Scripture Revelation That Many Throw Out About the Future 1,000 Years Reign by Christ

  • 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!

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
13,406
2,784
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Explain the first earth age in Genesis 1, and how the second earth age started in Genesis 2. You still don't make any sense on earth ages. Are we in the first or second earth age right now?

Anyone who actually reads... the Genesis 1 creation account ALONG WITH what Peter taught in 2 Peter 3 about the 3 different world earth ages, and with what God showed in the Jeremiah 4:23-28 Scripture, along with what Apostle Paul revealed about it in Romans 8:18-25, should... come to understand about the matter.

Yet by your line of questioning, you reveal you really don't know what in the world you are talking about. But I do understand the matter, as God has shown me, as also with many other believers on Him and His Son Jesus Christ. I certainly am not alone with that understanding. And there's plenty of YouTube preachers pointing to it also, it's just that most don't even know about the Scripture evidence in God's Word, when it ought to be simple to understand...

1. "the world that then was" - 2 Peter 3:5-6
2. "the heavens and the earth, which are now" - 2 Peter 3:7
3. "new heavens and a new earth" - 2 Peter 3:13

1. 2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For
this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
KJV

Breaking the above verse down to its subject and objects...

"by the word of God the heavens were of old" = the event of Genesis 1:1 when God SPOKE and His creation came into existence. That was a PERFECT earth, a time BEFORE Lucifer rebelled against Him, as God revealed with using the "king of Tyrus" as a type for Lucifer before he rebelled. This original creation ended with the next Genesis 1:2 verse, as the earth covered with waters of a flood is how God ended Lucifer's original rebellion in that old world.

"the earth standing out of the water and in the water" = the Genesis 1:6-9 events with God taking a portion of the waters of Gen.1:2 that were overspread upon the whole earth, and moving that portion up to form today's sky atmosphere around the earth, called the "firmament" there. And then God moved another portion of the waters upon the earth to make the dry land appear, which is what Peter was describing with the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" = not the flood of Noah's day. Because Peter said those not wanting to understand this "willingly are ignorant" of it. So ask yourself, were the children of Israel once God sent Moses and he wrote the first five Books of The Old Testament, didn't they know about the flood of Noah's day?? Yes, they did, for it was written in God's Word. And what about those today who attend Church and Sunday School, is the flood of Noah's day not taught?

How then can anyone claim... that Peter was pointing to the flood of Noah's day, when he said instead those who don't understand about that ancient flood which God used to end that first world earth age, they are "willingly ignorant" of?
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Right, well, we don't know how many, of course, only that it's an innumerable multitude. But... not everyone. So, yes, because it's true. <smile>


You do understand that the very definition of 'remnant' is less than the whole, right? God has preserved for Himself a remnant of the whole of humanity. Goodness gracious:
  • "In that day the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no more lean on him who struck them, but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return." (Isaiah 10)
  • “Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by Me from before your birth, carried from the womb; even to your old age I am He, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save." (Isaiah 46)
  • “'Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!' declares the Lord. Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: 'You have scattered My flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord. Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 23)
  • "Then the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples like dew from the Lord, like showers on the grass, which delay not for a man nor wait for the children of man. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and there is none to deliver." (Micah 5)
  • "Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the Potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? ...in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed He says in Hosea, 'Those who were not My people I will call "My people," and her who was not beloved I will call "beloved.” And in the very place where it was said to them, "You are not My people," there they will be called "sons of the living God.”' And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out His sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.'” (Romans 9)
  • "And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, 'Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for His Name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, Who makes these things known from of old."'" (Acts 15)
Not an exhaustive list, by any means, but this should be sufficient...


Well sure. Everyone makes a choice. No one denies that. The heart, the spirit, is the issue, as I have repeatedly said.


God does not "force" anything. We know we are elect because of our faith ~ the assurance of God, conviction by the Spirit (Hebrews 11:1), which we have as a direct result of our having been born again of the Spirit, our having been given a new spirit by God. This is why we are then able to, yes, choose wisely, and then on an ongoing basis "make our calling and election sure"... "because God is at work in us so that we then will and work according to His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).


And that would be... Jesus, and His atonement. <smile> In that sense ~ but that sense only ~ Jesus's atonement was/is unlimited. But there is, of course a different sense, in which His atonement was/is limited. As I have said. No one deserves, and not everyone receives, God's salvific grace (unmerited favor).


Absolutely not. See above. Ah, well, in this sense... in the sense of Joel 2:32... that only the elect are called by God. Joel quotes God Himself as saying, "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls." Again, Paul says in Romans 9 of the elect that God "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."


