Posted on 11/24/2014 1:07:14 PM PST by NYer
Actually, the remnant of 7000 refers to 1Kings 19:18, which happened in the past. The Romans 11 context refers simply to a modern day remnant, exact number not specified in that passage.
I'd say Matthew chapter 10 is dealing with some of the 7000. Some of the 7000 will be arrested and brought up to testify. Many will be saved through their testimony. Maybe some of you who don't believe in the 7000 will hear the testimony and will remember this thread and come to your senses regarding the great deceiver.
Yeah, it could be any number relative to the population today. I said earlier on this thread that even if it's in the hundreds of thousands, it's not much in a world of 7 billion.
Actually, no, it doesn't say that. This has been explained to you already with numerous Bible verses to prove you are wrong to think it does. Ignore it if you wish. You can claim Arnold Murray doesn't "decide" who are among that 7000, but you yourself already claimed it WOULD be people who followed Murray, including yourself. If you misspoke, admit it, it would garner more respect than stubbornly holding on to a false assertion after being shown wrong.
Relax, you aren't being persecuted, nobody is coming for you to burn you at the stake. This is a forum where people can freely discuss what they believe and why they believe it.
So after 400 posts you're giving up on falsely painting me as a racist. lol
Show me where I did that, whiner.
I guess it does if one is following a man who tells them it does. That's the danger of swallowing someone's teaching without doing due diligence - as Paul praised the noble Bereans who DID make sure to determine of what they were being told was so, that it matched up with what Scripture said.
But, whether one believes a fraction of Christians will not apostatize or not, what matters is that the gospel NEVER changes. We are saved by the grace of God through faith and not of ourselves or our works. I imagine the few who fall prey to false teaching on minor issues such as this claim of only 7000 being saved out of the Tribulation, will be pleasantly (I hope) surprised when they find themselves among the countless number of the redeemed in heaven. I doubt it will matter then.
Sad, isn’t it, when so-called “Christian” Conservatives resort to the same deceptive techniques as the Left?
Yes, I do. I also know WHY I believe it and can prove it by Scripture. What's one more rabbit trail on a thread 800+ posts long?
Now "it COULD be"? That has been our argument all along - that God ALWAYS has a remnant! It has been you, parroting Arnold Murray, who continues to assert it will only be 7000. Finally some clarity.
Hmmmmm... I answered your question the first time, apparently you didn't like the answer, so you repeat it, hoping to hear something different?
Well, first, by definition of the word "science", there's no possible way to prove scientifically what is or is not "literally true" in the Bible.
But what any reasonable person must conclude is that those who wrote it down did believe every word, and indeed had often themselves experienced it.
A question then, might be: "can we believe what they believed?"
Well, for starters, the Bible is not a "literal" document, period, but requires translations of translations -- i.e., ancient Aramaic to ancient Greek to Latin to modern English, or ancient Hebrew to Greek to English.
Indeed, most of the reason why we now have dozens of modern English translations is that each one hopes to more usefully **paraphrase** for modern readers what was intended by the ancients.
So, what the ancients themselves understood is often lost in translation.
However, since much of the Bible's history can be confirmed by archaeology and other ancient written sources, we know for certain, it's not like Greek mythology, but based in historical facts and real people.
Further, its message has nothing to do with science, but rather with our spiritual lives, and God's role in history, as the Master of nature, as Holy Spirit and even, as a Human.
So confirming the Bible has nothing to do with various branches of science, but rather in our spiritual quests learning how it can speak to, and direct, our searches for higher meaning & better life.
That makes the question not: "did it really happen precisely as described?", because we can't know that answer scientifically, but rather, "does the Bible's message still speak to our souls?" and that we can certainly answer, if we are ready for it.
Bottom line: I believe the ancients wrote down what they experienced, and their messages can be of huge benefit to our souls.
But if we use science to "disprove" the Bible, we do so at risk of losing our souls.
So Matthew 16:26 come to mind...
