GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
92
You have to walk that out to it's conclusion. If the GOP Establishment "had to be dismantled", and by what you're saying- at all cost-, then it was always acceptable to you that Hillary become president. Sorry, that's never been acceptable for me. That would be the NeverTrump mindset that Mommy presents above. Give Hillary four years if we must, but destroy the GOP at all cost. Never mind the damage done to the folks, we'll fix everything on down the road. Sorry, I don't get that train of thought. That's throwing the entire country under the bus for some hypothetical future that may never come.

It's beyond disturbing to know that for some, Hillary in charge was always acceptable.
93
Theology Forum / Re: Dispensationalism
« Last post by Charlie24 on Today at 07:57:09 AM »
Charlie24,

Quote
When Jesus stood before Pilate, He said, not YET is my kingdom of this world. The Jews rejected the kingdom and it would have to wait that the mercy first shown to Israel and now accepted by the Gentiles, must also be fulfilled in His chosen people.
You must be reading Schofields translated Bible because in none of the 7 translations that I have is the word "YET" ever used.  It is also not in the Greek either.

You do realize that what you stated denies most if not actually all of the NT.

Let's take a look at the OT regarding what the Prophets of old foretold...
This regards the Covenental promise made to Abraham.  Was this promise conditional or unconditional. What does Scripture say regarding this promise.

When the law of Moses was given, provision was made for the establishment of “cities of refuge” where the manslayer who had killed without premeditation might flee for the preservation of his life. Initially, three cities were to be set aside for this purpose. Moses declared, however, that:

“if Jehovah thy God enlarge thy border, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; if thou shalt keep all his commandment to do it, which I command thee this day, to love Jehovah thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, besides these three” (Dt. 19:8-9).

Thus, six cities of refuge would be evidence of the substantial fulfillment of the land promise to Abraham’s seed.  A reading of Joshua 20:7-8 reveals that the cities of Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan were assigned as havens of refuge-six cities. Thus, “all the land” had been given; the land covenant has been fulfilled! This is further demonstrated by Joshua 21:43. “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.”
This refers principally to Canaan. There was to be some expansion later. Scripture specifically states of Solomon’s time:

“And Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River [Euphrates] unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs. 4:21; 2 Chron. 9:26).

Finally, Nehemiah rehearses the fact that God brought Abraham from Ur of Chaldees to give him the land of Canaan, and, says he, you “have performed your words: for you art righteous” (Neh. 9:7-8). It is tragic that the premillennial theory implies the opposite.

The Old Testament clearly indicates that Israel’s possession of Palestine was conditioned upon their faithfulness to God-a condition which they violated repeatedly; hence, it was foretold:

“When ye transgress the covenant of Jehovah your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods, and bow down yourselves to them: then will the anger of Jehovah be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you” (Josh. 23:16).

That time eventually came, and the Jews lost their “deed” to the Promised Land!  As a symbol of this promised punishment, Jeremiah was commanded to “break the bottle” and to proclaim its meaning,

“Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again” (Jer. 19:11).

This prophecy was partially fulfilled with a siege of the Babylonians in 586 B.C. (2 Kgs. 25), but was completely and ultimately fulfilled with the destruction of national Israel by the Romans in 70 A.D.
Christ himself proclaimed that it would be taken away.

“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God [i.e., their reign as God’s special people] shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Mt. 21:43).

The inspired apostle Peter unquestionably declares that the “nation” to be henceforth so blessed, is God’s “holy nation,” the church (1 Pet. 2:7-10). The Bible is exceedingly clear; Christians are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29), the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

The last king to reign on the Davidic throne of the Old Testament era was Jehoiachin (Coniah).   In Jeremiah 22:24-30, it was prophesied that he and his seed (Judah) would be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and cast into a foreign land (Babylon). Specifically, concerning Coniah it was said:

“Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (v. 30).

The issue is clear-no descendant of Coniah would ever again prosper, ruling from the literal throne of David. Now, the fact is, Christ was of the “seed” of Jechoniah, both from a legal standpoint (through Joseph - Mt. 1:12,16), and from a physical vantage point (through Mary, via Shealtiel - Lk. 3:27). It thus follows that Christ could never reign on David’s earthly throne-and prosper!

The prophet Zechariah prophesied regarding the Christ thusly:

“Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both” (Zech. 6:12-13).

This passage positively affirms that Christ would function as priest and reign as king on his throne-simultaneously. But, according to Hebrews 8:4, Christ could not act in the role of a priest while on the earth-for he was not descended from the priestly tribe (Heb. 7:14). Since the Lord could not be a priest on earth, and since he is priest and king jointly, it necessarily follows that his reign as king cannot be earthly in nature. Rather, it is heavenly.

The heavenly nature of the reign of Christ is readily apparent in that narrative known as the parable of the pounds recorded in Luke 19:11-27. The parable involves a certain nobleman (Christ) who went into a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom, and to return. Some citizens, however, sent a message to him, saying, “We will not that this man reign over us.” Finally, having received the kingdom, the nobleman returns to render judgment.

