Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[PinSeeker]

Yea, I agree there a multiple ways of looking at “this generation” and if we were to assign a probability as to which one is correct, each one would be higher than zero but none would be 100%, at least from our vantage point.

Have you ever heard of a thing called "layered prophecy," GB? Beyond that, I would say that, if each is understood/offered in the right way, all five of those things are correct.

I think I know what is meant by “this generation”, which is that it’s referring to the people who were living at that time in history...

And I agree, but not just them. :)

...obviously there are other ways of interpreting that phrase and for the most part we arrive at how we interpret “this generation” based on our overall eschatological view.

True, but preconceived notions can be a problem.

I think a better place to start looking at a 70AD coming is found in Revelation 2 and 3. The church at Sardis is told if they didn’t watch then Jesus would come on them as a thief.

Well, I think all of what Jesus told the different churches in Revelation 1-4 is applicable to all churches even today. Regarding Sardis in particular, are there not dead churches among us now? And I say that it is even possible for once Gospel-preaching churches to stray and even become "dead" today... Remember how John's Revelation opens:

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near." (Revelation 1:1-3)​

So three points on this:

• Are you and I not two of Jesus's "servants," Grafted Branch? I say we are. And one great day, you and I will both hear Jesus say to us, personally and in person, "Well done, good and faithful servant..." (Matthew 25:21,23; Luke 19:17)
• And then "soon"... What may not be so soon to us is always soon to God, the great I AM, Who does not tarry. As Peter says (referring to what David sings in Psalm 90:4), "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
• And "blessed is the one"... there is no qualification on that; all who read aloud, and hear, and keep what is written... There is no limiting, number-wise or time-wise; all means all, and you and I are two of that 'all.'

Was it possible or not for Jesus to come in the first century?

Sure it was, but did He? Well, it seems you would say yes, but... :) As Paul says in Romans 8, "we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." Do you think this not applicable to us today? And this is faith, which, as defined by the writer of Hebrews, is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

If we say no it wasn’t possible for Jesus to come in the first century then we obviously have a problem with the scriptures being true for those to whom it was addressed.

If we say yes it was possible for Jesus to come on the Sardis church in the first century then the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 revealing of the man of sin, which has to happen first before His coming, had to have already happened before Revelation was written.

Hmmm... See above.

...there remained a distinction between the two when the scriptures were being written.

Outwardly, yes.

You can’t have Israel being blind in part until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in if there is absolutely no difference between the two.

Sure, I agree, but it depends on Who's Israel you're referring to. God's Israel contains true Jews (Romans 2:28-29) only. And not all of (outward, ethnic) Israel is (of God's) Israel (Romans 9:6). And all of (God's) Israel (Romans 11:26) will ultimately consist of all His elect; these are the true Jews of God's Israel, which will ultimately be an innumerable multitude from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Revelation 7, 14).

I should’ve said John’s intended audience for the book of Revelation was the people who are being referred to as “the circumcision” in Galatians 2:9.

Okay, well, I disagree. See above. I say, along with Paul, we are the circumcision. As Paul writes to the Philippians (3:3), "...we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh."

Grace and peace to you, Grafted Branch!

 

[grafted branch]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "layered prophecy," GB? Beyond that, I would say that, if each is understood/offered in the right way, all five of those things are correct.

No, I’ve never heard of layered prophecy but I’ll do a search for it on the internet, it sounds interesting.

Well, I think all of what Jesus told the different churches in Revelation 1-4 is applicable to all churches even today. Regarding Sardis in particular, are there not dead churches among us now? And I say that it is even possible for once Gospel-preaching churches to stray and even become "dead" today... Remember how John's Revelation opens:

Ok, so how is it possible then that a full preterist, who didn’t watch, and they died but didn’t have Christ come on them as a thief? Wouldn’t the statement from Revelation 3:3 not be applicable until the man of sin is revealed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

So three points on this:

• Are you and I not two of Jesus's "servants," Grafted Branch? I say we are. And one great day, you and I will both hear Jesus say to us, personally and in person, "Well done, good and faithful servant..." (Matthew 25:21,23; Luke 19:17)
• And then "soon"... What may not be so soon to us is always soon to God, the great I AM, Who does not tarry. As Peter says (referring to what David sings in Psalm 90:4), "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
• And "blessed is the one"... there is no qualification on that; all who read aloud, and hear, and keep what is written... There is no limiting, number-wise or time-wise; all means all, and you and I are two of that 'all.'

I agree with point one.

I’m not so sure about the idea that the word “soon” was meant from Gods perspective and not from man’s perspective.

I agree that people are still being blessed by reading and hearing the book of Revelation but a church that has sermons on Revelation every other week isn’t more blessed than a church that only has a sermon on Revelation once a year. I think we can be blessed reading any of the books of the Bible.

Sure it was, but did He? Well, it seems you would say yes, but... :) As Paul says in Romans 8, "we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." Do you think this not applicable to us today? And this is faith, which, as defined by the writer of Hebrews, is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

But things have to take place in a specific order. Christ can’t come until the falling away and man of sin is revealed. Just like the dead who aren’t in Christ can’t rise first. Do you think God can somehow bypass the order of things in scripture?

 

[PinSeeker]

...I’ve never heard of layered prophecy but I’ll do a search for it on the internet, it sounds interesting.

Cool. Yes, layered prophecy is a general pattern in Scripture. The mental image is like approaching a mountain range, which, from a distance looks like one big thing, but as you get closer and closer, you see the layers getting deeper and deeper the closer you get...

Ok, so how is it possible then that a full preterist, who didn’t watch, and they died but didn’t have Christ come on them as a thief? Wouldn’t the statement from Revelation 3:3 not be applicable until the man of sin is revealed in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

You know, to be quite honest, I'm not sure I understand the question you're asking. I'm not a full preterist, and I don't think you are either, right? If that's the case, why discuss preterism?

I agree with point one.

Good...

I’m not so sure about the idea that the word “soon” was meant from Gods perspective and not from man’s perspective.

Well, I would say both, but again, what is soon to God may not be so soon to man. I guess in like manner, as in Ecclesiastes, man's life is like a breath ~ very quick ~ although it may be close to a century long... But I'm sure we'll agree that, like Isaiah says, God's thoughts and ways are not ours; as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts (Isaiah 55), and as David says, God's knowledge is high and we cannot attain to it (Psalm 139).

I agree that people are still being blessed by reading and hearing the book of Revelation but a church that has sermons on Revelation every other week isn’t more blessed than a church that only has a sermon on Revelation once a year. I think we can be blessed reading any of the books of the Bible.

Sure. I'm not so sure you understand my point.

But things have to take place in a specific order. Christ can’t come until the falling away and man of sin is revealed.

Hmmm, well, okay, but I would say that what you're talking about here (the falling away and revealing of the man of sin) is another way of saying, "...until the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in and the partial hardening that is now on Israel is removed, and thus all of Israel is saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)... coupled with this idea of the "loosing of Satan" for a short time leading up to the return of Christ (Revelation 20).

Do you think God can somehow bypass the order of things in scripture?

Well no, of course not... :)

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[grafted branch]

You know, to be quite honest, I'm not sure I understand the question you're asking. I'm not a full preterist, and I don't think you are either, right? If that's the case, why discuss preterism?

