How Do You Ride a Horse, a Cloud, and a Throne?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So then if a Jew rejected Peter's message, but decided to move out of Jerusalem, and happened to not be in Jerusalem in AD 70... they got saved by accident? Outside of Acts 2:38?

See, that's where I am having the difficulty here. The prophesied judgment was for THAT GENERATION. Therefore the proferred salvation was also for THAT GENERATION. Since the judgment was for THAT GENERATION, it is NOT for OUR generation, or any other generation. And therefore, the proferred salvation would not be for our generation, or any other generation.

Peter even said "the promise is unto you, your children, and even those far away"... meaning the people living in that time, even if they were far away from Jerusalem. Which again causes me to wonder: if the judgment was regarding Jerusalem's destruction by Rome in AD 70, then how could anyone who was far away be threatened with said judgment? Somebody living in say Susa, Persia would not be in any danger whatsoever of Rome destroying Jerusalem....

I apologize for assuming all would mean what entering the "New Covenant" meant. It means their sins were redeemed by the salvific work of Jesus Christ. This came by them repenting, being baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of their sins, and then being filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, as commanded in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.

Once they became believers they would also heed Jesus's warning to flee Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies. History records every Christian did this, which left only those Old Covenant believers remaining.

I hope that clarifies my point.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I apologize for assuming all would mean what entering the "New Covenant" meant. It means their sins were redeemed by the salvific work of Jesus Christ. This came by them repenting, being baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of their sins, and then being filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, as commanded in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.

Once they became believers they would also heed Jesus's warning to flee Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies. History records every Christian did this, which left only those Old Covenant believers remaining.

I hope that clarifies my point.

So having one's sins forgiven and being redeemed by the work of Christ would save people from the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome? I'm not understanding how, IF the promised judgment was for THAT generation at THAT time, and the proferred salvation and deliverance was for THAT generation at THAT time, and all had respect to the coming AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, how that has anything whatsoever to do with any of us today, or how it would have anything to do with anyone outside of Jerusalem (or perhaps Judea) back then?

I'll have to chew on this for awhile. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, so maybe you are misunderstanding what issue I'm having with this. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying.

I'll think about this and be back.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Do you think the clouds found with Moses and with Joshua were literal clouds?

A literal cloud by day, and pillar of fire by night. Yes.

What about the clouds Jesus spoke of in these verses?

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 26:64
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of POWER, and COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they

see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Are they literal or spiritual?

Since Jesus was speaking apocalyptically (symbols of sun darkened, moon turning to blood, stars falling, etc.), I'd say that a strong case can be made that clouds Jesus spoke of depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

And since the angels in Acts 1 were prophesying of what was to come, tell me how you determine those clouds were literal and not spiritual?

Since Jesus had just literally ascended, the angels were providing a literal description of His return.

Not every reference to clouds is literal. Nor is every reference to clouds symbolic or spiritual.

[Sean]

I guess you are right Chris, preterist doctrine can cloud the mind from literal truth.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So having one's sins forgiven and being redeemed by the work of Christ would save people from the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome? I'm not understanding how, IF the promised judgment was for THAT generation at THAT time, and the proferred salvation and deliverance was for THAT generation at THAT time, and all had respect to the coming AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, how that has anything whatsoever to do with any of us today, or how it would have anything to do with anyone outside of Jerusalem (or perhaps Judea) back then?

I'll have to chew on this for awhile. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, so maybe you are misunderstanding what issue I'm having with this. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying.

I'll think about this and be back.

Maybe I could understand your confusion better if you'd explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40?

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not the end of salvation, but rather the beginning. The Great Commission is to teach, to convert, and to teach all things. In Acts 2, Peter taught, he gave the message for conversion, and then he went further and taught more things.

Peter told the Jews that day to obey Acts 2:38 for salvation. He also said they should save themselves from a judgment coming against their untoward generation. So, their sins were saved through obeying Acts 2:38. This salvation also placed them in the group that would miss that coming judgment, since they--as believers--would obey what Jesus taught in Luke 21:20.

