The Apostle Paul vs Popular Eschatalogical Doctrines/Positions

[Timtofly]

C: Paul vs preterism, at least those who claimed that the resurrection (of all the saints) happened at the Cross, a position also held by many amillennials.

No eschatology accepts a physical resurrection at the Cross. All I have seen claim these people just died again, because only Christ physically resurrected. All seem to claim just a single last day resurrection in the future. Preterist claim there was one in 70AD, but only conjecture, and they still have to have the dead since then resurrected at sometime.

 

[Timtofly]

We know all believers will be changed and put on immortality when He returns (1 Cor 15:50-54) and Paul indicated that all unbelievers will be physically destroyed when He returns as well. That does not leave any mortals to populate the earth for a thousand years. This obviously supports amillennialism.

This logic dictates that Paul had all of the future revealed to him and he rejected the knowledge of what was revealed to John.

Paul was not Amil, because it was never revealed to Paul there would be a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. You cannot put ideas into Paul's mind that were never there to begin with. Paul would also reject the fact there have been 1991 years of the ongoing NT church. One could, by that logic, declare Paul was a Preterist and the Second Coming happened a decade after Paul died.

The stark reality is that Paul had no knowledge of the time God had planned out, and was even more in the dark about time periods, than those alive 1900 years after Paul wrote any of his letters. Paul never pointed out it would be 2000 years until the Second Coming, so he had no need to declare Revelation 20 was not about an extended 1000 year period either. Paul wrote what was revealed at that time, and never speculated about the future.

 

[Timtofly]

Core teaching of Amillennialism is that the first resurrection in Revelation 20 took place at the cross, that we have all been resurrected already if we're in Christ.

According to Amil this only applies to those alive on earth. Obviously, all those dead are dead, not currently alive anywhere, because when I point out they are physically alive in Paradise, it is called nonsense.

Amil here keep saying we are only resurrected at the Second Coming, so no resurrection at all in Revelation 20:4 or Matthew 27:52-53. They all be dead in their graves.

 

[Timtofly]

Many Premils mix up the current spiritual kingship that has been bestowed upon the elect of God and which sees the Church invade Satan's spiritual domain, to that of our glorious eternal reign that occurs at the Second Advent.

Satan is also bound spiritually during the 1000 year reign. Premil does not rest on how Satan is bound, but when.

 

[Timtofly]

I think you need to move into the NT and have a look outside your window to see that the Gentiles are no longer ignorant. The Gospel has gone out the nations as Christ predicted during this new covenant period, corresponding with the parallel binding of Satan for his territory to be overrun with the truth. The millennium was ushered in by Christ’s resurrection (the first resurrection). It saw the Gospel go out to the Gentiles (as predicted). Before the resurrection the Gospel was restricted to one lone small nation Israel. The Gospel has liberated countless millions of Gentiles over this past 2,000 years as Satan's territory has been invaded with the truth. Village after village, town after town, city after city, nation after nation globally has encountered the light. Those that have eyes to see will see. Anyway, your opinion of Revelation 20 is non-corroborative. Nowhere else in Scripture says what you are forcing on Revelation 20.

They were not ignorant in the OT.

Over 3000 came each year to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration.

 

[Timtofly]

Really? Who taught you that? The Bible shows the resurrection/judgment of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked to occur on “the last (or final) day” of “the last days” when Jesus comes. Martha had a full awareness of that truth in the New Testament, when speaking of her brother Lazarus to Christ, in John 11:23-24, “Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Christ did not rebuke this understanding of the last day. In fact, Christ taught in complete agreement in John 6:39.

Jesus said in John 6:39: “all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

Resurrection day is the last day. It is the final day of history.

Jesus said in John 6:39: “every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus said in 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.”

Jesus said in John 6:54: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood (speaking spiritually and figuratively), hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Premils are unable to take Scripture after Scripture literally (and at face value) because it interferes with their mistaken opinion. They must therefore dismiss the "last day" being the "last day" because they have to squeeze thousands of additional days after history's last day. This is blatantly unbiblical. Amils are happy to let the Bible speak for itself.

Whilst, we are plainly in the last days there is an actual day coming which will conclude this scene of time and will see the final operation of God’s judgment upon sin, Satan and the wicked. That individual day is frequently known as “the last day.”

Moreover, this concluding last day is not just a day of resurrection and judgment for the righteous but also for the wicked. This is confirmed by Christ in John 12:48, when He said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Here the wicked are judged on the same day that the righteous are judged, namely, the “last day” of the “last days.” Judgment day is therefore the last day. The term “the last day” is quoted different times in the New Testament without any form (or undoubted requirement) of qualification or any hint that there are two separate last days, as the Premillennialist would try and argue. When Christ or any other person referred to that final day in the New Testament it was always constantly in the context of its all-consummating nature, each time referring to the matter of the resurrection/judgment of both the wicked and the righteous. The references expressly refer to the last day of this age (the Gospel age) – the day that ushers in the new heaven and the new earth. There are absolutely no grounds for believing that the last day refers to a future millennium, and therefore lasts for a literal 1,000 years. Such a suggestion only emanates out of the Premillennialist camp in order to support their flawed view of Revelation 20.

