Unprofitable Servant wrote: Sorry, brother James I don't see your point on Romans 10:20
Brother US, John of UK......good points and questions.
My attempt is to show how Paul in Romans 10 is speaking on a topic....cites the prophecy in Isaiah 65 as a specific verse 1&2 that is taking place in the time in which he is writing....now verse 3 is not cited but does it follow the same thought...yes....how about verse 4 yes...verse 5 yes...and on.
Now with that established by Scripture and Paul's reference... verse 17 goes to the eternal state? Why does this prophecy Paul cites in Romans 10 include verses that have the new H&E?
In the NT Paul is expanding on what Isaiah 65 means...how it is being fulfilled in his text in Romans 10...why else bring it in? The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.
If Isaiah 65:17-25 is speaking of the eternal state....why in verse 20 does the young man die? A sinner in the eternal state? verse 23 bear children? I thought we were only doing that here?
On BG...God saves souls not BG....just ask Jonah. He had a crusade in Nineveh...only took one day...in fact it was a 20 second sermon....only because he took long pauses. And 100% repented.
John UK wrote: Saint James, Yes, this is excellent. But remember that Paul was not getting extra light from the OT. He only had the OT. The passages are referring to the judgment of God upon Israel and his putting of a veil upon the heart. Yes? And the upstaging of Israel by the Gentiles God would convert and bring into his kingdom. Yes? Now what I would like to know, because you had insufficient space in your post to expand upon it, how does that relate to the new heavens and new earth mentioned later in Isaiah 65? I'm thinking timescale here. I can't stop right now, as I have chores to do, but I shall look forward to your comments when I get back online. Cheers.
My time is short too now but this is some foundation for the Isa:65:17-25 which has the new H&E content.
Yes, Paul only had the OT which he was expounding upon in his letter here in Romans 10. Bringing light to the Scripture the Jews did not see.
Increased light! You are right Brother John of UK. Only we need to follow the lead of Scripture and the light the Holy Spirit provides in Scripture.
To understand Isaiah 65 lets...
Read Romans 10 then read Isaiah 65.
The reason I ask is because At Romans 10:20, Paul cites Isaiah 65:1 as a reference to what he has been speaking on in Romans 10 This is Paul citing the Scripture here for a purpose non other than to expound the Scripture in Isaiah 65 to validate what he is saying in Romans 10.
Scripture is validating Scripture here. (Just like Acts 2:17 references Joel 2:32.)
In Romans 10:20. Paul cites Isaiah 65:1 for the increased light needed. Then in Romans 10:21 Paul cites Isaiah 65:2. Its not by chance this is cited. Read the rest of Isaiah 65:1-16...the subject never changes and Paul has identified the subject for us in Romans 10
No WCF, No commentary, no man...just God and His Word. Be a Berean...
Why this? If we can establish what Isaiah 65:1-16 is speaking on from Scripture itself, we should be able to do the same with Isaiah 65:17-25 which would shed some light on the questions Brother Lurker asked in his post.
Frank wrote: I'm not sure? At first I thought he was saying that I would be flawed or live with sinners in my eternal state, but then I am now a little unsure. Anyway, as I noted before; I will be perfect when I die.
Frank....I do not believe our brother is questioning your being perfect in the eternal state. Nor do I think he is attempting to negate Scripture brother US. He is simply presenting a verse with questions that are worth looking into. The implication is not that the eternal state has death....it is his original statement here....
" The interpretation of the new H&E being the eternal state. I don't know about you, but I don't expect to be rubbing elbows with sinners in the eternal state....."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Not sure why brother Lurker, the good brother who sees allegory and/or historical fulfillment in most everything else, would imply that a place of eternal life would somehow experience death or sinners. Maybe he needs to either acknowledge a millennial reign of Christ or admit he is quoting the verse out of context. Revelation 21 starts out by John saying I saw a new heaven and and new earth for the first heaven and first earth were passed away... So, to say it was not what the Scripture plainly says it is further confusing the matter. Nor do I understand why he would quote from a pentecostal site that is at the very least borderline word/faith. A Berean spirit would mean one would reconsider the statement does anyone care that this error has been perpetuated.
I believe Brother Lurker has a very reasonable question.
The sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed(verse 20)....in the new heaven and earth.(verse 17)
"Out of context" is not an option here as the verse begins in Isaiah 65:17 and I do not see a change of location through the verse.
Frank wrote: Helen, I agree with your comment about the Jewish homeland. God brought them back and no one will ever remove them again from the land that God promised them. When Christ returns, He will set up His kingdom there and all of the remnant of the Jews will be saved. Replacement theology is wrong.