Well the question was about the idea of whether the messages to the churches is relevant to us today. You stated that those messages are relevant. We both know full preterist think there is no future coming of Christ and therefore they are definitely not watching.

Now, how can the statement “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” be relevant when we know for certain Jesus has not come upon the full preterist as a thief? That particular statement is currently not a true statement for us, it’s currently not relevant to us.

Hmmm, well, okay, but I would say that what you're talking about here (the falling away and revealing of the man of sin) is another way of saying, "...until the fullness of the Gentiles has been brought in and the partial hardening that is now on Israel is removed, and thus all of Israel is saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)... coupled with this idea of the "loosing of Satan" for a short time leading up to the return of Christ (Revelation 20).

Ok, so if we know Christ can’t return until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, how was it possible for Christ to return to the church at Sardis? Revelation 3:3 says if they didn’t watch that Jesus would come on them as a thief.

In post #301 you said it was possible for Christ to return in the first century. How can that be when the fullness didn’t come in yet? That is why I asked if God can bypass the order of things. I can’t see how it would be possible for Christ to return outside of the order of things.

In Acts 17:31 it says Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

How can the coming of Christ be some kind of moving target? That day is an appointed day and we are not able to change that day, by watching or not watching.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oh, I'm well aware of that, and that's okay with me, for sure, but really, that's only because you don't rightly understand Calvinism, but a mere ~ false ~ caricature of it, as evidenced by your repeated false allegations regarding it.

You would know about making false allegations. You have done that towards my view many times. You need to look in the mirror. You think you are so high and mighty while you do the very things that you accuse others of doing.

This is what all Arminians do; it's what Jacobus Arminius himself did in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. That's what I've tried to tell you, is that really, Spiritual Isrealite, you're arguing against something very different than what John Calvin explicitly believed and wrote.

I'm going by what you have said you believe. I don't really care what he believed. I'm going by what Calvinists typically say that they believe and by what you have said, regardless of whether John Calvin himself believed those things or not.

Again, the only reason there is such a thing as what's known as "the five points of Calvinism," or "TULIP," is that there were five objections Arminius raised with regard to John Calvin's much more thorough and extensive Biblical commentaries. Namely, Arminius held to... Well, you can take a look at this:

Calvinism and Arminianism

You'll notice ~ but no doubt reject, at least for now ~ the rejection of each of Arminius's five points and the reaffirmation of Calvin's respective responses by the Synod of Dort in 1619.

Yawn.

Hmmmm... :) Okay, well, same to you, but I would encourage you to... be at least a bit more graceful... :) ...going forward.

Says the guy who called something I said "stupid". Please stop the act, PinSeeker. Your holier than thou act is tiresome. I can see through it. Stop the pretending.

But this... well, I won't call it absolute gracelessness, but shortage of grace seems to be continuing, at least for now, in your exchange with Grafted Branch. Dude. Stop it.

No, you stop it. Stop acting like you know it all. Humble yourself.

Disagreeing is okay.

That's all I'm doing with grafted branch. He is not complaining about how I'm talking to him. Why don't you let him decide for himself if I'm out of line?

Presumably, we all love the Lord, right?

Yes, I would assume so. Stop trying to be the Internet police as if you are perfect and need to correct everyone else's behavior. It's nauseating.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In 2 Peter 2:9 Peter uses the same word “trial” or “temptation” <3986> in regard to the previous verses. Noah and the flood in vs 5, Sodom and Gamorrha vs 6, and Lot being delivered in vs 7.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

I know you’re very loose on how verses corroborate so you can easily just dismiss what I’ve said but if the global hour of trial wasn’t the 70AD coming then what was it? What global event happened to the Americans, Australia, Africa, and current Asia in the first century?

Since you strictly prohibit any idea that the other churches could participate in the statement meant specifically for the church at Philadelphia, we can know by your method of interpretation that even if any of the other churches did “keep the word of my patience” they would still have to experience the “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world”.

What was that hour of trial?


I thought we already covered this point, if the determining factor of whether Jesus came or not was whether the church at Sardis watched or not, then the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 falling away and man of sin being revealed had to have already taken place.

Do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was fulfilled in the first century? If not then how could failing to watch cause a coming like a thief?

In 2 Peter 2:9 Peter uses the same word “trial” or “temptation” <3986> in regard to the previous verses. Noah and the flood in vs 5, Sodom and Gamorrha vs 6, and Lot being delivered in vs 7.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here. Can you try to clarify? How does this prove that the hour of trial relates directly to Jesus's second coming?

I know you’re very loose on how verses corroborate

That's an exaggeration.

so you can easily just dismiss what I’ve said

I can't dismiss what you said since I don't even understand what you said.

but if the global hour of trial wasn’t the 70AD coming then what was it?

It can't possibly be related to 70 AD. For that to be the case, the book of Revelation would need to have been written before 70 AD and I don't believe it was. So, I am not really sure what the hour of trial was referring to, but if it was something that was going to happen soon from the time it was written about, then it surely was not the second coming of Christ since He has not yet come. I don't need to know what the hour of trial is in order to know that. Scripture as a whole tells me that.

What global event happened to the Americans, Australia, Africa, and current Asia in the first century?

I don't know and neither do you.

Since you strictly prohibit any idea that the other churches could participate in the statement meant specifically for the church at Philadelphia, we can know by your method of interpretation that even if any of the other churches did “keep the word of my patience” they would still have to experience the “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world”.

I did not say that. Can you please stop trying to talk for me? I'm saying that those words were directed to the people of the church in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean we can't imply that it would apply to anyone from other churches who kept the word of His patience as well. But, my point is that Jesus was focused specifically on the people in the church in Philadelphia with what He said in Revelation 3:7-10.

I don't like to speculate too much, but if the hour of trial Jesus spoke about was related to something that would occur just before His second coming, Jesus could have been speaking conditionally there. Remember, even He didn't know the day or hour of His second coming (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13) and only the Father knew. So, He could have been speaking from the sense that if they were alive when the hour of trial arrived (no one but the Father would have known if they would be or not in this scenario), then He would protect them during it. I would see that as a viable explanation if that it was His intention to relate that directly to His second coming. In that case, I would relate the hour of trial directly to Satan's little season (Revelation 20:7-9). But, again, I'm just speculating based on a hypothetical scenario here.

What was that hour of trial?

You tell me. I don't think anyone knows for sure. Is this how we are supposed to build our doctrines? On something uncertain like this? Or should we instead build our doctrines on clear scripture and use those to help us try to understand more difficult and less straightforward scripture like this?

if the determining factor of whether Jesus came or not was whether the church at Sardis watched or not, then the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 falling away and man of sin being revealed had to have already taken place.

When did I say that was the determining factor of whether His second coming would occur or not? I didn't. I've said repeatedly that His coming as a thief to the church in Sardis is a completely separate event with a separate context from His coming as a thief in passages like 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. His coming as a thief to Sardis was conditiona and depended on whether or not they repented. And it also was a local coming (just to Sardis), rather than global (affecting the whole world and not just Sardis). His coming as a thief in 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 was unconditional. It is guaranteed to happen. It's not dependent on whether certain people repent or not.

I've already explained this multiple times now, so if you don't get my point by now, then let's just agree to disagree. I can't explain my view of this any other way. I have nothing more to add to it.

Do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was fulfilled in the first century?

