Plan B?

[Messy]

But, my point is, the man did not reject the call. He responded, but didn't have the wedding garment. (Matt. 22:14)

Again, this is not about being part of the Bride. It is about being a guest at the wedding feast. What you present belongs to the Bride.

As far as 'Ian McCormack'...who is he?

Lees

He was dead for 45 mins or so and got saved just before he died. But God is not there and so Light is not there, so it sounds like he's right and it's dark.

If he responds but doesn't have a garment, that sounds to me like someone who hears the Word and receives it with joy but has no root, the other categories of the parable of the sower who had no fruit.
I still think it's the same, bride and guest, because why would you invite someone to not get saved, but come join the party to see you get married. That's not even possible.

 

[Lees]

That is just what calvinists call: he was never really saved. The dead church, the lukewarm church.
I don't see how the church can't be both. It's just a parable about a bridegroom and a bride, so I think that's why they're called guests. Paul says the church is the bride.
By the way it never made sense to me to say the invitation for the wedding was when Jesus was on earth, because they said the wedding is now and everything was ready? It would take another 2000 years. But then I was thinking: if they had all said yes that would be it. He would have married and stayed.

Oh really? Were you ever married? Did you make sure you got an invitation to be a guest at your wedding? Sure you did.

Well, by your understanding, or lack thereof, neither does it make any sense for John the Baptist, and his disciples, and Christ and His disciples to say the 'kingdom of heaven is at hand'. Because the Kingdom of Heaven has not yet come.

Of course...'if' is a small word with a powerful meaning. We can muse over 'if's' as we never know. God never muses over 'if's' as He always knows.

Lees

 

[Lees]

He was dead for 45 mins or so and got saved just before he died. But God is not there and so Light is not there, so it sounds like he's right and it's dark.

If he responds but doesn't have a garment, that sounds to me like someone who hears the Word and receives it with joy but has no root, the other categories of the parable of the sower who had no fruit.
I still think it's the same, bride and guest, because why would you invite someone to not get saved, but come join the party to see you get married. That's not even possible.

Well, you can trust Ian McCormick all you want. I will go by the Scripture.

If the bride and guests are the same to you, there is nothing I can say.

Lees

 

[Messy]

Oh really? Were you ever married? Did you make sure you got an invitation to be a guest at your wedding? Sure you did.

Well, by your understanding, or lack thereof, neither does it make any sense for John the Baptist, and his disciples, and Christ and His disciples to say the 'kingdom of heaven is at hand'. Because the Kingdom of Heaven has not yet come.

Of course...'if' is a small word with a powerful meaning. We can muse over 'if's' as we never know. God never muses over 'if's' as He always knows.

Lees

It was just a thought I had. That parable says: Come cause it's now ready. In a Jewish wedding the groom went to his father's house and then came back to pick up the bride and Paul said that salvation came to the gentiles, because they rejected Him. If they had all said yes maybe the gentiles could also have gotten saved, but then He would not wait 2000 years.

 

[Lees]

Israel was the Father's wife, but God is one. Jesus comes to earth. First Abraham etc. get raised from the dead. Then the rapture. Then the uncountable multitude. A married couple lives together. Jesus comes live here on earth. Abraham etc. will be on earth too. He's not part of the bride because they were already married to God? Hmmm. Interesting.

God is One but there is distinction between the Father and the Son.

There is distinction between the wife of the Father and the Bride of the Son.

Lees

 

[Messy]

Well, you can trust Ian McCormick all you want. I will go by the Scripture.

If the bride and guests are the same to you, there is nothing I can say.

Lees

Lol bye then. I will shut up. Just have your thread. I'll have a conversation with the cat.

 

[Lees]

It was just a thought I had. That parable says: Come cause it's now ready. In a Jewish wedding the groom went to his father's house and then came back to pick up the bride and Paul said that salvation came to the gentiles, because they rejected Him. If they had all said yes maybe the gentiles could also have gotten saved, but then He would not wait 2000 years.

Again, your working on 'if's'. If the Jews hadn't rejected Jesus then there wouldn't be any salvation. If Adam and Eve hadn't ate the fruit, there would be no need of salvation. If the frog had wings he wouldn't slap his butt every time he hopped.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Lol bye then. I will shut up. Just have your thread. I'll have a conversation with the cat.

