The Orthodox Preterist versus the Heretical Dispensationalist

[Timtofly]

Your argument is with God not me.

You are equating yourself with God here. Not a good idea. That is your INTERPRETATION and OPINION of what Paul wrote, not a fact. Stop equating yourself with God.

No, my argument is with you because you are contradicting Paul and God.

How is contradicting God, according to your opinion, different from the point made that you are arguing with God, from her opinion?

She is contradicting your points, not Scripture.

You are missing the point of who is elected.

"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

You are at enmity with the natural branches. You get that all were born in Adam's sin. That is not what the Law taught Israel. You still don't get the ethnicity aspect that a natural branch means something. Being a natural branch means they were born elected of God, until cut off. The Gospel teaches you are not elect until grafted in. That is why you cannot replace physical Israel with spiritual Israel. They were all of spiritual Israel. The branches cut off means they were no longer Israel period, even physical Israel. A branch cut off is real in a literal sense. There is no smaller circle of elect in a larger circle of physical Israel.

There is one circle, until cut off. At that point there is a seperate circle no longer part of Israel, both physically and spiritually. Spiritual Israel can not be a subset of physical Israel, any more than physical Israel can be a subset of spiritual Israel. Which is what you call yourself. You are in the circle of spiritual Israel, while there is also a subset of physical Israel in that larger circle. You have two subset circles: one of Gentiles and one of ethnic Israel. Even though you don't claim a difference that is how you view the circle of spiritual Israel. You cannot be in the ethnic circle, yet if you distinguish a subset that is ethnic, you have to have a circle that is not ethnic. You cannot be in a subset of an erhnic circle. So spiritual Israel cannot be a subset of physical Israel, with you inside that smaller circle, even if grafted in. You are still a wild olive branch. You cannot be a smaller circle in physical Israel period, unless you are physical Israel.

The circle of spiritual inside of ethnic cannot place you at all. Not even grafted in. You were never ethnic to begin with. That is why that description may work for your opinion, but is at odds with Scripture, logic, and common sense.

You are still missing the point that not all of Israel are Israel. This simply means they were cut off, and ceased being both physical and spiritual Israel. Thus a circle outside of Israel altogether. You are grafted into the tree which is the larger spiritual circle containing two subsets of physical Israel and non physical, those grafted in. Every one is still elect, because even as cut off, they can still be brought back. They have not been removed from the Lamb's book of life. That is they remain elect. They are enemies, because they are cut off from the gospel, unless they embrace the gospel and grafted back in. Being your enemy is not the same as being God's enemy. We are all beloved of God, even as wild branches. We are all elect. You have that calvanist mindset that the smallest circle are the elect. No. The remnant is the smallest circle. The largest circle are the elect. Even those currently in sheol have not been removed, and to God are still elect. Elect being those placed in the Lamb's book of life, meaning literally every human born to Adam and Eve.

The elect would be the largest circle on this natural olive tree. Subset circles would include Gentiles, Israel, and the dead. The dead not grafted in, but not removed either. Still wild branches with potential. Even being cut off does not totally remove one from a subset circle, unless they can no longer be grafted back in. But this won't be settled until the GWT judgment after the Millennium is over. Being cast into the LOF permanently removes one from the spiritual circle of election. The church is not the entire circle of elect. Still only a subset. That is the point you are missing. All of ethnic Israel until a branch is cut off is still part of the election. And their lot is the reverse of eternal security. They are eternally secure until cut off. Then they are eternally secure until removed from the Lamb's book of life because of election. As that is the definition of a natural branch.

A wild branch is part of the election but not by physical birth. They make that election sure by the second birth. After the Cross, even the natural branches were no longer natural in the sense they were now considered cut off, and in need of being grafted back in via the second birth. Something not required of a natural branch prior to the Cross.

Need I have to keep reminding you that Paul did not say all of natural Israel is not spiritual Israel? Even though that is your interpretation. At the point of Paul's writing it was being pointed out that all of Israel were quickly becoming not Israel. That was Paul's point. They were being cut off, and no new natural branches would be growing. Why? Because blindness in part was given to the natural branches. The fact that ethnicity no longer mattered meant the olive tree was no longer relevant as producing natural branches. While the "of Israel" part was placed on hold, more of the wild branches would continue to make the olive tree relevant.

 

[Timtofly]

To be renewed again, one must have experienced a previous renewal.
That previous renewal would be salvation.

Since you are quoting Hebrews, that would apply to first century Israel.

We have no previous renewal. We only experience a new birth. That would indicate, one would have fallen away at least twice to be renewed once. No one knows how many times it takes to return, until God says no more.

Seems like doubt would intervene before the state of reprobation in most cases. I doubt God will cast you out because you no longer think the earth is flat.

Self righteousness seems like the obstruction that most would stumble over any ways. That seems to be what Satan kept proposing. That is what atheist and agnostics argue. Unless they are hypocritical, they tend to value morals over being called sinners.

Besides, the ability to do as one pleases is not free will. In fact, a reprobate eternally living as they please has lost all free will. They could not even make the choice to ask for forgiveness. Free will is the ability to choose, not the ability to sin freely. Being reprobate, one cannot even choose to be moral, even if they thought they wanted to be moral. They cannot choose to change. Their will literally set, and unchangeable. That is why it is stated in Scripture that God hardens the heart, and removes free will.

