Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[3 Resurrections]

The statement made was that Paul had quoted John's work in Revelation. My question back was How can that be? Considering Paul passed in 64-66AD and Revelation was supposedly not written until 95-98AD?

Paul was martyred in AD 67, and Revelation was written somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60. So it was possible for Paul (and other authors) to have quoted from John's Revelation.

 

[bluedragon]

Me, too. I'm not sure who @bluedragon is attributing that to. And, John didn't quote Paul. There was no collaboration. However, some ~ many, actually ~ of the same truths of God are expounded upon by Paul and John...

Grace and peace to you both.

The title to the post stated : "Paul claimed 3 times that Rev 20:4 was a current reality.'

Paul claimed no such thing. John can use Paul's work ....not the other way around.

 

[PinSeeker]

The title to the post stated : "Paul claimed 3 times that Rev 20:4 was a current reality.'

So you're talking about the original poster, the one who started this thread; that's the title of the thread he started. That was not me. But still, even that in saying that, the poster was not actually saying Paul, in any of his writings, quoted John from Revelation. I do see, however, how that statement could be understood ~ or misunderstood ~ in that way. The title is just a little clumsily stated, that's all.

Paul claimed no such thing.

Well, it depends on what you mean when you say that. You're right to say that Paul didn't claim that what John wrote in Revelation 20:4 was a current reality. He couldn't have, because, as you said, John wrote the book of Revelation at least about 30 years after Paul wrote what he wrote. What the original poster was actually saying was that in three places in Paul's letters in the Bible, what he wrote tell us that what John wrote in Revelation 20:4 is a reality now. Surely you can see that, whether you agree or not.

John can use Paul's work ....not the other way around.

Well, 'could have used,' right? Because they're both long since deceased... But sure, John could have used Paul's work; Paul could not have used John's work. But ~ I mean, I don't think you to be supposing this, but ~ John didn't use Paul's work.

Grace and peace to you

 

[PinSeeker]

Paul was martyred in AD 67, and Revelation was written somewhere between late AD 59 and early AD 60. So it was possible for Paul (and other authors) to have quoted from John's Revelation.

We just don't know for sure. However, Irenaeus reports, on the basis of earlier sources, that "John received the Revelation almost in our own time, toward the end of the reign of Domitian" (Against Heresies). Since Domitian's reign spanned from AD 81 to AD 96, most scholars date Revelation in the mid-90s. Some, however, have argued for a date during Nero's reign (AD 54-68) and before the fall of Jerusalem in 70, basing their conclusion in part on the belief that Revelation 11:1-2 is a predictive prophecy of the Roman siege and destruction of the earthly Jerusalem during the Jewish War. However, the conditions in the churches of chapters 2-3 and their cities favor a date around AD 95-96, and in Revelation "the holy city" does not seem to refer to the earthly Jerusalem. Events relating to Nero's reign and Jerusalem's destruction, both of which would then have been in the past, are woven into John's visions as portents and prototypes of present pressures and coming traumas in the world's assault on Christ's Church. So, the AD 95-96 date is, in all likelihood, pretty accurate, and far more accurate than AD 59 or 60.

Aside from all this, no one (I hope) is really claiming Paul quoted John from Revelation. Or vice-versa. Neither Paul nor John quoted from the other.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[3 Resurrections]

We just don't know for sure. However, Irenaeus reports, on the basis of earlier sources, that "John received the Revelation almost in our own time, toward the end of the reign of Domitian" (Against Heresies).

Your quote from Irenaeus is not quite correct. Something or someone was "seen" almost in Irenaeus's time, which was toward the end of the reign of Domitian. However, the sentence translated from the Greek as Irenaeus wrote it doesn't specify whether that something or someone was the one presumed to be the author of Revelation or the vision of Revelation itself that was seen in those days. We can't utilize this single ambiguous sentence by Irenaeus as proof of anything concerning the date of Revelation, one way or another.

But it is entirely possible to pin down the date of Revelation's composition by using its own datable events and its own internal language. Revelation was written just before the catastrophic Laodicean earthquake which was in AD 60. John would not have addressed a letter to a self-satisfied Laodicean church whose members were claiming that "we are rich and have need of nothing" if an AD 60 earthquake had just leveled the city. The letter to Laodicea had to have been written just before that AD 60 disaster.

Aside from all this, no one (I hope) is really claiming Paul quoted John from Revelation.

John and other NT authors wrote concerning the infamous "doctrine of Balaam" prevalent at the time with its lascivious teaching that encouraged fornication and eating things offered to idols. John's prediction of God's future judgment for the "children" of Jezebel who were following this false doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:22-23) were also mentioned as those same individuals being "about to receive the reward of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:13). What John had predicted earlier just before AD 60, Peter later wrote was "about to" come to pass as he was writing 2 Peter around AD 67, just before his martyrdom. That means John wrote Revelation before Peter wrote 2 Peter in AD 67.