No, certainly not. It's in relation to the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him "in the air" (1 Thess 4:14-17). That clearly has not yet happened.

If not then how could failing to watch cause a coming like a thief?

I don't understand your question, so I can't answer it until I can understand it. Can you explain exactly what you are asking here and why you are asking it?

I know scripture says when He comes like a thief it will only be in relation to those who weren't watching, which refers to unbelievers. To watch simply refers to watching that you are not being deceived (Matthew 24:4) and making sure you continue to be in the spiritual light instead of spiritual darkness (1 Thess 5:1-9). Unbeilevers don't do that, so they are in spiritual darkness and will be destroyed when Jesus comes like a thief in the future.

I don't know if what I said above addresses your question or not since I'm not sure what you're asking, but I thought I'd just throw that out there to give my understanding of what will happen to those who aren't watching when Jesus comes like a thief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can the coming of Christ be some kind of moving target?

It can't be and it's not when you're talking about the coming of Christ referenced in passages like Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Thess 4:13-5:9, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13 and others.

That day is an appointed day and we are not able to change that day, by watching or not watching.

Exactly. And, yet, what do we see in Revelation 3:3? A coming of Christ that is conditional upon the repentance of the church in Sardis, unlike the unconditional coming of Christ that you're talking about. Why you can't differentiate between the obviously conditional and local coming of Christ referenced in Revelation 3:3 with the unconditional, guaranteed global coming of Christ referenced in those other passages I mentioned? I don't know why you have to insist that any mention of a coming of Christ has to be understood in the same context every time. I truly don't get that at all. You need to look at the context of each verse or passage to determine what it's about without making any assumptions about it.

For example, both Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30 reference a coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven. Does that mean they are automatically talking about the same event? No. You have to look at the context to determine that. The Daniel passage is about His ascension TO heaven and the Matthew 24:30 verse is about His coming back FROM heaven. So, they are not about the same event despite their similarities. For whatever reason, you have decided to adopt a method of interpretation that says two verses or passages must be direclty related to each other if they contain some of the same words or each contain the same phrase. I don't understand that approach. That can tell you that those passages MIGHT be related, but you seem to just automatically assume that they are without taking a closer look at the context.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here. Can you try to clarify? How does this prove that the hour of trial relates directly to Jesus's second coming?

Yea, Peter used the word for trial or temptation <3986>, the same word used in Revelation 3:10, to refer to the Noah flood and Sodom and Gamorraha. These two events are also used in Luke and elsewhere to describe the similarities with the parousia of Christ.

The word trial <3986> is used in many places but do you see anywhere else in the Bible where the word trial is used to describe a global event that isn’t associated with the parousia of Christ or would Revelation 3:10 be another one of those special cases that doesn’t corroborate with any other scriptures?

If you are waiting for the scriptures to explicitly and succinctly confirm every detail for you, that’s not going to happen. So again if you have loosened your standards by allowing all these special cases that don’t corroborate with any other scriptures then you can even become a premill if that’s what you want to do.

You are starting out with the presupposition that there is no 70AD coming. If I search your posts using the key word “corroborate” and it’s derivatives I can see you are currently making the type of arguments that you used to argued against in the past.

It can't possibly be related to 70 AD. For that to be the case, the book of Revelation would need to have been written before 70 AD and I don't believe it was.

Well maybe it’s time to change your beliefs if they don’t corroborate with the scripture.

You tell me. I don't think anyone knows for sure. Is this how we are supposed to build our doctrines? On something uncertain like this? Or should we instead build our doctrines on clear scripture and use those to help us try to understand more difficult and less straightforward scripture like this?

If you would just accept that it was a 70AD coming then it is clear. The scriptures line up and you don’t have to have these special cases that don’t corroborate with other scriptures or can’t be rationally explained.

When did I say that was the determining factor of whether His second coming would occur or not? I didn't.

His coming as a thief to Sardis was conditiona and depended on whether or not they repented.

What is the difference between saying their watching was a determine factor or it was dependent on their watching? It’s the same thing, you said it and you just said it again in this post but first you deny that it’s a determining factor. I’m scratch my head on this one.

His coming as a thief to Sardis was conditiona and depended on whether or not they repented. And it also was a local coming (just to Sardis), rather than global (affecting the whole world and not just Sardis).

Can you provide any commentary, any at all, that agree with this position or is this just your private interpretation?

It can't be and it's not when you're talking about the coming of Christ referenced in passages like Matthew 24:29-31, 1 Thess 4:13-5:9, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13 and others.

Ok, I definitely agree with you on this, Christ’s coming is not a moving target.

Exactly. And, yet, what do we see in Revelation 3:3? A coming of Christ that is conditional upon the repentance of the church in Sardis, unlike the unconditional coming of Christ that you're talking about.

It’s not the coming that’s conditional, it’s whether it comes as a thief or not . Look at what you just said in your last post, I’ll quote it below

I know scripture says when He comes like a thief it will only be in relation to those who weren't watching, which refers to unbelievers.

You just said the coming like a thief is in relation to those who weren’t watching. You didn’t say it was conditional upon their watching. You are taking Revelation 3:3 and making it the only place in scripture where His coming is conditional upon the watching instead of whether the coming itself is like a thief or not.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Again your idea of a special coming that would only happen to Sardis and was conditional upon their watching doesn’t corroborate with any other scripture.

I think you deserve the handyman hermeneutic award. A frequent changing of one’s method of interpretation to patch the holes in one’s theology.

I've already explained this multiple times now, so if you don't get my point by now, then let's just agree to disagree. I can't explain my view of this any other way. I have nothing more to add to it.

I also think the best thing is to just agree to disagree. If you want to give me a rebuttal I’ll read it but we can leave it there for this particular topic.

 

[grafted branch]

Cool. Yes, layered prophecy is a general pattern in Scripture. The mental image is like approaching a mountain range, which, from a distance looks like one big thing, but as you get closer and closer, you see the layers getting deeper and deeper the closer you get...

I got a chance to look at layered prophecy and I was aware of this I just didn’t know it was called layered prophecy.

I’m not a big fan of double fulfillment but I haven’t done enough studying on the subject to really be confident one way or the other.

I completely agree with scripture having layered meaning, as literal, spiritual, allegorical, moral, mystical and so on. But when it comes to layers of fulfillment, some of the things I read about last evening are questionable to me.

For example in Acts 2:16-21 Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 and says “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel”. Some people will say Joel 2:28-32 is a prophecy that will have dual fulfillment or was only partially fulfilled because the literal layer of the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled, the sun didn’t literally turn to darkness and the moon didn’t literally turn to blood. If we justify layered fulfillment based on scriptures layered meaning then it becomes very convoluted. Everything becomes dependent on which one of the layers of meaning is being used to justify which one of the layers of fulfillment that has happened.

Do you see what I mean? A person could have dozens of fulfillments. The more layers of meaning and layers of fulfillment we acknowledge exponentially increases the number of possible interpretations that can be justified.

 

[PinSeeker]

...it’s currently not relevant to us.

We agree concerning full preterism (I think); it's... erroneous. :) So, yeah, no need to even discuss it.

Ok, so if we know Christ can’t return until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, how was it possible for Christ to return to the church at Sardis? Revelation 3:3 says if they didn’t watch that Jesus would come on them as a thief.