My apologies.

My problem with (Matt. 22:11-14) is that I don't have an answer that I am satisfied with. There are certain things I believe are known and I then must try and find the answer with those in place.

For me, the most important 'known' is that the Church is not the guests in the wedding feast. The Church is the Bride.

The 'call' is not to be part of the Church, as that is already closed. The call is to be guests at the wedding feast.

This 'call' would be the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom during the Tribulation. (Matt. 24:14) "...for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The wedding feast takes place after the return of Christ, the Bridegroom. This would place it sometime at the beginning of Christ's Millennial Kingdom reign on earth.

I suppose it makes sense that the wedding garment is a right response to the 'call' resulting in salvation. But, this wedding feast is a real feast that will take place on earth. Does exclusion from it mean one goes to hell? It does if 'outer darkness' is defined as hell or the Lake of Fire.

In (Matt. 8:12) it says "the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Seems 'children of the kingdom' being cast into hell is a strange way to put it. And Christ said in (Matt. 8:10) that He had not seen so 'great a faith' in Israel. Not that there was 'no' faith. In other words, the Gentile Centurian showed a much greater faith then Jesus had witnessed in Israel.

In (Matt. 25:30), in the parable of the Talents, the unprofitable servant is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. If outer darkness is hell or the Lake of Fire, then the believer must know that his salvation depends on his works. And that doesn't agree with what we know of salvation.

I am leaning toward outer darkness not being hell or the Lake of Fire. Certainly not an enjoyable place. Concerning the parable of the wedding guest, it would be a place in the Millennial reign where the light was dim or removed. A place where an 'unprofitable servant' would be. But, as I said, of this I am not sure.

Lees

 

[Messy]

My apologies.

My problem with (Matt. 22:11-14) is that I don't have an answer that I am satisfied with. There are certain things I believe are known and I then must try and find the answer with those in place.

For me, the most important 'known' is that the Church is not the guests in the wedding feast. The Church is the Bride.

The 'call' is not to be part of the Church, as that is already closed. The call is to be guests at the wedding feast.

This 'call' would be the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom during the Tribulation. (Matt. 24:14) "...for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The wedding feast takes place after the return of Christ, the Bridegroom. This would place it sometime at the beginning of Christ's Millennial Kingdom reign on earth.

I suppose it makes sense that the wedding garment is a right response to the 'call' resulting in salvation. But, this wedding feast is a real feast that will take place on earth. Does exclusion from it mean one goes to hell? It does if 'outer darkness' is defined as hell or the Lake of Fire.

In (Matt. 8:12) it says "the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Seems 'children of the kingdom' being cast into hell is a strange way to put it. And Christ said in (Matt. 8:10) that He had not seen so 'great a faith' in Israel. Not that there was 'no' faith. In other words, the Gentile Centurian showed a much greater faith then Jesus had witnessed in Israel.

In (Matt. 25:30), in the parable of the Talents, the unprofitable servant is cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. If outer darkness is hell or the Lake of Fire, then the believer must know that his salvation depends on his works. And that doesn't agree with what we know of salvation.

I am leaning toward outer darkness not being hell or the Lake of Fire. Certainly not an enjoyable place. Concerning the parable of the wedding guest, it would be a place in the Millennial reign where the light was dim or removed. A place where an 'unprofitable servant' would be. But, as I said, of this I am not sure.

Lees

You mean the call is closed when the church is raptured? What about the uncountable multitude and the remnant of Israel? I thought everyone was just part of the bride. I may be wrong. Haven't found anyone online with good answers.

The sons of the kingdom I read as the pharisees, literal Israel, literal offspring from Abraham, but they sinned against the Spirit and would not ever be forgiven or Judas. And also an unprofitable servant is for instance Demas or one of those:

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[d] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

For instance this text:

9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.

Unforgiveness, if you refuse to forgive people as a christian you have deceived yourself and are not in the light. Now God is patient and He will try to let you convert and have people pray for you and you can come back, but some don't and they're like the bad soil, that believe for a while. I lived like that. I hated my ex. Was all of a sudden my new born spirit dead when I did that? I don't think so. Even that guy living with his dad's wife, who Paul gave over to satan, later got saved, but I was in danger and mislead and living in sin and I repented and invited Him in my heart again.