Peter also passed on greetings from "the church at Babylon" which was actually the church at Jerusalem where Peter's leadership was prominent. This was a duplicate of John's identification of "Mystery Babylon" which was the city of Jerusalem who had slain the prophets from antiquity.

Paul's mention of the "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 (written around AD 57) was also duplicated by John's mention of the last, seventh trumpet when the time of the dead would arrive to be judged.

These NT authors all borrowed from each other, and their works present a homogenous whole, synonymous with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which resided in each one of them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn't avoid it, I dismissed it out of hand, for obvious reasons that I made very clear in my response.

No, I dismissed your attempt at diverting from the issue at hand... or making it something other than what it is.

Deny deny deny. That's all you do. This discussion needs to end soon because of that, but I will respond to your posts as I see fit and you can use your free will to choose to respond again or not.

Right, God had already changed their hearts prior to hearing what Paul had to say. Regarding Lydia, we read in Acts 16 that "(t)he Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul."

You either miss or ignore my points over and over again. My point was that Lydia was already a worshiper of God BEFORE that, which you did not address.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Before Paul came to preach to her, she already worshipped God. Did you somehow miss that? It doesn't say God changed her heart before Paul came to preach to her, it says He opened her heart when Paul came to preach to her so that she could understand what he was saying. The fact that she was already a worshiper of God was the reason that God opened her heart and understanding to the gospel.

The question then is, how did she become a worshiper of God in the first place? That's what you didn't address. I believe she chose to worship God using her free will. She could have chosen not to worship God and instead could have become vain in her imaginations and become a fool who doesn't worship God like Paul wrote about in Romans 1.

Supernaturally. They are given a new spirit by God, and then they are compelled ~ of their own free will and accord ~ to accept the Gospel and call on the Lord, and to worship Him rather than any created thing. And thus, they repent and believe.

This is so incredibly disingenuous for a Calvinist to talk about people having "free will". Do you not understand that "free will" implies that a person is fully capable of choosing to either repent and believe the gospel or to not repent and reject the gospel? That isn't what you believe, though. You don't believe each person is capable of choosing either of those options. You believe God chose for them before they were even born.

Not at all. In one sense Jesus did die for the sins of everyone ~ "to take away the sin of the world," that Jesus's work on the cross is sufficient to provide for the salvation of everyone. But in another sense, Jesus's work on the cross was only effectual for, and achieved the salvation of, those whom God chose in Him before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and blameless before Him, those whom, in love, He predestined for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1)... those who, as were the Gentile believers in Acts 13:48 above, are appointed to eternal life.

This is pure nonsense. You are saying "Jesus did die for the sins of everyone", but at the same time God purposely made it so that not everyone would get the opportunity to have their sins forgiven by the blood of Christ. Total nonsense!

No, He uses the word 'because' ~ in the Greek, γάρ (a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles) ~ which irrefutably indicates a cause-effect relationship. They do not believe because they are not among His sheep. We can also very credibly say that they did not believe because they were not given to Him by the Father, because He does, in the very same breath, say that His sheep are His sheep because they have been given to Him by the Father... "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."

There is no way to get around this, Spiritual Israelite. I don't say that to disparage you in any way. But there just is no way.

LOL. I already did. You deny it. That's your free will choice. I know you are convinced by your own arguments, but they don't convince me in the slightest.

Not at all, because right after saying faith and salvation are by the grace of God and thus gifts of God, he goes on to say that God created us in this way ~ we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus ~ for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Yes, we are then required to live as becomes followers of Christ, and to do good works; God's grace comes to us free initially, but certainly demands our responsibility; Paul says in Romans 12:1, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." Yes, this is a great responsibility ~ but a labor of love on our part. Again, we Christians are "created in Christ Jesus for good works" (Ephesians 2:10).

I just don't understand the way you think at all. It's very inconsistent. You seem to be saying that while faith is not an act of our own will (a choice God leaves up to us), doing the works God has for us after we become saved IS an act of our will that we can either choose to do or not. How does that make any sense?

No, Salvation and glory and power belong to our God (Revelation 19:1). Again, this salvation ~ being among those to whom salvation is appointed and given, God's elect ~ "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," and "He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Romans 9:16-18).

And you once again fail to see what that means. It wasn't up to man to decide who God should have mercy on. That is entirely His choice. But, it so happens that He chose to give everyone the opportunity to receive mercy (Romans 11:30-32) by way of offering salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). You once again have failed to see the big picture and once again have failed to take scripture in its proper context.

Not the case at all. God is certainly not guilty of illegitimacy or insincerity.

Yet, you believe He offers salvation to some people who cannot possibly accept it. You make Him guilty of that with your doctrine.

