JoeChan82

1 Peter 1:22-23 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Is the issue of Bible versions important? Yes, yes it is. Is it safe to say that those posting here believe in the inspiration of the scriptures? If we believe in the inspiration of the scriptures, as I do, then good. Now let me say that inspiration is useless without preservation. I am confused when Christians don't see that when one translation says something different from another translation that either one is wrong and one is right or both are wrong. They cannot both be right! I hear many say things about the better rendering or the accuracy of the translation. The real questions is what is being rendered or translated. What is being translated to English? An awesome translation of a corrupt text is, at best, corrupt itself. Preservation is the key. Decide which group of manuscripts you believe in, but don't claim superiority of a translation due to ease of reading or accurate rendering. But let me give you fair warning, wading into manuscript evidence and selection of the canon of scripture is difficult and you will find yourself pitted with some deep scholarship! It was worth it for me.

At the very base or foundation of every question asked in the original post is this question; what is the seven years of tribulation? I submit that the term seven years of tribulation (normally split into 3 1/2 years tribulation and the 3 1/2 years of great tribulation) has been misidentified. The correct term is Daniel's 70th week. During this week we see persecution against the saints. Once the 7th angel sounds, we see God's wrath against the wicked. God's wrath is not the same as the saints' tribulation. Not the same. The second foundational question concerns the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. Soon return? Yes. Promised return? Yes. Returning at any moment without any other prophecies fulfilled? Nope. So if being gathered out of tribulation before the wrath of God falls isn't a blessed hope, I don't know what is.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. The phrase "by the word of the Lord" makes me think that Paul is referencing the word of Christ. Christ mentions the timing of the event. Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: So here is a limited comparison of Matthew 24 and I Thessalonians 4. Both Christ and Paul mention certain characteristics of the second coming: 1. Clouds: "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 24) "Then we … shall be caught up together with them in the clouds" (1Thessalonians) 2. Angels: "he shall send his angels" (Matthew 24) "with the voice of the archangel" (1Thessalonians) 3. The Trumpet: "a great sound of a trumpet" (Matthew 24) "with the trump of God" (1Thessalonians) 4. The Gathering of the elect: "they shall gather together his elect" (Matthew 24) "caught up together with them … to meet the Lord in the air" (1Thessalonians)

1 John 5:12-13 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 2 Peter 3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Based upon these verses, I believe that we can know whether or not we are saved right now in this life. I also believe that the Lord is not willing that any should perish. The sovereign will of God and the free will of man are run parallel and are not in conflict. To define "free will" as only the ability to rebel completely negates the term free will, since freedom of will requires choice by definition. To divide Christians into two subsets of Christians namely into elect Christians and non-elect Christians neither of which knows if they are saved before they die is very foreign to me.

What you use to attract people is what you must use to keep people. So attract people by preaching the Word. Down with the circus and up with Jesus. It is the preaching of the cross that calls out the believers from the world. John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Ice tea? Southerner alert! Southerner alert!

I had a visitation partner named Paul. We would go to peoples' houses to them about the Lord. Many of these folks would be reluctant to discuss their own need of Christ and would attempt to redirect the conversation to the Christian that they knew who had done bad things. You have heard the list before; preachers who ran off with the piano player, deacons who lie, cheat, and curse prolifically, family members who are horrible people in private, etc. etc. etc. My friend had an excellent reply. He would say, "All that you say might be true, but what wrong has Jesus ever done to you?" It is expected that the lost person would surround himself with a wall of real and imagined examples of failed Christianity. But the believer has his own cloud of witnesses in Hebrews 12:1 and we can look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith as true examples. Hebrews 12:2 I am all about listening and responding to the views of other believers, but I have watched with dismay as posts with very interesting topics degenerate into totally different topics due to being sidetracked by certain hot and unresolved issues. Listen when I tell you that I have some very rigid doctrinal beliefs that I have studied and do follow. That being said, I want to know what others believe and why. That's why I joined this forum in the first place. Therefore, I refuse to be offended by those posting here, although I may take issue. Please don't take it personally when I state an opposing position. This forum could be a wonderful place for friendly debate. Remember that believers and non-believers read this posts. Galatians 5:13-16 ¶ For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Thank you for your reply. I think I understand your position. Maybe there will be a thread that covers this topic in more detail. That would be great, but I don't want to be the one that takes this conversation about America as Babylon off course. Again, thank you for your reply.

Many books and sermons have addressed the topic of the identity of Babylon. I tend to believe that is indeed Rome. Comparing Babylon to America, actual Babylon in Iraq, or the former U.S.S.R., or England is a game of pure speculation. Current events change. I see the image in Daniel 2 with its head as Nebuchadnezzar, his breast and his arms of silver is the Medo Persians, his belly and his thighs of brass is Grecia, and his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay is Rome. The feet are smashed. Later, Daniel records that part of the fourth kingdom is strong and part weak. Rome, as an empire is gone, but its state church remains to this day. Rome is the only city recognized as a nation.