Agnosticism may be close, but is there a difference between a self hardened mind and a hardened heart by God? Some would point out that God hardens the heart to remove double mindedness, or cognitive disodence as some put it. Not being able to make up one's mind is not the same as loosing one's free will. Could be too many choices.

The growing number of agnostics today, points toward the falling away as predicted by Paul. Science has replaced Genesis is the most basic explanation. Even those who claim to be Christians have been decieved, but most have no issues in doubting their salvation. They don't even realize the deception, unless pointed out, and then the only way of telling how it effects them is the emotional response that develops.

No one needs to be taught to hate God. But they do need to be taught how to convince themselves there is no God.

 

[Timtofly]

Not physically, but we're not talking about physical birth here, are we.

Unless you think Romans 8 means universal salvation, the second birth is just as permanent or more so than the first birth.

Of course Paul does not use the word "ourselves" . Is that the only exemption to being secure in Christ, is that we can remove ourselves, since nothing else can?

Hebrews is written to first century Israel.

We are talking about those cut off branches, no?

Now you are applying them to a branch that was grafted in? Paul did point out right there that a grafted in branch should not boast lest also cut off.

"Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

Paul was excited that nothing could separate one from God's love, while maintaining that even a grafted branch could be cut off. One cannot negate the other.

Having eternal security does not give one a license to sin either.

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"

Which brings us back to Hebrews and the natural branches verses the wild branches.

Yes God reserves the right to cut off one's salvation. However, the whole point of the Cross was to remove sin, and Jesus was our substitute. God looking at Jesus no longer sees our sin. So eternal security is more guaranteed than one's ability to remove themselves from God's salvation. Because self is the only way to be removed, as nothing else can remove us.

The point remains that most who fall away, never experienced the second birth to begin with. They are not falling away from God, but a false perception they had of God. Which would describe most atheist and agnostics. They have the wrong view of God from the start. Or it degrades over time.

A child being constantly told they are a Christian would be one who never experienced salvation, because they never experienced being lost. Until they experience what separation from God is, why would they need to seek God out for salvation?

Paul is not wrong in stating we need to maintain our salvation, but we don't work for it. Working for salvation is not experiencing salvation either. Knowing all about it, is not salvation either.

 

[Timtofly]

Again, do you interpret this in light of verses like Hebrews 3:12-14 and Hebrews 6:12-14? That seal is guaranteed "if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". We are not predestined to put our faith and confidence in Christ and hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". We are predestined to obtain eternal life "if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end".

The natural branches were predestined if they held to their belief.

How can that apply to a grafted in branch?

That defeats your point that you were predestined to have faith to begin with. You were predestined to be redeemed. You also had to make the choice in faith, since you were not a natural branch predestined as a natural branch.

You were not predestined to fall off once grafted in either. So how is maintaining your faith relevant? Boasting that you are doing it all by yourself is not maintaining your faith. Doubting your salvation won't cut you off either as having lack of faith, because you cannot keep yourself saved. Seems all you can do is continue in sin, to be cut off. The natural branches had to continue in faith to avoid being cut off. You cannot maintain your faith nor your salvation. You only can prevent sin from destroying the relationship.

 

[Timtofly]

You continue to ignore the responsibility of man in this. Yes, it is by God's power, but we must submit to Him and His power. We have to continue acknowledging that we can't save ourselves and keep our faith and trust in Him alone. That is our responsibility. We must continue being steadfast in our faith right up until the end of our lives because God requires that of us. He's looking for people who are committed until the end. He doesn't want people who will fall away because of persecution or other reasons.

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Does this say "be thou faithful one time and I will give thee a crown of life"? No, it says "be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life".

Now you have stopped talking about salvation altogether. None of this can take away your salvation. You are going against Romans 8 at this point.

Does God want your all? Of course He does. But you are quoting verses about receiving rewards, which you will give back anyways. None of it is about you. Not even the rewards.

You are safe by saying we cannot save ourselves. But "not maintaining" or "not enough faith and obedience" has moved past the second birth and into maturity. One can avoid hell, and wait to cut their head off during the Abomination of Desolation. But that is a gamble. But it is the same as conflating maturity and full submission with the moment of birth. Yes birth happens only once, it does not happen over and over, as you cannot unbirth yourself that easily. Salvation is not off and on every other day.

Either you have been born or not. No, you cannot maintain your second birth, period. You can loose it by remaining in sin. You can abuse it by doing nothing at all. And could you get back once cut off? A natural branch can, but probably not the route one should take to experiment with.

Jesus gave us the parable of how seed is sown. But only one example experienced the second birth. So the point is to keep sowing the seed. Not stop, because people are not born on the first attempt. Paul was one of those natural branches cut off and grafted back in. No one today is a natural branch, cut off. So applying some points to wild branches may contradict what Paul was teaching. And no one has replaced the natural branches nor turned wild branches into natural branches. Seems like some here are trying to do one or both.

 

[Timtofly]

Why was this said to saved people then:

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus......12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

They were actually spiritual Israel.

No one is today. All are wild olive branches. No natural branches exist today.

That is the whole point of no difference between Israel and Gentile. Even those of Jacob are wild olive branches.

Many want to turn people into natural branches existing in the wild. That is not how it works.