Fellow Floridian Frank, I appreciate your comments here on the forum. Blessings to you! I would have a question on your post in relation to the verse below.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, â€œThe kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, (Luke 17:20 ESV)
I can observe that piece of land if I were to fly over there. So you know....I am not attempting to defending RT with my question.
John UK wrote: Saint James, I don't see what Romans 2:12 has to do with it. Please? As for: Revelation 5:1-2 KJV (1) And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. (2) And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? If it was the law, or even some scriptures, how come it was sealed up? Would it not rather be to do with endtime prophecy which had never been seen before? I don't know the answer, just grappling with it.
Romans 2:12 (KJV) 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
I was a little vague. Sorry...."Judged by the law" was the emphasis I was trying to convey as Brother Lurker provided the setting of the judgment of the first resurrection. Can't judge without the law.
Why was it sealed? The law is used upon exercising judgment and is sealed until a time God has chose.
have to cut it short for now...will add to later. Perhaps Brother Lurker will comment on your questions too.
John UK wrote: Good morning St James. Yes I think that was what St Lurker was hinting at. I believe a lot of the Revelation was previously foretold by the prophets of old, so it could well have been The Law. But not necessarily, as other books have been written within and without as we know, a multitude. ____________ Saint Lurker, thanks for the extra scriptures and greek concerning the thrones, it's very interesting. I just wish I had more brainpower to take it all in and work it all out. Them Revelations sure are cloudy. I used to try the commentaries to see if they would help, but it seems theologians had a hard time of it as well, some saying that it had all come to pass already. Could it be?
Good Morning to you! St John of UK, I am not sure what else it could be other than the law. A Look at verse Romans 2:12 validates the Scriptural interpretation that Brother Lurker provided.
Chris.....It is the inevitable result. When you try to understand spiritual teachings through a "worldly" knowledge....distortion of the truth will occur.
That's why we must approach Scripture as a child and permit His word to teach us His truth. Allow God to define His Word as opposed to a man, in his limitations, using his own understanding to define God's Word of what is said in Scripture.
Good observations Chris... What you have described is what would be a modern day Pharisee. Pride in their own works versus the work of God. Why do they bother? Their pride in self... Look at me syndrome. On losing salvation...Cant lose something your never had.
God quickening is a spiritual miracle that initiates the process of sanctification over the lifetime of the believer.
Frank wrote: Well said Mike! I have always used a concept I call Roman/Protestantism to sort of describe just how romanized our evangelical churches have become. But, let me say this; it is very hard for many of us, me included, to not think of our works as salvific or partially salvific in nature. I work because I am saved; not to be saved. The RCC says we are justified because we do certain things and not that we do those things because we are justified. They simply get it backwards.
Right you are Frank....The Cause and effect are reversed. Who does this benefit when reversed? NOT God.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10 ESV)
MG wrote: James Thomas wrote: Next question is...why are the children of Adam and Eve performing sacrifices to God in Genesis 4? Here's a controversial answer: GOD's Torah (instructions) were known way back then. Consider also Judah's sons who married Tamar. The second son, Onan, married to raise seed for his brother (Gen 38:8). This is all explained later to Moses, but Judah obviously observed this much earlier!
Jim, Thank you for your response. It wasnt a question, just an example. From 1John 3 we are left asking WHY? was his deed evil and Abel's righteous? The Holy Spirit wrote in Numbers and Leviticus to describe why one was accepted and the other rejected. Genesis 4:3 (KJV) 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. Genesis 4:4 (KJV) 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: Genesis 4:5 (KJV) 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Why was Abel's accepted? Numbers 18:17 (KJV) 17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD.
Why was Cain's rejected? Leviticus 2:12 (KJV) 12 As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour.
Next question is...why are the children of Adam and Eve performing sacrifices to God in Genesis 4?
Lurker wrote: Why do you say "WILL return"? Peter quoted parts of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet 2:10 and in context wrote to the house of Israel..... 1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. Does this text make sense if applied to you or any Gentile Christian you know? Did you once know and love God, go astray and come back again? Of course not.... it only makes sense when applied to a people of God who had been cast away and gathered again..... the house of Israel who were given into Assyrian captivity.
When a brother posts reasonable questions with Scripture as the basis for his position as Brother Lurker has done here for example, one who is still learning will put it to the test. The Word of God will reject a false doctrine on its own. Test and see... Most of the conversations with others in witnessing will be the Gospel and not why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's rejected...but yet God has placed a desire in my heart to want to know as He has done with others. The ones He hasn't, I cannot control nor should I question the desire God has placed on their heart as we are given different gifts for a purpose...His purpose...His Glory!