 

[Messy]

Jaap Fijnvandraat Leeuwarden | Bijbelstudie

Sons of kingdom cast out?

Matthew 8:12
Subject: Mt. 8:12

Question:
How can children/sons of kingdom be cast out? Don't they belong in the Kingdom?

Answer:
The Gospel of Matthew speaks of children or sons of the Kingdom in two ways. Here in Mt. 8:12 it concerns those to whom the Kingdom was promised.
They are the same as those in Mt. 22:3 are called 'the invited'. Both terms refer to the Jewish people to whom the Kingdom was promised.
With the exception of 'the elect' (see Rom. 11:7) those who rejected the Messiah will have no part in the Kingdom or 'be cast out'. That does not mean that they are admitted into it and then cast out, but that they have no part in it, even though they were promised. N.B. The Gentiles are said to be alien to the citizenship of Israel (Eph. 2: 11), but literally it says 'alienated', but that does not mean that they first possessed that citizenship and then became alienated from it .

In the parable of Mt. 13: 24-30 and 36-43 it is not about the contrast between the Jews, who do not want to listen, and the Gentiles, who do listen to the message, but about the contrast between true disciples and false disciples. There the children/sons of the Kingdom are the true disciples, whom the wheat represents, while the chaff refers to fake believers who are sons of the evil one.

 

[Lees]

You mean the call is closed when the church is raptured? What about the uncountable multitude and the remnant of Israel? I thought everyone was just part of the bride. I may be wrong. Haven't found anyone online with good answers.

The sons of the kingdom I read as the pharisees, literal Israel, literal offspring from Abraham, but they sinned against the Spirit and would not ever be forgiven or Judas. And also an unprofitable servant is for instance Demas or one of those:

1 John 2
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[d] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

For instance this text:

9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now.

Unforgiveness, if you refuse to forgive people as a christian you have deceived yourself and are not in the light. Now God is patient and He will try to let you convert and have people pray for you and you can come back, but some don't and they're like the bad soil, that believe for a while. I lived like that. I hated my ex. Was all of a sudden my new born spirit dead when I did that? I don't think so. Even that guy living with his dad's wife, who Paul gave over to satan, later got saved, but I was in danger and mislead and living in sin and I repented and invited Him in my heart again.

Yes, the call, resulting in one being a part of the Church is closed as the Church has been removed at the Rapture. The call during the 'church age' is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 16:31) (Matt. 16:13-16) Anyone answering that call from Pentecost to the Rapture are part of the Church. The Bride.

With the Church in Heaven with the Lord, God takes up again His work with Israel. Which I believe begins the Tribulation period on earth. Because this work is with Israel, there is still a 'call' but that call is the Gospel of the Kingdom. (Matt. 24:14) And response to this call will result in salvation also, but will not place any in the Church as the Church is complete.

True enough. The sons of the kingdom could be speaking of the Jews who reject Jesus Christ. Judas is certainly damned. But Demas, I don't know. (2 Tim. 4:10) He left Paul having loved the present world. I don't think that has to mean he rejected Jesus Christ. He might have just meant he wanted to get a job somewhere and provide for his family.

Concerning (1 John 2:9-11) I am inclined to believe it is talking about a Christian who is walking in darkness. It speaks to his 'darkness' in this life, but not eternal. Were he to die in that state, I still believe he is heaven bound. And I think a lot of Christians die in that state.

I agree. Just because you hated your ex and living in sin didn't mean you were then lost. Certainly wern't experiencing salvation in your walk here on this earth. And that is darkness, and is a miserable place for a Christian to be. Praise God He never leaves us. (1 John 3:9)

Lees

 

[Albion]

Israel was the Father's wife, but God is one. Jesus comes to earth. First Abraham etc. get raised from the dead. Then the rapture. Then the uncountable multitude. A married couple lives together. Jesus comes live here on earth. Abraham etc. will be on earth too. He's not part of the bride because they were already married to God? Hmmm. Interesting.

Why is it that "end times" chronology (which many Christians spend countless time and effort thinking about and attempting to get in the right order with the right timing, etc.) is so important? Amill, pre-trib, post-trib, yada yada yada...?

 

[Lees]

Jaap Fijnvandraat Leeuwarden | Bijbelstudie

Sons of kingdom cast out?

