected from the vantage point of eternity. Ultimately, men would be found who would correct the problem of producing corn, whereas those who set the plan back without apology would be removed, as in a trash fire.

Eternity always knew an ear of corn would be produced and that men would thank God for it. But God deliberately produced an unstable place in time where the outcome would go through an indeterminate process, because the process was dependent on free agents not absolutely predicted and imposed by God.

Knowing every possibility, however, He always foreknew the eventual outcome. He just was able to create free agents and thus impose upon Himself the restraints in knowledge necessary for this to happen. Thus, in eternity God's foreknowledge was not diminished. But from the vantage point of time, His knowledge was temporarily restricted to the process He Himself programmed for free will.

So the thousand dollar question is, Is there really such a thing as "randomness" in free human choice? Is there really such a thing as "free human choice?" I suggest that we see randomness in the lives of all human beings every single day. We can't perceive all of the influences that go into people making decisions, but that they are random, in a sense, is plain to see.

Some things, I believe, are absolutely fixed by God. These are the parameters God has imposed upon free human agents to help them make informed decisions, responsible decisions. That we have free choice, though, is plain to me.
 
Last edited:

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,580
1,871
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I believe, as I said, that Jesus' atonement was "in the works" in case Man chose to sin. God did not, in my view, predetermine Man to fail, to disobey God's word, to sin. Otherwise, God would *not* have asked Man *not* to sin!

Christ was predetermined as a "backup plan" from eternity. But from the perspective of time, Christ was predetermined from the beginning, when Man sinned.

We do have a hard time understanding free will and its indiscriminate and unpredictable nature in the context of an infinite God, who we automatically assume must've pre-planned everything, including evil. But the truth is, since God is infinite we just don't know what kind of limitations He has imposed upon Himself in time.

Perhaps it is only in eternity that He has full knowledge, and that within the span of time all kinds of free choices can be made that are unpredictable? In that case, every incongruency must be corrected from an eternal point of view. Justice will always prevail, even though in time there are setbacks.

Let's say that in eternity, God has preplanned a perfect ear of corn. Yet within time God has created all kinds of possibilities, including Man's ability to cooperate with God in cultivating this corn, eating this corn, and thanking God for this corn. But in creating Man, God did not want to get glory from robots, and so gave Man the ability to say yes or no to the ear of corn.

So within time Man had the ability to set back the plan to have an ear of corn. From the perspective of eternity it would always end up producing that ear of corn harvest. But from the vantage point of time, God created the possibility of setbacks by free agents, which would always be auto-corrected from the vantage point of eternity. Ultimately, men would be found who would correct the problem of producing corn, whereas those who set the plan back without apology would be removed, as in a trash fire.

Eternity always knew an ear of corn would be produced and that men would thank God for it. But God deliberately produced an unstable place in time where the outcome would go through an indeterminate process, because the process was dependent on free agents not absolutely predicted and imposed by God.

Knowing every possibility, however, He always foreknew the eventual outcome. He just was able to create free agents and thus impose upon Himself the restraints in knowledge necessary for this to happen. Thus, in eternity God's foreknowledge was not diminished. But from the vantage point of time, His knowledge was temporarily restricted to the process He Himself programmed for free will.

So the thousand dollar question is, Is there really such a thing as "randomness" in free human choice? Is there really such a thing as "free human choice?" I suggest that we see randomness in the lives of all human beings every single day. We can't perceive all of the influences that go into people making decisions, but that they are random, in a sense, is plain to see.

Some things, I believe, are absolutely fixed by God. These are the parameters God has imposed upon free human agents to help them make informed decisions, responsible decisions. That we have free choice, though, is plain to me.
Supporting Scripture?
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,760
5,607
113
www.CheeseburgersWithGod.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, at least you gave me an answer. Since we are creatures created for time, how on earth can we think outside of it? But God has given us a sense of Himself, even though He is beyond anything we know. So, perhaps there is a way in which we can perceive God as timeless?

Just as a child in the womb does not think ahead to the life that is to come, we likewise are not likely to look ahead, but are to be delivered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Kluth

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Acts 10:34,35 is talking about Christian life.
Yes. Of course, The Gospel is offered to Gentiles and God is saving Gentiles.

But we are talking about the coming of Jesus, and, in my view, the many gatherings associated with his coming. The error of Amillennialism is based on a misunderstanding about these gatherings. Amill's are convinced that only one gathering is left.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,580
1,871
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yes. Of course, The Gospel is offered to Gentiles and God is saving Gentiles.

