Questions regarding Revelation 21:9 in light of Ezekiel 40 (responding to Ricardo Escobar).

This is a short response to Ricardo Escobar a Postmill Covenantalist who suggests that in Ezekiel chapter 40; Ezekiel the Prophet of God saw in a vision the Church as the New Jerusalem due to the fact that the Church is built on the foundation of the 12 apostles. I respond to Ricardo with the help of ChatGPT with a series of questions and I agree totally with it's interpretation and conclusion. I'm simply allowing ChatGPT correct Ricardo's persistent misinterpretation and understanding as a rebuke to his faulty teaching regarding this subject; with love and respect of course.

------------------------

(1) Is the "new" Jerusalem spoken of in Ezekiel?

The "New Jerusalem" specifically mentioned in the Bible is primarily found in the Book of Revelation, particularly in Revelation 21-22, where it describes a vision of a heavenly city descending from God, symbolizing the ultimate fulfillment of God's promise of restoration and renewal.

However, the Book of Ezekiel also contains a vision of a future, restored Jerusalem. In Ezekiel 40-48, the prophet describes a new temple, the division of the land among the tribes of Israel, and a restored city. While this vision is more focused on the physical and spiritual restoration of Israel rather than the "New Jerusalem" of Revelation, it does share themes of renewal, restoration, and the presence of God dwelling with His people.

In summary, while Ezekiel does not specifically refer to the "New Jerusalem" as it is depicted in Revelation, his vision of a restored Jerusalem shares some thematic similarities.

----------------------

(2) Does Ezekiel chapter 48 reference the Church at any point?

Ezekiel 48 primarily focuses on the division of the land among the tribes of Israel and the layout of the city, including the temple and the surrounding areas. The chapter is a detailed description of the inheritance of the twelve tribes of Israel in the future restored land. It also outlines the dimensions and gates of the city, which are named after the twelve tribes of Israel.

The chapter does not explicitly reference the Church. Ezekiel's vision is focused on Israel and its future restoration, which is consistent with the overall theme of the book of Ezekiel. The Church, as it is understood in the New Testament, is not directly addressed in Ezekiel 48.

However, some Christian theologians interpret passages in Ezekiel, including chapter 48, in a typological or allegorical sense, seeing the restoration of Israel as a foreshadowing of the Church. But this is an interpretative approach rather than a direct reference within the text itself.

In summary, Ezekiel 48 does not explicitly reference the Church; it primarily concerns the future restoration of Israel. Interpretations that connect it to the Church are more theological or allegorical rather than based on a straightforward reading of the text.

-----------------------

(3) Isn't the "bride" referenced in Revelation 21:9 a literally city with walls and how can this literal city represent as the Church?

In Revelation 21:9, the "bride" is indeed described in a way that portrays both a person and a city. The verse says:

*“One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’”* (NIV)

In the following verses, particularly in Revelation 21:10-27, the angel shows John a vision of the New Jerusalem, a city with walls, gates, and foundations. This city is described in great detail, with its measurements, materials, and glory, emphasizing its divine perfection and the presence of God.

The description of the "bride" as a city is symbolic. In biblical symbolism, cities often represent groups of people or communities rather than just physical structures. The New Jerusalem symbolizes the collective people of God, the Church, who are redeemed and made pure by Christ. The imagery of a bride is used throughout Scripture to describe the relationship between Christ and His people, emphasizing love, commitment, and union.

Here’s how this symbolic city can represent the Church:

1. **Symbol of Purity and Holiness**: Just as a bride is traditionally adorned and prepared for her husband, the Church is being made pure and holy through Christ. The New Jerusalem is described as coming down from heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Revelation 21:2). This emphasizes the Church’s sanctification.

2. **Community of Believers**: The city represents the community of all believers, the Church, which is united with Christ. The walls, gates, and foundations symbolize the security, access, and foundation of the Church in Christ.

3. **Dwelling Place of God**: The New Jerusalem is where God dwells with His people. Similarly, the Church is described as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, where God is present among His people.

4. **Eternal Union**: The marriage imagery signifies the eternal union between Christ and His Church. The city being the "wife of the Lamb" emphasizes this everlasting relationship.

Thus, while the New Jerusalem is described as a literal city with walls and other features, it is also a profound metaphor for the Church—the people of God—depicting their beauty, unity, and eternal relationship with Christ.

-------------------------

(4) Doesn't the scriptures portray God as married to Jerusalem?

Yes, the Scriptures do portray God as being "married" to Jerusalem, or more specifically, to His people, Israel, often symbolized by the city of Jerusalem. This metaphor is used to express the covenant relationship between God and Israel, where God is depicted as a husband and Israel (or Jerusalem) as His wife.

Here are some key examples:

1. **Isaiah 54:5-6**: 

   - *"For your Maker is your husband—the Lord Almighty is his name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth. The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God."*

   - In this passage, God is portrayed as the husband of Israel, promising to restore and take back His "wife" after a period of abandonment due to her unfaithfulness.

2. **Jeremiah 3:14**:

   - *"Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion."*

   - Here, God appeals to His people to return to Him, reaffirming His role as their husband, despite their unfaithfulness.

3. **Ezekiel 16**: 

   - In Ezekiel 16, God speaks of how He took Jerusalem (representing Israel) as His bride, but she was unfaithful, engaging in idolatry and other sins. This chapter uses strong language to describe Israel's unfaithfulness and God's judgment but also His enduring love and willingness to restore.

4. **Hosea**: 

   - The entire book of Hosea uses the metaphor of marriage to illustrate God’s relationship with Israel. God commands the prophet Hosea to marry an unfaithful woman to symbolize Israel’s unfaithfulness to God through idolatry, and yet God’s willingness to take her back.

These passages depict the deep, covenantal relationship between God and His people, with Jerusalem often representing the heart of Israel. This marriage metaphor is used to highlight both the intimacy and the seriousness of the relationship, emphasizing God’s faithfulness in contrast to Israel's unfaithfulness.

When it comes to Revelation 21, the imagery shifts slightly to depict the New Jerusalem as the "bride," representing the purified and redeemed people of God in the New Covenant through Christ. This is seen as the fulfillment of God's covenant relationship, now extended to include all believers in Christ (the Church), not just Israel. This continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant is why the marriage metaphor is retained, but it now encompasses the universal Church as the bride of Christ.

--------------------------

(5) Although, in Revelation 21 the imagery shifts slightly to depict the New Jerusalem as the "bride," representing the purified and redeemed people of God in the New Covenant through Christ; Revelation 21 is not saying that Israel as in the 12 tribes will not also make up this Heavenly Jerusalem as well correct and can you cite scripture to prove this fact?

