One or two exceptions

[stranger]

Hi,

Calvin said:

"One or two exceptions does not abrogate a general rule".

I recently read an example of such a rule: Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .

Lazarus was raised from the dead, and we presume that his body was not the resurrection body since it was wrapped in bandages so he would have eventually died a second time. If it is apppointed for men to die once why is Lazarus an exception? It appears that it was appointed for Lazarus to die twice. Enoch and Elijah are also exceptions - they appear to have evaded death. These examples do not abrogate the genenral rule of Hebrews 9:27.

What we have in Romans 3:23 for all have sinned. . . is such a general rule.

I also believe that God can save a person at any stage in their life from conception through to old age. So a person 'born again' can be born again from the 'womb' or at an instant before death in ripe old age. I think that John the Baptist was a person born again while still in Elizabeth's womb. He was filled with the Spirit from birth and born 'in Christ'. When such person is born and God has a special purpose for them do not suppose that Romans 3:23 applies automatically. From what Calvin said, and I agree with him, the exceptions do not violate a general rule.

It would be interesting to hear some comments on this!

 

[unred typo]

by stranger on Fri Nov 09, 2007:
Calvin said:

"One or two exceptions does not abrogate a general rule".

I recently read an example of such a rule: Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .

Lazarus was raised from the dead, and we presume that his body was not the resurrection body since it was wrapped in bandages so he would have eventually died a second time. If it is apppointed for men to die once why is Lazarus an exception? It appears that it was appointed for Lazarus to die twice. Enoch and Elijah are also exceptions - they appear to have evaded death. These examples do not abrogate the genenral rule of Hebrews 9:27.

What we have in Romans 3:23 for all have sinned. . . is such a general rule.

I also believe that God can save a person at any stage in their life from conception through to old age. So a person 'born again' can be born again from the 'womb' or at an instant before death in ripe old age. I think that John the Baptist was a person born again while still in Elizabeth's womb. He was filled with the Spirit from birth and born 'in Christ'. When such person is born and God has a special purpose for them do not suppose that Romans 3:23 applies automatically. From what Calvin said, and I agree with him, the exceptions do not violate a general rule.

It would be interesting to hear some comments on this!

If one or two exceptions doesn’t abrogate the rule, maybe we should consider that John the Baptist really was Elijah, brought back down in human flesh, just as Jesus was the word of God in human flesh. Or maybe even Moses, whose body was “contended over,†whatever that means. Maybe God does recycle. ;)

I would also like to suggest that being filled with the Spirit doesn’t equal being born of the Spirit. King Saul was filled with the spirit and even prophesied, but was also filled with a demon spirit at another time. Also, being separated from the womb to some special assignment doesn’t mean they are born again before they are born the first time.

I find it interesting that Calvin would say such a thing in any case, since he seems to take exceptions and make rules from them and then apply them to all mankind. (i.e. Jacob and Esau being chosen before birth before having done good or bad, equates to God choosing all men who are chosen before birth and by nothing they do). Vaaary interesting....and quite ironic.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Hi,

Calvin said:

"One or two exceptions does not abrogate a general rule".

I recently read an example of such a rule: Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .

Lazarus was raised from the dead, and we presume that his body was not the resurrection body since it was wrapped in bandages so he would have eventually died a second time. If it is apppointed for men to die once why is Lazarus an exception? It appears that it was appointed for Lazarus to die twice. Enoch and Elijah are also exceptions - they appear to have evaded death. These examples do not abrogate the genenral rule of Hebrews 9:27.

What we have in Romans 3:23 for all have sinned. . . is such a general rule.

I also believe that God can save a person at any stage in their life from conception through to old age. So a person 'born again' can be born again from the 'womb' or at an instant before death in ripe old age. I think that John the Baptist was a person born again while still in Elizabeth's womb. He was filled with the Spirit from birth and born 'in Christ'. When such person is born and God has a special purpose for them do not suppose that Romans 3:23 applies automatically. From what Calvin said, and I agree with him, the exceptions do not violate a general rule.

It would be interesting to hear some comments on this!

