Not so. It's all about interpretation. Even Dispensationalists interpret figuratively and allegorically when needed.But all of them start with an assumption that they do not really mean what they actually say.
Upvote
0
Not so. It's all about interpretation. Even Dispensationalists interpret figuratively and allegorically when needed.But all of them start with an assumption that they do not really mean what they actually say.
The chosen are the elect. And they do not become elect after they have been faithful and obedient, but when God chooses them.Profoundly true.
An excerpt from Isaiah 65:9 in the ancient Hebrew:
"...My servants My chosen shall inherit it".
God's servants are His chosen (elect).
The faithful and obedient are His servants.
The unfaithful and disobedient are not His servants.
Both groups were found within Israel.
All the other systems of interpretation cannot even possibly be maintained without assuming that most of the prophecies in the Bible simply do not mean what they explicitly say.Not so. It's all about interpretation. Even Dispensationalists interpret figuratively and allegorically when needed.
The prophetic scriptures could not be more clear in explicitly stating that in a coming day most of that rebellious nation will be killed, and that all the rest of them will repent and turn to God with their whole heart. Those that will repent are the elect.
This is nothing short of nonsense. It is not only a willful wresting of what Dispensationalists teach, it is a willful wresting of scripture.Dispensationally, in Zechariah 12:10, the nation repents and receives salvation, in its entirety.
Dispensationally, in Zechariah 13:8, two thirds are slain.
Zechariah 12 precedes Zechariah 13. Therefore those who are slain have already received salvation.
That includes Judas, Caiaphas, et al ("...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced...").
Dispensationally, we'll see 'em in heaven.
This is nothing short of nonsense. It is not only a willful wresting of what Dispensationalists teach, it is a willful wresting of scripture.
It does not even approximately resemble anything ever taught by any Dispensationalist. Nor is it a logical conclusion from anything any Dispensationalist ever taught. It is 100% pure fiction.It is a plain description of dispensationalism's inevitably illogical conclusions.
It does not even approximately resemble anything ever taught by any Dispensationalist. Nor is it a logical conclusion from anything any Dispensationalist ever taught. It is 100% pure fiction.
The chosen are the elect. And they do not become elect after they have been faithful and obedient, but when God chooses them.
He has plainly declared that He will do as He did with the Apostle Paul, take resolute enemies and transform them into faithful and obedient persons.
You appear to be correct about Sennacherib (at least most likely) entering Judea along the northwest border instead of the southwest border, as I had said. But we know from scripture that he went to Lachish before he sent his troops to Jerusalem, and while his troops were there, he moved to Libnah.
This most certainly makes it absolutely ridiculous to assume that before he went to Jerusalem he went north to Aiath and then from there proceeded south to Jerusalem, stopping at Michmash, Geba, and Nob. This theory not only lacke even the slightest historical basis, it is totally unreasonable.
You would be hard pressed for any printed source for a claim that nothing has ever been found, anywhere.
My source for my archeologiccal argument was a personal interview with Dr Ibrim E'phal, the head of the Department of Antiquities at the Hebrew University in Jerusalam, whom a curator at the Oriental Institute in Chicago personally told me was "the world's leading authority on the archeology of the Holy Land."
And again the secular historians, who have no horse in this race, are decided in declaring that Sennacherib simply did not follow the route defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.
And the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who would have known their own history, clearly said that Isaiah 10:28-32 refers to a time in their own distant future.
So your claim that my "theory cannot be proven as fact based on current evidence" is simply incorrect. What I have proved is that a very significant amount of evidence clearly shows that Sennacherib did not invade Judea by following this path.
The term antichrist is only associated with a man once and it's not used in the OT!
The Assyrian Isaiah mentions in ch. 10 and 14 are examples. There are several things in ch. 10 & 14 that haven't occurred and even impossible to have occurred, and some will only occur during the Millennial kingdom. A commentary of Isaiah 10 could indeed be long. So to cover a few things...
V. 3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?
What's the day of visitation? Peter mentions it, "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation" (I Peter 2:12).
V. 6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
That would be Israel.
V. 7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
The Assyrian may not even know he's the antichrist.
It's the voice of the Lord that beats down the Assyrian. Not another army. The Assyrian is destroyed in Israel.
Isaiah 30:31 For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.
Isaiah 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.
Daniel says that the little horn (anti-Christ) will not be destroyed by human hands, and that's in accord with Isaiah 14:25 about the Assyrian.
Isaiah 10:24 says "be not afraid of the Assyrian." This is future because of "the anointing" an the Lord puts an end to the Assyrian antichrist' indignation upon Israel decreed by God who destroys him and his cohorts.
V. 24-25 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.
There is zero reason to disprove false claims about what we never even so much as suggested. But the scriptures very explicitly say that this promised universal repentance will apply to those that have survived the coming time.You're invited to attempt to dispensationally disprove it.
God chose Saul in the Old Testament. He began as God's elect. But he eventually responded with unfaithfulness and disobedience, and ultimately experienced a tragic end.
God chose Saul in the New Testament. He began as God's elect. He responded with continuing faith and obedience, and ultimately experienced a triumphant end.
Which Saul finished as elect, and why?
will cause (also absolutely) all of them that are still living to turn back to Himself
God chose the first Saul to be a king, not for salvation. God chose the second Saul for salvation.
But I am not going to get into an argument with you on election. I believe in it and you do not. end of story.
That is nowhere to be seen in the passages.
What is seen is "...they will look on Me whom they pierced."
That includes Judas and Caiaphas.
You need to learn to read. It is explicitly stated in the passages I just quoted.
This is nothing less than willful wresting of the scriptures, in a vain attempt to justify refusing to believe what God has explicitly stated. And by willful wresting, I mean making an argument that you are perfectly aware is twisting scripture to mean something entirely different from what God meant.
Isaiah 10:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.
Chapter 14 is full of events that can only happen during the Millennial kingdom. Chapter 10, not so much. The Lord has NOT "performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem." It goes on until "the day of visitation," the Day of the Lord. Verse 12 clearly states the Lord punishes the KING of Assyria. NOT the Assyrian people like you claim.
The 'anti-Christ' has several names. The man of sin, and the lawless one, the wicked counsellor, the son of perdition, a vile person, etc.
He IS one individual since there are several times personal pronouns are used to describe him. Anti-Christ isn't always just a 'spirit.'
"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."
I would interpret it like this, "Many antichrist have come, and THE antichrist is coming, that's how you will know it's the last hour."
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that (THE) antichrist (singular) shall come, even now are there many antichrists; (plural) whereby we know that it is the last time."
The verse actually reads in the Greek interlinear like this...
Little boys and girls, it is the last hour and according as ye hear that THE "instead-anointed" (antichrist) is coming and now many instead anointeds have become.....