Christopher000 wrote: ..So, Christ is reigning on Earth right now? ..
Col 1.13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son
But we're all translated into limbo land cuz his kingdom has not come yet
1 Cor 15.21-27 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet.
Note well the order here.
Chris the firstfruits Then they which are Christ's Then Christ delivers up the kingdom to the Father Which is the end
The passage indicates he comes, raises his own and then delivers up. So, if Christ doesn't yet have a kingdom, what's he going to deliver up to the Father?
John UK wrote: Bro, it is for this very reason that i am thinking as I am. The soil was "good" for all three, but one bore 30, one 60 and one 100. Now if the theologian is correct, who stated that a man is as godly as he wishes to be, then these three examples shows that someone was not pulling his weight. But if the fruit was more of the same, depending entirely on God's sovereign will, then that would make more sense, because it is only God that can give the increase, and different Christians will see different effects in their witnessing. It is a concern, because if it is "more of the same", it behoves us to be looking for far more fruit individually than seems to be the norm.
I am not sure that I understand John.
If the fruit is more converts due to our witness (which as I said in my last post doesn't sit well with the context of that parable), then what shall we make of the Lord's statement that the last days will be like the days of Noah? IOW that the witness of the people of God will bear very little, if any, fruit.
I stay with my original understanding, and agree that we may be as godly as we choose. This is repeatedly the message of the NT, that people were not living worthy of their calling!
John UK wrote: .......Why not for the fruit more new creatures?
Sure John, have you not not seen people with different degrees of knowledge, grace and works? Some have more graces than others, some are full of good works etc.
The parable is about what the WORD cast abroad achieves in the different sorts of ground. There is no suggestion in the parable that this simple concept is being extended to one's ability to multiply, which would be moving away from what the WORD achieves to how the Lord may be pleased to bless our witness!
"More new creatures" are not dependent on us, but upon the WORD and God's sovereign pleasure.
John UK wrote: .. Could it be you had it right in the first place? After all, if you plant a potato in the ground, you end up with about ten potatoes - that is the fruit. I'm still working on it BTW....
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. ****What fruit had ye then****** in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, *****ye have your fruit unto holiness*****, and the end everlasting life.
as such wrote: A Lutheran scholar from the 1950s clarified JY's position years ago. You can hold to mere Christianity (making Jesus your personal Lord and Savior) and the sacraments of the RCC at the same time and in the same context. He identified that everything which a Christian needs to be saved is contained within the RCC. In conclusion, he found that Protestantism adds nothing but unending arguments about justification, every verse in Scripture, music and the color of carpet in your church. That is, it would rip itself apart.
So says the resident member of the Chimera church under another moniker!
Lisa wrote: .....Had you come to this conclusion after conviction of sin or are you more of a catholic persuasion ?
Conviction of sin? it's not part of his formula for getting saved. One only needs to say a quick prayer to the effect that one accepts Jesus as savior and Lord. The fact the this bears no resemblance to reality, IOW saying Lord Lord is enough to establish that he is Lord. And then we have to rationalise away the rest of the bible as irrelevant to salvation and therefore obedience to it is purely voluntary so why bother! Even reading and understanding the bible is hard work and doesn't affect one's salvation so why bother. Praying or not makes no difference to salvation so why bother etc. The cheaper the salvation ticket the better.
This man has no testimony of the Lords dealing with his soul. His sole ambition on SA is to waste everyone's time and bore everyone to tears with his one prayer that he uttered which he believes made him a Christian and the fact that he can now rest on that one act for his salvation.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ..You are saying that because there are prophecies that are interpreted allegorically then the rule should apply to other OT prophecies regarding the millennium.
What OT prophecies concerning the millenium? Does the OT mention 1000 years?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ....I would point out that none of the gospel writers, particularly Matthew, had any problem saying that OT prophecies were literally fulfilled. Even the Lord Jesus took that route in Luke 4:21.
The prophecy of Joel was fulfilled, even though you cannot discern how all the elements were present on the day of Pentecost. I will explain another time.
The Amos prophecy was fulfilled. Again you cannot discern how all the elements of that prophecy was fulfilled, but they were, which is why James was able to quote it.
The problem is not fulfillment, it is that wish to see a crudely literal fulfillment. Hence my questions about the Amos quote in Acts 15.
I know a great deal of this is familiar to you, so please do join in. It would be good to have your wisdom on these points too. O/W it may seem to some that I am a sole voice and it may reinforce Chris's error that amills are a minority!
Christopher000 wrote: ...I can kind of see how it could be allegorized...
If the 1000 years is to be taken literally, it is the solitary instance in a unique book abounding in mystic characters and symbolic numbers.
Does anyone interpret its numerous 7s literally, or the 666 or 144,000 or the 42 months, or 3 and half years?
Just as 7 is a symbol of perfection, so the thousand years is a symbol of a long indefinite period of time - indefinite in the number of years but very definite as to the exact period covered.
The genre of prophecy/apocalyptic writing has its own language. This we must understand and apply aright if we are to understand it correctly.
In my post of 5/12/13 6.45AM - The quote from Amos- do you see the death and resurrection of Christ and the in gathering of the remnant of the Jews and the Gentiles? If not you're not reading it correctly!