Now, FRiend, I've answered your question politely, twice.
If you like my answer, that's great, if not that's fine too, you might wish to explain yourself.
But if you go stupid on me, and ask it a third time, the third answer won't be so polite.
Please stop projecting your own ignorance onto me.
Just because you don't grasp it, doesn't me I don't.
What you don't "get" is that the US was Founded by men of the Age of Enlightenment, for whom the word "science" was just short for their term "natural science", which is expressly defined by the idea of "methodological naturalism", meaning: "natural explanations for natural processes".
The whole ideal of our Founders' "natural science" was to separate it from anything spiritual, metaphysical or supernatural, and limit science to those processes & explanations considered "natural".
Of course, our Founders never denied the existence of God, they were all at least "Deists".
But they believed that much of nature is ruled by natural laws, and they thought that was the proper realm for "natural science".
And indeed, "natural science" has proved amazingly powerful in transforming our material lives from that of our Founders' time to today.
But it has also come at an equal and opposite cost to our spiritual lives, which cannot be denied.
But for you to claim that "natural explanations for natural processes" just don't exist, is just to deny everything you see around you.
So, do I believe that God operates in and through "nature"?
Absolutely, in every conceivable way, but that is not to deny the fact that natural-science usefully explains things in terms which are consciously intended to exclude a supernatural component.
editor-surveyor: "The universe is not something that occurred by “natural” means, but by a deliberate work of special creation.
The fact that all that has been promoted in favor of “natural processes” has been shown to be fraudulent should give you pause."
Of course the Universe was created by God, according to logic and my faith, but natural-science is by design intended to exclude such explanations.
That does not make science a "fraud", unless you wish to claim that every modern convenience & technology is also somehow a "fraud".
I'd disagree.
But if you take your search for God to natural-science, then you must find Him there yourself -- all by yourself, with no help, no assistance, no obvious "pointing the way" from science.
editor-surveyor: "All things physical that exist were planned.
No understanding is evident in your posts."
Agreed with the first, as for the second: huge ignorance is obvious in your posts.
No, I said in those 7000, there would be a lot of students who learned from him since he is the only one that teaches how to recognize the antiChrist.
Show me where I did that, whiner.
Racist, cult, same difference.
The ignorance is deliberate, and all yours.
Creation is not a “natural process.”
The age of enlightenment will be when you and the rest of the unbelievers stand in awe of the first resurrection, knowing that the ten days of the wrath of Yehova are about to be poured out on the world.
Trying to manipulate the word of God to create room for natural processes to replace acts of special creation is not an industry of promise.
Believe what you wish. I'd be careful throwing that "cult" name around though when the rapture doctrine didn't come around until the 1800s.
If it's so important to you, why don't you remember me saying it on this thread? The point is that the whole world will fall for antiChrist, except the 7000.
>> “there would be a lot of students who learned from him since he is the only one that teaches how to recognize the antiChrist.” <<
.
Gibberish!
The word of God tells us in clear terms how to recognize the antichrist.
It says that he will stand on the “holy place” and declare himself to be God.
Do you have even the foggiest notion what the “holy place” is? Holy means “set apart.”
It is the unused side of the “mercy seat” of the ark of the covenant.
It will be unmistakable.
The fact that it happens at Purim will also be a huge clue.
What does Mr “Mud People” teach?
.
Arnold has also said it doesn't have to be exactly 7000. The "7000" identifies the people we're talking about, the very elect. You let these little things become such stumblingblocks to you.
No, you didn't. You said you'd never heard of it, and when I told you it was easily found online, said, "Okaaaay."
So far you've dismissed everything folks have offered you about your leader. What reason do I have to think you'd respond differently this time?
Google it if you want the truth.
Revelation tells us that the very elect will be 144,000.
Ya gotta love the tap dance he does in the corner!
.
you canNOT fight emotion with logic!"
I have to hand it to Partisan Gunslinger...he's taught me the absolute truth of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.