Committing sin and also resisting it both bring death? What do you make of this.Michael V Pardo said:You have not yet resisted sin to the point of death.
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!
Committing sin and also resisting it both bring death? What do you make of this.Michael V Pardo said:You have not yet resisted sin to the point of death.
27. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28. so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:27-28ATP said:Committing sin and also resisting it both bring death? What do you make of this.
Marcus, I chose my doctrine. It didnt choose me nor does it determine what I can and cannot do. I chose this doctrine because it is consistent both with what Jesus says about his coming in the NT, the expectation of the Apostles, what Paul says about the second coming and it treats Revelation consistently throughout and allows for an interpretation that is not only normative for apocalyptic literature, but one that would have been understandable to 1st century audiences...rather than making it about America, tanks, helicopters and other such nonsense that would have been completely meaningless and useless to the 7 churches addressed.I don't think that's true at all.
I think this is an example of where your doctrine dictates what we can do.
And I am not bound by your strait jacket approach which dismisses all such information as to numbers that the Father, through Jesus, revealed to John!
Either way, there are gaps there. It is not a chronological 490 years, but has huge gaps that have apparently taken this 70 sevens to span across 2500 years. So we both see some symbolism/gaps in the timeline...that was all I was saying.I don't stop the clock on the one 'seven's start when I look for the one 'seven' to commence in the future.
Gabriel put three events which happen after the sixty-two 'sevens'.
- the first happens right after Jesus' Triumpant Entry,
- the second one happens nearly four decades later, and
- the third is still ongoing and it will continue through the "ONE" 'seven' into the end.
Wormwood said:So we both see some symbolism/gaps in the timeline...that was all I was saying.
Right, this is a dichotomy in the Bible. How can something be near and far away at the same time?Wormwood said:But John is told the opposite:
for the time is near. (Revelation 22:10–11, ESV)
Well 1.) I go to the OT for end-time prophecy as well, which does describe both a Day of the Lord Wrath, and a Millennium Sabbath Reign of peace.Wormwood said:These things all made complete sense to early Christians who knew their OT very well and understood that the Church was the fulfillment of all the predictions and promises made to the saints in the past.
Well, that is not the definition of "doctrine." Doctrine is simply a system of belief and we all have them. Timothy was told to watch his life and doctrine closely. It sounds like you are discussing "systematic theology" which can cause someone to look at particular Scriptures is a less objective way if the goal is to force those passages into the "system." Personally, I see dispensationalists doing this far more than any other theology. But, of course, we would not agree on this. In any event, I am not forcing passages into a systematic theology. I try to look at each passage in its own context rather than trying to cram all the passages into a particular end times scenario. I let each passage speak in its context and develop my eschatology based on the result. I am the first to admit that I could be wrong on such matters, but it is not because I do not take the Bible seriously or have a predetermined view that I try to force Scripture into, as you implied.The point about "doctrine" is that it is man-made. I see "doctrine" evolving from a fundamental viewpoint. That viewpoint is reinforced by the evolved doctrine which dictates that same viewpoint into areas that are questionable, like the book of Revelation.
I agree with this. However, that does not mean that I cannot evaluate your views based on what I see taught in Scripture and determine that some of those views are not consistent and, in my view, paint a very problematic view of God's plan of salvation.Neither one of us knows the absolute truth; we are not God.
I agree that these issues are certainly not matters of salvation. My only concern with dispensationalism is that it tends to see the OT as being left unfulfilled and also tends to exalt the physical descendants of Abraham over those who are of the faith of Abraham. Maybe this is not true with you, but it most certainly is with most dispensationalists.That we come to different ends in terms of eschatology does not necessarily mean we will fail in faith - until such time as we make decisions which could affect our faith.
My concern with dispensationalists is not that they become "preppers." Rather, it is that they tend to tie biblical texts to modern day events (Van Impe and others are notorious for this kind of stuff), and when those modern day events do not end up bringing about a one world government or when a particular leader is not the Antichrist, then it makes people discredit the Bible....rather than seeing it for what it is...just a reflection of someone with terrible eschatology. Moreover, I see dispensationalists oft trying to determine who the Antichrist is, and thus, in a quite unChristian manner, start labeling political leaders as the Antichrist and causing others to fear and hate that individual. We are to love and pray for our enemies, not defame them and call them Antichrists. (Again, not saying you do this...but it is not uncommon for those in dispensationalist circles).it would be like me becoming a "prepper" or some other fanatical position which has me throw my life away because I (erroneously in your view) think the end it coming.