The natural branches will have their blindness removed. But who is going to declare what a natural branch is at that point? Even the generation that experiences the Second Coming will not all make it as a natural branch. But then again. You don't accept any reasons that go against your amil bias. You don't even accept Israel is restored, because you have claimed the status of a natural branch and don't even allow the restoration of ethnic Israel.

You reject there is the church in Paradise at the same time as ethnic Israel on earth after the Second Coming. That destroys your two people types of lost and saved. That destroys your two ages: before Second Coming and after Second Coming.

Yet you seem to acknowledge that at one point there were two types of natural branches and then wild branches. So three types of people, no? Physical Israel, Spiritual Israel, and Gentiles.

There are only redeemed people after the 7th Trumpet. But two types. Those on earth and those in Paradise.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How is contradicting God, according to your opinion, different from the point made that you are arguing with God, from her opinion?

She is contradicting your points, not Scripture.

You are missing the point of who is elected.

"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

You are at enmity with the natural branches. You get that all were born in Adam's sin. That is not what the Law taught Israel. You still don't get the ethnicity aspect that a natural branch means something. Being a natural branch means they were born elected of God, until cut off. The Gospel teaches you are not elect until grafted in. That is why you cannot replace physical Israel with spiritual Israel. They were all of spiritual Israel. The branches cut off means they were no longer Israel period, even physical Israel. A branch cut off is real in a literal sense. There is no smaller circle of elect in a larger circle of physical Israel.

There is one circle, until cut off. At that point there is a seperate circle no longer part of Israel, both physically and spiritually. Spiritual Israel can not be a subset of physical Israel, any more than physical Israel can be a subset of spiritual Israel. Which is what you call yourself. You are in the circle of spiritual Israel, while there is also a subset of physical Israel in that larger circle. You have two subset circles: one of Gentiles and one of ethnic Israel. Even though you don't claim a difference that is how you view the circle of spiritual Israel. You cannot be in the ethnic circle, yet if you distinguish a subset that is ethnic, you have to have a circle that is not ethnic. You cannot be in a subset of an erhnic circle. So spiritual Israel cannot be a subset of physical Israel, with you inside that smaller circle, even if grafted in. You are still a wild olive branch. You cannot be a smaller circle in physical Israel period, unless you are physical Israel.

The circle of spiritual inside of ethnic cannot place you at all. Not even grafted in. You were never ethnic to begin with. That is why that description may work for your opinion, but is at odds with Scripture, logic, and common sense.

You are still missing the point that not all of Israel are Israel. This simply means they were cut off, and ceased being both physical and spiritual Israel. Thus a circle outside of Israel altogether. You are grafted into the tree which is the larger spiritual circle containing two subsets of physical Israel and non physical, those grafted in. Every one is still elect, because even as cut off, they can still be brought back. They have not been removed from the Lamb's book of life. That is they remain elect. They are enemies, because they are cut off from the gospel, unless they embrace the gospel and grafted back in. Being your enemy is not the same as being God's enemy. We are all beloved of God, even as wild branches. We are all elect. You have that calvanist mindset that the smallest circle are the elect. No. The remnant is the smallest circle. The largest circle are the elect. Even those currently in sheol have not been removed, and to God are still elect. Elect being those placed in the Lamb's book of life, meaning literally every human born to Adam and Eve.

The elect would be the largest circle on this natural olive tree. Subset circles would include Gentiles, Israel, and the dead. The dead not grafted in, but not removed either. Still wild branches with potential. Even being cut off does not totally remove one from a subset circle, unless they can no longer be grafted back in. But this won't be settled until the GWT judgment after the Millennium is over. Being cast into the LOF permanently removes one from the spiritual circle of election. The church is not the entire circle of elect. Still only a subset. That is the point you are missing. All of ethnic Israel until a branch is cut off is still part of the election. And their lot is the reverse of eternal security. They are eternally secure until cut off. Then they are eternally secure until removed from the Lamb's book of life because of election. As that is the definition of a natural branch.

A wild branch is part of the election but not by physical birth. They make that election sure by the second birth. After the Cross, even the natural branches were no longer natural in the sense they were now considered cut off, and in need of being grafted back in via the second birth. Something not required of a natural branch prior to the Cross.

Need I have to keep reminding you that Paul did not say all of natural Israel is not spiritual Israel? Even though that is your interpretation. At the point of Paul's writing it was being pointed out that all of Israel were quickly becoming not Israel. That was Paul's point. They were being cut off, and no new natural branches would be growing. Why? Because blindness in part was given to the natural branches. The fact that ethnicity no longer mattered meant the olive tree was no longer relevant as producing natural branches. While the "of Israel" part was placed on hold, more of the wild branches would continue to make the olive tree relevant.

They are Israel.

thats the whole context of romans 9 - 11

All we have to do is look at ot prophecies concernign Israel and we will know

1. They will walk away and be punished
2. They will eventually repent and be restored according to the election
3. They will all be back in their land and be one nation again and Jesus will rule.\

when we try to take romans 9 - 11 without contextual analysis and putting them together with the whole of the word. We get calvinism and replacement theology.

 

[covenantee]

We have no previous renewal.

Do you know what "again" means?

Go argue with Paul.

 

[Timtofly]

Do you know what "again" means?

Go argue with Paul.

It only happens to one cut off. A natural branch has to be made new. A wild branch cannot be made new again. They were never on the natural tree as new. Grafted in is not the same as already being there.