But we are talking about the coming of Jesus, and, in my view, the many gatherings associated with his coming. The error of Amillennialism is based on a misunderstanding about these gatherings. Amill's are convinced that only one gathering is left.
What support exists in historical orthodox Christianity for multiple gatherings?
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,580
1,871
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I have no idea. Why does it matter? It isn't a matter of orthodoxy. The only question is whether I am right or not.
If you were in disagreement with 17 centuries of unanimous historical Christian orthodoxy, would you be right?
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,732
2,136
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you were in disagreement with 17 centuries of unanimous historical Christian orthodoxy, would you be right?
Bear in mind that the discussion centers on prophecy. In my estimation, the closer we get to the prophetic event, the clearer the prophecy is. In fact, we won't know when a prophecy is being fulfilled until it is actually happening. For this reason, those living in our time have an advantage over Christians living 17 centuries ago.

So no, I have no problem with my conclusions about a prophetic event being new or unheard of for 17 centuries.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I already explained things, with Scriptures.

No, I didn't say that. I said you applied "Spiritual Israel" in places where "Natural Israel" was more properly indicated. That confuses things.

I never said you do this in *every place* that "Israel" is used. As I clearly said, you have 2 Israels and apply both of them in different places. So obviously, you don't use "Spiritual Israel" in every place that "Israel" is mentioned.
I'm just shaking my head over here. We might as well be speaking in different languages.

As I said, you've misrepresented what I said. Of course, you have a rationale for interpreting "Israel" in some places as "Natural Israel," and for interpreting "Israel" as "Spiritual Israel" in other places. It just isn't consistent with how many people see it.
Is that supposed to matter to me? It doesn't. We all, of course, can define Israel however we want.

Many people see "Israel" as meaning "Natural Israel" where you deem it to refer to "Spiritual Israel."
Yeah. So?

As I just showed you, you've completely misrepresented me!
Well, now you know the feeling since you've misrepresented me several times.

You said I accused you of inferring "Spiritual Israel" in "every place" that "Israel" is mentioned. I never never said that!
It came across that way. You're not as easy to follow as you probably think you are.

You said, "And you're implying here that I'm taking every reference to Israel to be Spiritual Israel." Obviously, that's inaccurate, as I just showed you. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it.
Kind of looks like you did, but whatever.

That's the nature of discussions and disagreements, brother. We have to work out how to say things in the context of arguments over words.
We think very differently, so I guess that's why we just don't understand each other most of the time. Not much we can do about that, I suppose.

It actually does make sense to me. In the places where you apply "Spiritual Israel" to "Israel" it sometimes doesn't belong.
This is the problem I have with the way you communicate. You just say things like this but don't even bother to give any examples. How can I take you seriously when you give no examples and no explanation of what you are talking about exactly?

That's where you're "replacing" Natural Israel with Spiritual Israel in a way that is illegitimate from the vantage point of many other people.
Where am I doing that exactly? You are so vague about everything.

Sor your view conflicts with their view, and your view would more naturally be called "Replacement Theology" than theirs would be.
(huge sigh)

They/We aren't replacing Natural Israel with anything other than Natural Israel.
Neither am I.
In effect, we're not replacing it at all!
Neither am I.

But your 2nd definition for "Israel" does do that in some cases where it appears to be an illegitimate imposition on the natural meaning.
Again, you say this but do nothing to explain how exactly I'm doing that. (Yawn)

Of course, you would disagree because that is your position. But you shouldn't be upset about the label, nor the characterization, since that's exactly how you see it. At your own words, you see "2 Israels."
I don't see one of the Israels as replacing the other. Why you can't understand that, I don't know.

It isn't difficult to see that when someone is annoyed by being characterized as believing what they really do believe that they think the label is an insult, an attempt at treating their beliefs in a derogatory way. I can assure you that is not my intention, since I was raised that way, and since in studying Church history I recognized that much of Church history had that perspective among some very good people.
You know that people who believe what I do don't like that label, but you use it, anyway. I have a hard time believing you are being honest here.

I'll tell you a true story. Way back in the mid-70s I got myself into what I believe was a Christian cult--some good Christians don't believe it is a cult. Its detractors called it "the Local Church," because it believed the true church should number only one in each town or city, uniting all Christians as one.

When I moved to CA, I intended to join them because its leader was Witness Lee, a known associate of Watchman Nee, who I loved, having read a number of his books. But when I got to Anaheim I couldn't find them right away, and called them. I asked the person on the other end of the phone, "Are you the Local Church?," and the person hung up on me.

I didn't know that they considered the name "the Local Church" a term of insult. And yet, that's what they actually believe, that each city should have one local church, and that's how they set up their own churches in every town.

Did you know the early Christians were called "little Christs" as a term of insult by their enemies? But Christians proudly wore the label, because we're proud to be "little Christs." ;) The name is "Christian," I believe?
Did you tell this story with the intention of trying to convince me to be okay with the ridiculous "replacement theology" label?
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
4,330
1,839
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes. Of course, The Gospel is offered to Gentiles and God is saving Gentiles.

But we are talking about the coming of Jesus, and, in my view, the many gatherings associated with his coming. The error of Amillennialism is based on a misunderstanding about these gatherings. Amill's are convinced that only one gathering is left.
Because that is what is indicated in the New Testament. Have you heard of it?