The Wonderful Dispensation of Grace

[lightninboy]

thelaqachisnext,

Hmm, let's try to figure this out.

You believe that one today cannot lose his salvation?

Having ones name in the Book of Life just meant you were conceived?

Having ones name removed from the Book of Life just meant you died physically?

Judas Iscariot had his name blotted out of the Book of Life and thus died physically because he betrayed Jesus?

Do you agree with Jerry Shugart that Old Testament saints were indeed regenerated and had eternal security?

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Song of songs is canonical. God is not prudish. It is a celebration of love, which includes sexuality. Consider cultural issues. Saying it was written by a dirty old man is a gross misunderstanding of the love song. Sex is not bad, in a godly context. Attraction is not sinful, within the right parameters.

Paul's reference to pagan poets does not make their writings divine revelation just because it is quoted in Scripture.

So who said they did? and what does that have to do with the subject of MAD doctrine refuted by the book accepted as inspired by Jesus and his 'half" brothers [James and Jude who both quote from it] and quoted in the NT over 100 times and called inspired Scripture by many early Church 'fathers' -so called?
and when are you going to answer my questions to you about where the Scripture of Truth can be found which the angel read and showed to Daniel the things written in it, in chapters 11 and 12 -they are not written in the OT -so where are they?
~~~~~
No, I do not agree with you. God is not lustful and cares not about the belly buttons, teeth, and breasts of the Church -absolutely not! -and belly buttons and breasts and teeth are not fit discussions for the Church of God, meeting together about the things of the Spirit -and you have no business reading about another man's lustful delights for the belly buttons, breasts and teeth of one of his many concubines; doing so makes you a reader of 'soft porn" -and it has no business in the Scriptures.

song of Songs is not a celebration of love, but of illegal lust by a dirty minded man who forsook God for the many idols of his many wives, esp for the goddess of sexual perversion and lust -"Ashtoreth"- and who had no legal right to the "Shulamite woman".

Solomon's Heart Turns from the Lord
11But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites--
2 from the nations of whom the Lord had said to the children of Israel, "You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as did his father David.
7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon.
8 And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9 So the Lord became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the Lord God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice,
10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the Lord had commanded.
11 Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, "Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant.
12 Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; .

 

[thelaqachisnext]

thelaqachisnext,

Hmm, let's try to figure this out.

You believe that one today cannot lose his salvation?

Having ones name in the Book of Life just meant you were conceived?

Having ones name removed from the Book of Life just meant you died physically?

Judas Iscariot had his name blotted out of the Book of Life and thus died physically because he betrayed Jesus?

Do you agree with Jerry Shugart that Old Testament saints were indeed regenerated and had eternal security?

Have you read the Scriptural references to the Book of Life and who is written there and who gets blotted out and when?
And Judas got blotted out of the Book of the Living =the Book of Life, and lost eternal security in the Name of the Only Begotten. He was not regenerated in Spirit yet, for no one was, until Jesus rose from the dead.


I do not agree with Jerry Shugart. Abra "HA" m had the promise of the Spirit and was redeemed totally, but not regenerated, and had to wait in the first death's separation for the Day of Atonement, which, as a prophet, he saw and acted out and understood and rejoiced in, in Genesis 22.

All in Adam were written to come forth as sons of God in Adam, but now, since the fall of Adam, the names are written there as those who are to be redeemed by the Kinsman and come forth as sons of God in Israel, the New Man, by the Spirit of Adoption.

To come forth in Adam is to have the name written in the book of Life; to die without coming to the age of accountablility is to belong to the LORD and be raised in His image -but without the great outshining glory, as glory is rewarded for service in obedience to Him, with understanding, so an Adam person who dies before their time or who is murdered as an infant is His -He named them before they were born and all souls are His.

To have the name blotted out is to lose the Salvation in adoption into the New Man name which is promised to all in Adam.