Sometimes we read things between the lines that are not there. Hebrews 9:27 is a perfect example of that. Here is how we tend to read this verse:
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .the end."
Having a testimony that includes being beaten into the presence of the Lord on more than one occasion, and being raised from the dead, is a mixed blessing. It is almost impossible to share anything with anybody simply because incredible testimonies seem to have no credibility.
Here is the way to put your references together so that they do not contradict, but affirm one another.
Hebrews 9:27
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .at that point one might be raised from death, or move on to the eternal destination."

The few times I have shared this, it begs several questions. First, why would someone come back? Does God force them to come back? Do they choose to return? In my case, I can remember the first time I encountered this question. It was me asking the Lord "Why would I want to go back there?" It was a terrible place that I had left, and there I was in a glorious place. The Lord began to tell me of my friend who would be mad at God if I had stayed there. The more I committed myself to reaching people for the Lord, the more He showed me.

Having said that; not everyone is given the same burdens, the same calling, or the same options. Another side note, it is possible for a non-christian to be raised from the dead as well. Knowing several people who have a testimony much like mine, (having been raised in the same place as I) I have heard many incredible testimonies. Some of those non-christians have/or will make decisions for Christ, some will not.

Some of what appears to be exceptions to rules, are based on conditions where not all of the conditions line up the same. But I do hope that reconciles what appears to be 'exceptions' in these verses.

 

[stranger]

unred typo wrote:

If one or two exceptions doesn’t abrogate the rule, maybe we should consider that John the Baptist really was Elijah, brought back down in human flesh, just as Jesus was the word of God in human flesh. Or maybe even Moses, whose body was “contended over,†whatever that means. Maybe God does recycle.

I assume the you are being sarcastic; Calvin simply made an observation which others could also make. If you look at the quote at face value and then respond to that. Moses and Elijah appeared at the transfiguration. Perhaps the contention for Moses body had something to do with the transfiguration over a thousand years later. John the Baptist was a prophet like Elijah that much is certain.

Would you care to comment on this:
Lazarus died twice.
Enoch and Elijah didn't.
It is appointed for man once to die. . .

I would also like to suggest that being filled with the Spirit doesn’t equal being born of the Spirit. King Saul was filled with the spirit and even prophesied, but was also filled with a demon spirit at another time. Also, being separated from the womb to some special assignment doesn’t mean they are born again before they are born the first time.

Being filled with the Spirit also does not mean that they are not born again regardless if they have a special assignment or not. So any other evidence in scripture is the way to go. It is a norm for believers to be filled with the Spirit and the exception for unbelievers used by God for a special purpose. In any event we are talking about John the Baptist and we know that when Elizabeth heard Mary's voice she was filled with the Spirit. We also know from Matthew 11:11 . . . Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist. . . so that is high praise coming as it does from Jesus Himself. So yes, I think it possible that John the Baptist could have been saved at birth (ie when he was 'born' he was 'born again')and didn't need to make a decision for Christ.

I find it interesting that Calvin would say such a thing in any case, since he seems to take exceptions and make rules from them and then apply them to all mankind. (i.e. Jacob and Esau being chosen before birth before having done good or bad, equates to God choosing all men who are chosen before birth and by nothing they do). Vaaary interesting....and quite ironic.

You need to read the context to see why Calvin 'makes the general rule' - but here Jacob and Esau are not my concern. Thanks for your input.

 

[stranger]

Gabbylittleangel wrote:

Sometimes we read things between the lines that are not there. Hebrews 9:27 is a perfect example of that. Here is how we tend to read this verse:
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .the end."
Having a testimony that includes being beaten into the presence of the Lord on more than one occasion, and being raised from the dead, is a mixed blessing. It is almost impossible to share anything with anybody simply because incredible testimonies seem to have no credibility.
Here is the way to put your references together so that they do not contradict, but affirm one another.
Hebrews 9:27
"And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment. . .at that point one might be raised from death, or move on to the eternal destination."

The few times I have shared this, it begs several questions. First, why would someone come back? Does God force them to come back? Do they choose to return? In my case, I can remember the first time I encountered this question. It was me asking the Lord "Why would I want to go back there?" It was a terrible place that I had left, and there I was in a glorious place. The Lord began to tell me of my friend who would be mad at God if I had stayed there. The more I committed myself to reaching people for the Lord, the more He showed me.

Having said that; not everyone is given the same burdens, the same calling, or the same options. Another side note, it is possible for a non-christian to be raised from the dead as well. Knowing several people who have a testimony much like mine, (having been raised in the same place as I) I have heard many incredible testimonies. Some of those non-christians have/or will make decisions for Christ, some will not.

Some of what appears to be exceptions to rules, are based on conditions where not all of the conditions line up the same. But I do hope that reconciles what appears to be 'exceptions' in these verses.

Hi Gabby,

Thanks for your response also. The conditions for Lazarus are certainly not common - but Lazarus was not the only one who has been raised from the dead. We have this testimony from scripture.

I have heard many attempts to reconcile scriptures such as Hebrews 9:27 as I am sure you have. I usually prefer to either live with the tension, wait or accept that the 'exceptions' do exist. We want to reason and be able to logically explain every portion of scripture - the results speaks for themselves. Reading between the lines is nowhere more apparent than in 'reconciling scriptures'. If you compare what different commentaries say about a particular text you will see incredible things in this regard.


Signs and wonders accompanied the preaching of the Gospel in the early church. Raising Lararus or someone from the dead was a sign and wonder, and brought God great glory since death was /is the last enemy to be defeated. I also think that it geared/prepared the generation that witnessed it for the resurrection.

Having a testimony that includes being beaten into the presence of the Lord on more than one occasion, and being raised from the dead, is a mixed blessing. It is almost impossible to share anything with anybody simply because incredible testimonies seem to have no credibility.

I have met a fellow who was already in a morgue with a tag on his toe, and 'woke' up but couldn't speak or move - I believed his testimony but then such testimonies have to be firsthand - here I offer it second hand.

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger:
I assume the you are being sarcastic; Calvin simply made an observation which others could also make. If you look at the quote at face value and then respond to that. Moses and Elijah appeared at the transfiguration. Perhaps the contention for Moses body had something to do with the transfiguration over a thousand years later. John the Baptist was a prophet like Elijah that much is certain.

I wasn’t being sarcastic. If you will allow exceptions to the above rule, why not assume that when Jesus said that Elias was already come in the person of John the Baptist:

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13Then the disciples understood that he spoke unto them of John the Baptist.

quote by stranger:
Being filled with the Spirit also does not mean that they are not born again regardless if they have a special assignment or not. So any other evidence in scripture is the way to go. It is a norm for believers to be filled with the Spirit and the exception for unbelievers used by God for a special purpose. In any event we are talking about John the Baptist and we know that when Elizabeth heard Mary's voice she was filled with the Spirit. We also know from Matthew 11:11 . . . Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist. . . so that is high praise coming as it does from Jesus Himself. So yes, I think it possible that John the Baptist could have been saved at birth (ie when he was 'born' he was 'born again')and didn't need to make a decision for Christ.

You make that distinction because you want to believe in salvation given by God without man’s efforts. While it is true that God will and does save whoever he wants, the rule is still that each man will be judged by their works to determine their eternal fate. Obviously, John’s faith and works were greater than any other man born, and he had not only made a decision to follow Christ, but to die for his testimony, when Jesus himself took note of him. I really don’t see John as an exception to the ‘rules’ of salvation, but an example to be followed.

quote by stranger:
Would you care to comment on this:
Lazarus died twice.
Enoch and Elijah didn't.
It is appointed for man once to die. . .

I agree there are exceptions to the general statement that it is appointed unto man once to die. Being appointed to die once, doesn’t mean that it is absolutely decreed that each and every man must die once and only once. Many will be alive and caught up to be with the Lord without dying even once. I don’t see that being ‘appointed once to die’ is a hard and fast rule, no more than man being generally given fourscore and ten years as a lifespan is.

 

[stranger]

unred typo wrote:

I wasn’t being sarcastic. If you will allow exceptions to the above rule, why not assume that when Jesus said that Elias was already come in the person of John the Baptist:

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13Then the disciples understood that he spoke unto them of John the Baptist.

Reasons why I think that John the Baptist isn't Elijah:
1. John the Baptist said he was not Elijah.
2. Matthew 17:13 is in the context of the transfiguration was a vision in which Elijah (and Moses) appeared so Elijah did come in a sense.
3. Elijah coming before Christ is a difficult thing to understand. We know John the Baptist's parents -could Elijah come from two mothers and two fathers separated by hundreds of years?
4. John's was like Elijah in spirit and power.

You make that distinction because you want to believe in salvation given by God without man’s efforts. While it is true that God will and does save whoever he wants, the rule is still that each man will be judged by their works to determine their eternal fate. Obviously, John’s faith and works were greater than any other man born, and he had not only made a decision to follow Christ, but to die for his testimony, when Jesus himself took note of him. I really don’t see John as an exception to the ‘rules’ of salvation, but an example to be followed.

I can honestly say, and call God to be my witness, that my wanting to believe in salvation without man's efforts -doesn't enter my thinking. I come from a Reformed but also an interdominational background. Yes, I still believe that predestination is scriptural - very much so but it has nothing to do with my wanting it so.

Yes the general rule is that each is judged by what they do, but there are exceptions. So don't live long enough to do anything ie babies who don't survive, severely handicapped etc I also repeat that: To be filled with the Holy Spirit is the norm for believers.

When did John the Baptist make a decision to follow Christ? John died because he told Herod the truth about his marriage and the wife did not like it. So she instigated his murder.

quote by stranger:
Would you care to comment on this:
Lazarus died twice.
Enoch and Elijah didn't.
It is appointed for man once to die. . .

I agree there are exceptions to the general statement that it is appointed unto man once to die. Being appointed to die once, doesn’t mean that it is absolutely decreed that each and every man must die once and only once. Many will be alive and caught up to be with the Lord without dying even once. I don’t see that being ‘appointed once to die’ is a hard and fast rule, no more than man being generally given fourscore and ten years as a lifespan is.

Ok.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Hi stranger,

I am still thinking that there is something about the way this verse is being read that makes it appear that there is an exception to the rule.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

It seems as if it is being read as
"And as it is appointed unto men to die only one time."
Looking at the context of the passage, I believe it to be more accurate to read it as one is judged after experiencing death once. God often raises people from the dead, even today. From the testimonies that I have heard, the experience can be very different, depending on if one is a Christian when it takes place, and on the relationship one has with the Lord.
Montel, the TV talk show host, claims that he was clinically dead, and experienced nothing. He now believes that there is no afterlife, and nothing happens. I cringed when I heard that, especially when he has so many occult oriented guests on his show.

Jessie Duplantis had an experience that he often speaks of and has written a book.
So did Rebecca Springer (she lived about a hundred years ago)
I have read Mrs. Springer's book, and I have heard Dr. Duplantis speak. The things that they tell about are much like my experience. What Montel speaks of is close to the experiences that my non-christian acquaintances speak about. One of them tells of seeing a light so bright that he could not stand it, and he had to turn away from it. Others speak of very 'new age' types of things.


Here is another thought to ponder.
When you become born again, you automatically die to self.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

If you were indeed crucified with Christ, you died with him. You, therefore have died once, and as one who is in Christ, you have been through the judgment. And if you have been through that judgment, you have been judged as righteous. You are justified.
Congratulations!

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger:
Yes the general rule is that each is judged by what they do, but there are exceptions. So don't live long enough to do anything ie babies who don't survive, severely handicapped etc I also repeat that: To be filled with the Holy Spirit is the norm for believers.

OK. Those would qualify as exceptions to the rule there, I agree. Unless you consider that their works would be that they didn’t hate anyone, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor lie, etc. and that they loved everyone they met.

quote by stranger:

Reasons why I think that John the Baptist isn't Elijah:
1. John the Baptist said he was not Elijah.
2. Matthew 17:13 is in the context of the transfiguration was a vision in which Elijah (and Moses) appeared so Elijah did come in a sense.
3. Elijah coming before Christ is a difficult thing to understand. We know John the Baptist's parents -could Elijah come from two mothers and two fathers separated by hundreds of years?
4. John's was like Elijah in spirit and power.

When did John the Baptist make a decision to follow Christ? John died because he told Herod the truth about his marriage and the wife did not like it. So she instigated his murder.

Technically you are right there. He didn’t follow Christ but preceded him with the message of repentance. I should have said he accepted Jesus as the Christ and preached holiness and repentance from sin, which did cause his death at the hands of Herod‘s ‘wife’.

I also agree that he said he wasn’t Elias. I hadn’t really thought about that. Giving it more thought, he was only the voice of Elias, not the person of Elias. Jesus was the word of God made flesh. We can’t really fathom what that means, but since we’re just talking ‘what if’s’, why wouldn’t it be just as possible to make Elias’ word flesh in the body of John?

Reading the account might help:

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

quote by stranger:

Unred said:“You make that distinction because you want to believe in salvation given by God without man’s efforts. While it is true that God will and does save whoever he wants, the rule is still that each man will be judged by their works to determine their eternal fate. Obviously, John’s faith and works were greater than any other man born, and he had not only made a decision to follow Christ, but to die for his testimony, when Jesus himself took note of him. I really don’t see John as an exception to the ‘rules’ of salvation, but an example to be followed.â€Â


I can honestly say, and call God to be my witness, that my wanting to believe in salvation without man's efforts -doesn't enter my thinking. I come from a Reformed but also an interdominational background. Yes, I still believe that predestination is scriptural - very much so but it has nothing to do with my wanting it so.

It doesn’t enter your thinking because it is just the desire of your heart. The doctrine appeals to the flesh in the same way that winning the lottery does. Those who succumb to the temptation to play, believe in the hope that they are the ‘one special one’ favored by luck or God or the gods, who will win the prize. The win-something-for-nothing syndrome has crept into the church. Just sign up for the free salvation.

As for the predestination thing being scriptural, the warped Calvinist concept has been so incorporated into our minds that we have to work to see the actual thing that was originally written and has morphed into the monster it is today. For most, the accepted way to look at it is the easy way and why look further when you are happy with that.

 

[stranger]

quote by stranger:
Yes the general rule is that each is judged by what they do, but there are exceptions. So don't live long enough to do anything ie babies who don't survive, severely handicapped etc I also repeat that: To be filled with the Holy Spirit is the norm for believers.

OK. Those would qualify as exceptions to the rule there, I agree. Unless you consider that their works would be that they didn’t hate anyone, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor lie, etc. and that they loved everyone they met.


[quote:1386e]quote by stranger:

Reasons why I think that John the Baptist isn't Elijah:
1. John the Baptist said he was not Elijah.
2. Matthew 17:13 is in the context of the transfiguration was a vision in which Elijah (and Moses) appeared so Elijah did come in a sense.
3. Elijah coming before Christ is a difficult thing to understand. We know John the Baptist's parents -could Elijah come from two mothers and two fathers separated by hundreds of years?
4. John's was like Elijah in spirit and power.

When did John the Baptist make a decision to follow Christ? John died because he told Herod the truth about his marriage and the wife did not like it. So she instigated his murder.

Technically you are right there. He didn’t follow Christ but preceded him with the message of repentance. I should have said he accepted Jesus as the Christ and preached holiness and repentance from sin, which did cause his death at the hands of Herod‘s ‘wife’.

I also agree that he said he wasn’t Elias. I hadn’t really thought about that. Giving it more thought, he was only the voice of Elias, not the person of Elias. Jesus was the word of God made flesh. We can’t really fathom what that means, but since we’re just talking ‘what if’s’, why wouldn’t it be just as possible to make Elias’ word flesh in the body of John?

Reading the account might help:

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

quote by stranger:

Unred said:“You make that distinction because you want to believe in salvation given by God without man’s efforts. While it is true that God will and does save whoever he wants, the rule is still that each man will be judged by their works to determine their eternal fate. Obviously, John’s faith and works were greater than any other man born, and he had not only made a decision to follow Christ, but to die for his testimony, when Jesus himself took note of him. I really don’t see John as an exception to the ‘rules’ of salvation, but an example to be followed.â€Â


I can honestly say, and call God to be my witness, that my wanting to believe in salvation without man's efforts -doesn't enter my thinking. I come from a Reformed but also an interdominational background. Yes, I still believe that predestination is scriptural - very much so but it has nothing to do with my wanting it so.