As I said above, the only predestination spoken of in God's Word by God is of those who are predestined to be conformed to the image Christ, to eternal life. Now, why did God choose to do this for some and not for others? Well, because God is the Potter (the Creator) and we are the clay (the created), and the Potter has every right over the clay to make some for honorable use and others for dishonorable use.

LOL. It's hilarious how unwilling you are to acknowledge that your beliefs imply. If salvation is entirely up to God's choice and not man's, as you believe, then it only follows that if the elect were predestined to salvation, then the non-elect were predestined to condemnation. Why deny something so obvious?

 

[PinSeeker]

Your quote from Irenaeus is not quite correct. Something or someone was "seen" almost in Irenaeus's time, which was toward the end of the reign of Domitian. However, the sentence translated from the Greek as Irenaeus wrote it doesn't specify whether that something or someone was the one presumed to be the author of Revelation or the vision of Revelation itself that was seen in those days. We can't utilize this single ambiguous sentence by Irenaeus as proof of anything concerning the date of Revelation, one way or another.

But it is entirely possible to pin down the date of Revelation's composition by using its own datable events and its own internal language. Revelation was written just before the catastrophic Laodicean earthquake which was in AD 60. John would not have addressed a letter to a self-satisfied Laodicean church whose members were claiming that "we are rich and have need of nothing" if an AD 60 earthquake had just leveled the city. The letter to Laodicea had to have been written just before that AD 60 disaster.

John and other NT authors wrote concerning the infamous "doctrine of Balaam" prevalent at the time with its lascivious teaching that encouraged fornication and eating things offered to idols. John's prediction of God's future judgment for the "children" of Jezebel who were following this false doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:22-23) were also mentioned as those same individuals being "about to receive the reward of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:13). What John had predicted earlier just before AD 60, Peter later wrote was "about to" come to pass as he was writing 2 Peter around AD 67, just before his martyrdom. That means John wrote Revelation before Peter wrote 2 Peter in AD 67.

Peter also passed on greetings from "the church at Babylon" which was actually the church at Jerusalem where Peter's leadership was prominent. This was a duplicate of John's identification of "Mystery Babylon" which was the city of Jerusalem who had slain the prophets from antiquity.

Paul's mention of the "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 (written around AD 57) was also duplicated by John's mention of the last, seventh trumpet when the time of the dead would arrive to be judged.

These NT authors all borrowed from each other, and their works present a homogenous whole, synonymous with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which resided in each one of them.

Thanks for your time in addressing all this, but this whole line of discussion is very superfluous (exceeding what is sufficient or necessary) with regard to this thread.

That said, I agree with this:

"it is entirely possible to pin down the date of Revelation's composition by using its own datable events and its own internal language"...​

I spoke to this in my previous post, saying, 1) the churches of Revelation 2-3 and their cities favor a date around AD 95-96, 2) in Revelation "the holy city" does not seem to refer to the earthly Jerusalem, and 3) (e)vents relating to Nero's reign and Jerusalem's destruction, both of which would then have been in the past ~ an AD 60 date precludes the destruction of Jerusalem by about a decade ~ are woven into John's visions as portents and prototypes of present pressures and coming traumas in the world's assault on Christ's Church.​

And, while it is not an invalid thought and thus cannot be dismissed, I disagree with this:

"John would not have addressed a letter to a self-satisfied Laodicean church whose members were claiming that 'we are rich and have need of nothing' if an AD 60 earthquake had just leveled the city... (t)hee letter to Laodicea had to have been written just before that AD 60 disaster"... A lot can happen in 35 years (the span of time between AD 60 and AD 95).​

To me, this little discussion is... well, interesting, to a degree... but of little importance, really.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

Your quote from Irenaeus is not quite correct. Something or someone was "seen" almost in Irenaeus's time, which was toward the end of the reign of Domitian. However, the sentence translated from the Greek as Irenaeus wrote it doesn't specify whether that something or someone was the one presumed to be the author of Revelation or the vision of Revelation itself that was seen in those days. We can't utilize this single ambiguous sentence by Irenaeus as proof of anything concerning the date of Revelation, one way or another.

But it is entirely possible to pin down the date of Revelation's composition by using its own datable events and its own internal language. Revelation was written just before the catastrophic Laodicean earthquake which was in AD 60. John would not have addressed a letter to a self-satisfied Laodicean church whose members were claiming that "we are rich and have need of nothing" if an AD 60 earthquake had just leveled the city. The letter to Laodicea had to have been written just before that AD 60 disaster.

John and other NT authors wrote concerning the infamous "doctrine of Balaam" prevalent at the time with its lascivious teaching that encouraged fornication and eating things offered to idols. John's prediction of God's future judgment for the "children" of Jezebel who were following this false doctrine of Balaam (Rev. 2:22-23) were also mentioned as those same individuals being "about to receive the reward of unrighteousness" (2 Peter 2:13). What John had predicted earlier just before AD 60, Peter later wrote was "about to" come to pass as he was writing 2 Peter around AD 67, just before his martyrdom. That means John wrote Revelation before Peter wrote 2 Peter in AD 67.