One's own deeds and thoughts against the Light that lights them on coming into the world will judge them on that day -God's expressed will is that all in Adam would come to the Salvation offered in the New Man's Name, freely. To rob one of that choice is evil and God is not the author of murder of the innocent, nevertheless, they belong to Him and are redeemed by His blood, not having done good or evil with understanding.

Those who freely choose Him who chose them before the foundation fo the world will share the glory of the Only Begotten in the regeneration -and some will shine more than others, in thier resurrection body, for they who lead many to righteousness will shine as the stars..

Not all born of daughters 'in Adam' are written in the book of life. Those sons of iniquity were never written there, whose fathers are the fallen angels, and they will never be redeemed and will be totally removed from earth at the return of the LORD, when all demons are gathered and cast into the lake of fire -and apparently that fornication is going on still, as after the Church is removed from earth in the first harvest of sons of God, those whose names were never written in the Book of Life [which is defined in Enoch as those offspring of the fallen watchers] will worship the beast, the final man of sin, who is the man of 'lawlessness' and the son of Shiva =Apollyon =Destruction, himself; whether a spiritual seed as Judas was at his betrayal of the LORD or an offspring as it was before the flood and also after that, I do not know.
.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

My point in posting on this thread is that MAD doctrine is soundly refuted by not only the OT and the NT, but by the book of 1 Enoch which was written thousands of years before MAD doctrine came into being and which was accepted by the ancients as inspired by God.

I am not a Hebrew roots person, just a born again Believen in the LORD Jesus Christ, but in the 'roots' movement they have grasped the significance of the return 1 Enoch as doctrine -for even Enoch testified that it would be returned in the last days.

look carefully at the historical record of the book given here, and refute it [the record of 1 Enoch being accepted by many ancient Church fathers] if you can honestly do so -and remember, 1 Enoch refutes MAD doctrine soundly, showing the truth of the Son of Man as the Hidden in God from the beginning 'secret', whose name was secret, who was to come, who was God and who was with God, who would be 'revealed' in His times -in His appointed season: His coming in human flesh is the Gospel to all men, for their redemption in the Kinsman/Redeemer who was promised from the beginning.

…As a matter of fact the ancient Nazarenes treasured the Book of Enoch and used it along side the books we know today as canon. This is evidenced by fact that Y'hudah quotes Enoch. R.H. Charles listed 128 locations where the Ketuvin Netzarim (The writings of the Nazarenes, commonly known today as the "New Testament") is clearly influenced by statements in the Book of Enoch.

The Book of Enoch was used within Judaism at least as early as the second century B.C.E.. Seven fragmentary Aramaic copies were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Zohar also cites the Book of Enoch by name (Zohar 1:37b) and makes much use of its account of the fallen angels Shemikhaza (which the Zohar calls Uzael) and Azzazel.

The earliest Gentile Christians also accepted and made use of the Book of Enoch. Many of the so-called "Church Fathers" either quoted Enoch, or made use of it. Among these were the author of the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, Justin Martyr (2nd C.), Irenaeus (2nd C.), Clement of Alexandria (2nd C.) and Origin (3rd C.). Tertullian (160-230 C.E.) even called the book "Holy Scripture". The book was even canonized by the Ethiopic Church.

LOSS OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH

In the fourth century the Book of Enoch came under fire from such "Church Fathers" as Augustine, Hilary and Jerome. The Book of Enoch was soon banned except in the remote Ethiopic Church, which had canonized it. The original Hebrew was lost completely to time and has yet to be recovered. The Aramaic and Greek versions disappeared as well (portions of these have since been discovered. The complete text has survived only in Ethiopic.

RESTORATION OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH

The Book of Enoch predicts its own restoration as our last days bonus!

But when they write down truthfully all my words in their languages, and do not change or diminish ought from my words but write them all down truthfully -all that I first testified concerning them. Then, I know another mystery, that books will be given to the righteous and the wise to become a cause of joy and uprightness and much wisdom. And to them shall the books be given, and they shall believe in them and rejoice over them, and then shall all the righteous who have learnt therefore all the paths of uprightness be recompensed.'
(1Enoch 104:10-13)
...
...
...
MESSAGE OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH

Yeshua warned that the last days would be like the days of Noach (Mt.