I was with you until the second half of this statement. How are the elect different from Christians?

Sometimes, you just have to ask the person accusing you exactly what they meant. Sometimes there is an issue under the surface that they don't know how to deal with, but you might be able to help them. Sometimes people are just plain angry. Proverbs 22:24-25 ¶ Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: 25 Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul. Proverbs 29:22 ¶ An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression.

Getting back to the original question of this thread, I would like to add my view on preaching vs teaching. An older preacher once told me his guidelines for homiletics: 1.) What does the Bible say? 2.) What does the Bible mean by what it says? 3.) To whom is it speaking? 4.) How does this apply to us? I try to use these principles for preaching or teaching. So what is the difference? Preaching seems to call for a response, while teaching imparts knowledge. For instance, I can teach what the Bible says about hell for the purpose of informing the listener, or I can preach about hell for the express purpose of compelling the listener to avoid it. Does this make sense?

I have been reading in these forums as much as I can. I have seen quite a few points of view and have had a lot of fun so far. I appreciate this opportunity to read posts from others as well as to post myself. Here is my abbreviated view on the Law. The law seems to be divided into three parts; the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the dietary law. The second two aspects of the law are so closely related that some believe them to be the same. Whether you separate the ceremonial and the dietary laws or combine them, the church has been specifically exempted of them both. We, as gentiles do not need to be circumcised nor abstain from unclean meats to be right with God. Colossians 2:13-23 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. ary laws or combine them into one, Okay, then, what about the moral law? Is it different from the other two? Must we keep the moral law to keep our salvation? First, set aside the doctrinal debates that have raged and are raging concerning the Law for a moment, please, and consider the Law in practical terms. Exodus 20:1-18 1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, 3 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; 4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5 Honour thy father and thy mother: 6 Thou shalt not kill. 7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8 Thou shalt not steal. 9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10 Thou shalt not covet ... Should a Christian be involved in killing, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, or general covetousness? The obvious answer is no. These things are wrong. Remember that we are addressing these laws in practical terms, not religious terms. I think that we can all be agreed that violation of the commandments is a bad thing. Bear in mind, that each of these laws are expanded upon and explained further in both the Old and New Testament. I do not want to debate specific applications of the Law here. That is another discussion for another time. This brings me to the crux of the matter. What constitutes sin? How do I know what sin is? In these forums, I have seen the topic of sin expounded and questioned frequently, with varying opinions set forth. Here is where the purpose of the Law needs to be explained and brought to bear. I will state my view briefly and try to respond respectfully to any replies. I believe that the book of Romans holds the answers. As Paul's arguments are lengthy and thorough, I will show only the conclusions from Romans 7. I suggest that you read it in its entirety and not rely on the abbreviated version, which I have posted and edited below. Romans 7:1-25 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 ¶ 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. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 ... But sin, that it might appear sin, ... that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. My conclusions are that 1.) We are free from the law by the work of Christ (vs 4-6), 2) The purpose of the Law is to define and expose sin (vs 7-13), and 3.) The Law is holy, just, and good so we are bound to obey it (vs 12). I detest the slander of my position on eternal security being defined as, "Once saved always saved, so live anyway you want to live". I say a definite yes to "once saved always saved" but never "live any way you want to live". I have pasted Article II from a statement of faith among a group of English Baptists written in 1770. I believe it accurately reflects my view on the matter. Articles of Religion of the New Connexion, 1770 Article II. On the Nature and Perpetual Obligation of the Moral Law. We believe, that the moral law not only extends to the outward actions of the life, but to all the powers and faculties of the mind, to every desire, temper and thought; that it demands the entire devotion of all the powers and faculties of both body and soul to God: or, in our Lord's words, to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul and strength:-that this law is of perpetual duration and obligation, to all men, at all times, and in all places or parts of the world. And, we suppose that this law was obligatory to Adam in his perfect state-was more clearly reveled in the ten commandments-and more fully explained in many other parts of the bible.