Peter also passed on greetings from "the church at Babylon" which was actually the church at Jerusalem where Peter's leadership was prominent. This was a duplicate of John's identification of "Mystery Babylon" which was the city of Jerusalem who had slain the prophets from antiquity.

Paul's mention of the "last trumpet" in 1 Cor 15:52 (written around AD 57) was also duplicated by John's mention of the last, seventh trumpet when the time of the dead would arrive to be judged.

These NT authors all borrowed from each other, and their works present a homogenous whole, synonymous with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which resided in each one of them.

All excellent points. It seems to me there are more issues with claiming a later date for the writing of Revelation than there are for an early date.

Here’s another example I’m sure you’re aware of, Revelation 3:3 If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. This statement wouldn’t be true unless it was meant specifically for those in Sardis prior to a 70AD coming. Obviously there have been full preterist who have lived and died, that didn’t watch for a coming and Jesus didn’t come on them as a thief, so we can’t just simply conclude that these messages were only meant for a general audience of believers throughout time.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hmm, very interesting that you use that word 'deserve.'

It is? It would be "very interesting" for a Calvinist to use that word, but not a non-Calvinist. Sure, there is a sense in which no one deserves salvation because it is by God's grace. As usual, you don't look at the big picture. There's more to it than that. Because God decided to offer salvation to everyone conditionally, then everyone will get what they deserve in terms of how they respond to God's offer. Why else would someone be condemned and punished for not repenting and not believing in Christ? God doesn't punish people for no reason. He punishes them if they don't do what He commanded and expected them to do. He doesn't punish people for not doing things that they can't even do, as Calvinism ridiculously implies.

Now, you have previously agreed that we are not deserving of God's salvation at any point during our lives, remember, and in fact deserving of the opposite... resulting from the Fall and our resulting sinful nature from birth.

Slow down there. We're talking about babies here. I hope I don't have to convince you that babies do not sin. How could they? That's ridiculous. Yes, they have a sinful nature, but that doesn't manifest until some time later when they actually sin. To punish a baby who is not even capable of sinning is the most absurd thing imaginable. So, no, babies don't deserve condemnation because they don't sin. Scripture teaches that people are condemned as a result of not believing (John 3:18). You can't apply that concept to a baby. That's ridiculous. That is talking about people consciously and actively rejecting Christ which babies are not capable of doing.

And also, you ask, here, "what have they done...?" In speaking of God's elect and non-elect, Paul invokes Jacob (elect) and Esau (non-elect), and says, "though they 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 ~ (Rebekah) was told, 'The older...' (Esau) '...will serve the younger (Jacob).”...(a)s it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'”

Haven't I already talked to you about this or am I thinking of someone else? Not sure. Anyway, you are misinterpreting that scripture. Badly. Let's take a closer look at the scripture to see the actual context (which you always fail to do):

Romans 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Now, is this talking about Jacob being predestined and elected to salvation and Esau not being predestined and elected to salvation (thereby being predestined to condemnation)? No! Absolutely not! Did you bother looking up the Old Testament scriptures that Paul was alluding to there? I'd bet that you didn't. Because that's where we can find the context of what he was talking about. So, let's do that.

Genesis 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Can you see the context here? Is it about two individuals and about Jacob's supposed election to salvation? Clearly not. It is about "two nations" and "two manner of people" with one nation being stronger than the other and the elder nation serving the younger nation. This is about God's election of the nation Israel to be the nation through which salvation would come by way of His Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. Neither Jacob nor Esau had any say in God's decision to do it this way. That's why it indicates that God had made this decision before either of them were born. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the eternal destinies of Jacob and Esau as individuals.

Please read that passage from Romans 9 again with this in mind so that you can learn what Paul wrote about there.

Yes, you keep raising the same objections, and misrepresenting things I have said, over and over again. And I then address the same things over and over and over again. It's tiresome, but you're worth it.

And, of course, that is how I feel about you as well. I disagree that I'm misrepresenting things you have said, though. I think I am exposing the implications of what you believe and it's making you uncomfortable.

Very good; right. But you are inadvertently making it out to be. Like Jacobus Arminius, you are making faith out to be of man, in and of himself/herself, and thus his or her gift to God, his or her part in his or her own salvation, and the implication of that is contrary to what I pointed out before, that salvation is of the Lord. Salvation is not of the Lord and man, but only of the Lord.

Salvation being of the Lord does not imply that man has no responsibility in relation to salvation. That simply means that salvation would not even be possible without the Lord making it possible by way of sending His Son to dies for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2) so that the whole world would have the opportunity to be saved by way of accepting His offer of salvation (Titus 2:11). The Lord provided the means for salvation, not man. That's all that means.