24:37-38 - HRV) And this is a major theme of the Book of Enoch. Enoch forewarns of the coming judgement of the flood, and parallels this with the judgement of the last days. The Book of Enoch even prophecies that in the last days:

"women shall become pregnant and abort their babies and cast them out from their midst"
(1En. 99:5).

http://www.hebrew-roots.com/html/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=88

 

[godrulz]

While some commentators have said that Song of songs is a big allegory about Christ and the Church (hence laq's objection about the church and lust/sex), it is best understood as a book on love and sexuality within godly marriage. There is no reason to extrapolate it as a picture of the Church just because of Ephesians 5. If we take out the wrong church interpretation, I trust that it is evident that ancient descriptions of love and attraction should not be seen as contrary to God's creation design and human love that does not have to mean lust, by any means.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

While some commentators have said that Song of songs is a big allegory about Christ and the Church (hence laq's objection about the church and lust/sex), it is best understood as a book on love and sexuality within godly marriage. There is no reason to extrapolate it as a picture of the Church just because of Ephesians 5. If we take out the wrong church interpretation, I trust that it is evident that ancient descriptions of love and attraction should not be seen as contrary to God's creation design and human love that does not have to mean lust, by any means.

While godrulz refuses to reply to my questions he makes the claim that a man who worshipped the goddess of sexual perversion and lust, and who was rejected by God, and who had -in the end- 300 wives and 700 concubines could write something worth reading, about the undefiled pure bed of holy matrimony; which is a ridiculous thing to say; much more riduculous to believe.

The record is against the Song of Solomon as being 'inspired' and worthy to be included within the Word of God -for it is not.
An adulterer and fornicator is not the man who can tell one about pure unadulterated love as experienced in holy matrimony.

 

[patman]

Whose Bible?
and I do not think the "Song of Solomon" is inspired Scripture and I do not believe it belongs in the Word of God, and many Jews also thought the same, in times past.

If this is what you think, who on earth are YOU to accuse MAD of being unbibiblical.... and by Bible, I thought you'd know about the book that has sold billions called by that name.

ehhh... I know what you meant by asking that question about which "Bible."

The Bible is not the only place to find factual information, but it is THE most reliable source. The book of Enoch is not.

You have yet to actually face this fact, but It could not have survived the flood and language changes all that time, and even the language it was written in evolved from another form of Ge'ez. The copy of Enoch is in no way a direct copy of a book written 5000ish years ago that was written in the original language... do we even know what the original language was?

This all means Enoch did not write this book. It is more likely a rip off of daniel and other OT books.

And you also do not understand the MAD is mainly a theology about a change in audience of the gospel which included a change in covenant. If Paul didn't write it, it is not a part of the new dispensation of grace. Half of the verses you use to disprove MAD are insufficient because we already know they are different. That just proves the point we profess to.

 

[lightninboy]

thelaqachisnext,

Do you believe in eternal security for today? If not, how are you really any different from an Arminian?

If you don't agree with Jerry Shugart about the Old Testament saints being regenerated and having eternal security, how are you really any different from Mid-Acts Dispensationalists?

 

[thelaqachisnext]

While some commentators have said that Song of songs is a big allegory about Christ and the Church (hence laq's objection about the church and lust/sex), it is best understood as a book on love and sexuality within godly marriage. There is no reason to extrapolate it as a picture of the Church just because of Ephesians 5. If we take out the wrong church interpretation, I trust that it is evident that ancient descriptions of love and attraction should not be seen as contrary to God's creation design and human love that does not have to mean lust, by any means.

I do not agree with Godrulz. Solomon's relationship with the Shulamite woman was not innocent love and attraction but a trysting with a woman he had no business with in an adulterous relationship, as he had who knows however many wives already and concubines at that time.

There is no good man who writes about the belly buttons, breasts, teeth -and all the other things Solomon wrote about this woman he trysted with, who is in love with the woman.
A man who is in love with his wife does not write for others these kinds of things about her body.
Good prose and poetry can be found about love, but this is not good prose or peotry and does not speak to a relationship of true love for a person.

