ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Poly]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer


And Peter was not destined to deny Jesus, He could have repented and if He had then there would be yet another prophecy in the Bible that did not come to pass. Had this been the case, God would have been amazed and elated at Peter's faith. He would not have been upset and worried about how Peter had just ruined the whole Bible and destroyed Jesus' credibility.

Sorry to butt in here but this just got me to thinking. I can just imagine if Nineveh hadn't repented. Their destruction would have been lumped in as a predestined plan of God just as Peter's denial was supposedly predestined. And you could be making the same argument for them as you did for Peter in your above quote saying exactly what you said but replacing Peter with Nineveh.

And Nineveh was not destined to deny God. They could have repented and if they had then there would be yet another prophecy in the bible that did not come to pass. Had this been the case, God would have been amazed and elated at Nineveh's faith. He would not have been upset and worried about how Nineveh had just ruined the whold bible and destroyed God's credibility."

Had Nineveh not repented and God carried through with His prophecy, I could just hear the Calvinists saying "There's no way Nineveh could have repented. God prophecied that they would be destroyed and there's no way He could go back on that."

Peter could have repented just as Nineveh did. There's no difference. God didn't respond to Nineveh's repentance with "Oh great, now look what you did? You messed everything up!" Neither would He have responded in this manner to Peter had he not denied Jesus.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Poly

Sorry to butt in here but this just got me to thinking. I can just imagine if Nineveh hadn't repented. Their destruction would have been lumped in as a predestined plan of God just as Peter's denial was supposedly predestined. And you could be making the same argument for them as you did for Peter in your above quote saying exactly what you said but replacing Peter with Nineveh.

Exactly! :thumb:

You should butt in more often!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Deardelmar: It is infuriating to me when men dare call into question anything Jesus said, or any text in the Bible. There is no shortage of people on this forum who are ready to pronounce themselves to be proper judges of everything Jesus and His Word declare. This text in matthew 16:28 is just one of many examples. How some preen themselves, considering themselves to be judges of both Christ's words and the scripture. Would that when they find something that doesn't seem right to THEM they had enough sense to realize that the fault may not be in the words of scripture, but may very well be from their own IGNORANCE.

In the 27th verse of Mt. 16, Jesus is speaking of the day of judgement. Having considered that great day, His mind goes to the time that leads up to it--from the beginning of the revelation of His kingdom up until that day of judgement; and He is saying about the beginning of things that will preceed the day of judgement that some will see it before they die. In other words, the things which would shortly come to pass would demonstrate His glory and kingdom. As such, they would be an indication of that great day of judgement which would come.
These things which would display His glory and the coming of His kingdom were (1.) His return in the Holy Spirit ("I will not leave you as orphans. I will come to you,") on the day of Pentecost (2.) the progress and prosperity of the gospel manifested on the day of pentecost and in other accounts in Acts. (3.) the manifestation of His kingdom would be seen in His reign as "Prince of the kings of the earth." Rev. 1:5; and in 1 Eph. 1:19-23 where Jesus is declared to be even already exalted far above all principality and power and every name that is named. (4.) the progress of the gospel in the extension of His kingdom to the gentiles.

In verse 28 Jesus is talking about the things that began to be seen by many before they passed away. That men do not now recognize the sovereign reign of Christ is not any proof against the reality of it. As was stated in Rev. 1:5, He is NOW the "Prince of the kings of the earth." All power, Jesus said, HAS BEEN GIVEN unto Him in heaven and in earth, and all who recognize it to be so are witnesses of it TODAY. Jesus was just saying that the revelation of His power would begin to be seen by some who were there.

Notice that in verse 28 Jesus does not speak of coming in the glory of the Father with His angels, but "in his kingdom." There is a difference. verse 27: He comes in the glory of the Father with His angels for the culmination of all things. Verse 28: speaksof Him coming in the glory of His kingdom--His providential rule over the kings of the earth, His reign in the hearts of His people and the prosperity of the gospel in the days leading up to the events spoken of in verse 27.
Jesus said that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Today, there are many who are unable to realize that Jesus reigns NOW through both His absolute providential rule over the kings of the earth, and in the hearts of His people.
The kingdom of Christ is NOW. As Paul said in Col. 1:13, God has "translated us into the kingdom of His dear son."

 

[Clete]

Okay, here's a question for the whole group who happen to be reading this thread and Rolf's last post in particular.

Does post 1805 prove that Rolf is a hypocrite and if so, why?



Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Isn't that so typical of Clete! Unable to use or deal with scripture itself, he must engage in ad hominem attacks!!