Because they are elect, and because they have been born again of the Spirit and have this new spirit that has been given to them. What God does in this case, Timtofly, is He sets us free to do so, to do His will. He has to do this, because previous to being born again of the Spirit, we are slaves to unrighteousness (Romans 5), in complete bondage to sin, and our will is ~ was, thank God, for those of us who have been born again ~ to do the will of our father the devil (John 8).


Right. Agreed.


Disagreed. <smile> At the final Judgment, the time to do this will have passed.


We serve God because we have been elected" ~ are members of God's elect ~ who have been born again of the Spirit and thus are, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:10, "(God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."


Absolutely. God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).


Those who are elect of God will not do that.

Grace and peace to you.
You do understand that the plan God had for Israel is not a blanket view of the entire range of Adam's offspring?

That some of Israel were a remnant applied to Israel, not a remnant of Egypt, a remnant of Rome, nor a remnant of current nations.

Saying your verses apply to mankind as a whole is not a proper interpretation, and hardly applies to redemption as a whole.

All of Adam's offspring are considered God's elect until the time comes when that election is taken away, and most removed from the Lamb's book of life.

Being born again of the second spiritual birth cements that election, which cannot be taken away after that point. Those of the second birth are who you call the elect. Scripture just calls them sons of God. 1 John 3:2

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

The GWT is not when people are declared elect. The GWT is when they stand as the dead, and removed from the Lamb's book of life, or given eternal life and pronounced sons of God. Their election is confirmed or the point God never knew them, happens.
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God does not "force" anything. We are elect because of our choice, which is the direct result of our having been born again of the Spirit, our having been given a new spirit by God.
We are elected, because Jesus died on the Cross and from God's perspective, that was before creation. We always had a relationship from God.

The second birth makes our election sure and gives God a relationship from us.

You are the one making claims, God forces an elect few to become elect. You again state election starts when we make a choice, as instituted by God's Holy Spirit.

My claim is election was true for all humanity from before creation. The choice we make at some point in our existence, is to make that election sure and binding, never to be revoked. And yes, many dead at the GWT, after being dead in death for thousands of years will make that choice, just like you have, and make their election sure and binding, never to be revoked.
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Uh, oh... you just LIED against what Lord Jesus Himself said!

John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
KJV


When is that resurrection to occur?

John 6:39-40
39 And this is the Father's will Which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of Him That sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
KJV
Are you calling Jesus and Matthew a liar because the OT redeemed were resurrected on that last day when Jesus died on the Cross? Matthew 27:50-52

"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,"

Revelation 20:4-6 according to you calls John a liar, because not all were resurrected on the same "last day".

There has been almost 2,000 years between the OT resurrection and the resurrection of those beheaded. Another thousand years will happen before another resurrection happens.

You are conflating two references and twisting the words of Jesus.

Both passages are true, and you have yet to point out one sentence in my post where I lied.

Your big font false accusation is you bearing false witness.
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Anyone who actually reads... the Genesis 1 creation account ALONG WITH what Peter taught in 2 Peter 3 about the 3 different world earth ages, and with what God showed in the Jeremiah 4:23-28 Scripture, along with what Apostle Paul revealed about it in Romans 8:18-25, should... come to understand about the matter.

Yet by your line of questioning, you reveal you really don't know what in the world you are talking about. But I do understand the matter, as God has shown me, as also with many other believers on Him and His Son Jesus Christ. I certainly am not alone with that understanding. And there's plenty of YouTube preachers pointing to it also, it's just that most don't even know about the Scripture evidence in God's Word, when it ought to be simple to understand...

1. "the world that then was" - 2 Peter 3:5-6
2. "the heavens and the earth, which are now" - 2 Peter 3:7
3. "new heavens and a new earth" - 2 Peter 3:13

1. 2 Peter 3:5-6
5 For
this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
KJV

Breaking the above verse down to its subject and objects...

"by the word of God the heavens were of old" = the event of Genesis 1:1 when God SPOKE and His creation came into existence. That was a PERFECT earth, a time BEFORE Lucifer rebelled against Him, as God revealed with using the "king of Tyrus" as a type for Lucifer before he rebelled. This original creation ended with the next Genesis 1:2 verse, as the earth covered with waters of a flood is how God ended Lucifer's original rebellion in that old world.

"the earth standing out of the water and in the water" = the Genesis 1:6-9 events with God taking a portion of the waters of Gen.1:2 that were overspread upon the whole earth, and moving that portion up to form today's sky atmosphere around the earth, called the "firmament" there. And then God moved another portion of the waters upon the earth to make the dry land appear, which is what Peter was describing with the earth standing out of the water and in the water.

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" = not the flood of Noah's day. Because Peter said those not wanting to understand this "willingly are ignorant" of it. So ask yourself, were the children of Israel once God sent Moses and he wrote the first five Books of The Old Testament, didn't they know about the flood of Noah's day?? Yes, they did, for it was written in God's Word. And what about those today who attend Church and Sunday School, is the flood of Noah's day not taught?