Similarly, you are inadvertently making God's grace out to be something other than grace. As Paul says, "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).

No, I absolutely am not. I see salvation as God's gracious offer to mankind, just as scripture itself describes it.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

So, if someone chooses to accept God's gracious offer, how does that take anything away from God's grace? It doesn't! Not at all! Only if we tried to say that salvation was by works would we make it out to be something other than by God's grace. But, since scripture describes salvation as being something God graciously offers that we accept and receive by way of repentance and faith, and not by works, then that does not contradict or take away from God's grace.

Again, one being placed under punishment does not indicate lack of love from the one exacting punishment in any way.

You need to stop comparing it to a parent punishing a child temporarily for the purpose of correcting their behavior because that is not comparable to punishing someone for eternity. Tell me, how exactly does punishing someone for eternity while not giving them any other choice but to be punished for eternity, equate to a case of loving that person. Please don't shy away from answering this one. Tell me in detail how that can be possible.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Me, too. I'm not sure who @bluedragon is attributing that to. And, John didn't quote Paul. There was no collaboration. However, some ~ many, actually ~ of the same truths of God are expounded upon by Paul and John...

Grace and peace to you both.

He didn't quote who or what he was responding to, so I'm not sure. I thought he was talking to you, but I guess not.

Anyway, I do agree that Paul and John wrote about many of the same things. That's quite obvious, as I'm sure you would agree.

I see some argue that "the last trumpet" that Paul wrote about (1 Corinthians 15:50-54) is not the same as the seventh (and last of the seven) trumpets that John wrote about because John wrote Revelation after Paul wrote 1st Corinthians. But, the same Holy Spirit who inspired Paul also inspired John and He knew which trumpet would be "the last trumpet" even before He inspired John to write the book of Revelation. So, I don't see any validity in their argument and it's clear to me that the last trumpet and the seventh trumpet are the same. This is what I thought bluedragon might be alluding to before he indicated what he was talking about.

 

[PinSeeker]

Deny deny deny. That's all you do.

LOL! Yes, I do deny ~ over and over again ~ your allegations and accusations. In like manner, though, I would say: avoid, avoid avoid; that's pretty much all you have done. So be it.

This discussion needs to end soon...

I agree. How about now? No need to keep digging the hole you're in yet deeper...

You either miss or ignore my points over and over again.

Hmmm, well I'll go with 'ignore,' although I don't absolutely ignore them, but dismiss them, not just in and of myself, but because very clear Scriptural passages, which I have been very, very, VERY thorough regarding.

My point was that Lydia was already a worshiper of God BEFORE that, which you did not address.

Well I did, but not in the way you would like, obviously... I did say (and I quote myself), "God had already changed their hearts prior to hearing what Paul had to say.

Regarding Lydia, we read in Acts 14 that '(t)he Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.'" I'd say that is irrefutably God's changing her heart, at least in some way, prior to her hearing what Paul told her. That should have been quite sufficient (and was), but ~ case in point ~ you seem to have avoided that entirely.

Now. Whether, she was a worshiper of God even prior to His opening her heart to pay attention to Paul is a valid question, and I would say ~ as you would ~ yes. But even then, I pointed out in the same post Hebrews 11, that we are all ~ even starting with Abraham ~ saved the same way: by faith. WHICH ~ back to Ephesians 2:4-10 ~ Paul very clearly explains is a work in us by God, part of the salvation process in which He brings us from death in sin to life in Christ... the working of faith in us by the Holy Spirit is an inextricable part of being born again of the Spirit and raised in Christ. It is all by God's grace and mercy/compassion.

Before Paul came to preach to her, she already worshipped God.

Absolutely. And, at some point before hearing from Paul, she surely made a free will choice to worship God. This is how things work, generally speaking, we surely decide to do something before doing it. No one ~ not Paul, not me, not any other Calvinist ~ has ever denied that. However... see directly above. EDIT: And below (regarding what I actually believe, and regarding something depending on something else).

Did you somehow miss that?

Nope. See directly above.

It doesn't say God changed her heart before Paul came to preach to her, it says He opened her heart when Paul came to preach to her...

Well, before Paul actually started preaching to her, no? So whether it is right before or several years before is really irrelevant. Beyond that, from your own... analysis, commentary... here, are we to somehow conclude that God opening her heart is not changing it? Like, at least changing its receptiveness to Paul's coming words? Her disposition toward what he's about to say to her? I mean, you're saying, in effect, "He didn't (change her heart), but He did (change her heart)." So you're acknowledging it and refuting it at the same time, which is nothing short of incredible. But it's not surprising, because that's what you've done regarding many things throughout our exchange,

It's hilarious how unwilling you are to acknowledge that your beliefs imply.