This is pure lust, such as Solomon would have written to sing in the temple of the goddess of lust and sexual perversion which he worshipped -along with all the other gods and such he worshipped: remember: "A king must not multiply wives unto himself".

 

[thelaqachisnext]

thelaqachisnext,

Do you believe in eternal security for today? If not, how are you really any different from an Arminian?

If you don't agree with Jerry Shugart about the Old Testament saints being regenerated and having eternal security, how are you really any different from Mid-Acts Dispensationalists?

Eternal security is in Jesus Christ: either one is in Him or they are not.
One cannot be in him and out of him, in Him and out of Him. That isn't what Scripture teaches
No one person born in Adam ever gets their name written in the book of life at any time in their existence -it is already written there from the beginning or else they wouldn't "be". That's what I read in the Word; but each person in Adam who comes into their being comes into that being dead in Adam, since the fall, and must be born again -which I have already written about.

God desires all men to be saved, and has provided in the Atonement planned from the beginning the means to be redeemed; but not all men want to be redeemed and will not seek the Light that lights every man that comes into the world.
When one comes to the age of accountability they must seek the Light that lights them, and be led to more light -following after the Light, they are led to Christ; but rejection of the Light eventually leads to the hardening of the heart by YHWH of the one He strives with, while they have their being.

That is what I have learned from His Word.
We must be born again or else we will be cast aways in the day of judgment.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

If this is what you think, who on earth are YOU to accuse MAD of being unbibiblical.... and by Bible, I thought you'd know about the book that has sold billions called by that name.

ehhh... I know what you meant by asking that question about which "Bible."

The Bible is not the only place to find factual information, but it is THE most reliable source. The book of Enoch is not.

You have yet to actually face this fact, but It could not have survived the flood and language changes all that time, and even the language it was written in evolved from another form of Ge'ez. The copy of Enoch is in no way a direct copy of a book written 5000ish years ago that was written in the original language... do we even know what the original language was?

This all means Enoch did not write this book. It is more likely a rip off of daniel and other OT books.

And you also do not understand the MAD is mainly a theology about a change in audience of the gospel which included a change in covenant. If Paul didn't write it, it is not a part of the new dispensation of grace. Half of the verses you use to disprove MAD are insufficient because we already know they are different. That just proves the point we profess to.

You are uninformed about the history of the book and the Church. and you are uninformed about the Mercy Seat New Man body of the second human being creation where the Grace is given to all men for all time; which was planned from the beginning, and has come.

And you have no ability to make a judgment on the book of 1 Enoch as inspired or not, not having been famaliar with the history of the book, the contents, or with the Scriptures well enough to recognize those things written in the OT and NT which are direct references to that which is taught first, in 1 Enoch and not taught in detail about again, as He does not have to repeat the things He revealed through Enoch.

But the point is that MAD doctrine is totally refuted by the book and that book was used by the LORD Jesus and oft quoted from by Him, and in no other place will you find the particular things about His kingdom and His coming and His person, but there, as He gave deference to those things written about Him in that book -as well as quoting from it.

And Paul was a walking expositor on the Book of 1 Enoch, a 'scribe' who quoted the book and gave the sense of the meanings, loosely, from that book many, many times; in which book he read about the Son of Man/Son of God who was to be revealed to the elect in His times, but who was "hidden in God, concealed, kept secret", and whose name was secret, who was "with God and who was God", and who is "the Messiah", "the Creator" and the "coming Judge" of all, who revealed Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Jesus is the "Gospel"; His coming in human being flesh of the second Creation as Kinsman/Redeemer is the Good News to all men.

So where in the accepted canon is the Scripture of Truth which the angel revealed to Daniel in chapters 11 and 12? -Just where is it found? Why is it not in the accepted Canon? -Explain that one, please!

