Will Christ utter new words in a Premil millennium?
- Thread starter grafted branch
- Start date
-
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!
No. The way you are stating that question... no, that's not what I believe. I've answered this question in all its forms many, many times, in this thread and many others.
So there is no "so." The premise itself is invalid, so there can be no "so."
If you ask that question in the sense that you are asking it, Spiritual Israelite, then... going with that... why are not all people saved? In that same sense, regarding what Satan did in the Garden of Eden, do you think God either said or thought, "Well, shoot, I didn't want that to happen..." or "Well, shoot I didn't know he'd do that..." Those are rhetorical questions, of course...
Again, the premise itself is invalid, so there can be no "so."
Well, salvation is of the Lord, that's for sure... Man has no part, however small, in granting himself salvation, and therefore no ground to claim such or boast in anything except Christ Jesus. But God also chose to give to some new birth, to adopt them as sons in Christ. And subsequent to that happening for any one of us, we then ~ because of the new spirit we have ~ in our free will <smile> are responsible in the ways we were created to be so. And the ways in which this manifests itself outwardly include serving, good works, and love... of and for and to Him.
Ohhhh, that's another "word salad," I guess... <chuckles>
In your opinion. I get it. Fair enough. But, in Paul's words, "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' 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? What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction..." (this does not mean "made/created for destruction," SI) "...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?" (Romans 9:19-24)
It's not "not possible." All these premises are invalid, Spiritual Israelite. All of them. The very definition of a straw-man argument.
That's what I'm saying to you. <smile>
It does. Obstinacy is real. <smile>
Not what I believe. It's merely what you're trying to foist on me. Which I've been crystal clear about, many, many times.
Nope. Now, generally true of all His disciples, which includes you and me, yes.
For believers. Unbelievers not so much; they think it all foolishness, children of wrath and dead in their sin as they are.
Pish. But that's exactly what many will do. And they will be on Jesus's left, not in the congregation of the righteous, and will not stand in the judgment.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
It is what Calvinists believe, so I guess you're not a Calvinist then. But, I don't believe you. You believe the choice is entirely up to God, so how can you deny that what I said is what you believe? It only follows that you believe that. Maybe you just don't even understand what you believe. LOL.
Do you seriously not know my answer to that question? You say you have supposedly answered my questions "many, many times". Well, I have answered this question many, many times.
LOL. Of cousre He knew it would happen, but what is the point? This does not mean He doesn't genuinely want everyone to repent and be saved. But, your doctrine teaches that He made sure that only certain people would repent and be saved and that the rest never would.
You misrepresent my view by acting as if I say that man grants himself salvation. How does believing that man must accept God's offer of salvation by humbling himself and admitting that he can't save himself and needs Jesus to save him instead mean that I think man grants himself salvation? You clearly have no understanding of what I actually believe. And, of course, you think that of me regarding your beliefs, too. Which means we're obviously just wasting our time here.
Read that again maybe a thousand times and maybe eventually you'll understand that has nothing to do with God choosing who will be saved and who won't be saved, but instead has to do with the fact that God could make salvation available to Gentiles and not just Jews without any Jews or anyone else saying that it was unfair to do so.
That's not true. I really don't think you have put any thought into the implications of what you believe.
Your understanding of what it means to be dead in sin is completely flawed. It means one is separate from God, but does not mean someone is totally depraved and that they can't repent and believe without being born again. Jesus said that sinners are sick and He calls them to repentance (Mark 2:16-17). Are sick people unable to recognize that they are sick while admitting that they can't heal themselves and need the physician (Jesus) to heal them?
What you say Calvinists believe. And some who call themselves Calvinists may, but that would make them, at least on these points, not Calvinists.
So there is no "so" (again)...
I know, but I don't care. <smile>
The initial choice, yes. It's just amazing to me how anyone can refute what Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5, that "(God) chose us in (Christ Jesus) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will..." But to each his own. which, actually, is precisely the problem.
Because it's not what I believe.
In your opinion. I understand.
LOL is right...
I said they were rhetorical questions. Which means, among other things, that I do know your answer.
And I have.
There was never any need to answer it. That's why it was rhetorical.
It... should have been obvious.
Nope...
No, I know that's not your view. But that's the effect, however unintended it may be, of some of the things you are saying.
At least to a large extent, yes.
Well I would say pretty much the same thing to you, Spiritual Israelite. You know that. Because Paul is talking about God's elect, those who, as He has just said, are in Christ (Romans 8:1), and thus are those whom He has called, justified, and will ultimately glorify (Romans 8:29-30), and are more than conquerors in Him and can never be separated by anything in all of creation from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:37-39). It's really kind of a shame that Romans 8 and 9 are divided into two chapters, because it's a continuation of what Paul is saying there.
I don't disagree with this; it's really a continuation even from Romans 2, especially verses 28-29, where Paul talks about who true Jews of God are.
It is.
I don't care. <smile> That's pretty much what I've been saying to you, SI. And, too, what you call implications of what I believe are really just knee-jerk reactions on your part, really, much in the same sense as what Paul heads off in Romans 9:19-24.
In your opinion. I would say the same of you. Underestimation of sin is real.
I don't disagree, but that's a big understatement. At enmity with God... you should do some looking into that, SI.
Not in the sense that you think of total depravity.... which, as I said before, is really utter depravity.
Ohhh, there's that word "can't" again, which you... can't... get away from... <smile> I mean, you could... <smile>
Sure.
Ugh. "Unable." Such a problem. <chuckles> What is our sickness, Spiritual Israelite? This is... another rhetorical question... Upon thinking about this, though, one think that comes quickly to mind is Jeremiah 17:9...
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I am not refuting what he says there. I would never dream of purposely refuting anything in scripture and you now that. And you would not purposely do that, either. So, don't even go there with that nonsense. I disagree with YOU about what that passage means. You think that God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals that He knew by name that He would cause to believe in Christ and be adopted as children through Jesus Christ. But, I believe it means that God, before the foundation of the world, chose that whoever believes in Christ "should be holy and blameless before Him" and were predestined "for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ".
Your doctrine makes nonsense out of the fact that God loves the whole world so much that He gave His only Son to die for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2), so that all people in the whole world would have the opportunity to be saved and have eternal life because He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6), which is why He commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30-31) and why He graciously offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). Your doctrine makes God's desire that all people repent and His gracious offer of salvation to all people disingenuous because you believe He chose only to save some while not even making it possible for the rest to be saved. Which means you have God offering salvation to people who cannot possibly accept His offer, which makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you have no problem talking about how I see the effects and implications of my view, but when I do that in relation to your view, you always take offense. I don't take offense that you're doing this, but you are just doing nothing to back it up.
Right, so it's inadvertent. Which I knew also. Or... possibly you're just in denial, still. It's probably at least a little of both.
I'm well aware of that, too. <smile>
This much is true, and if you don't, then... <smile> ...the issue you are taking is not really with me.
And your insinuation here is not true, namely that He would "cause to believe in Christ." I get that that can be the perception of Augustine's and Calvin's understanding of Scripture and thus their position, but is not remotely true.
Again, well aware. And the undeniable implication of that is that God's will and purpose depends on man's, which is absolutely antithetical to various passages throughout Scripture. Which ones? Name one, right? Well, see above...
No, it spurs this kind of knee-jerk reaction in various folks. But... that's okay, it still is what it is (and not what you keep saying it is).
Ah, there's that word 'cannot' again. Such a problem. But no, in the sense that you are saying that, it does not.
No offense taken whatsoever. Rather, maybe exasperation, to some degree, at your obsinacy... <smile> But yeah, if you keep misstating what Augustine or John Calvin, or I or any other true Calvinist believes, then, I'm going to keep correcting those misperceptions and misstatements. But yeah, sooner or later... although it's pretty much always the latter, it probably would just be good to say... fair enough, and part on good terms. <smile>
It certainly seems you do, but fine, fair enough. <smile>
Would be interesting to know what color the skies are in your world... <smile> The record is clear.
Grace and peace to you.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
LOL. I am definitely in denial that you have any idea of what you're talking about.
Come on. You are completely dishonest about all of this. Would they believe in Christ if God didn't do anything? No. So, it's quite appropriate to describe your view as God causing people to believe in Christ. Your denials of the implications of your doctrine is just downright hilarious.
Nonsense. The fact that God punishes people is absolute proof that His will and purpose, which includes punishing rebellion and unrepentant sinners, is dependent on whether or not man repents. We see that over and over again in scripture. But, in your view, He punishes people for no real reason because He punishes them for not doing something (repenting of their sins) that, because of their supposed totally depraved nature that they can't change or overcome, that they are not even capable of doing. It's like punishing someone for not being able to lift 50,000 pounds. Ridiculous.
Can any person repent and believe on their own without God giving them repentance and faith? You say no, right? Not sure what your problem is with the word "cannot" since it accurately describes what you believe?
I don't misstate what Calvinists believe. You just don't like reading the implications of what you believe. You won't admit that you make God's command and desire for people to repent and be saved disingenuous, but that is exactly what your doctrine does.
Yeeeeeeah, right back atcha. And we'll leave it at that.
You do.
What I don't like is watching people flail away in futility trying to make something stick ~ which itself is terribly disingenuous.
Right, because I don't.
Your opinion, however erroneous, is... noted. <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
I prefer to think the difference (in Christ's words) will be not what He says but how.
In the beginning Christ was mindful of "what" He was saying, when He returns He will take that as given, and concern Himself with "how" what is given is given (for our sake).
In the beginning Christ was mindful of "what" He was saying, when He returns He will take that as given, and concern Himself with "how" what is given is given (for our sake).
Similar threads