From this account it is perfectly clear that:

the kingdom was received in heaven (not on earth);
the reign was from heaven (not from Jerusalem); and
the return of the nobleman was after the reception of the kingdom (not prior to it).
 
All of these facts are strikingly at variance with the premillennial concept.
King David was informed by the prophet Nathan:

“When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my time, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Sam. 7:12-13).

That this is a prediction of the reign of Christ upon David’s throne is beyond question. In view of this promise, David was told: “your throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. 7:16). Note the application of this context to Christ by an inspired New Testament writer (Heb. 1:8).

It is extremely significant to note in this connection that Christ is to be seated on David’s throne, over his kingdom, while this illustrious Old Testament king is still asleep with the fathers, i.e., in the grave. In glaring contrast to this, the premillenial notion contends that Christ will sit upon David’s throne after the resurrection of all the righteous-including David.

In harmony with the foregoing is Peter’s declaration:
“Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:29-31).

The reign of Christ on David’s throne is not an event awaiting future fulfillment. The Son of God has been reigning over his kingdom since the day of Pentecost. Hear his promise to early saints:
“He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21).

Notice the past tense “sat down.” Clearly, Christ is now on the throne. If it be contended that this passage speaks of Christ on the Father’s throne-and not David’s, it need only be replied that the Father’s throne and David’s are biblically the same. Solomon sat upon the throne of David (1 Kgs. 2:12), which was in reality Jehovah’s throne (1 Chron. 29:23). Hence, when Christ sat down on the Father’s throne, he was on the throne of David! He is presently reigning, and will continue such until all his enemies are destroyed, the last of which will be death (1 Cor. 15:25-26).

To speak of Christ on David’s throne is simply to affirm that our Lord has “all authority”; that to him has been given “all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion” (Eph. 1:21); indeed, that he exercises a regal reign characteristic of the great King that he is. Compare Matthew 23:2, where the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who taught the law is symbolically described as sitting on “Moses’ seat.”

Based mostly upon a misunderstanding of Revelation 20:1-6, premillennialists urge that there will be two resurrections of the dead. The first will occur at the time of Christ’s coming, and will consist of the righteous only. Following this, it is contended, will be the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Terminating this will be the second resurrection (of the wicked), followed by the judgment.

There is no  support for this view; in fact, it contradicts numerous verses of clearest meaning. The Scriptures teach that when the Lord Jesus comes: time will end; all of the dead will be raised at the same time; the judgment will occur; eternity will commence. Consider the following:

In 1 Corinthians 15:23, Paul speaks of the “coming” of Christ. With reference to that event, he says, “Then cometh the end” (24). It is obvious that the return of Christ is not to begin an earthly reign; rather, it will bring an end to earthly affairs! Some contend that the adverb “then” (Grk. eita) demands an interval which allows time for a millennium. Such is not the case, however. Note the use of eita in connection with eutheos (immediately) in Mark 4:17.

Jesus spoke of “the day” in which he would be revealed, i.e., the day of his coming. In presenting this truth, the Lord referred to two divine destructions of former ages (see Lk. 17:26-30). Observe that on “the day” that Noah entered the ark, the antediluvian world was destroyed. Further, in “the day” that Lot departed Sodom, the people of the plain cities were destroyed.

So also, contends Christ, “in like manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed.” The clear implication of this passage is that the wicked will be destroyed in “the day” of Christ’s coming; certainly there is no room for a 1,000 year interval here (cf. Mt. 13:40,49; 25:31-46; 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

“Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment” (Jn. 5:28-29).

See also Acts 24:15, where Paul makes it clear that there “shall be a resurrection [singular] both of the just and unjust.” Thus, a single resurrection involving two groups. Certainly there are contexts in which only the resurrection of the righteous is under consideration (cf. Jn. 6:54; 1 Thes. 4:13-18, etc.), but these do not cancel the plain force of verses affirming a general resurrection.

Furthermore, I don't see any refutation of the texts, the statements I have made thus far.  You present your view but none of it denies what I have stated. You gave an incorrect translation to obscure the meaning in order to support a false premise.

Hello Thad. Rather than disputing all the things you have said as I normally do, I just want you to know why I hold to the literal interpretation of scripture which is taught in dispensationalism.

I don't spiritualize or even interpret the scripture, I just listen to what the Holy Spirit says. I have made it a rule to always take the Word of God at face value, and never put my own interpretation into it unless I know it is absolutely nessesary. And even then I search the scripture to assure myself that the interpretation I conclude falls perfectly in line with the context. That is what makes me a dispensationalist, not what I believe, but how I came to believe it.

There are many myths associated with dispensationalism, my friend I hope one day we could find the time to sit together and discuss it face to face. Only in that fashion could I possibly reveal the importance of dispensationalism.

Peter said in his sermon that Christ will be in heaven until it's time for restitution of all things.

Acts 3:20-21
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
 
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

What have the prophets said about the restitution of all things?

There will no war on earth while Christ reigns.

Isaiah 2:1-4
The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
 
And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
 
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
 
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Christ will establish His government on earth with justice and peace.

Isaiah 9:6-7
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
 
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

There will be peace and rest in the animal kingdom as was before sin came into the world.

