81 comments

• A. WaySeptember 23, 2011
  Is Jesus saying, "Love me, or I'll burn in hell for all eternity"? Can you command love? No. The Bible teaches clearly, that there will come a time when there will be no more death, or sorrow, or pain. This can't be true if sinners are tormented for ever and ever. Of course, only the righteous have eternal life, so how can a sinner suffer for ever? Revelation 21:4 AKJV And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Yes, the wicked will suffer eternal punishment. They will dead and gone, forever. They can't be having pain, or sorrow for those things will have passed away. (Revelation 21:4) Matthew 25:46 AKJV And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
• JerrySeptember 24, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Let me help you dig a bit deeper into this subject. You have cited Revelation 21:4, Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Now the proper question which must be addressed is the context: just whose eyes will God wipe all tears from? The answer is immediately apparent in the preceding verse: Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. Now just who is it that is spoken of when it states "and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God"? This very statement is quoted from the Abrahamic Covenant. It applies to genuine believers who possess the faith of Abraham (Genesis 15:6). We who truly believe in Jesus Christ are included in the benefits of that covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12). Therefore, the Bible teaches that pain and suffering end for those who are saved, but that promise by no means applies to those who are unsaved. Your argument fails therefore, because it is not true to the full truth plainly revealed in the Bible.

  Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Lev 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

• A. WaySeptember 24, 2011
  Oh I see, thanks! The righteous will know that the sinner is suffering eternally and will be glad! Yeah, makes sense.
• JerrySeptember 24, 2011
  Dear A. Way, It appears to me that you may be guilty of reading your denominational literature more than you have been reading your plain text Bible independently on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island. But I hope you will eventually learn from your visits to and study of this site to do Real Bible Study! You state:

  Oh I see, thanks! The righteous will know that the sinner is suffering eternally and will be glad! Yeah, makes sense.

  And just what does that have to do with the price of apples in China compared to the price of bananas in Bulgaria? You need to "produce your reasons" and back them up carefully with associated Scripture properly interpreted within the framework and guidelines of the 23 Rules of Interpretation fully given in the October 2010 archives here. I welcome further discussion on this theme, if you can find any Scripture (properly interpreted) to support your case.
• A. WaySeptember 25, 2011
  Jerry said: "We who truly believe in Jesus Christ are included in the benefits of that covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12)." But Jerry - you deny spiritual Israel. With whom was the covenant made? God made His covenants with Abraham and his descendants. You believe in the literal restoration of Israel and the temple. The law only applied to Israel according to you. (I wonder, do you include animal sacrifices? I hope not!) But as Galatians says: Galatians 3:29 KJV And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Hmm. If a Christian is Abraham's seed and an heir, then they are Israel. You said: "And just what does that have to do with the price of apples in China compared to the price of bananas in Bulgaria?" I have stated my scripture. Where is yours? God will wipe away ALL the tears from their eyes. You believe that Luke 16:20-31 is NOT a parable (even though scripture says that Jesus always taught using parables) and thus if this verse is not a parable, then there is literal communication between the suffering wicked in hell and the righteous living in "the bosom of Abraham". If one can see the sufferings of those in hell, do you think they would not have any compassion? Would they be glad for their sufferings, eternal sufferings for 70 years of sin on this earth? The fact is, those that refuse salvation (healing) will die, perish, gone. God is the source of all life. If the sinners are keep alive to suffer eternal torment, then it is by action of God. For what purpose does God do this? As a threat to the redeemed? No, God is not doing this. The wages of sin is death, the natural consequence of sin. Death is just that - death. Eternal non-existence.
• JerrySeptember 26, 2011
  Dear A. Way, You ask an interesting question,

  If one can see the sufferings of those in hell, do you think they would not have any compassion? Would they be glad for their sufferings, eternal sufferings for 70 years of sin on this earth?

  May I suggest that you will find much additional insight upon this Bible question by carefully consulting the cross references at Isaiah 66:24 from either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson's Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. I do not think that the cross references in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge are complete enough to carry out such a study with its existing references. Now as to the other issue you bring up, Israel versus Spiritual Israel, the existence of the latter does not cancel the promises or the existence of the former, and surely the latter does not replace the former. It is likely that your sources for Bible study do not give a very complete listing or account of the specific provisions found in the Abrahamic Covenant. The same might well be said for the Davidic covenant. None of the sources I have do. But everything else in the Bible basically relates to those two great unconditional Covenants. The cross references I supplied for the New Treasury and the Cross Reference Guide at Genesis 12:2-3 and especially Isaiah 55:3 will give you a good start on these most important subjects for Bible study. I am daily finding more references to add that link back to one or the other of these two covenants. I have now developed an extensive listing of the provisions in the Abrahamic Covenant and a listing for the provisions of the Davidic Covenant. I did not have this material developed at the time I worked on the NTSK or the CRG. I am placing this information in the current work I am developing for future software use. Until you have a much greater understanding of these two covenants you will remain largely in the dark about many of the things God declares are included in his future plans. As to the future animal sacrifices during the reign of Christ, there is good evidence that these will be restored as a memorial of what Christ did in his great sacrifice on the cross, but students of Scripture may differ on this point. See Isaiah 56:7 and its cross references to find what I found in Scripture about this. If the Temple of Ezekiel in the last portion of Ezekiel, chapters 40-48, is literal and future, there seem to be sacrifices associated with it. But there is an if/then statement somewhere in that stretch of chapters that may confine that Temple to Ezekiel's own day, promised for the Jews if they met the specified conditions. The Jews did not meet those conditions, so the Temple was not built to those specifications in Ezekiel's time. I am only as far as Ezekiel 36:25 tonight, so I have a ways to go before I study those latter chapters of Ezekiel again. There is mention in Zechariah 6 of a millennial temple to be built by the Messiah at what we now would call the Second Advent. You yourself, as I vaguely recall, have brought up interesting references at the end of Isaiah that mention the continuation/restoration of certain feasts of Israel in the Millennium, and if animal sacrifices are associated with these, then I guess they may continue. What have you found or noticed in your studies of these matters?
• A. WaySeptember 26, 2011
  What I understand, you reject, so what does it matter? The 70 week prophesy of Daniel shows that Jesus caused the sacrifices to cease, Daniel 9:27 AKJV And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease... Jesus died on the cross in the middle of the 70th week. He was antitype of the entire sacrificial system. His death did away with sacrifice. Sure, we know that the Jews continued the sacrifices until the destruction of the temple. But that is because they did not believe in the Messiah. But since you break up the 70 week prophesy, by an "unannounced" break in the timeline, you do not see this, you can't see this. The 70 week prophesy also shows the end of Israel as the covenant people. The "vineyard" was "let out unto other husbandmen". Read Matthew 21:41 and Isaiah 5:1-7. Then read: Galatians 3:27-29 ESV For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Ephesians 3:6 ESV This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. "Israel" continues, but it is now all who believe in Jesus. All who are Christ's are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise. It can't be any clearer. It matters not if you are a Jew. The only thing that matters, is if you are Christ's.
• JerrySeptember 26, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I think you need to go back and re-study the provisions of both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. You are clearly totally in the dark on the central provisions of those covenants. You cannot hope to understand much of the Bible or Bible prophecy without a grasp of the provisions of these covenants. Of course, one can understand enough spiritual truth from reading the Gospel of John to believe in Christ and so receive Him as Lord and Savior and thus be saved without knowing anything about these covenants, but going further in Bible understanding requires that we learn more about what God has already promised, and what those promises are, and to and for whom the promises were made. If you need help in finding out those covenant provisions and the related Scripture, please let me know. The cross references are not fully given in either the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson's Cross Reference Guide to the Bible, but a beginning can be found by starting at Isaiah 55:3 for the Davidic Covenant, and Genesis 12:2, 3 and Genesis 15:18 with Genesis 13:15 for the Abrahamic Covenant. Be sure to follow the links marked with the "+" symbol to the additional reference points which contain more references. I have given much more in the resource I am currently creating for future use in software form.
• A. WaySeptember 26, 2011
  Nice Jerry - a personal attack, yet you did not argue against the scripture I quoted, which makes very clear statements who is part of Israel. So who is in the dark? You claim a Robinson Caruso experience, yet cling to a fabrication of prophesy "invented" in the dark ages. You did not come to your interpretation by sitting on a island as you make people believe you did. For those visiting this website, understand that Jerry is a Futurist, and his belief he did not find on a deserted island. It originated with Catholic theologians. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_%28Christianity%29

  The futurist view was first proposed by two Catholic writers, Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera. Lacunza wrote under the pen name "Ben-Ezra", and his work was banned by the Catholic Church. It has grown in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries, so that today it is probably most readily recognized. Books about the "rapture" by authors like Hal Lindsey, and the more recent Left Behind novels (by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye) and movies, have done much to popularize this school of thought.</blockquote. Now if you believe this creation of men, great. But there are other interpretations which fit the Bible without having to do any monkey business such as having "unannounced" gaps in the timeline. People need to understand that this website is a commercial site to sell books, namely, NCRG.

• JerrySeptember 26, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I certainly am not attacking you. I am not selling books at this site. I encourage all to learn how to study the Bible independently on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island. I most certainly did NOT get my prophetic views from the Roman Catholics. That is a misstatement on your part which needs to be repented of. I have explained very clearly in repeated statements on many comments and articles on this site my spiritual journey and where and how I learned as much as I do know. I have repeatedly stated that I am always ready to learn more. I have explained how anyone can benefit by doing Real Bible Study. It appears from your most recent comment on this thread that you are not open at all to learning anything new. You certainly indicate by your response that you misread a genuine offer on my part to share with you what I have lately found in my own studies of the Bible regarding the specific provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant. If you aren't interested, that is fine. To each his own. As for this being a commercial site to promote the sale of my books, search this site to your heart's content, and you will find no link here to a source for buying my books. But when someone like me offers to assist you in Bible study by sharing what I have found freely, and you reject that offer with snide remarks and unsupportable and fallacious attacks on my prophetic understanding of the Bible, that is hardly the mark of Christian love and "receiving one another" on your part. As I recall, a while ago on this site, I presented several challenges to you to meet to substantiate your statements against mine, asking for specific evidence. Regarding those, you have remained absolutely silent. In case you forgot, you claimed I have furnished biased cross references in my two works of cross references. I asked you for an example and none have been forthcoming. You made claims against my findings regarding the existence of time gaps in Bible prophecy, including a gap in the context of Daniel 9:27, which you denied. I gave further proof which you know you cannot answer. Time gaps must of necessity exist in statements of predictive Bible prophecy because we know from their accurate fulfillment in history that the fulfillments did not take place all at one time, as in a single year, but different aspects of the predictions were fulfilled years apart. Proof: the predictions concerning the fate of the city of Tyre in Ezekiel's prophecy. It begins to look like you have just one motive: to convert visitors to this site to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and its doctrines! Just the same, I continue to receive you and welcome your continued posting of comments here. I pray, however, that you will become more open to "receiving one another," and to receiving additional knowledge of the Bible that will help you or anyone understand it more accurately. Just now I have been working on expanding the cross references at Deuteronomy 26:17, 18 because this passage is referred to in the cross references in Ezekiel 36:28 where I am currently working to expand the references available for Real Bible Study. Even these passages are directly related to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, as my newly found and provided cross references show. A study of these references would correct anyone who truly believes the Bible for what it says in their understanding of God's plan for Israel and for Spiritual Israel. It is not a matter of either/or, it is both/and. The Replacement Theology which you adhere to (that the Church replaced Israel) is utterly mistaken and is not the teaching of the Bible, for it directly contradicts God's oath-bound Covenants to the nation of Israel. Here are the references as I currently at this moment have them that I am working on: Deuteronomy 26:17, 18-- 17. avouched. Dt **5:2, 3. Ex 15:2. 20:19. 24:7. Jsh 24:22. 2 Ch 34:31. Is 12:2. 44:5. Zc 13:9. Ac 27:23. Ro 6:13. 1 C 6:19, 20. 2 C 8:5. this day. ver. 16. 1 T 6:12. to be thy God. Ge 4:26. +**17:8. 28:21. Ex 15:2. 2 Ch 23:16. Ps 50:7. 91:2. 105:7. Je +*24:7. 30:22. 32:38. Ho *2:23. Ml +*3:17. and to walk. See on Dt 10:12, 13. 13:4, 5. 30:16. Jsh 22:5. 1 K 2:3, 4. Col +*1:10. to keep his statutes. Dt 4:1n. 13:18. Ps 119:57. 147:19, 20. Lk 11:28. his commandments. ver. 18. Ex 19:8. Jsh 10:40. 24:21. Je 2:20. his judgments. Dt 4:1n. hearken. Dt 13:18. 15:5. Mk 4:24. Lk 8:18. voice. Dt 8:20. Jn 10:3, 4, *5, **27. 18. And the Lord. Ge 4:26. his peculiar people. Dt 7:6. 14:2. 28:9. 29:13. 32:9. Ge +**17:8. Ex 6:7. 15:16. 19:5, 6. Le 20:26. 2 S +**7:24. 1 Ch *17:22. Ps *50:7. 105:7. 135:4. Is 43:4. Je 13:11. 31:32-34. Ezk 36:25-28. Am **3:2. Ml +*3:17. T **2:14. 1 P **2:9. keep all his commandments. ver. +17. Ps 119:6, 57. Mt 5:19. Jn 14:15. Ro *16:26. 1 J +**2:3n. Kindly take note of the cross references for the keywords "his peculiar people" for Deuteronomy 26:18 above. They furnish the key to much of the truth about these matters, especially if taken with Ephesians 2:12-22.
• A. WaySeptember 26, 2011

  It appears from your most recent comment on this thread that you are not open at all to learning anything new. You certainly indicate by your response that you misread a genuine offer on my part to share with you what I have lately found in my own studies of the Bible regarding the specific provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant. If you aren’t interested, that is fine. To each his own.

  It is interesting that you wish to teach OT covenants, and yet repeatedly you have shown to have no understanding of the OT temple services. Those things which are a type of the Messiah to come.

  I most certainly did NOT get my prophetic views from the Roman Catholics. That is a misstatement on your part which needs to be repented of.

  Are you telling me that you learned these things out of thin air? I doubt it. Here are just a few that follow the teaching of Jesuit Francisco Ribera, are: William Burgh, John Darby, Harry A. Ironside, Hal Lindsey, John F. MacArthur, Samuel R. Maitland, J. Vernon McGee, Henry M. Morris, John Bertram Phillips, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ray Stedman, J. H. Todd, John Walvoord, Warren W. Wiersbe. Did you ever study any of work of these people, or any others that follow this view? Is so, then you have studied teaching the Catholics. Not all Catholics to be sure, and maybe not even current teaching, but Catholic none the less. Can you tell me with an honest face that you figured out futurism in a vacuum, on a desert island, ship wrecked only with the Bible, all by yourself? Please, do tell me, where did you learn futurism? I'd am really curious. As if yet, I do not see anything to repent (change my mind) of. The work of this view is very good at throwing people off the real antichrist, the beast power, and those that form the image of the beast. The reformers had many ideas, some weird, but were uniform in their opinion of who the antichrist was, but now protestants are making friends of the system that they rejected. Futurism makes Revelation irrelevant, its study not very meaningful to the followers of Christ, since they will be raptured and not experience the tribulation. This view will make the adherents unprepared for what is soon to come, when the rapture (not to be confused with the second coming of Christ) does not happen. I just googled "Historicist" and found the following quote which I think fits:

  "As to Futurism ]as started by Jesuit Ribera], for some three centuries this view was virtually confined to Romanists, and was refuted by several masterly Protestant works. But early in the nineteenth century it sprang forth afresh, this time among Protestants – Samuel R. Maitland, William Burgh, J. H. Todd, and more recently it has been adopted by most Fundamentalists. In 1826 Maitland revived Ribera's Futurist interpretation in England. The Plymouth Brethren, organized in 1830 by John Nelson Darby, at Dublin and Plymouth, also laid hold on Maitland's interpretation. And when the High-Church Oxford Movement (1833-1845) gained ascendancy in Britain, it rejected the Protestant Historical School of interpretation and generally adopted Futurism, though some among them swung to Preterism. Bursting into full flame in 1833, it seized upon Maitland's interpretation as an argument in favor of reunion with Rome. German rationalism, on the other hand, increasingly flouted prophecy and prediction. Thus the Jesuit schemes of counter-interpretation were more successful than their authors had ever dared anticipate."