I'm perfectly willing to ~ and have ~ acknowledge what my believes seem to you to imply. But that's precisely the problem: how things seem to you.

If salvation is entirely up to God's choice and not man's, as you believe...

But yet again... I've long since lost count of how many times... that's NOT what I believe. Your allegations are untrue. I say ~ along with Paul ~ that it DEPENDS on God's choice rather than ours. This is NOT to say ~ either by Paul or by me ~ that man does not or can not make a choice, AND, Spiritual Israelite, it is also NOT to say ~ again, either by Paul or by me ~ that man's choice is not an essential part of God's salvation. To say something depends on one thing and not on another ~ as Paul says in Romans 9:16 ~ is not to say that the second thing does not or cannot happen OR that it is not essential to the whole of what is being talked about.

...then it only follows that if the elect were predestined to salvation, then the non-elect were predestined to condemnation.

So no, that doesn't follow at all. God gives them up to their own selfish, unrighteous passions and desires... and in the end, they will get what they deserve; they have no excuse.

Why deny something so obvious?

Because what you think is obvious is just silly. Not you, personally, but your insinuation. Your insinuation is silly.

Okay, my patience is exhausted. The Spirit has gifted me with much patience, but one can only endure such duplicity and intractability for so long.

Grace and peace to you, Spritual Israelite.

 

[PinSeeker]

...if someone chooses to accept God's gracious offer, how does that take anything away from God's grace? It doesn't!

I agree, but you're still not understanding me. Unless grace is initially free, dependent on nothing else, then it's not really grace ~ unmerited favor ~ at all.

Only if we tried to say that salvation was by works would we make it out to be something other than by God's grace.

Agreed, but again, though you don't mean to, in saying that saving faith is something man manufactures in himself and is therefore man's contribution to his own salvation ~ as Jacobus Arminius did ~ the unavoidable implication of that is that faith is a work of man, which is absolutely contrary to Scripture, most overtly to what Paul says so clearly in Ephesians 2.

You need to stop comparing it to a parent punishing a child....

<eye roll>... Again. Not really a 1:1 correlation ~ we can't do that with the things of man to the things of God ~ but it is indicative, at least in small way, of God's love toward those of us He has placed in Christ and has made us sons/daughters.

...Tell me, how exactly does punishing someone for eternity while not giving them any other choice but to be punished for eternity, equate to a case of loving that person. Please don't shy away from answering this one. Tell me in detail how that can be possible.

Well (yet again), the "while not giving them any other choice" thing is just... well, sorry... stupid. That's a ridiculous supposition, and therefore, I'm ignoring that little bit (yet again). So, beyond that, I did explain, in several posts really, but initially ~ and sufficiently ~ in post number 241 ~ for your convenience, that's at the top of page 13 of this thread, and the last response in that post... ~ above.

Again, my patience is exhausted. The Spirit has gifted me with a lot of it, but... yeah, what I said above.

Grace and peace to you, Spritual Israelite.

 

[PinSeeker]

...Revelation 3:3 If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. This statement wouldn’t be true unless it was meant specifically for those in Sardis prior to a 70AD coming.

Not a bad point. But likewise... Well, I'll put it to you in the form of a question. Do you not think that what He said there is relevant to us today? Surely, it is... And, in your opinion, did Jesus come in AD 70? I hope not...

Obviously there have been full preterist who have lived and died, that didn’t watch for a coming and Jesus didn’t come on them as a thief, so we can’t just simply conclude that these messages were only meant for a general audience of believers throughout time.

Jesus was speaking beyond His lifetime... and of His in-person hearers. Revelation is a series of visions given to John, right? And John opens his Revelation by saying all who read the words of his Revelation aloud and hear and keep what is written in it will be blessed. Do you think that to only be applicable to people of the first century? I do agree, though, that it's not "simple."

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

LOL! Yes, I do deny ~ over and over again ~ your allegations and accusations. In like manner, though, I would say: avoid, avoid avoid; that's pretty much all you have done. So be it.

Nope. I haven't avoided any of your arguments. I've addressed them all.

I agree. How about now? No need to keep digging the hole you're in yet deeper...

Sounds good to me. The hole you have dug for yourself is so deep that I would call it a bottomless pit.

Well I did, but not in the way you would like, obviously... I did say (and I quote myself), "God had already changed their hearts prior to hearing what Paul had to say.

They were already worshipers before that. You ignore that and don't take that into account at all. But, that's what you do.

Regarding Lydia, we read in Acts 14 that '(t)he Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.'" I'd say that is irrefutably God's changing her heart, at least in some way, prior to her hearing what Paul told her. That should have been quite sufficient (and was), but ~ case in point ~ you seem to have avoided that entirely.

