Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear) unto this day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
In the NT - The Father said "This is by beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him."
And Jesus said "Ye must be born again"
It's still obedience to the voice of God!!
To have faith one would have been obedient and sacrificed but the sacrifice was nothing without faith backing it up.
Besides the Lord says "I prefer obedience to sacrifice." Consider Abraham and Issac on the sacrificial altar. God wanted the obedience He did not want the sacrifice of Issac.For the obedience was establishing a type, a prophetical example of what was to come with Christ.
It is the same today with the shed blood of Christ on the cross of calvary. The sacrifice is nothing to those WHO DO NOT BELIEVE! But to us who do believe it is the very power of God UNTO SALVATION.
DJC49 wrote:I wonder what the following 2 verses of Scripture could mean?(1Peter 1:10) "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:" (1Peter 1:11) "Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS ***IN THEM*** did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."Anyone care to give it a stab? JD?
John 8:56 "Abraham rejoiced to see my day"
1 Corinthians 10:4 "They drank from the supernatural rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ"
Galations 3:8 "...preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham"
Hebrews 11:16 "They desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one"
(1Peter 1:10) "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:"
(1Peter 1:11) "Searching what, or what manner of time THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH WAS ***IN THEM*** did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."
Anyone care to give it a stab? JD?
You also say, as a kind of allegation of demerit:"We all think this generation is the last or close to it."There's something bad about that, is there?I don't believe that there is at all. The signs are given such that everyone in every age may legitimately hope for His coming in their lifetime.
What do you do with those texts which insist the nearness of His coming? Rom.13:11-12; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7; Rev.1:3.With all the talk I hear from Reformed postmillennialists they seem to have a special interest in asserting the farness of the Lord's Coming, not its nearness. Doubtless you will explain that point away too, but let me put it this way;The NT constantly insists that the Lord's coming is something we must be prepared for at all times; it insists on us being watchful lest the Day take us unawares, etc.However, what I hear coming from you folks is this:It most likely won't be for several thousand years yet, so for all practical purposes FORGET IT!!That is as far from the NT emphasis as anything could be, and why post-mill'ism is sheer heresy, and I won't have anything to do with it.
As for Amillennialism being "pessimistic", this is at best a theological argument, based more on speculation as to what our minds should expect God to accomplish this side of His Coming.At worst, and I would say more realistically, it is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. The issue is what the NT teaches, and the NT gives no solid ground for expecting a transformed world, or a total triumph of the Gospel in this age. Good and evil co-exist, and develop, always in antagonism to each other, until He comes in glory.
MurrayA wrote:I haven't read the book, but I have read a review, and I have read others in a similar vein and I can only say I dissent most strongly. Any post-millennial approach suffers from the same sorts of fallacies as pre-millennial approaches, i.e. the failure to perceive the confusion of the two comings from the OT perspective (as in the familiar appeal to Isa.11:9), and the all-important distinction between the "now" and "not yet" from the standpoint of the NT.Moreover, Chilton's book seems to be similar to others in the same vein by adopting a radical preterist view of prophecy, which to me is both plain wrong, and in some forms is sheer heresy.
JD wrote:the points I have made have been largely ignored
Thus does he reject the Bible teaching that the Holy Spirit, alone, has always enabled the sinner to come to salvation.JD comes from the old papist/arminian position that salvation begins with human effort, - thus salvation by works! (And then of course their is Dispensationalism)
The OT does not teach "indwelling" simply because the OT did not teach Trinity!Only in retrospect can we see that.
This teaching emerges and belongs to the NT, whence God Incarnate came to finish the complete doctrine, and teach the Son's and the Spirit's work.
Thus do we perceive that the Bible is ONE COMPLETE revelation, OT plus NT combined!
The Church is of Israel wrote:Recall that (1) the Old Covenant was a covenant of marriage, (2) Israel was divided in twain, and (3) the Northern Kingdom was divorced; this is the origin of the "nations" or "gentiles" (from the Latin GENTILIS, which is the exact equivalent of the Greek ETHNOS). The Southern Kingdom remained in the marriage relationship; these are the "Jews".The prophets foretold the reunion of the SK and the NK, with both being brought into the marriage relationship of the New Covenant. The restoration of Israel is fulfilled in the Church, which is composed exclusively of the literal, physical descendants of Israel.But in the eyes of God, not all Israelites of the flesh are part of Israel; unbelievers are excluded. Accordingly, the Church is termed the "Israel of God".
The prophets foretold the reunion of the SK and the NK, with both being brought into the marriage relationship of the New Covenant. The restoration of Israel is fulfilled in the Church, which is composed exclusively of the literal, physical descendants of Israel.
But in the eyes of God, not all Israelites of the flesh are part of Israel; unbelievers are excluded. Accordingly, the Church is termed the "Israel of God".
Moreover, Chilton's book seems to be similar to others in the same vein by adopting a radical preterist view of prophecy, which to me is both plain wrong, and in some forms is sheer heresy.
Also, there is still the problem of Christ's present reign: that despite an acknowledgement of that present reign the tacit assumption is that it fails until the golden age arrives. Thus post- and pre-millennialism concur in using the argument, "Christ can't be in real control. Look at all the evil in the world!"
I firmly believe that good and evil develop simultaneously, until evil is finally banished at His glorious return. This a-mill view alone is both Biblical, and the historic faith of the church.
However, this thread is not the place for discussion of this issue.
Bernard wrote:I'd support closing this one; it's been going nowhere for a while.
Moderator Alpha wrote:If the recent tenor of comments continues this survey will be closed. Both sides of the discussion need to take heed and clean up your comments.Thank you.
Yes, DJC49, this tenet that you are calling silly is called the covenants that God made with Israel. There is no way even in your convoluted reasoning that the House (family) of Israel and the House (family) of Judah can be equated to the church. You have a spiritual Israel that equates to it in your theology that renders all these covenants pertaining to the land, the king, and the family null and void. If that is the way you like to interpret the wonderful words of God, then I say knock yourself out. You cannot be turned or halted and you might as well teach as many as you can convince to listen to you. Db is listening and so is Jago, murray and minnow and a few others. They love what you are saying. I have reasoned with you all and the points I have made have been largely ignored and worse, scoffed at, because they cannot be refuted without plain denials and I doubt even you would deliberately cross that line, though nothing surprises m