And this is exactly why I think this eschatology is so misguided. To think that someone's salvation is tied up in whether or not they get a microchip or card is absolute hogwash. Jesus saves us. If you love Jesus and trust in him, it doesnt matter if you get a tattoo or a microchip or anything else. What matters is whether you are faithful to him. Someone cannot accidentally lose their salvation by getting some microchip and not knowing it was some demonic sign, just as someone cannot gain salvation by not getting a microchip implanted. The Kingdom of God is not about microchips or tattoos. It is about faith, obedience and love. To turn it into something else is to mar the cross of Christ and turn the Bible into a Rubik's cube where the saved are those who were able to figure out the riddles. Right now, people have the mark of the beast or the seal of the Spirit...and they need to be made aware of that rather than worrying about silly credit cards and microchips.From my perspective to an idealist Amillennialist, it would be like you saying, 'They're doing away with paper currency, and because of ID theft, we all have to have this microchip implanted to get paid and to buy what we need - but this is not the "mark-of-the-beast" because that's all symbolic." And if it does come to pass in a most literal manner, that person will also be lost eternally.
And if you're saying we have to agree to disagree, here as quoted, I'll chime in as well. We both struggle to make sense of prophecy because it is not easy.
Yes, it is true that we will all face our own end, likely before Christ returns. We all have to face our own mortality and no matter who is right on matters of eschatology, the important thing is that we are right with Jesus. I just dont like a theology of second chances or one that emphasizes a people's flesh over their faith. I do not believe God has a special plan for Israel or that the world will get a second chance after Christ returns during the tribulation and they realize they are all "left behind." Rather, when Jesus speaks of his coming, the wicked are gathered first, and the righteous are "left behind."I think the message of the Bible does speak to each generation - because no one, especially with those who have passed away, knows when the "end" will come - and that relates specifically to theirend.
Here I agree with you 100%.Because NONE of the things in book of Revelation have come to pass, or have they? The point is, is for the Christian to be constantly watching, guarding their lifestyle in a world gone wrong (And it's always been wrong!) so as to keep the faith, endure patiently, and remain faithful. Again, believing is an ongoing, daily commitment for a Disciple of Christ Jesus.
The OT never uses the term millennium. This is an example of you mushing texts together because you think one describes the other, but there is no reason in the text itself to assume that the descriptions of long life and peace in some of those prophecies are descriptions of the "millennial age." The only thing Revelation says about the millennium is that Satan is bound so he cannot "deceive the nations" any longer. There is no speak of long life or peace. IMO, the Gospel has bound Satan.Well 1.) I go to the OT for end-time prophecy as well, which does describe both a Day of the Lord Wrath, and a Millennium Sabbath Reign of peace.
The same reason Jesus can look like a slain lamb and a lion with seven eyes and seven horns and vomit a double-edged sword. I think it is false to assume these are literal descriptions of tanks or helicopters. There are better explanations for these images.And 2.) you still have not relayed to me how a first-century believer could understand how a horse can have a head of a lion and mouth on its tail which shoots fire and brimstone.
I don't do that, so I must not be a dispensationalist...Wormwood said:Rather, it is that they tend to tie biblical texts to modern day events (Van Impe and others are notorious for this kind of stuff), and when those modern day events do not end up bringing about a one world government or when a particular leader is not the Antichrist, then it makes people discredit the Bible....rather than seeing it for what it is...just a reflection of someone with terrible eschatology. Moreover, I see dispensationalists oft trying to determine who the Antichrist is, and thus, in a quite unChristian manner, start labeling political leaders as the Antichrist and causing others to fear and hate that individual. We are to love and pray for our enemies, not defame them and call them Antichrists.