Why do you lie? I addressed that and did not avoid it at all. I agree with what you said there and I said so! You are such a liar and have no conscience about it. But, what I pointed out is that she was a worshiper of God even before that. That was why God opened her heart to what Paul was saying. So, I asked how she became a worshiper of God in the first place.

Now. Whether, she was a worshiper of God even prior to His opening her heart to pay attention to Paul is a valid question, and I would say ~ as you would ~ yes. But even then, I pointed out in the same post Hebrews 11, that we are all ~ even starting with Abraham ~ saved the same way: by faith. WHICH ~ back to Ephesians 2:4-10 ~ Paul very clearly explains is a work in us by God, part of the salvation process in which He brings us from death in sin to life in Christ... the working of faith in us by the Holy Spirit is an inextricable part of being born again of the Spirit and raised in Christ. It is all by God's grace and mercy/compassion.

Blah blah blah. The same old Calvinist nonsense. At least you actually acknowledge that she was a worshiper of God even before Paul preached to her. So, you can't say that God opening her heart at that time was when she first had faith because God gave it to her at that time, which is what you normally would try to say. No, she had faith already before that.

Absolutely. And, at some point before hearing from Paul, she surely made a free will choice to worship God.

The dishonesty flowing from you is disturbing. Please stop lying and acting like you believe in a free will choice as it relates to salvation. You do not. A free will choice implies that the person who chose to repent, who chose to worship God and submit to Him, could have chosen not to do that instead. But, that is not what you believe. You believe that God predestined Lydia to worship Him and believe in Him from the foundation of the world.

Well, before Paul actually started preaching to her, no? So whether it is right before or several years before is really irrelevant. Beyond that, from your own... analysis, commentary... here, are we to somehow conclude that God opening her heart is not changing it? Like, at least changing its receptiveness to Paul's coming words? Her disposition toward what he's about to say to her? I mean, you're saying, in effect, "He didn't (change her heart), but He did (change her heart)." So you're acknowledging it and refuting it at the same time, which is nothing short of incredible. But it's not surprising, because that's what you've done regarding many things throughout our exchange,

See above where I explained this. You don't want to deal with how she came to believe in God and worship Him in the first place. God opened her heart to the gospel BECAUSE she had already opened her heart to Him. Your doctrinal bias blinds you so much that you can't ever see the whole story.

But yet again... I've long since lost count of how many times... that's NOT what I believe. Your allegations are untrue. I say ~ along with Paul ~ that it DEPENDS on God's choice rather than ours. This is NOT to say ~ either by Paul or by me ~ that man does not or can not make a choice, AND, Spiritual Israelite, it is also NOT to say ~ again, either by Paul or by me ~ that man's choice is not an essential part of God's salvation. To say something depends on one thing and not on another ~ as Paul says in Romans 9:16 ~ is not to say that the second thing does not or cannot happen OR that it is not essential to the whole of what is being talked about.

Do you even understand what you said here? I sure don't. Moving on...

So no, that doesn't follow at all. God gives them up to their own selfish, unrighteous passions and desires... and in the end, they will get what they deserve; they have no excuse.

For someone not to have an excuse would imply that they could have chosen to act differently than what they did. Meaning that those who choose to "BECOME vain in their imaginations" and "BECOME fools" who don't worship God and worship His creatures instead could have chosen not to become vain in their imaginations and to not become fools who don't worship God. But, that isn't what you believe.

Okay, my patience is exhausted. The Spirit has gifted me with much patience, but one can only endure such duplicity and intractability for so long.

Tell me about it. I know this much better than you do. Your duplicity and intractability seems endless. Like a bottomless pit.

Grace and peace to you, Spritual Israelite.

And to you as well. Keep in mind that I hate your Calvinist doctrine, but I love you as a person.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree, but you're still not understanding me. Unless grace is initially free, dependent on nothing else, then it's not really grace ~ unmerited favor ~ at all.

Maybe if you could learn to be more clear then I would understand what you're saying? All this comes across as is that you both agree and disagree with what I said. Not sure how it can be both. Makes no sense. Moving on...

Agreed, but again, though you don't mean to, in saying that saving faith is something man manufactures in himself and is therefore man's contribution to his own salvation ~ as Jacobus Arminius did ~ the unavoidable implication of that is that faith is a work of man, which is absolutely contrary to Scripture, most overtly to what Paul says so clearly in Ephesians 2.

Nope. Nowhere does Paul equate faith with "a work of man" the way you're doing here. In fact, he contrasts the two. He said salvation is by grace and IS through faith, but is NOT through works. So, how can faith be a work in the sense that Paul was talking about in that case? That would mean he was contradicting himself. Think about it.

Well (yet again), the "while not giving them any other choice" thing is just... well, sorry... stupid.

It's not. You just don't like when I point out the ramifications of your stupid beliefs (not sorry).