I have been reading in these forums as much as I can. I have seen quite a few points of view and have had a lot of fun so far. I appreciate this opportunity to read posts from others as well as to post myself. Here is my abbreviated view on the Law. The law seems to be divided into three parts; the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the dietary law. The second two aspects of the law are so closely related that some believe them to be the same. Whether you separate the ceremonial and the dietary laws or combine them, the church has been specifically exempted of them both. We, as gentiles do not need to be circumcised nor abstain from unclean meats to be right with God. Colossians 2:13-23 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. ary laws or combine them into one, Okay, then, what about the moral law? Is it different from the other two? Must we keep the moral law to keep our salvation? First, set aside the doctrinal debates that have raged and are raging concerning the Law for a moment, please, and consider the Law in practical terms. Exodus 20:1-18 1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, 3 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; 4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5 Honour thy father and thy mother: 6 Thou shalt not kill. 7 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 8 Thou shalt not steal. 9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 10 Thou shalt not covet ... Should a Christian be involved in killing, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, or general covetousness? The obvious answer is no. These things are wrong. Remember that we are addressing these laws in practical terms, not religious terms. I think that we can all be agreed that violation of the commandments is a bad thing. Bear in mind, that each of these laws are expanded upon and explained further in both the Old and New Testament. I do not want to debate specific applications of the Law here. That is another discussion for another time. This brings me to the crux of the matter. What constitutes sin? How do I know what sin is? In these forums, I have seen the topic of sin expounded and questioned frequently, with varying opinions set forth. Here is where the purpose of the Law needs to be explained and brought to bear. I will state my view briefly and try to respond respectfully to any replies. I believe that the book of Romans holds the answers. As Paul's arguments are lengthy and thorough, I will show only the conclusions from Romans 7. I suggest that you read it in its entirety and not rely on the abbreviated version, which I have posted and edited below. Romans 7:1-25 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 ¶ 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. 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 ... But sin, that it might appear sin, ... that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. My conclusions are that 1.) We are free from the law by the work of Christ (vs 4-6), 2) The purpose of the Law is to define and expose sin (vs 7-13), and 3.) The Law is holy, just, and good so we are bound to obey it (vs 12). I detest the slander of my position on eternal security being defined as, "Once saved always saved, so live anyway you want to live". I say a definite yes to "once saved always saved" but never "live any way you want to live". I have pasted Article II from a statement of faith among a group of English Baptists written in 1770. I believe it accurately reflects my view on the matter. Articles of Religion of the New Connexion, 1770 Article II. On the Nature and Perpetual Obligation of the Moral Law. We believe, that the moral law not only extends to the outward actions of the life, but to all the powers and faculties of the mind, to every desire, temper and thought; that it demands the entire devotion of all the powers and faculties of both body and soul to God: or, in our Lord's words, to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul and strength:-that this law is of perpetual duration and obligation, to all men, at all times, and in all places or parts of the world. And, we suppose that this law was obligatory to Adam in his perfect state-was more clearly reveled in the ten commandments-and more fully explained in many other parts of the bible.

The idea that the church of today will be with Him when He "comes in the clouds" [Zech 14:5], but the seven churches, which existed 2,000 years earlier in the days of John, were to look for the event in Revelation 1:7 based on Zechariah 14:5 is a difficult position to take. One would have to prove that the churches of John's day are not essentially the churches of today. When and where did churches morph into different churches? Also, Zechariah 12 is speaking of the day of the Lord. I have made certain portions bold to make my point. Zechariah 14:1-7 ¶ Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, ... 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; ... 3 Then shall the LORD go forth, ... 4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, ... ye fled from before the earthquake ... 5 ... and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. 6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Zechariah's description of the day of the Lord sites some very unique and specific events all of which are all consistent with Christ's Second Advent. Nothing in that passage puts verse 5 before the tribulation. The Lord's feet stand on the mount, Jerusalem is surrounded, and there is an earthquake. Here is a list of the earthquakes mentioned in Revelation. (Re 6:12; Re 8:5; Re 11:13,19; Re 16:18) None of these events are supposed to be occurring at the secret coming and rapture of the church, but they are all happening in Zechariah 12.

Allow me to ask a question; why does John tell the seven churches to look for Jesus coming with clouds, every eye shall see him (to include those who had pierced Him), and all kindreds of the earth shall wail? There is no secrecy in this return. John is describing the Second Advent here. Why tell this to the seven churches if they will not be here for it? Revelation 1:4-8 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: ... 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I have had a few conversations concerning the topic of when the church. In my opinion, if the church can be defined as a called out assembly of baptized believers having Christ as their head, then the church began during the earthly ministry of Christ and the twelve disciples. It seems to me that the day of Pentecost was the empowering of the church by the Holy Ghost. After Peter addressed the crowd, we read in Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. I understand that where you place the beginning of the church directly affects other doctrines, but I do not understand why. Any thoughts?

Who or what is the Bride of Christ? I have heard several answers to this question, but Revelation 21:9-27 is very explicit. I have copied and pasted the passage below and have also edited for sake of space, leaving only the parts relevant to this topic. Revelation 21:9-27 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, ... 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: ... 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. It seems plain that the Bride of Christ is New Jerusalem and that it includes elements of the tribes of Israel and the church; the twelve gates are named for the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve foundations are named for the twelve apostles. Therefore the Bride of Christ is not Israel nor the church exclusively, but is comprised from elements of both. Any thoughts?