Let's back up a little. Well, not necessarily "back up," but rather zoom out, and get a summary of the seven churches in general, and then zoom back in to Sardis.

Zooming out, regarding the letters to the seven churches in general...
Christ shows care for the churches by addressing each one according to its needs, with encouragement, rebuke, exhortation, and promise. He shows detailed knowledge of their condition (“I know”). Each of the messages contain allusions to circumstances or traditions of the city. At the same time, all the churches are caught up in a universal calling to faithfulness and endurance until the promises reach their fulfillment in the heavenly Jerusalem. Their struggles contrast with the peace and satisfaction pictured in Revelation 21:1-22:5. The exhortations are reinforced in all but one case (Laodicea) by an opening allusion to some element of the majestic vision of Revelation 1:12-20. The exhortations therefore have universal bearing. Moreover, the churches in view number exactly seven, the symbolic number of completeness. They stand for all the churches of that time and ours. In fact, the triumphs and failures and struggles of these churches are a kind of miniature catalogue of the sorts of things that we can expect to find in other churches throughout history.

Now, some dispensational interpreters have erroneously assigned the seven churches to seven successive ages of church history in order, a procedure for which Revelation gives no warrant.

From God’s point of view, not all churches are equally healthy. Their faithfulness or laziness or complacency or tolerance of false doctrine are important to Him and make a difference both in how they should respond and how they are judged. We likewise need Christ-like discernment, illumined by the Spirit and by these examples, if we are to evaluate our own church situation accurately and respond faithfully.

Zooming back in to Sardis...
The churches in Sardis and Laodicea receive the most severe rebukes. Sardis is dead, though still with a chance of reviving life (Revelation 3:2). And a few at Sardis remain faithful (Revelation 3:4). But the situation is all the more dangerous because the Sardisian Christians are deluded about their true state (Revelation 3:1)... they are unconcerned. The lesson is devastatingly relevant for us. Churches can bear the name of church, and have a certain external reputation, when it is doubtful whether they are truly churches at all. The essence of a church does not consist in programs or buildings or past achievements or reputation or institutional greatness or in formal doctrinal correctness, but in life. This spiritual life comes only through fellowship with the living Christ, and is demonstrated through the seriousness of repentance and obedience. Christ reminds Sardis that He has "the seven spirits of God." Only through receiving the Holy Spirit, represented by the figure of seven spirits (Revelation 1:4), do we have life in God. The church at Sardis once did have life (v. 3). Decline or moral deterioration is a real possibility, then and now. Christ calls first for repentance. But in His zeal He is prepared to take stronger measures if repentance is not forthcoming. In saying He "will come like a thief" (Revelation 3:3), we should understand that He is warning of judgment, both in their time and ultimately, at the end of the age, and again, this is devastatingly relevant for us even today.

In post #301 you said it was possible for Christ to return in the first century. How can that be when the fullness didn’t come in yet? That is why I asked if God can bypass the order of things. I can’t see how it would be possible for Christ to return outside of the order of things.

Okay, I understand you now, and you're certainly right. I think we're just not quite understanding each other on the 'possible' thing... our contexts are a bit different. So... we don't know how many are included in the fullness of the Gentiles. I'm just saying that from a human point of view, it is possible that the fullness of the Gentiles could have been brought into God's Israel at that time by God, but obviously, we can know now that wasn't then the case... and still is not yet the case, although, 2,000 years later, we are closer to that point now. When that will be the case we cannot know; only the Father does (you will recall, I'm sure, what Jesus said in Matthew 24:36, that "concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"). As for when it could be that the fullness of the Gentiles will have been brought in, that can occur at any time... even like in five minutes... :) But again, from a human point of view, that was the case 2,000 years ago, and still is... when exactly that will be we do not... can not... know.

How can the coming of Christ be some kind of moving target? That day is an appointed day and we are not able to change that day, by watching or not watching.

<chuckles> Yeah, not a "moving target"... :) Agree... :)

I got a chance to look at layered prophecy and I was aware of this I just didn’t know it was called layered prophecy.

I’m not a big fan of double fulfillment but I haven’t done enough studying on the subject to really be confident one way or the other.

I completely agree with scripture having layered meaning, as literal, spiritual, allegorical, moral, mystical and so on. But when it comes to layers of fulfillment, some of the things I read about last evening are questionable to me.

Fair enough. All I'll say, though, is that in Revelation, much of what John "sees" have many, many iterations throughout history ~ one to many relationships, rather than one to one. Even the span of time from the first century to the return of Christ he describes, in a slightly different way, with different emphases/focuses, seven times.

For example in Acts 2:16-21 Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 and says “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel”. Some people will say Joel 2:28-32 is a prophecy that will have dual fulfillment or was only partially fulfilled because the literal layer of the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled, the sun didn’t literally turn to darkness and the moon didn’t literally turn to blood. If we justify layered fulfillment based on scriptures layered meaning then it becomes very convoluted. Everything becomes dependent on which one of the layers of meaning is being used to justify which one of the layers of fulfillment that has happened.

Hmmm... Okay, let's just talk about Joel 2:28-32 (and by extension, accordingly, Acts 2:16-21). So it's about God pouring out His Spirit ~ which He did beginning with the apostles at Pentecost ~ and, through the work of His Spirit issuing His inward call to individual people, who, each at his or her appointed time, will then call upon the name of the Lord, and they all will be saved. Joel is not talking about a one-time, instantaneous event... unless you say, basically, "Okay, there's this great number of 'one-time, instantaneous events' ~ being born again of the Spirit, that happen to each one of God's elect, for each at his or her appointed time (in the sense of Acts 13:48, where, when the Gentiles heard what Paul and Barnabas said, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed). So, as for that happening individually, there are many, many, many fulfillments. But if we refer to all of the elect as one group, then we can say, in that sense, it's gradually fulfilled... all the elect Gentiles will eventually be brought in to God's Israel.

Do you see what I mean?

I think so; hopefully now you see what I mean. I think we were just speaking in different contexts.

A person could have dozens of fulfillments.

Well, not in the sense of being born again of the Spirit. Only once is needed. :)

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[PinSeeker]

I'm going by what you have said you believe.

Obviously not; over and over again, what you have said I believe has not been what I believe, And I have corrected these things many times, clarifying what I do believe. But you keep going back to these misunderstandings about what I believe.

I don't really care what he believed...

Well, okay, but you keep attributing things to him (Calvin) that are just false. And even when I right those misunderstandings... see above.

I'm going by what Calvinists typically say that they believe...

No, you're going by your misconceptions of what Calvinists say that they believe and what I have said... making them into something they are not, and then shooting at those. I mean, feel free to keep doing that; you are certainly your own person... :)

...called something I said "stupid"...

Case in point. No, nothing you have said is stupid. What I said was (and I quote myself), "what you think is obvious is silly. Not you, personally, but your insinuation. Your insinuation is silly." And what you had insinuated (about me and Calvinists generally) is that ~ and here I'm quoting you ~ "If salvation is entirely up to God's choice and not man's, as you believe..." You insinuated... actually, explicitly enunciated... what you think I (and Calvinists in general) believe ~ which was not and is not accurate ~ and thus, yes, silly, as in a caricature of that I (and Calvinists) do believe ~ as I said in my response.