Matthew 8:12
Subject: Mt. 8:12

Question:
How can children/sons of kingdom be cast out? Don't they belong in the Kingdom?

Answer:
The Gospel of Matthew speaks of children or sons of the Kingdom in two ways. Here in Mt. 8:12 it concerns those to whom the Kingdom was promised.
They are the same as those in Mt. 22:3 are called 'the invited'. Both terms refer to the Jewish people to whom the Kingdom was promised.
With the exception of 'the elect' (see Rom. 11:7) those who rejected the Messiah will have no part in the Kingdom or 'be cast out'. That does not mean that they are admitted into it and then cast out, but that they have no part in it, even though they were promised. N.B. The Gentiles are said to be alien to the citizenship of Israel (Eph. 2: 11), but literally it says 'alienated', but that does not mean that they first possessed that citizenship and then became alienated from it .

In the parable of Mt. 13: 24-30 and 36-43 it is not about the contrast between the Jews, who do not want to listen, and the Gentiles, who do listen to the message, but about the contrast between true disciples and false disciples. There the children/sons of the Kingdom are the true disciples, whom the wheat represents, while the chaff refers to fake believers who are sons of the evil one.

Concerning the parable of (Matt. 13:24-30) (36-43), I agree that the children of the kingdom are the true children of God. (13:38) It does however explicitly state that the "good seed are the children of the Kingdom"

I see how reference can be made to any Jew being a 'son of the Kingdom' though he rejects Christ and the Kingdom. But though the Jews are invited in (Matt. 22:3, "them that were bidden", it doesn't call them 'sons of the Kingdom'. I understand how they can be, because to them were the promises given.

In other words, (Matt. 13:38) and (Matt. 8:12) are a question to me. Add (Matt. 13:42) concerning the tares in the Kingdom which for sure are not the people of God. "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Instead of being cast into outer darkness these unbelievers are cast into a fire. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is the same, but why wouldn't it have been called outer darkness?

Lees

 

[Messy]

Why is it that "end times" chronology (which many Christians spend countless time and effort thinking about and attempting to get in the right order with the right timing, etc.) is so important? Amill, pre-trib, post-trib, yada yada yada...?

It's not that important. As long as people are rapture ready it's fine. But if you know His will and hit His servants and go be drunk it's not fine. We're told to watch. If someone doesn't believe pretrib, that doesn't matter. A post tribber doing His will will be raptured and a pre or midtribber can hang all day on a rapture forum and hate everyone who disagrees and miss it.
I saw that Michael Brown believes posttrib, because he's Jewish and thinks it's selfish to leave unsaved Israel alone when the ac comes. So I looked at what texts he had for that and he's wrong, but for the rest he's good, so I believe he gets raptured and who cares. I'm not gonna try tell him he's wrong. But that's why I looked it up. They try to make you doubt it. I was just taught pretrib, read Hal Lindsey and noone preached about it, except for: that will happen some day and is not important, because Jesus doesnt come back for a handful believers and first we get revival, but I don't think that is true anymore and Jesus can come back very soon. Oh and when I backslid I all of a sudden saw a movie from a guy who had texts and blablabla Jesus came back in 2011. So I freaked out and then I was living together with an atheist and he was sleeping and I yelled to wake him up that we had to convert cause Jesus was coming now and you dont want to be left behind with the antichrist and have your head cut off. Guy got irritated that I woke him up and thought I was nuts. So God can use anything to get you back, even if it's not true, but the rapture is true and you always have to be ready and pray that you may escape all these things plus if I'm too lazy to pray it makes me pray. I don't want family and friends to be left behind. I wish the whole country would first get saved, but I'm afraid that happens during the trib with the uncountable multitude.

 

[Albion]

If the rapture occurs during our lifetimes, of course it matters. But while we should always be ready, generation after generation through the centuries believed they were living in the last days and pointed to political developments as evidence...only to have it not occur.

So I always wonder if these people spent all their time in anticipation (like some cults you had in mind) and probably neglected all the work--charity, spreading the Gospel, etc.) that they should have been tending to in their daily lives.

 

[Messy]

If the rapture occurs during our lifetimes, of course it matters. But while we should always be ready, generation after generation through the centuries believed they were living in the last days and pointed to political developments as evidence...only to have it not occur.