How then can anyone claim... that Peter was pointing to the flood of Noah's day, when he said instead those who don't understand about that ancient flood which God used to end that first world earth age, they are "willingly ignorant" of?
The gap theory of two ages in Genesis 1:1 is a false human concoction. Hundreds of u-tubers are just plain wrong.

Peter was talking about the Flood.

There was a world age before the Flood, and the new one after the Flood, when the former earth was destroyed. Noah did not live during Genesis 1:1. Read 2 Peter 2:5

"And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

The earth was only destroyed once by water.

Forcing this destruction into Genesis 1:1 is wrong and blatenly confusing what God has actually done in this creation.

You are part of those moving the destruction and saying:

"for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

No change, not even at the Flood.

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"

Peter was talking about the Flood, Noah survived, not some made up event in Genesis 1:1 God never gave us in His Word.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,691
4,414
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The gap theory of two ages in Genesis 1:1 is a false human concoction. Hundreds of u-tubers are just plain wrong.

Peter was talking about the Flood.
Wow, we actually agree on something. Miracles do happen. Clearly, in 2 Peter 3:6-7, Peter was comparing the future global destruction event by fire to a past global destruction event by water. What other event could he have been referring to except for the flood in Noah's day, right? Jesus also compared the day of His second coming to the flood in Noah's day.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


What Jesus talked about here matches up perfectly with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:6-7.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They made a choice to be faithful to God...
Right, after the point that God gives them a new spirit. Otherwise, they would have never done so.

...not that God forced a remnant to serve Him.
God doesn't force anybody to do anything.

You do understand that the plan God had for Israel is not a blanket view of the entire range of Adam's offspring?
God's Israel is not made up of all humanity, no. If that's what you're saying, then we're in agreement on that... but I really can't make out what you're really saying, to be quite honest.... In addition to that, though, not all Jewish people are of God's Israel either; "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Romans 9:6). So, not all Gentiles, and not all Jews, but... it's made up of Jews and Gentiles... these together are God's elect, together true Jews... "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical... a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" (Romans 2:28-29)
That some of Israel were a remnant applied to Israel, not a remnant of Egypt, a remnant of Rome, nor a remnant of current nations.
I think you have a misunderstanding of who Israel really is, Timtofly. It's a common problem. Physical Israel and God's true Israel are two different things, although many of physical Israel ~ ethnic Jews ~ are or will be part of God's Israel, which again, is synonymous with God's elect.

Saying your verses apply to mankind as a whole is not a proper interpretation...
Didn't say that, nor would I. But saying all of humanity is elect of God is absolutely wrong. The Bible ~ Paul, in particular ~ is very clear about who God's elect, His Israel, are.

, and hardly applies to redemption as a whole.
Again, I can't follow your... thoughts. <chuckles>

All of Adam's offspring are considered God's elect until the time comes when that election is taken away, and most removed from the Lamb's book of life.
So, support this with Scripture, Timtofly. If you can. Or rather, if you think you can.

Being born again of the second spiritual birth cements that election, which cannot be taken away after that point.
That's when it manifests itself in the individual, yes. And, yes, "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29).

Those of the second birth are who you call the elect. Scripture just calls them sons of God. 1 John 3:2
Correct. Agree. But there are still folks out there who are elect, but it hasn't manifest itself in them yet... they haven't yet been born again... But they will be. We don't know who they are, of course, and they don't know it yet themselves. But they will be.

The GWT is not when people are declared elect.
Of course not. I'm not even sure why you might have felt compelled to say that, or think saying that even necessary.

The GWT is when they stand as the dead...
All stand before Christ at the final Judgment ~ as we see graphically from Jesus Himself in Matthew 25:31-46.

...and removed from the Lamb's book of life,
No one is removed. Again, I would be interested in knowing how you back this up with anything in the Bible. Presumably you're referring to Revelation 20:11-15, but no one is removed from the Book of Life. There are those whose name is "not found there," but I hope you're not "understanding" that to mean that any name was removed.

Their election is confirmed or the point God never knew them, happens.
The elect ~ the ones on Jesus's right in the final Judgment ~ those in Christ, stand in the judgment (Psalm 1). The others... yes, the dead, or the wicked ~ the ones on Jesus's left in the final Judgment ~ will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, will not stand in the final Judgement. They will depart... they will not enter into the New Heaven and New Earth. They will go away, for eternity, into judgment.


We are elected, because Jesus died on the Cross and from God's perspective, that was before creation.
That's kind of a strange way to put it, but okay. <smile> God is always present at all times. He is the great I AM. Time is a part of His creation, and He is over all creation. Kind of hard to wrap our finite minds around, but true.