Please stop the act, PinSeeker. Your holier than thou act is tiresome. I can see through it. Stop the pretending.

Ah, you're just... hot under the collar, it seems... :) Okay, cool. Didn't mean for that to happen, but of course I can't control how anybody... chooses (see what I did there? :) ...to react to anything...

Stop acting like you know it all. Humble yourself.

Well, nobody "knows it all" (except for God, of course), but, indeed, some people do understand at least somewhat better than others. As for humbling, I mean, sure, we should all ~ as Micah says ~ "do justice, and ...love kindness, and ...walk humbly with (our) Go," (Micah 6:8), and ~ as Paul says, "look not only to (our) own interests, but also to the interests of others... Have this mind among (ourselves), which is (ours) in Christ Jesus"... which is to empty ourselves for the sake of others as He did, "humbl(ing) Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:4-8)

Maybe you feel that way because you think you know it all... :)

Anyway, yes, thank you for the reminder, and I would exhort you to the same.

That's all I'm doing with grafted branch.

Doesn't seem that way to me... You have said to him:

• "It's clear that you will go to any length to avoid the clear context of Revelation 3:3..."
• "You are the one with the problem, not me..."
• "All you have done is proven that you are stubborn and not willing to acknowledge..."
• "You should know better by now to make a claim like this to me without backing it up..."

...and some other things like that. I mean, come on, SI. These things are not "terrible," but surely you see the lack of grace in those kinds of statements.

He is not complaining about how I'm talking to him.

And he deserves credit for that. :)

Why don't you let him decide for himself if I'm out of line?

If he wants to call you on it, then certainly he can do that... or not. :)

Stop trying to be the Internet police as if you are perfect and need to correct everyone else's behavior. It's nauseating.

:) Now, are you saying that in all humility...? <chuckles>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

In saying He "will come like a thief" (Revelation 3:3), we should understand that He is warning of judgment, both in their time and ultimately, at the end of the age, and again, this is devastatingly relevant for us even today.

So you view the “coming as a thief” warning to Sardis really as being a type of judgement that was possible back then and also possible today, correct?

If so then wouldn’t this also qualify as a type of coming that happened in 70AD? What happened in 70AD was a type of judgment, right?

So, as for that happening individually, there are many, many, many fulfillments. But if we refer to all of the elect as one group, then we can say, in that sense, it's gradually fulfilled... all the elect Gentiles will eventually be brought in to God's Israel.

Well, I can see your point and it’s probably easy to make the case for the millennium being gradually fulfilled, after all it will take 1,000 years (literal or not) to come to completion. But, there are some instances where a gradual fulfillment seems incorrect.

Christ died once and we are the body of Christ. Romans 6:4 says we are buried with Him so technically our sins were taken care of 2,000 years ago. Yet each time we sin, that sin needs to be paid for, so we could say Jesus’s death and resurrection is a gradual fulfillment since the sins that are paid for still have to be committed. Although if someone tried to make a thread about that, they would get hit with so many posts and verses showing why they were wrong their head would spin.

Ok, maybe we could say the day Jesus died was the beginning of a gradual fulfillment that ended when He arose, I think that would probably be an acceptable way to look at it. I’m just going to have to think about this gradual fulfillment idea for a while before I decide one way or the other about it.

 

[PinSeeker]

So you view the “coming as a thief” warning to Sardis really as being a type of judgement that was possible back then and also possible today, correct?

I view it as a warning of a lesser judgment of some type ~ "lesser" not in the sense of being not serious or lacking in severity, but in the sense of a consequence in that time if they continued as they were (their church remaining dead; and again, this warning is just as intensely relevant to us today as it was to them; God can exact similar judgments on us today) ~ as opposed to "greater" in the sense of the final Judgment at the end of the age as depicted by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46 (especially vv. 41-46) and by John in Revelation 20:11-15.

If so then wouldn’t this also qualify as a type of coming that happened in 70AD?

I'm not sure what you mean by a type of coming. If you mean Jesus actually returning in 70AD, I say no.

What happened in 70AD was a type of judgment, right?

Yes.

Well, I can see your point and it’s probably easy to make the case for the millennium being gradually fulfilled, after all it will take 1,000 years (literal or not) to come to completion.

Okay, yes, I agree. :) Ah, the millennium of Revelation 20... I would say yes, we are in the millennium now, and that it has been being gradually fulfilled ever since Jesus's time on earth and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost... and we are possibly very close to the end of it, even by our standard of closeness/nearness.

But, there are some instances where a gradual fulfillment seems incorrect.

Hmm, okay, fair enough, without knowing what you're specifically talking about...

Christ died once and we are the body of Christ. Romans 6:4 says we are buried with Him so technically our sins were taken care of 2,000 years ago. Yet each time we sin, that sin needs to be paid for, so we could say Jesus’s death and resurrection is a gradual fulfillment since the sins that are paid for still have to be committed. Although if someone tried to make a thread about that, they would get hit with so many posts and verses showing why they were wrong their head would spin.

Ok, maybe we could say the day Jesus died was the beginning of a gradual fulfillment that ended when He arose, I think that would probably be an acceptable way to look at it. I’m just going to have to think about this gradual fulfillment idea for a while before I decide one way or the other about it.

Well... Jesus, just before dying on the cross, cried out, "It is finished!" Which to me says in no uncertain terms that it is done, that there is no gradual fulfillment; it is complete. His work of redemption was completed on the cross. So... I could expound on this, but I think you'll understand... in one sense, no, the fulfillment was made complete at the cross, but in another sense, it ensured the ultimate completion ~ the salvation of all Israel ~ which, as you say is in process and will be brought to completion at the day of Christ (as Paul says in Philippians 1:6). This is what we today call the now and the not yet. Yes? I mean, in the same sense(s), you and I could say that we, and all believers, are both saved and being saved. Right?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not sure what you mean by a type of coming. If you mean Jesus actually returning in 70AD, I say no.

Let’s say the church at Sardis didn’t watch. The promise that He would come on them as a thief would get fulfilled in the first century. If that happened I would call that fulfillment a type of coming, specifically coming as a thief.

Why wouldn’t what happened in 70AD be considered this type of coming, a “coming as a thief”?

Okay, yes, I agree. :) Ah, the millennium of Revelation 20... I would say yes, we are in the millennium now, and that it has been being gradually fulfilled ever since Jesus's time on earth and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost... and we are possibly very close to the end of it, even by our standard of closeness/nearness.

I personally don’t think we are in the millennium right now, I think it was completed in the past, but that’s a whole different subject.

Yes? I mean, in the same sense(s), you and I could say that we, and all believers, are both saved and being saved. Right?

Yes, I can see from our vantage point people are continually getting saved and this is an on going process that could be considered a gradual fulfillment.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yea, Peter used the word for trial or temptation <3986>, the same word used in Revelation 3:10, to refer to the Noah flood and Sodom and Gamorraha. These two events are also used in Luke and elsewhere to describe the similarities with the parousia of Christ.

That, in itself, proves nothing. If the word was only ever used in that sense, then you would have a point, but that is not the case. But, again, as I said, if the hour of trial had something to do with the return of Christ, which has not yet occurred, then it would have to be the case that Jesus said what He would do for the people in that church if they were still alive during the time that just preceded His second coming ((without guaranteeing that they would be). Even He did not know the day or hour that would happen (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13), so that is a valid possibility.