 

[covenantee]

It only happens to one cut off. A natural branch has to be made new. A wild branch cannot be made new again. They were never on the natural tree as new. Grafted in is not the same as already being there.

Hebrews 6
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

They first fall away.

Then they are cut off.

 

[PinSeeker]

Did this covenant then cease at Abraham's death?

No, of course not. I have never said nor implied that it did, and am not sure why you would think it necessary to ask me this.

So the only way to break this covenant was to refuse circumcision.

Disagree. Abraham's end of the covenant was to be perfectly faithful and obedient. As is the case with all these covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic). Here, circumcision was an outward sign and seal of the covenant on an ongoing basis ~ a sacrament, as baptism is for us today.

Still not a completed process. While the Cross was 100% completed on God's end, God has not removed the curse placed on creation, until the fulness of the Gentiles is complete.

I have never disagreed with this in any way. Thanks for the novella you wrote me, but, well, not necessary. Maybe you have me confused with someone else who has expressed otherwise on this subject...?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

No they don't.

Yes, they do. We disagree.

The 144k are on earth. The multitude is in Paradise.

I agree with both of these statements, but not in the way you see that, obviously. I guess to this I would say that, well, earth and paradise will be one. They will be separate no more.

Heritage has nothing to do with verses 1-8.

We disagree.

A declared amount is being specific.

Sure, but the implication of anything declared can be very different. Revelation if filled with symbolism, which is the hallmark of all apocalyptic literature.

The 144k are still on the earth while those in Paradise are with God.

Earth and paradise will be one, Timtofly. You see a dichotomy where there is... well, will be... none.

God is about to judge humanity.

In Revelation 7, God has already judged humanity. As in Revelation 14, and at other points in Revelation. The structure of Revelation is quite different from what many suppose. It is not strictly chronological from beginning to end, but a series of retellings of what is referred to as the millennium in Revelation 20. But, many are vehemently opposed to that idea, and, well, so be it.

All humanity was redeemed via the Cross.

Disagree.

....not all of humanity would choose the Cross.

Agree. But the choosing of any member of the human race is not the first cause of whether or not Christ's atonement on the cross is effectual for and conferring salvation upon said member of the human race. "...in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls... it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:11-18).

The fulness of the Gentiles has been declared complete.

Agree...

The number of the sealed comes to 12,000 for each tribe, as you will agree. The balanced numbering suggests that 12 is a symbolic number for the fullness of the people of God. Some think that the 144,000 includes only Jewish believers. But “servants of our God” in 7:3 must include Gentile saints as well. The equal status of Gentiles and Jews in the seven churches (Ephesians 2:11-22), and the promises associated only with the 144,000 (Revelation 9:4; 14:1-5) confirm it. According to Revelation 7:1-8, the saints are known by God one by one, and none slips by his care (cf. Matthew 10:30). So I say again that the groups referred to in Revelation 7:1-8 and Revelation 7:9-17 are one and the same, and what is explained are two different aspects concerning this one group. 7:1-8 emphasizes the Israelite heritage of the New Testament people of God, and Revelation 7:9-17 emphasizes their international character; they are a great multitude … from every nation, tribe, people, and language, fulfilling the promise to Abraham that all the peoples on earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3; 17:5).

That is why the entire church is in Paradise, and no longer on the earth.

Disagree. The earth is "made new," and "the holy city, new Jerusalem, (has come) down out of heaven from God" and "the dwelling place of God is with man." As it was in the beginning ~ before the Fall of Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were in paradise... Eden. And so it will be again. "(God) will dwell with (us), and (we) will be His people, and God Himself will be with (us) as (our) God... He will wipe away every tear from (our) eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things (will) have passed away." God says, “Behold, I am making all things new” (Revelation 21:1-8). He does not say, “Behold, I am making all new things.”

There are a lot of very... fanciful... ... ideas out there, for sure, but no need.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

By orthodox I mean conforming to established doctrine as held in the history of the church. By a preterist who is orthodox, I refer to one who believes Matt. 24:1-35 is a prediction of 70 AD and the end of the Jewish religion, and that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and in history these were considered within orthodox Christianity. Revelation chapter 20 refers to the general resurrection in our future. I am an Orthodox Preterist, and I believe THE LAST DAY, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION IS IN OUR FUTURE. I am comfortable fellowshipping with those within orthodoxy who hold to historic pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil views, but NOT dispensationalism. I can fellowship with those who view Revelation as preterist, historist or futurist, but NOT the dispensational futurist which is not orthodox Christianity.

By heretical I mean unorthodox, a religious opinion that is a departure from and contrary to historic Christian doctrine as found among the writers of the church in history. I can show the Orthodox Preterist view in the church of the past. Dispensationalism cannot show their scheme prior to 1830 or so, and it's mainly found after the 1920s and the fundamentalist movement with its Scofield Bible.

Well it doesn't matter what church thinkers declare, it matters what the bible teaches and the bible is definitely disepnsational.

orthodix and preterism are two terms that cannot be used in the same sentence.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, but true repentance is of the Spirit, Spiritual Israelite. People can say anything, and even repent of their sins, and be sincere in doing that. But what we pray for, even continually, is a deep and lasting repentance granted us by the Holy Spirit's work in us. In a real sense, we have to repent even of our repentance. That's how bad our sinful nature, which we still have, even if born again and in Christ, is.

