Dr. Stanley and Eternal Security

Nice list by the person from the so-called "a true church". Can some of us join in? I'm pretty sure I could fit somewhere within the wide range he has posted.

Our 'buddy', Ol' Fred would seem to have nothing 'on' this person.

Better get off this before I choke on sarcastic laughter.

I certainly do not agree with Brother Bob or J. Jump (or most others, for that matter), on some to many ideas, but would never doubt either of their salvations, because they did not line up exactly letter for letter on what I may believe.

Even if they were on ""Christain" TV or radio!" Double !

Ed

 

Hi Ed;
I guess that means we don't agree with you either.

I am not upholding McGee, or this church, for I know nothing about either one.

 

History Of The​

Millennial Teaching​

The early apostles did not teach a millennial reign. That doctrine came much later in church history when the Roman Catholic Pope commissioned two Jesuit Priests (Ribera and Alcuser) to publish a teaching that would counter the Protestant belief that the Pope was the Antichrist.
Eventually the book that Ribera and Alcuser wrote fell into the hands of protestant leaders, who unwittingly spread it's teachings throughout their churches.
The heart of the Reformation preaching challenged the high papal claims and questioned the teachings of Catholicism. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other reformation preachers accused the Pope from the word of God as the Antichrist. The result of their preaching disarmed the strangle hold of Papal authority... and Papal power began to tumble as multitudes of people forsook the Roman Catholic church because of this teaching.
The Pope fought back with a false teaching contrived by Ribera and Alcaser. They developed a plot that rivaled the protestant interpretation of the Antichrist. Their plot designed a "futurist" theory with a future Antichrist and a future millennium... leaving out the Roman catholic church as being part of any prophecy.
They fed their plot to the protestants, who adopted it as Biblical truth...and who continue to teach it to this day. The Jesuits invented a mysterious and horrible person as the Antichrist who would come in the future just before Christ returns to earth. A large segment of protestants accepted their interpretation, which played into the hands of the Jesuits...who had then accomplished the purpose of the Pope far beyond any of their expectations.
Their doctrine suggested that God had divided His government into seven dispensations, each of which lasted 1000 years. Five have supposedly passed while we live in the sixth, called the age of grace. Their plot identifies the seventh dispensation to be the "millennial reign" when Christ appears. But nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of seven dispensations.
The whole purpose of the "millennial" teaching was for the Catholics to curb the criticism of the Protestants toward the Pope...by directing their attention to a future mysterious Antichrist. Satan has convinced Protestants with a doctrine of some glorious earthly millennium with carnal delights...as well as the possibility of salvation in this beautiful paradise on earth. In doing so, the Catholics offset the Protestant's criticism of salvation through purgatory...which the Catholic doctrine teaches as their escape from hell

Is this a true History of the 1000 year reign doctrine, was the doctrine started by the catholics and adopted by the Protestants, hence Baptist?


​

 

Nor am I necessarily, although I do know a fair amount about Dr. J. Verno McGee, and find myself often in agreement with some thing he "says".
"He being dead, yet speaketh." on the radio.

(I also do know at least a miniscule amount about Messers. Graham, Spurgeon, Swindoll, Stanley, Jeremiah, among others, for what that is worth.)

And I would not agree with each and everything everyone on that list teaches, and might be far less than persuaded of the salvation of some there.

But I am also fairly certain (as far as any of us can know, I believe) of the salvation of the majority found there, IMO.

If I am mistaken in this, and I would be found agreeing with many things some of them say, and they all turn out to be "unsaved", then I guess I am also.

I do not believe that to be the case (that I would be among the unsaved) based on what Scripture teaches, about salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I will also stand with Paul who said, "For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have commited unto Him against that day."

Or maybe in the mind of the "a true church" person, Paul was also among the "unsaved".

Ed

 

The basic answer is simply no that is incorrect.

 

Are we incorporating the Jewish doctrine of the coming of the Messiah, is yet to come. Did Christians incorporate this belief to come up with a Millemium reign of Christ.

Christ speaks of one resurrection yet to come but in order to justify the Millemium reign, don't we have to come up with two more resurrections to come. One would be the "rapture", and the other one would be the lost after the Millemium. Does that not go against the Doctrine of Christ? Also, Christ would have to come back 2 more times instead of one.

According to the following scriptures is there not but one resurrection to come?

Matthew 13:30, 49-50, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, II Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation 20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52

 

I'm not sure what Hymenaeous taught. I suspect he taught the Thessalonians that the rapture had already come necessitating Paul's 2nd letter to them, 2Thes. And no, whoever preached that did not preach the "full resurrection" but the rapture. And the "overthrow" seems to be that many thought they were in the tribulation and had not been raptured!

I mean, that is just how I put the facts together. I'm not trying to judge you -- just trying to tell you that you may be doing worse than you think.