You are correct. Revelation 21 does not exclude Israel, represented by the 12 tribes, from the New Jerusalem. In fact, the imagery used in Revelation 21 explicitly includes the 12 tribes of Israel as part of the Heavenly Jerusalem, symbolizing that the redeemed people of God include both Israel and the Church.

Here are key verses that demonstrate this:

1. **Revelation 21:12**:

   - *"It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel."*

   - This verse clearly states that the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are inscribed on the gates of the New Jerusalem. This indicates that the tribes of Israel are integral to the structure and identity of the city, symbolizing their inclusion in the redeemed people of God.

2. **Revelation 21:14**:

   - *"The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."*

   - The foundations of the city are inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles, who represent the Church. This, alongside the gates inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes, shows the unity of Israel and the Church in the New Jerusalem. Both the Old Covenant people of God (Israel) and the New Covenant people of God (the Church) are represented in this heavenly city.

3. **Ephesians 2:14-16**:

   - *"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death theme hostility."*

   - Although this passage is not in Revelation, it helps explain the theological foundation for the unity of Israel and the Church in the New Jerusalem. Through Christ, the barrier between Jews and Gentiles is broken down, and they are made into one people. This unity is symbolized in the New Jerusalem, where both Israel (the 12 tribes) and the Church (the 12 apostles) are foundational to the city.

4. **Romans 11:25-26**:

   - *"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.'"*

   - Paul emphasizes that Israel still has a place in God's redemptive plan. The mention of “all Israel will be saved” suggests that Israel, along with the Gentiles, will share in the final redemption, which is symbolized in the New Jerusalem.

In summary, Revelation 21 includes the 12 tribes of Israel as part of the Heavenly Jerusalem, demonstrating that the redeemed community in the New Covenant includes both Israel and the Church. This unity is portrayed in the city’s structure, with Israel represented by the gates and the Church by the foundations, reflecting the fulfillment of God's promises to both groups.

------------------------

(6) Can you explain Isaiah 62:5?

For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you. - Isaiah 62:5?

Isaiah 62:5 is part of a prophecy in the Book of Isaiah, where God speaks through the prophet Isaiah to describe the future restoration and glory of Jerusalem (often symbolized as Zion). The verse reads:

*"For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you."* (ESV)

### Explanation:

1. **Marriage Metaphor**: The verse uses the metaphor of marriage to express the deep and intimate relationship between God and His people. Just as a young man marries a young woman with love and commitment, so will the people of Israel (symbolized as sons) be deeply connected and committed to their land, Jerusalem (symbolized as the bride).

2. **Rejoicing**: The second part of the verse emphasizes the joy and delight that God has in His relationship with His people. Just as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride with happiness and love, God will rejoice over His people when they are restored and faithful.

3. **Restoration and Renewal**: In the context of Isaiah 62, this verse is part of a larger message of hope and restoration. God promises that Jerusalem will no longer be desolate or forsaken, but will be renewed, honored, and cherished like a bride. This is a promise of redemption and the fulfillment of God's covenant with Israel.

Overall, Isaiah 62:5 conveys a message of God's unwavering love, commitment, and joy in His relationship with His people, promising a future where they will be restored and blessed.

------------------------

(7) Why in scripture doesn't the New Jerusalem come down from Heaven prepared as a bride for Israel?

The New Jerusalem is described as coming down from Heaven "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband" in Revelation 21:2, and this imagery specifically connects the city with the Church, often referred to as the "bride of Christ." There are a few theological and biblical reasons why this imagery is used for the Church rather than directly for Israel:

1. **Fulfillment of the New Covenant:** The New Testament reveals that the Church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, is the fulfillment of the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ezekiel 36:26-27). This covenant is brought to fruition through Jesus Christ, who is the bridegroom, with the Church as His bride (Ephesians 5:25-27). The imagery of the New Jerusalem as a bride underscores the fulfillment of this covenant relationship in the eschatological future.

2. **Unity of Believers in Christ:** The New Testament teaches that in Christ, there is a breaking down of the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles, creating "one new man" (Ephesians 2:14-16). The Church, therefore, represents a unified body of believers, transcending ethnic and cultural boundaries. The New Jerusalem descending as a bride for Christ symbolizes this unity and the inclusion of all believers, both Jewish and Gentile, in God's eternal kingdom.

3. **Israel as a Distinct Yet Integral Part of God’s Plan:** While the New Testament often refers to Israel in covenantal and prophetic terms, the Church is specifically described as the "bride of Christ." Israel is also depicted as having a special relationship with God, often portrayed as His chosen people or even His wife (e.g., Hosea 2:19-20, Isaiah 54:5). However, in the eschatological vision of Revelation, the focus is on the fulfillment of God's plan through Christ, who unites all believers under one covenant. The New Jerusalem, as the bride, represents this ultimate fulfillment and unity.

4. **Continuation of Old Testament Themes:** The Old Testament prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, spoke of a future glorious city of God where His people would dwell (e.g., Isaiah 60, Ezekiel 40-48). In Revelation, this prophetic vision is expanded to include the Church, reflecting the broader fulfillment of God's promises not just to Israel, but to all who are in Christ. The imagery of the bride signifies this broader and complete fulfillment.

5. **Christ as the Bridegroom:** The New Testament presents Christ as the bridegroom who comes for His bride, the Church (Matthew 25:1-13, John 3:29, Revelation 19:7). The descent of the New Jerusalem as a bride prepared for Christ underscores the culmination of this relationship, where the Church is presented in her perfected, glorified state.

In summary, the New Jerusalem is depicted as a bride for the Church because the Church, through Christ, represents the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan, uniting both Jews and Gentiles. While Israel holds a significant and ongoing role in God's plan, the imagery of the New Jerusalem as a bride for the Church highlights the eschatological fulfillment of God's promises to all His people through the work of Christ.

-----------------------

(8) Isn't it true that the New Jerusalem doesn't come down from Heaven specifically for any other group of believers rather than the Church to reveal that the Church has also been included as God's beloved people alongside Israel?

Yes, that's a valid interpretation. The New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven in Revelation 21 emphasizes the inclusion of the Church as part of God's beloved people, alongside Israel.

In Revelation 21:2, the New Jerusalem is described as "coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." This imagery suggests that the New Jerusalem is prepared for a specific group of believers—the Church, which is often referred to as the "bride of Christ" in the New Testament.

However, the New Jerusalem also encompasses the fullness of God's people, including both the Church and Israel. The city is depicted with features that honor both groups:

- **Israel:** The city has twelve gates, each named after one of the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:12). This indicates the continuing significance of Israel in God's plan.

  - **The Church:** The city’s foundations bear the names of the twelve apostles (Revelation 21:14), representing the Church, which was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20).