It doesn’t enter your thinking because it is just the desire of your heart. The doctrine appeals to the flesh in the same way that winning the lottery does. Those who succumb to the temptation to play, believe in the hope that they are the ‘one special one’ favored by luck or God or the gods, who will win the prize. The win-something-for-nothing syndrome has crept into the church. Just sign up for the free salvation.

As for the predestination thing being scriptural, the warped Calvinist concept has been so incorporated into our minds that we have to work to see the actual thing that was originally written and has morphed into the monster it is today. For most, the accepted way to look at it is the easy way and why look further when you are happy with that.[/quote:1386e]

Hi unred,

We are getting of track here but let me ask you this:
Would you agree that men are dead in their sins? If you agree: How can a dead man respond to the Gospel unless God enables him?

 

[unred typo]

quote by stranger:
We are getting of track here but let me ask you this:
Would you agree that men are dead in their sins? If you agree: How can a dead man respond to the Gospel unless God enables him?

I’ll answer that as soon as you tell me how a dead faith without works can save a man. (James 2:26 )

Or how can a man that is dead to sin live any longer therein. (Romans 6:2 )

Or how Paul was alive before the law but when the law came to him, he died and sin revived? ( Romans 7:9 )

I’ll give you a little hint. Dead in sin means that men are awaiting their death sentence to be carried out. They are dead men sitting on death row. It doesn’t mean they are incapable of responding to the gospel. They are like Peter, in prison, when the angel comes and opens the doors and says, get up and follow me. It’s a fact, all the men awaiting death have been given a pardon. They have been freed from the yoke of sin. All they have to do is confess it as sin and repent, choosing to live for Christ, following him in the way shown them, that Jesus taught, that the Holy Spirit leads us in, which is the way of life.

 

[Vic C.]

Oh bummer, we aren't talking about Elijah anymore? ;-)

Jesus never mentioned John was only the voice of Elijah. Jesus said Elijah had already come. Jesus is no a liar. Also, read Luke 1:11-17. (...And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,) That's more than just a voice. Read Luke 1:67-80 too.

Luke 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

The prophesy is what it is and poses no problems for a historicist or a preterist, but for the futurist, it is a problem, or should I say, they make it a problem. 8-)

 

[unred typo]

quote by by vic C.:
Oh bummer, we aren't talking about Elijah anymore?

Jesus never mentioned John was only the voice of Elijah. Jesus said Elijah had already come. Jesus is no a liar. Also, read Luke 1:11-17. (...And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,) That's more than just a voice. Read Luke 1:67-80 too.

Luke 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

The prophesy is what it is and poses no problems for a historicist or a preterist, but for the futurist, it is a problem, or should I say, they make it a problem.
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Good point. Jesus wasn’t just the words of God either. He was the express image of his person. When he spoke, it was the words of God. John spoke of repentance. I don’t know if it was Elijah, or Moses or who knows, but I just was saying that since there was a prediction that Elias would come back again, preceding Christ, and the disciples knew Jesus was referring to John when he said that the prophesy concerning Elias had been fulfilled, wouldn‘t the most logical choice be that John was Elias, born as a baby again from the seed of Elizabeth? I donno but it works for me.

That would still qualify as an exception to the rule of births and deaths, which never was a problem for me. I try not to make rules about what God can do and how I will allow him to do it, because he does pretty much whatever he sees fit, without consulting any of us. All attempts to confine him to anyone’s profile of acceptable god-like guidelines to proper procedures will no doubt fail.

 

[stranger]

Oh bummer, we aren't talking about Elijah anymore? ;-)

Jesus never mentioned John was only the voice of Elijah. Jesus said Elijah had already come. Jesus is no a liar. Also, read Luke 1:11-17. (...And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,) That's more than just a voice. Read Luke 1:67-80 too.

Luke 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

The prophesy is what it is and poses no problems for a historicist or a preterist, but for the futurist, it is a problem, or should I say, they make it a problem. 8-)

Hi Vic,

The best I can do is see similarities between Elijah and John the Baptist, and for that matter, Isaiah (see Isa 40:3 In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . ). I see this as a characteristic strand in prophesy shared by at least 3 prophets.

So are you saying that John the Baptist was Elijah?

 

[stranger]

unred typo wrote:

I’ll answer that as soon as you tell me how a dead faith without works can save a man. (James 2:26 )

Or how can a man that is dead to sin live any longer therein. (Romans 6:2 )

Or how Paul was alive before the law but when the law came to him, he died and sin revived? ( Romans 7:9)

1. I am not maintaining that dead faith is of use to anyone. James 2:26
2. How can a man dead to sin live any longer in it Romans 6:2)? Disobedience.
3. Pre road to Damascus, Paul was 'under the law' which is not to say that he was conscious of being under the law. When God began to open his eyes, the law that Paul had hoped would bring him life brought him death.

Now, can you answer my questions:
Would you agree that men are dead in their sins? If you agree: How can a dead man respond to the Gospel unless God enables him?

I’ll give you a little hint. Dead in sin means that men are awaiting their death sentence to be carried out. They are dead men sitting on death row. It doesn’t mean they are incapable of responding to the gospel. They are like Peter, in prison, when the angel comes and opens the doors and says, get up and follow me. It’s a fact, all the men awaiting death have been given a pardon. They have been freed from the yoke of sin. All they have to do is confess it as sin and repent, choosing to live for Christ, following him in the way shown them, that Jesus taught, that the Holy Spirit leads us in, which is the way of life.

What you are suggesting is a 'half way house' dead in sin. Dead in sin does mean that they are incapable of responding to the Gospel UNLESS God performs a PRIOR act of opening their ears, eyes and heart. After this intial work by God THEN the men in death row can respond.

Not like Peter, but similar to Charles Wesley's experience 'Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound in sin a natures night, Thine eye difused a quickening ray, I woke the dungeon flamed with light, mu chains fell off. . . Notice nothing happened or would happen to the prisoner until and unless God quickens FIRST.

The Gospel is preached to all men - but upon hearing the Gospel and rejecting it - 'some men are then worse off than they were before' while others are better off. I think we would agree here.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Vic,

The best I can do is see similarities between Elijah and John the Baptist, and for that matter, Isaiah (see Isa 40:3 In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . ). I see this as a characteristic strand in prophesy shared by at least 3 prophets.

So are you saying that John the Baptist was Elijah?

Hey there. No, it's not me saying it; Jesus said it and His disciples knew He was referring to John.

Mat 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

You mentioned Isiah 40:3; you forgot Malachi 3:1 ;-)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Both are in harmony with Matthew 3:2-3 and Luke 3:3-5. All signs and prophecies concerning the second coming of Elijah point to John. This knocks a lot of people's view on eschatology for a loop. 8-) I had to come to grips with this myself. It's there and it's clear and this, among other things, has caused me to adjust the way I think about End Times events.

 

[stranger]

Hi Vic,

The best I can do is see similarities between Elijah and John the Baptist, and for that matter, Isaiah (see Isa 40:3 In the desert prepare the way for the Lord . . ). I see this as a characteristic strand in prophesy shared by at least 3 prophets.

So are you saying that John the Baptist was Elijah?

Hey there. No, it's not me saying it; Jesus said it and His disciples knew He was referring to John.

Mat 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

You mentioned Isiah 40:3; you forgot Malachi 3:1 ;-)

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Both are in harmony with Matthew 3:2-3 and Luke 3:3-5. All signs and prophecies concerning the second coming of Elijah point to John. This knocks a lot of people's view on eschatology for a loop. 8-) I had to come to grips with this myself. It's there and it's clear and this, among other things, has caused me to adjust the way I think about End Times events.

Hi Vic,

There is something about eschatology here that is for sure. I haven't looked at this issue so what I offer are some initial comments. The text you quoted in bold says: Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. This comment refers to the understanding that the disciples had after the transfiguration vision. Jesus only spoke of Elijah and stopped at that and the inference made by the disciples was that John the Baptist was Elijah. Would you agree with this reconstruction up to this point?

Here is the main text against Elijah being John the Baptist.

When John the Baptist was asked: Are you Elijah? he (John the Baptist) said 'No'. (John 1:21) He also denied being the prophet ( not a prophet), and he denied being the Christ.

