John for Jesus wrote: Kev... The young did the same stuff, but without the same consequences. All do sin, but to say all have sinned is incorrect without parameters implied. At the time that was written, not all people who ever lived were even alive in order to be sinners. So that must mean "all" of a particular group of people. All who were ever born and responsible for their actions up to that time? Why did death pass to all people? Because all have sinned first.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
All are born dead that is the natural state of man since the fall of man.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
You must be born again of the Spirit:
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
John for Jesus wrote: Also, God held the Israelites over 20 accountable for wanting to go back to Egypt and not those under. The younger group were able to enter the Promised Land.
It wasn't because they were under 20 that God let them into the promised land but because He punished the generation that was disobedient:
13 And the Lord'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed.
God destroyed all but Noah's family in the flood: Genesis 8:21
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil FROM HIS YOUTH; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Also what about Sodom and Gamorrah, did God say He would not destroy the wicked with the righteous, yet all that were saved was Lot's family. Surely there was kids in the city.
You've told me so many times that all has to mean all, so is children not part of the all?: Romans 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
John for Jesus wrote: NeedHim... If we are born sinners because of Adam, then Jesus would have been also. It seems like we are sinless as Adam was and then we sin like he did. Whereas, Jesus was sinless and remained so forever.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had NOT SINNED after the SIMILTUDE of Adam's TRANSGRESSION, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence...For if through the OFFENCE OF ONE many be DEAD...
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned..
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;...
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus was tempted but without sin!
Your comment has no biblical backing just your opinion.
So the command is a woman shouldn't wear men's clothing. So at the time it was written did men wear pants and women wear dresses? They both wore robe like clothing but what set apart the men's clothing and women's clothing? It was the cut color style etc., so now a woman can't wear women's pants; cut and styled for a woman? Did you know way back it was unmanly for men to wear pants? This may of been valid at different times and cultures but not now.
So a new commer walks into a church in America and sees all the women with head coverings and in America it is neither the custom of the church or the people, will that not lead to contention in the body of Christ and therefore no such custom should be observed?
1 Cor 11 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Contentious means controversial, would that not seem contentious to the new commer, to see a group of American women all with their heads covered in our day?
Would not a women going into a Church in America with her head covered be controversial?This is not something that should divide the Body of Christ or seen as rebellion if not done. Best to view in its entire context.
Should not cherry pick wrote: Sorry Kev not trying to get your ire up. Was just responding to your assertion that prophecy hermeneutics was dark and not intended to be literal. Seems like we have agreement Not all prophecy is literal and it's not all allegorical., context and comparing Scripture with Scripture matter. Thanks for your input
Yes that is just about it and to say that whenever you can interpret literally you should do so is not what the Bible instructs especially when it is a vision or a dream and I hear alway about "a constant literal interpretation" by some. I probably was not clear in my writing as some of the things you thought I was implying I did not mean to try and imply. Thanks and thanks for your thoughts as well.
Ask about a specific verse and I'll tell you what I think. The marriage Supper of the Lamb I believe is the union of believers to Christ not so much a literal interpretation of an actual meal. Us circled around Christ on a throne is I'm not so so sure a real throne but may very well symbolize all under the control and bowing to the will of Christ who has all power thus on his throne etc.. these are visions and some places are literal but a constant literal interpretation is never suggested when dealing with such
should not cherry pick wrote: not sure how Rev.5:11 could be referred to as a limited (specific) number. Turn the question back, are you saying the unsaved dead will not give account for their deeds and be cast into the lake of fire? Your issue is that you have to account for parts of Revelation that you consider literal and parts you consider allegorical. Who is to say you are right and others are wrong?
I said specified not specific about that Rev passage. Did I say they won't be judged? It says the books will be opened and judged out of the books if I remember right that is what I commented on. That part seems "allegorized" to me. Show me where I said that it can never be literal or is always allegorized. I was talking about the "consistent literal approach" as not being correct. Yeah who knows I may very well be wrong! When did I say I was right and others were wrong? I even said you and me can only speculate that isn't a dogmatic stance saying I can only speculate.
should not cherry pick wrote: Now you run into other issues. Were the churches in chapters 2 and 3 allegorical? Are those gathered around the throne singing the praises of the Lamb not literal? Are the saints not going to utter Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth? Is there no marriage supper of the Lamb for His bride? Is the great white throne judgment a dark allegory? Was Peter also wrong because he also wrote about a new heaven and earth like that mentioned in Revelation?