The descent of the New Jerusalem from Heaven thus symbolizes the fulfillment of God's promises to both Israel and the Church. It reveals the unity and inclusion of all of God's people in the eschatological kingdom. The Church's inclusion alongside Israel as God’s beloved people is a key theme here, demonstrating the completion of God's redemptive work and the unity of all believers in Christ.

In essence, while the New Jerusalem does descend for the Church, it also signifies the culmination of God’s promises to all His people—both Israel and the Church—who are brought together in this new, eternal dwelling place.

----------------------

9) Even though the "bride" is depicted as a literally city with walls in Revelation 21; however, isn't the term "bride" in verse 9 used symbolically as to represent a particular people; the Church who will also make up the New Jerusalem alongside Israel?

Yes, the term "bride" in Revelation 21:9 is used symbolically to represent the people of God, which includes both the Church and Israel. In Revelation 21, the "bride" is described as the "New Jerusalem," and this imagery is rich with symbolic meaning.

- **Bride as the Church:** The New Testament often refers to the Church as the "bride of Christ" (e.g., Ephesians 5:25-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2). This metaphor emphasizes the close, covenantal relationship between Christ and His people, marked by love, faithfulness, and unity.

- **New Jerusalem as the People of God:** In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem is described as a city with walls, gates, and foundations, symbolizing the entirety of God's people in their glorified, eternal state. The city's walls are inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, and its foundations with the names of the twelve apostles (Revelation 21:12-14). This signifies the inclusion of both Israel and the Church in the New Jerusalem.

- **Bride Symbolism:** The bride metaphor, therefore, represents the collective people of God who are united with Christ in the New Jerusalem. The imagery of a city, with its walls and gates, symbolizes the security, purity, and unity of God's people in their eternal dwelling place.

In summary, the "bride" in Revelation 21:9 symbolizes the people of God—both the Church and Israel—who will make up the New Jerusalem in the eschatological fulfillment of God's plan.

-----------------------

(10) Isn't it true that the New Jerusalem which comes down from out of heaven was initially reserved for Israel in spite of the Church?

Yes, it's true that the New Jerusalem, as depicted in the Old Testament, was initially envisioned as a promise specifically for Israel. The Old Testament prophets, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel, envisioned a future, glorified Jerusalem where Israel would dwell with God forever. This vision was deeply rooted in God's covenant promises to Israel, including the restoration of Jerusalem as a holy city and the center of God's presence.

### **Old Testament Perspective:**

1. **Covenantal Promises to Israel:** The Old Testament is replete with promises made to Israel about their future restoration, prosperity, and the centrality of Jerusalem. These promises were grounded in the covenants God made with Abraham, Moses, and David, and they envisioned a time when Israel would be restored to its former glory, with Jerusalem as its eternal capital (Isaiah 60, Ezekiel 40-48, Zechariah 14).

2. **Jerusalem as the Dwelling Place of God:** In the Old Testament, Jerusalem is often depicted as the dwelling place of God, where He would establish His presence among His people (e.g., Psalm 132:13-14, Isaiah 2:2-4). This city was envisioned as the focal point of God’s relationship with Israel, where the nations would come to worship the God of Israel.

### **New Testament Fulfillment and Expansion:**

In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Revelation, the vision of the New Jerusalem is expanded to include not only Israel but also the Church, comprising both Jews and Gentiles:

1. **Inclusion of the Church:** The New Testament reveals the mystery that Gentiles are fellow heirs with Israel, members of the same body, and partakers in the promises in Christ (Ephesians 3:6). Through Christ’s redemptive work, the scope of God’s promises expands beyond Israel to include the Church, which is composed of all who believe in Christ, regardless of ethnic background.

2. **The New Jerusalem as the Bride of Christ:** In Revelation 21, the New Jerusalem is described as the bride of Christ, a symbol traditionally associated with the Church (Revelation 21:2, 9-10). This depiction suggests that the New Jerusalem represents the final, eschatological fulfillment of God’s promises to both Israel and the Church. The city is adorned with elements that honor both Israel (the twelve gates inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes) and the Church (the twelve foundations inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles).

3. **Unity of God’s People:** The New Jerusalem represents the unity of all of God’s people in the eschatological future. While the city was initially reserved for Israel, in the fullness of God’s redemptive plan, it becomes the eternal dwelling place for both Israel and the Church. This reflects the unity of believers in Christ and the fulfillment of God’s promises to all His people.

### **Conclusion:**

The New Jerusalem, as initially envisioned in the Old Testament, was indeed reserved for Israel. However, the New Testament reveals that this city, which comes down out of Heaven, is ultimately for all of God’s people, including the Church. This expansion of the vision reflects the inclusiveness of God’s redemptive plan, where the promises made to Israel are fulfilled in a broader context that includes both Jews and Gentiles in Christ.

-----------------------

(11) Doesn't Isaiah 60 and Ezekiel 40-48 speak of Jerusalem, the City of God reserved for Israel  as their everlasting dwelling place?

Yes, Isaiah 60 and Ezekiel 40-48 do indeed speak of Jerusalem as the City of God and describe it as a future, glorious, and everlasting dwelling place specifically for Israel. These passages are part of the prophetic literature in the Old Testament, and they highlight God's promises to Israel regarding their future restoration and the establishment of a holy city where they will dwell with God forever.

### **Isaiah 60:**

Isaiah 60 presents a vision of a glorified Jerusalem, often interpreted as a depiction of the Messianic age or the future restoration of Israel. Key points include:

- **Glory of Jerusalem:** The chapter describes how Jerusalem will rise and shine because the glory of the Lord will shine upon it (Isaiah 60:1-2). The city is envisioned as a center of light, peace, and prosperity, attracting the nations to its radiance.

- **Gathering of Israel:** The prophecy speaks of the gathering of the dispersed Israelites back to Jerusalem, where they will enjoy God's blessings and abundance (Isaiah 60:4-9).

- **Eternal Inheritance:** The passage also emphasizes the eternal nature of this restoration, where Jerusalem will be a place of everlasting light and joy, with God Himself as the everlasting light and the city’s glory (Isaiah 60:19-22).

### **Ezekiel 40-48:**

Ezekiel 40-48 contains a detailed vision of a restored temple and a renewed land, often interpreted as a depiction of the future, ideal state of Israel. Key elements include:

- **The New Temple:** Ezekiel describes a new temple with precise measurements, representing the restoration of true worship and God's presence among His people (Ezekiel 40-42).

- **Division of the Land:** Ezekiel 47-48 outlines the division of the land among the twelve tribes of Israel, symbolizing the full restoration of Israel's inheritance in the Promised Land.

- **The City of God:** In Ezekiel 48, the city is described as "the LORD is there" (Yahweh Shammah), emphasizing God's permanent dwelling among His people in this restored city.

