What end time view do you hold to?

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Is not having a "?" behind considered a non-question? Meaning, you lose?

Have you watched the clip in order to understand the rules?

Do you understand the purpose of emoji?

 

[Josheb]

Ever since Jesus ascended we have been living in eschatological times.

Yes. I might place the beginning prior to the ascension but I agree, we are living in eschatological times.

When the apostles asked Jesus a time question ( when will the Kingdom come about ) He gave a time answer ( You can't know the day...but these things... ).

If that were the only words Jesus spoke about the kingdom a temporal answer like that might be sufficient but that's not all that Jesus said and it's not all that was written in the newer revelation about god's kingdom, and proof-texting is always bad practice. According to the New Testament the kingdom came in the first century and Jesus is NOW King of all Kings, possessing the rule far above all other rule. There are eschatologies that deny this (like Premillennial Dispensationalism), but the facts of scripture are the kingdom appeared in the gospel era.

More substantively, however, the moment we acknowledge Jesus' divinity we must yield to the logically necessary conclusion there has never been a moment in creation where Jesus was not in charge.

Which is another reason why temporal time must be subjected to the authority of scripture and not the reverse.

So ignore the news ( I've yet to see a non-secular news report btw ) at your own risk.

Nice red herring and fallacious appeal to risk.




Let's try this another way:

1) Can you name me one single news-based prediction any modern prognosticator of the last 200 years has made that has come true?

2) If there are still scriptural eschatological conditions coming, they will be so recognizable there won't be any debate. Yes or no?

3) In 1 Corinthians 10:11 Paul explicitly stated the ends of the ages had come upon the believers in Corinth (and by extension the other believers living in the first century). He did not say the beginning of the end times had begun; he said the end(s) had come. What do you make of that? Can you find me a place elsewhere in scripture where the end of something last 2000+ years?

4) What do you make of Psalm 110:1ff? That psalm tells us the Lord will remain seated at the LORD's right hand until the LORD defeats the Lord's enemies. In other words, the Lord won't be leaving his seat until that happens.

5) Nowhere in Revelation 20 (or chapter 19) is Jesus actually coming to earth ever mentioned . No explicit statement declaring Jesus living on earth during the millennium, the thousand-year reign. Look it up. What do you make of that?



Feel free to take each question separately and respond to each in separate posts if you like. Entire threads arguing those four points consume many am Eschatology board in many a forum. Everyone else feel free to join in but please keep answers specific to the questions asked. Don't answer questions not asked and expect my participation. I asked what I asked for my own (op-relevant) reasons.

 

[Josheb]

Gates were also where judgements were handed down.

Got scripture for that?

The church has the distinct honor to be the means of the proclamation of the Gospel.

That's not true. Galatians 3 tells us the gospel was preached to Abraham and the New Testament elsewhere informs us folks like Moses and David also understood something of the gospel, including the resurrection. In Revelation 14 an angel preaches the gospel. Yes, it is the honor and privilege of those in Christ to preach the gospel but that is not distinct to us. What is distinct to us is the salvific application of the gospel. Only humans get saved from sin (at least as far as we can tell from scripture; no angel is offered salvation).

It does not and cannot save a single soul.

The Church or the gospel. The gospel is the power to save (Rom. 1:18).

It assaults no walls.

Matthew 16:18 implies otherwise. So too do the seven letters to the churches in Revelation. The single recurring theme in all seven of those letters is overcoming. Every single one of those congregations is commanded to overcome. According to John "everyone born of God overcomes the world." Aside from the verses I cited in previous posts, Paul wrote we are in all things overcomers and we are to take captive every thought that sets itself up against Christ.

I will again mention Dispensationalism because Dispensationalism theologically subordinates Christology and soteriology to eschatology and ecclesiology. It then asserts a very specific Christology and a very specific ecclesiology, both of which are radically different than anything previously held in Christian thought, doctrine or practice. The Dispensationalists do not believe Jesus is currently reigning and the Church is corrupt.