So we have a situation where the disciples who were with Jesus at the transfiguration understood that Jesus was talking about John the Baptist when Jesus was talking about Elijah AND John the Baptist denying that he was Elijah.

 

[Vic C.]

Hey stranger,

This might make a good topic for another thread, though I see it's now just the two of us discussing it. Anyways, your chronology is correct, but I feel there are some points in the Matthew 17:11-13 passage you didn't address. For instance, who are the "they" in verse 12? There were only thre disciples with Jesus and Peter clearly acknowledged the appearance of Moses and Elias. So the "they" weren't those three.

"They" could be the ones who eventually sought to "shut up John" by imprisioning him and causing his death. By referring to the transfiguation verses, we ignore more important scripture like Luke 1:11-17 and Luke 1:67-80 too.

As for John denying he was the prophet, the only logical conclusion I come up with is he may have been "ignorant" of the fact that he was in "the spirit and power of Elias". Just for information's sake, let me quote from Adam Clarke's commentaries:

Verse 11. [Elias-shall first come, and restore all things.] ... And as John announced the coming Christ, who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, i.e. to enlighten, change, and purify the heart, that the reform might be complete, both outward and inward, he may be said, in the strictest sense of the word, to have fulfilled the prophecy: and that he was the Elijah mentioned by Malachi, the words of Gabriel to the virgin Mary prove; Luke 1. 17. And he (John) shall go before him (Christ) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, and that his ministry was powerfully effectual for this purpose, we have already seen.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat17.htm

Well, it's been good to discuss this. I will let the thread return to it's topic. The last word is yours, ig you choose.

 

[stranger]

Hey stranger,

This might make a good topic for another thread, though I see it's now just the two of us discussing it. Anyways, your chronology is correct, but I feel there are some points in the Matthew 17:11-13 passage you didn't address. For instance, who are the "they" in verse 12? There were only thre disciples with Jesus and Peter clearly acknowledged the appearance of Moses and Elias. So the "they" weren't those three.

"They" could be the ones who eventually sought to "shut up John" by imprisioning him and causing his death. By referring to the transfiguation verses, we ignore more important scripture like Luke 1:11-17 and Luke 1:67-80 too.

As for John denying he was the prophet, the only logical conclusion I come up with is he may have been "ignorant" of the fact that he was in "the spirit and power of Elias". Just for information's sake, let me quote from Adam Clarke's commentaries:

Verse 11. [Elias-shall first come, and restore all things.] ... And as John announced the coming Christ, who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, i.e. to enlighten, change, and purify the heart, that the reform might be complete, both outward and inward, he may be said, in the strictest sense of the word, to have fulfilled the prophecy: and that he was the Elijah mentioned by Malachi, the words of Gabriel to the virgin Mary prove; Luke 1. 17. And he (John) shall go before him (Christ) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, and that his ministry was powerfully effectual for this purpose, we have already seen.

http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkemat17.htm

Well, it's been good to discuss this. I will let the thread return to it's topic. The last word is yours, ig you choose.

Hi Vic,

Elijah isn't of topic - this is what it is about. Here are some thoughts about the points you raised:
'They' probably refers to those who persecuted the prophets and in this this instance shed the prophets blood. That Herod was responsible for shedding the blood of John the Baptist but not directly blood of Jesus (since Jesus was a prophet, the implication stands since elsewhere scripture 'unites' those who shed the blood of the prophets under one source.

he may be said, in the strictest sense of the word, to have fulfilled the prophecy: and that he was the Elijah mentioned by Malachi, the words of Gabriel to the virgin Mary prove; Luke 1. 17.

I still find room in Clark's comment in that 'he was the Elijah mentioned by Malachi' for asking: Was he (John the Baptist) the same Elijah mentioned in the book of Kings? I think this is the critical question as I have no trouble agreeing with Clark otherwise. In other words I am looking to see how the prophecy in Malachi is fulfilled in John the Baptist which it most certainly was.

Luke 1:15-17

15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.
16 "And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God.
17 "It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Luke 1:76-80
76 "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS;
77 To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
By the forgiveness of their sins,
78 Because of the tender mercy of our God,
With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
79 TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
To guide our feet into the way of peace."
80 And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

I think both the above references in Luke add weight to what Clark has previously said.