Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I’m showing you that by allowing a “special situation” for the church at Sardis you have to also allow for the possibility of special situations elsewhere. I used the millennium as an example of a special situation.
Okay....?
In what way? I couldn't understand what you were saying.
Yes.
You set the precedence for the possibility of “special cases” when you claimed the church at Sardis is a special case.
Sure.
There are no rules about it. They just obviously exist. It's clear to me that Jesus coming as a thief in Revelation 3:3 is both conditional and local only to Sardis. That obviously has a different context to His coming as a thief described in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 because His coming as a thief that those passages refer to is unconditional and global.
I agree that it doesn't have to, but I obviously believe that it does. I'm assuming what you mean here is that the first resurrection referenced in Revelation 20 does not have to have been referenced anywhere else in scripture. So, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I believe it is.
We can use similar wording to determine that two verses or passages might relate to each other, but then we have to take a closer look at the context to see if they actually do or not. In terms of a first resurrection that results in Christ reigning, we have other scripture besides Revelation 20 which talks about a first resurrection in relation to His bodily resurrection after which He began to reign, so I believe Revelation 20 is about that.
I don’t know that last post looks like it does so I’m repeating what I said.
Are you trying to melt my brain? I truly don't know what in the world you are talking about here. Are we not discussing our personal beliefs and interpretations? I believe my beliefs and interpretations do have strong scriptural support. So, I just have no idea of what you're trying to get at here. None. You are extremely hard to follow sometimes.grafted branch said:
LOL. No, my view hasn't changed at all. By saying "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" I was simply saying those were two options. I was NOT saying there isn't strong scriptural support for one of those options while believing there was NOT strong scriptural support for the other. I was merely saying each option is technically possible, but I certainly believe strongly that one of the options has far more scriptural support than the other. Do you understand what I meant by that now? I am really getting exhausted trying to explain everything to you, so that you stop misunderstanding me. I'm not sure how much more of this I can take.grafted branch said:
Based on many of your past posts it appears that you definitely think the amount of scriptural support is extremely important, yet this principle gets abandoned when it comes to the “special case” applied to the church at Sardis. Obviously a special case is not a common case, so even declaring this would seem to be at least a partial change in your position on scriptural support. You can keep saying your view hasn’t changed but your principles about scriptural support sure seem to be to me.
If the “special case” has no rules, they just exist, then no view can be eliminated based on lack of scriptural support, everyone can claim a special case.
I think you're over-thinking this, GB. We are all to be watchful and wary at all times. In the same sense, really, as:
Fair enough. But we are. :) I'm not sure if that subject has ever been broached on this board... ;)
Right; good; and this is what John is describing in Revelation 20:4-6.
Maybe I am overthinking this but it still doesn’t make sense.
It can be important, but, clearly, there are exceptions to these rules that we create. Which you call "special cases". Do you not believe there can ever be exceptions to your rules? I haven't changed any of my interpretations since before I supposedly abandoned my principles, so what does that tell you? It's just a coincidence that supposedly changing my principles didn't also result in me changing any of my interpretations? You clearly didn't understand how I interpret scripture before and you needed to be corrected. Can you acknowledge that or are you going to foolishly keep trying to tell me that I've abandoned my principles?
It's not. I always allowed for that. Just because you somehow weren't aware of that isn't my fault.
They haven't. Why can't you give me the benefit of the doubt and accept that? Do you think maybe I have a better understanding of how I interpret scripture than you do? Why do you think you can read my mind? You're not me. Don't tell me what I believe or how I interpret scripture. I'll tell you. And I'm telling you that it hasn't changed. If you think I'm lying then stop talking to me.
Repeat that to yourself at least 10 times so that it sinks in.
It's worth nothing because you're wrong.
Do you understand that we're all giving our opinions and interpretations here rather than stating facts (for the most part, at least)? Just because I might say that another view is possible, doesn't mean I don't also believe that the possibility is very slight and highly unlikely.
Possible, but very highly unlikely. In my mind I feel like it's impossible, but at the same time I can't prove it the same way I can prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
What is the point of these questions? Technically, the answer to your question is yes, but I also believe it is extremely highly unlikely. We're sharing beliefs here, not facts. Do some beliefs have much more scriptural support than others? Of course. But, context matters greatly, also. The context of Revelation 3:3, for example, tells me it can't be the same event as 1 Thess 5:2-3 or 2 Peter 3:10-12. Is there something hard to understand about that?
Now, this one makes no sense. In this case the text is very clear and straightforward and doesn't allow for multiple interpretations. This is more of a case of saying 1 + 1 = 2 by saying that it's a fact that Satan will be loosed from the pit AFTER the millennium is finished.
You're being ridiculous. I explained what I meant by that and you are ignoring my explanation. If you're going to insist on being rude and immature like this, then I have no interest in continuing this discussion.
Well 1 Peter 5:8 says Satan walks about as a roaring lion. This is a special case where he was let loose just after the millennium began, but he got put back in. It’s a special case so there are no rules and these things are just there.
Nope. What I have done, Spiritual Israelite ~ and yes, many times ~ is taken what you have said and carried it out to its logical end, thus making clear the full impact ~ if carried out ~ of what you have said. And those things I think you disagree with, meaning, basically, you're like, "Okay, that's not what I intend." I've just basically made clear the full implications of what you have said, and you can't really avoid those implications, unless you change what you actually said. :) You don't like that, and I certainly understand that, but it is what it is.
Hmm, well, I think there is, but there is no need for the discussion to have at any point gone... sideways... :) I have tried very hard to keep that from happening... :)
...in your opinion. You're putting words into his mouth, Spiritual Israelite. And mine. Based on your opinions.