  So please, show me what I need to repent of. Did you get this on your deserted "island"? Or did you get it from "protestant" followers of Ribera? I do not believe you thought it up yourself...
• JerrySeptember 27, 2011
  Dear A. Way, You ask some interesting questions, and I shall attempt to answer them for you. I began reading the Bible, particularly the New Testament, in earnest in August of 1953. At the time I had no idea what that would lead to. My motivation was to learn enough so I would not feel and perhaps look so dumb in the high school Sunday school class I attended at Highland Park Baptist Church taught by Mr. Dean Sawdon and Mr. John Boyko. In November of 1953, Saturday, November 7th, to be exact, I thought about what I had read and realized I had never actually received Christ as my Savior. I stopped on Lumpkin Street under a little oak tree that overhung the sidewalk and prayed silently to receive Christ as Savior, to receive forgiveness of sin, and have been assured from Scripture ever since that time that I know that I now have eternal life (John 5:24). My parents gave me a very fine leather-bound zippered Scofield Bible at Christmas of 1953 which I foolishly loaned to a good friend who was attending Bob Jones University, and he wore it out and ruined the cover in just one semester. My parents were furious, and I am embarrassed to have done such a thing. But that means I surely was not studying that Scofield Reference Bible. I had not before seen one, and did not understand its value, and knew nothing of its content at that point. You list a good many authors that have written books that take the Futurist position. I did not learn what I know from any of them, though I now own some books by Walvoord on the rapture and other prophetic themes. I believe I learned my understanding of Bible prophecy by simply reading the New Testament. Concerning the Rapture, the doctrine is rather obviously taught in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. I did not need an author to teach me that, I'm sure. When I attended Bob Jones University I took one course in Old Testament Prophecy taught by Professor Stewart Custer. But that course did not cover any New Testament prophetic themes. I was not able to take Professor Custer's New Testament Prophecy course, so I clearly did not learn it from him or any of the many readings or sources we were assigned to read for the Old Testament Prophecy course. The textbook for that course was by Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy, which does not touch on the topics pertaining to futurism that I recall. My main source of learning about Bible prophecy came about as I typed up the text for the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. As I worked through the chapters of the Bible I created a Subject Index on 4 x 6 cards. Fortunately for me, I kept the topics related to Bible prophecy in a separate stack, since I was highly interested in the subject. You can readily see the fruit of that ongoing study if you consult my note on Isaiah 11:11 in either The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson's Cross Reference Guide to the Bible. Professor Custer included as one of the sources we were required to read from a work by Mr. George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, a large work of three volumes. Professor Custer highly recommended that we make that the next book we purchased, and of course he highly commended the book, saying that the book was for a long time unavailable until Kregel Publishers reprinted it. I bought the set from Kregel's Bookstore in Grand Rapids shortly after I graduated from Bob Jones University. I was fascinated by Dr. Wilbur Smith's introduction to the volume, and learned that Peters was one of half a dozen of the greatest American prophetic scholars in the nineteenth century. I began immediately to read those volumes in sequence, but got only as far as page 418 of volume one, where my red tasseled laminated linen marker still is! I went back to studying the volumes by Peters when I decided to search for cross references that pertained to Bible prophecy. At the back of Volume 3 there is a Scripture Index, quite extensive, which I scoured carefully, and the results are listed in the Subject Index of the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge under "Peters" on page 1568. I had met Pastor Norman Douty through a Greek scholar friend of mine, Mr. G. E. Hoyer who lived in Chicago. Both men were familiar with and shared materials from the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony in England. I obtained many books, booklets, and leaflets as well as the Watching and Waiting magazine published by the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony. These sources from SGAT are actually all contrary to the position I held then and hold now, such that in some measure I can say I have read more material that is against my view than I have read for my view. One book I have read which fairly gives the evidence for each of many views on Bible prophecy is by Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come. Most of my time studying Bible prophecy has been spent directly from Scripture. Peters soundly refutes the views you have cited from the Internet and elsewhere regarding the alleged source of the Premillennial view. Peters demonstrates in depth, citing original sources, that the Premillennial view he holds, and that I hold, was held by the Apostles and the Early Church. It did not start with the Romanists, and it surely did not start with Darby. Darby emphasized a central truth that many with contrary views have missed: Israel has NOT been replaced by the Church. Peters shows that view, what is now called Replacement Theology by some, was popularized if not started in modern times by Whitby, and in Peters the view is called Whitbyism, if I recall correctly. In my judgment, after having made a long and careful repeated study of Peters, no one who espouses views contrary to what Peters demonstrates are the true teaching of Scripture can knowledgeably hold such views as being Bible truth if they have not made a careful study of Peters' work and successfully refuted his research. So, did I learn my view of Bible prophecy alone on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island? I would judge that indeed I have. But I have advanced my studies of the subject by reading the careful researches of other scholars on the subject too. Once one has a solid foundation from studying the Scripture itself, consulting other authorities to learn more is perfectly fine. I often find that the experts came up with the same findings I did in my own studies. But I am always open to learning more, and open to being corrected given sufficient Biblical evidence.
• ken sagelySeptember 27, 2011
  jerry thank you for your sharing. i have learned alot from how you study and the books you studied very helpful to me! excellent! correct me if i am wrong thomas scott polygot bible wasnt the first study bible and it was all scripture? scofield bible came in 1917 and its still going strong although the dispensational teaching isnt as strong as it was. what i am trying to say if one studies the bible on crusoes island and the crgb he can learn the scriptures thats what i believe.
• ken sagelySeptember 27, 2011
  mr way your really missing a blessing by not having a copy of nelsons cross ref guide to the bible. do you have one?
• A. WaySeptember 27, 2011
  "One book I have read which fairly gives the evidence for each of many views on Bible prophecy is by Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come." Pentecost is another follower of the Jesuit Ribera. Scofield is another. You may believe you have come to your conclusions in isolation. Yet, it appears that you have indeed be indoctrinated by the Jesuits, and do not even know it. You read the Bible with Futurist glasses. I read with Historicist glasses. I could lay out the path I took to my view as you have, thank you by the way. The historical view fits scripture better. It explains what happened in the Dark Ages. It points out the beast system which the reformers were all in agreement with. Note - the reformers had many wrong ideas, but you need to consider what they were coming out of. To deflect the Catholic system from being reveals for what it was, the Jesuits were started for the counter reformation. Preterism and Futurism are part of that counter reformation. Your world view (futurism) looks at my world view and you believe me to be greatly deceived, misinterpret scripture, and lack understanding. My world view looks at what you believe, and believe you to be greatly deceived, and misinterpreting scripture. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind... What I see happening fits Revelation. Example, Revelation 12:9 AKJV "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." The majority of the earth will be deceived. I wonder what you think of the reformation... Do you think they (the reformers) were all wrong? Should they have rebelled against "the church"? You do know why the reformation failed... Oh well. Thank you for pointing out your path to your understanding. In my view, you have fallen for futurism, which is a Jesuit creation, to squash the reformation. Revelation 18:4 AKJV And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. For a futurist, this verse does not have much meaning for them...
• JerrySeptember 27, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Thank you for your kinder response. I cannot expect you to seek out the volumes by Peters and read his full refutation of your characterization of Futurism. But he did write a full refutation which has never been answered and probably never can be answered. It is a mystery how a lonely Lutheran pastor, for much of his life too ill to be active in Lutheran ministry, could have accessed the thousands of volumes he carefully cites in his great three volume work. Dr. Wilbur Smith mentions this in his biographical introduction too. I know from long, first-hand study, that Peters had read thoroughly and fully understood the sources he cited, because in my personal library here I have some of those rare books and have studied them myself. One that sits on the shelf here in the living room with other works on apologetics has a fairly detailed table of contents but no index. The points Peters makes regarding this book could never be derived from a casual glance at the book or even a study of the Table of Contents alone. One would have had to carefully read and probably reread the book to understand it well enough to make the critical points Peters did. The book I am referring to is The Bible and Modern Thought by Rev. T. R. Birks internally dated October 10, 1861 on page 4. It is a volume of 436 pages, divided into 19 chapters. I believe I likely obtained the volume through Mr. G. E. Hoyer years ago. Birks is cited by Peters about 20 times according to the index entry in volume 3 on page 637. By the way, Peters makes no reference to Ribera in his volumes. He makes no reference to Jesuits, though I recall he roundly criticized the Roman Catholic Church. Peters has seven references to Maitland in his volumes. The first mention Peters makes of Maitland is in Volume 2, at the top of page 350. This is in Peters chapter, Proposition 131: This Kingdom embraces the visible reign of Jesus, the Christ, here on earth. Observation 1 states: So distinctly is this taught that no Jew, no Christian believer, no one who read the Scriptures doubted this, until the Alexandrian system evolved a series of doctrines, under the notion of exalting the truth and the Son, in which the throne promised David's Son was transformed into a throne in the third heaven. Observation 2 states: Having in previous Propositions shown with sufficient distinctness that David's Son, Jesus in His humanity, must, if the prophecies are fulfilled, appear in a visible reign; that He does thus manifest Himself to the sight of all, it is unnecessary (as coming Propositions will materially add reasons for our doctrine to those already given) to enter into a detailed argument, since it is nowhere asserted that the visibility thus exhibited shall ever be withdrawn, and since the denial of such a visible reign is one of pure inference. No one, that we are aware of, has ever yet presented a passage of Scripture to prove the invisibility of the reign in the future. Observation 8 states: Our argument is cumulative, and to avoid undue repeating we pass by the prophetical reasoning to be drawn from Daniel, chapters 2, 7, etc. ... It is in the very nature of a manifested Theocracy that there should be (as already foreshown in the past Theocratic arrangement), not simply faith, but sight. Dr. Brown (Christ's Second Coming, P. 2, ch. 5) emphatically declares that there is "no Millennial mixture of faith and sight." He takes to task Brookes's saying, that "in the Millennial state there will be an open vision of Christ," and that "it will be a dispensation in which the saints will continually have personal access to Christ." He censures Elliott for teaching a "visibly manifested conjunction of the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem; he condemns Lord for saying that the nations have access to the glorified (symbolized by the open gates, etc.), and that "they are never to be without the visible presence of God; that its gates are never shut, and that the nations are to enjoy uninterrupted access to the glorified." He ridicules Birks, McNeile, Bickersteth, and Maitland for teaching such a visible revelation and such an access to the city, such a "seeing the Lord of Hosts manifested in the human nature of Jesus reigning in Mt. Zion," such a visible manifestation of glory that impresses the nations, and such a change in dispensation that sight shall also be introduced. Of course, any one who denies that the sight of Jesus (Zechariah 12:10; Ezekiel 20:35) will influence the future conversion of the Jews; who rejects the seeing of Matthew 23:39; Zechariah 14:1, etc.; who finds no place in his system of theology for the everlasting Covenant of David; who spiritualizes Jerusalem, Mt. Zion, etc., and denies a future incoming dispensational change--can find nothing of sight, no matter how plainly presented. [page 350] Now take careful note that Peters is simply citing the authorities Brown is criticizing, not using these authorities as his own point of reference from which he develops his views. As I recall, Dr. Wilbur Smith writes in his introduction that he is amazed at how immediately up-to-date Peters was in studying the latest works of his opponents (like Dr. Brown), and states Peters was the first to give a full scholarly criticism of Brown's then new work on the Second Coming. Yesterday I shared with you the following cross references from Deuteronomy 26:18, his peculiar people. Dt 7:6. 14:2. 28:9. 29:13. 32:9. Ge +**17:8. Ex 6:7. 15:16. 19:5, 6. Le 20:26. 2 S +**7:24. 1 Ch *17:22. Ps *50:7. 105:7. 135:4. Is 43:4. Je 13:11. 31:32-34. Ezk 36:25-28. Am **3:2. Ml +*3:17. T **2:14. 1 P **2:9. Let me just place before you just several of the clearest references given:

  Amo 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

  The Bible teaches emphatically (Amos 3:2) that God has only chosen one earthly nation, as a nation, for his peculiar people, for his special care reflected in the oath-bound promises called Covenants which He has sworn are inviolable and unconditional and will be fulfilled as promised to the very nation, people, and individuals to whom the Covenants were given unconditionally. Paul states this unequivocally:

  Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. (NET Bible)

  In context, "the gifts" are a reference to the Covenants made to Israel. Yet the New Testament includes genuine believers in Christ as being God's "peculiar people," God's "holy nation." In this church age believers, Jew or Gentile, make up one body, His Church, as Paul clearly affirms in his epistles. In this dispensation, called by many students of Scripture the "church age," both saved Jews and saved Gentiles in this one body constitute Spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel cannot replace the literal nation of Israel, to whom God yet promises to fulfill his irrevocable covenants. Any reader of the Bible who has carefully considered the latter portion of Leviticus 26 will recognize these truths as taught from the beginning of Israel's history, for God foretold that they would wander and become apostate from Him. But he also plainly declared as clear as any language can make it that they, the literal nation of Israel, would be restored to Him.

  Lev 26:33 And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Lev 26:34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. Lev 26:35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. Lev 26:36 And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. Lev 26:37 And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. Lev 26:38 And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. Lev 26:39 And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. Lev 26:43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

  The expression "that I might be their God" is directly cited from the Abrahamic Covenant itself:

  Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

  These Scriptures fully and totally settle the issue in my favor.
• A. WaySeptember 27, 2011
  Quote:"These Scriptures fully and totally settle the issue in my favor." I would put it this way, it is totally settled "in your mind. "
• JerrySeptember 27, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I trust you know very well in your mind that these Scriptures assert and confirm the position I have taken regarding the nation Israel in the light of Bible prophecy. Are you trying to contradict what the Bible directly states? And I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks against your position as have the sources you cited against mine. You know that suggesting that "Futurism" originated with Jesuits trying to play a trick on Protestants to divert attention from Protestant assertions that the Pope is the Antichrist is a species of ad hominem, don't you? The question is not whether some Jesuits came up with something the enemies of the truth of Biblical prophecy identify with "Futurism," but is the truth of Futurism sustained by the content of the Bible. And since it is, Futurism is correct, and other positions are wrong, for they are NOT sustained by a careful literal reading and interpretation of the Bible. I furnished you with direct Scripture above, and even highlighted some of it in boldface to call attention to the most significant statements of the promise God gave to the nation of Israel in Leviticus 26. Your reaction? As I understand your reaction, you reject this Bible truth. You can't get away with the cop-out that the "proof" is just in my own mind. The proof is in the Scriptures, and I gave you the direct proof from the Scripture. So far, it is clear you cannot answer this proof, because it is unanswerable.
• A. WaySeptember 28, 2011
  Quote:"You know that suggesting that “Futurism” originated with Jesuits trying to play a trick on Protestants to divert attention from Protestant assertions that the Pope is the Antichrist is a species of ad hominem, don’t you?" If I were making an emotional appeal, then yes. But if history is on my side, then all I can say is that you have been mislead. You have futurism eyes and do not see with my eyes. To an evolutionist, everything is evolution, in spite of the facts. So yes, it still is your opinion. And I doubt that I will change it. I've been over this ground. I've look at the evidence. My conclusion is that futurism is a lie. And it is a product of the counter reformation. I've given in the past the reasons for my conclusions. You just continue to think that I have not studied the issue. Sorry Jerry. You are unconvincing. Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Ephesians 3:6 ESV This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. It can't get any clearer than that. The promises of God to Abraham apply to all that are in Christ because they are true heirs. The law too.
• JerrySeptember 28, 2011
  Dear A. Way, A bit further back in this discussion you said:

  But Jerry – you deny spiritual Israel. With whom was the covenant made? God made His covenants with Abraham and his descendants. You believe in the literal restoration of Israel and the temple. The law only applied to Israel according to you. (I wonder, do you include animal sacrifices? I hope not!) But as Galatians says: Galatians 3:29 KJV And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Hmm. If a Christian is Abraham’s seed and an heir, then they are Israel.

  I trust that now, having carefully read my subsequent exposition directly from Scripture itself, that you understand I do not deny "Spiritual Israel." Spiritual Israel is descriptive of the One Body (Ephesians 4:4) composed of Jews and Gentiles that believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, for salvation in this dispensation subsequent to the Cross and the bodily resurrection of Christ "until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26), commonly spoken of in many Bible believing circles as the Church Age. What I do deny is Replacement Theology, defined for the purposes of this discussion as the teaching that the nation of Israel alone called by God as His own nation (Amos 3:2) has been permanently abandoned as a nation and replaced by the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ. Another name in the history of theology is the "Church-Kingdom Theory." Here is a passage of Scripture for you to carefully "sink your teeth into." Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. From my now expanded edition of the notes and cross references supplied originally in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for Isaiah 60:21, 21. people. Is 4:3, 4. 52:1. 62:4. Zc *14:20, 21. 2 P *3:13. Re *21:27. all righteous. T#441. Is 1:26. 26:2. +*27:9. 32:16. 33:5. 35:8-10. 45:25. 52:1. 54:14. *61:3. 62:2, 12. 65:25. Dt +30:6 (T#506). Jb +5:24. Ps +130:8. Je *31:33, 34. Ezk *36:25-29. 37:23, 24. Da +*9:24n. Ob 17. Na 1:15. Zp +*3:13. Zc 14:20. Mt 1:21. Lk 1:68. Ro 11:25-27. Re 21:27. inherit. Ps 37:9, 11, 18, 22. Je 31:23. Mt +*5:5. Re 5:10. 21:7. the land. 2 Ch +*20:7. Ezk 36:14. Zc 3:9. Am +*9:15. Mt +*5:5. Ac +*7:5. for ever. Heb. olam, Ex +*12:24. This settles the whole question as to any fulfillment in the past (CB). Note the straightforward promise here, that Israel is to inherit the land forever. Such a promise requires a literal fulfillment, which has not yet been accomplished (He +*11:39); but since God cannot lie (T 1:2), the fulfillment is reserved for the future. This promise, repeated many times and in many ways (Is +*41:9. +*55:3. Ge +*17:8. 2 Ch +*20:7), renders the "church-kingdom" theory (often reflected in the headnotes and chapter or page running heads of various editions of the Authorized Version) utterly false, since such a theory denies the literal fulfillment of these promises to Israel, and applies them to the church, or to "spiritual Israel." The inconsistency of such a method of interpretation is readily seen when the blessings are eagerly applied to the church, but the curses are literally applied to Israel! Peters (Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 2, p. 90, footnote 5) states "The great spiritual blessings are promised to the identical people that suffered dispersion from their land, and are so repeatedly linked with a return to the same land from which they were driven, that it is folly to apply these to the Church as now constituted, and not to the time, place, and people for whom they are intended." Peters notes that the multiplicity of prophetic detail forbids any spiritualized application to the Church: "The election of the nation, the rejection for a time, the Theocratic relationship, the absolute promises, the gathering from all countries and bringing into their own land, the personal appearance of the Messiah and effect upon them, the time of this Advent, the distressed condition of the nation, the miraculous attending the conversion and restoration, the aid tendered by Gentiles, the formation into a State, the union of the two nations, the vast multiplication, and a hundred more particulars, are all of such a nature, and so connected, that they forbid any other view." Biblical references for each of these details of predictive prophecy named by Peters will be found in the note for Is 11:11n, or in the index, particularly entries under "Israel." Each school of prophetic interpretation seems quite aware of the interpretative mistakes of the opposing school, while remaining unaware of its own. There are two extremes to be avoided: spiritualization and speculation. Amillennialists wisely caution against speculation, Premillennialists rightly caution against spiritualization. Is 11:11n. +41:9. +55:3. Ge 17:8. 2 Ch 20:7. Ezk +**37:25. Am +**9:15. He +11:39. the branch. Is +4:2, 3. 26:15. 29:23. 35:2. 41:19. 43:7. 45:11. 51:16. 55:13. 61:3. 1 Ch 17:9. Ps *92:13. Pr 11:28. SS 4:13. Je 2:21. Ezk 47:12. Am +**9:15. Mt *15:13. Jn 15:2. the work. Is 29:23. 43:21. Hab *3:2. Jn 15:1, 8. Ro 16:15. 2 C 5:5. Ep **2:10. Ph 1:11. that I. Is 43:21. 44:23. 46:13. +49:3. Ac 11:18. Ep *1:6, 12. 2:7. 2 Th *1:10.
• A. WaySeptember 28, 2011
  Quote:"Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified." This is more that cross references, it is commentary. Under "the branch" it is interesting that you reference John 15:2, but do you mean to only reference 15:2? The whole of John 15 is important when discussing the subject of the branch and the vine. Example: John 15:5-6 ESV I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. This is not limited to Israel. It is whoever and anyone. This does not need to be fulfilled with a literal nation of Israel. There does not need to be a literal temple in Israel, in the sense as was in the time of old. 1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? Continuing on the branch, it is interesting that you do not cross reference Romans 11 under branches. Romans 11:21 ESV For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Who were the natural branches? And for all Jews, Romans 11:14 ESV in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. All of true Israel will be saved, and Israel are those attached the the vine (Jesus). The grafted branch is just as much a part as those that are natural branches and have not been broken off. You do quote this under "the branch", John 15:2 ESV Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. And that is exactly right. Cross references are fine, but one has to read all around to get the true meaning. And in this way, I find your rather extensive set of verses, incomplete. Just a few more examples, under "inherit", one could include Daniel 7:18 ESV But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever.' Who are the saints? Just a literal nation of Israel? Nope. One could include Revelation 21:3, and I'd throw in verse 4 also: Revelation 21:3-4 ESV And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."
• JerrySeptember 28, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I won't at this point contest the helpful additional references you suggest. It is generally understood that when reading a given cross reference found in The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge that, with open Bible in hand, one will read the context too. Nevertheless, even with your suggested further references, you have not, and probably cannot, address and answer the argument presented by Peters which I cited as a note to that verse.
• JerrySeptember 29, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Your suggested additional references for branch are very excellent, especially references in Romans 11. I hope to go back and work on those references after I finish Ezekiel 37. There are numerous cases where I have expanded the references given to include a fuller context. But this can't be done everywhere, or it would be impossible to finish the task! But I want you to know that you have a good number of times been the impetus behind adding more and better references at many places. This evening I ran across a very interesting place in Ezekiel 37:7, 7. I prophesied as. Je 13:5-7. 26:8. Ac 4:19. 5:20-29. there was a noise. or, voice. 1 K 19:11-13. Ac *2:2, 37. +9:4, 7. 16:26-29. *22:9. *26:13, 14. bones came together. Ezr 2:1. Je 50:4. The alternate reading "voice" for "noise" brought to mind the situation of Paul on the road to Damascus where he heard a voice and understood what was said, but those with him actually heard a sound but did not catch the words. That was the subject of an interesting home Bible study where some visitors who held to the "Hebrew Roots" view were presenting the variations in the account of Paul's conversion as an example of a contradiction in Scripture, and tried to use that to assert that Paul was an apostate Jewish Rabbi who is not to be trusted because he could not keep his story straight. My wife pointed out that Luke, not Paul, records Paul's divine call directly from our Lord Jesus Christ as stated in Acts 9:15, Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Then I pointed out that Peter calls the writings of Paul Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, so there is no possible Scriptural basis for discounting the writings of Paul as somehow being questionable or of less authority in the NT. The visitors asked was I sure that the Greek text in 2 Peter is correct at that point. I said yes, for since I have studied the Greek text for many years with Mr. G. E. Hoyer in Chicago, I have many works devoted to the subject of manuscript differences and textual criticism, grammar and syntax, idiom, and so forth. I had never come across any textual question about Peter's assertion. When I got home, I double checked, and found my memory held true, for there are no questions cast upon the text in 2 Peter in the manuscript tradition in any of the many sources I have in my library. But I thought you might like to know the "history" behind my added references at Ezekiel 37:7.
• A. WaySeptember 29, 2011
  Quote:"Nevertheless, even with your suggested further references, you have not, and probably cannot, address and answer the argument presented by Peters which I cited as a note to that verse." You remind me of evolutionists. Their way is the only way, and they can't see any possibility of an alternative. Peters comment is that - commentary, interpretation. It is not cross reference, and in my humble opinion, should not be in an unbiased reference, for it introduces the opinion of the author. Oh I can hear it now, it is not unbiased, it is unquestionable true, I must not have studied the Bible for real, if I only would study it more, etc... Sorry, unconvinced. I'm just make one example. Quote for your find work of Peters, "Note the straightforward promise here, that Israel is to inherit the land forever. " Have you read the quotations I made above? All who are Christ' are heirs according to the promise. They are Israel, they are God's, they will inherit the land, forever. This does not prove the literal country of Israel will be the heirs. In fact, the NT is telling us that only those that are Christ' are heirs. Only those branches attached to the true vine. In fact, there is no longer Jew or Greek, male of female. ...
• JerrySeptember 29, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I hate to put it this way, but I really see that you may have a "mental block" when it comes to actually registering what you read in Scripture! The Scripture itself records God's sworn oath and Covenant that the nation of Israel whom He has chosen will "inherit the land forever." Now, for you to deny that indicates that you deny Scripture. And that is not engaging in Real Bible Study, but real Bible denial! I fully answered all the Scriptures which you quoted that you believe contradict my position when I asserted above:

  Now as to the other issue you bring up, Israel versus Spiritual Israel, the existence of the latter does not cancel the promises or the existence of the former, and surely the latter does not replace the former.

