Revelation

[flightlesskiwi]

God will let this world continue so long as humans continue to accept Christ. The more who do, the more that will dwell with God for Eternity. That's why I don't want this world to end, in a way, because that means all the unbelievers will never get another chance to come to Christ.

what you wrote should be the prevailing attitude of Christians: "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Peter 3:9.


it's as if some Christians have a very strange, twisted jealousy of the Gospel-- as if they want to hoard it and keep it to themselves-- like it is a prize and not a gift. perhaps because they don't have an understanding of what believers are expected to do with it (1 Corinthians 9 is a great and forthright explanation).

 

[PierzStyx]

You could always go this route: The Bible says that when teh battle of Armageddon comes, the battle that will end with the return of Christ, that the nation of Israel will be fighting alone. It will have no allies committing troops to it but will be saved by Christ alone. Point out that if he is so bent on trying to force God's hand, then he should support Ron Paul's policy because it is the one that leaves Israel alone to do what it wants. In other words, Paul's policy brings us closer to the Second Coming not farther away, in this line of reasoning. If you're agile of mind enough you might even be able to convince him that Paul is therefore an agent of God and should be supported for that reason alone.

 

[bunklocoempire]

What about Jesus tho? God had him suffer in order to accomplish a loving goal (John 3:16), did he not?

Are you saying that Jesus had no choice in the matter of paying a debt that demanded payment because of fallen man?

Romans 5:12

I don't see how your questions concern the Op's Christian friend. Please start a new thread and ask away.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

Politics shouldn't even matter to a Christian their main concern should be winning souls not elections

 

[Miss Annie]

Here is my take on some of this type thinking. What better way for Lucifer to take a strong hold on things but to infiltrated religious groups and governments. He already has the unbelievers and doesn't have to sway them to his side, but the ones that believe in God, he can trick them very easily and it is obvious he has! He also knows the Bible and knows the prophecies, it can easily be said he can manipulate and twist things to make the believers interpret things the way he wants them to interpret it.

It is a sin to presume to know the mind of God. It is said in the scriptures that even Jesus does not know the time and the hour. Things will happen when God is good and ready to have them happen. Lucifer knows this too, and time is running short for him.

That being said, I have personally witnessed people who claim to be Christian who are filled with vile hatred for certain human beings. It is also said in the scriptures we will know good people by their deeds. This is where Christians need to stop and critical think...George W. Bush claimed to be a Christian, but did his deeds show this?

My grandfather was a minister, and about 30 years ago he made a very valid point to me, but it took many years for it to sink in. I was a big Billy Graham supporter, I would listen to his crusades and read his books, and my grandfather did not like him, I asked him why? He said, "if this Billy Graham was such a Godly man why does he live in a million dollar fortress? It seems he is more of this world than he is of the Lord." As with many televangelists I have seen.

There are many people who pass themselves off as Christians. But a good many of them are wolves in sheep's clothing and I can say, in my heart of hearts, that they are not, because their trees bear no fruit.

Exactly....... whatever is going to happen is going to happen in GOD'S TIME!

As far as knowing the mind of God,.... I don't think we are capable with our finite minds of knowing the mind of God.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

But it should be our goal to know as much of him as we can:
"Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3).

Jeremiah 9:23-24
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

I absolutely do not hate on anyone..... period. No religion, no race, no sect or creed. Jesus did say "You shall know a tree by it's fruit". Hate is sour grapes.

As far as Billy Graham goes, I love that song by Ray Stevens - "Would Jesus wear a Rolex"?

 

[bunklocoempire]

Question:
If you see an employee stealing from their employer. We'll call her Jenny and she is stealing from her employer Tom who owns Toms Ice Cream Shop. Jenny has 3 kids to feed and Tom pays her minimum wage. If you see her stealing do you. A) love jenny and turn the other way which takes food of Toms table, or do you. B) love Tom and rat jenny out ASAP.

Its the spider and the fly story. Do you save the fly who falls into the spiders web. Or do you let the fly perish so the spider doesnt starve to death.

Why would you limit loving only one or the other?

It helps to define what love is. As the OP's friend is a Christian, that friend may have a good grasp of what love is but isn't applying it equally -kind of like only choosing between "jenny" or "Tom".

 

[mosquitobite]

I was talking with a friend of the family and we got into the conversation of Israel, middle east, Iran, Islamic fundamentalists etc. I have never debated a evangelical Christian about this, I never mentioned Ron Paul Foreign policy, only debating why he felt necessary to have war in the middle east.


He is a futurist believer about revelation. He brought up its in the Bible under revelation where it is written that Israel will come back, which it has in a way and evil forces will destroy the Islamic temple in Jeruseluem and after that Jesus will come back as a warrior with a sword to save us all and show us the way to a utopia. If this is what many believe then it seems they want war in the middle east so Jesus will return.

He believes that there is evil in the world and it is the islamic fundamentalists that want to kill us, and that is why 911 happened. I tried to use logic and said the US had bases there, but he looks at the world in a different view than I do. I tried to explain common sense about Iran wanting to defend themselves, that we need peace not war, but he said the Islamist fundamentalist do not want peace but to spread sharia law throughout the world and even if we practiced peace they would still try to kill us to obtain their goals.