So I always wonder if these people spent all their time in anticipation (like some cults you had in mind) and probably neglected all the work--charity, spreading the Gospel, etc.) that they should have been tending to in their daily lives.

I don't know. I also read that it was in combination with a revival 100 years ago or so that they thought Jesus would now come back. And it was even in Paul's time. He had to warn them. But why I think it won't take long anymore is because of Israel, Messianic Jews and because He would revive them after 2 days says Hosea, so 2000 years.

 

[Albion]

But why I think it won't take long anymore is because of Israel, Messianic Jews and because He would revive them after 2 days says Hosea, so 2000 years.

That does seems to be the key item with everybody who believes it is immanent. But on the other hand, that development happened in 1947 or so, and that was almost 80 years ago.

 

[Messy]

That does seems to be the key item with everybody who believes it is immanent. But on the other hand, that development happened in 1947 or so, and that was almost 80 years ago.

Yes but the Hal Lindsey theory is that this generation will not pass means the generation that saw WWII and saw Israel become a country, so there's not much time left. My mom is 88. Years ago she dreamed that she got raptured in a white dress and my dad held it and got raptured too. He was always an atheist. He got saved last year.
And it's not only about Israel being a country. That is the beginning in Ezekiel 37, that He brings them there. It's also that way more Jews have gotten saved the last decades than all those centuries before. And the 3rd temple is ready to be built, but that was also the case 30 years ago. And digital money, there's no normal money anymore. It's not a chip in your hand, but I can't take the bus or train with cash anymore. Supermarkets are more and more ready for the chip.
By the way another reason it's important is that evangelicals believe either this or Kingdom Now. I added some people on Facebook who were going on the street to heal the sick and preach the Gospel. Great! One guy lives in the same city, goes to an evangelical church. Great! I need a church. He invited a false teacher. That church lets him lead. He believes Kingdom Now. That's the only alternative. The Kingdom is now. The church has replaced Israel. Jesus never will reign from Jerusalem. There is no plan for natural Israel. We have to reign, christians in the government and then Jesus can come back when we made everything fantastic for Him. It will only get better. There will be no antichrist. I also saw that some of them got scared from the Left behind movies and apathetic, so whoop lets believe this false teaching. I'll stick with the rapture.

 

[Lees]

Why is it that "end times" chronology (which many Christians spend countless time and effort thinking about and attempting to get in the right order with the right timing, etc.) is so important? Amill, pre-trib, post-trib, yada yada yada...?

If the rapture occurs during our lifetimes, of course it matters. But while we should always be ready, generation after generation through the centuries believed they were living in the last days and pointed to political developments as evidence...only to have it not occur.

So I always wonder if these people spent all their time in anticipation (like some cults you had in mind) and probably neglected all the work--charity, spreading the Gospel, etc.) that they should have been tending to in their daily lives.

It's called 'Bible Study'. Something God happens to approve of.

(Daniel 9:2) "In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."

(Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

I used to wonder why people mock the study of prophecy in Scripture. But not any more. It is because it does involve the study of a vast amount of Scripture. Much easier to remain ignorant and go about chairitable work.

But, I have also found that those who are ignorant of eschatology and end time events, are prone to err in many other doctrines in the Bible. The two seem to go hand in hand. Just an observation.

Lees

 

[Messy]

It's called 'Bible Study'. Something God happens to approve of.

(Daniel 9:2) "In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem."

(Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

I used to wonder why people mock the study of prophecy in Scripture. But not any more. It is because it does involve the study of a vast amount of Scripture. Much easier to remain ignorant and go about chairitable work.

But, I have also found that those who are ignorant of eschatology and end time events, are prone to err in many other doctrines in the Bible. The two seem to go hand in hand. Just an observation.

Lees

It wasn't mocked in our church, but it was always: oh that's gonna take one hundred years or more and is now not important. We'll preach about eschatology some other time, which was never. And in the other church they only showed that horrid movie to scare you half to death. I remember that he was called Jim, cause my ex was also called Jim and she was that lazy dumbo. Come to the Bible study! Neh I'm lazy. And the perfect holy Jim husband of her of course got raptured and she didn't. I saw that movie in the time that I thought I had as much worth as a lice, so satan had a fun time. So often when I didn't find my ex immediately I thought he had been raptured and I missed it.