Is a Contiguous Count of Daniel’s 70 Weeks found in New Testament Writings?

[jgr]

Note the profound difference from what you're saying. You hold salvation is of ourselves, by merit and through our belief in Christ. That is not scriptural. We are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves, it is a gift.

The divided and compound sense addresses the issue. Figure it out.

The jailer's experience is clear.

He was saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nothing to figure out.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The jailer's experience is clear.

He was saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nothing to figure out.

Then you admit you believe you saved yourself by your belief in Christ and that you merited that salvation. Wow, what an admission. It isn't biblical but it's your prerogative to believe as you want.

You should read about the divided and compound senses, but I doubt it would make any difference.

 

[jgr]

Then you admit you believe you saved yourself by your belief in Christ and that you merited that salvation. Wow, what an admission. It isn't biblical but it's your prerogative to believe as you want.

You should read about the divided and compound senses, but I doubt it would make any difference.

I was saved in the same way as the jailer was saved.

By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

No senses involved.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I was saved in the same way as the jailer was saved.

By believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

No senses involved.

Right, and the way you interpret the jailer incident is that he merited salvation the second he believed in Christ. He earned that salvation, just like you. Wow, that is something but not scriptural. The divided and compound senses expose that as anathema, ya know.

 

[jgr]

Right, and the way you interpret the jailer incident is that he merited salvation the second he believed in Christ. He earned that salvation, just like you. Wow, that is something but not scriptural. The divided and compound senses expose that as anathema, ya know.

Yes. Paul and Silas warned him that if he believed, as they told him to, he would be guilty of meriting and earning salvation.

But he wouldn't listen, and he believed, and was saved.

As was his whole household.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

....he would be guilty of meriting and earning salvation....

Wow, you really are going way out. "He would be guilty of meriting and earning salvation." Now by your standard, we earn and merit our salvation and it makes us guilty too. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

 

[jgr]

Wow, you really are going way out. "He would be guilty of meriting and earning salvation." Now by your standard, we earn and merit our salvation and it makes us guilty too. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

It's readily apparent that you believe that the jailer's salvation was illegitimate, because he committed the egregious sin of believing.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

It's readily apparent that you believe that the jailer's salvation was illegitimate, because he committed the egregious sin of believing.

Oh, I believe he was saved before the foundations of the world, by election, which is a gift that cannot be earned. He was saved before he believed, long before he was born, and his election gave him the ability to truly believe when God sent him the gospel through the apostles.

You apparently believe he earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

 

[jgr]

Oh, I believe he was saved before the foundations of the world, by election, which is a gift that cannot be earned. He was saved before he believed, long before he was born, and his election gave him the ability to truly believe when God sent him the gospel through the apostles.

You apparently believe he earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

And you believe that Paul and Silas were culpable as well, because they admonished the jailer to believe.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

And you believe that Paul and Silas were culpable as well, because they admonished the jailer to believe.

I do believe I stated what I believe. I believe the jailer was saved before the foundations of the world, by election, which is a gift that cannot be earned. He was saved before he believed, long before he was born, and his election gave him the ability to truly believe when God sent him the gospel through the apostles.

You apparently believe he earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

 

[jgr]

I do believe I stated what I believe. I believe the jailer was saved before the foundations of the world, by election, which is a gift that cannot be earned. He was saved before he believed, long before he was born, and his election gave him the ability to truly believe when God sent him the gospel through the apostles.

You apparently believe he earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

He was saved, but didn't know it. The Holy Spirit, who should have informed him (Romans 8:16), failed to do so.

Paul and Silas, men of great discernment, didn't know it. They caused him to sin by admonishing him to believe.

You believe thus.

I presume that you've redacted all references to salvific faith/belief from your Bible.

Reduction ad absurdum.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

He was saved, but didn't know it. The Holy Spirit, who should have informed him (Romans 8:16), failed to do so.

Paul and Silas, men of great discernment, didn't know it. They caused him to sin by admonishing him to believe.

You believe thus.

I presume that you've redacted all references to salvific faith/belief from your Bible.