However! When the midpoint arrives, and on the heels of invasion from the "North" in response to Israel breaking that agreement by nuking Iran happens - and the cards are set on the table now for that to happen - Netanyahu said as much at the UN just last year - and the "King of the North" does enter the Temple, and declares himself God - which is exactly what the Thessalonians feared had happened without their direct knowledge (because they didn't have CNN back in those days) - THEN what is written is EXACTLY being fulfilled LITERALLY.Wormwood said:To think that someone's salvation is tied up in whether or not they get a microchip or card is absolute hogwash. Jesus saves us. If you love Jesus and trust in him, it doesnt matter if you get a tattoo or a microchip or anything else.
So you do not defame political leaders or call them names, but then you follow that up by saying, "our political leaders have all made love to the whore of Babylon." smhI don't do that, so I must not be a dispensationalist...
The point is, is to watch. Knowing that our political leaders have all made love to the whore of Babylon (Rev 17:2)
I dont think any political leader holds our salvation or hope (or destruction) in his or her hands...no matter their party or heart. There is one political leader I place my trust in, and that is the King, Jesus Christ. Yet, Jesus commands me to pray for my leaders and desire blessing and good for them...not malign and mock them. God is their judge, not me or you. Remember, you will be measured by the measure you use.So if you think Barack Hussein Obama is going to acknowledge Jesus as the only way because you pray that for him, or that he will finally do the right thing for this country in a just and moral manner - you will be sorely disappointed. If you think Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be our nations' salvation after the disaster of the reign of the Obama regime - I think you're in a for a great disappointment as well! Our leaders are leading this country down the path of Rome and they make deals with the devil all the time.
As I already showed you... The Roman Catholic Church did not bring about amillennial thought...it existed from the beginning, along with historic premillennialism (which is very similar to amillennialism, except that it holds to a literal 1,000 year reign). The establishment of Israel does not make dispensationalism right. I agree that God desires for every Israelite to be saved. Maybe God did this as a means of facilitating evangelism toward the Jewish people rather than as a proof for your eschatology.So while your doctrine, formed over centuries of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching where not only was Israel a distant memory, none of those who taught ever thought that the State of Israel could ever be a literal fact - now is realized; you still hold onto your doctrine.
The Bible teaches no such thing and you are depicting horrific nuclear events started by particular nations as if the Bible clearly shows this. This is your own imagination and if Iran were to dissolve tomorrow, then your teaching would cause unbelievers to view the Bible as unreliable because you have tied its teachings to your own imagination. This is the same nonsense that brought about the book "88 reasons why Jesus must return by 1988." It could be another 1,000 years before Jesus returns or it could be today. We dont need a nuclear strike to happen for the end to come. Maybe one will come, and maybe not. We should focus on on loving Jesus, not predicting political and world events.However! When the midpoint arrives, and on the heels of invasion from the "North" in response to Israel breaking that agreement by nuking Iran happens - and the cards are set on the table now for that to happen -
We are in the tribulation and most Christians around the world have suffered great loss, including the loss of their own lives due to their faithfulness to Christ. This dispensational mess is nothing but Westerners in their bubble imagining what persecution will feel like while completely ignorant that most Christians in the world experience this great tribulation every day. We need to quit forming theologies around ourselves and take a look at the rest of the world and see that they are in great tribulation and we should pray for them. More Christians die each year than ever before in world history...when you talk as if we are not in this tribulation, you dishonor their suffering and sacrifice.How are you going to get your paycheck so you can buy milk, bread, and toilet paper when it snows when the Great Tribulation falls upon you?
My doctrine doesnt form opinions about what the end will look like. It simply says that during this period of end times and the church there will be wars, rumors of wars, plagues, famines, and Christians will be killed. That is what is happening and what has happened since the conception of the Church. My end times is not based on the world's timeline and governments. It is based on the Scriptures and a longing for Christ to come back....what happens with the governments of men is of little consequence to me. My focus or expectation is not in them doing this or that.And your doctrine, formed over centuries of ignorance of what the end could look like - will fail you.
How so? My eschatology makes no predictions other than 1) Christians will suffer in this world and they need to be ready to do so rather than compromise their allegiance to Jesus Christ and 2) Jesus could appear at any moment and we must be ready because we will all be judged.Only time will tell, but I tell you this as a warning about your doctrine. Should end-time prophecy come to pass in a literal manner - your eschatology is just as dangerous as what you claim dispensationalism is.