Significantly, in all the above references, the wording in the original for “last day” is always identical – eschatee heemara. The Greek word eschatee used here comes from the root word eschatos, from where we get our word English eschatology, and simply means end, last, farthest or final. Eschatology is therefore the study of, or teaching on, end times or final or last things. It covers the period of redemptive history.

We can therefore safely assume from its meaning that the last day alluded to in these references relates to the end or final day of this age, the day when all the purposes of God for man in this life are finally concluded and judged. It is the last or final day when the old heavens and the old earth will finally pass away and be replaced by a new heaven and a new earth. It is an all-consummating day in which every man will give finally give account for his life.

Nowhere in any of Christ’s statements on the resurrection, the judgment, the last day, and the does He make any allowance for, or the slightest allusion to, a 1000 years gap separating His dealings with, and His judgment of, the sheep and the goats.

The last day resurrection that Martha, Mary, Lazarus, Jesus , and all OT redeemed were all referring to was the Cross.

The first order of those resurrected as described by Paul, the firstfruits, 1 Corinthians 15:23

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits"

The next group so to speak as a group are those alive on earth:

"afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

1000 years later:


"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. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Christ has been reigning since the Cross. Christ was the Resurrection and the Life prior to the Cross. Jesus did not tell Martha and Mary, "I will be the Resurrection and the Life after the Cross." Or "I will be the Resurrection and the Life at the Second Coming." No one is currently waiting for a last day resurrection period. No one has tasted death since the Cross. Those alive have always been waiting for a bodily rapture to meet the Lord in the air.

 

[Timtofly]

Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 fit perfectly with the Amillennial concept of the kingdom but totally contradicts the Premillennial idea. Firstly, there are no wicked in our kingdom and there are no physical wars involved or allowed in our kingdom. It is a spiritual kingdom that is inhabited solely by God’s people and who eternally enters into the peace of God. Secondly, Amils believe Jesus ushered "the last days" 2000 years ago through the earthly ministry of Christ and will continue until "the last day" when Jesus comes. Premils invent another last days that suits their theology after the last day is finished.

Premil have all the church alive and enjoying life in Paradise. Also a sin free kingdom on earth. There are no Amil physically in Paradise, because once they arrive they are instantly corrected on how the future will turn out. Any Amil waiting for the GWT, are waiting for the wrong ressurection.

 

[Timtofly]

They only bring up Satan's binding according to their understanding of it and say nothing at all about why exactly our understanding can't be true. How does that make any sense?

Because then the complaint is we misrepresent amil. It does not seem to matter either way.

 

[Timtofly]

This particular discussion relates back to the timing of Satan being cast out of heaven. So, in terms of him accusing people, it never says he accused unbelievers in heaven, it only indicates that he accused believers. So, your last comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

You left out the part indicating before God day and night. That is nonstop and has been for 1991 years. Before that he was part of the council. The Word was the advocate prior to the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ our advocate. Unless you insist the Word was the advocate before the Cross.

 

[Timtofly]

You're not getting it. The reason we can resist him is because he is bound. You need to think about how things were in Old Testament times compared to New Testament times. Premils never do that. In Old Testament times, was it true that someone could resist the devil and he would flee from them?

"And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death."

The part about Satan being bound is not listed. Jesus Christ as the advocate covered the first part, and being led by the Holy Spirit covers the second part. Yet nothing avout Satan being bound, when clearly he was nonstop, day and night before God. Was that spiritually before God or physically or both?

 

[Timtofly]

Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully? I'm speaking against the Calvinist way of looking at things. Only a Calvinist could think that some people could be blinded before even having any opportunity of deciding for themselves if they believe in Christ or not.

Good. Then there's at least something we agree on.

But you're talking about something that relates to the amillennialist understanding of Satan's binding, so why can't I talk about things relating to amillennialism to support my understanding of his binding? By showing what Paul taught about what will happen at the return of Christ, I can show that the timing of Satan's binding cannot be after the return of Christ. No wonder you don't want me to talk about that.

Anyway, you are only assuming that Paul agreed with your understanding of Satan's binding. But, I believe he agreed with mine. I suppose we can't prove it definitively either way with just Paul's letters alone. All we can do is prove that he said things that, at least on the surface, seem to agree with each of our interpretations of Satan's binding.