The word trial <3986> is used in many places but do you see anywhere else in the Bible where the word trial is used to describe a global event that isn’t associated with the parousia of Christ or would Revelation 3:10 be another one of those special cases that doesn’t corroborate with any other scriptures?

You already said yourself it was used in association with the flood and with Sodom and Gomorrah in 2 Peter 2, so there's 2 examples right there where it was used to describe things related to a global event besides the parousia of Christ. And you are being a bit deceptive here whether you realize it or not. When the word is used in relation to the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah in 2nd Peter 2 it does not compare those events to the parousia of Christ there. So, I see no basis for your claim that the word can only be used in relation to the parousia of Christ when used in a global sense. And, again, if it was meant to be associated with a time just before the parousia of Christ it does not mean that time had to occur during the lifetimes of those in the first century church in Philadelphia.

You seem to be forgetting that no one knew the day or hour of His second coming, including Jesus Himself (Matthew 24:36), so with that being the case how could He say something to them regarding the timing of His coming happening in their lifetimes with any certainty?

If you are waiting for the scriptures to explicitly and succinctly confirm every detail for you, that’s not going to happen.

I don't need that. My doctrine is based on what I see taught in all of scripture. I don't interpret any given verse or passage in isolation. My overall understanding of scripture does not allow for a 70 AD parousia of Christ. Period. And my doctrine is based on clear, straightforward scripture that I use to interpret more difficult scripture like we find in the book of Revelation. It seems that you do not share that approach.

So again if you have loosened your standards by allowing all these special cases that don’t corroborate with any other scriptures then you can even become a premill if that’s what you want to do.

You are falsely respresenting how I approach scripture. If you think I have loosened my standards then you didn't accurately understand my standards in the first place because I have not done that. I don't appreciate your blatant misrepresentation of my intentions and my approach to interpreting scripture. Am I doing that to you? No. So, please stop doing that to me. I will tell you what I believe and how I approach the interpretation of scripture. That's not for you to tell me.

You are starting out with the presupposition that there is no 70AD coming.

I'm getting tired of your misrepresentations of my view. I have no presuppositions. My study of ALL of scripture has led me to the conclusion that there was no 70 AD coming of Christ. I went into my study with no bias and no presuppositions and I came out believing in amillennialism while rejecting both preterism and futurism. There is no balance in either of those eschatological systems.

If I search your posts using the key word “corroborate” and it’s derivatives I can see you are currently making the type of arguments that you used to argued against in the past.

That is not true. Give me even one example of that. Good luck. You have simply misunderstood how I approach scripture. I do NOT and have not ever assumed that two passages are automatically related if they contain similar wording. That is apparently what you thought I did, but that is not the case. Otherwise, I would conclude that the similarly worded Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30 would be about the same event even though the former is about Jesus's ascension and the latter is about His second coming.

Well maybe it’s time to change your beliefs if they don’t corroborate with the scripture.

They do corroborate with scripture. But, thanks for the suggestion, anyway.

If you would just accept that it was a 70AD coming then it is clear.

I'm not going to accept something that isn't true. And you certainly haven't proven it to me.

The scriptures line up and you don’t have to have these special cases that don’t corroborate with other scriptures or can’t be rationally explained.

The scriptures don't line up with a 70 AD coming of Christ. I am certain of that.

What is the difference between saying their watching was a determine factor or it was dependent on their watching? It’s the same thing, you said it and you just said it again in this post but first you deny that it’s a determining factor. I’m scratch my head on this one.

Go back and read what I actually said. It shouldn't be hard to understand. I'm saying that His coming as a thief specifically to the church in Sardis was conditional upon them repenting or not. If they repented, He would not come to them as a thief. If they didn't, then He would. This is what I've been saying all along and should not be hard to understand.

This is in contrast to passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 where His coming as a thief is not conditional upon whether people repent or not. Again, I believe I am speaking clearly here. But, just ask if you don't understand my point. The context of Revelation 3:3 is simply not the same as in passages like 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 because Revelation 3:3 is about a conditional coming of Christ as a thief while the other passages are about an unconditional coming of Christ as a thief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Can you provide any commentary, any at all, that agree with this position or is this just your private interpretation?

Let me make something very clear to you. I don't have any private interpretations. I'm sure you are well aware that they are plenty of lone wolves on this forum who do have private interpretations. I'm not one of them. Okay? Please don't forget that.

Also, keep in mind that you share your belief that Revelation 3:3 is talking about the parousia of Christ with pre-trib dispensationalists. Think about that. That alone doesn't make your interpretation wrong, but it should make you rethink this.

But, since you were apparently too busy or too...something else...to look up the answer to your question yourself, here you go:

Grant Richison: "If the church at Sardis does not repent, Jesus will come silently and unexpectedly to discipline the church. Jesus will come in unexpected discipline. If people do not respond to His grace, then He must use a judicial approach in getting their attention. This is the repercussion of non-repentance."

Albert Barnes: "And ye shall not know what hour I will come upon thee - You shall not know beforehand; you shall have no warning of my immediate approach. This is often the way in which God comes to people in his heavy judgments. Long beforehand, he admonishes us, indeed, of what must be the consequences of a course of sin, and warns us to turn from it; but when sinners refuse to attend to his warning, and still walk in the way of evil, he comes suddenly, and cuts them down. Every man who is warned of the evil of his course, and who refuses or neglects to repent, has reason to believe that God will come suddenly in his wrath, and call him to his bar, Proverbs 29:1. No such man can presume on impunity; no one who is warned of his guilt and danger can feel that he is for one moment safe. No one can have any basis of calculation that he will be spared; no one can flatter himself with any probable anticipation that he will have time to repent when God comes to take him away. Benevolence has done its appropriate work in warning him - how can the Great Judge of all be to blame, if he comes then, and suddenly cuts the sinner off?

Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary: "come on thee as a thief—in special judgment on thee as a Church, with the same stealthiness and as unexpectedly as shall be My visible second coming. As the thief gives no notice of his approach. Christ applies the language which in its fullest sense describes His second coming, to describe His coming in special judgments on churches and states (as Jerusalem, Mt 24:4-28) these special judgments being anticipatory earnests of that great last coming. "The last day is hidden from us, that every day may be observed by us" [Augustine]. Twice Christ in the days of His flesh spake the same words (Mt 24:42, 43; Lu 12:39, 40); and so deeply had His words been engraven on the minds of the apostles that they are often repeated in their writings (Re 16:15; 1Th 5:2, 4, 6; 2Pe 3:10). The Greek proverb was that "the feet of the avenging deities are shod with wool," expressing the noiseless approach of the divine judgments, and their possible nearness at the moment when they were supposed the farthest off [Trench]."

Note regarding the commentary above by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: If you don't read that one carefully you might think they are associating Revelation 3:3 with the parousia of Christ, but they are not. Notice at the beginning that they indicate it's about a special judgment of that particular church which is similar to the judgment that will occur at His parousia. So, they are contrasting His coming as a thief in Revelation 3:3 with the parousia. And notice they also mention "His coming in special judgments on churches and states". So, they are saying He can come in judgment in different ways than just how He will come at His parousia.