That's a ridiculous supposition, and therefore, I'm ignoring that little bit (yet again).

Because you have no answer for it. You hide that by just saying it's silly and all that nonsense. You think I can't see through that?

Again, my patience is exhausted. The Spirit has gifted me with a lot of it, but... yeah, what I said above.

Same here. I've had enough of your nonsense as well. I mean, my patience is exhausted as well after the Spirit has gifted me with so much of it. I didn't know He would be willing to give anyone THAT much patience, but He did.

Grace and peace to you, Spritual Israelite.

Same to you.

 

[grafted branch]

Do you not think that what He said there is relevant to us today? Surely, it is... And, in your opinion, did Jesus come in AD 70? I hope not...

No, I don’t think it is relevant for us today. Clearly if there wasn’t a coming in 70AD then it hasn’t been relevant for close to 2,000 years now, since that would mean absolutely nobody who refused to watch had Jesus come on them as a thief.

The reason I don’t think it’s relevant is because none of us know whether or not we are going to have a heart attack or get killed in an accident. There currently isn’t a different preparation for the coming of Jesus vs dying, either way we need to be saved.

Somebody who’s a full preterist and is saved isn’t going to have Jesus come on them as a thief because they didn’t watch. A future coming of Jesus might be unexpected for a full preterist but no more so than a sudden unexpected death.

And yes I do think something happened in 70AD that was considered a coming or parousia. I do believe Jesus will come at some future point but if you deny a parousia happened in 70AD then it causes quite a few problems in scripture.

Revelation is a series of visions given to John, right? And John opens his Revelation by saying all who read the words of his Revelation aloud and hear and keep what is written in it will be blessed.

Right. And we also need to keep in mind Galatians 2:9 where an agreement was made that James, Peter, and John would go to the circumcision and Paul and Barnabas were to go to the heathen. That agreement was never rescinded, right?

Do you think that to only be applicable to people of the first century? I do agree, though, that it's not "simple."

I think it was written to a first century, Jewish audience. Just as the Old Testament laws are good for reproof and doctrine but we currently aren’t under those laws, so to is the warning about not watching. I definitely wouldn’t recommend being smug about the coming of Jesus but then again we shouldn’t be smug about our physical death either.
A true believer is always ready for their own death or the coming of Jesus, there is no different preparation for the two. However there would’ve been a difference for a first century Jew who was visiting Jerusalem on Passover in 70AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I don’t think it is relevant for us today. Clearly if there wasn’t a coming in 70AD then it hasn’t been relevant for close to 2,000 years now, since that would mean absolutely nobody who refused to watch had Jesus come on them as a thief.

The reason I don’t think it’s relevant is because none of us know whether or not we are going to have a heart attack or get killed in an accident. There currently isn’t a different preparation for the coming of Jesus vs dying, either way we need to be saved.

Somebody who’s a full preterist and is saved isn’t going to have Jesus come on them as a thief because they didn’t watch. A future coming of Jesus might be unexpected for a full preterist but no more so than a sudden unexpected death.

And yes I do think something happened in 70AD that was considered a coming or parousia. I do believe Jesus will come at some future point but if you deny a parousia happened in 70AD then it causes quite a few problems in scripture.

I deny that a parousia happened in 70 AD and it causes no problems in scripture whatsoever. Any mention of a future parousia of Christ in scripture refers to a parousia that has still not yet happened. There is one future parousia of Christ and there was no parousia of Christ in 70 AD.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And yes I do think something happened in 70AD that was considered a coming or parousia. I do believe Jesus will come at some future point but if you deny a parousia happened in 70AD then it causes quite a few problems in scripture.

It sure does. It makes all the NT authors and Christ Himself a liar and a false prophet if Christ did not return in that generation as scripture testifies in many places.

And Christ is not limited to only one return to this planet. There are NO scriptures that forbid this happening more than once.

 

[grafted branch]

I deny that a parousia happened in 70 AD and it causes no problems in scripture whatsoever. Any mention of a future parousia of Christ in scripture refers to a parousia that has still not yet happened. There is one future parousia of Christ and there was no parousia of Christ in 70 AD.

What about the warning in Revelation 3:3? “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee”. Was this statement true for the church at Sardis in the first century?

If you say there was no parousia then it didn’t matter whether the church at Sardis watched or not, the Revelation 3:3 warning would not be a true statement. If you argue that everyone in the church at Sardis did watch and that is the reason there was no parousia then you’d also have to conclude that the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 condition was met prior to the writing of the book of Revelation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What about the warning in Revelation 3:3? “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee”. Was this statement true for the church at Sardis in the first century?

The word "parousia" is not used in that verse. So, that verse is irrelevant in a discussion about the parousia of Christ. You cannot find even one verse that actually refers to the parousia of Christ that has anything to do with 70 AD or anything else in the first century.