So, does this mean you are telling me that you believe Hebrews 6:6 is not referring to true repentance, PinSeeker? It seems that you are. If that is what you're trying to tell me then I know that I can't take you seriously on this issue. Only extreme doctrinal bias could lead someone to think that Hebrews 6:6 is not referring to true repentance.

What you're doing ~ and I know you don't mean to be, but it is what it is ~ is, in the words of that great hymn, Stricken, Smitten, and Afflicted, regarding sin but lightly... supposing its evil not so great.

Why did you decide to resort to lying about me? You should be better than this. I do NOT take sin lightly at all. Don't say things like this about someone you don't know personally. And you don't know me at all.

Hmmm, well, there are many places in Scripture where we could look, but let's look at a conversation Jesus has in John 10:22-30 with a group of Jews at the Feast of Dedication. Notice how he answers them:
Two points here:

• Jesus says they do not believe BECAUSE they are not among His sheep. He does not say they are not among His sheep because they don't believe, but the other way around... they do not believe BECAUSE they are not among His sheep, those Whom the Father has given them.
• Jesus also says that no one ~ which includes the sheep themselves ~ will be able to snatch them out of His or the Father's hand.

You do know that the New Testament was not originally written in English, right? It's unfortunate that our English translations occasionally give a false impression of what Jesus said or what the NT authors wrote. The word "because" in John 10:26 was translated from the Greek word "gar" (Strong's G1063). The word is a conjunction and most of the time is translated as "for" in other verses, which you can see for yourself if you look it up.

Here is John 10:26 in Young's Literal Translation:

but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep,

When read this way you can see that Jesus was not saying their unbelief was caused by not being of His sheep. Instead, you can see that He was simply saying they do not believe since they are not of His sheep. He wasn't commenting on the cause of their unbelief at all there, but simply saying that their unbelief was evidence that they were not of His sheep.

Also, it's worth noting that He was only saying they were not of His sheep at that time. We know that some of those people became saved and were then among His sheep after that. We know that 3,000 people were saved on the day of Pentecost alone. So, if you are trying to argue that Jesus was talking about the difference between those who are predestined to be His sheep and those who are not, then you need to explain how you can reconcile your interpretation of the verse with the fact that some of those who were not His sheep at the time He was speaking became His sheep later.

Salvation cannot be lost.

Scripture says it can be. Scripture warns saved people about falling away. That wouldn't be the case if it wasn't possible.

Hebrews 3:1 Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest.

Would you agree that those referred to as "holy brothers and sisters" were saved people? I would hope so. I don't believe scripture would ever refer to an unsaved person as holy. Those same saved people are still being addressed a little later in the chapter here...

Hebrews 3:12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Look at verse 12 here. The "holy brothers and sisters" being addressed in this passage are being warned about developing a "sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God"? Was he just kidding with them about this? Could they have just laughed at his warning, told him to calm down and reminded him that their salvation was eternally secure?

Notice how verse 14 implies that holding our original conviction firmly to the very end is not a guarantee. Otherwise, that little word "if" wouldn't be there.

Once one is saved by the Father ~ once He has mercy/compassion on the person ~ it cannot be undone, and there is no falling away.

Yet, Hebrews 6:4-6 warns about falling away since the person who does cannot be led back to repentance. And it's talking about true repentance, not some other type of repentance as you imagine.

Then there is this:

Romans 11:20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Paul said this after talking about the natural branches (Israelites) who had been broken off the cultivated olive tree. He made it clear that they were broken off because of unbelief and Gentile believers were grafted in because of faith. Then he made it clear that those Gentile believers who had been grafted in needed to continue in their faith or else they "also will be cut off". He was not speaking corporately there since he was speaking of salvation. He was saying any Gentile who lost their faith would be cut off from the olive tree, symbolizing being cut off from the kingdom of God as the unbelieving Israelites were back then (just as Jesus said would happen - Matthew 21:43-45).

Jesus taught that a saved person can fall away as well.

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

Jesus is "the true vine". Would you agree that every branch in Him is saved? I don't know how anyone could disagree with that. Yet, look at what He said in verses 1 and 2. He said His "Father is the gardener" and "He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit". And He later said "If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned". How can you think someone can't lose their salvation when Jesus Himself said that a person who does not remain in Him (you can't remain in Christ unless are you in Him - saved - in the first place) will be cut off?

Only those who were never saved in the first place, who never were on the receiving end of God's mercy/compassion, will fall away, and that's only if he or she was among the people of God and sharing in the fellowship of the saints and even partaking of ~ experiencing ~ the presence of the Spirit and His work around him or her.

Yet, scripture says this about those who have been saved in the first place. You have to resort to saying that Hebrews 6:4-6 is not talking about saved people and not talking about true repentance in order to keep your view afloat. And then there are passages like Hebrews 3:12-14, Romans 11:20-22 and John 15:1-6 that don't line up with your view.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So yes, God's election, with regard to us, is absolutely unconditional. Paul is abundantly clear in Romans 9 that God's purpose of election is only conditional on God, and whether He has mercy/compassion or not. As with Jacob and Esau:

"...though (Jacob and Esau) were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad ~ in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls..." (Romans 9:11)

That verse is not referring to individual salvation. It is absolutely not saying that Jacob was predestined to salvation while Esau was not, as you imagine. What did Paul write immediately after that?

Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This doesn't even have to do with Jacob and Esau themselves, but rather with the nations that would descend from each of them.

Genesis 25:21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 The Lord said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

The two nations were the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom and Israel was the stronger nation. As it relates to election, it was God's choice to bring salvation to the world through the nation of Israel rather than Edom or any other nation. That was His choice and no one could say otherwise or complain about His choice. The Messiah would descend from Israel since God determined that salvation was going to be of the Jews (John 4:22).

So it is with all of us: "...it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:14-18).

Yes, of course God has mercy on whomever He wills. Of course. But, does God have mercy on people arbitrarily? Other scripture indicates that the merciful will receive mercy (Matthew 5:7) and that those who confess and turn from their sins receive mercy (Proverbs 28:13). So, it's not arbitrary.

Also, Paul later went on to say that God wants to have mercy on all people.

Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

God has bound everyone over to disobedience. All people have sinned and all short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God allows this so that "he may have mercy on them all". And He does have mercy on those who are merciful and those who humble themselves and confess their sins to Him.

God doesn't force anyone to be humble and confess their sins. He expected people to humble themselves in response to His call to repentance.

Matthew 23:12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

I'll just cut it off here. I keep running into the 10,000 character limit and I'm trying to cut some and paste it back in. Not worth the hassle.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Unless you think Romans 8 means universal salvation, the second birth is just as permanent or more so than the first birth.

If you disagree with me on this then that just confirms to me even more that I'm right about this. And you might as well stop talking to me about this because what I read so far of what you said about it was complete gibberish, so I'm not going to waste my time reading anything more from you on this topic.

 

[PinSeeker]

So, does this mean you are telling me that you believe Hebrews 6:6 is not referring to true repentance, PinSeeker?

No, I do not believe Hebrews 6:6 is not referring to true repentance, Spiritual Israelite.

It seems that you are.

Okay, well I'm not sure why, but you can dispel that thought straight away.

Why did you decide to resort to lying about me? You should be better than this. I do NOT take sin lightly at all. Don't say things like this about someone you don't know personally. And you don't know me at all.

I very pointedly said, Spiritual Israelite, that I knew you did not intend to take sin lightly ~ "I know you don't mean to be, but it is what it is." I did not lie about you in any way whatsoever. Goodness gracious. All I said was that that could be the unintended effect of what you said, not that you actually doing such a thing.

You do know that the New Testament was not originally written in English, right? It's unfortunate that our English translations occasionally give a false impression of what Jesus said or what the NT authors wrote. The word "because" in John 10:26 was translated from the Greek word "gar" (Strong's G1063). The word is a conjunction and most of the time is translated as "for" in other verses, which you can see for yourself if you look it up.

Yes, I'm well aware of the language in which the New Testament was written... The "impression" is the same. In either case ('because' or 'for'), the former is a consequence of the latter; the latter is a prerequisite that makes the former inevitable. In this case, One will not believe unless he or she has been given to the Son and is therefore one of His sheep. This is intimately related to what John writes earlier, both that "children of God... were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13) and from Jesus Himself, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). And later, Jesus says, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16).

Scripture warns saved people about falling away.

Scripture assures believers ~ over and over again, because we, in our frailty, need it ~ that those who are in Christ cannot fall away and thus lose their salvation. Jesus says Himself, in the very passage we're talking about in John 10, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand." If you do not see our eternal security in Christ in this quote ~ and it's just one of many ~ what do you possibly see, Spiritual Israelite? What can you possibly take from that statement that indicates anything ~ anything ~ to the contrary? To believe saved people, those called by God and given new birth in the Spirit, can fall away and lose their salvation is to say that faith, is not really what Hebrews 11:1 says it is, "the (God-given, as we see in Ephesians 2:8, the gift of God) assurance of things hoped for, and conviction (by the Holy Spirit, Who convicts) of things unseen.

Would you agree that those referred to as "holy brothers and sisters" were saved people?

I agree that the writer of Hebrews is writing a letter to people he presumes to be saved, yes. He's writing to believers, but he doesn't know if everyone reading will actually be a believer... and also with the hope that unbelievers hearing what he is writing ~ because all these letters were read aloud to congregations ~ will acquire faith, because this is how faith comes, by hearing, as we see in Romans 10.

I would hope so. I don't believe scripture would ever refer to an unsaved person as holy.

Hmm, well, surely you believe that to be holy ~ really holy, as God is ~ is to be without sin. Do you believe you are perfectly holy, Spiritual Israelite?

Those same saved people are still being addressed a little later in the chapter here...

Hebrews 3:12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

Look at verse 12 here. The "holy brothers and sisters" being addressed in this passage are being warned about developing a "sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God"?

Wow. The writer of Hebrews is making no bones about the fact that it is ~ is ~ the sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. The sinful, unbelieving heart always ~ always, if not immediately, then eventually, without exception ~ turns away from the living God. And he says "see to it that none of you has ~ has, not "develops," but has ~ a sinful unbelieving hart that turns away from the living God.

Notice how verse 14 implies that holding our original conviction firmly to the very end is not a guarantee.

You know, I agree, but having it, even though it may weaken from time to time, is a guarantee, because the conviction ~ and our holding to it ~ is a work of the Holy Spirit, of God, Who does not fail.