We always had a relationship from God.
Well, we always had a relationship to God, yes. Creator to creature/created... that will always be. We were all originally, naturally at enmity with God, but only God's elect enter into a personal relationship with God ~ Jesus, of course ~ and only when they are born again of the Spirit.

"Always had a relationship from God"... Again, I'm not sure what that even means. Maybe that God set all of us in place in relation to Him, but I mean... You say some peculiar things... or maybe it's just how you say things... I don't know. <chuckles>

The second birth makes our election sure...
Is when it ~ our election ~ manifests itself in us. If that's what you mean, then yes, that's correct.

and gives God a relationship from us.
Strange. I'm not sure whether to call that a strange thought or just a strange choice of words.

You are the one making claims
Well, I give my understanding of relevant passages in the Bible. If that's what you mean by "making claims," then okay... I guess...

God forces an elect few to become elect.
Now, are you saying this? Or are you saying that I'm saying this? Either way, it's just absurd. God chose who he chose, before the foundation of the world... elected whom He elected before any were born or had done anything good or bad. And, at some point in their lives, that election is made manifest in them, when they are born again of the Spiritand thus saved through faith, which is God's grace ~ and their being conformed to the image of Christ, which they had been predestined to, begins.

You again state election starts when we make a choice...
Nope. I say that our election manifests itself in us at the point we are born again of the Spirit. And then we indeed make the choice, the right one, because of the new spirit in us given to us by God.

My claim is election was true for all humanity from before creation.
I know. <smile> In the sense that many were elect and many were not from before creation, I agree. <smile>

The choice we make at some point in our existence, is to make that election sure and binding, never to be revoked.
If you mean that in the sense of our election, which is really from before creation itself, manifests itself in us at that point, then I agree.

And yes, many dead at the GWT, after being dead in death for thousands of years will make that choice...
They will not, unfortunately. Again, I would like to know if this is just a thought you have, or if you have some kind of something from God's Word that you think supports this.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Paul was NOT talking about individual election to salvation there. He was NOT referring to Jacob being elected to salvation and Esau not being elected to salvation.
He was. We have been over this many times, and you know where I stand on it, and I know where you stand. But yeah, bring it up yet again...

It also is not talking about God literally loving Jacob and hating Esau. It refers to God blessing Jacob more than Esau. The word "hate" is used in a relative sense there similar to how Jesus said we should hate our family members in order to be His disciple (Luke 14:26) which means we should love Him more than our family members to be worthy of Him (Matt 10:37).
I agree. But what you said before, that "Oh, God is a God of love," seemed to fly in the face of this. And in the context of what we were talking about there, it does. So, I agree with what you're saying here, but it still falls short, really. This love and this hate that Paul is talking about in Romans 9 ~ and the same is true of what Jesus says in Matthew 10 ~ is a choosing, a distinction being made by one ~ God, in Paul's context in Romans 9... us, in Jesus's context in Matthew 10 ~ concerning who to make the true object of his or her true affection. In other words, the one doing that choosing, making that distinction, sets his or her true love on one and not the other:
  • in God's case, His elect, those who He has mercy and compassion on, according to his will, and not others (Romans 9)
  • in our case, Jesus, as opposed to even our family members.
And to my point about 'love' and 'hate,' this hate is not a literal "detesting" or a "casting aside" or even a not caring or indifference toward those others. Not caring, indifference, complete disregard... those things are the opposite of love. God is never indifferent toward anyone, giving grace to all, never ceases to care about, or have great regard for, or even love those not among His elect.

So, your whole argument about God being love and therefore not hating ~ in the context of Romans 9 ~ is... well, just misguided. Again, God loves all His creation. But, in your own context regarding hate itself. with regard to God, He loves His elect with a much higher... salvific... love. He loves all others, too, but not salvifically. And this is His sovereign choice. Who are we to answer back to God? His thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are our ways His ways... as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways.

Read the OT text that Paul was referring to in order to see the context of what he was talking about there in Romans 9.
I'm well aware of Genesis 25. And in the same context as Romans 9, God is talking about who will be among His elect and who will not; the nations, SI, are either descended from Jacob or from Esau, so either elect as Jacob was or not elect as Esau was. I'm also very familiar with the passage in the Old Testament Paul is referring directly to in his potter and clay metaphor regarding the elect, or vessels created for honorable use (His elect) or for dishonorable use (those vessels of wrath, not among His elect) ~ Isaiah 64 and Jeremiah 18. I have to say that I do agree it's about nations, but Paul breaks it further down in verses 22-24 and talks about vessels (plural) for honorable use and vessels for dishonorable use. These are individuals, SI. You can deny it 'til the cows come home, but... well... it is what it is. But again, we've discussed this several times before.