Reduction ad absurdum.

Actually, you've fallen into the Pharasitical trap of righteousness by works. You apparently believe the jailer earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

 

[grafted branch]

I don’t really want to get involved in this debate but isn’t believing a work according to John 6:28-29?

 

[jgr]

Actually, you've fallen into the Pharasitical trap of righteousness by works. You apparently believe the jailer earned his salvation and deserved it because he believed by his own volition, which is unscriptural, but certainly your prerogative to believe. If anyone needed to read about the dividend and compound senses that would be you. Couldn't hurt.

The word "Pharasitical" does not exist.

You're apparently unable to understand the difference between faith/belief and works.

Explain how faith/belief is a "work".

James repeatedly distinguishes between faith/belief and works (James 2), so James indisputably recognizes that faith/belief is not a work.

We are saved by grace through faith/belief unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). There is a clear distinction between the two, and Paul clearly recognizes that faith/belief is not a work.

If the jailer had died before believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation, would he still have gone to heaven? Since you claim that he was already saved before believing, you must obviously claim that he would have gone to heaven without having believed.

The affliction of hyper-calvinitis (sic) is on full display.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

there is no such distinction.

100% agreement.

But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. (Revelation 2:25-27)

24But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25Only hold fast what you have until I come. Did Jesus keep this promise to those in the church in Thyatira?

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3:21)

Just like the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are the same, the throne of God and the Lamb are same throne. Revelation 22:1Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

The condition in Matthew 13:30a conforms with all of the Revelation prior to Christ’s return in Revelation 19, especially the power given to the beast from the sea to make war with the saints (Revelation 13:7). Your proponent's argument that Matthew 13:40-43 supports amillennialism is as fallacious as your perception of “the kingdom of heaven.”

The kingdom of heaven is manifested through the people of God, but it is not of this world. what do you think the kingdom of heaven/God are?

As to Matthew 16:27-28, it was John who saw the kingdom in a vision when given the Revelation to write down.

That is not Jesus coming in the glory of the Father with His angels and His reward with Him. He doesn't say "see a vision of Me"

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Give any response you wish.

Nothing to figure out.

Believing will save you.

The jailer and his household experienced and demonstrated it.

No senses involved.

Yep. Calvinists think man has no responsibility and has to do nothing to be saved. Paul and Silas clearly believed otherwise. If they were Calvinists they would have answered "Nothing. God will save you if He wants to. Just wait and see if He does or not. Good luck." in answer to the jailer's question of what he had to do to be saved.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

By grace are we saved through faith; and not of ourselves: it is the gift of God.

James wrote the devils also believe in the one God and tremble.

And the rich man in Matthew 19 also believed in the one God but he wasn't saved.

That's because salvation is a gift and not of ourselves.

The divided and compound sense addresses the issue. Figure it out.

Why didn't you quote verse 9 as well which gives the context of what "not of ourselves" means?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

When Paul said we are saved "not of yourselves" it means we are not saved "of works, lest any man should boast". He didn't say we're not saved of faith. He said we're saved "through faith". In contrast to that, we're not saved through works that we do. You're equating faith with works which Paul did not do. Read James 2 if you think faith is a work. James clearly differentiated between faith and works, but you're not doing that. We're saved by grace through whose faith? Our faith. We are responsible to put our faith in Christ for salvation.

We are responsible to humble ourselves while acknowledging that we are lost, can't save ourselves and need His forgiveness for our sins. That is the opposite of boasting. But, if there were works we could do to save ourselves than we could boast about it because that would mean we could save ourselves without the work Christ did to save us. But, Jesus did the work on the cross that none of us could do for ourselves.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don’t really want to get involved in this debate but isn’t believing a work according to John 6:28-29?

No, not the kind of work that Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he said salvation is not of works. Notice that Paul differentiated between faith and works there just like James did in James 2. So, the faith that is required for salvation is not a work in the sense that Paul and James wrote about.

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

In the passage above Jesus does talk about work being required by God to obtain eternal life and then He said the work that is required by God is "to believe in the One He has sent". But, again, this is not the type of work that Paul references in Ephesians 2:9 or that James references in James 2. It's work only in the sense that it is something that someone needs to do as God requires, but it's not some physical act/work that people need to do in order to be saved.

Scripture doesn't teach that we don't have to do anything to be saved (otherwise, Acts 16:30-31 would make no sense), it teaches that we don't have to do any physical acts or works of any kind like giving shelter to the homeless, helping an old lady cross the street or sacrificing our lives (only Jesus could do that) in order to be saved.

 

[grafted branch]

No, not the kind of work that Paul is talking about in Ephesians 2:8-9 when he said salvation is not of works. Notice that Paul differentiated between faith and works there just like James did in James 2. So, the faith that is required for salvation is not a work in the sense that Paul and James wrote about.

John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

In the passage above Jesus does talk about work being required by God to obtain eternal life and then He said the work that is required by God is "to believe in the One He has sent". But, again, this is not the type of work that Paul references in Ephesians 2:9 or that James references in James 2. It's work only in the sense that it is something that someone needs to do as God requires, but it's not some physical act/work that people need to do in order to be saved.

Scripture doesn't teach that we don't have to do anything to be saved (otherwise, Acts 16:30-31 would make no sense), it teaches that we don't have to do any physical acts or works of any kind like giving shelter to the homeless, helping an old lady cross the street or sacrificing our lives (only Jesus could do that) in order to be saved.

Ok, thanks for that explanation. Can you give me your view on Romans 9:11-13? If we are saved by our work of believing why was Jacob loved and Esau hated before they did any work?

I know some people say this is Gods foreknowledge but it wouldn’t make sense to question if God was unrighteous to have foreknowledge in Romans 9:14.

I’m not trying to debate this, I just want to see how this fits with your view.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Ok, thanks for that explanation. Can you give me your view on Romans 9:11-13? If we are saved by our work of believing why was Jacob loved and Esau hated before they did any work?

I know some people say this is Gods foreknowledge but it wouldn’t make sense to question if God was unrighteous to have foreknowledge in Romans 9:14.

I’m not trying to debate this, I just want to see how this fits with your view.

Sure. That's a very misunderstood passage. It's not as difficult to understand as some might think. But, you have to look closely at the context and you have to look at the OT scripture which it's quoting to understand what it means.

Romans 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

First, we have to look at the Old Testament scripture that Paul was quoting here to see the context.

Genesis 25:21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Can you see here that Jacob and Esau represented "two nations" and "two peoples"? So, the context of what Paul was saying was not in relation to the individual election and salvation of Jacob and the damnation of Esau, but rather was in relation to God's plan of salvation and which nation He would work out His plan of salvation through. The nation of Israel descended from Jacob while the nation of Edom descended from Esau. Obviously, God chose to bring salvation through the nation of Israel ("salvation is from the Jews" - John 4:22). He could have chosen Edom instead if He wanted to, but He didn't. He could do it however He wanted and no one can question that (which is what Romans 9:14 means).

When it says "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", it's not talking about Jacob and Esau as individuals.

Malachi 1:1 A prophecy: The word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi. 2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. “But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’ “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” 4 Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’

Can you see here how God loving Jacob and hating Esau has to do with how He treated the nations of Israel and Edom rather than His treatment of Jacob and Esau as individuals? Also, the words love and hate are used in the context of God blessing Jacob (Israel) and not blessing Esau (Edom) rather than it having anything to do with God literally loving Jacob and literally hating Esau. It's a mistake to think it has anything to do with God having predestinated Jacob to salvation and Esau to condemnation.

Then there's Romans 9:15 where Paul quoted Exodus 33:19. Yes, God can have mercy and compassion on whoever He chooses. Man does not decide who God has mercy on and who He doesn't. But, when you continue reading in Romans you find out that God wants to have mercy on all people. He's not obligated to have mercy on all, but He still wants to because God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).

Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (John 3:16, 1 John 2:2) and that God wants everyone to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6). With that in mind what other explanation can there be for the fact that not all people repent and are saved (despite God wanting them to) except that people are given the free will and responsibility to choose whether to repent and accept Christ or not?