Christopher000 wrote: ...I do wonder sometimes though if intellectualism trumps simplicity at times. Maybe not, but maybe.
Definitely not about intellectualism!
Its about understanding the mind of God. I am sure we all agree that God means what he says. But what he appears to say at face value and what he is actually saying maybe 2 different things. This may sound like a bold claim, BUT I am prepared to demonstrate this because a great deal is at stake in our understanding of God's word!
Even in our Lord's life we have many examples e.g.
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
The literalist Jews were dumb founded because they thought he was speaking about THE temple.
Helps/UK recommended a good book for you to read. If you do determine to read Fairbairn, do follow it up by reading his commentary on Ezekiel to see how those principles are applied to that prophetical book.
John Yurich USA wrote: I am stating that the Pope and no other Catholic becomes Born Again unless they embrace Jesus as their Personal Lord and Savior. And if one is not Born Again then they don't have the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the Catholic Church. Before I embraced Jesus as my Lord and Savior I did not know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the Catholic Church. But immediately after I embraced Jesus as my Lord and Savior then I became aware that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the Catholic Church because I started being guided by the Holy Spirit to know that. That is the proof that I am Born Again and guided by the Holy Spirit. If I was not guided by the Holy Spirit I would not know that there are unscriptural doctrines in the Catholic Church.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ...., You have shown a very apt grasp of the Scriptures for whatever my opinion is worth..
US It's all very well to pay lip service to detecting genre and then saying we deal with it according to its rules. But here is the rub: when it comes to the prophetical writings the literalist becomes a crude literalist. One has to study how the Holy Spirit uses and interprets prophecy in the NT to start to see how David for instance is used as a figure for Christ. Literalist would say David is going to return. We'd say no the reference is to Christ. See also the prophecy about the return of Elijah and how this vexed the Jews but the Lord answered saying that John Baptist had come in the spirit of Elijah.
When one studies the NT quotations of the OT, the crude literalism of the millenialists is blown out of the water.
I will wait to see how Mike NY answers re: fuzzification before posting up some more difficulties that the literalist will have with how the NT handles OT prophecy.
If nothing else, these sorts of consideration should send people back to their bibles to examine their presuppositions. Which ain't no bad thing!
I'm sure you'll agree bro that we have to take hermeneutics real serious!
Acts 15.14-17 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
The prophecy cited reads:
Amos 9.11-12 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.
1. Reading Amos alone, what would you have understood by his words? 2. Who is this David? 3. When was the tabernacle of David raised? The ruins built up? Where is this literally fulfilled? 4. How does "that they may possess the remnant etc" mean "That the residue of men might seek the Lord etc." 5. Edom in fulfillment?
John Yurich USA wrote: Kindly answer the question. How can you possibly believe that one who is not Born Again and not guided by the Holy Spirit would have the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC? Before embracing Jesus as my Lord and Savior during that Altar Call I did not know that there were some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC. But afterwards I immediately came to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC? So that takes care of your stupid notion that one who is not Born Again and not guided by the Holy Spirit has the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the Catholic Church.
I've already replied. There are many unbelievers who hold to right doctrine who have no Christian experience and no spiritual life. But you wouldn't understand this. As I said pearls before swine, oink oink!!
Mike wrote: Again, Nicodemus was not taken to task for his literalism. It wasn't the issue, but his lack of prophetic grasp. What is silly is defining literal interpretation as taking every verse content or individual word in a physical sense rather than as it is meant to be taken, then pointing a finger at it in ridicule. The heart here, as you know, is not the blood pump, but the inner man. Literal interpretation already gets this. There is no spiritualization of the Ezekiel passages if you accept literally what it means when it speaks of the heart. Proper definition helps.
I get it. You're not a crude literalist. If by literalism you mean identifying the genre of literature and using the rules for that genre to determine the meaning, I have no issues with that.
Given this, can you please give me an example of what you mean by fuzzification?
John Yurich USA wrote: I was guided by the Holy Spirit in November 1997 to embrace Jesus as my Personal Lord and Savior during an Altar Call at my brothers Non Denominational Church. If I was not Born Again and guided by the Holy Spirit would I have the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC? No I wouldn't. One who is not Born Again and not guided by the Holy Spirit does not have the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC.
You were guided by self interest to save your own hide!
As for your stupid question there are unbelievers who not only love doctrine, they even teach it! So what? It don't make them born again!
Pearls before swine! Which is why YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN!
I was wrong to say the family likeness extends only to some modern Presbys. I should NOT have excluded RCC trolls
Should I be worried by the opinion of our resident devil, the slithery slimy member of the Chimera church?
John Yurich USA wrote: I don't believe that anybody who worships Jesus as God is a Christian, but they are not unbelievers either. An unbeliever does not worship Jesus as God. Only those who embrace Jesus as their Personal Lord and Savior are Christians.
Genuine believers are born again. Anyone who is not born again is an unbeliever irrespective of what they maintain they believe. You are in this latter category because you have no experience of the Lord's dealings with your soul. You did something that you think makes you a Christian whereas the Lord does something in the lives of genuine believers.
But as I keep saying all this is as pearls before a swine YOU will never grasp this, which is why YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN!!