Once again you have misinterpreted scripture. No, God did not literally hate Esau.
God said he hated Esau. "Esau have I hated." So He did literally hate Esau. And so hates in the same way all of those not included among His elect. The "oops" is your understanding ~ misunderstanding, actually ~ of this 'hate,' as I said above. And... round and round we go again. And again, and again, and again. You can't escape it, SI. I can't either. No one can.

In your view, the only ones eligible are the ones that God chooses to have faith.
That's just how you contort what I say, SI. You turn it into something very different that what I have very clearly said in many ways.

I have said many times that I believe man has free will and must choose to repent and believe or not.
Yes, I know, and I have said many times that I absolutely agree with this. The issue is not just this statement, taken at face value, or any like it.


So, God gives mercy to those who choose to repent and believe.
This is the real issue. You're saying ~ in effect ~ that God's mercy, His giving of this mercy and compassion...

which you agree is according to His will; you cannot disagree with that, as that's literally what God Himself says, that "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion," and Paul goes on to say "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills"​

...DEPENDS on people's choice to repent and believe. And that is absolutely opposite what Paul says in Romans 9:16; being among God's elect "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy."

You think God just give mercy to some for no discernible reason and does not give mercy to the rest.
I have said over and over and over again that everything God does is for His own glory. And Paul says that about God's giving this mercy and compassion to His elect and not to others, phrasing it in the form of a question: "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

And there it is again... individuals... Paul says He has done this for "even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

...I have explained how to reconcile the two.
Poorly. <smile>

You say there is a reconciliation of the two and then proceed to give no explanation for what it is.
Because I have explained several times before. I was just saying you have to do something with that.

He never trumps His own desires as you are trying to claim here.
Hmmm, well, here again, this begs the question why, if He never "trumps" His own desires, then why isn't everyone saved?

And, what is His reason for having mercy on some and not having mercy on the rest?
Again? See above...

You think that's something that is just unknown?
No. See above.

I showed you scripture above indicating that He has mercy on those who put their trust in Him, who fear Him, who forsake their sins and who are merciful to others.
Yes, but His mercy does not depend on them. Rather, them putting their trust in Him, their fearing Him, their forsaking their sins and their mercifulness to others depends first on His having mercy/compassion on Him.

You say it depends on the sense in which I meant that as if you don't know the sense in which I meant that...
No, I know very well the sense in which you meant that, and a host of other things. That's kind of the problem... <smile>

It is enough.

Grace and peace to you.
 
Last edited:

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,691
4,414
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He was. We have been over this many times, and you know where I stand on it, and I know where you stand. But yeah, bring it up yet again...
It goes both ways. You say I repeat things, but, of course, so do you. And you just continue to point that out after every comment I make. I have finally grown completely tired of it, so I'm done with this discussion. God bless.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
13,406
2,784
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Are you calling Jesus and Matthew a liar because the OT redeemed were resurrected on that last day when Jesus died on the Cross? Matthew 27:50-52

YOU... are the one calling Lord Jesus a LIAR, because you reject that John 5:28-29 simple Scripture I showed you, which you well know is for the time of Jesus' future 2nd coming and gathering of His Church, and the proof of that is right there staring you IN THE FACE, because it is about the FUTURE resurrection that will only happen on the day of Jesus future coming.

And not only does that John 5:28-29 verse reveal Christ's FUTURE coming, but the John 6:40 verse I also showed you reveals Lord Jesus Himself claiming He will raise up all those who believe on Him at the LAST DAY, which means the very last day of this present world!

Those Scriptures are SO... EASY... that for you to DENY THEM means you cannot be an actual follower of Jesus Christ. It shows you are here instead to twist and create chaos, and more than likely are a follower of Judaism and NOT Christianity.
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wow, we actually agree on something. Miracles do happen.
We agree on more things, probably, than we disagree on.

I am curious though, why you accept a new heavens and earth at the time of the Flood with life after and not a new heavens and earth after the destruction of fire (Second Coming), with life after.

Peter was comparing the two events as similar in nature.

At the end of the Day of the Lord, there will be an entirely different creation.

While we disagree on terminology, the term sons of God were humans living on the earth prior to the Flood. None of them alive on the earth survived the Flood, even though they had, in your terminology, immortal bodies. Having immortality was what made them different humans than Adam's offspring who had physical bodies of corruption and death. Adam's offspring were called the daughters of man in Genesis. This implies in Moses' day, folks reading what Moses wrote, understood that the sons of God were those created on the 6th Day, and Adam was one of them. But after Adam died both physically and spiritually, his offspring now had corruption instead of incorruption. Having immortality (your terminology) was already the norm up until the Flood. At that point God shortened humanity to 120 years.

In my opinion, I think that Noah's sons lived longer because they probably had genetics from both Adam and Eve (corruption) and the sons of God (incorruption).

Many believers look at redemption as some new phenomenon after the Cross. Redemption is simply being restored back to the human condition prior to sin and death that resulted from Adam's disobedience, and God's immediate punishment of both physical and spiritual death.

Adam's physical body had a distinct change from incorruption to corruption. That is a physical change from life to death, experienced by the soul. Adam's soul went from one body into another body, because there are two distinct bodies in the process. 2 Corinthians 5:1. What we call death is not just the cessation of one body. It is the removal of the soul from one body to another body. Amil can not accept nor even comprehend that change, as they think it can only happen at a singular hour in time. Enoch was translated even before the Flood from on body into the other.

"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

The term translation implies two distinct physical works of God. Today we use the term for books. Each book distinct in vocabulary, but containing the same meaning. The meaning represents the soul, the physical font representing the body.

Those before the Flood and some after the Flood understood that process. Theology, today has it so muddled with human notions, they cannot understand that all currently made alive in Paradise are already translated like Enoch was. And this was available immediately post the Cross. Prior to the moment Jesus said it is finished on the Cross, they waited in sheol in Abraham's bosom. Lazarus came out of the tomb in a different physical body, because his soul was translated that he should not see death. They thought his body would stink and be decayed. There was nothing wrong with his body. You think it was miraculously healed, and eventually died again. But Jesus just said a few verses before this translation of Lazarus, that Lazarus would never see death again. Lazarus was called out of sheol and his grave, and did not have to wait thousands of years for a future hour in time.

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"

If you claim Lazarus died again, you do not believe what Jesus said and promised. Lazarus was dead, and over 4 days dead. It was not your near death experience. Lazarus entered a new physical body just as easily as God changing the old. Lazarus was dead. Lazarus received the first resurrection into eternal life. Lazarus was made alive per 1 Corinthians 15. Lazarus was one of the firstfruits in Christ. In fact the very first firstfruit. This was a translation the same as those alive, at the Second Coming, out of one body into another like Enoch.

This was so upsetting to the religious theology of those Jewish leaders, that it was the catalyst to get rid of Jesus, lest all of them became sons of God and cause trouble to the Romans.

"If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."

They saw the miracle, yet did not believe. This was God forcing them to prepare for the Cross and redemption of mankind. Their undoing was the salvation of the entire world.

That did not mean those religious leaders were not elect, nor irredeemable. They could have still repented of their sins, and been redeemed like Lazarus. God using them for His purpose was not election or not being elected. Theology that uses those verses to prove election, are missing the entire point of those verses, and do not understand election and grace at all.
 

Timtofly

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2020
9,639
629
113
Mount Morris
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No one is removed. Again, I would be interested in knowing how you back this up with anything in the Bible. Presumably you're referring to Revelation 20:11-15, but no one is removed from the Book of Life. There are those whose name is "not found there," but I hope you're not "understanding" that to mean that any name was removed.
The only Scripture found talks about blotting or removing a name from the Lamb's book of life. There is not a single Scripture of God placing a name, a few names, or many names into a book.

If the common understanding throughout time was God removing names, then human theology has introduced the concept of God limiting whose name is/was written down.

Your theology that just a limited amount of names were written, cannot be backed up with God's Word.

Now you can say, well it is assumed because it reads like it is limited. If that is the case, why is God contradictory in His thoughts? 2 Peter 3:9

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Election is God doing His part and not willing that any should perish, but all (come to repentance). How can you assume, God is only talking about all in the Lamb's book of life, instead of all the offspring of Adam?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Your version reads:

"For God so loved those found in the Lamb's book of life, that he gave his only begotten Son, that only those found in the Lamb's book of life, should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Since you have failed to give any Scripture pointing out limited election, look up all the verses that talk about this Lamb's book of life implicit or explicit when it talks about eternal redemption and see how all are written there.

That verse in Revelation 13:8 is also misinterpreted by many.

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

The Lamb was slain from the foundation. Not that their name was missing from the foundation. This can imply that their names have been removed, and at the point they received the mark from God, showing they have been removed. Once one receives the mark, they belong to Satan, and no longer redeemable. But that does not apply to all of Adam's offspring from the Flood until today waiting in sheol. That only applies to those humans still alive in their natural body, after the Second Coming, and after they have received the mark from God, showing they have been removed and handed over to Satan's kingdom. The other choice is to be beheaded and leave Adam's dead corruptible flesh behind on the earth.

