Aaron, that statement was out of line, not to mention inaccurate – as Awakening explained in his post above. But most of us find a huge amount of support for UR in Revelation, but that doesn’t mean we build our case out of that book. I prefer to build my case on the clear teachings found elsewhere, but I find beautiful confirmation in John’s vision.
Jesus says you can understand Revelation now. Read John 14,15,16. I agree 1 Corinthians is pretty simple when you leave it in context as I was explaining to Sonia.
The resurrection is being described in 1Cor 15:20-23. People are being resurrected in the order described in 1 Cor 15:23 to face judgment in Rev 20:11-15…1 Cor 15:22 states that all in Adam die and all in Christ are made alive. verse 23 states not All are Christ’s and then comes the end. End of what? Grace, this age and into eternity in Rev 21:4. 1Cor 15:24-28 is describing the NJ and NE in REV 21.
It’s highly unlikely that Paul had the Book of Revelation in mind when he wrote that…
But regardless, I don’t actually disagree with you on this. Everyone here is using this Book to determine doctrine. And I don’t think anyone was rejecting its canonicity. It is a difficult book. And as far as I have read, it has always been handled cautiously by the Church. I grew up with a wooden-literal hermeneutic and, like yourself, I still read Revelation literally. So we mainly differ in our literal interpretation. I believe the kings of the earth, having been humbled outside of the Kingdom, will eventually enter the Kingdom. That is a literal reading of the text. I believe it to be the only viable literal reading of the text. I think most people here would take that view. The basileis tēs gēs of Revelation 6:15 are clearly the same basileōn who were defeated in 19:18, and certainly seem to be the same basileis tēs gēs of 21:24. I don’t know of any event between 19: and 21: that would cause John to change whom he means. Likewise, the nations do not change throughout Revelation. Not once is it written in Revelation that the repentant believers are these “nations” (ethnos, people, gentiles). I also think it’s evident that there will be no nations genuinely repenting in the millennial age and maintaining that repentance until the New Kingdom. 20:8 implies that the army of S/satan, “Gog and Magog” is entirely universal in scope – it reads “the nations which are in the four corners of the earth … whose number is as the sand of the sea”. Though there are no literal four corners of the earth, I’m sure you understand the idea. If you asked anyone in antiquity what was meant by “the people on the four corners of the earth” I’m certain they would say this means everyone (excepting the saints of course, for they are already inside the camp and the beloved city; 20:9). There are simply no other nations left to walk into the Kingdom, but these.
Perhaps you will have to explain what you actually believe, because I am having difficulty understanding how else it could be read.
The greek word translated ‘order’ used here in the phrase ‘but each in his own order…’ is tagma or squadron so we have 3 squadrons:
Christ the firstfruits - not necessarily meaning Jesus as he didn’t need saving and it would be bizarre for him to be referred to as a squadron of just one. Christ just means annointed so this can be read as the annointed firstfruits so the first christians to come to fruitful maturity.
Then those that are Christ’s at his coming - The next squadron of carnal christians.
Then the end (squadron) - The unbelievers.
This can be seen as being prophesied in the 3 feasts that Israel were ordered to observe by God:
Passover - when the barley ripened (the overcomers - those christians who submit to the sanctification chastening in this life or first squadron) which was winnowed gently to remove the husks,
Pentecost - when the wheat ripened (ordinary christians who never get past justification and who will be tried with fire to burn away their wood, hay and stubble) which needed threshing (a more violent process) to release the kernal.
Tabernacles - when the grapes ripened (unbelievers) which need crushing in a winepress to release their goodness.
As others have pointed out, if the firstfruits were accepted at the feasts then the rest of the harvest was also acceptable that is the barley, the wheat, and the grapes for God’s great harvest feast.
‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, but each in his own squadron…’
ALL scripture including the book of Revelation was given by the inspiration of God himself and is profitable for doctrine. I agree, it is difficult book but not too difficult for the Holy Spirit. That is why we must apply the standard established in the word of God on how to understand the word of God through the Holy Spirit. After all, He is God and our teacher among other things.
what i mean is, you ask something…someone answers. that isn’t good enough for you, so you ask the same question again. and again. and again.
if you’re trying to prove a point, you don’t make any new statements, you restate older ones.
you don’t seem to realise that discussion is a two way street.
I wouldn’t be so redundant if you would show scripture support of anyone exiting the lake of fire and being found recorded in the book of life.(Requirements for UR to be true) Pretty simple stuff. Most flavors of UR claim this yet can’t support it with scripture. If you teach something as truth you must be able to support it with the word of God or its sinking sand built on man made tradition.
Yes, I totally agree with you on the inspiration of the Bible – although we must note that the canon of what constitutes “all scripture” was determined almost three hundred years after Paul’s reference (with the Book of Revelation being a point of contention then too), and therefore Paul was meaning the Hebrew scriptures and any other writing already recognized as inspired from that point of time). But that was not the point of my post. I suspect that you didn’t actually read it. So brother, I ask again, who are the post-millenial/pre-judgement saved nations and kings of the earth, when they are universally rebellious (see the universal meaning of “the four corners of the earth” in Ezekiel 7:2) and carefully distinguished from the saints (***hagios***40, those who are set apart – and commonly understood as the saved; and who are never called the “kings of the earth” or “the nations”) in 20:8-9.
You will all soon realise (as we have seen many times before) that Revival sets a narrow requirement for UR to be true (ignoring swathes of scriptural support and themes regarding God’s restorative justice etc…) and then responds to every reply, no matter how detailed, that because his narrow definition is not met (in his own mind only) that he has defeated UR once again.
People who put a lot of effort into debating (like Unitarian Aaron - for want of a better way of distinguishing) are wasting their time (and considerable debating skills - which is why, I suspect, Jason is avoiding these threads) because the only way Revival would agree to UR (although I suspect he would just ignore it and start another thread) is for you to show a verse in the Bible that says something like ‘And lo they that were cast into the lake of fire did rise having been purified and did have their names recorded in the book of life and were admitted to the New Jerusalem’.
So this is how it works with Revival…
For UR to be true there must be a verse or verses in the Bible that say people get out of the lake of fire and are added to the book of life.
I don’t know if you were a member RevDrew during Revival’s 2 other incarnations here (Born Again and Aaron37) but we saw the same tack then as well; establish a narrow definition in which UR could be true (normally involving x, y or z being explicitly stated in a verse or verses); ignore scriptural evidence from both Testaments that don’t actually say x, y or z and then declare UR defeated because no actual verses exist in the Bible that says x,y or z (as he would have known full well when starting the thread).
The great themes of the Bible are of no interest to him as evidence for or against a proposition. The irony of the tension between passages describing fierce retribution on the one hand and God’s will to have mercy and to restore sinners on the other is lost
Yes, I remember those days. I found it a bit boring and dropped out for a while. Some great contributions from you on the boards recently, Jeff. If you don’t mind me saying, you don’t seem very agnostic these days. Is the title ironic or are you looking for a new moniker??
I suppose I’m not agnostic about UR being taught in the Bible; I’m convinced it is. Now whether or not there’s a supreme being and it’s the God of the Bible (or any other) then less certain.
Interesting. That is pretty much where I am at too. I consider myself both a believer and agnostic, in that I choose to believe, but cannot honestly say I know for sure.
I kind of have my own version of pascal’s wager
I wager that there is a good and loving god
If I am right, then he loves me no matter if i get all the theology or his name right, so I am blessed. Win
If I am wrong and there is no god, at least I am soothing my existential anxiety and have the illusion of hope,and wont ever find out or care after I croak. Win
If I am wrong, and god is evil, like the god that threatens to burn people forever if they don’t obey him, well, he is not worthy of belief or worship anyways, so it would be right to not trust this god! not so much a win for me, but not a win for evil god either!