Paul... was saying any Gentile who lost their faith would be cut off from the olive tree, symbolizing being cut off from the kingdom of God as the unbelieving Israelites were back then (just as Jesus said would happen - Matthew 21:43-45).

Right, because they have a false faith, not the gift of true faith that only comes from God. Ephesians 2 yet again: "by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship..."

Jesus taught that a saved person can fall away as well.

Nope. Again, Jesus, in John 15;16, says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." And, regarding His appointing us that we should go and bear fruit, Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2, that "...we are (God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." It's God's work in us, His making us a new creation, as Paul says here and in 2 Corinthians 5:17, that "...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." God is the Creator. We do not create ~ or un-create ~ ourselves.

This doesn't even have to do with Jacob and Esau themselves, but rather with the nations that would descend from each of them.

Both individual and corporate.

Yes, of course God has mercy on whomever He wills.

Great! And, our election does not depend on what we do or say by strength or by will, but on our receiving God's mercy and compassion. Many say quite the opposite, that God's mercy and compassion depend on man's strength and will, which is directly antithetical to Romans 9, especially 9:16.

Of course. But, does God have mercy on people arbitrarily?

Of course not. That depends on whose perspective we're considering; what God does can seem very arbitrary to us.

God has bound everyone over to disobedience. All people have sinned and all short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). God allows this so that "he may have mercy on them all".

Right, may, but not will. Jesus's atonement is sufficient for all, but not necessarily effectual for all. With regard to salvation, what is effectual is only what God intends ~ this is His purpose of election ~ which was, in Paul's words in Romans 9, "to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use... God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

Yet, scripture says this about those who have been saved in the first place....And then there are passages like Hebrews 3:12-14, Romans 11:20-22 and John 15:1-6 that don't line up with your view.

I fully understand that you think these things, and respectfully disagree.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Some think that the 144,000 includes only Jewish believers. But “servants of our God” in 7:3 must include Gentile saints as well. The equal status of Gentiles and Jews in the seven churches (Ephesians 2:11-22), and the promises associated only with the 144,000 (Revelation 9:4; 14:1-5) confirm it.

How many of the original 12 disciples were Gentiles?

The 144k are the firstfruits.

The sheep represent Israel. The wheat represents all Gentiles. God has the final harvest covered. You don't have to limit God's plan to your own symbolism nor understanding.

If you interpreted the Gospels like you do the book of Revelation there would have only been 12 in the church as representation of the last 1993 years. And those 12 would be an equal representation of Jews and Gentiles. To you the original 12 would not have existed, but a projection of the church as an entire group.

The problem is for you, the 144k are the Second Coming firstfruits. The multitude in Paradise without number are all of Adam's redeemed flesh from Abel to the Second Coming. The 144k are on earth after the Second Coming. The multitude are in Paradise after the Second Coming. Now the 7th Seal can be opened and the final harvest begins with the sounding of the Trumpets and the Thunders. The final harvest is the redemption of those left on earth after the Second Coming.

You have these 144k as some sort of representation of humanity before Adam even sinned. Revelation is not about your alleged millennium happening over and over at different "camera" angles. Revelation is the end of 7,000 years of life on earth. Revelation 10 is not the end of a millennium. It is the end of Adam's punishment of the last 6,000 years. It is the end of Gabriel's 70 week declaration. Certainly those 70 weeks started 4 centuries prior to even the birth of Christ. While 69 weeks covered that period from Daniel to the birth of Jesus, those 144k would have been in Daniel's day, because your millennium parallel views also include those 70 weeks which did not start at the Cross, even for your understanding. Those 70 weeks were not just for Israel. They would bring an end to Adam's punishment of sin that effects all of humanity. You seem to think that the 70 weeks only covers a small portion of humanity, ie the elect. The elect was every one. God placed every one in the Lamb's book of life. Now many will be removed after the 7th Seal is opened. Starting with the goats. Then the tares. And finally all the dead at the GWT judgment who still refuse God's Atonement.

So yes we will disagree because the Theory of Amillennialism dictates that the book of Revelation only covers the last 1993 years, and limits God's plan of redemption, leaving out 6,000 years of human history, and concentrating on only the last 1993 years.

 

[Timtofly]

If you disagree with me on this then that just confirms to me even more that I'm right about this. And you might as well stop talking to me about this because what I read so far of what you said about it was complete gibberish, so I'm not going to waste my time reading anything more from you on this topic.

Of course we disagree. You think it is a person's choice by choosing not to believe and can fall away as they please.

God cuts one off. That is because of sin, and sin has replaced belief with unbelief.

You even replaced the word "because" with "for" to make your point.

You make a distinction between Jesus as the vine, and Jesus as the root of the olive tree.

Yet what is the reason why branches are cut off of either?

Was Jesus telling us that Gentiles were part of the vine naturally? Or was Jesus still addressing Israel as a nation?

The point Paul was making did remove the distinction between Israel and Gentile. But was Jesus warning Israel they would be cut off, or speaking of only the church after the Cross?

My point is not denying one can be unborn from God's family. My point is how one can loose one's salvation in Christ. For Israel it was unbelief. But unbelief that came from constant sin. The distinction is that Israel was a natural branch, even in Adam's dead flesh. They were chosen, while Edom had to come by faith. All those outside of Israel had to be changed from wild branches into cultivated branches.

