Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This covers that:As has been said before, the doctrines concerning the Gospel, which is itself about the love of God, to include the Doctrines of Grace and God's whole character, including justice, are ALL about the love of God, and you want to make the fact he doesn't use the words "love of God" to mean that Calvinism doesn't deal in the goods.
This, from someone who claims the Bible teaches free will, yet there is only one mention of free will in Scripture, and it is about voluntary offering?
I have never read nor am interested in Calvin's opinions.I remember clashing with you maybe a half-year ago and I sense something has changed in you (as you are no longer a Calvinist). If I am not mistaken, please, go tell.
Who brought up the issue of "transparency" in Paul's writings?The acceptance of Gentile Christians was settled in Acts 15 which occurred 15 years before 1 Timothy was written. Timothy was well aware of that settled debate having a Jewish mom & Gentile father and being circumsized in Acts 16:3 also roughly 15 years earlier. There was no need for Paul to bring up a issue settled with Timothy 15 years before, which you assert. THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC. All the conjecture is on your end. You have been caught.
Were you raised Catholic?Testimony Time:
When I was a teenager in the 70's, a young Catholic nun took me to a tent service in the Costa Mesa. CA Calvary Chapel with Chuck Smith - which is during the Jesus movement. Those tent services are famous at this point as they are the start of the '70s Jesus movement. I was a bit of a neurotic mess and the nun was trying to help. Unfortunately she got booted out of the Catholic Church for that. I remember being with the nun for the spirit-filled afterglow service and one of the guys said to her while she was in her nun garb: How are you doing sister. My heart melted. Since them I have always favored the "after glow".
Other than Revelation 21:9-10 stating exactly that, you are simply saying that the New Jerusalem is figurative of the church.You may not be able to accept one notion of mine, that the New Jerusalem, in Rev 21 and 22 may well BE the very Bride of Christ, God's Dwelling Place, the place that Christ is even now, in Heaven constructing for us. It may be he is 'constructing' ("preparing") us.
I do believe that what God has in mind for us is that different of a reality.
Deal with what? Explain what you are saying. I don't like guessing what someone means.This covers that:
Proverbs 16:9
The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.
Proverbs 16:1
The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Well, I've been told, that, "as Hermeneutics 101 teaches", when Scripture says, "as", it is speaking figuratively (or such), and is not saying, "is". I disagree, as there as just too many coincidences here, and if the New Jerusalem IS the Bride of Christ, and not just adorned as a bride, it answers a LOT of questions that have been relegated to the unknown, or "mystery", by so many people. But I can't teach it for sure fact.Other than Revelation 21:9-10 stating exactly that, you are simply saying that the New Jerusalem is figurative of the church.
You think anyone doubts the New Jerusalem is figurative of the one people of God, the church, going all the way back to Abraham?Well, I've been told, that, "as Hermeneutics 101 teaches", when Scripture says, "as", it is speaking figuratively (or such), and is not saying, "is". I disagree, as there as just too many coincidences here, and if the New Jerusalem IS the Bride of Christ, and not just adorned as a bride, it answers a LOT of questions that have been relegated to the unknown, or "mystery", by so many people. But I can't teach it for sure fact.
I think the "Church", the "Body of Christ", is also the same thing, not just figuratively, but literally, which we will understand upon seeing it. But again, I have to come at that from the knowledge of the fact that the Elect are the Bride of Christ, and not from the supposition that the New Jerusalem is the Elect. I think we will see a riddle answered, in Adam's saying, "Bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh". But, again, I can't teach it for fact, even though I believe it.
One thing is for sure —that my comprehension of such things falls way short of the fullness of the facts.
"Settled issue" doesn't imply that that use of "all" is no longer used. It doesn't even begin to mean such a thing. It has been settled for 2000 years, and we still often use it to mean "all kinds" or "all without distinction", and not "all without exception".The acceptance of Gentile Christians was settled in Acts 15 which occurred 15 years before 1 Timothy was written. Timothy was well aware of that settled debate having a Jewish mom & Gentile father and being circumsized in Acts 16:3 also roughly 15 years earlier. There was no need for Paul to bring up a issue settled with Timothy 15 years before, which you assert. THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC. All the conjecture is on your end. You have been caught.
I said that Acts 15 settled the issue that Gentile Christians were to be accepted."Settled issue" doesn't imply that that use of "all" is no longer used. It doesn't even begin to mean such a thing. It has been settled for 2000 years, and we still often use it to mean "all kinds" or "all without distinction", and not "all without exception".
I began looking elsewhere when I read the Gospels as a teenager and heard a number of tough to understand and very severe statements from Jesus. The Catholic faith did not prepare me for that. In addition I did not like all the statues, prayers to the saints, and the worship of Mary. In college, I was blessed by the ministry of the Navigators and after that the Assemblies of God.Are you still Catholic?
If not, why did you leave?
Yes, I have Catholicism in my background, but I could never find there what I was looking for with God.I began looking elsewhere when I read the Gospels as a teenager and heard a number of tough to understand and very severe statements from Jesus. The Catholic faith did not prepare me for that. In addition I did not like all the statues, prayers to the saints, and the worship of Mary. In college, I was blessed by the ministry of the Navigators and after that the Assemblies of God.
How about yourself?
*I* doubt the New Jerusalem, the Dwelling Place of God, is merely figurative. And I'm sure I'm not the first one.You think anyone doubts the New Jerusalem is figurative of the one people of God, the church, going all the way back to Abraham?
You think anyone doubts the Temple is figurative of the one people of God, the church, going all the way back to Abraham?
Here's what I'm hearing: "For those who don't know the whole counsel of God, nor Paul's mindset, nor the many uses of "all" in Scriptures, nor the common use of language, nor the specific Greek possibilities, nor the context, nor the facts elsewhere in Scripture concerning who are indeed ransomed, nor the logical possibilities of other uses of "all" besides even "all without distinction", and who have preconceptions concerning the place of man apart from the decree of God: The obvious meaning of "all men" and "all" in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 is "all without exception", unless they happen to read it and think, "Maybe this means, "there is no other way", such as verse 5 seems to be leading up to"."For those without preconceptions: The obvious meaning of "all men" and "all" in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 is "all without exception". There is nothing in the way 1 Timothy 2:1-6 is written or in the entire letter to think otherwise. To those with Calvinist preconceptions, as an exercise try reading the passage as if you knew nothing about Calvinism.
1 Timothy 2:1-6 is not addressing a perceived division between Jew & Gentile believers as suggested by Clare. Paul (the writer of 1 Timothy and mentor) and Timothy (the half Jew-Greek recipient who traveled with Paul in Acts 16) are on the same page concerning the acceptance of Gentile Christians (Acts 15).
I don't think you are saying the dwelling place of God--the church, the body of Christ, is a brick and mortar structure, are you?*I* doubt the New Jerusalem, the Dwelling Place of God, is merely figurative. And I'm sure I'm not the first one.
God did dwell with them in the Tabernacle, it was not just figurative (Exodus 40:34-38; Leviticus 1:1), which was the reason for the Day of Atonement, to cleanse the holy things of their defilement from being among a sinful people (Leviticus 16:16).But that wasn't quite your question: you said "temple". Yes, I agree, the OT Tabernacle and the Temple definitely were figurative of "God's dwelling being with men".
That was the Holy of Holies (Most Holy Place), where the Ark and the presence of God resided.I think they were figurative not only of the Holy Spirit indwelling the Elect, but of the New Jerusalem, or at least, of the Church, the Bride of Christ. And even in the Temple and Tabernacle, there was a place for the "presence" of God."
Agreed. God does not say it is not real; and the "simulation" notion, if there is anything to it, is not like we might think of a video game or a play or a book, but where, as the Bible say, this life is but a vapor or mist, compared to what is to come. The transformation is into a whole different sort of thing from this 'reality', I tend to think.
The Tabernacle was an extremely rich depiction of Christ and much more. I read a book years ago I (wish I could remember the name/author). Of course, if u are an expert interpreter of scripture u probably don't need any guidance in understanding. I will try to look up the Author anyway.*I* doubt the New Jerusalem, the Dwelling Place of God, is merely figurative. And I'm sure I'm not the first one.
But that wasn't quite your question: you said "temple". Yes, I agree, the OT Tabernacle and the Temple definitely were figurative of "God's dwelling being with men". I think they were figurative not only of the Holy Spirit indwelling the Elect, but of the New Jerusalem, or at least, of the Church, the Bride of Christ. And even in the Temple and Tabernacle, there was a place for the "presence" of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?