245 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - The Eschatological Kin... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hades is the referred to in Scripture as the realm of the unseen. It is the place where the souls of men went after death to await the judgment during the Old Covenant era because of the power of sin. Christ destroyed Hades in 70AD at his return. As a result the righteous saints go to heaven upon death.

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - The Kingdom of God and... · 0 replies · +1 points

Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me though he were dead, yet shall he live and he who lives and believes in me shall never die. (John 11:25-26) Christ makes it clear that there is life after death. He does not go into detail of what it entails, but to remain in fellowship and existence with God after death must be an extremely wonderful and rewarding blessing. John writes: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth, that they may rest from their labors and their works do follow them, (Rev. 14:13). There is a blessing for the saints in death. Does God have to describe heaven or the afterlife in detail for it to be a reality or for one to enjoy it. Have you not been to a surprise party where you knew very few details about what you might experience only to find out after arriving it was tremendous fun? I'm not saying that's what it is, but a little mystery never hurt anyone. How can the afterlife with God be anything less than awesome? To me, the idea of continuing to exist rather than suffering annihilation is also more favored. If you were at the top of a mountain and beneath was a deep valley and God called out to you and said, "jump, I've got you", would you need to know everything in the valley before you jumped? Since many details about the afterlife are not revealed, it is clear from Scripture that such exists and that God's holds such secrets in his own wisdom. My mindset is... Just get me there. I trust God has taken care of all the arrangements necessary for the comfortable stay! :-)

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Premillennial Preterism · 0 replies · +1 points

Why was what deleted?

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Prophecy End Times Mes... · 0 replies · +1 points

If there is no distinction between physical death and "spiritual" or "sin death" how is it possible that one can be "dead" while they live? (1 Tim. 5:6). How is it possible to be "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1-2) while people yet walked according to the prince of evil? How was Adam yet alive after he ate since God promised he would die the day he ate? Did God lie? Since no one living today, can live above sin, why do we all die, and since all believers are redeemed from sin, why do we yet die physically?

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - When Are Daniel's 70 W... · 0 replies · +1 points

I like to keep things simple. Daniel 9:26 and 27 says the following: And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war are desolations determined. Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined is poured out on the desolate.

The terminal point for the prophecy is the destruction of the city and sanctuary. The allusion to the flood calls to mind the end of the Jewish kosmos and the antitype of the kosmos destroyed in the days of Noah. (See the comparison in 2 Peter 3:1-7). Jesus quotes the text and applies it to Israel in 70AD, (Matt 23:36-38). So my conclusion is that Daniel's 70 Weeks ends at the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. For more detail on the study, see Don K Preston's "Seal Up Vision and Prophecy." He also has done some excellent studies on the festivals and has an excellent interpretation on the 70th week.

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Reviews · 0 replies · +1 points

Christ our studies are now on Tuesdays on BlogTalkRadio/fulfilledradio

8 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Gog and Magog, Russia,... · 0 replies · +1 points

I am not aware of comments being deleted unless they contained filtered words such as profanity, etc.

9 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Gog and Magog, Russia,... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not sure

9 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - Quiz · 0 replies · +1 points

The quiz has been updated and is now working. Took a while to search around for a good plugin that wasn't complicated and actually worked.

12 years ago @ Eschatology | Armagedd... - What is Victorious Esc... · 0 replies · +1 points

I believe it is incorrect to ascribe the doctrine of predestination and election as taught in the Bible to a "limited" number of people. This to me, violates the context where these concepts are found and simply contradicts the scripture. For example, in Ephesians Paul says, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4-5) For those who take these verses as justification for limited atonement and predestination fail to grasp the meaning Paul conveyed in the text. In the first place, he reasons from a "Jewish" perspective. If you will note the contrast between "we and us" vv. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, with the you in vv. 13, 15, 16 and the our vv. 14, 17, etc, you will note that he is contrasting "Jews" and "Gentiles" not a limited number of saved versus lost nor is he teaching the reformed doctrine of predestination. When read from this perspective, we have Paul saying that before the foundation of Jewish age (world) God chose Israel (above all other nations on the earth) to be saved in Christ (so they could be a light to the rest of the world to do the same). See the promises made to Abraham in particular. It is to Israel that the promises of adoption were made, not to Gentiles! "For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoptionthe glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises. That alone should be sufficient to see that even though Israel was chosen and was predestined to adoption, not all of Israel were saved, Rom. 9:5-7, 10:1-4. Some may say, well yes, but "they were not all Israel who were of Israel." That's true, but faith determined it. Also, why was Paul seeking to save them and why did he, the "chief of sinners" obey the gospel? In Ephesians, God is simply saying that he predestined Israel as a nation to be saved through Christ, but individually, the choice was theirs. "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him not, but as many as received Him them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." (Jo. 1:11-12). The gospel was to the Jew first, (Rom. 1:16). They were God's elect, His chosen. That's why Paul said, "we who first trusted in Christ." The gospel wasn't even preached to the Gentiles for ten years. Now watch his contrast. "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise...Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ..."(13-17). I believe that at the cross Christ died for all who were dead, (Rom. 5:18). "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: That if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all..."(2 Cor. 5:14-15). The true doctrine of election as I understand it, is that "all Israel" (spiritually speaking) includes "Jews and Gentiles" by faith. Now, if the elect means "all who died" then I could accept it. If it doesn't then I must reject it. I think it's clear that the "elect" does not mean "all who died" therefore it cannot be true that Christ died only for the elect. Now it is true that Paul uses the term "elect" to refer to Christians, (Jews and Gentiles who obeyed the gospel in contrast to unbelieving Jews). "What then, Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11:7). Yet, Paul follows with verses clearly indicating that God's intention was to save those who were not a part of the "elect" of verse 7. "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles...if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. (v. 11-15). Now, again, if the "elect" had obtained the salvation and the rest were blinded, then the "blind" cannot be the elect in this text. Yet, Paul said, he might save some of the blind. "For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (v. 15). Remember, "all died, and Christ died for all" thus, Christ died for these "non-elect" according to the faith. Well, I've bantered enough, but that's my take on it.