 

[swanca99]

Originally posted by swanca99

Matthew 16:28 is paralleled in Mark and Luke as well.

In all three cases, what event is mentioned next in the narative?

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

The Transfiguration.

I believe the transfiguration is what Jesus referred to.

In the transfiguration, there is a foretaste, a preview if you will, of the kingdom. We see Christ glorified, Moses respresenting those who had died in ages past and will be resurrected for the kingdom, Elijah representing those who will enter the kingdom without first tasting physical death, and the disciples representing those in the kingdom who are still in their earthly bodies.

Just my humble opinion, although I'm not the only one who believes it.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by swanca99

I believe the transfiguration is what Jesus referred to.

In the transfiguration, there is a foretaste, a preview if you will, of the kingdom. We see Christ glorified, Moses respresenting those who had died in ages past and will be resurrected for the kingdom, Elijah representing those who will enter the kingdom without first tasting physical death, and the disciples representing those in the kingdom who are still in their earthly bodies.

Just my humble opinion, although I'm not the only one who believes it.

Context is king! (there is an unfortunate man-made chapter break that is not in the originals) :thumb:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Isn't that so typical of Clete! Unable to use or deal with scripture itself, he must engage in ad hominem attacks!!

Do you even know what ad hominem means? Do a Google on it if you have to. My asking the group whether or not they see your hypocrisy is not ad hominem. If you are in fact being hypocritical then your argument is self-defeating based on the hypocrisy, not based on you as a person.

I just think its hysterical to watch you play like you know what your talking about.

You clearly do not see the hypocrisy within post 1805 but my question to the rest of the group still stands. And I'm wanting someone other then me to point it out so that you won't have the luxury of blowing it off like you would if I pointed it out (although, you will anyway).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by swanca99

I believe the transfiguration is what Jesus referred to.

In the transfiguration, there is a foretaste, a preview if you will, of the kingdom. We see Christ glorified, Moses respresenting those who had died in ages past and will be resurrected for the kingdom, Elijah representing those who will enter the kingdom without first tasting physical death, and the disciples representing those in the kingdom who are still in their earthly bodies.

Just my humble opinion, although I'm not the only one who believes it.

The transfiguration occured SIX DAYS after Christ gave a prophecy about some of them standing there would not die unitl they saw Him coming in power.

So you are saying that Jesus made the astoundingly impressive, miraculous prophecy that some standing there wouldn't die before the week was out? Is that what you're saying?

That does not make any sense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer


You clearly do not see the hypocrisy within post 1805 but my question to the rest of the group still stands.

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

There is no shortage of people on this forum who are ready to pronounce themselves to be proper judges of everything Jesus and His Word declare.

Rolf thinks it's bad if others pronounce themselves as proper judges of what Jesus and His word declares yet it's ok if he claims to properly judge what Jesus and His word declares. :freak:

Did I pass?

 

[godrulz]

Interpretation can be subjective due to preconceived theologies and lack of proper application of exegetical/hermeneutical principles. We are all students of the Word, not expert scholars (and even they disagree).

 

[swanca99]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

So you are saying that Jesus made the astoundingly impressive, miraculous prophecy that some standing there wouldn't die before the week was out? Is that what you're saying?

No.

I'm saying that seeing "the Son of man coming in his kingdom," in this context, seems to be a reference to the "transfiguration" that occured six days later.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

There is a great difference in someone debating the proper interpretation of scripture and someone saying that its words failed to come to pass as declared. In post 1801, Clete, toward the bottom of that post, said that what Jesus said did not happen. Such a statement is not a matter of discussing scripture. It is rejecting it, and the words Jesus spoke. Anyone's sincere interpretation of scripture--even if the interpretation is not right-- is far more acceptable than someone daring to say that what was said did not happen.

Concerning the interpretation by swanca99 and Godrulz, I believe they are basically correct. Jesus was talking about the manifestation of Christ coming into His kingdom, and the transfiguration WAS A MANIFESTATION of Him receiving the glory of the kingdom that was rightly His.

But I believe Jesus was speaking of the transfiguration PLUS the additional manifestations of Him coming into His kingdom that some of those standing there saw before they died. That takes us all the way to the isle of Patmos. That was about 55 years after Jesus spoke the text reported in Mt. 16: 27, 28.
Truly, there were some standing there who would not die before they saw Him coming in the glory of His kingdom!

 

[swanca99]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Okay, here's a question for the whole group who happen to be reading this thread and Rolf's last post in particular.

Does post 1805 prove that Rolf is a hypocrite and if so, why?



Resting in Him,
Clete

Disclaimer: This is a LONG THREAD and I haven't read the whole thing, but I've read at least some of the exchange between you and Rolf.

It appears that you are pointing out that Rolf accused you of thinking yourself to be a proper judge of everything Jesus said, referring specifically to your interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28.

He then goes on to give his own interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28.

I'll stop right there and let you tell me if I'm on the right track so far. If so, I'll proceed to tell you whether or not I think it's hypocritical.

It may be several hours before I can respond back...I need to get ready for work now, and I never know if I will have time to surf at work or not.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by swanca99

No.

I'm saying that seeing "the Son of man coming in his kingdom," in this context, seems to be a reference to the "transfiguration" that occured six days later.

how was the transfiguration "coming in his kingdom"? was he not already there? doesn't one have to leave before one can come? and what about the transfiguration implies a kingdom? was anything set up like would be in a kingdom? in what sense was the transfiguration a resemblence even remotely of a kingdom?

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Okay, here's a question for the whole group who happen to be reading this thread and Rolf's last post in particular.

Does post 1805 prove that Rolf is a hypocrite and if so, why?



Resting in Him,
Clete

From the second paragraph on, Rolf did exactly what he had just accused you of doing in his first paragraph. At the end of the first paragraph, Rolf said:

Would that when they find something that doesn't seem right to THEM they had enough sense to realize that the fault may not be in the words of scripture, but may very well be from their own IGNORANCE.

Then he immediately went on explain how the passage can't mean what it says because it doesn't agree with his own theological paradigm, rather than rethink his paradigm in light of what Jesus plainly said.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Originally posted by swanca99

I believe the transfiguration is what Jesus referred to.

In the transfiguration, there is a foretaste, a preview if you will, of the kingdom. We see Christ glorified, Moses respresenting those who had died in ages past and will be resurrected for the kingdom, Elijah representing those who will enter the kingdom without first tasting physical death, and the disciples representing those in the kingdom who are still in their earthly bodies.

Just my humble opinion, although I'm not the only one who believes it.

The transfiguration occured SIX DAYS after Christ gave a prophecy about some of them standing there would not die unitl they saw Him coming in power.

So you are saying that Jesus made the astoundingly impressive, miraculous prophecy that some standing there wouldn't die before the week was out? Is that what you're saying?

That does not make any sense.

Resting in Him,
Clete

POTD! :first:

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

There is a great difference in someone debating the proper interpretation of scripture and someone saying that its words failed to come to pass as declared.

Seriously, have you ever read the book of Jonah? Jonah delivers a prophecy from God that does not come to pass. Or do you have some way of explaining that away, too?

In post 1801, Clete, toward the bottom of that post, said that what Jesus said did not happen.

He also explained exactly why that happened, and showed you where God said such a thing might happen and why.

Such a statement is not a matter of discussing scripture. It is rejecting it, and the words Jesus spoke.

Do you reject the words God spoke in Jeremiah 18?

Anyone's sincere interpretation of scripture--

You're saying that Clete's interpretation is insincere?

even if the interpretation is not right-- is far more acceptable than someone daring to say that what was said did not happen.

That's exactly what the author of Jonah did.

Besides, you are in effect saying that what God said would happen in Jeremiah 18 did not happen.

 

[godrulz]

There are book length treatments on the nature of the kingdom (see bottom).

The kingdom of God is the rulership of God. When Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan and sin, His rulership and kingdom of light was breaking in on the kingdom of darkness.

The kingdom is now, but not yet. The King was in their midst. The kingdom was within believers. There is also an eschatological sense in the future (literal). The Jews rejected and crucified the King. The kingdom message was postponed. The mystery of the Church Age and Age of Grace is between His first and Second Coming. The kingdom is in their midst, AND it is not yet (full manifestation in millennium and new heaven and earth).

The transfiguration reveals His veiled glory. The King and kingdom was in their midst. They rejected Him. He will come again and when His feet touch the Mount of Olives, the 'not yet' Kingdom will be established.

George Eldon Ladd and Herman Ridderbos develop the 'now, but not yet' motif found in Scripture.

 

[swanca99]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how was the transfiguration "coming in his kingdom"? was he not already there? doesn't one have to leave before one can come? and what about the transfiguration implies a kingdom? was anything set up like would be in a kingdom? in what sense was the transfiguration a resemblence even remotely of a kingdom?

If you haven't already seen it, please see my post #1808 in this thread. Hopefully that will at least partially answer your question, at least as to how I interpret those passages.