It is an example of how and why eschatology matters.

If a Christian holds to an ecclesiology that tells him/her the gates of hell are judgment, his only job is to preach the gospel and he will not be assaulting any walls that will lead to a life much different thana Christian who takes the verses I've listed literally and has a Jesus who has always and everywhere been sovereign over all simply because he is God the Son.

It merely stands on the truth.

Certainly. Not a point in dispute.

Right...resist. Not fight. Not fire the cannon. The only sword the Christian has is the Word. When Satan tempted Jesus...Jesus answered with Scripture. Resist.

Jesus defeated the devil and undid his works. A sword is an offensive weapon, not an armament of defense (like a shield). Thw word is NOT the only weapon a Christian has and the word "only" does not occur in Ephesians ANYWHERE. Don't practice onlyism; it leads to bad thinking, doctrine, and practice.

One that finds no foothold for his lies.

Yep. So no Christian should ever think the minion satan has any power of his own. If God sees fit to ever loose that slave into any of our lives we can stand firmly on the promise of Romans 8:28. We are sons (and daugthers ) of The Most High God, royal priests chosen by God Himself.

And all of that is eschatologically relevant.

Presumably.

So no neck standing?

Satan is a creature.

Yep.

Just like you and me.

Nope.

Older, far more powerful,

Nope

smarter,

Maybe, but he knows nothing of the gospel experientially, nor its power, so I'm inclined to disagree, admonish you, and encourage you to rethink that.

more theologically knowledgeable.

Perhaps but, again, all his knowledge is corrupted and enslaved by sin. He is just as dead and enslaved by his own sin as any sinner. His mind thinks futilely, his heart is darkened, he no longer correctly understands the things of the Spirit, and he has been assigned the lot of a carrion eater, a scavenger.

Even so a creature none the less.

Yep; a sinfully dead and enslaved creature.

The book of Job shows how God treats with the Accuser.

Yes, it shows God treats him like a minion who can do nothing more or less than God directs and/or permits.

Eschatologically, he is a defeated enemy.

Jude 1:6
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day...


That bondage has always been satan's lot. He has been thrice-enslaved since his rebellion; first by the design specifications and limits of the Creator, then by his own sin, and again by the judgment of God consequent to that sin. He has never been a free agent doing whatever he wanted with any might other than that which the Creator granted the creature.

Eschatologically speaking, his last day has already been decided and it was decided before a word of scripture was ever penned.

 

[Josheb]

I agree that the gospel overcomes all competing worldviews; however, what does that mean in practice? It does not necessarily mean that Christians become the majority, nor that they come to be in charge of the various institutions of human power.

I am not a Reconstructionist and my dominionist views do not assert the necessity of Christian geo-political state. The gospel overcoming all competing worldviews does mean Christians become the majority if the Dominion/Cultural mandate and great commission are fulfilled.

This begs the question, "Does God expect those commands to be fulfilled?" My answer is in the affirmative.

I'm sure that everyone would agree that a reduction in slavery and the sex-trade is a very good thing; however, I don't think that that kind of thing is good measure of the success of the gospel.

That is the very point I have been endeavoring to make.

Details, details...

Details about flies coming from unattended steak? That's merely a reference to spontaneous generation. Science once held certain organisms, like flies, were simply and spontaneously generated from other sources. Louis Pasteur disproved that.

Every Christian should seek to fulfil his calling, including his part in the Great Commission, whether he sees an upward or downward trend in society. The perception of a trend should make no difference to his desire to live out and spread the gospel.

If you and I each preached the gospel to three people and the Holy Spirit saw fit to save all six and then each of those six did the same with just three others..... The logical outcome of baptizing all nations and teaching them Christs commands is everyone being saved and knowing Jesus' commands.

The only reason that does NOT happen is because God is sovereign. If He wanted everyone saved, then they'd all be saved.

I'd be surprised if there are any Christians here, who, as a matter of policy, do not want to live out and spread the gospel; in fact, I would have to wonder if they really were Christians.

