John UK wrote:
Bro, it is quite definitely saying: "When we baptise babies of Christians, God brings them to new birth, saves them, and puts Christ in them."

So take heart brother, your faculties are not failing you. But the faculties of this Dennis the Menace certainly are found wanting.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Sure, it means, and you can quote me,
At least this fellow is honest enough to confess that infant baptism imparts salvation and regeneration by the putting on of Christ.

For a while there I thought I was having an extended senior moment.

no wrote:

That is not the sense of his words.

no wrote:
You need to read the words more closely.

Apparently I have a reading comprehension problem and "no" seems unwilling to help me out so could someone explain what this fellow meant.....

shine on wrote:
Shining some light ...
Dennis Kastens

"Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakably Scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Christian history, unbroken and uninterrupted. reflects such practice in each generation. Conscientious Christians do not delay but hasten with their children to Baptism that they may received the gift of salvation and regeneration and gratefully embrace the Apostle’s affirmation extended to those of all age groups: "For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ" (Galatians 3: 27)."

Christopher000 wrote:
Oh, yes. .good verse, Lurker. "...return to God who gave it." Hmmm...Interesting. So, we were in Heaven to begin with...we've already been there? Maybe we had a consciousness while there but just don't remember? If going to Heaven means going home, then wouldn't we have had to have come from there to begin with? Interesting.

Christopher000 wrote:
...if DNA has nothing to do with the creation of our invisible spirits, then God must create them and personally place them into the physical body at some point. Unless He has angels do it but I would think He would do it personally. Maybe.

Observer wrote:
Hey Bro Lurker, if you see this can you please email me again?
My email account was hacked
Managed to recover the account after a whole day of trying but all my emails and contacts have been deleted.
So would appreciate it if you were able to email to me again. Thanks.

Unprofitable Sevant wrote:
I will state for clarification, that God is in the heaven and He reigns over all His creation. (Daniel 4).

I don't disagree with your reply in general but the sovereignty of God over His creation is not part of the context of the prophecy. The words were written specifically to Zion, the espoused of Christ (2 Cor 11:2) at the time the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to a nation which would bring forth the fruits thereof.... when Paul was sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

Unprofitable Sevant wrote:
I don't believe in a God who is at the mercy of human will to be able to accomplish His purposes on the earth. You will not find the phrase make Jesus Lord of your life, because He is Lord, you have a choice to acknowledge that but your acknowledgement or lack thereof does not change His position.

Unprofitable Sevant wrote:
My main point is that nothing that surrounds the 1000 year reign in Revelation 20 is by anybody here thought to be allegorical, so why do we say it is?

One last comment on the marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-9) since it immediately precedes the reign of Christ and therefore relevant. Hosea 2:14ff records an eternal marriage: "And I will betroth thee unto me for ever..." Interestingly, Paul quotes Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 (see Rom 9:25-26) and Peter quotes Hosea 1:9-10 (see 1 Peter 2:10) both indicating the prophecies quoted had been fulfilled. Sort of hard to put the marriage off into the future since it is sandwiched between fulfilled prophecies, imo. It might be worth your time to have a look see.

That said, I have long enjoyed your comments and your kind and gentle spirit and have no desire to get crossways with you, or any one for that matter, because of a disagreement over something that won't affect one's eternal fate. It will all get straightened out in God's time.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
We do agree that the gospel writers applied OT prophecies literally?

Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

The purpose of the prophetic citations is establish a timeline of fulfillment of the source prophecy. With that knowledge it is possible to bring the relevant context of the source prophecy forward to its timeline of fulfillment and gain a better understanding of the events of the time.

Regarding the mill reign; there is one very clear cross reference at Isaiah 24:21-23. Look it up for it states the duration of Chris't reign as "many days".

But beyond that there are many reasons to believe Christ's reign began when Paul was sent to preach the gospel to the Gentiles but they will never be seen if the Revelation is interpreted in isolation.

Isa 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

The bible has much light to shed on the Revelation. It's up to you to discover it.

Christopher000 wrote:
I am beginning to comprehend just how anyone could allegorize the millenial reign. I'm not saying that I'm putting anything together yet, but I am beginning to see how it could be allegorized as opposed to being nothing other than literal.
I guess my biggest obstacle is that it seems to me that one has to work real hard to comprehend it as being anything other than a literal event.
I don't get any of that yet, but after following the thread and reading verses that you all have posted up as examples and arguments, I can kind of see how it could be allegorized but I have to work hard to accept and comprehend it as such.

I agree with Observer, definately not about being smarter than anyone else but about a sincere desire, wrought by God (I believe), to understand Him, His ways and His will for my life.

I have heard it said a couple times that because the phrase "thousand years" is written six times it demands a literal interpretation. That's subjective reasoning. Surely there's got to be a better way.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
I would say Peter using the passage in Joel in Acts 2 also did not have a fulfillment of the sun being turned to darkness and the moon to blood.

IMO, the proper chronological order....

1) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood accompanied with wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.(Similar to the spiritual darkness in Egypt when Pharaoh rose to power who didn't know Joseph. Also similar to God's wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness (Acts 7:36). See Rev 6:12 and 6:17 to see what comes next)

2) the great and the terrible day of the LORD (Same as Israel's 40 year wilderness trek under the law and the first seven weeks of Daniel's 70 week prophecy)

Frank wrote:
I periodically looked at some of the threads and comments but didn't notice anyone asking about me.

John UK wrote:
It's a tough question, Lurker.
And yet another unanswered one.

perception wrote:
The problem that the Baptists have is that they deleted part of the Word of God.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When the light is turned on all the roaches scurry for the woodwork.

Cat Larger wrote:
God's Covenant of Grace begun with Abraham (Genesis 17) and remains extant today and throughout the OT and NT.

11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Crystal clear biblical proof, fellow credo-baptists, that the first covenant of peace (beauty) God made with the seed of Abraham was broken by God when Jesus was betrayed by Judas. Yet the paedos say: Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: (Is 30:8-14)

B. Ware wrote:
Baptists.
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. [snip]

10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

Attempting to resurrect what God cur asunder?

Read some context and you just may see that when the Word became flesh He became the first covenant and ascended to the Father as the new covenant. Unless you know what happened at Calvary (Col 2:14) you don't even know the gospel of your salvation (1 Cor 1:23).

Yet, you have the audacity to lecture Baptists with a tradition, born in the RCC, that won't stand up to the test of scripture?

SteveR wrote:
Then ponder that all Kings of Israel & Judah would have had Psalm 2 read when they began to reign and it includes ",,,, against the LORD, and against his anointed" so each could claim divine authority though history showed several were wicked

Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.

Let us not be guilty of the same abuse.

John UK wrote:
It is interesting that the Lord "took him away", and not he himself.

Rufus wrote:
I love the scriptures you quote but they do not affirm the references to the Kingdom of God as being eternal. The Kingdom of God is 1000 years...it is the millennium, not eternity. I would be swayed if there were scripture to the contrary, 'tis scripture that swayed me to my current position.

The kingdom of God is the gospel Paul preached, the power of God unto salvation, which was taken away from the Jews and sent to the Gentiles for to provoke them to jealousy that some may be saved.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Who/what was "this stone"? The Kingdom of God aka the oracle of God, the gospel.