And why is the book of Job so filled with the things found in 1 Enoch in detail, but which are no place else, since Job is supposed to be the oldest book in the OT? -How do Job and his 'comforters' know all the things to talk about which are explained in 1 Enoch -and esp Job knew about the resurrection of the body and the Kinsman/Redeemer who will stand on the earth in the last day and who"lived"; and he knew that Kinsman/Redeemer is/was God, and whom Job knew he would see with his own eyes in his own body, resurrected?

 

[godrulz]

I do not agree with Godrulz. Solomon's relationship with the Shulamite woman was not innocent love and attraction but a trysting with a woman he had no business with in an adulterous relationship, as he had who knows however many wives already and concubines at that time.

There is no good man who writes about the belly buttons, breasts, teeth -and all the other things Solomon wrote about this woman he trysted with, who is in love with the woman.
A man who is in love with his wife does not write for others these kinds of things about her body.
Good prose and poetry can be found about love, but this is not good prose or peotry and does not speak to a relationship of true love for a person.

This is pure lust, such as Solomon would have written to sing in the temple of the goddess of lust and sexual perversion which he worshipped -along with all the other gods and such he worshipped: remember: "A king must not multiply wives unto himself".

Who said the book was about that relationship? It was not condoning illicit relationships, but reflects godly love and sexuality. Are you a Victorian Puritan?

 

[Bob Hill]

When I refer to God’s Word, I mean the Bible in its different translations of what we mainliners call the Bible.

Eph 3:9: “and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ”. However, you can see that the Greek word for what I translated, dispensation, is not there. The word that is there is koinonia rather than oikonomia, but that is the reading of only the Textus Receptus which is based on very few manuscripts. Both the Majority Text and the Critical Text show the second Greek text above. That phrase is translated, “the dispensation of the mystery”.

Here are a number of other translations:
Darby: and to enlighten all with the knowledge of what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, who has created all things
ASV: and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things
NASB: and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things
NIV: and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Any of these translations is OK, but I prefer to use the NKJV with a few corrections: and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created the all things through Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

When a person take passages from many different times and expect us to accept it as applying to us, it won’t work.

Without a dispensational understanding of God’s Word, you are at a loss to make the truth from one dispensation agree with truth from a different one.

When it comes to material from extra biblical writers being presented as truth for our Bible, you get a lot of serious contradictions, and problems that are ridiculous.

When I ask people who are solid Christians if they have anyone in their lives who they do not love, they all admit there are some who they cannot say they love them.

In the prior times which are not associated with the Dispensation of Grace, they were under law, not grace.

These commands, that some have posted, come from non canonical sources.

In our present Dispensation of Grace, when we believe, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption when these bodies will be changed and we will be with God.

God’s program for us today is different from all His previous programs and future programs.

We see how unique God’s program for us is when we read about Paul’s commission in Eph 3:1-9: “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gracious gift of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the untraceable riches of Christ, 9 and make all see what is the dispensation (oikonomia) of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.”

God inspired Paul to repeat this explanation in Col 1:25-27: [The church]of which I became a minister according to the dispensation of God which was given to me for you, to fulfill [to complete, make full, fill] the word of God, 26 the mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 To whom God willed to make known what are the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ among you, the hope of glory.

This means that prophecies made before Paul was saved, from Genesis to Acts nine, have nothing to do with this Dispensation of Grace.

Why?

Because this dispensation is called the Dispensation of the Mystery.
Eph 3:8,9 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

Bob Hill

 

[Lighthouse]

Okay, Lighthouse, how much longer until you reply about John 3:16?

I really don't have the time to read the dialogue between you and Jerry, or you and Bob on the subject. I'm on a library computer, and only have an hour each time I get on, and then I have to wait at least half an hour before I can get back on. So I'm having a hard enough time staying caught up with everything that's going on. However, I know where I stand, and that is that John 3:16 does not directly teach eternal security, at least not as a stand alone verse. You would at least need the next two verses to make any headway.

 