I doubt that is truly what you believe. You and I have argued with trolls aplenty. Yes, there is often the temptation to idolatrously place ourselves in the seat of God and consider a stranger's eternal disposition, but one of the most shocking facts of the epistolary is that many Christians do not live holy, righteous, obedient, or victorious lives and the authors of the letters still called them saints. You and I also know if the Senate (or Parliament for our overseas siblings) were populated with a majority of gospel-believing sincere, earnest, and authentic Christians it would be a messy place. Unity is the goal, but it has rarely, if ever, existed among Christians.

Eschatologically speaking, the gospel being prevalent with the world subdued and ruled by the gospel (as opposed to being ruled by men) and (peoples from) all nations being baptized, knowing Christ's teachings (and actually living obediently to them) does not mean a perfect world exists. The only utopia asserted in scripture comes on the other side of the grave. Only then is anyone said to be incorruptible.

Eschatologically, that is the difference between the last days and the last day.

 

[Josheb]

2 Th 2:1-12.

Let's take a look at that text.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Now, for the record, the two questions asked were,

1) How do you reconcile that with Jesus' statement the gates of hell would not prevail?

2) What kind of enemy is it that flees when resisted?

There's no mention of "hell." in the passage you chose. The only mention of "Satan," explicitly states his deception applies only to those NOT saved (vs 10). There's nothing in 2 Thes. 2:1-12 that says the Church will not prevail over the gates of hell. No boot on the neck.




Eschatologically speaking, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work back then, and the congregants knew what was holding back the lawless man. If he was alive back then then everything Paul wrote has long ago come and gone. Notice the entire narrative is conditional!!! The day of the Lord had not come yet in their time, but the mystery of lawlessness had.

 

[David1701]

I am not a Reconstructionist and my dominionist views do not assert the necessity of Christian geo-political state. The gospel overcoming all competing worldviews does mean Christians become the majority if the Dominion/Cultural mandate and great commission are fulfilled.

Why would Christians, of necessity, become the majority, in this case?

This begs the question, "Does God expect those commands to be fulfilled?" My answer is in the affirmative.

In the sense that we should fulfil God's commands: yes. In the sense that we will fulfil them: not so much.

That is the very point I have been endeavoring to make.

Details about flies coming from unattended steak? That's merely a reference to spontaneous generation. Science once held certain organisms, like flies, were simply and spontaneously generated from other sources. Louis Pasteur disproved that.

Yes, I know. Another brilliant experiment purported to show that mice were spontaneously generated from unwashed underwear!

The point I was making, slightly tongue-in-cheek, is that the principle is same, in all examples, including the modern "abiogenesis".

If you and I each preached the gospel to three people and the Holy Spirit saw fit to save all six and then each of those six did the same with just three others..... The logical outcome of baptizing all nations and teaching them Christs commands is everyone being saved and knowing Jesus' commands.



The only reason that does NOT happen is because God is sovereign. If He wanted everyone saved, then they'd all be saved.

The only reason that anyone is saved is because God is sovereign. If he wanted no-one saved, then no-one would be saved (just displaying the obverse side of the coin).

I doubt that is truly what you believe. You and I have argued with trolls aplenty. Yes, there is often the temptation to idolatrously place ourselves in the seat of God and consider a stranger's eternal disposition, but one of the most shocking facts of the epistolary is that many Christians do not live holy, righteous, obedient, or victorious lives and the authors of the letters still called them saints.

But...

1 John 3:6-10 (ESV)
6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.
7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

You and I also know if the Senate (or Parliament for our overseas siblings) were populated with a majority of gospel-believing sincere, earnest, and authentic Christians it would be a messy place. Unity is the goal, but it has rarely, if ever, existed among Christians.

I'm one of your "overseas siblings" (Scotland).

Eschatologically speaking, the gospel being prevalent with the world subdued and ruled by the gospel (as opposed to being ruled by men) and (peoples from) all nations being baptized, knowing Christ's teachings (and actually living obediently to them) does not mean a perfect world exists. The only utopia asserted in scripture comes on the other side of the grave. Only then is anyone said to be incorruptible.

Utopia means "a place that does not exist", ironically; otherwise, I agree.

Eschatologically, that is the difference between the last days and the last day.

One is ongoing, the other punctiliar.

 

[Josheb]

Why would Christians, of necessity, become the majority, in this case?

Christians are already the majority.

In the sense that we should fulfil God's commands: yes. In the sense that we will fulfil them: not so much.

I disagree.

The only reason that anyone is saved is because God is sovereign.

Did God sovereignly intend the dominion mandate and great commission? Or are those two commands examples of God commanding something He knows we cannot do and He has no intention of making happen?


Because if He meant what He commanded then they will happen and happen His way in His timing as measured by other scripture and not a 21st century newscast.

One is ongoing, the other punctiliar.

Yep

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Yes. I might place the beginning prior to the ascension but I agree, we are living in eschatological times.

Excellent

If that were the only words Jesus spoke about the kingdom a temporal answer like that might be sufficient but that's not all that Jesus said and it's not all that was written in the newer revelation about god's kingdom, and proof-texting is always bad practice.

Jesus spoke a lot about the kingdom. One would think that after 40 straight days of talking about the Kingdom the disciples would be pretty well versed ( no pun intended ) on the subject. But then we have this:

Acts 1:
1 The first account, O Theophilus, I composed, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen,
3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over forty days and speaking about the things concerning the kingdom of God.
4 And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me;
5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the end of the earth.”

Now this would be the time for Jesus to set the stage for the Amil or Postmil views. Something like "I just taught you for 40 days about the Kingdom and you still think it's going to be here on earth? What's wrong with you people?! ( hat tip to RC Sproul )

According to the New Testament the kingdom came in the first century

There are a bunch of references to "The Kingdom" in the NT. "Gospel of the Kingdom", "Kingdom of God", "Kingdom of Heaven". Those latter two are essentially the same.

and Jesus is NOW King of all Kings, possessing the rule far above all other rule.

This preaches well. I'd say that Jesus has always been King. But currently this world is under the thumb of principalities and powers that are not so friendly. That's Scriptural. That God is allowing this is part of the story.

There are eschatologies that deny this (like Premillennial Dispensationalism)

Horsefeathers.

, but the facts of scripture are the kingdom appeared in the gospel era.

Yeah...Not seeing it. And I've looked. There is certainly the church. And the Gospel. But a remarkable lack of Kingdom. Unless, of course, your tradition spiritualizes the Kingdom it in order to protect God for some strange reason. As if He needed your protection. Then "The Kingdom" can mean pretty much anything you want it to. Jump ball.

More substantively, however, the moment we acknowledge Jesus' divinity we must yield to the logically necessary conclusion there has never been a moment in creation where Jesus was not in charge.

Nah...then I'd have to deny the Trinity. Jesus was most decidedly not "In charge" while walking around in shoe leather. In fact He laid all that down.

Which is another reason why temporal time must be subjected to the authority of scripture and not the reverse.

Oooo...temporal time. Did you come up with that yourself? God created time. God's presence is throughout all time. God exists outside of time. Jesus stepped into time, humbling Himself to seek and save the lost.

Nice red herring and fallacious appeal to risk.

Sure

Let's try this another way:

1) Can you name me one single news-based prediction any modern prognosticator of the last 200 years has made that has come true?

Sure...the weatherman predicted the temperature in my area would be between 60-70 degrees. Well what do you know. Correct.

2) If there are still scriptural eschatological conditions coming, they will be so recognizable there won't be any debate. Yes or no?

Events

3) In 1 Corinthians 10:11 Paul explicitly stated the ends of the ages had come upon the believers in Corinth (and by extension the other believers living in the first century). He did not say the beginning of the end times had begun; he said the end(s) had come. What do you make of that?

Not sure...are you arguing from a Preterist outlook?

Can you find me a place elsewhere in scripture where the end of something last 2000+ years?

Sure...the partial hardening of Israel.

4) What do you make of Psalm 110:1ff? That psalm tells us the Lord will remain seated at the LORD's right hand until the LORD defeats the Lord's enemies. In other words, the Lord won't be leaving his seat until that happens.

Did you actually read this Psalm?

Psalm 110:
1 Yahweh says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand
Until I put Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet.”
2 Yahweh will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
“Have dominion in the midst of Your enemies.”
3 Your people will offer themselves freely in the day of Your power;
In the splendor of holiness, from the womb of the dawn,
The dew of Your youthfulness will be Yours.

5) Nowhere in Revelation 20 (or chapter 19) is Jesus actually coming to earth ever mentioned . No explicit statement declaring Jesus living on earth during the millennium, the thousand-year reign. Look it up. What do you make of that?

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. Starting in Rev 19:11 and extending too Rev 20:9

Feel free to take each question separately and respond to each in separate posts if you like. Entire threads arguing those four points consume many am Eschatology board in many a forum. Everyone else feel free to join in but please keep answers specific to the questions asked. Don't answer questions not asked and expect my participation. I asked what I asked for my own (op-relevant) reasons.

Coolio...enjoy.

 

[Eleanor]

Let's take a look at that text.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
1Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

Now, for the record, the two questions asked were,

1) How do you reconcile that with Jesus' statement the gates of hell would not prevail?

Well, it's not a hill I will die on, but prevail is to totally destroy the church, and Jesus rescues her to keep that from happening.

2) What kind of enemy is it that flees when resisted?

The one who encounters the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit in the person's resistance.

There's no mention of "hell." in the passage you chose. The only mention of "Satan," explicitly states his deception applies only to those NOT saved (vs 10). There's nothing in 2 Thes. 2:1-12 that says the Church will not prevail over the gates of hell. No boot on the neck.

Eschatologically speaking, the mystery of lawlessness was already at work back then, and the congregants knew what was holding back the lawless man. If he was alive back then then everything Paul wrote has long ago come and gone. Notice the entire narrative is conditional!!! The day of the Lord had not come yet in their time, but the mystery of lawlessness had.

It's not a hill I will die on. . .note that I stated (post #58) I would not be surprised if.

 

[David1701]

Christians are already the majority.

We're not the majority numerically, so how do you mean this?

Did God sovereignly intend the dominion mandate and great commission? Or are those two commands examples of God commanding something He knows we cannot do and He has no intention of making happen?

There are many commands that God's people do not carry out perfectly; in fact, I would have to say all of them.

Because if He meant what He commanded then they will happen and happen His way in His timing as measured by other scripture and not a 21st century newscast.

Everything God determines to happen, happens; but, not everything commands us to do is done.

 

[Josheb]

Horsefeathers.

Would you like me to link you to Dispensationalists' posts stating Jesus is not now ruling, or quote you sources from the likes of Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord or Vlach proving they have a different view of the kingdom then what I posted?

 

[Josheb]

Well, it's not a hill I will die on, but prevail is to totally destroy the church

No, gates are defensive conditions and NOT offensive conditions. Gates never destroy an enemy. Gates are always a last defense because once an enemy breaches a city's gates the city is lost and with the city its king, country, rule and reign. The gates of hell not prevailing over the Church means the Church is the one standing on satan's neck, NOT the other way around.

, and Jesus rescues her to keep that from happening.

The Church is the body of Christ. The body of Christ does need rescuing. Ever.

The one who encounters the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit in the person's resistance.

And yet you think satan stands on that person's neck. That's hugely contradictory.

It's not a hill I will die on. . .note that I stated (post #58) I would not be surprised if.

Bad Christology does not save.


This could well prove to be a hill on which many do die. I encourage you to read up on other eschatological positions beside Premillennial Dispensationalism. I can recommend some good places to start.

 

[Josheb]

We're not the majority numerically, so how do you mean this?

We are numerically larger. Just Google "number of Christians in the world" and do the same with "muslims," "hindis" and "jews".

 

[David1701]

We are numerically larger. Just Google "number of Christians in the world" and do the same with "muslims," "hindis" and "jews".

Approx. a third of the world's population are professing Christians. This means that we are outnumbered by idolaters two to one, not to mention the fact that a very large number of these professing Christians will not be born again.

 

[Eleanor]

No, gates are defensive conditions and NOT offensive conditions. Gates never destroy an enemy. Gates are always a last defense because once an enemy breaches a city's gates the city is lost and with the city its king, country, rule and reign. The gates of hell not prevailing over the Church means the Church is the one standing on satan's neck, NOT the other way around.

Or it means he was not able to prevail (destroy) because Christ rescued her first.

The Church is the body of Christ. The body of Christ does need rescuing. Ever.

And yet you think satan stands on that person's neck. That's hugely contradictory.

Bad Christology does not save.


This could well prove to be a hill on which many do die. I encourage you to read up on other eschatological positions beside Premillennial Dispensationalism. I can recommend some good places to start.

Thanks, but actually, I don't really do dispensationalism, too much of it contradicts the NT.

 

[makesends]

We are numerically larger. Just Google "number of Christians in the world" and do the same with "muslims," "hindis" and "jews".

I recognized what you meant, and don't think you actually conflate the Elect with the larger group called Christian.

But I feel like I should nevertheless mention, that one of the constant themes I've encountered in my 67 years among Christians and in Christian teaching, is that the "Children of Israel" are a kind of picture of the so-called 'church', not made entirely of the Elect. In my book, that is not "WE", if the survivors of Israel after slaughter have any parallel to the current numbers of so-called Christians, maybe 10% max. makes a pretty good guess as to how many are true believers, aka, Redeemed and Saved. The Elect.

 

[Eleanor]

I recognized what you meant, and don't think you actually conflate the Elect with the larger group called Christian.

But I feel like I should nevertheless mention, that one of the constant themes I've encountered in my 67 years among Christians and in Christian teaching, is that the "Children of Israel" are a kind of picture of the so-called 'church', not made entirely of the Elect. In my book, that is not "WE", if the survivors of Israel after slaughter have any parallel to the current numbers of so-called Christians, maybe 10% max. makes a pretty good guess as to how many are true believers, aka, Redeemed and Saved. The Elect.

Gads! I had it at 20%.

But then I've had it there for years, may be time to adjust it.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Would you like me to link you to Dispensationalists' posts stating Jesus is not now ruling, or quote you sources from the likes of Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord or Vlach proving they have a different view of the kingdom then what I posted?

What is it with the reading comprehension of this group? Brother, I've already stated that currently Jesus is most definitely Lord and King ( if not here in this thread than elsewhere ) but He isn't currently "ruling and reigning" over the earth. Currently it's principalities and powers as the Scripture states...Until Jesus returns.

Now you could make the case that said principalities and powers are under the authority of God and you'd be right...but that just means God is allowing them power on earth until Christ returns. Something like Job.

And yes...I'm aware that Jesus is God. But...you know...Trinity. And all that stuff.

Anywho...you asked.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Got scripture for that?

Zechariah 8:16

Not that it particularly matters. Tradition, Archeology, ect....you know.

And I haven't the time to continue in the 2-3 page long point by point.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

No, gates are defensive conditions and NOT offensive conditions. Gates never destroy an enemy. Gates are always a last defense because once an

You obviously have never seen the inside of a gate. Or heard of bolt holes or murder holes. The Europeans were not the first to employ extremely effective methods inside gates to kill attackers.

Do you know how thick the walls too ancient Jerusalem were? Jericho perhaps? Cities that literally had enough room for living quarters, trade, guard contingents, tax gathering, tithe gathering...and *gasp* rooms for judgements. All centered around the gates.