Those beheaded still have their name written in the Lamb's book of life, and are still the elect, but certainly not sons of God in Christ. They can only reign with Christ in physical bodies, not fully restored until some future not talked about restoration. They only are guaranteed they will not be placed into the LOF, the second death. But to get to that point, they have to have faith, to chop their head off, and hope for a future resurrection. That is not some symbolic wording. The physical act of physically dying is their only hope of redemption.

Do you think that God predetermined that many would be beheaded, or did those people procrastinate and failed to accept Salvation prior to the Second Coming?

Explain to me how they can be named, but then the only option is to be beheaded. That seems to force God into that position to me, following your line of logic. Why would God remove some instantly without pain, but make others have to choose between a mark or loosing their head physically? You seem to think that those who receive the mark were never in the Lamb's book of life to begin with, but those beheaded were named, they just got unlucky and had to miss the rapture.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The only Scripture found talks about blotting or removing a name from the Lamb's book of life.
Disagree.

There is not a single Scripture of God placing a name, a few names, or many names into a book.
One among many: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..." These are the ones whose name is in the Book of Life of Revelation 20. I'm quite sure you think differently, but the Book of Life itself is symbolic; it symbolizes that He knows his own sheep (John 10:3, 27), keeps them all, and loses none of them (John 6:39; John 10:28-29; cf. Revelation 13:8).

If the common understanding throughout time was God removing names...
It has not been.

Your theology that just a limited amount of names were written, cannot be backed up with God's Word.
God's elect are not everyone, but everyone He draws unto Himself, His remnant, which is less than the whole of humanity. I don't really know what your theology is, Timtofly; it's... kind of a mess. <smile>

Election is God doing His part and not willing that any should perish, but all (come to repentance).
That's His heart, not election. God's purpose of election is what it is; not everyone is elect, else everyone would be saved, and we know that not to be the case.

How can you assume, God is only talking about all in the Lamb's book of life, instead of all the offspring of Adam?
Because all humanity are the offspring of Adam, and only a few will be saved. These are the people whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life, which, again, is symbolic His knowing and keeping all of His people. This is God's purpose of election.

That verse in Revelation 13:8 is also misinterpreted by many.
And you are apparently one of them. See above.

The Lamb was slain from the foundation. Not that their name was missing from the foundation.
Neither one is the case. The Book of Life of the Lamb Who was slain is all one thing, Timtofly; the Author of the Book is the Lamb Who was Slain. And there are a number of people whose names were never in this Book (which, yet again, is symbolic; see above), even since before the foundation of the world, from all eternity.

Goodness gracious. It is enough. <smile> Wow.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.
 
Last edited:

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It goes both ways. You say I repeat things, but, of course, so do you.
Right, but my repeating is because of your repeating. <smile> And, you know, in saying that, I'm also talking about something much greater, and very applicable to everything we've been discussing here.

And you just continue to point that out after every comment I make.
Only the... bad... ones... <grin>

I have finally grown completely tired of it, so I'm done with this discussion.
Agreed. Fantastic!

God bless.
To you also, Spiritual Israelite. Really. In God's words given to Moses, who passed them on to Aaron, who passed them on to all the Israelites of old: "The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace." Grace and peace to you.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
13,406
2,784
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We agree on more things, probably, than we disagree on.

I am curious though, why you accept a new heavens and earth at the time of the Flood with life after and not a new heavens and earth after the destruction of fire (Second Coming), with life after.

Which "Flood"? The flood of Noah's day? Spiritual Israelite believes in the Amill theory which means rejection of Christ's future "thousand years" reign of Rev.20 that starts at Christ's future return. And the flood Apostle Peter was describing in 2 Peter 3 was not the flood of Noah's day, but the flood God used to destroy Lucifer's original rebellion. Noah wasn't around then.

Peter was comparing the two events as similar in nature.

At the end of the Day of the Lord, there will be an entirely different creation.

If you mean Christ's future "thousand years" reign that begins at His future return, yeah, after that thousand years is when God's new heavens and a new earth will happen. But it's not really going to be a completely new earth, but a renewal after man's works are burned off its surface at Christ's coming. Yet when Jesus returns God's River and the Tree of Life is also going to return, simply because those things are shown existing while the wicked are still here. Whereas, with God's new heavens and a new earth, the wicked will have gone in the lake of fire, and won't see the new heavens and new earth. Thus some... earth changes are scheduled to happen with Christ's future return, including the building of the Ezekiel 40 thru 47 sanctuary in the holy land, on earth.

While we disagree on terminology, the term sons of God were humans living on the earth prior to the Flood. None of them alive on the earth survived the Flood, even though they had, in your terminology, immortal bodies. Having immortality was what made them different humans than Adam's offspring who had physical bodies of corruption and death. Adam's offspring were called the daughters of man in Genesis. This implies in Moses' day, folks reading what Moses wrote, understood that the sons of God were those created on the 6th Day, and Adam was one of them. But after Adam died both physically and spiritually, his offspring now had corruption instead of incorruption. Having immortality (your terminology) was already the norm up until the Flood. At that point God shortened humanity to 120 years.