In this argument, you were the one to raise the charge of dangerous first. So any remonstrate call to study, redounds to you as well. I only responded in kind from the opposing view (that you attempted to excoriate as unfitting to even hold for any Christian) to show that no one view is "safe" from the eyes of the other view. Each can have its pitfalls depending on how you approach this very important, but at the same time, scary - book in the Bible: Revelation.Wormwood said:You should research my views before you claim they are dangerous.
I did not say that the Roman Catholic Church brought about Amillennial eschatology.Wormwood said:As I already showed you... The Roman Catholic Church did not bring about amillennial thought...it existed from the beginning, along with historic premillennialism (which is very similar to amillennialism, except that it holds to a literal 1,000 year reign).
My point was simply that if you are going to call something dangerous, then you should be able to give adequate rationale as to why it is dangerous. Your rationale did not seem to match up with a proper understanding of what I actually believe.In this argument, you were the one to raise the charge of dangerous first. So any remonstrate call to study, redounds to you as well.
Futurism has different forms. It is Dispensationalism that I have an issue with. I do not feel all of it is "hogwash" but the elements of your view in particular I was referencing.And whether you like it or not, literal futurism is a legitimate mode of interpretation. You cannot stamp it out just by claiming its hogwash.
This is a doctrinal discussion. I do not take it personally, so I hope you do not read it as such in these comments. I know just reading the text can make them sound cold, but that is not my tone. If you feel something I have said is biblically inaccurate, I welcome your comments and am more than happy to reflect and respond to your thoughts.Now one of my character defects is jumping on what I perceive as error. This doesn't win me many friends on message boards like this, but I am compelled to raise the flag when I see blatant falsehoods presented as truth.
I said it had Amillennialism had its origins from Augustine of Hippo, a very important fourth century church leader.
I dont know what quotes like this are supposed to prove. You are essentially claiming my views are biblically inaccurate with a poor understanding of the history of my view as well as operating on the assumption that your view, and your interpretation of the "harlot" are correct. This is a bit of a catch-22. You cannot prove my view false by using points that assume your view is correct. That isnt really a "proof."The slow metamorphosis of the RCC in the harlot of Rev 17, which became the mainstay of Amillennialsm, reinforced something which began before it.
This is true. But, as I pointed out, it is very similar to amillennialism in much it espouses except that elements such as the millennium are viewed as literal. Personally, I am quite fine with historic premillennialism and would likely lean that direction in many ways. However, this view is nothing like Dispensational premillennialism so let us not presume that because both use the term "premillennial" that it gives credence to your view. Also, you should note that there are historic/traditional premillennialists that do see much spiritual application in the depictions in Revelation. You should reference Ladd's "Historic Premillennialism." I will provide more information in this regard shortly. I am out of time for now.Historic Pre-Millennialism by definition is not Amillennial.
If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: “For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham.” Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.”10 And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, “The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” And again, confirming his former words, he says, “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”12 Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 561–562
When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: “The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp’s den, into the nest also of the adder’s brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain.” And again he says, in recapitulation, “Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, saith the Lord.” I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is rich in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. But some other occasion, and not the present, is [to be sought] for showing that the lion shall [then] feed on straw. And this indicates the large size and rich quality of the fruits. For if that animal, the lion, feeds upon straw [at that period], of what a quality must the wheat itself be whose straw shall serve as suitable food for lions?
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 563.
So, you see this "premillennial" view is nothing like what you are proposing. The "Israel" here is the Church and there is nothing in his writing or the writing of other early church fathers in this regard about a secret rapture, the establishment of national Israel, or God establishing sacrifice in the Temple again. In fact, Irenaeus says nothing of a literal 7 year tribulation under the Antichrist either (whether he believed that or not I do not know). So, essentially you have Jesus as the seed of Abraham and all who have the faith of Abraham are Israel. The Antichrist appears and brings destruction to the earth and Jesus returns to gather all Christians to live in Jerusalem during the millennial reign of blessing and peace. The only real difference here is that I see the millennium as figurative and Christ returns to rescue believers and bring final judgment and usher in the new heavens and new earth whereas these early believers believed Christ would return to rescue believers and establish them in Jerusalem and reign for 1,000 years before the final judgment (most amillennials believe in a literal, individual Antichrist, although I am not sold on the idea personally) There is no special plans for Israel, raptures of the Church, helicopters or tanks (of course) or detailed explanations about timelines and charts. It was a very simple understanding of the end with the Church as the focus, that just had a literal view of the millennium.And this again Ezekiel also says: “Behold, I will open your tombs, and will bring you forth out of your graves; when I will draw my people from the sepulchres, and I will put breath in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you on your own land, and ye shall know that I am the LORD.” And again the same speaks thus: “These things saith the LORD, I will gather Israel from all nations whither they have been driven, and I shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the sons of the nations: and they shall dwell in their own land, which I gave to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell in it in peace; and they shall build houses, and plant vineyards, and dwell in hope, when I shall cause judgment to fall among all who have dishonoured them, among those who encircle them round about; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God, and the God of their fathers.” Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we may know that He who in the New Testament “raises up from the stones children unto Abraham,” is He who will gather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, who led the children of Israel from the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers.”
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 563–564.
To say that Origen was representative of eschatological thought before Augustine is not a valid point at all. He broke with what was then an established literal hermeneutic.Wormwood said:Augustine "popularized" amillennial thought, but the interpretive approach dates back to Origen (2nd-3rd century) and likely even before him.
If you have something to contribute, please do. I would appreciate it if you didnt question my faith because I happen to not agree with you about the rapture. For 1800 years, no one believed this concept of the rapture you hold to...and I assure you it wasnt because they were "prudent in their own sight."And Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Oh, so before you are saying that Augustine and his allegory created amillennialism, but now, when I start to point to my own early church sources that show you are wrong about this as well as what the early church believed, you no longer think it is right to quote early church people? Convenient. You should know that Irenaeus is very explicit in his eschatology. He dedicates the last five chapters in Against Heresies to talk explicitly about eschatology. Maybe it is not that their eschatology was "fuzzy" that they didnt write tomes on the 7 year tribulation, but maybe it was because, like amillennials, they had a very simple understanding of the end times and so there is nothing upon which to base volumes of conjecture.I really don't like when someone wants to speak for the earliest Church leaders because one, there are not that many of them, and two, their writing is not explicitly pointed in terms of eschatology in the neat little categories we have today: i.e., they're pretty fuzzy.
Marcus, you are losing all credibility with me. If you have an argument, make it. Trying to defame all Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries as evil and part of the RCC establishment shows both an ignorance of history and theology. Do you reject the Bible as the Word of God? No? Well these same, bloody handed (pure nonsense) Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries were the ones who canonized the NT. Do you reject the notion of the Trinity? These same wicked politicians were the ones who fought against the heresies of Arius and others and argued for an orthodox understanding of God based on the Scriptures! All this happened AFTER the Edict of Milan. So, based on your rationale, we should reconsider our Bibles and other core doctrines such as the Trinity since they were codified by such corrupt and blood-thirsty men! Sheer nonsense. Augustine was a very godly man who loved the Lord. Of course, he was fallible, like any of us. However, to paint him and these other church leaders as murdering, wicked people who corrupted the church is nonsense. It wasnt until much later that simony and other such wickedness started to infiltrate the leadership of the Church. Certainly the Church was adapting to the concept of being accepted by the empire, and later had to deal with the concept of Christianity actually becoming popular (which brought some problems, and which is why many fled to isolation and became monks), but to dismiss Amillennialism because of Augustine and the 3rd and 4th century church is just silly.And the Roman Catholic Church, which has the blood of the Saints on its hands, which has been involved in the lowest of politics of Europe for centuries, and which has strayed from the Commandments of God deifying Mary and authorizing idol worship and so has become the harlot of Rev 17 - has cemented the Amillennial view as THE establishment eschatology for centuries.
Oh really? Or in my Irish Latin: O'Reillius?Wormwood said:You should know that Irenaeus is very explicit in his eschatology. He dedicates the last five chapters in Against Heresies to talk explicitly about eschatology.
No, that is incorrect. I said it has its origins with Augustine. I did not say he created it. There is a difference: words mean things.Wormwood said:Oh, so before you are saying that Augustine and his allegory created amillennialism,