Is there anyway to get through to this kind of person to make them understand or is it impossible because their deep faith and beliefs in the written word of the bible? If this is the way so many evangelicals are no wonder Ron Paul is getting written off for not being an israel firster.

If this is his belief (it is mine too) then first you need to find out if he actually WANTS Jesus to come back. (I do!) So if he wants Him to return, then we need to allow God's will to happen as He has planned. That does mean that Israel will be attacked. Not if - but when. Therefore, he needs to understand that we're just meddling in God's plan. We can support Israel without sending them money or pretending they are a 51st state of the USA.

Secondly, you might read up on the story of Abraham in the bible. Muslims believe Muhammed descended from Ishmael (Abraham's first son conceived through his servant Hagar). God promised that Ishmael would be a "violent donkey of a man" and He also promised he would also be a nation. (just like Isaac>Israel) So there's more history behind the revelations. God knew from the beginning that the Jews and the Muslims would be at war.

Finally I usually use the argument that our Creator blessed our framers with IMMENSE wisdom. They created our 3 branches of government to resemble the Trinity. We've completely mucked that up and have just about turned our nation into a monarchy. Have him read 1st Samuel and about the stiff necked people who wanted to put their trust in a king instead of God. We have GOT to trust Him, or no amount of "protecting" israel will mean a thing!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not saying you should tell him this, as it would just piss him off. However for your own edification...

Those who would encourage Armageddon in the hopes of hastening the return of Messiah are doing the work of Satan. This battle in the valley of Mt. Meggido is the natural consequence of sin and evil, and the rejection of God's will. To encourage evil is evil.

The scriptures speak both of how we should walk in the days of evil, and how even though God can bring good from evil that we are not to encourage or do evil so that good may come. The Ephesians citation is background, and the Romans citation is directly on point.

Ephesians 5:15-17 "Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." [NASB]

Romans 3:5-8 "But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just." [NASB]​

Note that in the days of evil, believers are called to be circumspect and wise. That we are called especially to understand the will of God and do it, and not to be foolish.

The person the OP referred to is being foolish, because he forgot that we are specifically told NOT to do evil so that good may come. That even though goodness may be brought out of our evil, we will still be held to account for all the evil we have done.

The person the OP is referring to is encouraging the advance of evil, the Armageddon, because he thinks that the return of the Messiah will come from it. In doing so with the full knowledge that he is intentionally encouraging the Armageddon...a fuller intent than most who perform the same actions...he will be held to the same accounting as those who bring about the Armageddon with the intent to defeat God. The purpose to bring good from the evil is irrelevant, the intent is the death of millions of souls and he will be held accountable for that.

The Armageddon will come when it is supposed to no matter WHAT we do or do not do. Believers are called to continue "redeeming the time" and doing good even if we have the full knowledge of what we are up against. We should be working to live out the will of God up until the very instant He comes back for us. That means, of course, electing a President who will carry out the Golden Rule and make America that shining city upon a hill.

Doing evil do that good may come is just as evil as doing evil for evil intent. It's all equally evil. The scriptures make that abundantly clear, and the person referred to in the OP has lost the path and is clearly wandering in the wilderness.

To the OP, I'm not sure how you could reach him. Perhaps discuss the quoted section from Romans? It will be particularly difficult. Nobody wants to be told they are working for Satan... So if you try you may not want to mention that part...

 

[Deborah K]

I kind of have a problem with what is being described as "Fundamentalism".

Believing that the Bible is the word of God without error isn't fundamentalism, its Christianity. Also, believing that God created the universe is not fundamentalism, it is Christianity.

Fundamentalism is a social and theological movement that began in the early 1900's which was supposed to be a reaction against the theological liberalism and social liberalism of the neo-orthodox movement. It was supposed to stress the "fundamentals" of the faith, but because it lacked the foundation of Calvinism, the movement devolved into a social attack against dancing and spending too much time at the theatre....seriously.

Fundamentalism is intricately linked to Biblical literalism. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[TER]

What about Jesus tho? God had him suffer in order to accomplish a loving goal (John 3:16), did he not?

Jesus suffered the torture and death on a cross voluntarily. This is a quintessential Christian theological teaching.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What about Jesus tho? God had him suffer in order to accomplish a loving goal (John 3:16), did he not?

I don't necessarily agree with TER that it was voluntary: "if it's possible take this cup from me, but nevertheless not My will but Thy will be done."

Still, the model is Godly, because the crucifixion was done by the Herod and Pilate, as demanded by the Pharisees through the people. It was not done by God or by Messiah. It was the natural reaction of the sinful to the sinless. An evil people working to douse the Light that showed them for the sinful creatures they were.

This goes right back to the passage I cited in Romans above. Those who perpetrated the crucifixion will be held to full account for their evil-doing (or would be, if Messiah had not forgiven them from the cross) despite the fact that good would be brought from that evil.

God explaining how He will bring goodness from some evil thing is not the same as God doing that evil in the first place. The evil was done by Herod and Pilate and the Pharisees, God just took that evil and made good come from it. Because God knew the great goodness that would come from it, He permitted the evil to take place, but He did not commit it. Thus "take this cup from Me" did not happen, as it was God's will to bring salvation to the whole world.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I was talking with a friend of the family and we got into the conversation of Israel, middle east, Iran, Islamic fundamentalists etc. I have never debated a evangelical Christian about this, I never mentioned Ron Paul Foreign policy, only debating why he felt necessary to have war in the middle east.


He is a futurist believer about revelation. He brought up its in the Bible under revelation where it is written that Israel will come back, which it has in a way and evil forces will destroy the Islamic temple in Jeruseluem and after that Jesus will come back as a warrior with a sword to save us all and show us the way to a utopia. If this is what many believe then it seems they want war in the middle east so Jesus will return.

He believes that there is evil in the world and it is the islamic fundamentalists that want to kill us, and that is why 911 happened. I tried to use logic and said the US had bases there, but he looks at the world in a different view than I do. I tried to explain common sense about Iran wanting to defend themselves, that we need peace not war, but he said the Islamist fundamentalist do not want peace but to spread sharia law throughout the world and even if we practiced peace they would still try to kill us to obtain their goals.

Is there anyway to get through to this kind of person to make them understand or is it impossible because their deep faith and beliefs in the written word of the bible? If this is the way so many evangelicals are no wonder Ron Paul is getting written off for not being an israel firster.

Is "futurist" synonymous with "Pre-Trib"? Pre-trib theology is shaky at best, IMO.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Fundamentalism is intricately linked to Biblical literalism. That's the point I was trying to make.

Accepting God's Word as literally true is simply what Christianity is. That is what a Christian does, its not any -ism.

Also fundamentalism had more to do with an attack on social liberalism than any theological statement. It was cultural in nature, not theological. In fact, in the issue of theology, fundamentalists were (and are) Arminians, so they have some real problems with not interpreting the Bible "literally" in the first place.


Edit: typos. Sorry, this predictive text on this phone drives me insane

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Accepting God's Word as literally true is simply what Christianity is. That is what a Christian does, its not any -ism.

Also fundamentalism had more to do with an attack on social liberalism than any theological statement. It was cultural in nature, not theological. In fact, in the issue of theology, fundamentalists were (and are) Arminians, so they have some real problems with not interpreting the Bunker literally in the first place.

IMO, the struggle with deeply understanding it in a personal way is equally important. We all have a unique relationship to God.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

maybe 911 and the second great depression is Gods way of punishing America for its wickedness

 

[Miss Annie]

IMO, the struggle with deeply understanding it in a personal way is equally important. We all have a unique relationship to God.

YES!!!!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Is "futurist" synonymous with "Pre-Trib"? Pre-trib theology is shaky at best, IMO.

If you think that's something, my eschatology is different from any I have ever encountered.

I am a covenant theologian not a dispensationalist. I am also a millennialist, which a covenant millennialist is exceedingly rare.

A step further I believe that the rapture takes place throughout the tribulation, or perhaps just during the 1st half of the tribulation, and rather than a 'departure' it is a transformation in-place. Much like the transfiguration, but visible only to those who have already been or are being transfigured.

This rapture or transfiguration spreads among the remnant by something like eye contact. The soul who has been properly prepared sees a transfigured soul and gets caught up in the rapture and becomes transformed themselves. To put it in terms we can understand, "rapture" spreads among the remnant kind of like a grassroots movement.

I came to these conclusions well before I encountered Paul. I started grasping these conclusions in 1998 and my eschatology became fully developed by 2003. I wanted to clarify that because oddly enough, the Ron Paul R3volution is almost a typeology of the rapture...those who are caught up are extra-hated by those who are lost, and the haters don't really even know why...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

maybe 911 and the second great depression is Gods way of punishing America for its wickedness

Kinda. It's not so much a direct 'punishment' as much as it is a 'withdrawal of the blessing' that leaves us open to suffer the consequences of our own actions.

 

[acptulsa]

I am amazed after talking with that person that there are so many Christians that support Ron Paul with his foreign policy of not wanting armageddon. They must go through what I experienced quite a bit.

It isn't our place to force God's hand and try to rush Armageddon. It's our place to try to make the world we've got a better one. To do anything else is arrogant and, ultimately, evil.

As Gunny pointed out, even Jesus said, "If it's possible take this cup from me, but nevertheless not My will but Thy will be done."

 

[Deborah K]

Accepting God's Word as literally true is simply what Christianity is. That is what a Christian does, its not any -ism.

Also fundamentalism had more to do with an attack on social liberalism than any theological statement. It was cultural in nature, not theological. In fact, in the issue of theology, fundamentalists were (and are) Arminians, so they have some real problems with not interpreting the Bible "literally" in the first place.

This is only partially correct. There is much more to it than just the fundamentalist movement. Biblical literalism is definitely an important aspect of fundamentalism as it pertains to hermaneutics. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago, released this statement:

We AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account all literal figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach of scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.