That sounds like a doctrine directly from occultists. Ever read the occult author of Theosophy named Helena Blavatsky? She wrote several occult books about different races on earth that existed prior to Adam, which of course is a load of pagan occult new age baloney.

There were NO flesh humans that existed prior to the man Adam, period.

And the "sons of God" phrase in The Old Testament Scriptures always... refers to angels.

So it's obvious what you are trying to do with your false post; you are actually pushing pagan ideology, whether you know it or not.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,691
4,414
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We agree on more things, probably, than we disagree on.
Not when it comes to end times scriptures. Based on things you've said, we disagree on a lot more things than we can agree on when it comes to that.

I am curious though, why you accept a new heavens and earth at the time of the Flood with life after and not a new heavens and earth after the destruction of fire (Second Coming), with life after.
Did you mean to say that the other way around? I don't claim that there was a new heavens and new earth at the time of the flood, I claim that the new heavens and new earth will come at the second coming of Christ.

Peter was comparing the two events as similar in nature.
Yes, that is a point that I have made myself many times.

At the end of the Day of the Lord, there will be an entirely different creation.
Not sure what you mean by that exactly. It will definitely be different, but I see it as the current heavens and earth being renewed or changed and not it being a case of the heavens and earth being annihilated and replaced by an entirely different heavens and earth. Not that this matters all that much. It will be very different for sure. But, I believe when it says the meek will inherit the earth it means they will inherit the earth forever. The renewed (new) earth.

While we disagree on terminology, the term sons of God were humans living on the earth prior to the Flood. None of them alive on the earth survived the Flood, even though they had, in your terminology, immortal bodies.
I never said they had immortal bodies. You are saying things here that misrepresent what I believe. That is why I usually ignore most of your posts because you have done that repeatedly in the past and it's annoying. Matter of fact, since you probably keep doing it in the rest of your post, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post since I don't feel like dealing with that.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL! No, my repeating was because of your repeating.
Sure, we were both repeating, and both ways. You said it yourself.

But... <smile> ...you did keep raising the same objections to what I had said (which was in response to things you had said), many times multiple times. So I continued to answer... lest you think I was "ignoring you" or "not reading your posts," as you had alleged ~ mis-alleged ~ several times before.

Ohhhh,,, but I'm sure you'll have fire back and repeat the same thing again... My goodness.

Grace and peace to you.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,691
4,414
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sure, we were both repeating, and both ways. You said it yourself.
Right. So, there's nothing more to say about that. And, yet....

But... <smile> ...you did keep raising the same objections to what I had said (which was in response to things you had said), many times multiple times.
Yeah, and you did the same. We've established that. Shall we repeat that fact over and over again or just realize that we both have done that and....whatever. Move on.

So I continued to answer... lest you think I was "ignoring you" or "not reading your posts," as you had alleged ~ mis-alleged ~ several times before.
I don't recall ever saying you were ignoring me or not reading my posts. We've gone back and forth responding to each other's posts many times, so I have no idea why I would ever accuse you of that. I've accused you of ignoring certain verses in scripture (as you've done to me as well) and things like that, but not of ignoring my posts that I can recall.

Ohhhh,,, but I'm sure you'll have fire back and repeat the same thing again... My goodness.
LOL. It's obvious that you so badly want to keep this going, but I'm not interested. Buh bye.

1744141451001.gif
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,368
845
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Right. So, there's nothing more to say about that. And, yet....
You keep going. At this point, I'm sort of interested... well, curious, in a dark way... to see how long I can keep you going.

Yeah, and you did the same. We've established that. Shall we repeat that fact over and over again...
If you can keep from doing it...

or just realize that we both have done that...
You mean like we already did?

HEEEEEEEEYYYYYYY! Are you telling me what to do? Don't ever do that again! I'll do what I want!

I'm... hackin-atcha here, obviously...

I do have to admit it's kinda fun to watch how you react...<smile>

I don't recall ever saying you were ignoring me or not reading my posts.
Seems you have a very short memory...

We've gone back and forth responding to each other's posts many times, so I have no idea why I would ever accuse you of that. I've accused you of ignoring certain verses in scripture (as you've done to me as well) and things like that, but not of ignoring my posts that I can recall.
Right, but you did say that a few posts ago.

It's obvious that you so badly want to keep this going
Quite obviously not. <chuckles> That was squirrel bait, and you took it. As I knew you would... <smile>

...but I'm not interested.
No, but it's not a matter of being interested, but something quite different... <smile>

Buh bye.smile
Grace and peace to you.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite