Angels & Airwaves – The Adventure

Even secular music can have a good message.  It is just that their world view can’t really account for that message.  They have to borrow from the Christian world view.  I like this song.  Like the message.

Same Events & Can Not Be Future

Luke 21 5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6“As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” 16You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17All men will hate you because of me. 18But not a hair of your head will perish. 19By standing firm you will gain life. 20“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.  32“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Hebrews 9 1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. Hebrews 10 1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 30For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 37For in just a very little while, ”He who is coming will come and will not delay. 38But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.” 39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved

Covenant Eshatology – William Bell

Covenant Eschatology

Covenant eschatology also spelled Covenant focuses on the transition from the Old and the New Covenants, from a ministration of death to one of life. In contrast to futurism, it differs in that it holds all prophecy to be fulfilled. It ascribes the endtime or last things of the Bible to the consummation of the Old Covenant in connection with the event known as the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, versus a future destruction of the physical universe. The New Covenant being an endless eternal covenant (Hebrews 13:20), having no end.

---

The Framework of Covenant Eschatology

The Framework of Covenant or realized eschatology is the Old Testament. All prophecies which were to be fulfilled in the endtime are rooted in the Old Testament. This is true for each category we will discuss: The fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, the Holy Spirit, the imminent time statements, the first century generation, all serve as pieces of the framework to understand the resurrection and related themes.

Covenant eschatology implies that the last days can only apply to the Old Covenant for it was temporary. The New Covenant having no end, has no last days. It is a world without end.

Covenant Eschatology and the Resurrection.

Covenant eschatology has implications for the resurrection of the dead. The nature of the resurrection is determined by the covenant. The subject of resurrection begins in Genesis. God threatened Adam with the punishment of immediate death for eating of the forbidden fruit. “For in the day you eat, you shall surely die.” Covenant eschatology honors the nature and time of Adam’s death.

Adam died the day he ate which resulted in his separation from God. God defines spiritual death as a severed relationship between God and man. (Isaiah 59:1, 2).

Although Adam continued to live physically, his relationship with God was broken resulting in his being cast out of the garden of Eden, (Genesis 3). As is said of the widow who lived in pleasure, Adam was dead (spiritually) while he lived physically.

God did make it possible for Adam to commune with him through an atoning sacrifice providing a temporary covering for his sins. God made coats of animal skills to cover his and Eve’s nakedness, (3:21). The shedding of animal’s blood however, could never take away sins, (Hebrews 9:22).

Therefore, Adam’s hope lie in the coming Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29).

---

Paul wrote concerning the transgression of Adam resulted in condemnation. This means his stance before God was affected. Sin-death and resurrection is not about “substance,” but one’s “stance” before God. Are we condemned or justified is the question.

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of of the transgression of Adam, who is a type f Him was was to come.” (Romans 5:12-14) See “mello” on “about to come” for Romans 5:14.

---

Covenant eschatology demonstrates the resolution to the problem of sin-death introduced by Adam in the garden. This death fell upon all men, both Jew and Gentile alike. It continued through the Law of Moses, as it was but a shadow of the “about to come” good things in the New Covenant.

Hence the need to dismantle the Old Covenant due to its ineffectiveness against sin, (Hebrews 7:18, 19) that God might establish the New Covenant, (Hebrews 8:6-13), through the death of Christ, shedding his own blood (Matthew 26:28) and offering it up to the Father in the heavenly tabernacle, (Hebrews 9:24-27), to accomplish what could not be effected by the law, (Romans 8:1-4; Hebrews 10:1-4)

The law entered that the offense might abound, (Romans 5:19, 20) but it did not remedy the problem, hence it became a ministration of death that killed its subjects, (2 Corinthians 3:6, 7), through their own self-deception into believing they could live by perfectly obeying it, (Romans 7:10-12; 10:5).

All who served under it were confined to death through sin, (Romans 3:19, 20). The removal of that covenant is for Paul the “deliverance from the body of this death,” (Romans 7:24), the true goal of covenant eschatology, resulting in the New covenant or “body of life.” “For if there could have been a law which could have given life, verify righteousness would have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)

Covenant eschatology is the term used to illustrate the passing of the Old Covenant. It was a temporary arrangement until the time of reformation (Hebrews 9:8-11) and the fulfillment of the promise under Christ, (Galatians 3:23-26).

---

Complete covenant change is tied to the fulfillment of all things spoken and written by the prophets, (Acts 3:21) which events were fulfilled in the first century generation in connection with the fall of Jerusalem and overthrow of the Jewish temple signifying the end of the era of Moses, (Luke 21:20-22).

Now, in Christ, life is freely given to those who believe for he has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, (2 Timothy 1:9, 10).

Covenant eschatology therefore forms an important interpretive paradigm in understanding the endtime message of the prophets. It honors the time statements, the audience relevance of the first century generation and their expectation of nearness, and the eschatological role of the Holy Spirit in the end of that age. Click any of the links above for further studies on these elements of covenant eschatology and fulfilled bible prophecy.

Sovereign Grace Preterist – Rap Samples

My Friend “Kingneb” has some great / fun rap samples – take a listen.  Also – this is one of my favorite websites / ministries.  Take a look at some of their great articles.  For the advanced theologian.

http://www.thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=298&Itemid=153

John the Baptist’s Message

Elijah had to come again before the great day of the Lord.

Malachi 4:5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

Jesus said that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come.

Matthew 11:13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

John the Baptist’s message was this.

Matthew 3:1In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Which is the same event as this.

Luke 21:20″When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Which is the same event as this.

Matthew 25:31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

Therefore – it had to have already happened – The Great White Throne Judgment was the judgment at AD70 – the Kingdom is here.

My Father’s House – Video – Audio Adrenaline

I always liked this song.  It is kind of a Preterist message if you think about it.  The kingdom is here now.  Not future.

Reformed Gangstas

Funny video my friend Jason from www.thereignofchrist.com made.

Relativism (from www.carm.org)

Relativism is perhaps the easiest of all positions to refute.  When someone states that all truth is relative or that there are no absolute truths, then it is a simple matter of demonstrating the illogic of their position.  These short replies to their statements are just what you need.

Following are some statements made by those in relativism.  Find one that fits, copy and paste the reply into a window and see what they say.  

1. “All truth is relative”
   1. If all truth is relative, then the statement “All truth is relative” would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that “All truth is relative” is false.
2. “There are no absolute truths”
   1. The statement “There are no absolute truths” is an absolute statement, which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and “There are no absolute truths” is false.
   2. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you – including relativism.
3. “What is true for you is not true for me”
   1. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
   2. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
   3. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
   4. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
   5. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory and can’t be true.
   6. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn’t true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
   7. If you say that what is true for me is neither really true or false, then relativism isn’t true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
   8. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism is false.
   9. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
   10. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true – even if it is only for me.
   11. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
4. “No one can know anything for sure”
   1. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which is self defeating.
5. “That is your reality, not mine”
   1. Is my reality really real or not?   If it is, then my reality states that relativism is false.  If my reality is not true, then relativism isn’t true either since it states that my reality is true.
   2. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time — especially since reality is that which is true?
6. “We all perceive what we want”
   1. If we all perceive what we want, then how do you know that statement is true since I can want to perceive that your statement is false?
   2. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive? 
   3. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived? Simply desiring truth is no proof that you have it.
7. “You may not use logic to refute relativism”
   1. Why may I not use logic to refute relativism?  Do you have a logical reason for your statement?  If not, then you aren’t being logical. If you do, then you are using logic to refute logic and that can’t happen.
   2. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
   3. If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth, since you must assume relativism is absolutely true to be able to refute logic?
   4. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
8. “We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality”
   1. If our perceptions of reality are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
   2. Is truth self-contradictory?  If it were, then truth wouldn’t be true because it would be self-refuting.  If something is self-refuting, then it isn’t true.
   3. If that is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true?  How then could they be the same reality?
   4. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.  If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
   5. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true.  If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.  If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
9. “Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting”
   1. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic? Is this an arbitrary act?  If so, does it justify your position?  If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
   2. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

Matthew 24, 1 Thessalonians 4 & 5, Daniel 12

Borrowed from Don Preston’s site www.eschatology.org

A comparison between 1 Thessalonians 4-5, Daniel 12, and Matthew 24 is fascinating.

As we keep in mind that Jesus uses apocalyptic language in Matthew 24: 29-35 which all Partial Preterists say is past, we can’t expect the same language to be literal in 1 Thessalonians 4-5.