Matthew Poole's Commentary: "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief; if thou shalt not keep thyself free from gross sins or errors, and give diligence to do it, I will come to thee, not as a friend to comfort and refresh thee, but as a thief to rob and destroy thee, and that suddenly. And thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee; I will surprise thee with my judgments, and thou shalt not know when my judgments shall overtake thee.".

Note on above commetary: Notice that in this commentary there is no mention of it having anything to do with Christ's parousia or that it is talking about something that would affect anyone excpet for those who are in the church in Sardis.

It's worth noting that a number of commentaries don't include an opinion on what exactly Revelation 3:3 is about and instead just comment on the conditions in the church in Sardis at the time and what it means to "hold fast", what it means to watch and what it means to come as a thief and such.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible: "It is common for interpreters to make this mean that John is warning Sardis to be prepared for the Second Advent; but as Caird noted, "If we allow John to speak for himself, he is clearly saying that the coming itself is contingent on the church’s refusal to repent." G. B. Caird, op. cit., p. 49. Thus, as in the other references to "the coming" in these chapters, it is a "coming in judgment" that is meant, not the final Advent, but a providential visitation upon the sinful. The Second Advent is not contingent upon any group’s repentance."

Note: This one describes exactly how I see it. I had never seen this commentary on Revelation 3:3 before. And notice that Coffman indicated that G. B. Caird agreed with his understanding of the verse as well.

It’s not the coming that’s conditional, it’s whether it comes as a thief or not

I disagree and don't know where you are getting that from. Show me anywhere in His message to the church in Sardis where He said He was coming to them no matter what, but would come as a thief to those who didn't repent.

. Look at what you just said in your last post, I’ll quote it below

You just said the coming like a thief is in relation to those who weren’t watching. You didn’t say it was conditional upon their watching. You are taking Revelation 3:3 and making it the only place in scripture where His coming is conditional upon the watching instead of whether the coming itself is like a thief or not.

I truly don't know what you are talking about. The ones who don't watch like He commanded are those who don't repent. He very specifically indicated that He expected them to repent, so them not watching is equivalent to them not repenting. That was the condition for whether He would come to them as a thief or not. If they repented and watched like He told them to, He would not come to them as a thief. If they refused to repent and did not watch, in rebellion against His command, then He would come to them as a thief.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Again your idea of a special coming that would only happen to Sardis and was conditional upon their watching doesn’t corroborate with any other scripture.

That is exactly what is indicated in Revelation 3:3. Nowhere does it say anything about Him coming to them regardless of whether or not they repented. You are adding that to the text because of your presupposition that Jesus can only come like a thief once and in only one sense.

I think you deserve the handyman hermeneutic award. A frequent changing of one’s method of interpretation to patch the holes in one’s theology.

That is a lie. I thought you were better than this, but I guess not. I have not changed my hermeneutic at all. Don't blame me for your lack of understanding of my hermeneutics. You obviously made false assumptions about how I interpret scripture. The way you thought I interpret scripture would lead me to conclude that passages like Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:29-31 were about the same event, but they are not.

I also think the best thing is to just agree to disagree.

We can, but I would like an apology from you for saying things that aren't true about me like that I am supposedly being loose with my hermeneutics and that I've changed them. That is not true.

If you want to give me a rebuttal I’ll read it but we can leave it there for this particular topic.

I'd just like an apology. I don't appreciate being told that I've changed my method of interpretation when I absolutely have not. I have always interpreted any given verse or passage in such a way to be careful to not allow my interpretation to contradict any other verse or passage in scripture. And I have never indicated that I automatically relate passages together as speaking of the same event if they contain similar words or phrases the way you seem to do. That MAY indicate that the passages are related, but a closer look at the context will determine that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Obviously not; over and over again, what you have said I believe has not been what I believe, And I have corrected these things many times, clarifying what I do believe. But you keep going back to these misunderstandings about what I believe.

You have misrepresented what I believe many times and I've had to correct you about what I believe many times as well. So, since we both apparently can't understand each other, then there is no point in us continuing to talk to each other about this topic. Hopefully, others who have read the discussion will have learned something, though. If they can understand what either of us have said, that is.

Well, okay, but you keep attributing things to him (Calvin) that are just false. And even when I right those misunderstandings... see above.

That is what you say when I point out the implications of your (and his) beliefs. Just because he may not have said what I said doesn't mean he didn't imply it. For example, I say that Calvinism teaches that the non-elect (unbelievers) are predestined to eternal punishment in the lake of fire. You deny that you believe that just because nothing explicitly says that. But, how can that not be what you believe when you believe that God determines everyone's destinies with man having no choice in the matter? By not predestining someone to salvation and eternal life, what, by implication, is God doing for that person? Predestining them to eternal punishment in the lake of fire instead, obviously. That is the only other destiny that someone can have.

For whatever reason, you take offense if I point out what your beliefs imply, but I think that is just silly.

Case in point. No, nothing you have said is stupid. What I said was (and I quote myself), "what you think is obvious is silly. Not you, personally, but your insinuation. Your insinuation is silly." And what you had insinuated (about me and Calvinists generally) is that ~ and here I'm quoting you ~ "If salvation is entirely up to God's choice and not man's, as you believe..." You insinuated... actually, explicitly enunciated... what you think I (and Calvinists in general) believe ~ which was not and is not accurate ~ and thus, yes, silly, as in a caricature of that I (and Calvinists) do believe ~ as I said in my response.

Are you denying that you used the word "stupid" in relation to something I believe or said and used the word "silly" instead? You most certainly did use the word "stupid". Why deny it? I can easily prove it if you are denying that. Is that what you're doing? I can't tell for sure from what you said here.

Ah, you're just... hot under the collar, it seems... :) Okay, cool. Didn't mean for that to happen, but of course I can't control how anybody... chooses (see what I did there? :) ...to react to anything...

You apparently believe that human beings are very capable of choosing between right and wrong in many kinds of scenarios without their choice being predestined or predetermined, yet somehow that can't be the case when it comes to deciding whether or not to humble ourselves, repent of our sins and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior.

Well, nobody "knows it all" (except for God, of course), but, indeed, some people do understand at least somewhat better than others.

That is very true. I definitely understand the things we've been talking about better than you, so that proves your statement to be correct. ;)

As for humbling, I mean, sure, we should all ~ as Micah says ~ "do justice, and ...love kindness, and ...walk humbly with (our) Go," (Micah 6:8), and ~ as Paul says, "look not only to (our) own interests, but also to the interests of others... Have this mind among (ourselves), which is (ours) in Christ Jesus"... which is to empty ourselves for the sake of others as He did, "humbl(ing) Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:4-8)

Do you think it is a choice to humble oneself or is that predestined? If it was predestined why does it talk about humbling ourselves. Wouldn't that mean we are not capable of humbling ourselves (something we do) and instead God has to humble us? Scripture indicates that it's something we are held responsible to do. And someone being dead in sins is not incapable of doing that. Not incapable of humbling themselves and acknowledging their sinfulness, in other words. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said that He did not call the righteous, but sinners who were dead in their sins to repentance.

Maybe you feel that way because you think you know it all...

No, I don't think that. I obviously strongly believe the things that I've said I believe, but it's not as if we've talked about all things. I don't know it all.

Doesn't seem that way to me... You have said to him:

• "It's clear that you will go to any length to avoid the clear context of Revelation 3:3..."
• "You are the one with the problem, not me..."
• "All you have done is proven that you are stubborn and not willing to acknowledge..."
• "You should know better by now to make a claim like this to me without backing it up..."