### **Relationship to New Testament Revelation:**

While Isaiah 60 and Ezekiel 40-48 focus on the future glory of Jerusalem as the everlasting dwelling place for Israel, the New Testament, particularly in Revelation, expands on this theme. Revelation 21 and 22 describe the New Jerusalem, which is not only the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel but also includes the Church, symbolizing the unity of all God's people—Jews and Gentiles—under the New Covenant.

The New Testament often reinterprets Old Testament prophecies in light of the coming of Christ and the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. Therefore, while Isaiah and Ezekiel highlight Israel’s restoration, Revelation shows the ultimate fulfillment of these prophecies in a broader, more inclusive context.

### **Conclusion:**

Isaiah 60 and Ezekiel 40-48 do indeed focus on the future Jerusalem as the everlasting dwelling place for Israel. However, in the New Testament, this vision is expanded to encompass all of God's people, both Israel and the Church, in the New Jerusalem. This reflects the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel while also highlighting the broader scope of God's redemptive plan through Christ.

---------------------------

(12) Doesn't Revelation 21:25-26 imply that there will remain a distinction between the Gentiles and Israel in the Eternal state considering that the nations will bring their glory into the city of the New Jerusalem?

Revelation 21:25-26 says:

> "Its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations."

This passage is part of the broader vision of the New Jerusalem, which represents the culmination of God's redemptive plan. The mention of the nations bringing their glory into the city suggests that there will still be some form of diversity or distinction among peoples in the eternal state.

However, interpreting this passage in terms of the relationship between Gentiles and Israel can be complex. Some key points to consider:

1. **Unity in Diversity**: While the nations are mentioned, the overall context of Revelation emphasizes the unity of all believers in Christ. Earlier in Revelation, particularly in chapters 5 and 7, we see people from every tribe, tongue, and nation worshiping together before the throne of God. This suggests that while distinctions may exist, they are united in their worship and allegiance to God.

2. **The Role of Israel**: Revelation and other New Testament passages indicate that Israel has a special place in God's redemptive plan. Some interpretations hold that Israel and the Gentiles retain distinct roles even in the eternal state, but both are part of the same redeemed community.

3. **Theological Perspectives**: Different theological traditions interpret these passages differently. For instance, dispensationalists may see a clear distinction between Israel and the Church even in the eternal state, while covenant theologians tend to view the Church as the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel, thus emphasizing the unity of all God's people.

In summary, Revelation 21:25-26 does suggest that there will be a recognition of the diversity of nations in the eternal state, but this does not necessarily imply a rigid distinction between Gentiles and Israel. The focus is on the unity of all believers in Christ, even as their unique identities or contributions are acknowledged in the New Jerusalem.

By ChatGPT and Aaron Fisher 

Saved Gentiles are 'not' considered as Natural Branches nor aka spiritual Jews! #ChatGPT

Does the scriptures confirm that saved Gentiles are stilled considered to be a wild olive branch and therefore excluded from ever being considered as the natural branches or Jews? #ChatGPT

In Romans 11, the metaphor of the olive tree does suggest a distinction between the natural branches (the Jews) and the wild olive branches (the Gentiles). Paul describes Gentiles as wild olive branches grafted into the cultivated olive tree, while the natural branches represent the Jews, particularly those who have faith in Christ.

Romans 11:17-24 explains this grafting process, emphasizing that while Gentiles are included in the blessings and promises of God's people through faith, they are still distinct from the natural branches. Paul does not indicate that Gentiles become natural branches or Jews; rather, they are grafted into the same tree and share in the same root and richness of God's promises.

Romans 11:24 states: "For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree." This suggests that the natural branches (Jews) have a unique and original place in the olive tree, and while Gentiles are included and blessed, they are still considered grafted wild branches.

Therefore, according to Paul's metaphor, saved Gentiles are included in the people of God but remain distinct from the natural branches, maintaining their identity as grafted wild branches rather than becoming natural branches or Jews.

By ChatGPT and Aaron Fisher 

Does Regeneration Precede Faith (1 john 5:1) #ChatGPT

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. - 1 John 5:1

QUESTION: Does the Greek word (gennaô)  in the perfect tense, as in "has been born" denotes an action that precedes a human action regarding 1 john 5:1?

CHATGPT: In 1 John 5:1, the Greek word "γεννάω" (gennaô) in the perfect tense does denote an action that precedes and establishes the conditions for subsequent human actions. Let's look at the verse for clarity:

1 John 5:1 (ESV): "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him."

The Greek for the first part of this verse is: Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται (Pas ho pisteuōn hoti Iēsous estin ho Christos, ek tou Theou gegennētai).

Here, "γεγέννηται" (gegennētai) is the perfect tense form of "γεννάω" (gennaô), meaning "has been born."

1. **Action Preceding Human Action**: The use of "γεγέννηται" in the perfect tense indicates that the action of being born of God is a completed action with an ongoing result. This divine action (being born of God) precedes and enables the human action of believing in Jesus as the Christ. In other words, the new birth from God (a divine action) precedes and results in the believer's faith in Jesus.

2. **Theological Implication**: Theologically, this means that the state of having been born of God (a completed action with continuing effects) is what enables and precedes the human response of faith. This supports the idea that divine regeneration (spiritual rebirth) is the basis for a person’s faith in Christ.

Therefore, in 1 John 5:1, "γεννάω" in the perfect tense indeed denotes an action that precedes and establishes the conditions for subsequent human action, specifically the action of believing in Jesus as the Christ.

By ChatGPT / Aaron Fisher 

The Children of Promise have already been appointed beforehand as in before faith and salvation as evident in John 8 #ChatGPT

Isn't it true, according to the context surrounding verse 35 of John chapter 8, that Jesus was telling the Jews that they were not the children of promise?

Yes, that's correct. In the broader context of John chapter 8, Jesus is indeed challenging the Jews' claim to being Abraham's descendants and, by extension, children of promise. He points out that their actions—seeking to kill Him—demonstrate that they are not living as true children of Abraham would, who would embrace His message and God's truth.

In John 8:34, Jesus says, "Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin." This sets up His statement in verse 35 about the slave not remaining in the house forever. He contrasts the temporary status of a slave with the permanent status of a son. By implication, Jesus is indicating that those who live in sin are not truly part of God's family, despite their physical descent from Abraham.

In verses 37-39, Jesus acknowledges their physical descent from Abraham but challenges them by saying, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did." He goes further in verse 44, stating that they are of their "father the devil," because they are doing the works of evil, not of God.

So, in essence, Jesus is telling them that being true children of promise, like Abraham's spiritual descendants, involves more than just lineage; it requires living according to God's will and accepting the truth He brings.

ChatGPT / Aaron Fisher 

Why Did the Apostle Paul introduce the examples of Issac and Jacob regarding Romans 9? #ChatGPT

According to the context of Romans 9, doesn't the Apostle Paul give the examples of Isaac and Jacob as to explain why the Word of God has not failed in regard to the Jews?