But how is being Born Again also involved with "saving yourself"? Only Jesus can forgive sins, so how were they to "save yourselves"? I believe obeying Acts 2:38 saves a person from their sins. But this "save yourselves" is about those then obeying what Jesus said to do when they saw that coming judgment. No unbelieving Jew would obey Jesus, so they would be the ones who would suffer the (then) coming judgment of that untoward generation.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A literal cloud by day, and pillar of fire by night. Yes.

Since Jesus was speaking apocalyptically (symbols of sun darkened, moon turning to blood, stars falling, etc.), I'd say that a strong case can be made that clouds Jesus spoke of depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Since Jesus had just literally ascended, the angels were providing a literal description of His return.

Not every reference to clouds is literal. Nor is every reference to clouds symbolic or spiritual.

Please, explain how you know the clouds in Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 are not literal clouds.

Wasn't Jesus literally coming in "power" and in "glory"?

So, what biblical evidence did you use to decide these clouds were not literal as well?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Maybe I could understand your confusion better if you'd explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40?

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not the end of salvation, but rather the beginning. The Great Commission is to teach, to convert, and to teach all things. In Acts 2, Peter taught, he gave the message for conversion, and then he went further and taught more things.

Peter told the Jews that day to obey Acts 2:38 for salvation. He also said they should save themselves from a judgment coming against their untoward generation. So, their sins were saved through obeying Acts 2:38. This salvation also placed them in the group that would miss that coming judgment, since they--as believers--would obey what Jesus taught in Luke 21:20.

But how is being Born Again also involved with "saving yourself"? Only Jesus can forgive sins, so how were they to "save yourselves"? I believe obeying Acts 2:38 saves a person from their sins. But this "save yourselves" is about those then obeying what Jesus said to do when they saw that coming judgment. No unbelieving Jew would obey Jesus, so they would be the ones who would suffer the (then) coming judgment of that untoward generation.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

Okay, so you are saying Peter had two distinct but connected messages in Acts 2: One, for people to be saved from their sins, and Two, for people to make preparations to escape Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans. Is that correct? So that Acts 2:40 was about escaping the siege and destruction of Jerusalem?

If that's correct, then what is Acts 2:38 about? What would they be saved from if they obeyed v 38?

And, what is the hermeneutic that identifies which parts are for us, and which parts are only for "that generation"?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Okay, so you are saying Peter had two distinct but connected messages in Acts 2: One, for people to be saved from their sins, and Two, for people to make preparations to escape Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans. Is that correct? So that Acts 2:40 was about escaping the siege and destruction of Jerusalem?

If that's correct, then what is Acts 2:38 about? What would they be saved from if they obeyed v 38?

And, what is the hermeneutic that identifies which parts are for us, and which parts are only for "that generation"?

Did you read my last post to you? I'm thinking you did not since I explained in detail everything you asked.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Did you read my last post to you? I'm thinking you did not since I explained in detail everything you asked.

I read it. I asked if I understood you correctly. Did I misunderstand? Are you not saying Acts 2:40 was a warning for them to beware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and Acts 2:38 is about remission of sins?

I had two follow up questions, 1) what were they to be saved from in regards to remission of sins, and 2) what is the hermeneutical rule that informs us as to what in Scripture is for us and what is strictly limited to the original audience?

I did not see the answers to those two q's in your post. Maybe I missed them? If so please point them out to me.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I read it. I asked if I understood you correctly. Did I misunderstand? Are you not saying Acts 2:40 was a warning for them to beware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and Acts 2:38 is about remission of sins?

I had two follow up questions, 1) what were they to be saved from in regards to remission of sins, and 2) what is the hermeneutical rule that informs us as to what in Scripture is for us and what is strictly limited to the original audience?

I did not see the answers to those two q's in your post. Maybe I missed them? If so please point them out to me.

I must have missed it. Where did you explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40.

Do you believe that "save yourselves from 'THIS' untoward generation" is for today?

Also, please do include how a person "saves themselves" after what is said in Acts 2:38.