It is still sin that causes God to cut off a branch. It is not because one chooses to stop believing. The point was that those first century natural branches did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, not that they rejected a Messiah would come. That is why they and all their offspring until now were given blindness in part. They had to come just as those wild branches came in faith.

But God had cut off branches 7 centuries prior to Christ. And it was because of both sin and unbelief, not because they rejected Jesus as their Messiah. You may disagree, but every single natural branch had to be removed. All had to come as wild branches, and there were no natural branches after the Cross. The kingdom went from seen to unseen.

 

[PinSeeker]

How many of the original 12 disciples were Gentiles?

No matter; the true Jew of God is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit (Romans 2:29)... Gentiles are grafted in (Romans 11), which is to say that though they are "wild olive shoots," they are no longer counted as such, but one with, even as the natural and not broken off. There is no more ethnic "Jew" or "Gentile," all are one in Christ Jesus, and regardless of ethnicity, if we are Christ’s, then we are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Galatians 3:28-29). So it is with regard to Revelation 7:1-8 ~ ethnicity has no bearing; all who are in Christ are true Jews of God,

The 144k are the firstfruits.

Well, I agree, but not in the way you think I should. We all are the firstfruits; we have the firstfruits:

"For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:22-23)​

​

"If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches." (Romans 11:16).​

​

"It is these who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb..." (Revelation 14:4)​

144,000 is not a woodenly understood hard number, but a number symbolic of the whole lump... actually the part of the lump of humanity containing the elect, hearkening back to Romans 9:21 where Paul poses the rhetorical question, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

The sheep represent Israel.

Agreed. But again, not in the limited way in which you think I should agree. The Israel of God.

You don't have to limit God's plan to your own symbolism nor understanding.

LOL! I agree; you don't. The symbolism is not mine... LOL! But it is what it is...

If you interpreted the Gospels like you do the book of Revelation....

That's at least part of the problem, that you're drawing a distinction between the two that does not exist. See above. Not to say that there is not a distinction; there is, but not the wooden distinction that you are making.

The 144k are on earth after the Second Coming. The multitude are in Paradise after the Second Coming.

Well, I agree with the "after the Second Coming parts... But I still say, you are making a distinction out of something where there is none; the former establishes the nature and heritage of the latter, and the the latter fleshes out the actual manifestation of the former. And earth and paradise are one... as it was in the beginning.

You have these 144k as some sort of representation of humanity before Adam even sinned.

Well, I agree with the representation of humanity part, but restored to the state that Adam was in before he sinned. Ah, Paradise Lost, and Paradise Regained... two epic works, the signature works of the great John Milton, well worth reading.

Revelation is not about your alleged millennium happening over and over at different "camera" angles.

Yes, we disagree, a fact with which I am well aware. So be it.

Revelation is the end of 7,000 years of life on earth. Revelation 10 is not the end of a millennium. It is the end of Adam's punishment of the last 6,000 years. It is the end of Gabriel's 70 week declaration. Certainly those 70 weeks started 4 centuries prior to even the birth of Christ. While 69 weeks covered that period from Daniel to the birth of Jesus, those 144k would have been in Daniel's day, because your millennium parallel views also include those 70 weeks which did not start at the Cross, even for your understanding. Those 70 weeks were not just for Israel. They would bring an end to Adam's punishment of sin that effects all of humanity.

Ugh. A lot to discuss here, but I'll refrain.

You seem to think that the 70 weeks only covers a small portion of humanity, ie the elect. The elect was every one. God placed every one in the Lamb's book of life.

Well, the only place we ever see the elect referred to in the Bible is in Romans 9-11. And Paul talks about the elect as a group smaller than the whole of humanity. That much is irrefutable; it is what it is, no matter how much anyone tries to deny it.

Now many will be removed after the 7th Seal is opened. Starting with the goats. Then the tares. And finally all the dead at the GWT judgment who still refuse God's Atonement.

The final Judgment will be the only "removal" ~ actually properly seen as a sending away of, an obedient departing of ~ unbelievers, who are portrayed in different ways throughout the Bible (goats, tares, those resurrected to eternal judgment, and those on Jesus's left, among others).

So yes we will disagree because the Theory of Amillennialism dictates that the book of Revelation only covers the last 1993 years...

Well, thereabouts, I guess, because that's what John himself says in his Revelation. Chapters 1-3 are letters to the existing churches at that time (late first century), chapters 4-5 are showing the scene in heaven at present (then and now and ongoing), and the chapters 6-20 (yes, restarting at certain points) reveal the progression of events up to Christ's return, final Judgment, and ushering in the new heaven and new earth,

...and limits God's plan of redemption...

Not at all. It reveals its magnificence, God's true glory, which is quite unlimited, as God Himself is.

...leaving out 6,000 years of human history...

No, it's very much acknowledged...

...concentrating on only the last 1993 years.

Well, as John, writing somewhere in the 90-95 A.D. range, says in Revelation 1:3, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near," and Revelation 4:1, where the voice from heaven tells him, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this," where 'this' is referring to Christ's defense of His church and the destruction of its enemies, all of which takes place after His resurrection. So from the very beginning, we see that John is focusing on the present and the times to come leading up to Christ's return.

Grace and peace to you.