Right, wrongly, as I demonstrated at least twice. Perfect example.
Or implicitly. Yes, I deny that. It's a false allegation. Not intentionally so, but it is what it is.
Saying 'no' does not indicate offense. And you haven't really "pointed out" anything along these lines, but rather only false implications, based on your own beliefs. I've been very patient with you, SI. Exceedingly so, I think. :)
Okay, well, I don't care. :)
No, I looked back at some past posts and saw "silly" in one of them, and that's what I was addressing.
As for "stupid," I would need you to point out the post where I said that. Maybe I did; I'd... kinda like to know... but I'm not sure if there's any point in pursuing this, really, If I said anything you said ~ or you personally ~ was/were stupid, then I deeply apologize and ask your forgiveness. But I don't think I did; I don't remember having done anything of the sort, and have actually tried on several occasions to avoid giving you any perception of my doing so.
And I have said, many, many times now, that, woodenly speaking, anyone can do anything, but whether or not they will is the issue, and that depends on their nature, their heart at any given time. It's not that the natural man can't do anything to please God, but rather that he will not. And that is because, yes, from birth, his nature, his heart being what it is will always compel him to do, of his own will and accord, the will of his father, the devil. This is the natural human condition, from birth, of man.
In your mind. :)
Spiritual Isrealite. Dear Lord... :)
I'm sure he can. :) But If I feel like calling you or anyone else here on something, I will. :) If that bothers you, well, I'm not concerned about that. :)
Seems to me he hasn't. But if he has, well, he deserves a little exhortation to do otherwise as well. There is just no need for any of that; Jesus said so... :) And Paul... :) And James... :) And that's not an exhaustive list... :)
He said, Spiritual Israelite, basically, "the problem with that line of thinking." Probably not in those exact words, but I feel pretty sure that was the clear implication, as opposed to your... well, inappropriate response, which was basically "you have the problem," or even "you are the problem." Surely you see the difference. Hey, I have an idea. You don't even have to tell anyone that they're right. Just say, "You know, hey, I didn't mean that. I'm sorry." I mean yeah, in one sense, that is kind of a hard thing to do. But in another sense, no, it's really not hard at all. :)
Their being offended is not really the issue, is it, SI?
<chuckles> Sigh. :)
Ah, so how you are treated determines how you treat them... This has been my point, and, well, see, thaaaat's kind of a problem. :) But not mine, per se... :)
<eye roll> Get over yourself, SI. :)
I would submit that those not watching, GB, probably don't have an "eschatological view"... :)
Some might do good ~ and even really good ~ things, but whether they are actually producing the fruit of the Spirit is... questionable.
Maybe will be, rather than "are"... And in saying that, I'm commenting what may actually be their current spiritual state.
Well, right, we don't see people's hearts as God does. This is what we call Christ's invisible church. But Jesus does say that we will recognize "good" and "bad trees" by their fruit... And Paul is very clear on what the fruit of the Spirit is in Galatians 5:22-23.
Because He hasn't yet returned... :) Even for those long deceased, Grafted Branch, Christ's return at the end of the age will be unexpected, at least in the sense that it will be very sudden. They are awaiting Christ's return just as we are.
LOL. What do you think you are accomplishing by posting nonsense like this?
LOL. Yes, only I have misrepresented your beliefs. You haven't misrepresented mine at all because you somehow know what I believe better than I do. LOL. My goodness, PinSeeker, you have no self awareness whatsoever.
You would know a lot about making false allegations having made them several time regarding my beliefs. Yes, you are definitely an expert on that topic.
However patient you think you've been with me, I've been equally as patient or more with you. You ooze arrogance. You apparently think you are incapable of misunderstanding and misrepresenting my beliefs, even unintentionally! I can't fathom how arrogant you must be to believe that.
Now, no matter what you might think of me (I couldn't care less), do I come across to you as a liar? I might say things that aren't true from your perspective, but do you think I purposely say things that aren't true, which is otherwise known as lying? If that's what you think of me, I can't imagine why you would even want to talk to me at all.
What is this "woodenly speaking" stuff? It's meaningless. No, in your view a non-elect person CANNOT believe no matter what they do because you think that a person only believes if God gives them faith. Why can't you be honest about this? You should be better than this. You try to come across as this smiley person who has it all together and is the one who has to correct everyone else's behavior, but then you are often dishonest like this. I don't know who you think you're fooling.
No matter what you think of what I say, I feel the same way towards the things you say. Just know that.
It's not to me at all. But, maybe it is to the straw man that you often are talking to instead of me.
None of that takes into account man's responsibility and whether or not we are predestined based on God's foreknowledge of what we would do.
It doesn't bother me if you do that when it actually calls for it. That's fine. But, if there is no reason for it...of course that would bother me and it would bother you if I did that to you as well. Since, you know, we are human beings and all. But I share your lack of concern about that when it comes to whether or not it bothers you if I do that.
You are obviously reading the discussion with the same type of bias that you use to read scripture. So be it.
The feeling is mutual. Sigh, indeed. I sigh after almost everything you say.
<Huge sigh and major eye roll> You, of all people, telling me to get over myself. Hilarious.
Hmm, so His coming as a thief happens to dead people who have no worldly possessions. I don’t know about that one, I’ll have to think about it.
I guess I’m trying to accomplish the same thing you were when you posted your nonsense about Sardis being a special case. We’re both showing everyone how ridiculous it is to claim no rule special cases exist in the scriptures.
What does that even mean? Does every word or phrase in scripture automatically mean the same thing every single time they are used? Is that what you're trying to say? If not, then what in the world ARE you trying to say?
I’m saying if you accept special cases as a way to fill in an area in your theology that may not be clear, then you have increased the number of unclear areas in your theology.