...and some other things like that. I mean, come on, SI. These things are not "terrible," but surely you see the lack of grace in those kinds of statements.

He can handle being talked to that way, PinSeeker. Or else he wouldn't talk to me that way as well. Notice that I wouldn't say "You are the one with the problem" unless he told me I was the one with the problem. If someone talks that way to me, then that tells me that's just the way they like to talk, so they certainly shouldn't be offended if I talk the same way they do.

And he deserves credit for that.

Yes, he is not nearly as sensitive as you, apparently.

If he wants to call you on it, then certainly he can do that... or not.

Of course. He can certainly use his God given free will to do that. And, if he does, I will honor that and adjust the way I'm talking to him.

Now, are you saying that in all humility...? <chuckles>

I wasn't talking about myself, so it had nothing to do with saying it in humility. I was pointing out how you think of yourself as the Internet Police. You think you have to be everyone's parent and correct everyone's behavior. But, that isn't the case. No one is looking for that from you.

Grace and peace to you.

And to you. And to all other people as well.

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

Calvinist Translation of Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people, but purposely ensures that some people don't even have the ability and the opportunity to accept said disingenuous offer.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let’s say the church at Sardis didn’t watch. The promise that He would come on them as a thief would get fulfilled in the first century. If that happened I would call that fulfillment a type of coming, specifically coming as a thief.

Yep. But, that was conditional, which you keep denying. If they did repent and watch, then He would not have come to them as a thief and there's nothing to indicate that He would have come to them at all. You add the idea that He would come to them either way, but that idea is not found in the text. You seem to agree that Revelation 3:3 refers to a type of coming, namely coming as a thief. Why do you think that this type of coming can only happen once and only can happen in a global sense?

Why wouldn’t what happened in 70AD be considered this type of coming, a “coming as a thief”?

Because scripture never describes it as such. What happened in 70 AD was a coming of the Father, not a coming of the Son, as the following parable indicates:

Luke 20:9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. 13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “God forbid!”

So, in this parable, the owner of the vineyard represents God the Father and his son represents Jesus, but some of the tenants he entrusted his vineyard to (the Jews) killed his son. The question is asked what the owner of the vineyard would do to the tenants who killed his son. Which means the question is in relation to what would God the Father do to the people who killed His Son, Jesus? It says "He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others". Who will come and kill those tenants? The owner of the vineyard, which represents God the Father.

 

[grafted branch]

Yep. But, that was conditional, which you keep denying. If they did repent and watch, then He would not have come to them as a thief and there's nothing to indicate that He would have come to them at all. You add the idea that He would come to them either way, but that idea is not found in the text. You seem to agree that Revelation 3:3 refers to a type of coming, namely coming as a thief. Why do you think that this type of coming can only happen once and only can happen in a global sense?

I agreed to disagree on the 70AD coming topic which I see in the church at Sardis coming as a thief warning and you don’t. I gave you the last word on this and I would prefer to leave it at that. I’m not willing to go any farther on this particular topic as I believe you are using compromised hermeneutics to make and support your claims.

I am willing to go forward with a discussion about the hermeneutics or basic principles themselves that should be accepted or rejected when studying the Bible. I’ve looked at our recent discussion and I think I can clearly support the idea that the Revelation 20 millennium is still future based on the very principles you’re using to support your beliefs about the seven churches.

Ok, Im making the following claims based on your principles which I personally think are incorrect, here we go …

The church at Sardis is a foreshadow of the Revelation 20 future millennium. Just as Sardis was a special case so is the future millennium. The first resurrection in Revelation is only for the future millennium and has nothing to do with any other resurrections. Obviously Christ is already resurrected but we can’t simply use words like cloud in Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:29-31 to think they are about the same event, so too we can’t use the word resurrection in this manner.

Note regarding the commentary above by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: If you don't read that one carefully you might think they are associating Revelation 3:3 with the parousia of Christ, but they are not. Notice at the beginning that they indicate it's about a special judgment of that particular church which is similar to the judgment that will occur at His parousia. So, they are contrasting His coming as a thief in Revelation 3:3 with the parousia. And notice they also mention "His coming in special judgments on churches and states". So, they are saying He can come in judgment in different ways than just how He will come at His parousia.

The same hermeneutics applied to the millennium based on the comment above …



Note regarding the commentary above by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: If you don't read that one carefully you might think they are associating Revelation 20:5-6 with the resurrection of Christ, but they are not. Notice at the beginning that they indicate it's about a special thousand years of those particular beheaded which is similar to the resurrection that occurred at His first coming. So, they are contrasting the resurrection in Revelation 20:5-6 with His resurrection. And notice they also mention "His coming in special judgments on churches and states". So, carrying this principle over to the millennium, they are saying He can resurrect in different ways than just how He was resurrected at His first coming.

Again I want to reiterate that what I said above is not my position but I’m arguing using the same principles being used to discredit a 70AD coming.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agreed to disagree on the 70AD coming topic which I see in the church at Sardis coming as a thief warning and you don’t. I gave you the last word on this and I would prefer to leave it at that. I’m not willing to go any farther on this particular topic as I believe you are using compromised hermeneutics to make and support your claims.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Not sure what else either of us could say about it that we haven't already said, anyway.

I'm also fine with you thinking that I'm using compromised hermeneutics, even though I completely disagree.

What I'm not fine with is you falsely claiming that I've changed my hermeneutics recently. I absolutely have not done that. So, that perception has to be due to you not fully understanding my hermeneutics before.

I am willing to go forward with a discussion about the hermeneutics or basic principles themselves that should be accepted or rejected when studying the Bible. I’ve looked at our recent discussion and I think I can clearly support the idea that the Revelation 20 millennium is still future based on the very principles you’re using to support your beliefs about the seven churches.

Ok, Im making the following claims based on your principles

The problem here is that it's very clear to me that your understanding of my principles is not accurate. So, most likely, whatever follows this will be an argument against a straw man, but we'll see.

which I personally think are incorrect, here we go …

The church at Sardis is a foreshadow of the Revelation 20 future millennium. Just as Sardis was a special case so is the future millennium. The first resurrection in Revelation is only for the future millennium and has nothing to do with any other resurrections. Obviously Christ is already resurrected but we can’t simply use words like cloud in Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:29-31 to think they are about the same event, so too we can’t use the word resurrection in this manner.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand what you said here. Please clarify what you're saying here. Or don't. Maybe this isn't worth it and it's just not possible for us to understand each other. It's up to you.

The same hermeneutics applied to the millennium based on the comment above …

Note regarding the commentary above by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown: If you don't read that one carefully you might think they are associating Revelation 20:5-6 with the resurrection of Christ, but they are not. Notice at the beginning that they indicate it's about a special thousand years of those particular beheaded which is similar to the resurrection that occurred at His first coming. So, they are contrasting the resurrection in Revelation 20:5-6 with His resurrection. And notice they also mention "His coming in special judgments on churches and states". So, carrying this principle over to the millennium, they are saying He can resurrect in different ways than just how He was resurrected at His first coming.

Again I want to reiterate that what I said above is not my position but I’m arguing using the same principles being used to discredit a 70AD coming.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Go ahead and try to clarify it if you want. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree and move on.