When he talks to the churches in chapter 2 and 3 was he talking about a vision or something he saw? In the great white throne judgement will they literally open up books? When they say worthy is the Lamb will there only be the specified amount of people in those verses who say that? Your missing the point that a literal approach is not the approach in everything that is given in visions and in dreams. You can't say the 144000 virgins has to be interpreted literal because you are suppose to have a literal interpretation of visions and dreams. The other things you asked about you have no idea if they will be literally fulfilled you and my answer to that would only be speculation.
Should not cherry pick wrote: Also, look at all the prophecies about Christ that were literally fulfilled. You're not saying they were literal are you? Best rethink your hermeneutics
You missed the content about my message being about VISIONS AND DARK SAYING when I started out with this line "So how can a "dark saying" be interpreted literally?" Maybe I should of been clearer on that thanks though. That Kings passage is a warning though and is fulfilled as a sign that is different then prophetic visions which was my topic and more specifically it was about Rev. I didn't say that prophecy doesn't have a literal fulfillment I was talking about the interpreting of such passages as Rev.
Rev is a prophecy and what did God say about how he will talk to prophets? In dreams and "dark saying". So how can a "dark saying" be interpreted literally?
5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a PROPHET among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in A VISION, and will speak unto him in a DREAM.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, EVEN APARENTLY, and NOT in DARK SPEECHES; and the SIMILTUDE of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
God himself gave the hermeneutics for interpreting prophecy and he didn't say it was a literal approach he also shows where there is suppose to be a literal interpretation.
While at my mothers house over the weekend I went to a dispensational church and the Gospel was preached and the people there were very nice. I picked this church on their statement of faith about the Gospel.
Hey Bro Dave I too believe that after all the saving of Gentiles there will be a great turning of Jews towards Christ.
Christ is the End of the Law Allan Jellett tinysa.com/sermon/8711714470
The Sabbath in its Christian Form Allan Jellett Sunday, August 14, 2011 tinysa.com/sermon/81411820431
Christ Our Sabbath San Diego Grace Fellowship Eric Richards Wednesday, March 23, 2016 tinysa.com/sermon/32516033510
Christ, The End of The Law Don Fortner Sunday, January 20, 2013 tinysa.com/sermon/120132116268
UPS I'm glad you are holding to the word of God. It's a sad day when you say you follow the words of Christ and you are called an antinomian.
2 Cor3:11 11 For if that which is DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
It is clear what has been replaced in 2 Cor 3 yet they look upon the ministration of death still and don't see the sufficiency of Christ and the apostles teachings. Jesus said to look unto His sayings John 14:23.
They decide to parse God's Holy law and redefine the Sabbath. They say well Acts 15 is just transitional, what to "reformed theology". Nowhere in the Bible is There a separating of the law and those who try to push law keeping are strictly rebuked. Of course they believe they know more than the council of Jerusalem what they should follow out of the law of Moses.
Brother John just like UPS pointed out the law is nowhere mentioned divided the way that it if done in reformed theology. Remember what you said the law of Moses is? Now take that definition and apply it to your reading of Acts 15. The scripture is clear. I don't follow any line of beliefs that doesn't hold up under scripture. Notice their isn't one place in the Bible saying follow the moral law because it isn't their no such division is seen biblically it is a man made invention. When people like Pink get to a verse they don't understand they go well they don't really mean your free from the law just the consequences. When clearly Paul says in other places free from the curse of the law. You are married to Christ in Romans 7 and divorced from the law. Then they say well you still have some sort of relationship with the law. In the NT Jesus and the disciples gively plenty of light to live by don't you think? What is one thing that isn't clear from the NT. Clearly the old covenant is gone in Heb 8:13 and the covenant was embodied by the tables of the covenant. Just like Don Fortner said you are free from the law but that doesn't mean to live in direct violation of it. We are free to serve Christ and it is the love of Christ that constrains us.
Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his COVENANT, which he commanded you to perform, [even] TEN COMMANDMENTS; and he wrote them upon two TABLES OF STONE.
Deu 9:11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, [that] the LORD gave me the TWO TABLES OF STONE, [even] the TABLES OF THE COVENANT.
13 In that he saith, A NEW COVENANT, he hath made THE FIRST OLD. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is READY to VANISH AWAY..
14 BLOTTING OUT the HANDWRITING of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, NAILING it to his CROSS;
Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of TWAIN ONE new man, so making peace;‚ÄĚ
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become DEAD TO THE LAW by the BODY OF CHRIST; that ye should be MARRIED to ANOTHER, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Still no bible verses just theories from the writing of fallible men.
6 But now we are DELIVERED FROM THE LAW, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should SERVE in NEWNESS OF SPIRIT, and not in the OLDNESS of the LETTER.