Derf
Well-known member
I think [MENTION=81]themuzicman[/MENTION] did a bang-up job illustrating the futility of a resurrectionless resurrection, and pointing out, as I had before, that Christ showed what the resurrection was like with His bodily resurrection. I'd add that besides the corruptible part being sinfulness, it is likely that we won't have aging effects either (where our bodies get more feeble as time goes on), though we might still have maturing effects.Derf,
I asked you:
So you think that the words of Paul when he speaks of "things which are not seen" are things which we can actually see with our eyes!
To this you answered:
With that in mind then you should be able to understand that the body worn by the Lord Jesus now in heaven is not a "physical" body, as you imagined. The Lord Jesus is now in heaven which is described as eternity (Isa.57:15). In our natural bodies we are not equipped to see things which are eternal in nature:
"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor.4:16-18).
In the very next verse Paul makes it plain that the heavenly body which we will put on is "eternal" in nature:
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor.5:1).
Since we will put on bodies like the Lord Jesus' glorious body we can know that His body now is a spiritual, heavenly body which is described as being "eternal."
Are you denying Christ's bodily resurrection? Seems to leave you in a precarious position.
There are many verses that speak of general commands or descriptions being applied to singular persons. The whole of the Mosaic law was given to "Israel"--Israel was God's chosen people--but each member of Israel was to keep the law. Both Jews and Gentiles are welcome at God's table--the chosen people is not exclusive to race now--but they all must believe.Since the first passage is in regard to "salvation" then we know that the passage which follows is also in regard to "salvation":
"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.1:2).
Therefore, when Peter talks about people being chosen or elected through the LORD's foreknowledge he is speaking about "individual" salvation. And we do not that salvation is in regard to "individuals":
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" (Ro.1:16).
Now back to my original argument.
As creatures we are constrained by time. We cannot even know if someone will be alive tomorrow, much less know who will believe and be saved sometime in the future. On the other hand, the LORD is not constrained by time because He knows who in the future will believe and be saved and who will not believe.
Therfore, the LORD exists outside of time.
And back to your original argument: So you would paint yourself as an Arminian, according to my original descriptions. And you don't seem to think that Open Theism "destroys" Arminianism, since you continue to ascribe to the idea that God "looks" at the future to determine who is elect.
But you haven't yet dealt with the idea that even if God is "outside of time" He still experiences "befores" and "afters", especially since there was a "before" time began (eg., No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. [1Co 2:7 NIV]). Dismissing such verses as untrue because man can't understand the concepts is not a very flattering way to view God and His ability to communicate.
Based on your denial of the concepts of "before time began", Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension, and indeed "foreknowledge", not to mention His becoming a man (Phil 2:8), I wonder which part of the bible you actually do believe?