Yes, in Romans 9, the Apostle Paul uses the examples of Isaac and Jacob to explain why the Word of God has not failed in regard to the Jews. He argues that God's promises were never meant for all descendants of Abraham, but for those chosen by God.

Paul points out that not all of Abraham's children were chosen to carry forward the promise. For instance, Ishmael was also a son of Abraham, but Isaac was the one through whom the promise would be fulfilled. Similarly, even within Isaac's family, God chose Jacob over Esau, demonstrating that God's election is not based on human desire or effort but on His own purpose and choice.

By highlighting these examples, Paul shows that God's word has not failed because it was never intended that every physical descendant of Abraham would be part of the chosen people, but rather those whom God elected according to His purpose. This helps explain the current state of Israel and the inclusion of Gentiles in the salvation plan.

ChatGPT / Aaron Fisher 

NO ONE has the "ability" to "libertarianly" come to the Father based upon "free will".

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me ~ John 14:6

The mere fact that no one can come to Son unless they have been given to Him by the Father (john 6:39) coupled with the fact that no one can come to the Father except through the Son (john 14:6) implies an "inability" on the one "coming" to either the Father or the Son; seeing that the one coming "cannot" come to either (john 14:1) apart from those belonging to the Father having been given to the Son beforehand as in prior to faith in both the Father or the Son from before the foundation of the world (ephesians 1:4).

In other words, seeing that no one can come to the Father without having been beforehand been given to the Son or prior to faith in the Son implies that those given to the Son were given to Him likewise prior to faith in the Father or else how could the Son say - "no one can come to the Father except through me?" This biblical truth eliminates the idea of "free will". No one can come to the Father, let alone the Son based upon libertarian free will. 

If there lies an inability as to come to the Son, in so far as prior to faith in the Son, one must be given to the Son; then there also lies an inability as to come to the Father seeing that the very same one's who belong to the Son prior to faith in the Son likewise belong to Father prior to faith in the Father (john 17:10).

The reason why the Son can say "no one can come to the Father except through me" is because those who come to the Son "belong" to the Son prior to demonstrating faith in the Son in the very same manner that those who come to the Father; likewise "belong" to the Father prior to demonstrating faith in the Father. They are the same group of particular people. 

In fact, the scriptures teach that those who belong to the Father have belonged to Him before the foundation of the world. This is why ephesians 1:4 speaks of those foreordained unto salvation as being "chose" by God before creation unto holiness and blameworthiness. Those who eventually come to the Father as to believe upon the Son were already the Father's since before creation. Likewise, those who belonged to the Father also belonged to the Son before creation as well. The Father chose His elect "in" the Son as belonging to the Son before creation unto holiness and blameworthiness. 

Those who come to the Father as to believe in Him will have done so because God will have solely and unilaterally circumcised their heart; taking out the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh in order for the sinner to respond and comply to God's command as to repent and believe. However, the only individual whom God will circumcise the heart of is a chosen remnant according to His grace; those who have been elected prior to birth of having done neither good or evil as of yet NOR according to the will of the individual as to rob God of the glory that's due Him alone in the salvation of sinful man.

In short, no one can libertarianly freely come to the Father apart from having been given to the Son before the foundation of the world. In order to believe in the Father, one must have already been given to the Son prior to belief in the Father; this is why Jesus can say - "no one can come to the Father except through me".

By Aaron Fisher 

Drawn by Jesus? A Response to Leighton Flowers and upcoming Debate with James White.

A list of 7 simple questions asked and answered regarding John 6:44 ~ 

(1) Who are those "drawn" by the Father as to come to the Son?

The Children of Promise aka God's Elect; a remnant unmeritely chosen by God's grace unto faith, righteousness and salvation (genesis 17:7, romans 9:8,11, and romans 11:5-7). 

(2) Why "initially" are the Children of Promise aka God's Elect "drawn" by Father as to come to the Son? Because they have always belonged to the Father and appointed beforehand OR prior to faith as already "heirs" according to Abraham Covenant (john 8:35-47, luke 19:10, galatians 4:30, romans 4:16, 22-25, romans 9:6-11)

(3) When "exactly" OR for "how long" have the Children of Promise OR God's Elect belonged to the Father?

There was NEVER a "time" when they didn't; since they belonged to Him "before the foundation of the world" OR "before time" as we consider the concept of time as it relates to a chronological order of events (ephesians 1:11 and ephesians 1:14).

(4) When "exactly" OR for "how long" have the Children of Promise OR God's Elect belonged to the Son?

There was NEVER a "time" when they didn't; since they belonged to Him "before the foundation of the world" OR "before time" as we consider the concept of time as it relates to a chronological order of events. The Father gave His Elect to the Son as His very own sheep before creation. This is why Ephesians 1:4 asserts that the Father chose "us" in Christ before the foundation of the world as already belonging to Him; with the end goal in mind to be "holy and blameless". The "heirs of promise" have always belonged to both the Father and the Son. This is also why Jesus can claim - "what's yours is mine and what is mine is yours" (john 17:10).

(5) Were those (children of promise aka God's elect) chose before creation elected unto salvation? YES! The same one's predestined before the foundation of the world for adoption as sons are the very same one's who go on to hear the word of truth and positively respond the Gospel as to be saved (ephesians 1:5 and ephesians 1:13-14) according to the context.

(6) Are those elected before creation unto salvation the same ones "drawn" by the Father as to come to the Son and believe in Him? Absolutely! They are the very "heirs of promise" for whom the Son came down from Heaven as to do the will of the Father and lose none of all those whom before creation was given to Him (1 peter 1:18-25, 1 peter 2:6-10 and 1 peter 2:24-25).

(7) Are those "drawn" to the Son by the Father a particular people to the exclusion of the rest of mankind?

YES! The only ones drawn by the Father are the Children of Promise OR God's Elect who have already been appointed beforehand OR prior to faith for salvation. Those who have been passed over by God for salvation and will never or could ever be drawn by the Father (as in, an impossibility) to the Son are those for example the scripture speaks of as (a) the perishing (b) rest of mankind (c) those who Father is the Devil (d) and those who do not belong to Him as His sheep.

CONCLUSION: 

No one's "drawn" by the Father according to their "libertarian free will" as Leighton claims. The scriptures are clear! The only ones "drawn" are those whom the Father has eternally loved - His beloved; the Children of Promise, chosen before creation and decreed unto salvation. If Leighton would like to debate me; simply contact me - I'M READY.

By Aaron Fisher 

A child's state of so called "innocence" is NOT a criteria nor factor regarding their possible salvation - only the mercy of God!

                                                          

There is a popular teaching among Christian circles that a newborn or young child who unfortunately happens to die prematurely is somehow entitled to inherit salvation due to the so called "innocence" of the child not having enough acquired knowledge as to not only discern good from evil but also enough acquired knowledge as to reject evil and choose the good. However, first and foremost, such an assertion would presume that every infant or young child has been favorably blessed by God as to partake and benefit of the New Covenant and the spiritual blessings which derive from it; which gives life to the spiritually dead as Christ sheep (hebrews 13:20, 2 corinthians 3:6). Secondly, another major delimmna; is that God has predetermined as in chosen prior to one's birth all of everyone who has been foreordained to inherit salvation and that ones salvation is not dependent upon any criteria on the individual's part; apart from whom God has predetermined to show mercy to beforehand (romans 9:11). So, in order for any individual to argue that an infant or young child is "entitled" to inherit salvation due to their so called state of "innocence" - one must likewise 'successfully' demonstrate this assertion biblically from scripture that such an entitlement of salvation is "indeed" a "factor" regarding God's decision or determination to have mercy upon a child who dies prematurely and likewise chooses them prior to their birth for glory in order for such an assertion to be scripturally accurate. 

On the other hand, I believe the scriptures has clearly stated that God chose specific individuals prior to their birth as to not regard any specific good deed OR evil deed of which they had not done as of yet OR will do - involving His prerogative to save whom He wills (romans 9:11). Therefore, if God did not take into account any good deed; let alone any evil deed; then one's "innocence" is not a factor in His determination to save - seeing that such an assertion of a child's so called "innocence" would surely suggest that an infant or young child is not capable of doing anything good or bad "as of yet" as a factor. The true biblical doctrine of Election rules out such a criteria of "innocence" of entitlement for salvation because God has determined to have mercy upon His elect not taking into account prior to one's birth any evil that a infant or young child who prematurely dies after birth may or may not or even could have committed (romans 9:11). God's saves in spite of the sins committed of His elect; therefore neither a child or an adult sin's for that matter; is a factor in the salvation of His chosen ones. Therefore, the so called "innocence" of a child is entirely ruled out regarding the salvation of God's people because an infant or young child's state of "innocence" implies potential future guilt regarding acts of evil and God has neither elected His people on the basis of committed acts of evil or committed acts of good BUT only on the basis of His prerogative prior to one's birth to have mercy upon whom He wills!

By Aaron Fisher 

Vessels of Mercy "Prepared Beforehand or In Advance for Glory" (ROMANS 9:22-23)? "Beforehand" or the Greek "Proetoimazó"

                                    

If God determined to save someone prior to their birth as a vessel of mercy; then in doing so and as a consequence - they, by default, have been technically "prepared beforehand or in advance for glory! And if the Children of Promise are considered to be the Children of God; then when God foretold of Issac's future birth as the Child of Promise and elected Jacob prior to his birth also as a Child of Promise; then God was essentially declaring beforehand as in before they both were born that they were already considered as Children of God by decree - even prior to their birth. Their salvation was inevitable even prior to their actual birth!

A simple outline with commentary as to "disect" the passage of ROMANS 9.

(1) The Children of Promise ARE the Children of God (vs 8)

(2) Issac was foretold to be the "Child of Promise" prior to his birth (vs 9)

(3) Jacob was elected prior to his birth IN ORDER THAT God's purpose of ELECTION might continue (vs 10 and 11).

(4) However, the Children of Promise ARE God's Elect. The two terms can be used interchangeably. You can't speak of the one without acknowledging the other (vs 8 and 11).

(5) Issac, the Child of Promise aka God's Elect (vs 8 and 9)

(6) Jacob, God's Elect aka the Child of Promise (vs 10-12)

(7) The "vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory" ARE the Children of Promise aka God's Elect

(8) Both Issac AND Jacob were considered to be "vessels of mercy" because they both were deemed as a Children of Promise aka God's Elect prior to their birth. Every Child of Promise receives saving mercy. However, God determined to bestow saving mercy upon both Issac and Jacob before they were born as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect upon setting them apart unto Himself.

(9) This is the very reason why Paul could say that the "vessels of mercy" were "prepared beforehand for glory" - because both Isaac and Jacob received saving mercy from God before each of them was even born as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect. Their salvation was inevitable. They were essentially prepared beforehand for glory by way of God's saving mercy bestowed upon them prior to their birth as a consequence. This would be the correct understanding according to the context.

(10) However, not only were Issac and Jacob prepared beforehand or in advance for glory prior to their birth BUT every would be Child of Promise aka God's Elect as well. This is why the Apostle Paul cold claim that the Word of God has not failed because it was NEVER God's intention to save every Israelite or even Gentile for that matter - only the Children of Promise.

(11) Lastly, if God deemed Issac and Jacob as a Child of Promise aka God's Elect prior to their birth and their salvation is inevitable because of this fact; then it would deem logical if not biblical (for argument sake) to conclude that they were "prepared beforehand for glory" because of the predetermined actions by God correct?

By Aaron Fisher

 

Provisionalism, Pelagianism AND the Biblical Truth!

[In love] God [predestined] us for [adoption to himself as sons] through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [to the praise of his glorious grace], with which he has [blessed us in the Beloved] - Ephesians 2:5-6

Leighton Flowers outright dissociates himself from Pelagianism or even Semi Plaginism for that matter. However both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism do acknowledge as not to reject God's "grace". Nonetheless, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism AND Provisionalism do indeed reject God's grace. They reject God's "initial" or "primary" grace that preceded creation itself. This grace or unmerited favor of God was predetermined towards a particular people by decree unto faith. This particular grace was brought forth in love as to predestine a people before the foundation of the world unto adoption as sons aka believers in God. And if predestined to adoption as sons; then those predestined were by default foreordained to believe - to the exclusion of the "rest of mankind" of whom God did not predestine. Therefore, by the Provisionist own acknowledgement - they fit the religious category of Pelagianism or even Semi Plaginism for argument sake because they unequivocally deny God's grace; the very grace that preceded creation itself!

-----------------------------------

Saving Grace is a Unique and Particular Grace that's not granted to all men but Only a select few; God's Elect (Ephesians 2:4-10). 

SAVING GRACE is a particular grace that's not granted to all men but only a chosen few whom God has predetermined to unmeritly favor in regards to their salvation. This grace is distinct from all other graces bestowed by God seeing that only a select group can benefit from this unique grace. We see this confirmation of such grace particularly in Ephesians Chapter 1 and 2. The saving grace the Apostle Paul speaks of (ephesians 2:4-10) is in conjunction with Gods choosing and predestining before the foundation of the world a particular people as adopted sons to be holy and blameless (ephesians 1:4-5). Therefore, this particular grace rules out the "rest of mankind" (eph.1:3) or "sons of disobedience" whom God has left to remain in their sins being still deserving of wrath (ephesians 5:5-12) from ever benefitting from such grace.

In order for the "rest of mankind" or the "sons of disobedience" that God has passed over as to remain in their sins to benefit from this unique and particular saving grace - then they too must have been chosen in Christ and predestined as well before the foundation of the world to partake of any and such spiritual blessing (ephesians 1:3). Furthermore, those of whom God neither chose or predestined before creation also would have to been among those for whom Jesus had died for (ephesians 5:1-2) in order for them to be redeemed by His blood and their sins forgiven (ephesians 1:7) of which they were not. To argue otherwise, would be to undermine the love of God for a specific people unto His own glory and to assert or demand that God must love everyone as in all without exception in the very same manner for He only "in love" predestined before the foundation of the world those whom He foreknew; a particular people for His own glory while passing over the rest. Furthermore, to also argue against God having chose and predestined a select people unto salvation would call into question His wisdom, counsel, and judgement as if they are somehow flawed or misguided and not considered perfect in and of themselves seeing that God is perfect in all His ways as Paul goes on to rightly proclaim (ephesians 1:8-10). The grace or favor of God is only extended towards a select few of whom He has both foreknew and foreloved.

By Aaron Fisher

Children of Wrath by Nature (ephesians 2:3)?

Regarding, EPHESIANS 2:3 - the "nature" to which Paul is referring to is with respect to the flesh of man from birth (john 3:6); it is of the "old man" as an unbeliever (colossians 3:9 and ephesians 4:22).

Everyone born, is born as an unbeliever according to sinful flesh. When Jesus said 'that which is BORN of flesh is flesh' - He was referring to sinful flesh (john 3:6). This is why Paul states that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh - in reference to the "sin nature" of all humanity (romans 8:3). 

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh in order to condemn the power of sin upon the cross which permeates the flesh of man; as in total depravity, to which we are born under. You cannot separate one's nature from his flesh. Although, I agree, that "by nature" is in reference to "habitual sinful conduct" according to the specific Greek word that is used and it's context.

However, what many fail to realize is that this "habitual sinful conduct" is spoken of as the 'default' position of man who is born of sinful flesh; for man born of mere flesh can only obey sin and the sinful desires of the heart (romans 6:12-14) according to the 'nature' spoken of in Ephesians 2:3. The sinful flesh of man can ONLY bear fruit which leads to spiritual death (romans 7:5). Sinful man, from birth, is UNABLE to obey God in righteousness apart from the work of the Spirit that would enable him to do so (romans 7:4-6).

This is why we ALL come out of our mother's wound deserving God's wrath for we are deemed sinners from birth (romans 5:18-19) unable to do otherwise apart from imputed righteousness. There is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ" but for those who are not "in Christ" - eternal punishment justly awaits. We are not born "in Christ" but rather "in Adam" deserving God's wrath because we are born as "sons of disobedience" according to our nature (ephesians 2:1-3). We are ALL born as unbelievers from birth, as the 'old man' in Adam according to sinful flesh, deserving God's wrath - this is the testimony of scripture!

In other words, those deserving of God's wrath or children of God's wrath the Apostle Paul is referring to (ephesians 2:3) are those in an unbelieving state and if in an unbelieving state; then they are still "in Adam" as the "old man" and if they are considered to still be of the "old man" then they are likewise still of the flesh to which they were born that can only bear fruit unto death. Those who are merely of the flesh and have not been "born again" - CANNOT please God; including newborn infants and young children. God would be 'just' condemning ALL not found to be in Christ but still in Adam at judgement.

Nature (ephesians 2:3): Unbeliever = Old Man = In Adam = From Birth = Sinful flesh by default that can only bear fruit unto spiritual death = Deserving of God's Wrath 

--------------------------------------------------

SEE ALSO - The TWO NATURE'S of MANKIND (the old and new man).

CLICK LINK: The TWO NATURE'S of MANKIND (the old and new man).

By Aaron Fisher 

Could Judas have done otherwise, than to betray Christ? (LUKE 24:44, LUKE 18:31)

Concerning Judas, not only does God's Word say that the Scriptures WOULD BE FULFILLED, but that the Scriptures also HAD TO BE FULFILLED, and according to Christ Himself; the Scriptures WILL BE FULFILLED!

Judas actions, were BOUND by Scripture (God's Decree, Eternal Word) not by his "free will" - he could have NOT DONE otherwise NOR did God MERELY foreknew what Judas would do BUT all of Judas actions were by the decree and plan of God. Besides the fact, Scripture CANNOT be broken (john 10:35).

The DECREE of God - Is not so much as a command but rather a previous determination of God before the Creation of the world of what would come to pass as of certainty resulting from his divine council and will relating to His eternal purposes that will glorify Himself in all things.

Predetermined purposes are based upon a predetermined plan. Both, the eternal purposes and plan of God are on both sides of the same coin; they cannot be separated. Both are DELIBERATE commitments of God in reaching the same end goal. Furthermore, they both come to pass, not only by the desire/intentions of God's heart but more importantly by the will/determination of God which reverts back to what He has BEFOREHAND eternally PURPOSED TO FULFILL; all that He has pre-planned - deriving from His perfect council.

LET US CONSIDER SOME SCRIPTURE VERSES:

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost EXCEPT THE SON OF DESTRUCTION [Judas], that the SCRIPTURE WOULD BE FULFILLED. - John 17:12

“Brothers, the SCRIPTURE HAD TO BE FULFILLED, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David CONCERNING JUDAS, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office. - Acts 1:16-25

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. BUT THE SCRIPTURES WILL BE FULFILLED, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I AM TELLING YOU NOW, BEFORE IT TAKES PLACE, THAT WHEN IT DOES TAKE PLACE YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT I AM. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, ONE OF YOU WILL BETRAY ME.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. - John 13:18-26

So, I ask again - what say you? Could Judas have done otherwise, as to betray Christ? Could Judas have done otherwise based on his "free will?"

If you say yes, then how do you reconcile what Scripture has plainly stated concerning Judas' predetermined fate?

(1) that Scripture HAD TO BE FULFILLED concerning Judas - Acts 1:16-25

(2) that Scripture WILL BE FULFILLED concerning Judas - John 13:18-26 (be careful not to make Christ out to be a liar, a false prophet and a god other than Yahweh)

And if you say no:

(1) then you are acknowledging along with me that Judas actions were inevitable and certain to come to pass according to what Scripture has declared concerning him

(2) and also that his actions was not based upon his "free will" or MERELY God's foreknowledge (for God 'foreknew' that Judas could have not done otherwise as to fulfill scripture) BUT RATHER upon the Decree of God - seeing that what God has decreed would come to pass in spite of Judas's 'will' having been free or not..