Those who believe the coming in Matthew refers to the spiritual events surrounding Jerusalem’s fall would insist that we not literalize the clouds, the angels or the trumpet blast. If they are not literal in Matthew why would they be in Thessalonians?  

These events had to occur before the generation passed away (Matthew 24:34) so no futurist view makes sense.

Matthew 24 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
 

1. Christ Himself Returns	Matt. 24:30	I Thess. 4:16
2. From Heaven	Matt. 24:30	I Thess. 4:16
3. With a Shout	Matt. 24:30 (in power)	I Thess. 4:16
4. Accompanied by Angels	Matt. 24:31	I Thess. 4:16
5. With Trumpet of God	Matt. 24:31	I Thess. 4:16
6. Believers Gathered	Matt. 24:31	I Thess. 4:17
7. In Clouds	Matt. 24:30	I Thess. 4:17
8. Time Unknown	Matt. 24:36	I Thess. 5:1-2
9. Will Come as a Thief	Matt. 24:43	I Thess. 5:2,4
10. Unbelievers Unaware of Impending Judgment	Matt. 24:37-39	I Thess. 5:3
11. Judgment Comes as Travail upon Expectant Mother	Matt. 24:8	I Thess. 5:3
12. Believers to Watch	Matt. 24:42	I Thess. 5:4
13. Warning Against Drunkenness	Matt. 24:49	I Thess. 5:7

 The chart below shows that Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 are the same events.

Daniel 12	Matthew 24
time of the end, v. 4	end of the age, v. 3
Great Tribulation, v. 1	Great Tribulation, v. 21
Abomination of Desolation, v. 11	Abomination of Desolation, v. 15
Resurrection, v. 2, 13	Gathering of elect within that generation, v. 31, 34

Logic: Free Will and Predestination

Excerpt from Jason Bradfield’s work at www.thereignofchrist.com

Acts 4:26-28 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’- 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Notice what this Scripture teaches:

1. People gathered together against Jesus. These are, no doubt, “choices”. Herod “chose” to do this. The kings of the earth “chose” to reject Christ.

2. This “choice” of opposing Christ was sinful.

3. God “predestined” them “to do” this.

In other words, people made a choice (a sinful one at that) that God predetermined they make.

Now, is there anything contradictory or “mysterious” going on here? Is there anything problematic being said here about the relationship between the choices of men and the choice of God? Well, it will all boil down to how you define “choice”…or in this case, “to do”. And now we are back full circle to the start of my post.

If “choice” means that you can initiate and determine to act “free” from God’s determination, THEN we have a problem! Then we have a contradiction. Because on the one hand we would have God determining people to do things (oppose Christ) with those same people doing things (opposing Christ) “free” from God’s determination. This would make no sense whatsoever.

However, is the definition of “choice” really that we “can initiate and determine to act “free” from God’s determination”? NO. Absolutely not! That is not what “choice” means. “Free-choice” and “choice” are not the same thing. And once we get it into our thick skulls that “free-will” is not synonymous with “choice” but is actually a philosophical add-on to the word choice by those who reject the Biblical teaching that God predetermines things, then the problem vanishes. Then we would have:

God determined people to do things (oppose Christ) and these people did those very things (opposed Christ). And there is absolutely nothing contradictory about that statement.

A. People make choices.

Does not contradict

B. God determines the choices people make.

A contradiction exists when something is attributed to a subject and not attributed to a subject at the same time and in the same sense.

An example of a contradiction would be:

A. My car is black

B. My car is not black.

That is a contradiction because my car cannot be both black and not-black at the same time and in the same sense. This is a contradiction because black is being attributed and NOT being attributed at the same time.

So, in the first (A) (B) example, what is being attributed to “people” and not attributed to “people” at the same time and in the same sense? There is nothing. Thus, there is no contradiction. It only becomes a contradiction when you redefine “choice” to mean “to determine a further action apart from God’s determination” because then the statement would read “God determines the apart-from-God-determined choices people make”. In other words, “God determined” is being attributed to “choices” at the same time that “God determined” is NOT attributed.

Our choices are either predetermined by God or they are not – can’t be both at the same time. Not if we insist on being reasonable people. Now, I know you take issue with logic but if you want to live in la-la land then go ahead.

Romans 9: 19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—