This is Jesus speaking to Paul in this passage (so, even though Paul didn't write this, we can safely assume that Paul believed what Jesus taught him here):

Acts 26:14 We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Notice that Jesus told Paul (named Saul at the time) that He was send him to the Gentiles "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God". This lines up with the Amil understanding of the binding of Satan. It is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, that binds Satan and allows people to be set free from Satan's grasp and turn to God instead.

There is some debate over who wrote the book of Hebrews, but I'm convinced that it was Paul. So, I believe he wrote this:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

Amils believe that the binding of Satan relates to Christ's death and resurrection, as well as the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit, taking the power of death away from Satan so that "those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" can be set free and have the hope of eternal life instead of fearing death and having no hope of anything after death. Most people in Old Testament times had no hope of anything after death because Christ had not yet taken the power of death away from Satan. But once He died and rose again it changed everything as it relates to Satan and to the world.

Yet this speaks more to humanity being loosed from their bondage, more than Satan being placed into bondage.

Not sure why you are using the power of the death burial and resurrection to avoid a future reign of Christ on earth? One is spiritual in nature, and the other is physical.

No one should rule out the physical benefit of the Cross either. Those held captive in death in Abraham's bosom were both spiritually and physically set free from the justice that sin requires, death itself. After the Cross no one who accepted redemption tasted death again. All that, is the power of the Cross, and a future 1000 year reign does not diminish that point one iota.

 

[DavidPT]

Contrary to what Premils argue, Christ’s resurrection was the first. Obviously, the believer’s physical resurrection can’t be the first resurrection – Christ’s has already preceded it. The resurrection of the just is still to occur. Moreover, the resurrection is here identified with the enlightenment of the Gentiles thus removing their long-held deception. This agrees with a current fulfilment of Revelation 20.

The believer's physical resurrection can't be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it, is what you argue. In that case neither can the believer's spirititual resurrection be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it. What now?

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You are saying that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily because Christ's resurrection preceded it, a believer can only have part in the first resurrection spiritually, even though Christ's resurrection precedes that as well. Why does that have to be the case? Where in any of the above does it say that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily?

Who would need to be priests of God and Christ after they have died? Someone in heaven still awaiting a body? Or someone back on earth already in a body, as in has been bodily resurrected?

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


Where is heaven ever mentioned in this verse? How can this verse involve the earth, as pertaining to reigning and being priests, but in Revelation 20:4-6 the reigning and the being priests of God and Christ, this is involving in heaven not on earth?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The believer's physical resurrection can't be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it, is what you argue. In that case neither can the believer's spirititual resurrection be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it. What now?

If you would just listen instead of talk then you would grasp what Amils actually believe. What frustrates them more than anything over the years is that we can explain something 200 times and you still do not grasp what they are telling you, or, you are intentionally misrepresenting Amil. Whichever, it is, you do not get what Amils hold on this. This has all been explained to you until we are blue in the face. So, the breakdown is on your behalf. You chose what you are functioning in.

Revelation 20:6 says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

The first resurrection is shown elsewhere throughout the Word to be Christ’s resurrection (Acts 26:23, Colossians 1:18, 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Revelation 1:5). The Greek word translated “part” in the text is the word meros meaning share, allotment or portion. This reading tells us that all those that have come to the joy of saving faith in Christ have become partakers in the resurrection life, and through this will escape the horrors of the second death – eternal wrath.

This spiritual resurrection occurs to all those who identify with Christ in His first resurrection when He conquered sin, death, Hades and Satan. His sinless life, His atoning death and His glorious resurrection secured the full and eternal freedom of all His elect. This union with Christ raises us from the grave of our sin and allows us to be currently seated in heavenly places in Christ. Through this majesty work, Christ emptied Hades and led captivity captive taking them to heaven to reign with Him until the physical resurrection at His coming.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You are saying that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily because Christ's resurrection preceded it, a believer can only have part in the first resurrection spiritually, even though Christ's resurrection precedes that as well. Why does that have to be the case? Where in any of the above does it say that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily?

Premillennialism insists that the future your physical resurrection of the redeemed is actually "the first resurrection." Of course, we know it is not. We know whatever the first resurrection is it is physical. So, you have you choose which one was first. To apply it to our glorification totally negates the thrust of the text.

Who would need to be priests of God and Christ after they have died? Someone in heaven still awaiting a body? Or someone back on earth already in a body, as in has been bodily resurrected?

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Where is heaven ever mentioned in this verse? How can this verse involve the earth, as pertaining to reigning and being priests, but in Revelation 20:4-6 the reigning and the being priests of God and Christ, this is involving in heaven not on earth?

Because the Bible says it! Is that not enough for you?

Revelation 5, which is evidently located before the Second Advent, describes the same kingly/priestly reign of the redeemed in heaven, saying, “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign (future article) on the earth” (v. 9).

There is little doubt this scene is current and relates to a time-period preceding the second coming of the Lord. Moreover, no reasonable Bible student would surely deny that the reading relates to anything other than the redeemed situated in heaven. Here, the disembodied spirits of the elect in heaven are seen reigning as kings and priests now. Significantly, and like Revelation 20:4, the dead in Christ in heaven are described (in relation to their kingship and priesthood) as “hast made” – proving this is speaking of the current fulfillment of the same. The aorist active indicative demonstrates that this is ongoing in this intra-Advent period.

Revelation 20:4-5 says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given (aorist active indicative) unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (aorist active indicative) and reigned (aorist active indicative) with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

This is talking about the intermediate state currently. The dead in Christ are shown to be no longer in Abraham’s bosom since the first resurrection. They are seen in heaven reigning with Christ. Because Christ conquered we conquer, because He reigns we now reign. Notably, as Satan was banished from heaven, the elect were welcomed.

The reigning saints evidently continue to exist in the presence of God. Unbelievers on the other hand are separated from God during this current age. The wicked are cut off from God. Moreover, verse 4 depicts a picture of the righteous dead currently reigning with Christ in the heavenly abode in their disembodied state, whereas the wicked (who are identified as “the rest”) are simply described as “lived not.”

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The believer's physical resurrection can't be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it, is what you argue. In that case neither can the believer's spirititual resurrection be the first resurrection, since Christ's resurrection already preceded it. What now?

It isn't that a believer going from spiritual death (being spiritually dead in sins) to spiritual life (being spiritually saved and made spiritually alive in Christ) is the first resurrection in and of itself. It's the way in which believers have part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection. Christ's resurrection itself is the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20;22, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). Scripture indicates that we have part in His resurrection in a spiritual sense when we become spiritually saved. Passages like the following indicate that:

Romans 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Notice here how Paul relates being dead unto sin and "alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord" to the resurrection of Christ. So, he was relating going from being spiritually dead in sins to spiritually alive in Christ to the bodily death and resurrection of Christ. We have part in His resurrection spiritually when we go from being dead in sins to being dead to sin and spiritually alive in Christ.

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

You are saying that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily because Christ's resurrection preceded it, a believer can only have part in the first resurrection spiritually, even though Christ's resurrection precedes that as well. Why does that have to be the case? Where in any of the above does it say that a believer can't have part in the first resurrection bodily?

Who would need to be priests of God and Christ after they have died? Someone in heaven still awaiting a body? Or someone back on earth already in a body, as in has been bodily resurrected?

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


Where is heaven ever mentioned in this verse? How can this verse involve the earth, as pertaining to reigning and being priests, but in Revelation 20:4-6 the reigning and the being priests of God and Christ, this is involving in heaven not on earth?

Because he saw the souls of the dead in Christ. Obviously, that was in heaven.

You think reigning with Christ and being priests of God and Christ on the earth can only refer to a time period after His return because of how you interpret Revelation 20.

But the following passage talks about people reigning with Christ and being priests of God and Christ while alive on the earth already long before the return of Christ:

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

In this passage John refers to himself and other believers who were alive at the time as having been made "kings and priests unto God and his Father". That lines up with Peter calling believers "a royal priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:9. So, you should keep that in mind when interpreting Revelation 5:10.

Also, why would someone's status as being a priest of God and Christ change just because they physically die?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you would just listen instead of talk then you would grasp what Amils actually believe. What frustrates them more than anything over the years is that we can explain something 200 times and you still do not grasp what they are telling you, or, you are intentionally misrepresenting Amil. Whichever, it is, you do not get what Amils hold on this. This has all been explained to you until we are blue in the face. So, the breakdown is on your behalf. You chose what you are functioning in.

I agree. I think we have explained our understanding of Revelation 20 to him at least literally 200 times. And he still doesn't understand what we believe. Are our explanations of what we believe just that unclear? I don't think so. I don't think our belief is too complicated for people to understand, regardless of whether they agree or not. There has to be some other reason that he is not understanding it. It seems that he's either not trying hard enough to understand it or his Premil bias prevents him from understanding it.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I agree. I think we have explained our understanding of Revelation 20 to him at least literally 200 times. And he still doesn't understand what we believe. Are our explanations of what we believe just that unclear? I don't think so. I don't think our belief is too complicated for people to understand, regardless of whether they agree or not. There has to be some other reason that he is not understanding it. It seems that he's either not trying hard enough to understand it or his Premil bias prevents him from understanding it.

For me, i am convinced he doesn't want to understand. For to acknowledge what we are writing, would force him to accept objective biblical truth. That in turn would force him to change.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

For me, i am convinced he doesn't want to understand. For to acknowledge what we are writing, would force him to accept objective biblical truth. That in turn would force him to change.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but after explaining our view as many times as we have with him still not understanding it, I tend to agree with you.