Question for those who insist Judas was "free" to do otherwise:

So if God foreknew according to Judas 'free will' that it was possibly for him to do otherwise - could Judas as an actual fact still do otherwise than what Scripture has already declared concerning him by way of prophecy? If yes, then how is that possible without contradicting the scriptures? Chapter and Verse please.

Nonetheless, the eternal purposes of God are NOT dependant on any future so called free will choices of man; on the contrary; just the opposite, man's will is SOLELY dependant upon the Decree of God which consist of His purposes and plan to which no man can or will thwart!

---------------------------------

Many plans (according to his desire/will) are in a man's heart, But the purpose of the LORD will [ALWAYS] prevail. - Proverbs 19:21

The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples (according to their desire/will). The counsel of the LORD [ALWAYS] stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation. - Psalm 33:10-11

By Aaron Fisher

Babies born sinful according to scripture? What does God's Word actually teach?

 

Scripture states that God sent His Son in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH (romans 8:3). Question. Is this "flesh" spoken of in (romans 8:3) a reference to newly born babies as well? YES! Jesus has declared (john 3:6) that which is born of flesh (same Greek word regarding romans 8:3) is flesh and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit. Therefore, since newborn babies are born to the same "sinful" flesh that Jesus was sent into the world in the likeness of - infants along with every other class of people are born with a sinful nature just the same - for you cannot separate ones nature (innate natural desires) and ones flesh (sinful desires and works of sinful flesh) from one another; the two are inseparable. For example, if ones flesh is sinful; then ones nature is as well. Babies are born in sin; with a sin nature - deserving of God's wrath along with the rest of mankind simply because of their nature alone to which we are all born to. Mere flesh cannot enter the Kingdom of God; one must be born again - including infants if they are indeed to enter into the Kingdom at all. This is why Ephesians 2:3 speaks of the very nature of which man is born to as deserving of God's wrath because we are born sinful or as sinners in spite of having not done any evil deeds as of yet because our default disposition as a sinner when born is considered to be a slave to sin as to only obey unrighteousness. The very nature to which we are born can ONLY bear fruit which leads to death (romans 7:5). Therefore, the only fruit that any human being can bear according to their sinful nature would lead to condemnation apart from becoming born again. Man's very nature alone to which he was born is enough to send that person to the Lake of Fire. Sure, the scriptures state that mankind will be judged according to our works; however if one is not able to bear good fruit from any works according to their sinful nature; regardless of whatever defining characteristic you may put forth or assign to the individual - that person will still be condemned because that person while in his flesh apart from any works could NEVER bear fruit to please God nonetheless because of his nature. The unclean or impure according to sinful flesh to which we are born can't inherit the Kingdom of God; including newborn babies. The "nature" of the sinful baby must be changed in order for that baby to enter the Kingdom - and if the baby's nature must be changed; then prior to the change of that baby's nature; that baby by default could not enter the Kingdom but rather perish as to enter the Lake of Fire along with the rest of wicked sinners.

A FURTHER ARGUMENTATION

There is no condemnation for all those who are "in Christ" - ROMANS 8:1. Therefore, God has the right to judge everyone who is not "in Christ" but are yet still "in Adam" - including babies. Apart from any works; that being good or evil - that baby is still considered to be a sinner (ROMANS 5:19). Newborn babies are born into the world as a "sons of disobedience" (EPHESIANS 2:2) for this is his or her standing or status in the world; as a sinner. Furthermore, scripture declares God has a right to fashion some individuals as vessels of dishonor having been prepared beforehand (before they are born) for destruction; even though ALL OF MANKIND indeed stands condemned already. Consider Esau; his fate was sealed before he was born. If God sealed Esau's fate before he was born; then what's the difference between a baby that's already condemned prior to having been born and the condemnation beforehand for example of an unbelieving elderly individual having been born as well but who lived a long life but who's deeds are still considered evil nonetheless? There is no difference! They both are still considered to be sinners and they both will be condemned as sinners - one having been condemned without works as a sinner (newborn baby) and the other being condemned according to their works as a sinner (elderly individual); and rightfully so. There is no injustice with God; he has the right to fashion each vessel as He sees fit. If a baby is to be condemned; then that baby will be condemned as one who is a sinner without works having not been chosen beforehand prior to it's birth unto salvation. In order for you to argue against my position; then you would have to explain biblically - how is it possible for a baby who is found not to be "in Christ" when born be something other than as to not stand condemned before God as not "in Christ" but still "in Adam" upon their death on judgement day?

By Aaron Fisher 

Doomed from the Womb? (A short response to Leighton Flowers, Warren McGrew, and Jordan Hatfield).

 

The issue is not whether the "non elect" are "doomed from the womb" as the scriptures essentially claim (romans 9:22) but more importantly; the main question at hand should be - would God be 'just' in sending the soul of a newborn infant into Hell? The answer to this question is YES. God is not obligated to save anyone. Although, scripture has revealed that He has indeed determined to obligate Himself to save a particular people for His own glory in order to display His mercy and glorious grace. Therefore, if every newborn who dies at birth has somehow escaped condemnation as a sinner; then ultimately, every newborn who dies at birth must be considered among God's elect in order for this to be true. 

And even though, scripture teaches that apart from God's election beforehand, no one can be saved; at the same time; the scripture nonetheless nowhere claims that every newborn infant who dies at birth must be considered saved; for everyone that shall be saved has been given to the Son from the Father as God's elect before creation. 

Therefore, and in conclusion - the only thing we know to be true according to scripture is that if a newborn infant should die prematurely and would be considered saved upon their death; then that infant would likewise be also considered as one of God's elect; having been destined or prepared for glory beforehand (prior to their birth) just like Jacob and Isaac was. However, the scriptures nowhere claims that every newborn who may die prematurely has been given to the Son for redemption leading to salvation.

Furthermore , the condemnation of any sinner; in particular a newborn infant would be a just condemnation because the very sinful nature as a son of disobedience to which the newborn infant was born to is rightfully deserving of God's wrath. Every sinner (including infants) found not to be in Christ but still in Adam upon their death can rightly be judged by God in spite of any decree set beforehand for God's honor is of more value and importance not only in the salvation of every man but also in the salvation of every newborn infant who may die in their infancy. If there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (romans 8:1), then how is it possible for one to argue that a newborn who may die in their infancy is somehow automatically saved who is not found to be in Christ at the time of their death? In order for those who may argue that newborn infants who die prematurely must be granted immunity from the affects of the fall of our first parents and the penalty of sin must also successfully argue from scripture that God's grace can be demanded apart from His sovereign choice to save whom He wills. To God be the glory!

See video here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HblO1ex4tJw&t=6657s

By Aaron Fisher