This is definitely not so. The "first resurrection" is defined in Rev 20:4-5 as of those resurrected out of the tribulaitn and comes when Jesus returns, not when He leaves. Jesus is the first RAPTURE, yes. In addition, He took all the believing souls in sheol to heaven. But a resurrection, per se, is rising bodily to the earth and staying there. We don't know that to be true of those who left their graves -- more likely they rose the morning He did and accompanied Him bodily to heaven.

Likely not.

Being that I find both heaven and earth shaken and God creates a New Heaven, I think this is the 2nd after the "Big Bang." And I agree -- 2Pet 3:10 IS the 2nd shaking. It occurs postMK and ALL the resurrections will be completed by then.

It is -- unless it was "staging" for a rapture. Realize that when 1Thes 4:16 says, "The dead shall rise..." we are not told how long it is between "rise" and "snatched," are we? And yeah, Paul often used the terms interchangeably. In your case, I would just be very careful to be specific about which prophecied event I was seeing in Matt 27:51-54.

[/quote] Nobody brsuhes it off unless they just don't pretend to understand it. Consider --- when Christ did rise, there was no more talk of seeing these people was there? And when Jesus rose, He also took the souls of the OT saints to heaven, right? I'm just saying that your resurrection to earth was more likely a "stage" of the rapture + Christ "taking captivity captive."

skypair

 

I do not think so. Your premillemium did not really get started until the ninetenth century by a John Napier, as best I can remember. The first apostles did not even preach a thousand year reign to come.
I know that I do not teach that the general resurrection has already happened, when all that are in the graves shall come forth, unto them that have done good, the resurrection of life, unto them that have done evil, the resurrection of damnation. Jesus taught one more resurrection to come, you and others teach at least 2 more.

You teach that Jesus returns and is not even a part of the First Resurrection. That is just not scripture.
No, a resurrection is not raising to the earth and staying there. A resurrection is to come out of the grave, and as the children of God, be received up into the heavens.

Also, You say we do not know it to be true that "many arose with Christ"! Jesus told us so, and I believe Him.

You can't prove by scripture when this is or where it is. Did Christ come down from heaven, or did this reign take place in heaven. In this thousand years it was the souls that lived and reigned with Christ and not their bodies. When the rest of the dead lived again was the First resurrection. What you are advocating is 2 more comings of Christ, at least. This is not scripture. There will be only the second coming of Christ when all that are in the graves shall come forth.

Again, you are teaching 2 more comings of Christ which is against the scripture.
Matthew 13:30, 49-50, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, II Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation 20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52

Again, too many resurrections and against what Jesus taught.

Nobody brsuhes it off unless they just don't pretend to understand it. Consider --- when Christ did rise, there was no more talk of seeing these people was there? And when Jesus rose, He also took the souls of the OT saints to heaven, right? I'm just saying that your resurrection to earth was more likely a "stage" of the rapture + Christ "taking captivity captive."

skypair[/quote]

Jesus took both souls and bodies to Heaven which is a resurrection and Christ being the firstfruits.

Where in your theology of the thousand year reign, does it teach that Jesus came back? Also, only the souls lived and reigned, where is the resurrection? After the thousand years, the rest of the dead lived, this being the first resurrection. This is the First resurrection "rest of the dead".

I am pleased to find that I have many who believe as I do and I didn't know so many knew it was only souls that lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, of which if it happened today, you or I would not be able to see it.

If only the souls of the beheaded will be in the thousand year reign, what does it have to do with us. I am just raising the questions that many many people raise, down through time.

 

Please provide evidence that this is true. If you can't then it is merely your opinion.

 

Of course its according to history and not scripture, but if it was preached, as I suspect you think it was, then there should be scripture saying so. I can only find where Jesus said that He would come back one more time, to receive the church in the air, and pass judgement on the world.

All that teach a thousand year reign, have no scripture evidence, that any bodies will be there, nor anyone, except the souls of them that were beheaded. Most also teach at least 2 more comings of Christ. They also cannot show where Jesus was in that resurrection of the thousand year reign.

 

Well then it would just be spreading false information if there's no Scriptural backing for it then right?

Well you are combining the second coming with the rapture. Those are two separate events. Jesus will return in the heavens and His body will meet him in the air. However He will not return to the earth at that point. There are still seven more years on man's timetable at the time of the ratpure.

That's simply a false accusation on your part. You may not like or agree with the Scripture that is given, but there is plenty of Scripture evidence that there is a coming 1,000-year reign of Christ.

 

John did. And I believe he was one of the first Apostles.

Note that this is in John's prophetic vision, as the words "I saw..." show. And "shall reign", in v. 6, is the rendering of the Greek verb "βασιλευω" that is here "βασιλευσουσιν", in the future tense. BTW, the same word, "βασιλευω" in v. 4, is a 1st aorist, formed from a future tense, as well. It is not a 'past tense', as has been previously claimed on this thread. However the English language does not have such a thing as an 'aorist tense', but must "make do" with what it does have, in this case, the 'past tense', the closest thing available to it.

(Quick citing of Wigram in the Greek aorist.) I do have and can find other Greek 'authorities' to support this, but that would take a great deal of time I do not have handily available at present.

BTW, verse 5 says "This is the first resurrection." I believe this is the only place in Scripture that defines this as such. Jesus is the called the first fruits, as someone pointed out before, but He is not stated to be what is called "the first resurrection". He actually precedes "the first resurrection."

Hope that helps.

Ed

 

The Bible says... There is only one resurrection when Jesus returns. It is the resurrection of both the righteous and the sinners who will stand before God to receive their punishment or their reward. Matthew 13:30, 49-50, Matthew 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, Acts 24:15, II Thessalonians 1:6-10, Revelation 1:7 Revelation 20:12-15, I Corinthians 15:51-52

Only, if I quoted it as scripture.

 

You quote Jesus says "this is the first resurrection". What was the first resurrection, the souls were already alive, Christ according to you came from Heaven. What came out of the grave?

I see you are using the "tense" of the words, How about applying them to "lived" and "reigned"?

Scripture says that Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept that arose, In your first resurrection Jesus come back from Heaven, He does not raise from death.

Can you show by scripture "when" and "where" this will take place. Can you show anyone else being there except the souls of the beheaded?

The Kingdom of God was established in Christ's day while He lived here on earth 2000 years ago. It is a spiritual Kingdom, not an earthly kingdom as millennialists try to teach. Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 10:7, Mark 1:14-15, 9:1, Daniel 2:44, Joel 2:28-29

Ed, you say John did, but you have to make his "past tense" words "future" tense, for it to fit into your theology.

 

I've seen souls and spirits and bodies tossed around on this and other threads, but suggest that, in some cases at least, we may be attempting to "over-dissect" (Is that a word, even??) the difference. Jacob (Israel) and his contingent went down to Egypt to be with Joseph-

And three thousand souls were added unto the church at Pentecost. In both these instances, I'm pretty sure their bodies, as well, went along for the ride. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Pardon me for butting in, but there is a spiritual Kingdom that all who trust in Christ are a part of, but there will be a millinnial Kingdom as well, which is the Kingdom that was promised to the Jews, but they rejected. God will keep His promise, but when the Jews rejected their Messiah, the Kingdom was not given to them. Instead God turned His attention to the gentiles and offered them the Kingdom (spiritual). But, the Jews will have their Kingdom as promised after the great tribulation when they will come to know that Christ is Messiah and that is what the 1000 year reign is about.

 

You know Ed, I will agree with this posts, except the one we are talking about says "souls OF THEM".

John did not see their bodies. The bodies were decapitated. He saw their souls. We are aware that the objection is made that the word "soul" is sometimes used as equivalent to man, and meaning the whole person. "Eight souls were saved by water." "There were added unto them about three thousand souls." "Joseph called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." In each of these the word refers to persons. But while this is so, the expression, "the souls of those who had been beheaded" cannot refer to the entire persons, but must refer to the souls in contrast to, and out of, their bodies. While the term soul used alone may, and does, signify a person, the term soul of cannot be made to do so by any law of interpretation. (not my words, but I agree with them and they explain it very clearly)

 

Brother Bob it amazes me that you keep holding onto your view of this past tense stuff when someone other than myself has shown you to be in error. The text simply doesn't support your view. Why do you not accept this?

Do you have Scriptural support for this? If not then it is merely your opinion.

Brother Bob this shows a lack of understanding of the kingdom on your part. The kingdom of the earth is two-fold. There is a physical rule and there is a spiritual rule. One day Christ will rule both. The physical aspect of the kingdom was already promised to the nation of Israel in the OT.

Now you are going to have a hard time showing that Israel was ever at the head of the nations as they are intended to be. And if they ever were they certainly did stay there and they are not there now.

The physical portion of the kingdom was and is promised to Israel. That can never be taken away from them. Christ came with a message of a place in His spiritual kingdom. You have correct said that the message in the NT was a spiritual kingdom.

However it was never established, because Israel as a nation rejected it. Yes there were some that accepted it, but it was "supposed" to be accepted by the entire nation. It wasn't.

That's why the offer of the kingdom was taken away from Israel and given to a new nation that would produce the fruits thereof.

This offer is being given to the one new man in Christ. This new nation that has been established. And as with Israel the offer can be accepted or rejected.

 

Luk 17:21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.


1Cr 15:25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

1Cr 15:26The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

Jesus must of not understood either.

Again, He may not be your King, but He is mine.

You make the same mistake the Jews made looking for a natural Kingdom.

Question, How come there will only be a thousand years to the Kingdom, I thought there would be no end to it.