Isaiah 11:3-10
And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
 
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
 
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
 
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
 
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
 
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
 
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
 
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

There are many, many more scriptures of this nature, the scripture is full of them.






 
94
General Discussion Forum / Re: "God sees all sins as equal"
« Last post by MeMyself on Today at 07:51:39 AM »
I used to believe that as well.  All were equal, but we see that come sins carry a higher warning with them.  Causing a little one to stumble for example.

So, my question is how does that all work out?  For the believer, who is forgiven and bought with a price, upon judgment day, that is?
95
Theology Forum / Re: SOZO!!!!!!
« Last post by MeMyself on Today at 07:39:29 AM »
This word "SOZO" is used over 100 times in the NT...meaning salvation...save or saved.

Translated "save" 38 times referring to the forgiveness of sins. Ex. (Matthew 1:21;1 Corinthians 1:21; Hebrews 7:25)
Translated "saved" (past tense) 53 times referring to forgiveness of sins...BUT...there were times when it was translated "healed."
(Mark 5:23; Luke 8:26; Acts 14:9).

"The prayer of faith shall save (sozo) the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." (James 5:15). Both healing and forgiveness of sins.

"Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good or to evil? to save (sozo) life, or to destroy it? " (Luke 6:9) He was not just talking about forgiveness of sins...he meant healing of the body.

It was also translated ...Made Whole...in reference to healing. (Matthew 9:22)

Sozo...This word and how it is translated makes it clear that it includes much more than just forgiveness of sins.

No, it does not "make it clear" that any such thing is true.  "Theology by lexicon" is one of the most common and also most foolish hermeneutical approaches.

"Sozo" and cognates such as "soteria" *can* mean various different things, but that does not mean all those meanings are always included.  Meaning is determined from context.

 ::smile::
96
General Discussion Forum / Re: Whats the distinction?
« Last post by MeMyself on Today at 07:37:46 AM »
God bless you , grace.

Im done too.  It makes me sad that the conversation had to be turned to " His word contradicts what you are telling me".

We simply do not get the same promise from the word, but its made to sound like I am some kind of false christian for not agreeing.

I think God wants us healed, but His healing is not limited to our physical bodies; and that His healing is about more than our earthly lives.

 
97
Investigative Judgement should be rejected.  It is a false teaching.

No it is not, it should be examined and accepted as truth. Choose you this day whom you will serve, me, or Texas Conservative.

Pardon my sarcasm above. Some people seem to think that a mere I said so, is sufficient proof that they are right.

Investigative Judgement is a doctrine based upon explaining away why Jesus did not return in 1844.  It has no biblical basis, it is one of many false doctrines taught by the SDA church.
98
Investigative Judgement should be rejected.  It is a false teaching.

No it is not, it should be examined and accepted as truth. Choose you this day whom you will serve, me, or Texas Conservative.

Pardon my sarcasm above. Some people seem to think that a mere I said so, is sufficient proof that they are right.
99
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Sabbath, Sunday, and Legalism
« Last post by Amo on Today at 07:24:21 AM »
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/07-sunday-closing-laws.html

The following quote is from the above internet site, where it may be viewed in its entirety. It reveals how “Christians”, will get their day of rest established by law with the aid of secularists. The Church of Rome will welcome this alliance with operands of course, since her own social teachings require her day of worship be supported by civil legislation where ever possible. Many other “Christians” will be duped into supporting this as well in the future no doubt.

Quote
The Court acknowledged that historically the laws had a religious motivation and were designed to effectuate concepts of Christian theology. However, “n light of the evolution of our Sunday Closing Laws through the centuries, and of their more or less recent emphasis upon secular considerations, it is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most of them, at least, are of a secular rather than of a religious character, and that presently they bear no relationship to establishment of religion....”193 “[T]he fact that this [prescribed day of rest] is Sunday, a day of particular significance for the dominant Christian sects, does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals. To say that the States cannot prescribe Sunday as a day of rest for these purposes solely because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in religion would give a constitutional interpretation of hostility to the public welfare rather than one of mere separation of church and State.”194 The choice of Sunday as the day of rest, while originally religious, now reflected simple legislative inertia or recognition that Sunday was a traditional day for the choice.195 Valid secular reasons existed for not simply requiring one day of rest and leaving to each individual to choose the day, reasons of ease of enforcement and of assuring a common day in the community for rest and leisure.196 More recently, a state statute mandating that employers honor the Sabbath day of the employee’s choice was held invalid as having the primary effect of promoting religion by weighing the employee’s Sabbath choice over all other interests.


The following are other sites of interest concerning the same issue.

http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Audio.details/ID/3545/Secular-Day-Rest-Law.htm

http://www.catholicgentleman.net/2014/12/thou-shalt-take-easy-7-reasons-embrace-sunday-rest/
100
Christian Politics Forum / Re: The economy
« Last post by Jaime on Today at 07:14:49 AM »
I have a bumper sticker framed in my office that says:

WITHOUT NM O-I-L, NM WOULD BE S-O-L.

Very true even if the People's Republic of New Mexico don't realize it.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]