  I suggest you go back and read the Scriptures I cited at length above from the end of Leviticus again, with your "historicist glasses" off this time. The Scriptures you have cited which you think teach a different view most certainly do not. Paul affirms what I have been declaring most plainly in Romans chapters 9-11, particularly the verse I cited, Romans 11:29, and Romans 11:1, 2. Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.” Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Isa 41:9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 2Ch 20:7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever? Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Amo 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. Act 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child. Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. Lev 26:43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD. Mr. A. Way, there is no possible legitimate way (following the 23 Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 Archives here) that you can avoid the teaching of God Himself in Scripture that the nation of Israel which He has chosen will inherit their land forever. To teach and suggest otherwise is the direct denial of very clear and repeated teaching of Scripture. Amo 3:1 Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, Amo 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; Act 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Act 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
• A. WaySeptember 29, 2011
  See - just like what evolutionist say - I do not read the evidence your way, thus I am wrong, I have not studied the data, I do not study right, I'm ignoring the "clear evidence", etc... Who has the mental block? Sorry Jerry - you are not convincing in your arguments. You are convinced in your mind. Fine.
• JerrySeptember 29, 2011
  Dear A. Way, If you are right, then there is no truth that can be ascertained from the Bible or anywhere else. It is all in your mind. The comparison with the scientific doctrine (or fable, depending upon one's vantage point) of evolution is invalid because evolution is not based upon a completed verbal text from the hand of God himself written by Divine revelation. The Bible is. Jesus said, regarding what for many readers must be a most difficult book of prophecy, the book of Daniel, "whoso readeth, let him understand" (Matthew 24:15). Jesus assumes and asserts, therefore, that Scripture--even the difficult portions--can be understood. What does it take to understand Scripture? Whether we like it or not, and without meaning any offense to anyone, the Bible does declare that it cannot be understood by the "natural man" (1 Corinthians 2:14). In plain English, the Bible thus tells us that there are spiritual requirements that must be met in order to understand it. That spiritual requirement is that a person must be saved in the here and now by fully trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8). But that does not mean that just because one is truly saved that they understand the Scriptures on every point accurately. Some make the flagrant error of claiming to be taught by the Holy Spirit, and conclude that what they believe must therefore be correct. But the Holy Spirit does not put a premium on laziness or ignorance. God expects us to continue to "search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11). God expects us to do our homework, and to continue to do our homework. And I am sure that the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. The Roman Catholics take great delight in criticizing Protestants and non-Catholics because of the very evident division of opinion among non-Catholics. Of course, some Catholics will not admit that they have any diversity of opinion or interpretation amongst themselves. They long ago figured out how to solve this problem: the Pope, who is now declared infallible when speaking officially of matters of faith and doctrine has the only absolutely true and correct view. The trouble is, papal pronouncements as to the specific meaning of individual Bible verses appear to be relatively rare, so we can't look to that source for any significant help. So we are left with a Divine Revelation recorded in words which are inspired in our Bible. To understand it we must read it and study it. We must compare Scripture with Scripture to learn its truth about individual topics, subjects, and doctrines, since what the Bible says about all these things is not presented systematically in one place. The check upon our correctness and accuracy is the Law of Non-contradiction. When we are mistaken, our position will contradict another line of Scripture teaching, such that what we mistakenly hold to be so "will not fit" and cannot be reconciled without asserting a contradiction (but many times apparent contradictions are not contradictions, upon further careful study). The Bible in this sense is a self-correcting body of truth, for if we should happen to be mistaken, when we learn other clear truth from Scripture as we study it further, that newly learned and understood truth will serve to correct our previous misunderstanding. Once a person has studied the Scriptures sufficiently, independently and thoroughly throughout the Bible, most issues of the doctrines of Scripture will be pretty much settled, and will not be subject to further correction. Hindrances to understanding the Bible would include, for some readers, especially new first-time readers of the Bible, the matter of not yet being saved. Once a person has read the New Testament carefully enough, especially the Gospel of John which itself states it was written for this purpose, this problem can be overcome. Another most serious and very difficult problem to overcome is reflected by the expression "poisoning the well." Our previous learning from sources that themselves are in error can make it very, very difficult to read the Bible without importing these misconceptions into the text as we read. Some contemporary scholars have changed their mind about the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, partly for this reason. Clark Pinnock is one such theologian I've read by way of an article posted on the Internet who says he has come to the opinion that we can no longer claim that the Bible is understandable to the common reader. I disagree with him on that point. To accept Pinnock's assertion as true, I would have to say that the Psalmist in Psalm 119 and Jesus in Matthew 24:15 are mistaken, and that cannot be true. But it is true that once a person has been taught Adventist heresy, like the doctrine of Annihilation, or has been taught Jehovah Witness heresy, namely Arianism and its denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it is very hard to undo such basic ingrained error. Jehovah Witnesses can be brought up short by having them carefully consider the cross references furnished for Isaiah 55:3, or having them read a scholarly work on Bible prophecy which demonstrates their understanding of what they thought they knew about God's Kingdom to be in error. Those inadvertently caught up in the meshes of Calvinistic doctrinal heresy are likewise very difficult, usually, to extract from such error. But it is error, and no amount of pleading "once saved, always saved" can erase John 10:27 from the proper consideration of the actual teaching of John 10:28.

  Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

  But correction of false doctrine is not impossible. Probably every system of doctrinal error has a point which absolutely and undeniably contradicts a specific truth taught by the Bible. For example, those who unfortunately and mistakenly believe in Annihilation likely have no valid possible answer to the logic and careful syntax used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:18! Though I suppose, like always in these matters, they suppose they do.

  1Co 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1Co 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

  The logic of Paul's argument requires that we understand his statement, "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," to be untrue, which means Paul states that the dead in Christ are not perished, for they are very much alive, as Jesus taught when He said of those who have experienced physical death like Abraham and nearly everyone else (Enoch and Elijah being the exceptions for they never died physically but were directly translated to heaven), "for all live unto him" (Luke 20:38). That is, Paul is arguing to make the point that those who have died in Christ are not perished. "Perished" is G622, apollumi, a Greek word we have discussed before, which never means to annihilate. Yes, I know. You remain unconvinced. It might be you cannot be convinced of this truth because you have been drawing your supposed "truth" from poisoned wells of mistaken resources, rather than directly from the Bible itself. But I have a serious question to present you on another topic altogether. You were able to list a number of Futurist authors you claim were influenced by the Roman Catholic Jesuit writer Ribera. My question is, what are the best authors you have found that present the case for your view, Historicist? It would be helpful to me in my ongoing studies of these issues if you would be able to name them.
• A. WaySeptember 29, 2011
  See Jerry - that is the point. I understand scripture differently. I do not see your futurism, as much as you claim it is so obvious, I don't see it. Your interpretation of prophesy, I do not see it. Your claim of a eternal conscious torment, I don't see it. In fact, it is absolutely abhorrent. You have "fear" of God, and I do not. The wicked do die, and it is awful. But it is not God doing it, it is God allowing the natural consequences of sin to go to completion. So yes, we are far apart. And it is based on the same scriptures. Quote:"It might be you cannot be convinced of this truth because you have been drawing your supposed “truth” from poisoned wells of mistaken resources, rather than directly from the Bible itself." I have reviewed all that I believe from the Bible. The Bible fits. You accuse me of not being open. You also do not appear to be open. Is there any point of continuing? Have you never heard of what the reformers said about the church and who was the anti-christ? Have you never heard of Ribera? You read more by accident in on day that I will ever read in a lifetime. How can you not have heard of these things?
• JerrySeptember 30, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I most certainly have heard of such things. You are correct in observing that I read more in one day than most people do, and more widely. But I asked for your help in providing the most significant sources you have read that have established in your mind the truth of Historicism. I know you are likely quite busy, and appreciate your challenging and helpful responses here. You were able readily to furnish a list of Futurists you believe are dependent upon Ribera, which I totally disagree with, and proved by a careful reference to Peters, one of the greatest prophetic scholars in America in the nineteenth century, who in his vast indexes, does not even mention him! Now, kindly help me with a significant short list of titles or authors that are the best in the support of Historicism. I surely gave you what you requested, and mentioned both Peters and Dwight Pentecost as the best sources for Futurism I have found. Eagerly awaiting your answer!
• A. WaySeptember 30, 2011
  Have you read anything of Ribera? Have you compared his work with the protestants of the 19th century? Do you agree, that until the 19th century, that Historicism was the predominate thought? You have already stated that you total disagree with Historicism. What are the chances that any book I put forward would be greeted with an open mind? By your statements, zero. In fact, with your vast reading experience, you should be telling me that best sources of Historicism and why they are invalid.
• JerrySeptember 30, 2011
  Dear A. Way, When someone like myself, or anyone else, asks a simple question of or for information, a civil person interested in the truth would be glad to be helpful and furnish the information requested. So far, you have not been helpful to provide the information requested, yet. I hope you will.
• A. WayOctober 1, 2011
  We argue civility now? LOL. After saying repeatedly that I do not understand Bible prophesy? That I do not engage in "real" Bible study? That I an locked into denominational dogma? You say you have presented clear evidence on several topics and because I do not see it, you think I am what, blind and can't see? I will give you a couple of the books that I've read recently. The one that first made me aware of the Jesuit connection to futurism and preterism is "Truth Matters" by Walter Veith, PhD. I first became aware of this man's work with respect to nutrition and physiology. He was former Catholic turned atheist, and was also heavy into the occult, particularly his wife's family. He draws on his access to occult writings to address the issues of the Bible and Bible prophesy, which includes the identity of the anti-christ, and preterism and futurism. I think you have said you have heard of this man, and have rejected him. I present this for few others that might be reading this blog. Veith is one who pointed to me the connection of the Catholic church and counter-reformation ideas of preterism and futurism. For the historical view, the book is "The Great Controversy" by Ellen White. This is the 5th book in a series, the first being "Patriarchs and Prophets" speaking on the first part of the OT. The second part of the OT being covered by the book, "Prophets and Kings". Next is the book, "The Desire of Ages" on the life of Christ. "Acts of the Apostles" is the fourth. Taking history from Christ' day to the present is "The Great Controversy". These 5 books cover earth history in light of the Bible. Two other books, "Thought from the Mount of Blessings" and "Christ' Object Lessons", compliment "The Desire of Ages". These books come with extensive Biblical references. Just in the last few weeks, I have found some interesting statistics on Ellen White. She is the most translated, most widely published woman of all time. One volume, "Steps to Christ" has over 100 millions copies, over 150 languages. This was one of the first book of White's that I studied very closely. It is a short book that can be read in just a few hours by a mortal like me. Jerry, 10 minutes. :-) The George Barna Group survey of the books and authors most influential to pastors included this paragraph: "The under-40 pastors championed several authors who were not ranked highly by older church leaders. Those authors included business consultant James Collins, seminary professor Thom Rainer, nineteenth century Seventh-Day Adventist icon Ellen White, and pastor John Ortberg." Radio personality and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, in his noontime ABC radiobroadcast of September 27, 1997, reported regarding Ellen White: "Her writings have been translated into 148 languages. More than Marx or Tolstoi, more than Agatha Cristhie, more than William Shakespeare. Only now is the world coming to appreciate her recommended prescription for optimum spiritual and physical health. "Ellen White! You don't know her? Get to know her." Of course, none of this proves anything. One has to compare everything with scripture. This I have done with a number of topics you believe in, and I find alternate interpretations that fit scripture better that the popular beliefs. Scripture is the final authority. In the book "The Great Controversy", there is a chapter titled, "The Scriptures a Safeguard". I few quotes from this chapter: " It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God." "We should exert all the powers of the mind in the study of the Scriptures and should task the understanding to comprehend, as far as mortals can, the deep things of God; yet we must not forget that the docility and submission of a child is the true spirit of the learner." " Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour's teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God's word that they are light bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error. "
• JerryOctober 1, 2011
  Dear A. Way, At last, you answered my question and furnished titles and authors of a few works that have been instrumental in persuading you of the truth of the historicist position. Thank you very much for doing so. I especially appreciate your comment,

  One has to compare everything with scripture. This I have done with a number of topics you believe in, and I find alternate interpretations that fit scripture better that the popular beliefs. Scripture is the final authority.

  I do not at all concur with your judgment, however, that the alternate interpretations you have found fit Scripture better than the views I have provided here on this site. You must admit, based on the evidence I have published, and based on the comments I have written here, that I may have done more extensive study of the Bible than you have. At least you said so in your first post or two here. I think my judgment as to the truth or untruth of an alleged Bible doctrine ought to count for something among those who believe the Bible is the final authority, the verbally inspired written Word of God. I would especially challenge you to rethink your position regarding the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants in Scripture. The Bible writers make specific reference to these two covenants over and over again. In the New Testament, the very first sentence in the Book of Matthew makes reference to both:

  Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

  In the last chapter of the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, there is also an allusion to the Davidic Covenant:

  Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

  The sworn provisions of those two Covenants are held inviolate by God himself. How do I know? I did not learn it from Francisco Ribera, you may be most sure. I learned it by carefully reading from a plain text Bible and noting, in a list, the provisions I saw as I read the text of the chapters where these Covenants are given. Anyone else with a plain text Bible on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island could surely do the same. My present list was made on March 8, 2010, and the included cross references represent those references as they were found to that time, and probably conform quite closely to the existing references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. I continue to add cross references to these provisions as I spot further mentions of them in the Bible in my ongoing work on expanding the cross references available for Real Bible Study. I found 25 provisions so far specified in the Abrahamic Covenant, of which the following are a sampling: (1) Great nation to come from Abraham, Ge 12:2; I will. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (1), Great nation to come from Abraham. Ge 13:16. 15:5. 17:5, 6. 18:18. *22:17, 18. 24:35. 26:4. 27:29. 28:3, 14. 32:12. 35:11. 46:3. 47:27. Ex 1:7. 32:10. Nu 14:12. 24:9, 10. Dt 26:5. 2 S 7:9. 1 K 3:8, 9. Mi *7:20. Ro *4:11. Ga 3:7. make of thee. Ex 6:4-8. a great nation. Is 51:2. Ezk 33:24. (2) Abraham himself to be blessed, Ge 12:2; I will bless thee. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (2), Abraham himself to be blessed. Dt 9:5. Is 19:24, 25. Hg 2:19. Ep 1:3. (3) Abraham's name to be great, Ge 12:2; name great. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (3), Abraham's name to be great. Ge 2:19, 20. 11:4. *17:5. 32:28. Nu 6:27. 1 Ch 17:8, 21. Ps 52:9. Da 1:7. Mt *1:21. Ac *4:12. Ph *2:10. (4) Abraham shall be a blessing, Ge 12:2; thou shalt be a blessing. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (4), Abraham shall be a blessing. Ge 14:14-16. 18:18. 19:29. 28:4. 1 K 1:47. Je 4:2. Zc 8:13. Jn 7:38. Ga 3:14. He 6:14. (5) Those who bless Abraham shall be blessed, Ge 12:3; bless them. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (5), Those who bless Abraham shall be blessed. Ge +18:18. 27:29. Nu 24:9. Ps +*122:6. Mt 25:40, 45. thee. FS121A5, Ge +9:27. (6) Those who curse Abraham shall be cursed, Ge 12:3; curse him. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (6), Those who curse Abraham shall be cursed. Ex +**23:22mg. Nu 23:8. Dt +*30:7. Je 30:16. Am 9:15. Zc 12:3, 9. (7) All families of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham, Ge 12:3; in thee. Abrahamic Covenant provision (7), All families of the earth shall be blessed in Abraham. Ge 18:18. +22:18. 26:3, 4. 28:14. 30:27, 30. 39:5. Ps 72:11, 17. Zc 8:23. Mt 1:1. Lk 1:55, 73. Ac *3:25, 26. Ro 4:11, 13. 1 C 1:30. Ga *3:>8, 14, 16, 28. Ep 1:3. Col 3:11. He 6:12, 17. Re 7:9. (8) The land of Canaan given to Abraham's seed, Ge 12:7; Unto thy seed. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (8), The land of Canaan given to Abraham's seed. Ge 13:15. *15:18. *17:3, 8. 21:12. *26:3. *28:13. Ex 33:1. Nu 32:11. Dt 1:8. 6:10. 30:20. Ps 105:9-12. Ac >7:5. Ro 9:7, 8. Ga *3:16. give this land. Ge 15:7. Dt 34:4. builded. ver. 8. Ge 8:20. 13:4, 18. 22:9. 26:25. 33:20. He 11:13. (9) Abraham personally and his seed are to inherit the land as promised, the land of Canaan or Palestine, Ge 13:15; to thee. Abrahamic Covenant, provision (9), Abraham personally and his seed are to inherit the land as promised, the land of Canaan or Palestine (Ge 12:2n). ver. 17. Ge 12:7. 15:7, 8, 18. *17:7, 8. 18:18. 24:7. 26:3, 4. 28:4, 13. 35:12. 48:4. Ex *3:6. 6:4. Nu 34:2, 12. Dt 11:21. 26:2-4. 34:4. 2 Ch 20:7. Ne 9:7, 8. Ps 37:*22, 29. 105:9-12. 112:1, 2. Is 63:18. Mt +*5:5. *8:11. **22:23-32. Lk 13:28. Ac 1:6. +**7:5n. Ro +*15:8. He +*11:13, 39. thy seed. Ml +**3:6. Ga >3:16. (10) The land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed forever, Ge 13:15; for ever. Heb. olam, Ex +12:24; Ge +8:22; +9:12, +16. Abrahamic Covenant provision (10), The land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed forever. Ge *17:8. Is +11:11n. Je 31:36. 33:25, 26. Ezk 36:24. Am +9:14, 15. Lk 1:32, 33, *55. Ro +*11:1. (17) The Abrahamic Covenant declared an everlasting or perpetual covenant, Ge 17:7; everlasting. Abrahamic Covenant provision (17), The Abrahamic Covenant declared an everlasting or perpetual covenant (Ge 12:2n). ver. 13, 19. Ge +9:12, 16. Jg 2:1. Ps 105:9, 10. 111:5. Is 44:7mg. He *13:20. 1 P *1:20. Heb. olam, +S#5769h: Ge 9:16. 17:7, 8, 13, 19. *21:33. 48:4. 49:26. Ex 40:15. Le 16:34. 24:8. Nu 25:13. Dt 33:27. 2 S 23:5. 1 Ch 16:17. Ps 24:7, 9n. 93:2. 100:5. 105:10. 112:6. 119:142, 144. 139:24. Pr 8:23. 10:25. Is 24:5. *33:14. 35:10. *40:28. 51:11. 54:8. 55:3, 13. 56:5. 60:19, 20. 61:7, 8. 63:12, 16. Je 10:10. 20:11. 23:40. 31:3. 32:40. Ezk 16:60. 37:26. Da 4:3, 34. 7:14, 27. 12:2, 2. Mi *5:2. Hab 3:6. For passages where olam is rendered for ever, see Ex +12:24. See related note (Jn +*6:54n). (18) God to be Abraham's God, Ge 17:7; to be a God. Abrahamic Covenant provision (18), God to be Abraham's God (Ge 12:2n). Ge 24:12. *26:24. *28:13. 31:42. 32:9. Ex 3:6, 15. 20:2. 29:45. Le 11:45. 26:12, 45. Ps 47:9. 81:10. Je *24:7. 30:22. *31:33. Ezk 11:20. 28:26. Zc +*13:9. Mt 22:32. Jn +20:17. 2 C *6:16. He 8:10. *11:16. Re 21:3, 7. (19) All the land of Canaan to be an "everlasting possession," Ge 17:8; everlasting. Heb. olam, ver. +*7; Ge +*8:22; +9:12, +16; +*13:15; Ex +12:24. possession. Abrahamic Covenant provision (19), All the land of Canaan to be an "everlasting possession" (Ge 12:2n). Ge 12:7. 13:15. 15:18. 48:4. Ex 21:6. 31:16, 17. 40:15. Le 16:34. Nu 25:13. Dt 32:8. Jg 2:1. 2 S +*23:5. Ps 103:17.111:5. Is +11:11n. 44:7mg. Je **31:36, 37. **33:25, 26. Ezk 36:24. Am +9:14, 15. Lk 1:32, 33. Ro +11:1. He 9:15. 1 P *1:4, 20. 2 P *1:11. (20) God to be a God to Abraham's seed as "their God," Ge +**17:8; their God. Abrahamic Covenant provision (20), God to be a God to Abraham's seed as "their God" (Ge 12:2n). ver. +*7. Ex 6:7. Le **26:12. Dt 4:37. *14:2. *26:18. *29:13. Je 31:32, 33. Ezk 36:28. Ho 8:2. Jl 2:17. Zc 13:9. Ac 3:19-21. He 8:10. A study of these provisions and the associated Scripture references will demonstrate, with a finality that no added words of mine can enhance, that the Abrahamic Covenant is still in force and has not been changed or diminished or transferred to someone else. The Covenant Provisions that pertain to Abraham's physical seed are still in force as promised to Abraham himself and his literal physical descendants, to whom these promises are given by an everlasting covenant. The existence of the literal nation of Israel (preserved to this day by stupendous miracle) demonstrates that God keeps His Covenant promises without fail! It also demonstrates that God is not finished yet! Je **31:35, 36

  Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

  Je **33:25, 26

  Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

  Do we still have day and night in their season? Until we don't, God's Covenant to Abraham and his natural seed still stands! Your view, which (as I understand you) appears to hold otherwise, clearly is in direct contradiction to what the Bible itself plainly declares. You cannot attribute the plain meaning of these promises to some flaw in my alleged Futurist Glasses!
• A. WayOctober 2, 2011
  You said"Until we don’t, God’s Covenant to Abraham and his natural seed still stands! Your view, which (as I understand you) appears to hold otherwise, clearly is in direct contradiction to what the Bible itself plainly declares." Read John 8. Did the true seed follow God? Some did! The Christian faith was not to be new faith, but a continuation of the real faith that the Jews were supposed to have, and most did not. Only those in Christ are true heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29 AKJV And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Romans 2:28-29 AKJV For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19 AKJV Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Galatians 6:15 AKJV2 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. There is nothing magical about being a Jew. True heredity is only found in Christ, in the new birth. Only those in Christ are the true heirs. The idea is, what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. God does not evaluate a man’s religion by his compliance with ritual observances, but by his relationship to the principles of the divine law (Ecclesiastes 12:13; John 14:15, 21, 23; John 15:10; 1 John 2:4-6). A man can keep the commandments whether or not he is circumcised. Sin is transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4. Through rebirth, we again can keep the law. We do this because of God, we do not do this in order to be saved. I agree, scripture IS very clear.
• JerryOctober 2, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I trust and pray that the Lord and His Holy Spirit will allow your eyes and heart to be open to what is plain Bible truth. Your comment is beside the point and avoids the issue the texts of Scripture I brought forth declare. The literal nation of Israel, of the natural seed of Abraham, has not been permanently cast away by God (Leviticus 26:44). Israel by divine covenant will inherit the Land promised to Abraham and his seed forever (Ezekiel 36:24. Amos 9:11-15, especially verse 15). For you, day and night have apparently ceased to alternate in their season, and you are still in the dark. Since the Messiah has come, the only Jewish people of the natural seed of Abraham that will or can be saved and see the kingdom of God are those who place their faith in the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ. In this Church Age or Age of Grace such distinctions as Jew and Gentile have no bearing upon our status with God. The whole body, counted as one body, whether Jew or Gentile, in Christ, constitute "Spiritual Israel," the one true Church, which is His body (Ephesians 5:23, 30). But this does not negate the fact that God has called out one nation unto Himself (Amos 3:2), the Jewish nation, to whom historically He has made inviolable and irrevocable promises called Covenants, the two most central of which are the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants. The provisions of those two Covenants have not yet been fulfilled, but they will be, exactly as written. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that God is not finished yet. Paul declares, citing Old Testament Scripture, that "And so all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26, citing Isaiah 59:20, 21). Paul clearly has reference to the literal nation of Israel, to an event that is yet future, which will by a miracle of Grace result in all Israel being saved and their sins totally removed upon their seeing face to face their Redeemer, their Messiah, when He comes to Zion (see also Zechariah 12:10). We today are saved on the basis of provisions promised in the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants, particularly the Abrahamic, as a careful reading of Romans chapter 4 would surely make clear to any careful reader. We are NOT saved on the basis of our adherence to or conformity with Law, but we are saved by grace through faith, just as Abraham was (Genesis 15:6), totally apart from any possible works of the Law. But what counted then counts now. As early as Deuteronomy 10:16 & 30:6 God spoke of the "circumcision of the heart," which surely is something totally different from physical circumcision, and represents having a heart-relationship with God based upon faith in His promise of salvation. Salvation, therefore, has always been by faith prior to and apart from any works. In this dispensation, we who know Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9, 11), who has regenerated us (Titus 3:5), made us new creatures or a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), totally independent of any reference to Law. If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law (Galatians 5:18). Any law. Rather, the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23) in our life as we stay connected, as it were, to the vine, which is Christ (John 15:1-6), by continuing to grow in Grace (2 Peter 3:18) as we continue to feed on His Word written in the Bible (Jeremiah 15:16; Job 23:12; 1 Peter 1:23 & 2:2). I recommend you study carefully the book of Galatians and learn well and believe the message of grace apart from any connection to Law that is taught therein. You have rightly and repeatedly said that we are not saved by obedience to the Law. Now you need to learn and experience further that we are saved by being "in Christ." But you have also repeatedly and wrongly said that those who are saved by grace alone without regard to law are therefore free to kill and break all the other commandments, which is straw-man nonsense as you well know. A person who is truly saved, who is "in Christ," obeys the commands of Christ by nature because the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in the believer's life. That you have not made "the fruit of the Spirit" your emphasis, and our being "in Christ" your emphasis, and our "growing in grace" your emphasis, shows your system of belief is not properly in line with the Gospel, but is to that degree "another Gospel," which as Paul warned, is not another (Galatians 1:6-9), but is totally flawed, and any belief in such "another Gospel" makes "Christ of none effect to you" (Galatians 5:4 with Galatians 2:21). "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law" (Galatians 5:18).
• A. WayOctober 3, 2011
  Quote: "But you have also repeatedly and wrongly said that those who are saved by grace alone without regard to law are therefore free to kill and break all the other commandments, which is straw-man nonsense as you well know. A person who is truly saved, who is “in Christ,” obeys the commands of Christ by nature because the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit in the believer’s life." No, I have not said that. You have said we do not need to keep the law. I have said that we are not saved by keeping the law under our own power. I have said, and a truly converted person will do what the law required because it will be written on the heart. The problem you have when looking at the 10 commandments, is that it is only 9, you leave out the 4th. You do not believe that it is part of the law. You have said because it is not explicitly stated in the NT. Yet Jesus kept all 10 commandments. Jesus is my example. I've quoted Revelation 11:19, where the Ark of the Covenant is visible in Heaven. What was in the Ark? The tablets of STONE, showing permanence, the 10 Commandments, all 10, not 9. Also Manna. When did Manna fall? 6 days a week, but none on Sabbath. Manna is a type. Also Arron's rod that budded. You call that a stretch to say this represents the 10C in the NT. I call it fact. You say, this only applies to genetic Israel. I read the Bible and if you are Christ's, then you ARE Abraham's seed according to the promise. And presto, ALL of Revelation applies to you. Who is ignoring the straight facts of the Bible? The futurism view gets you off the hook. A couple of messages ago, you appealed to the fact that you have studied the Bible more that me. It is written, Psalms 118:8 NRSV It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to put confidence in mortals. Psalms 146:3-4 NRSV Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. 4 When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish. Jeremiah 17:5-9 NRSV Thus says the LORD: Cursed are those who trust in mere mortals and make mere flesh their strength, whose hearts turn away from the LORD. 6 They shall be like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see when relief comes. They shall live in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land. 7 Blessed are those who trust in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD. 8 They shall be like a tree planted by water, sending out its roots by the stream. It shall not fear when heat comes, and its leaves shall stay green; in the year of drought it is not anxious, and it does not cease to bear fruit. 9 The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse--who can understand it? You see, you appeal to the fact that you have spent more time studying, is not relevant, if the Word of God, as I read it in Bible, contradicts your interpretation. Saul was a Pharisee of Pharisees. He studied under Gamaliel, a doctor of the law (Acts 5:34; Acts 22:3). Was Saul correct in his interpretation of the scriptures? NO! He had to be shaken from his position directly by Jesus. It shook Saul to the core. His interpretation was wrong. So, yes, I will listen to what you say, but will test it by the scriptures. And I find the historical interpretation convincing, and the futurism view unconvincing. Quote: "For you, day and night have apparently ceased to alternate in their season, and you are still in the dark." Who has scales on their eyes? Futurism has invaded Christendom!
• JerryOctober 3, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I have presented clear Scripture in support of my view. The Scripture I have cited totally contradicts your view. Does Scripture contradict Scripture? I am sure you and I both agree that Scripture does not contradict Scripture. The Scripture says: Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD. God clearly promised the nation of Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham: (1) I will not cast them away (2) I will not destroy them utterly (3) I will not break my covenant with them (4) I will remember the land: Leviticus 26:42, my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. (5) I will remember my covenant with Abraham These five points are derived directly from the Scripture as stated in Leviticus chapter 26. These points are not my opinion. They are not my interpretation. They have nothing to do with Futurism. These statements are simply the direct declaration of the written Word of God. The Scripture says: Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Isa 41:9 Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. Isa 41:10 Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness. Isa 41:11 Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish. God declares: (1) He has chosen Israel, has chosen Jacob, the seed of Abraham my friend (2) I have chosen thee (3) I have not cast thee away (4) "for I am thy God" Note that it is not a matter of interpretation, but it is the direct declaration in both passages that God has not cast away Israel. The basis for appeal that God makes is "for I am thy God," which is a direct reference to one of the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, to which the context clearly refers: Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. God declares: (1) He would give to Abraham himself, and to his seed after him, all the land of Canaan (2) The land of Canaan is given to Abraham and his seed as an everlasting possession (3) and He will be their God The Scripture says: Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. God declares: (1) He has given the ordinances of the movements of the universe (2) If those ordinances cease their regular function, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Him forever God thus asserts the stability of the universe as a guarantee of the certainty that the nation of Israel will continue as a nation before Him forever. The Scripture says: Jer 33:23 Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Jer 33:24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them. God declares: (1) There are some who despise His people (2) These despisers of his people have declared God has cast off His people Israel (3) These despisers of his chosen people have declared that they should no more be a nation before Him (4) God states these despisers and their assertions are absolutely wrong, affirming that so long as day and night remain in their succession, God will not cast way the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor the seed of David his servant. God thus directly affirmed the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenant to be inviolable as plainly as language can make it. Now, Mr. A. Way, are you on the side of the "despisers of my people Israel" God is faulting, or do you now agree that since day and night continue in their season, God has not cast away his people the nation of Israel, they continue as a nation before him, and he will yet fulfill those two Covenants to the letter and have mercy upon them?
• A. WayOctober 3, 2011
  Who despises who? Is this not clear? Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. John 8:37-44 KJV I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. If God was your father? If Abraham were your father? He just told them he knew they were Abraham's seed... The real seed of Abraham are those that are in Christ. I guess we will need to agree to disagree.
• JerryOctober 3, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Your assessment that we will just have to agree to disagree is correct. I do not intend to make the interpretive mistake that you and many who would side with you make: one of the rules of interpretation on my list of 23 Rules of Interpretation cautions against failing to distinguish things that differ though they have similar sounding names. This is Rule 18 on my list in the October 2010 Archives. Spiritual Israel differs from natural Israel. The existence of Spiritual Israel does not remove the existence of natural Israel: if it did, God would be unfaithful to His sworn Covenants to David and Abraham, which of course on the part of God is impossible. Therefore, it is impossible for your position to be correct. The fact that there are unbelievers among the physical seed of Abraham in the day of Jesus (hence your appeal to John 8 ) and today does not negate the Covenants God made to Abraham and David. A good portion of the Book of Hebrews is premised on this fact in its careful exposition of Psalm 95. You cited a very significant text: Galatians 3:29 ESV And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Paul tells us that if we truly believe in Christ, and thus are Christ's, we are Abraham's offspring, because we are heirs according to promise. And where is that promise? In the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul said in this very same connection, citing the ESV, Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." Rom 11:28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Paul is telling us plainly that we have been grafted in to the olive tree in accordance with the grace and provision for the Gentiles to likewise be saved, but this does not take away the covenant God made with Israel, for they though now enemies of the Gospel for our sake (so that we too, according to promise, can be saved), they are still beloved for the sake of their forefathers. Paul was most aware of the very Scriptures I have cited for you, as is evident when Paul asserts unequivocally that God has not cast away Israel. Paul tells us that God's Covenants with Israel are irrevocable. That being the case, my position must be correct, and your position must be wrong. I am going to have to study more on what the Scripture teaches about those spoken of in Jeremiah as "despisers of Israel." It would appear from what God both said and did about that matter in Jeremiah's time and for some years after that God takes the matter far more seriously than most of us do today. It may tie in to the Abrahamic Covenant's provision that God will bless those who bless Abraham (and of course his seed, his natural offspring, and so this includes natural Israel), and promises to curse those who curse Israel. To deny natural Israel its right to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant would appear not to be blessing them, but cursing them, and if this should be so, those who do so are in a heap of trouble. Recall that God promises to bless those who pray for the peace of Jerusalem, which as Israel's rightful and proper capital, surely stands for the whole nation, by a common figure of speech called Metonymy (see Psalm 122:6).

  Psa 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

• A. WayOctober 4, 2011
  Yes, we are grafted in. Grafted into whom or what? Abraham? NO. Christ. John 15:5 AKJV I am the vine, you are the branches: He that stays in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. Christ it he vine. Christ is the corner stone. Christ is the rock. Christ is the center of all things. Do read Romans 11, all of it. Romans 11:17 KJV "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;" Jeremiah represented Israel as an olive tree Jeremiah 11:16. “were broken off” references the unbelieving Jews, who, in rejecting Christ, sealed not only their own fate but also that of the nation. The kingdom of God was taken away from them and “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”, Matthew 21:43. The Gentile Christians became sharers of God’s eternal plan of salvation, Ephesians 3:6. Change subject - why does futurism ignore 2000 years of history? The prophesies of Daniel explain the dark ages, and the time to come. Futurism ignores 2000 years. Ignores the travesty that the "Christian" church brought upon the people, killing many millions. Futurism was a concoction of the counter reformation. Ribera's main point was the 70th week of Daniel's prophesy was in the future. Bingo! Jerry's "unannounced" break in the timeline. So who had the correct theology? Those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ or those who lit the fires? Who had the true Bible doctrine? The martyrs or their persecutors? Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist? Those who died trusting in the blood of Christ, or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints? Jesuit Futurism is now at war with the Protestant Reformation by denying its power packed application of prophecy to the Vatican. The Bible's prophesies are spot on.
• JerryOctober 4, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Perhaps it would help you to see more light if we indeed take a quick look at a different issue, different at least on the surface. When I have posted comments in a religious discussion forum frequented by very devout Roman Catholics I am frequently presented with a standard Roman Catholic objection. They say, "Jerry, you believe what you do about the Bible because you were taught your belief by Martin Luther, a heretic." I respond, "I own two books written by Martin Luther. One is titled something like The Bondage of the Will. The other is Luther's commentary on the book of Galatians, or maybe it is the book of Romans, I forget which. But my point is, I did not develop my viewpoint about the Bible from Luther. I read the Bible for myself. Isaiah 8:20 among many other passages teaches we are to go by the Bible alone, not other sources."

  Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

  Now, dear brother A. Way, are the Roman Catholics correct in their statement that since I am not a Roman Catholic, I must have learned my opinion about the Bible from Martin Luther?
• A. WayOctober 4, 2011
  quote:"Now, dear brother A. Way, are the Roman Catholics correct in their statement that since I am not a Roman Catholic, I must have learned my opinion about the Bible from Martin Luther?" You claim to have learned the Bible in a sterile environment, a deserted Island. And you can not prove this, and I seriously doubt it. You are a product of your environment. We all are. You have locked on to futurism. Futurism is not a product of Jerry. It preexisted Jerry. You have internalized it. It is settled, "in your mind". You find it incredible that I do not believe you. You even appealed to your more extensive study, yet I'm sure you will agree with scripture that was should not trust any mortal. (Psalms 118:8; Psalms 146:3-4; Jeremiah 17:5-9). Luther, and every other reformer agreed that the papacy was the anti-christ. You do not believe this, because that is not what futurism teaches. Futurism was a Jesuit creation, as was preterism, and the blessedness of Mary, and indulgences, and many more doctrines. Yes, futurism and preterism and other catholic doctrines are contrary to each other, it is confusion. Confusion. Babylon - Babal - confusion. God is calling everyone out of confusion. Revelation 18:4. Compare with the call out of Babylon in the OT. Isaiah 48:20; Jeremiah 50:8; 51:6, 45. As God’s people formerly came out of literal Babylon in order that they might return to Jerusalem, so His people today are called out of mystical Babylon in order that they may be accounted worthy to enter the New Jerusalem. Presumably, all who are truly His people will hear His voice and heed His call (Matthew 7:21-27; John 10:4-5). This call echos this: Revelation 14:8 ESV Another angel, a second, followed, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality." What is meant by sexual immorality? The illicit connection between the church and the world, between the church and the state. Who has done this the "best"? We see it in the dark ages. Futurism throws this all the the future and ignores history. Futurism is drinking the wine of Babylon. The illicit connection has happened in the past, the Bible predicted it, and it will happen again. What is the wine? False doctrines. Revelation 14's 3rd angels message is to come out of Babylon. Here is what the Bible declares that before the coming of the Lord, Satan will work "with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness;" and they that "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved," will be left to receive "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11. Strong words, true. One feature of those the believe the false doctrines I believe, is that they will impose their beliefs by force, use the force of law to enforce the false doctrines. You Jerry, have said, that observing certain aspects of "the law" is "absolutely forbidden". Would you use ever use the civil power to enforce your beliefs on those that believe differently? "Absolutely forbidden" is strong language indeed. The Bible says, "let everyone be persuaded in their own mind", Romans 14:5.
• JerryOctober 9, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I had just written a most helpful response to your comment, but it was accidentally lost, so after two hours of work, I guess I must start again. I have not responded to your post until now because I was devoting my undivided attention to completing the book of Ezekiel before out of town company was scheduled to arrive. You ask a most interesting question:

  Would you use ever use the civil power to enforce your beliefs on those that believe differently?

  My answer is, Absolutely not. I believe in absolute religious freedom. People are free to believe what they wish. I wish, however, that others like those from Islam would believe in reciprocity. When Moslems come here, they are allowed to practice their faith. But if Christians similarly went to their country, Christians would not be given there the freedom we give Moslems here. That is not right on their part, and clearly is not fair. Moslem countries particularly frown upon any Moslem that converts to Christianity, but do not similarly frown on any Christian that might convert to Islam. You have once again brought up a very important and interesting question:

  You Jerry, have said, that observing certain aspects of “the law” is “absolutely forbidden”.

  You have understood my Biblical claim correctly, and it is time for you to face the Biblical evidence, and this time believe it! Paul declared that the Galatians were in danger of losing their salvation because they were turning to another gospel, which is not "another." The Greek word used by Paul is 'heteros,' which means "another of a different kind," hence a false gospel, a gospel which encouraged them to depart from the grace of Christ and turn back to the bondage of the Law, a step Paul said would cost them their salvation. Paul said that those who preach or teach another gospel, or follow another gospel, are under a dreadful curse by God.

  Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

  Paul explains the faith-alone basis of the true Gospel like this:

  Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

  Genuine Bible believing Christians (there are no other kind of genuine Christians) place the Gospel emphasis where both Jesus and Paul did: salvation is not based on obedience to Law, any law, but is based on faith alone. Paul argues at length in Romans that saving faith is dependent upon faith alone, in accordance with the promise given by God to Abraham in Genesis 15:6, where Abraham was declared righteous apart from any work of Law, or any obedience. This is the doctrine of the Bible, and those who oppose this doctrine are not genuine Bible believing Christians. Study Romans chapter 4.

  Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

  The Galatians had fallen into serious, soul-destroying error. They had stepped away from the true Gospel of the Grace of God taught them by Paul, and turned toward the yoke of bondage, obedience to Mosaic Law and the Fourth Commandment. Here is the charge of heresy Paul accuses them of:

  Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

  Paul speaks in Galatians of the terrible truth that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Leaven in the Bible is almost always a type of sin. In this case, the sin of doctrinal heresy, or doctrinal apostasy, leads to loss of eternal life, as Paul plainly states in Galatians 5:4,

  Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? Gal 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

  Now, just exactly what was the specific charge Paul brought against the Galatians? It is stated in Galatians 4:10,

  Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

  This is an expression used frequently in the Old Testament to designate in summary form all the days of Jewish observance, including the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, as given in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28 and 29. See such passages as 1 Chronicles 23:30, 31. 2 Chronicles 2:4. 8:13. 31:3. Nehemiah 10:33. Ezekiel 45:17.

  1Ch 23:30 And to stand every morning to thank and praise the LORD, and likewise at even; 1Ch 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD: 2Ch 2:4 Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel. 2Ch 8:13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles. Neh 10:33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God. Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

  The Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews is absolutely forbidden to be observed by Gentile Christians, for it places us under the bondage of Law, and causes us to fall from grace, such that Christ is then of no effect for us. This certainly means loss of salvation. Paul said he was very afraid that if the Galatians had indeed turned in this direction, Paul said his labor was in vain, for they had committed doctrinal apostasy and fallen away from true faith in Christ. The emphasis of the true Gospel is not obedience to any Law, Mosaic or otherwise, but is emphatically focused upon being "in Christ" (Romans 8:1, 9, 11), being regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God (Titus 3:5), becoming a new creature, a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), bearing the fruit of the Spirit, walking in the Spirit, and so not being under the Law (Galatians 5:18). This truth cannot be understood by the "natural man," for these things are "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

  Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  Now to address the issue of Futurism. You have your history of Christian doctrine all mixed up and backwards. I define Futurism as the belief in Premillennialism. Premillennialism was NOT the creation of the Roman Catholics. It was NOT the creation of Francisco Ribera. The Premillennial faith was taught by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and is the teaching of the New Testament. It is the teaching of the Old Testament too. One of the strongest proofs that the Roman Catholic Church cannot possibly be the One True Church, is that it does not teach the Apostolic Faith taught and revealed in the New Testament. The New Testament teaches the Premillennial faith. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Premillennial faith to be heresy, which nicely demonstrates that Roman Catholicism is full-blown heresy, and is not the Christian faith at all. In the history of Christian doctrine, Premillennialism is called Chiliasm, a term derived from a word which means 1000, a reference to Revelation 20:5, and context, where the 1000 years DOES NOT define the length of Christ's reign, but how long Satan is bound before he is for the final time let loose before his permanent confinement to the Lake of Fire. The Bible absolutely teaches that our Lord Jesus Christ will rule upon this earth from Jerusalem upon the Throne of David forever, forever in the infinite sense, as clearly affirmed in Luke 1:32, 33,

  Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

  All Christian writers of the first three Christian centuries who express an opinion on the subject indicate a belief in the Premillennial faith, and assert all Christians who were correct in their belief did likewise. There is not one Christian writer who criticized the Premillennial faith during the whole of the first three Christian centuries. To suggest, as you and/or your misinformed sources have suggested, that Premillennialism originated with the Roman Catholic Jesuit Francisco Ribera, is utter nonsense. Therefore, Futurism is the true Biblical faith, Historicism is not.
• A. WayOctober 11, 2011
  Jerry - could you quote a verse in the Bible that says "Faith alone"? You claim we are saved by "faith alone". Please, give a scripture verse that says this. The only one I know that uses the phrase, "faith alone" is this one: James 2:24 ESV You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Lets see, if we read Hebrews 11, the FAITH chapter, we find some interesting things. Heb 11:4, by faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice... Faith led to doing... Heb 11:7, by fatih Noah built an ark... Faith led to doing... Heb 11:8, by faith Abraham obeyed and left his home... Faith led to doing.... ... Heb 11:24, by fatih Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughters... Faith led to doing... Heb 11:25, by faith Moses choose be mistreaded with the people of God that to enjoy the pleasures of sin.. Faith led to doing... Heb 11:27, by faith Moses left Egypt. Faith led to doing... Heb 11:28, by faith Moses kept the Passover... Faith led to doing... Heb 11:31, by faith, the prostitute Rahab befriended the spies... Faith led to doing... Do you get the idea? Did their doing save them? No, it was their faith. But if they did not act on their faith, they would not have been justified. So James 2:24 is exactly right, not by "faith alone"... Just because the Catholic church denies this or that, does not mean they are behind this or that. The basic tenants of futurism, Ribera did lay out. Accept that. Just because it does exactly match what you think, does not disprove the basic tenants came from him, or other catholic sources. You are convinced in your own mind about futurism. Good for you! I read the Bible and do not. The historical view fits. And it is the most convincing interpretation to me. And amount of your "absolutely teaches" comments does not change what the Bible says. Get use to it. Oh - and as for the civil governments, I'm glad you state that the civil government must not use force to enforce beliefs. Yet you agree that the use of force is acceptable. You have stated so before. Just look at the labor union question we talked about before. Labor unions use force in many different ways. Force in that you many times must join them or in other ways support them, or you will not work in many lines of work. And force when there is work action, strikes. This is a form of use of force, coercion to accomplish a goal. So you do agree that the use of force is acceptable and necessary at times. Just trying to be clear.
• JerryOctober 11, 2011
  Dear A. Way, From what you just said, it appears to me that you do not believe that one is saved by faith alone. Is one saved by faith or not? If one is saved by faith, is one saved before one manifests "works" or only after? It looks to me like you may not have reviewed Romans chapter Four lately. Try reading it again. True faith in our Lord Jesus Christ results in salvation. True faith in Christ results in a renewal or regenerative change. The Holy Spirit in our lives produces the fruit of the Spirit. But apparently you deny all this. As to Futurism, defined as Premillennialism, clearly this is what Jesus taught. This is what the Apostles taught and wrote in the New Testament. It seems to me, as a point in simple logic, that since Francesco Ribera came along well after the first three centuries of this Christian era, he could not possibly be the source of either Futurism or Premillennialism, for the source of the Premillennial view is the literal interpretation of the prophecies in the Bible. And as for the issue of labor and unions, apparently you deny what Jesus taught in Luke 10:7. And what the rest of the Bible teaches about justice. Apparently you would support what is commonly called "right to work" legislation, and "right to work laws. I guess if you are an administrator, that is the position you would take, especially if you are not a genuine Bible believing Christian. "Right to work" laws are designed to remove worker rights to fairness and justice, and leaves the worker with no recourse against arbitrary and unjust actions upon the worker. "Right to work" means right to abuse the worker, the right to force workers to work beyond contractual working hours without additional pay. Most particularly, it removes the right to due process. God states in His written Word the Bible that he is very much against those who would so abuse the rights of those who work for them. Of course, the Bible also teaches that workers must work as unto the Lord, not men, and thus Bible believing workers will do good work for their employers, and be "show window material for the Lord Jesus Christ," by being examples to all of how a worker should perform in a Christ-honoring manner. If you have access to a printed copy of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, consult the Topic Number Index on page 1603 for the topic "Business Responsibilities," and consult the subtopics and associated Scripture references for topic numbers 1821 through 1873. Note particularly the subheading, "Responsibilities to the employee." 1846. Give credit when it is due, Proverbs 3:27

  Pro 3:27 Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.

  1847. Set an example. Romans 2:21

  Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

  1848. Be considerate. Ephesians 6:9

  Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

  1849. Be just. Colossians 4:1

  Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

  1850. Honor contracts and agreements. Colossians 4:1 1851. Pay adequate wages. Jeremiah 22:13

  Jer 22:13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work;

  1852. Pay wages on time. Leviticus 19:13

  Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

  1853. Be open to advice, suggestions, criticism. 1 Samuel 25:17

  1Sa 25:17 Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him.

  1854. Provide safe working conditions. Proverbs 12:10

  Pro 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

  1855. Be willing to change and improve procedures when past or present practices fail to solve the problem. Acts 6:3

  Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

  1856. Exercise diligence. Romans 12:8

  Rom 12:8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

  At each of these referenced passages I have given more cross references related to the topic indicated. This would make for an excellent series of Bible studies for personal or group use. God places very high priority on these matters, such as the inviolability of contracts (see Topic 1850 associated with Colossians 4:1, above), emphasized additionally in the Old Testament at Psalm 15:4,

  Psa 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

  Cross references given for Psalm 15:4 lead to passages like Joshua 9:19,

  Jos 9:19 But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them. Jos 9:20 This we will do to them; we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them. 2Ch 36:13 And he also rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God: but he stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the LORD God of Israel. Jer 52:2 And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that Jehoiakim had done. Jer 52:3 For through the anger of the LORD it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, till he had cast them out from his presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. Eze 17:18 Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape.

  From these passages we may well learn that God insists we live up to agreements and contracts we make. When the nation of Israel violated the agreement with Nebuchadnezzar, God used Nebuchadnezzar to remove them from their land as their just punishment for violating His written Word. Notice that the Governor of Wisconsin and other political leaders in our day are passing laws to contravene contracts arrived at in good faith by means of collective bargaining to assure and secure due process rights for teachers, for example. I wrote an article here in depth exploring these issues as a matter of what the Bible teaches about justice. In this connection consider Malachi 3:5,

  Mal 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

  Here is another passage to consider:

  2Ch 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

• A. WayOctober 12, 2011
  You have side stepped the issue very nicely Jerry. The question is the use of force. I do believe in Bible justice. The question is, how do you arrive at justice in a secular society? If you believe that you are not being paid a fair wage, do you then use force and coercion to get your own way? That is what you are advocating, the use of force. As for salvation by faith, salvation mean healing. Take a physician and a patient; the patient has a terminal disease for which there is a medication that can help remedy the situation, if a patient is prescribed the medication, and the patient takes that medication and gets better, then what saved the patient? The Doctor? The Medicine? The Patient? Which is it? Or none of the above? Must the patient take the medicine in order to get better? Does the patient boast that they were saved by their own works? Certainly not. In the above scenario if it were real life, the answer would be none of the above, the patient was healed by God. All healing is by God. What the physician and the patient are doing is just cooperating, and removing the barriers to the healing process. The doctor did not heal the patient, the medication did not heal the patient, and patient's works did not heal the patient. She was healed by God. The patient was doing a part, and that part was cooperating with God. When God says go, as with Abraham, Abraham better go. He going was by faith. Abraham had a part to play in cooperating with God. If one keeps the law, that law keeping does not save them, but they keep it by faith in the one who gave the law. Many who try to keep the law will be lost, even though outwardly they did right things. Motives are read by God.
• JerryOctober 12, 2011
  Dear A. Way, It continues to look to me as if you still have not lately carefully read and re-read Romans 4. Your repeated assertion that "salvation means healing" is only part of the truth, and not the issue of truth I am addressing. Your position, apparently the official position of your chosen faith group, is not in harmony with the doctrine taught by the Bible. It cannot pass the test of Romans 4. I read this very chapter to the family this evening. You asserted:

  When God says go, as with Abraham, Abraham better go. He going was by faith. Abraham had a part to play in cooperating with God. If one keeps the law, that law keeping does not save them, but they keep it by faith in the one who gave the law.

  Surely Abraham is a remarkable example of faith. His going was surely in obedience to the command of God. But that is not the point GOD made regarding what aspect of faith it is that justified both Abraham and ourselves. Paul wrote the whole 4th chapter of Romans to discuss it in depth. Your reasoning and assertions do not agree at all with what the Apostle Paul by direct statement of inspired Scripture declares about the faith of Abraham that pertains directly to the issue of salvation. You comment on the issue of justice:

  The question is, how do you arrive at justice in a secular society? If you believe that you are not being paid a fair wage, do you then use force and coercion to get your own way? That is what you are advocating, the use of force.

  No way. I have not used force and coercion to get my way. I have shared Scripture with the Bible texts printed out in full for my school administrators to read. I have consulted Christian attorneys, Sunday school teachers I have had or my brother has had, and asked how the teacher's union might better put teeth in collective bargaining contracts, which for Detroit teachers until then, had no "teeth" to require the administration to follow the contract that was agreed to. I then informed the union what I learned, and they followed my advice, and managed to secure the right to binding arbitration when all else fails. That was a matter of Biblical justice, as I furnished Bible proof above that God requires that we absolutely adhere to the contracts to which we have agreed. I gave the Scripture above for you to read, full text provided, from Joshua to Colossians, probably more verses on this particular subject than you have ever encountered before. Did I use force? No. I used the Bible. I used reason, logic, evidence, and persuasion to secure justice in my sphere of influence in accordance with the Bible. Now may I respectfully urge you again to study carefully Romans 4. It may well be that your salvation and mine depends upon rightly understanding this chapter.
• A. WayOctober 14, 2011
  Jerry - you have no clue about my faith community. Romans 4: If Abraham had been justified as a reward for his works of obedience, he indeed would have had something to be proud of. But actually, Abraham had nothing to boast about in the sight of God. Paul explains why in Romans 4:3-5. The truth of the matter is that Abraham did not receive his justification as a reward for works at all, but rather in the same manner as all other believers.
• A. WayOctober 15, 2011
  Oh yeah, with respect to Romans 4, keep in mind all of Romans. Romans 2:13 ESV For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Also, we are saved by the GRACE of God. That is what really saves us. And that through faith. Ephesians 2:8 ESV For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, And I'll go with the Bible's definition of grace. (Titus 3:5-7 compared with Isaiah 53:11)
• JerryOctober 16, 2011
  Dear A. Way, You suggest I have no idea of the identity of your faith community. That might well be true. I doubt that you are Southern Baptist. I doubt that you are Methodist. But the views you have consistently expressed are likely shared by Seventh-day Adventists, so in the light of your several references to the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White, you have surely become most familiar with the viewpoint of that particular denomination, whether or not you specifically affiliate with them in attendance and worship or not. Adventists are historicists, not futurists, and believe in annihilation, and so are annihilationists, all viewpoints you have expressed here. I am glad you are aware of some of the content of Romans 4. You make reference to Romans 2:13,

  Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

  But you will surely recall Ecclesiastes 7:20,

  Ecc 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

  And I know you are familiar with James 2:10,

  Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

  Therefore, the Law has no part in our salvation, for no one can keep it. The Law creates an awareness on our part of our shortcomings, and alerts us to the fact that we need a Savior. Thus, the Law, properly understood, can serve as a means of showing us our need of salvation made available only through Christ by our faith in him alone. Paul said as much when he said, in Galatians 3:24,

  Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

  The law was our schoolmaster. Now that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Therefore, we are no longer under the law. Instead, we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
• A. WayOctober 17, 2011
  You know Jerry - that I agree - that law can not save, we are only saved by grace ( and recall the definition, Titus 3:5-7 Isaiah 53:11, and that through faith. But I'll give you an example, do you recall the TV "personality" (I'm not using the word evangelist) Swaggert? He was caught with a prostitute, not just once. He claimed that he was saved by grace and that his visiting a prostitute did not change anything. Matthew 7:16 AKJV You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? The law, and by this I mean the 10C is a diagnostic instrument. Romans 7:7 AKJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. One does not keep the law in order to be saved, or get God to think you a good person. One should keep the law because it is the right thing to do. Romans 6:14-16 KJV For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? When we continue to sin, we are slaves to sin. Romans 5:20-21 KJV Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Again, the law is a diagnostic instrument which identifies sin. But where sin abounds, grace (see above definition) abounds more! Romans 7:24-25 KJV O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. We are to serve the law of God, not the law of sin. We are saved by grace through faith. It is Christ that does the saving, not our works. But should be continue to sin? Quoting Paul, GOD FORBID!
• JerryOctober 18, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I think we agree that salvation is by faith, not works, not even works of the law. We agree that we should not sin. This is a major matter, for it may be that there are some who do not think that obedience to Christ is a central part of the gospel. That it is a central issue should be clear from John 3:36, where it literally says that "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Notice that belief must be continuous, not a single action in the past; note also that those who are believing now have everlasting life; those who are not continuing to obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God continues to remain upon them. We agree that one of the NT definitions of sin is that sin is the transgression of the law. We agree that no one was ever saved by keeping the law, and that no one except Christ has ever kept it perfectly. We agree that those who claim to be saved but who practice the forbidden sins listed at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are not likely to be truly saved. The evangelist you mentioned probably fits this category, though only God knows the heart, and Paul admonished us all to judge nothing before the time. I notice you cited the passage that states we are not under law, but under grace. We may be more in agreement than might first be supposed. But our emphasis appears to be different. I have stressed that God works in us to do his will by means of the Holy Spirit who has brought regenerative change to each person who has truly placed their faith in Christ, and who continues to believe in Christ and hear His word and follow Him. Being "in Christ," the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the spirit, against which there is no law, thus fulfilling the requirements of the Law of Christ. It is written that the Law came by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. That surely indicates a major shift in emphasis under Christ, for if we are under Christ, we are not under the Law of Moses. If we place ourselves under the law, we have placed ourselves in bondage, and Christ is become of no effect to us, for we have fallen from grace (see Galatians 5:4), a pointedly very serious matter which may well mean loss of salvation. Paul thought it serious enough that he considered that his work would be in vain if those he had ministered to and brought to faith turned in this direction.
• A. WayOctober 18, 2011
  John 3:36 ESV Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. There is that word - OBEY. Romans 6:15 AKJV What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Oops - there it is again - we should not go on sinning, and sinning is transgression of the law. You quoted Galatians 5:4. Recall what Paul was saying in Galatians. There were those that were saying that salvation was by Jesus plus... Plus circumcision. Some were even spying on Paul and Titus who was a Greek. Galatians 2:3-4. There are two laws, the ceremonial laws which were a type, fulfilled in Christ, and the moral law of 10 commandments. Where we differ is what is the Law of God that defines sin. I say the 10C. You say the 9C. Since we are speaking about Galatians, you might quote Galatians 4:10 ESV You observe days and months and seasons and years! I will say concerning this verse, days, and months. Paul here refers to the seven ceremonial sabbaths and the new moons of the ceremonial system (Leviticus 23; Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15). There is no basis in Scripture for assuming, that the “days” of which Paul here speaks refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. Nowhere in the Bible is the seventh day referred to in the language here used. Furthermore, the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at creation, I know you deny this, ( Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11), before the entrance of sin and some 2,500 years before the inauguration of the ceremonial system at Mt. Sinai. Exodus 16 proves that it pre-dated Sinai. If observance of the seventh-day Sabbath subjects a man to bondage, it must be that the Creator Himself entered into bondage when He observed the world’s first Sabbath! And that conclusion is unthinkable. Times. Literally, “appointed seasons,” here, the annual set festivals of the Jewish religious calendar ( Numbers 28:2). Years. The sabbatical year and the year of jubilee (Exodus 23:10-11; Leviticus 25:8-12). If I keep the seventh-day Sabbath, you say I'm trying to achieve salvation by works. I think I have already proven that one is not saved by works. If I keep the Sabbath, I do it because Jesus commanded it. It was Jesus that gave the 10C at Sinai, written on tablets of stone and placed into the Ark of the Covenant. The placement of the tablets INSIDE the Ark is a type of the New Covenant were the law is written on the heart, Jeremiah 31:33 AKJV But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Do note Jerry, that the new covenant is with "the house of Israel". If you throw out Revelation as being only for the Jews as some futurists do, you will miss Revelation 11:19 ESV Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, The 10C are God's law, and they point out sin. They do not have power to save, only condemn. Being "under the law" means to be under condemnation of the law. By grace (Titus 3:5-7; Isaiah 53:11), God can heal us, set of free of sin, and restore the image of God back into us. That is salvation. The whole heart must be yielded to God, or the change can never be wrought in us by which we are to be restored to His likeness. By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. This can only be done by the Grace of Jesus.
• JerryOctober 18, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I have before in our discussions cited Galatians 4:9, 10 and proven by an exhaustive study, presenting each associated Bible reference in full text, that the expression Paul uses, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and seasons," has reference to ALL Jewish celebrations involving a stipulated time of regular observance, and that the expression includes the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath. The expression or its equivalent in reverse order is used throughout the Old Testament. Recalling off the top of my head, the order of expression as Paul gives it is the same order as is found in the book of Ezekiel. I agree with your repeated complaint that the cross references as now given in study Bibles, the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and my two expansions of that resource are at times not complete enough. But checking just now for Galatians 4:10, it appears that I greatly expanded what was in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, so the references given in both The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and Nelson's Cross Reference Guide to the Bible at Galatians 4:10 are quite complete. By the way, should it happen to be that you are familiar with the use of cross references, you will agree with me that they serve a totally different function than a concordance. Therefore, though Bible software gives wonderful help in tracking the use of an original language word by its Strong number, such references found that way are of much narrower scope than what is furnished by cross references. Cross references track the same idea, theme, doctrine, prophecy, figure of speech, for example, even when expressed in different words. I have now completed the basic work of expanding the cross references for the book of Ezekiel, and am now working on Daniel, chapter 4.
• A. WayOctober 19, 2011
  Quote:"I have before in our discussions cited Galatians 4:9, 10 and proven by an exhaustive study, presenting each associated Bible reference in full text, that the expression Paul uses, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and seasons,” has reference to ALL Jewish celebrations involving a stipulated time of regular observance, and that the expression includes the weekly Seventh Day Sabbath." No - it does not. The Seventh-day Sabbath was given for MAN, not just the Jews. Jesus said so. Mark 2:27 AKJV And he said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: It does not say, the Sabbath was made for the Jews. You do not separate the ceremonial law with the moral law of 10 commandments. I do. You can be as vocal as you'd like, but it does not change how I read the Bible. You still have not demonstrated to me any knowledge of the ceremonial law, and its purpose. Even you with your extensive reading of the Bible, for how many years? believed that the Sabbath was made at creation. You now reject that idea, but without real good reasoning. The Bible clearly predates Sinai. Nehemiah 9:14 talks about God instructing the people about His Holy Sabbath. The ceremonial sabbaths are not talked about as being God's sabbath. One example, Leviticus 26:43, it talks about the land's sabbath. This is not God sabbath, but the land's sabbath. Another, Hosea 2:9-11 AKJV Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness.(10) And now will I discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of my hand.(11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. "Her sabbaths" is not referring to God's sabbath day. It is referring to the ceremonial sabbaths, which are a shadow of the plan of redemption. Our differences are the 10C. You claim there are only 9C. I claim there are 10C. THAT is the difference as I see it. You claim that the Sabbath is a burden, putting us under bondage. But this is CONTRARY to Scripture! Isaiah 58:13 AKJV If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: Do you see the key words? MY HOLY DAY. Whose? GOD! CALL THE SABBATH A DELIGHT? Are these words of BONDAGE????? NO! IF you call the Sabbath a bondage, then God is under bondage because the Sabbath was made at creation, Genesis 2:1-3. God blessed the seventh-day, and sanctified it. The commandments say REMEMBER. Exodus 20:8 AKJV Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Does keeping the Sabbath save you? NO! I have not murdered anybody all day. Does that save me? NO. But the 10C point to moral behavior that one will do if they love the Lord, with all their heart, mind and strength, and their neighbor as themselves. All the other ceremonial laws, were fulfilled at the cross. Circumcision is no longer required. The sabbath DAYS, are no longer required (Colossians 2:16). These were shadows. The passover sabbath was a shadow of the cross. The feast of trumpets is a shadow of the message of warning to the world, which by the way, fits the historicist view quite nicely. The feast of tabernacles is a shadow of the 2nd coming. All 7 ceremonial sabbaths were a shadow depicting the plan of salvation. The seventh-day sabbath is not part of the ceremonial sabbaths. It was made at creation for all humanity. The ceremonial sabbaths pointed forward, to the coming Messiah and salvation. The seventh-day sabbath pointed backward, to known reality, creation. As I have pointed out before, the word for the seventh-day in over 100 languages is "SABBATH". This is more that just Jewish. Just because the whole world now wonders after the beast, most unknowingly, does not change the facts. Spanish - Sabado. German - Samstag. Afghan - Shamba. Russian - Subbota. Ancient Syriac - Shab-ba-tho. Hindustani - Shamba. The Sabbath was made for man. It is a day of joy, in fellowship with the Lord. It is not a day of bondage. I had one man tell me that he children could not keep the seventh-day sabbath because they needed to work to make money, and the weekend was a busy time for their business. This is telling me that they are not trusting in God to provide. I keep the sabbath by faith in the one who created the sabbath, which is a memorial to His total creation. Keeping Sabbath is an act of faith. And the way I see things changing, this will be even more important in the near future as laws are coming and have come to my relatives in Europe forcing the observance of Sunday as the rest day. Both secular and religious groups are pushing this. Forehead - religious, hand - work/secular: Revelation 13:16; Revelation 14:9; Revelation 20:4. Watch...
• JerryOctober 19, 2011
  Dear A. Way, I have before proven directly from Scripture that the Sabbath was first given to the Jews upon their exodus from Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:1-3; Nehemiah 9:13, 14). This is what the Bible directly states in the passages just cited. The Sabbath is not mentioned even once in the book of Genesis for the Hebrew word for Sabbath does not occur anywhere in the text of Genesis. That is why I changed my mind from my former view regarding Genesis 2:3, a change based upon my now more thorough consideration of the evidence, thanks to your motivation which lately impelled my further study of the question. You responded that the word for Sabbath is omitted from many other OT books, so the omission is not significant. I responded that books subsequent to the account of the Exodus from Egypt need not mention the Sabbath, directly or indirectly, for that is not at issue in the discussion or argument. What is necessary to show but cannot be shown is that the Sabbath was both given and practiced by the faithful Patriarchs in obedience to a specific command given to them by God before the time of Moses. For this, there is a total absence of evidence. And speaking of total absence of evidence, your position fails of any Scriptural support because there is not one instance in either the four Gospels or in any of the Epistles of any repetition of the command to observe the Seventh Day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, not one. All Nine of the other Ten Commandments are repeated as commandments, as I previously demonstrated by direct reference to the explicit Scriptures that form the proof for each. You have in the past responded that this is an argument from silence, so is fallacious. I responded that the silence is on purpose, and Scripture directly says so, when the Apostles specifically stated and wrote to all the churches saying "to whom we gave no such commandment" (Acts 15:24),

  Act_15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

  I enumerated 23 Rules of Interpretation (see the October 2010 Archives here) essential to follow if anyone is to arrive at the truth of what the Bible says. I have applied them upon occasion to point out the nature of interpretative errors you have made as you have misinterpreted Scripture. Your response was to scoff at the rules, saying they are my rules. Indeed they are my rules; I did not copy and paste them from someone else's writing. I devised them in the process of teaching my students how to arrive at the best possible, if not most correct, interpretation of a poem. I also developed some of the rules from my own study of the Bible near the beginning of my Christian life back in 1954. The fact that they are my rules does not invalidate them. Your emphasis upon the Sabbath is NOT the emphasis of the teaching of the New Testament, and therefore Sabbath emphasis forms no part of the true Gospel of Christ, but is clearly "another Gospel," the very serious error Paul warns us against in the first chapter of Galatians:

  Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

  I stated and proved (by reference to my prior exhaustive presentation of all the relevant Scripture texts, many of which are given as cross references in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge at Galatians 4:10) that the expression used in Galatians 4:10 and its parallel in Colossians 2:13-17 has reference to ALL stated periodic obligatory observances of the Jews, including the Seventh Day Sabbath. My statement is irrefutable, for the evidence is plain to anyone with the ability to read. The enumeration in Leviticus 23 and the enumeration in Numbers 28 and 29 clearly includes the Seventh Day Sabbath, and so must be included in the expression "Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Cross References for Galatians 4:10, observe days. Le ch. 23. 25:1, 13. Nu ch. 28, 29. Zc 7:5, 6. Ro 14:5. Col **2:16, 17. months. Nu 10:10. 28:11. 1 S 20:5. 1 Ch 23:31. 2 Ch 2:4. Ezr 3:5. Ne 10:33. Ps 81:3. Is 1:13, 14. Ezk 45:17. 46:6. Ho 2:11. Col **2:16. seasons. 2 Ch 8:13. years. Le 25:2-5, 8-17. Your emphasis is not the emphasis of the Bible. Therefore, your position must be mistaken. I pray that the Lord will grant you grace to see the error of your position. Rule 21: A correct system of doctrine or a correct interpretation of the Bible must share the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible. How does one determine the doctrinal balance and emphasis of the Bible? By avoiding denominational or cult literature about the Bible, and reading a plain text Bible at length alone on the metaphorical Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island. Concentrate on the New Testament first. Use the cross references provided in the center column reference system found in a Cambridge Bible, or an Oxford Bible, starting, in this instance, with the cross references given at Acts 2:24 in the Oxford Bible: Acts 2:32. 3:15, 26. 4:10, 33. 5:30. 10:40. 13:30, 33, 34. 17:31. Romans 4:24. 1 Corinthians 6:14. 2 Corinthians 4:14. Galatians 1:1. Ephesians 1:20. Colossians 2:12. 1 Thessalonians 1:10. 2 Timothy 2:8. Hebrews 13:20. 1 Peter 1:21. You have heard the expression, no doubt many times, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I've used it many times in my classroom to remind students that I can offer them suggestions about what is important to read in the field of literature, but if they don't follow through and read for themselves, my good suggestions will do them little good. I have pointed out in this post specific places to make a start in discovering the true balance and emphasis of the Bible. May God bless your study of the Scriptures I have painstakingly enumerated here.
• A. WayOctober 19, 2011
  You forget that the book of Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses. As such, Genesis is looking back. So that just because the actual word is missing is not proof of anything. The fact remains, that the seventh-day was blessed (H1288) and sanctified (H6942). Genesis 2:2-3 KJV And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. The work translated "rested" is H7673, Shabath. H1288 bârak baw-rak' A primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason): - X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank. H6942 קדשׁ qâdash kaw-dash' A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly. I've read all the verses. You have only "proven" it in your own mind. Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. Your argument that there is no command to keep the Sabbath is an argument from the negative. It is known that the Jews were strict in keeping all laws, so they indeed kept the Sabbath. Jesus however was accused of being a Sabbath breaker. Was he? According to the Jews, yes! According to God, no. Jesus showed true Sabbath keeping. See John 5. Was the man carrying his bed breaking the Sabbath? No. The Jews seemed to be concerned, not that the man was healed on the Sabbath, but that he was carrying a burden, his bed, on that day. Jewish traditional law provided strict regulations in regard to the carrying of burdens on the Sabbath. Thus the Mishnah lists 39 types of work that cannot be performed on Sabbath, the last one of which is “carrying out from one domain to another”. These are commandments of men, not God. You continue to lack of understand the who of the ceremonial law, which was a shadow of the plan of redemption. The Sabbath was a central theme in the crucifixion. Jesus rested in the tomb on the Sabbath. Christians as a whole marginalize this fact. We have "good Friday", and "resurrection Sunday". No mention of the Sabbath!!! When Jesus completed his work of creation, he rested, Genesis 2:2-3. When Jesus completed the His work at the crucifixion, He rested. You also marginalize all the other references to the Sabbath in the NT. The disciples kept the Sabbath, and never any other day. Proven! The sanctuary in Heaven is seen in Revelation which contained the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark had inside it the tablets of the 10 (not 9) commandments. The Sabbath is not marginalized in the NT. You say the explicit command to keep the Sabbath is not repeated. But the law of 10 commandments is there. Romans 13:8-9 KJV Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Do you think that Paul in writing Romans 13:8-9 was thinking, the 10 commandments are now only 9? NO. To Paul, the law, the 10 commandments, pointed out sin!!! Romans 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. He could just as easily said that we are to remember the Sabbath. But then everyone was keeping the Sabbath, so why repeat it? What they needed to know was what Sabbath keeping entailed, and it is not the 39 laws of the Misnah. The Jews made the Sabbath a burden. True Sabbath keeping is NOT a burden. Isaiah 58:13 AKJV If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: You are correct - you can make a horse drink. Your "true balance" is leaving out so much. You say, concentrate on the NT first. You need to understand the OT to understand the NT. Understand, that it was the OT that Jesus and his disciples had. Do you understand the OT? Do you understand the types of the OT?
• JerryOctober 19, 2011
  Dear A. Way, It is just possible that I may have studied the types of the OT at greater length and more thoroughly than you may think. If you have ever made use of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, you will take careful note of the fact that I employed two different symbols to mark the types in the OT. One symbol marks what appears to be a type. The other symbol marks what is directly declared in the NT to be a type. Types, except those directly identified as such by the NT, are highly subjective. For that reason I have not majored any further on such study yet. My elderly friend Uncle Frank had studied them thoroughly for a long lifetime. He pointed out to me the books to secure that discussed the types in detail. I've told you before that I much appreciate Uncle Frank's advice. Fortunately, I heeded his advice and obtained the books he recommended. I sat under his teaching of the subject for a decade. When Uncle Frank passed away in 1985 I inherited a good portion of his library. So I have the material here. Since types are very subjective, they, like parables, are not the best means of founding our understanding of Bible doctrine. It is sometimes said that we must not found a doctrine on a type. I recommend starting with the NT first because it is a shorter, usually easier to understand, set of inspired writings. Not only is it shorter, but the individual books are shorter. Certainly Biblical Christianity is fundamentally founded upon the divine revelation and record found in the New Testament. So for these reasons, it is best to start there. You state:

  Do you think that Paul in writing Romans 13:8-9 was thinking, the 10 commandments are now only 9? NO. To Paul, the law, the 10 commandments, pointed out sin!!!

  If this is so, then why did Paul never cite the Fourth Commandment in any of his writings as a specific command to be obeyed by Gentile Christians (or, actually, anybody else)? Why, in all 1050 or so commandments mentioned or given in the NT record is the Fourth Commandment never named among them? No one is ever faulted or even cautioned in the NT regarding being a Sabbath-breaker. I believe it is clear in the NT that the Fourth Commandment forms no part of the New Covenant provisions or requirements set forth in the NT. The position you take is not in harmony with the balance and emphasis given in the NT. And when it comes to the central matter of salvation, John in his Gospel of John declares that he wrote his Gospel so that, upon reading and believing it, we might be saved. Therefore, as helpful as a knowledge of the OT might be for further understanding the NT beyond the salvation basics, Scripture itself declares that understanding the Gospel of John alone is sufficient to believe on Christ and be saved. Why isn't this, the true message of the Gospel, your central emphasis?
• A. WayOctober 20, 2011
  quote:"If this is so, then why did Paul never cite the Fourth Commandment in any of his writings as a specific command to be obeyed by Gentile Christians (or, actually, anybody else)?" Because they all kept it. It was NOT a question. The law, the 10C, points out sin.
• A. WayOctober 20, 2011
  Quote:"Since types are very subjective, they, like parables, are not the best means of founding our understanding of Bible doctrine. It is sometimes said that we must not found a doctrine on a type." Oh, this is a good one!!! LOL Parables are not the best means of teaching Bible doctrine? Are you serious? Mark 4:33-34 KJV And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. 34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: Are you really saying that the method that Jesus used to teach the multitude was not the best method of teaching? Thank you Jerry - you made my day...
• A. WayOctober 20, 2011
  Quote:"Why isn’t this, the true message of the Gospel, your central emphasis?" Jesus is the true message. He is central to my emphasis. When I remember the Sabbath, its whole focus is on the Creator, Jesus Christ. There is no sanctity in any other day. Those that keep Sunday, keep a spurious Sabbath. There is NO command to keep Sunday. I continue to wonder why in Revelation 1:10, you have thought that to be Sunday. Oh yeah, you now say that is really some day in the future. Why are you so anti-Sabbath? The Bible is not anti-Sabbath. You say the Bible "absolutely forbids" keeping the Sabbath. Paul says, Romans 14:5 KJV One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Good advice, don't you think?
• JerryOctober 20, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Paul gave good advice, indeed. Now that it is captured forever as part of the written word of God in the Bible it is inspired Scripture. So, then, how is it you fail to heed his advice, but continue relentlessly to do the opposite by making the Sabbath question your central issue? Paul warned in Galatians 4:9-11 not to go in that direction lest, Paul said, his labor be in vain. Paul's warning in that text centered on the issue of reverting to Jewish observance of stated obligatory days, months, times, and years. Thus Paul's divine prohibition encompasses ALL such Jewish observances, and most definitely includes the Sabbath, as a plain reading and consultation of the cross references for Galatians 4:10 will satisfactorily prove to anyone who will read Scripture without Adventist blinders on. The logical conclusion to be derived from Paul's prohibition in Galatians 4:9-11 is that Sabbath observance when practiced as a matter of obedience to the Law of the Fourth Commandment is forbidden, because it is a lapse from the liberty from the law Christ provided by his death on the Cross and bodily resurrection from the dead on the third day, acts which considered in their totality completely fulfilled the Old Testament types and shadows which pointed to His ultimate work for us in grace. The weekly Sabbath was not moral law, but ceremonial law, given as a type and declared as such in the New Testament. Now that the reality has come, the shadow is done away. We are no longer obligated to keep any particular day as a day for corporate worship, especially the Sabbath. The same conclusion is to be drawn from the Colossians 2:13-17 passage, with an emphasis on verse 16.

  Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

  The expression "sabbath days" is a standard way of making reference to the Jewish Seventh Day Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. Speaking directly to this issue regarding the scruples of weaker brethren, Paul commands:

  Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

  I am fully persuaded in my own mind that your position on each of several main points is absolutely wrong. I not only do not read the Bible that way, no one else does either unless they have been taught such false doctrine by those who are eager to promote it. Jesus was a Futurist. So were the Apostles. So was Daniel. To believe preterism (as so many otherwise respectable but on this point not sufficiently informed scholars do), to believe historicism (as so many fine students of Scripture, including perhaps some of the Reformers), is fundamentally in conflict with what Jesus himself taught, and what the rest of the New Testament teaches. To believe that the Seventieth Week of Daniel is past history is nonsense. To argue that there is no unannounced time gap in prophecy between Daniel 9:26 and Daniel 9:27 is ludicrous nonsense. Futurism, which I define as Premillennialism, is the undisputed teaching of all Christian writers from the New Testament onward for the first three centuries of Christian history. Your view is a "Johnny come lately," and is not the view of the New Testament. Annihilationism is false doctrine and is by no means the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of false cults down through history from the Sadducees which Jesus pointedly condemned and refuted to Adventist, Unitarian, and Arian heresy yet with us today. It is the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is the teaching of the Adventists. It is the teaching of contemporary Seventh-day Adventists, all of whom are woefully mistaken in their materialist theology. You are on these points not on the side of genuine Bible believing Christianity. You are not at all on the side of anyone who has taken a plain text Bible in hand on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island and read the Bible for itself to learn directly from its text what the true balance and emphasis of the Bible is. Apparently you have not as yet engaged in Real Bible Study. But I still have hopes that you will. Years ago one of the students in my Comparative Religions Club at Cass Technical High School invited me to his faith community. The group turned out to be the original Jehovah's Witnesses, not the group that goes by that name now, which broke off from this original group in 1918 or so. Known today as "Christian Bible Students," they followed the teachings and published the writings of their founding teacher, Pastor Charles Taze Russell. Russell made the statement, I think in volume 1 of his Studies in Scripture, that to remain faithful to his teaching one must continue to study his writing. He said that for anyone to stop studying his writing and turn to studying the Bible alone would, within two years, bring them back into darkness. Well, the fact is, that continued study of his writings, if one were to believe them, would certainly place one or keep one in darkness, not light. And what Russell felt was "darkness" was the very opposite: the light of truth from Scripture alone.

  Mat_6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

  Russell's statement is one of the clearest I've read that points to how to get out of false religion or false or mistaken religious groups: stop reading or listening to their material for at least two full years, and instead make a careful study of the Bible itself in the manner I have advocated here by doing Real Bible Study! That is why I urge everyone to go by the light of Scripture alone. That is why I have used the metaphor of going to Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island to study, like he did in the famous work of classic literature, from "three good Bibles," plain text ones like he had. I have suggested a list of unbiased additional resources that are permissible as study helps on Robinson Crusoe's Island. I have named as denominationally unbiased resources such tools as Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, a source or sources of cross references such as The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or reference Bibles like the Teacher's Edition of the American Standard Version published by Nelson or the Oxford Long Primer Reference Bible which have remarkably full cross references. Study Bibles like Nave's Study Bible and the Thompson Chain Reference Bible are likewise highly recommended. The recent NET Bible with 60,000+ Notes is also allowed because its notes are not doctrinal or denominational but linguistic, so far as I have noticed in my use of it. But I have warned repeatedly that everyone who wishes to gain an understanding of the truth of what the Bible says must avoid like the plague all denominational and cult resources. Studying from denominational and cult resources is to study from poisoned wells and is highly dangerous. I think it is likely that you have learned the positions you take from the poisoned wells I warn against. My reasons follow. You have failed to grasp at all the truth of Romans 4. You have demonstrated no insight whatsoever into the important issue Paul addressed in Galatians 5:1, but promote as truth the very error Paul sought to correct.

  Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

  Your stance against Futurism, the position Jesus himself took as is plain by the context in which he mentions Daniel in the Olivet Discourse, placing the significant event of the Seventieth Week into the distant future to be fulfilled immediately prior to his second advent. Your belief in the heretical doctrine of materialism, which includes the false doctrine of annihilationism, all refuted by Jesus directly when he trounced the unbelief of the Sadducees. Your misplaced emphasis upon the Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments, which were given AFTER the exodus from Egypt at Sinai. The OT law was not given to or for the Gentiles, but exclusively to the Jews. Your failure to accept all the provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants as applicable to the literal nation of Israel, and thus your consequent mistaken theology which replaces Israel by the Church, as if "Spiritual Israel" now takes the place of literal Israel in those covenants given to the physical descendants of Abraham. I prefer not to follow such errors when the plain statements of Scripture clearly teach otherwise.
• A. WayOctober 20, 2011
  I have liberty if Christ. I think it is you that is bondage, with your concept of hell. Hell is a very dark concept, contrary to the truth about God. 1 John 1:5 ESV This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. The "unannounced" break in the timeline of the 70 week prophesy, I'm sorry, makes no sense. The position of history bears out the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation perfectly. And yes, there is still future fulfillment. I guess I am a futurist in that sense. The man of sin, the antichrist, the mark of the beast, and so much more can be clearly understood. These ideas were well understood, and rightly so, but most of the reformers. The object of their focus has worked hard and very well in turning the truth away from themselves. You have fallen for the bait. All I can say is, keep watching. The truth will become clear to that that are looking for it.
• JerryOctober 23, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Above on this discussion thread you made the most interesting comment:

  You do not separate the ceremonial law with the moral law of 10 commandments. I do. You can be as vocal as you’d like, but it does not change how I read the Bible.

  Since I have been a reading specialist and an English teacher for many years, you might well suppose that part of my job description was to teach my students how to read better. I succeeded in doing so. I even wrote my own self-instructional reading program featured on my other website at www.readingsteps.com, where I make available much information directly from my lesson plans and self-created teaching materials for those who wish to explore the site. It looks to me like it is you who may have ignored the difference between ceremonial law and moral law. The Sabbath institution and command is ceremonial law, not moral, and as such, having been a Type, the Type now fulfilled by Christ as stated in the New Testament, the Fourth Command is not obligatory for New Testament Christians, who rightly choose, in honor of the resurrection of Christ, to worship on the First Day, but again, not an obligatory day (Romans 14:5, 6).
• A. WayOctober 23, 2011
  The Pope claims to be God on earth. I reject that claim. You are trying to make me believe you because of your credentials. I know many people who are top in their field, and I rejects many of their beliefs. Why? Because of the facts! We interpret then differently. I read the Bible, and you did FOR MANY YEARS by your own account, that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. I still believe that, and I think the record bears this out, see Exodus 5 and 16. You then claimed that it was instituted at Sinai, if you look back at our discussions. Then you back tracked as said that it was instituted when the Children of Abraham left Egypt (Exodus 16). Yet, my reading of the same texts show that it was more revelatory than commandment in Exodus 16. Nehemiah also speaks of it be revelatory, in other words, re-instituting that which was lost. Nehemiah 9:14 ESV and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant. But you are the reading expert. The expert that took how many years to change his mind? The ceremonial law, for which again, I have seen no understanding from you on this, was forward looking. The 4th commandment is backwards looking. "Remember". Remember who your creator is. The ceremonial law pointed forward to the work of redemption, which was accomplished by Christ. You are very free to not keep the 4th commandment. I do not condemn you. As Paul says, let everyone be persuaded in their own mind. I just hope you have the same charity and stop condemning me. You acknowledge there is no sanctity in Sunday. I agree. The other great error you hold is the immortality of the soul. I wonder, have your read Edward Fudge's book, "The Fire that Consumes"? http://www.edwardfudge.com/written/fire.html Perhaps you should. It is an exhaustive study on the subject. You claim that the Sabbath was Jewish only. Yet, you have not answered my observation that in over 100 languages, that the 7th day is called, "Sabbath". Why do you think that is? You claim that the old covenant was for the Jews only. Is not the new covenant for the house of Israel only too? Jeremiah 31:31-33 AKJV Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband to them, said the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. There is ample evidence that the Apostles kept the Sabbath. Jesus, our example kept the Sabbath, and is indeed Lord of the Sabbath. He is the one that created it. And the Ark of the Covenant, seen in the Heavenly temple in Revelation is significant in that the 10 commandments, ALL 10, not 9, is see. Revelation 11:19 ESV Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. Also in the Ark was the bowl of Manna. Manna which fell only on 6 days of the week, and not on the Sabbath. A significant type, which like parables, you think hard to understand. The Sabbath was made for man. It is an acknowledgment of the faith was have in Christ. We are saved only by Christ, His Grace (Titus 3:5-7; Isaiah 53:11) and that through faith.
• JerryOctober 23, 2011
  Dear A. Way, You most recently commented:

  I have liberty if Christ. I think it is you that is bondage, with your concept of hell. Hell is a very dark concept, contrary to the truth about God. 1 John 1:5 ESV This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

  Yes, you have liberty to believe as you wish. That does not guarantee correctness on either my part or yours. It may be that you are in bondage to what you think and believe is the truth. I say "in bondage," because you so far have not been very open to changing your view on the basis of any of my carefully presented evidence. I think I may be slightly less in bondage to my present understanding of the Bible because I keep studying the Bible, and am at liberty to modify my understanding and belief on the basis of additional Biblical evidence. But perhaps in reality you are equally open to accepting new evidence and changing your mind too when warranted. But when two careful students of the Bible read its text and come up with contrary opinions about what it means, how can either reader determine which viewpoint is correct? I guess the Roman Catholics think they have the advantage on this point, for they can let the Pope sort it all out. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their teaching authority vested in an Organization in Brooklyn, New York, which issues "meat in due season" which they think contains the only authoritative source of Biblical interpretation. I think the way to the correct interpretation is to be found elsewhere than human organizations and teaching authorities. The truth is found within Scripture. Jesus commanded (and in Greek, it is strictly a command, for the verb in the initial position when the indicative and imperative forms are identical is a command) that we are to "Search the Scriptures" (John 5:39). So, to unravel the correct meaning of the doctrine of hell as taught by Scripture, one must study all the Scripture relevant to the subject. In doing this, we find that Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. It is said that he makes direct reference to hell more than to heaven. I do know from studying the subject that Jesus warns against anyone choosing a path that leads to hell. Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Mat_5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat_5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mat_11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Mat_16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat_18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Mat_23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Mat_23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Mar_9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mar_9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mar_9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Luk_10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. Luk_12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Luk_16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. There are other passages that directly bear upon the subject, even though they don't use the word "hell." Just one example that comes immediately to mind is Matthew 8:29. Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? This would surely imply, even actually state, that hell is a place of torment. That seems to tie in quite well with this: Mat_25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: I see that interesting word "everlasting" is used in this verse too. "Everlasting," when used of matters pertaining to the Age to Come, has an infinite sense. The word "everlasting" is used twice in the same verse, even grammatically in the same sentence as it were, at the end of the same chapter I just cited from: Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. In this verse "everlasting" and "eternal" translate the same Greek word. Thus, the grammar of the sentence requires that the duration asserted of the one ("eternal life") is the same as the duration of the other ("everlasting punishment"). Surely Jesus was not speaking falsehood. Surely Jesus is giving a forthright warning for all to heed. He was not speaking by way of parable here. And surely Jesus knows the character and attributes of the Father perfectly well. The fact of the penalty of future "everlasting punishment" certainly does not contradict the revealed attributes of God as we find them in Scripture. In both Old and New Testament it is said that "our God is a consuming fire." Heb_12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. A correct view of God must incorporate and accommodate all the divine attributes, not just the ones we think we like. This is in accordance with the Rules of Interpretation I've furnished in the October 2010 Archives here: Rule 6. Interpret a particular passage in harmony with ALL other passages which may have a bearing on the subject. Rule 7. Be sure to include all relevant passages upon a theme before determining the interpretation of any particular passage. Rule 10. Interpret a passage according to the grammar of the original language text, Hebrew or Greek. Rule 17. You cannot leave out material which, if included, would require or necessitate a change in the interpretation.
• A. WayOctober 23, 2011
  quote:"It may be that you are in bondage to what you think and believe is the truth. I say “in bondage,” because you so far have not been very open to changing your view on the basis of any of my carefully presented evidence." ABSOLUTELY. You find it incredible that the evidence can be read differently. No - I have seen no evidence presented by you that compels me to change my view. NONE. I see your view as contrary to scripture. Particularly in the immortality of the soul. Luke 16 is a parable. We have gone over that one. The other quotes, consider this on eternal fire. Jude 1:7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning? They are an example. Isaiah 33:14-16 ESV The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: "Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?" 15 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, 16 he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure. So, who LIVES in the everlasting burnings? THE RIGHTEOUS. Not the sinner. That sinner is consumed and the result is everlasting. Have you read Edward Fudge's book, "The Fire That Consumes"? I bring up this book because he is an evangelical Christian that when he studied all the scripture on the topic came to the conclusion that I have come to, that the soul is mortal. Of course, the Bible says that only one is immortal, and that is God. 1 Timothy 6:13-16 ESV I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. Who gives life to all? God. Who only has immortality? God If sinners are punished consciously eternally, the it is God that keeps them alive to torture them for eternity. This is contrary to what God said in Genesis, that sinners will die. Satan told the lie, which you have fallen for, that we will never die. Such eternal torture is a dark teaching. 1 John 1:5 AKJV This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Revelation 21:1 ESV Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. All sin will be destroyed. All things will be made new. Immorality of the soul is the foundation of Spiritualism. Think that one through.
• JerryOctober 23, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Your contentions for what you believe is the truth of Scripture are somewhat in error on many major points.

  I see your view as contrary to scripture. Particularly in the immortality of the soul.

  I have not affirmed the immortality of the soul; that is your position. There is no such thing. I affirm the immortality of the spirit, or as I previously expressed it, the immortality of the person. It is only the body that dies physically; not the soul or spirit. The body upon resurrection or Rapture receives or puts on immortality when we receive our resurrection or glorified body, therefore of course the body does not possess immortality now. But since the soul or spirit do not die, they live forever, and according to Scripture are very much conscious after death. Your error is the failure to believe Scripture when it speaks of spiritual death as something different from physical death. That is because both you, and apparently Mr. Fudge, think that physical death was the penalty at the Fall. It wasn't, it was one of the consequences of the Fall. Both of you are caught up in the heretical doctrine of materialist theology, which as I've pointedly explained before, was refuted by Jesus, who said that upon death, "all live unto him." Does the Bible teach the consciousness of the person after the death of the body? Absolutely. I explained this in a main post here about Luke 23:43, a verse which materialists foolishly try to side-step by fooling with the punctuation, an absurdity contrary to the Greek grammar of the sentence involved. And I have much more evidence from Scripture that I have never yet presented here to establish that the Bible teaches that we are conscious after death. Maybe I should make it a major article for a main post.

  Luke 16 is a parable. We have gone over that one. The other quotes, consider this on eternal fire. Jude 1:7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

  Note that Jude, in speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, and surrounding cities, is by a usual figure of speech, speaking of the people in them. So, while the cities were burned up long ago, the people are still suffering conscious punishment, which is the point of Jude's stating they are suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Once again, since the vengeance takes place both now in this age and continues into the Future Age, "eternal" is a reference to the infinite sense of this word. The temporary fire by which they physically perished is not said to be the eternal one which they now suffer. Notice that the suffering is expressed in the present tense, which in Greek signifies it now continues, "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." So, once again, you or your sources appear to be in error. I have not yet reached the book of Jude in my preparation of a new study resource of expanded cross references for every verse in the Bible, so I may take additional opportunity to study this text again when I reach that point, but just now your use of the text appears very arbitrary and mistaken, for it is not in accord with the meaning of the text.
• A. WayOctober 24, 2011
  Quote:"But since the soul or spirit do not die, they live forever, and according to Scripture are very much conscious after death." No - I do not read that anywhere in the Bible. Luke 23:43 - funny - Greek scholars I've talked to say that the punctuation can be placed contrary to what you contend. Luke 23:43 He replied, "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise." Sodom and Gomorrah - again, your viewpoint. Yes, the punishment is eternal. They will be gone and dead forever. There is no evidence they are currently suffering. Why have not addressed the issue of the character of God that will torment sinners consciously for eternity? Is that how you would want to be treated? Is that how you love your neighbor as yourself? Is that what a God who is love would do? Is the Devil right and God wrong? (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8; Micah 6:8; Genesis 2:17) The immortality of the soul/spirit, is a false doctrine. A great error. And the basis of spiritualism. Are you a spiritualist? Can we consult with the dead, who you say are not dead? Does the Bible ever support doing this? If not, why not? If so, where? Leviticus 20:6-8 NRSV If any turn to mediums and wizards, prostituting themselves to them, I will set my face against them, and will cut them off from the people. 7 Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the LORD your God. 8 Keep my statutes, and observe them; I am the LORD; I sanctify you. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 NRSV 10 No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practices divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. 12 For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the LORD your God is driving them out before you. Isaiah 65:3-4 GNB They shamelessly keep on making me angry. They offer pagan sacrifices at sacred gardens and burn incense on pagan altars. 4 At night they go to caves and tombs to consult the spirits of the dead. They eat pork and drink broth made from meat offered in pagan sacrifices. Isa 8:19 But people will tell you to ask for messages from fortunetellers and mediums, who chirp and mutter. They will say, "After all, people should ask for messages from the spirits and consult the dead on behalf of the living." Isa 8:20 You are to answer them, "Listen to what the LORD is teaching you! Don't listen to mediums---what they tell you cannot keep trouble away." I fear Jerry, you are on the road to Fatima.
• JerryOctober 24, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Did it ever enter into your mind that there is a possibility that you might be wrong? Take the issue of spiritualism. You introduced the topic and the term, not me. But the fact that the Bible forbids such things, the Bible indicates that there must in some sense be such things in order to forbid them. The case of the Witch of Endor comes to mind. Many scholars think that the witch impersonated Samuel, but the text clearly indicates the witch was frightened out of her wits, and that therefore the phenomenon experienced that day was real, not imaginary or counterfeit. That ought to catch you and others up short in a hurry when you are forced to deny the plain facts of Scripture. For fuller reverent scholarly treatment of this subject, study the works of Merril F. Unger, either his book Biblical Demonology, or his Unger's Bible Dictionary for a more adequate and complete presentation of the evidence for the reality of this incident. Paul (who was actually citing Old Testament Scripture) clearly states that the worship of idols involved the work and worship of demons ("devils," in the KJV). And as for the character of God, your Adventist materialist position makes a mockery of the truth of Scripture, because it is a severely truncated presentation of the Biblical evidence. To arrive at Bible truth, you must consider and account for all the evidence, without arbitrarily sweeping the portion of evidence you don't like under the rug. Your argument that the love of God would not permit the eternal punishment of the wicked is nonsense. It is God Himself Who has declared what He will do, and you deny what He has declared (Matthew 25:46).

  Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

  You ignore the holiness of God (Psalm 5:4).

  Psa 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. Hab 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: ...

  You even more ignore the justice of God. Even more than that, you ignore the abiding wrath of God upon unbelief and disobedience (John 3:36).

  Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). But what kind of death? Not physical death, but spiritual death. That there is such a thing as spiritual death is clear from Ephesians 2:1, "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." In another place Paul speaks of "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:6). See also 1 John 5:16, where John speaks of the "sin unto death," another reference to spiritual death, not physical death:

  1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

  And so the threat in the Garden of Eden was not the threat of physical death, but of immediate spiritual death upon disobeying the one command of God not to eat of the fruit of the one forbidden tree:

  Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

  The rendering "surely die" interprets the emphatic figure of speech Polyptoton, which literally reads "dying thou shalt die." That death was promised to take place that very day, and most certainly did, for the promised death was spiritual, not merely physical death. Evidence that the penalty was exacted immediately is abundant, for Adam and Eve suddenly were afraid of God and hid themselves (thus exhibiting a very changed relationship to their Creator), whereas previously they enjoyed His fellowship in the Garden. Now Satan, who Jesus said was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44), came up with the Adventist lie and directly contradicted what God had threatened, as recorded in Genesis 3:4,

  Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

  Notice that the Devil made the same interpretative error that the Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and all who hold to materialist theology do, and represented that the promised penalty was physical death, which Satan said would not happen that day. And it did not. So the Adventists in reality think Satan was right. But then the Adventists turn right around and charge those who believe the truth of the Bible by accusing Bible believing Christians of gross error for believing in consciousness after death, and thus, in the warped view of Adventists, charge true believers with the supposed error of teaching "Ye shall not surely die," because we believe that God's Word clearly teaches that there is continuing consciousness immediately after death. Adventists, who are very poor students of Scripture and Biblical theology, mistakenly assert that to teach the doctrine of conscious existence after death is to assert the immortality of the soul, which they think is the very lie presented by Satan to Eve. Totally misapplying Paul's statement that only God possesses immortality, Adventists claim that to teach continuing consciousness of the person after death is a doctrinal error. But they are misapplying 1 Timothy 6:16 to a doctrinal figment of their own imagination. Informed true Bible believing Christians know that only the body sleeps in death, not the spirit or soul. The immaterial part of man continues forever conscious even after the death of the body. Only bodies die physically; only bodies can be resurrected (not spirits or souls), and only bodies are to be given immortality at the resurrection and to the living at the Rapture when all true believers "will be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51-53).

  1Ti 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

  Paul asserts only God possesses inherent immortality; to press this text further as Adventists and all materialists do is an error in logic and interpretation.

  1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

  But logically speaking, physical death cannot be the intended penalty, because all suffer physical death (unless they have been translated directly to heaven like Enoch and Elijah, or are alive at the time of the Rapture and so do not experience physical death, 1 Corinthians 15:51). But if all suffer the penalty of physical death, then the justice of God is satisfied, and he cannot in justice and righteousness exact the penalty twice, so then all who die physically and who have therefore suffered the penalty must be saved, which would assert universalism, another false doctrine, which logically proves we must conclude that physical death is not the penalty God promised Adam and Eve in the Garden that day. You state:

  Sodom and Gomorrah – again, your viewpoint. Yes, the punishment is eternal. They will be gone and dead forever. There is no evidence they are currently suffering.

  Correction: not my "viewpoint," but the direct assertion of the grammar and syntax of Jude 7,

  Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  "Suffering" in English is the "present progressive tense." The Greek is identical in meaning to this most correct English translation of the Greek present active participle present in this text. The meaning is that the people who experienced this severe judgment of God for the terrible sins they were practicing are even now yet continuing to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. This is not my opinion, it is fact established by understanding rudimentary principles of both English and Greek grammar.
• A. WayOctober 28, 2011
  The Bible says, "have no other gods before Me". By your logic, there must be other gods. No. There is only one true God. Oh, there are spirits. And who are they? They are NOT those of our long lost relatives. You continue to make false allegations about my interpretations. "Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. " I fully agree!!! The punishment will be everlasting. No question. I agree 100% with the verse, as I do with the whole Bible. Psa 5:4, Hab 1:3, I agree this them, 100%. It is you that disagrees with scripture! Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. I agree with this verse 100%. Absolutely true. Those that do not believe in the Son will not see life. You claim the opposite. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: This is a Lie of Satan. You claim we will not die. The wages of sin is DEATH. You said, "Satan said would not happen that day. And it did not. So the Adventists in reality think Satan was right." Wrong. Satan was wrong, he was lying. The Hebrew can be read, dying though shalt die. Gen 3:4 (AHRC-MT) and~he~will~Say the~Serpent To the~Woman Not >~Die you(mp)~will~Die. Satan's assertion contradicted God’s explicit command in the most emphatic manner of which Hebrew is capable, and which may be rendered, “Ye will positively not die.” Satan challenged the truthfulness of God’s word by an unconcealed lie, for which reason Christ was right in calling him the father of lies (John 8:44). Jerry said, "Adventists, who are very poor students of Scripture and Biblical theology, mistakenly assert that to teach the doctrine of conscious existence after death is to assert the immortality of the soul, which they think is the very lie presented by Satan to Eve." This is a very clever twisted argument. Do you do this intentionally? And it is still wrong. There is no consciousness at all in death. Period. Jude 7 - suffering. You are the English teacher, you should now better. But alas, your interpretation is wrong. Suffering. Gr. hupechō, literally, “to hold under,” hence, “to undergo.” Jude’s use of the present tense implies that the destroyed cities are still undergoing their punishment. Their punishment is their state of utter destruction. Their punishment therefore continues. Absolutely correct. You continue to make God the sadistic monster that Satan has accused Him to be.
• JerryOctober 28, 2011
  Dear A. Way, It appears that on these themes, we are not in agreement! You state:

  You continue to make false allegations about my interpretations. “Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. ” I fully agree!!! The punishment will be everlasting. No question. I agree 100% with the verse, as I do with the whole Bible.

  Your reply to my argument is an interesting example of the logical error of equivocation. You are not using the term "everlasting punishment" in the sense of eternal duration, but of eternal effect. I am sure you will agree that I am correct in pointing out the sense in which you use the term. Do you affirm that the duration of conscious eternal life for the saved is the same in its duration as the duration of conscious everlasting punishment for the unsaved? The Bible says Yes. Adventists of old, and Seventh-day Adventists now, say No. What do you say? As for Satan's lie--what was it? God said that in the day that Adam or Eve ate the forbidden fruit, that day they would die. God emphasized the penalty by saying "dying thou shalt die." It is the emphatic figure of speech Polyptoton. Was the threatened penalty physical death? If it was, then God did not dispense the asserted or threatened penalty when He said he would do it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding of Adventist belief that they assert the threatened penalty was physical death. Now it is clear to me as I read the passage in Genesis that Satan affirmed to Eve that God would not carry out His threat, for Satan said "you shall not surely die." And, if Satan interpreted the threat as a reference to physical death, Satan apparently was correct, for having tasted of the fruit of the forbidden tree, Adam and Eve did not die "in that day." As a matter of fact, they apparently went on to live for many years. But it is clear from Scripture that the term "die" can and sometimes does have reference not to physical death (the interpretation Satan followed), but to spiritual death. Perceptive readers see in the immediate context that Adam and Eve suffered an immediate and negative change in their relationship with God just as soon as they disobeyed the one command He had given them. This is evidence for immediate spiritual death, which is what took place that day. Satan's denial of the penalty God threatened has no bearing upon the false issue of immortality of the soul. There is nothing in the context that refers to such a thing. To argue that Satan's denial of the death penalty God threatened is a lie because it teaches the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a very poor and mistaken line of reasoning engaged in by Adventists and other materialists grasping at straws, unable to pose a reasoned argument that is true to the text and context of this Scripture. Strictly speaking, the so-called doctrine of the "immortality of the soul" is a misapplication of the Biblical use of the term "immortality," for the Bible applies this term to the body which shall in its glorified state at the resurrection or Rapture receive. Souls and spirits (the Bible in this sense uses these terms interchangeably) cannot die physically because they are not physical entities. Only physical beings can die physically. So, Adventists, who are in theology materialists, support the same view of the nature of death that Satan appeared to assume as he lied to Eve. Surely Satan knew better, but that is his nature, to tell lies to accomplish his purpose. Neither Satan at the time nor Adventists or materialists generally today admit to the truth that the threatened penalty was spiritual death. By no means did God threaten annihilation! Lastly, as for Jude 7, my argument still stands. Your answer is mere denial, with no new facts presented for that text that would overturn the reasoning and interpretation I gave. You cannot very well argue against the plain grammar of the text, especially if you don't know either Greek or English grammar.

  Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  Just who were giving themselves over to fornication? Not the cities. Cities are inanimate things, and cannot sin in this way. The reference is clearly to the people of those cities who committed such sin. When were these cities set forth for an example? They are now set forth as an example based upon what happened when they were destroyed. Now the cities as well as the people of the cities were physically destroyed back in the days of Genesis. But Jude does not say, "having suffered the vengeance of eternal fire." Rather, he wrote, "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." In English, that is the use of the present progressive tense, which indicates the vengeance is ongoing at the present time. This is the same meaning that the present tense used in the Greek text for "suffering" provides: it is ongoing, continuous suffering that will last for ever in terms not merely of its effect but its duration.
• A. WayOctober 29, 2011
  Jerry - Did God lie in Genesis 2:17? Genesis 2:17 AKJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. Did God lie?
• JerryOctober 29, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Certainly God did not lie. Satan did, and so have the Adventists and others of the materialistic theology school about this text, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.
• A. WayOctober 29, 2011
  You logic is beyond me. Genesis 2:17 GNB except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day." Genesis 3:4 GNB The snake replied, "That's not true; you will not die. I say (and you lump other groups with me) that Satan lied in v3:4. You say God did not lie in verse 2:17 for which I say of course God did not lie. And you say I side with Satan? It is you that has sided with Satan in that you say there is something that will not die and suffer eternally. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). You say no, it is not death, it is eternal conscious torment. I say the wages of sin is death, eternal death, eternal non-existence. That is the eternal punishment. You do very interesting twists with scripture. The Bible says, Revelation 21:1 AKJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. But you say, not the present earth will not pass away. The Bible says, Revelation 21:4 AKJV And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. But you say, no, that is only for a small group. The sinner will be suffering eternally, crying in pain. The Bible says, Daniel 9:24 AKJV Seventy weeks are determined on your people and on your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. But you say, yeah, but there is an "unannounced" gap in the time line. You have made the claim that your word is true because you have authority by your reading and study and that we should believe you because of you believe you have this extensive knowledge. That is exactly what the church in the dark ages said, and many churches today say. The Gospel is simple. A child can understand it. But there are those that can take the plainest words, and obfuscate them. Why should we take your word? Only as it fits scripture.
• JerryOctober 29, 2011
  Dear A. Way, The modern English translation you selected seems to me to make my point nicely:

  Genesis 2:17 GNB except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree; if you do, you will die the same day.”

  If Adam and Eve indeed died "the same day," if the death was physical, then I guess they must have been resuscitated, or perhaps even resurrected, for the story to go on! That, I believe, is the absurdity one gets into who would claim the death threatened was physical. I affirm, in accordance with Scripture, that Adam and Eve did die the very same day, in that they experienced spiritual death the very same day they broke the one commandment God gave them. Then you remark:

  It is you that has sided with Satan in that you say there is something that will not die and suffer eternally.

  Satan himself said to Eve,

  Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

  What kind of death was Satan referring to when he contradicted God and told Eve, "Ye shall not surely die"? There is no evidence in the text or its context or any other allusion to this scene elsewhere in Scripture that suggests Satan was affirming the immortality of the soul. That is the invention of Adventists and other materialists in theology, an invention made necessary by the exigencies of their system. If God meant to say that Adam and Eve would die physically the very same day they broke His command, then Satan successfully called His bluff, for Adam and Eve did not die the very same day physically, exactly what Satan told Eve. We would both agree that Satan has never successfully called God's bluff. Since Adam and Eve did not die immediately on the very same day physically, God must have intended the meaning I have attributed to this text, that the reference is to spiritual death not primarily physical death. I believe my position fits the whole of Scripture. The immediate context shows that a change took place in Adam and Eve reflected in their immediate estrangement from God. That is evidence of spiritual death. Spiritual death is in evidence in other passages of Scripture, so it is a Biblical concept: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) is one example; I gave other examples before, including Ephesians 2:1 ("...who were dead in trespasses and sins"). It is very clear from the whole of Scripture that physical death was not the threatened penalty. If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty. If they paid the threatened penalty, then they ought to be saved and accepted by God, who in all fairness and justice would not and could not exact a double penalty without violating His character, something He cannot do. That would lead, however, to the mistaken doctrine of Universalism, which is not in accord with the Bible, since very clearly God declares that most will be lost and only a very few will be saved (Matthew 7:14, "and few there be that find it"). Therefore, I think we must conclude that physical death cannot be the threatened punishment. I maintain, therefore, on the basis of very clear Scripture, that Genesis 3:4, the lie of Satan, has absolutely no bearing upon the so-called doctrine of the immortality of the soul, for that cannot possibly be its reference. I already explained that souls and spirits are never spoken of in the Bible in terms of immortality, for immortality with reference to created beings here on this earth has to do with bodies which receive immortality upon either resurrection or upon the change that occurs in living persons that are saved at their translation at the Rapture without physical death, as I explained before when I made reference to 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. Souls and spirits of individuals that return to God upon death of the physical body do not die physically, as Jesus clearly said in Matthew 10:28 and the parallel text at Luke 12:5. Those who die unsaved do indeed begin to suffer eternally immediately upon physical death, which is a point of doctrine I would have thought you deny, yet you seem to suppose that I deny it! But I note that you make reference to "eternal non-existence" as the punishment declared for the lost by Scripture. Chapter and verse please? There is no such thing as "eternal non-existence" for those on earth today who die unsaved. And non-existence is scarcely to be thought of as any punishment at all, for even you state that a person who has died is immediately unconscious. If unconscious, they know neither bliss nor suffering, that is for sure. Since what I believe is based upon a careful, continuing study of Scripture, I'll let any who may read here, including yourself, judge whether indeed I have made a careful study of Scripture or not. You have bought a pig in a poke. By that expression I mean to say that you have bought the theological system and conclusions of that system. The system you have bought into is theological materialism, Adventism, and Seventh-day Adventism. Whoever produced that system of belief did not do so by engaging in any Real Bible Study on Robinson Crusoe's Desert Island, studying FIRST from a plain text Bible. I most demonstrably have. So as for authority, my authority is the authority of the Bible itself carefully interpreted in accordance with standard rules of interpretation. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction. It is very clear that if you are mistaken, you do not welcome or receive correction, because you assume that your position is correct and cannot be corrected. So as far as any evidence you have furnished by your most welcome comments here, you have never yet admitted any error in your belief or belief system.
• A. WayOctober 30, 2011
  Quote:"If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty." No, they have not paid the penalty. There is a resurrection, of both the righteous and the sinful. There is the first death and the second death.
• JerryOctober 30, 2011
  Dear A. Way, Here is what I said:

  It is very clear from the whole of Scripture that physical death was not the threatened penalty. If it were, then everyone who has died or will die physically has both suffered and thus paid the penalty.

  Here is your response:

  No, they have not paid the penalty. There is a resurrection, of both the righteous and the sinful. There is the first death and the second death.

  I am glad that you once again agree with me. We agree, therefore, that physical death was not the penalty. Therefore, spiritual death is the penalty. That is the Biblical position. The "first death" is physical death of the body. The "second death" is spiritual death, continuing conscious separation from God and unending punishment in the Lake of Fire.
• A. WayNovember 1, 2011

  Quote:Therefore, spiritual death is the penalty. That is the Biblical position. The “first death” is physical death of the body. The “second death” is spiritual death, continuing conscious separation from God and unending punishment in the Lake of Fire."

  Please give me a scripture reference that says, "spiritual death". I can if you use the NLT. But that's it. You are inferring it is "spiritual death". The second death comes after the RESURRECTION. Therefore, they are alive people, with bodies. The first death, which is a real physical death of the entire being, is not the end, Hebrews 9:27. The after the second death, there is no resurrection. It is a permanent death. Sin is destroyed completely, COMPLETELY. The works of the devil completely destroyed. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8. Jesus demonstrated the death that a sinner will die in the end. Jesus suffered the "second death". Does God execute the sinner? NO. Did Jesus have a real body? Yes. Romans 5:10 GNB We were God's enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son. Now that we are God's friends, how much more will we be saved by Christ's life! How does the death of Christ, make us His friend? ESV puts it this way: Romans 5:10 ESV For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. How did the death of Christ reconcile us to God? Certainly not in any legal model!! We are won back to Him as friends because we understand that God is not the cause of the second death. The second death is the wages that sin pays, not God. God is not out to torture any one. It is the natural consequence of sin. Sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. First and Second death. The first death has a resurrection of both the righteous and the sinner. The second death is final. And no, there is no torture after the second death.
• JerryNovember 1, 2011
  Dear A. Way, You state:

  Please give me a scripture reference that says, “spiritual death”. I can if you use the NLT. But that’s it. You are inferring it is “spiritual death”. The second death comes after the RESURRECTION. Therefore, they are alive people, with bodies. The first death, which is a real physical death of the entire being, is not the end, Hebrews 9:27. The after the second death, there is no resurrection. It is a permanent death. Sin is destroyed completely, COMPLETELY. The works of the devil completely destroyed. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8.

  Your statement may be in error for the following reasons: (1) That spiritual death is not named in Scripture in those precise terms does not establish that the Bible does not teach that there is such a thing as spiritual death. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not so named in the Bible, but the doctrine is taught by the Bible. When the Bible speaks of living persons still in their bodies as having been "dead in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1), and in another place of someone who is "dead while she liveth," it is clear that the death spoken of is spiritual, not physical death. (2) Yes, I agree, that I am inferring it is spiritual death. Inference is an important and necessary reading skill. Students at all levels from elementary school to post graduate school often lack or are deficient in this particular skill. Many Bible doctrines are certainly taught by the Bible, but are derived by means of necessary inference that I wrote Rule 22 of my 23 Rules of Interpretation about:

  22. Much important truth found in the Bible can only be derived from the Bible by means of necessary inference derived from a careful study and comparison of related Bible passages.

  You will find the full listing of the Rules of Interpretation in the October 2010 Archives here. (3) Yes, the second death comes after the first resurrection. Jesus said that both the righteous and the unrighteous shall be resurrected (John 5:28, 29). Thus there is a resurrection of the just. There is also a separate resurrection of the unjust. Those who participate in the resurrection of the unjust are those who were spiritually dead. They are unsaved, and suffer an eternal never-ending conscious existence in the Lake of Fire. These two distinctly different resurrections do not take place at the same time, but are separated by a period of 1000 years. (4) "The second death is final. And no, there is no torture after the second death." It is true that the second death is final--those who experience it will never be granted the gift of eternal life because they failed to believe while they had the opportunity to receive the Gospel. But the Bible declares that those who suffer the second death have a destiny in the Lake of Fire, and that is surely a place of never-ending torture or torment, as Scripture clearly states.

  Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

  You cannot get away with re-writing the plan of God as He has declared it in His Word, the Bible, to suit your own moral sensibilities and truncated view of the attributes of God. (5) Yes, it is true that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. But you may be giving the devil too much credit. Did the devil create hell? Not according to my Bible. Therefore, the eternity of hell and the Lake of Fire has no bearing upon the fact that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, for hell and the Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels as a permanent place of torment. Unfortunately, some humans may end up there forever too. Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost. But there are many who refuse to receive Christ. If one chooses not to receive God's free gift, they choose to take the other alternative:

  John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

• A. WayNovember 1, 2011
  Quote:Did the devil create hell? He created it in the terms that is is propagated by many "Christians" these days. Christ said, John 14:9 ESV Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Christ is the exact representation of God. Hebrews 1:3 ESV He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Did Christ torture anyone? Kill anyone? Nope. Jesus was God, and the exact representation of God. The idea of an eternally burning, torturing conscious hell is nowhere taught in the Bible. Is the punishment of the wicked eternal? Yes. Conscious? No.