[lightninboy]

However, I know where I stand, and that is that John 3:16 does not directly teach eternal security, at least not as a stand alone verse. You would at least need the next two verses to make any headway.

Dear Lighthouse,
Thank you for your reply.

What part of
God so loved the world
That He gave His one and only Son,
That whosoever believes in Him
Will not perish but have everlasting life
does not directly teach eternal security?

 

[lightninboy]

thelaqachisnext,

It seems awfully hard to get a straight answer out of you.

You do believe it is impossible for a person who has once believed on the Lamb of God for eternal life to lose ones eternal life today?

Was it possible for one who had once believed on the Lamb of God for eternal life to lose ones eternal life before Pentecost?

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Who said the book was about that relationship? It was not condoning illicit relationships, but reflects godly love and sexuality. Are you a Victorian Puritan?

No.
I'm a born again Believer in the Word of God which says a king must not multiply wives unto himself.
Excusing Solomon's adultrous trysting and calling it 'love' and 'pure' is baloney. The idle man had no time for trysting anyway, having so many wives and concubines he couldn't even develop a relationship of love and trust with any one of them.
Look, man! -He had a harem and was just picking up another one for his "God just wants me to be happy" lie.

The [now "ex"] pastor at one of our daughter and her husband's Church just fell into this kind of relationship and is claiming he is innocent of adultery -while he has moved out of his home and is not supporting his wife and children -claiming he is saved and not in adultery, refusing to give up the twice married woman who came into that Church with a siren demon and went after his soul, from nearly two years ago.

Song of Songs is not inspired and was written by a dirty old man!

 

[thelaqachisnext]

thelaqachisnext,

It seems awfully hard to get a straight answer out of you.

You do believe it is impossible for a person who has once believed on the Lamb of God for eternal life to lose ones eternal life today?

Was it possible for one who had once believed on the Lamb of God for eternal life to lose ones eternal life before Pentecost?

Yes you have gotten a straight answer from me -but not an answer from someone else's book.
Scripture does not teach Calvinism, Armenianism, nor universalism.
Each person is written in the book of Life who is a seed born in Adam or who will be born in Adam; and that Book was written before the world was.

To be written in the book means God designed us to come into our being as human being sons of God, in Adam.
Adam is lost: the Book is now the lost goods list whose names Jesus came to ransom.

Before the Day of Atonement which was planned from the beginning and which the created temple in heaven speaks of in it's creation, lay-out, and furnishings and service, all the righteous, by faith, souls waited in Sheol below, from the death of Abel to the death of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Who is our Kinsman, come in second creation human being flesh; and they waited in the separation from the glory caused by the defilement of Adam's being, when our firstborn ate the evil fruit and we all died in him, as his seed.

Since the resurrection of the LORD Jesus no righteous souls descend to Sheol below, but ascend to Zion above, to wait for the promised bodies of Adoption.

No one goes to the lake of fire for father Adam's transgression, as that is put away and is not counted against us since the Atonement; but each soul is sought by the Light that lights each man that comes into the world, in the hopes that they may seek God -and seeking, they find.

Second birth is given us in the adoption into the New Man's Spirit, but we do not yet have our bodies of adoption, and we walk by faith int he promise, as AbraHAm did walk when YHWH redeemed him, though he did not have the Spirit of adoption, but the promise.

God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Son of God -but not all men will.
This present earth and our life upon it is the growing field for sons of God, for the Father's glory to indwell.
In Adam we died before we personally were multiplied as his seed, but in Christ we who are born again are alive -and we still walk by faith and not by sight.

There is no place where Scripture says any person can get their names written into the Book of Life since it was finished before we were even created; but the Word of God declares that we can get our names blotted out of the Book of Life; and the Word says we can "make our calling and election sure".

 

[lightninboy]

thelaqachisnext Proven Wrong

thelaqachisnext Proven Wrong

A straight answer is like a "yes" or "no" answer, duh.

lightninboy has proven thelaqachisnext wrong.

*David holds up Goliath's head.*

:guitar: