Will Christ utter new words in a Premil millennium?

[Spiritual Israelite]

David, there is a certain sense in which our will is never free. As Paul says in Romans 6, we all are, at any given time, either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. We are all naturally the former, but if and when we are born again of the Spirit, then we become the latter. What Jesus tells certain groups of Jews in John 6, 8, and 10 is of great relevance here.

But from a purely human, experiential standpoint, our will is always free.

Of Christians, those born again of the Spirit, Paul tells the Christians in Philippi ~ and us by extension ~ to "work out (their/our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13). We do the willing and working, and freely, but it is because God is at work in us so that we will do so.

That's not what Paul is saying there. You (not Paul) saying that God ensures "that we will do so" (work out our salvation) makes Paul's claim that we need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling completely meaningless. If God ensure that we will do so, then there's nothing that we need to work out. God works it all out Himself in that case.

You won't admit it, but you put ALL of the responsibility for one's salvation on God alone. But, Paul doesn't give that impression at all. God works in us so that we can work out our own salvation, but we are made responsible by God to cooperate with Him and submit to Him and that is each person's free will choice to make as to whether or not to do that.

It can't both be true that we play a part in working out our own salvation with fear and trembling while God ensures that we do so. In that case, you make God our Programmer and we are then just His robots doing what God programs us to do. It would never be said that we are responsible to work out our own salvation in that case. That is just not the impression Paul gives at all. Instead, he gives the impression that we have to work out our own salvation, but we can only do that with God's help. But, God doesn't do it for us. He doesn't force us to obey Him. We have to cooperate with Him and willingly submit to Him and work with Him. Your doctrine removes all responsibility from man as it relates to salvation, but scripture does not teach that. Salvation is synergistic and not monergistic.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, PinSeeker, I’m just looking for your opinion on this not a debate, I personally think the Canon is complete, but what about if some documents or scrolls were discovered?

In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul says “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators” that epistle is what some people call zero Corinthians, it’s the epistle before 1 Corinthians.

If that epistle was found, authenticated, and determined to be written by Paul I would think it should be added to the Canon. Daniel 12:4 does say knowledge will increase and someone could use that as an argument for why the Canon is not yet complete.

I'm not going to try to debate about what you're saying here, but I'm just going to ask you a question. Do you think the Canon that we currently have is sufficient for all of our needs? Or do you think there could be something missing that could be affecting our lives in some way because of not having what is missing?

 

[Davidpt]

David, there is a certain sense in which our will is never free. As Paul says in Romans 6, we all are, at any given time, either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness. We are all naturally the former, but if and when we are born again of the Spirit, then we become the latter. What Jesus tells certain groups of Jews in John 6, 8, and 10 is of great relevance here.

But from a purely human, experiential standpoint, our will is always free.

Of Christians, those born again of the Spirit, Paul tells the Christians in Philippi ~ and us by extension ~ to "work out (their/our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us), both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13). We do the willing and working, and freely, but it is because God is at work in us so that we will do so. This is not saying that He "manipulates our will," but that he sanctifies our hearts by the ongoing work of His Spirit, and because of this our will is ~ or becomes more and more in this life ~ to please Him and do His will.

The issue is not really the will, David, it is autonomy. Neither you nor I ~ nor any other human being, past, present or future ~ is autonomous... we are not self-existing "free agents." Only God is.

Grace and peace to you.

This free will debate aside. Why not submit some compelling arguments that might convince me that Zechariah 14:16-19 can be meaning before Zechariah 14:12 rather than after? After all, if verses 16-19 can be meaning before verse 12 rather than after, I would then no longer have a valid reason to apply those verses to a future millennium if the here and now explain those verses instead.

But if I am right that verses 16-19 must follow verse 12, obviously then, for example, they shall go up from year to year, that this can't be fulfilled in a single day. Therefore, more days are required to fulfill this after verse 12 is fulfilled first. How many more days are required? An infinite amount of days or a finite amount of days? Keeping in mind that this has to be factored in---that whoever will not come up, upon them shall be no rain. Should we apply that to infinity or should we apply that to a finite amount of days?

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not going to try to debate about what you're saying here, but I'm just going to ask you a question. Do you think the Canon that we currently have is sufficient for all of our needs? Or do you think there could be something missing that could be affecting our lives in some way because of not having what is missing?

Well, was the Old Testament sufficient for all the needs of those who lived prior to Jesus being on earth? Did the church at Corinth really need Paul’s zero epistle?

Here’s the thing, claiming our Canon is complete down to every last word and punctuation mark is a difficult position to defend. Another person, outside of this forum, is challenging me about sola scriptoria and the Bible alone and in its entirety, which is why I’m asking about this.

Jesus Himself quoted from both the Septuagint and the proto-Masoretic Hebrew and yet both are not word for word the same. The Septuagint (LXX) adds another 1,300 years or so to the Bible timeline, meaning it has the earth being an extra 1,300 years or so older than what our Masoretic based KJV has, and yet Jesus clearly used the LXX more so than He did the Masoretic. Where Jesus quoted the LXX, it becomes part of the Canon and the Masoretic which wasn’t quoted is part of the Canon also because someone made that decision way back when. That means there are now two different versions of the same verse and they are both part of the Canon.

For example in Mark 7:6-7 Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13(LXX).



Mark 7:6-7(KJV)6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Isaiah 29:13(KJV) Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Isaiah 29:13 (LXX) And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.



The meaning hasn’t really changed but different words are used between the LXX and KJV in Isaiah 29:13. So, looking at your question, I have to ask, was it necessary to have two different versions of Isaiah 29:13? Was there some insufficiency that would’ve affected our lives if both versions hadn’t been canonized?

Personally, I don’t think so but if you think our current Canon is absolutely accurate then you should be able to come up with an answer as to why the two versions were necessary when they decided to make them both part of the Canon.

 

[ewq1938]

I am sticking to the scriptures.

Leviticus 19:11 (NIV) Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.

We can deceive one another, that is a Biblical fact. You are the one that seems to be straying from the scriptures by thinking that once Satan is bound we won’t be able to deceive one another.

Your strawman is weak. The scriptures only forbid satan from deceiving the nations. It does not forbid anyone else from deceiving someone else.

 

[grafted branch]

Your strawman is weak. The scriptures only forbid satan from deceiving the nations. It does not forbid anyone else from deceiving someone else.

Great, it looks like we are in agreement. There will be deception occurring during the millennium, but there won’t be any deception from Satan.

Now all we need to do is figure out how Satan deceives the nations (<1484> ethnos) and maybe we can at least agree on what a millennial economy looks like when Satan doesn’t deceive the ethnos.