Millenial position?

[Icthus]

Back on topic....

There are some scholars that would tell you the people who received the original document knew exactly what the author's intent was or would be.

They do leave open room for a portion of scripture to be future prophetic. However, not entire books.

Therefore, the receiptants of the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by the Disciple who Jesus Loved, knew what the author was talking about. This would mean most of the events in the book have transpired. They say only the last 3 or maybe 4 are future.

Just saying....

And yeah, the Bible is sufficient for salvation. But, I believe the Bible is not the full revelation of God. One book simply can't contain Him.

 

[Simonedes]

Read Kingdom of Christ by Russel Moore. The end.

 

[Icthus]

Read Kingdom of Christ by Russel Moore. The end.

I tend to like original sources better. Men tend to get manly things involved.

 

[Avesther]

If anything, I think the purpose is to show that God is God and we know so little about God that it will take an eternity to learn even the smudgen about God and Gods ways.

Sufficient for what? Yes we have sufficient knowledge for salvation. The Bible seems to teach that Non-Christians have sufficient knowledge of God and of right/wrong in order to be condemned and responsible for themselves. But we will never know "all" about God. God is Omniscience and Omnipotence and infinite. Even a billion years into eternity we still won't know everything there is to know. God is infinite and we will be learning more about him every day, forever.

Pretty much what I said

 

[jamdrew]

Sufficient not exhaustive~ We know what God wants us to know about Him.

God reveals himself to man through revelation. Revelation is the content and process of God making Himself known to people. All knowledge of God comes by way of revelation (Rom. 1:20). God reveals Himself to people through two modes; special and general revelation. General revelation is the knowledge of God’s existence, character and moral law which comes through creation to all humanity. General revelation is understood by observing nature, history or an inner sense of God’s existence and that he has placed his laws inside every person. General revelation only gives limited knowledge of who God is. A person cannot understand the gospel through general revelation. For a person to fully understand God’s character, one must receive Special revelation. Special Revelation is that which is given to us through Prophets, the Bible, and even visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8). The ultimate in revelation is the incarnation of Jesus because He came to reveal the Father to us (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; Heb. 1:1-3) and to communicate to us the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) by which comes salvation.

 

[Abba San]

A nice - concise explanation of General and Special Revelation. Thanks.

 

[jamdrew]

thanks! This is actually part of my personal doctrinal statement I wrote for my Systematic Theology course at Moody Bible Institute. The full version is posted in the SC2 chapter if you're interested

 

[Avesther]

i hope your kidding...every believer should affirm the sufficiency of scripture

Actually, I'm not. You don't know me and that is ok. I don't know you either. On these forums you are nothing more then black text on a white back ground. I'm sure to anger a few people with that description but it is true. Outside a small handful of people who I have gotten to know better, both face to face and in private chats, 98% of the people I interact with on these forums is nothing more then black text on a white background. I'm sure you are more then that but I don't know you any more then black text, white background. Just as a telemarketer who calls during dinner is nothing more then a voice on the telephone. It is nothing personal, literally. As was once said, Come in and get to know me better.

I see things very different then most people. My point of view is often misunderstood. My statements come from an understanding of bigger pictures and less concern about the details. Not to say that I am not concerned at all with any details. The way I see things is this: Even the biggest picture in my mind is a mere detail to someone else, and en even smaller detail in Gods plan.

When it comes to eschatology, I'm quite content in accepting that the Book of Revelations is a revealing of Gods nature to mankind that may or may not include a timeline. I believe God exists outside of time, what ever God has planned has come to pass in eternity. Whether something has occurred in our timeline is often not relevant to me. Just because we have not come to experience it does not mean it has not come to pass in eternity. Another way to put it, in order for John to have written down what he saw, he must have been experiencing it. If he wrote down what he saw, it must have been happening. Just because you or I have not come to experience it yet, it does not mean it has not come to pass.

This to me is sufficient knowledge. Is it sufficient for you? I suspect not. I say this because you come across as ready to get your teeth into details. If what is sufficient for me not for you, then can we not extrapolate and say that what is sufficient for anybody is not so for everybody? Could you say that what is sufficient for anybody would be ultimately subject to their relationship with God? Could we not simplify even further and say:

The definition of sufficient being extremely subjective, I'm sure.

I'm not sure if anybody else saw what I just did there. But I did what I do, that is, take what was my end goal, big picture thinking, and made it a detail. Which I alluded to earlier in this post:

The way I see things is this: Even the biggest picture in my mind is a mere detail to someone else

Anyway, this is fun. Come and get to know me better!

 

[jamdrew]

You are correct in saying that all e-relationships are based on black and white text. And through your post you appear to be a bit of a narcissist? Now you are right, I don't know you and coming to a conclusion like that is probably wrong...but if you read your post you are pretty self-congratulatory. You may or may not be smarter or look at the bigger picture, but the fact is we all have the same Spirit and God has given all people the ability to interpret scripture to a certain degree.

The Bible will always have some mystery to it such as the book of revelation. Guessing the author's intent in any apocalyptic literature is a bit difficult, almost mundane. This is mainly because we don't get a lot of hands on experience with apocalyptic literature.

Sufficiency in it's root is to argue that God has given us enough knowledge of who he is. He didn't give us more than he wanted or less than he wanted. God's also does not give us an exhaustive list, which rules out the possibility of it being subjective. The Bible doesn't tell us EVERYTHING there is to know about Him. But, conclusively we must understand that true knowledge of God ONLY comes from scripture.

 

[Avesther]

You are correct in saying that all e-relationships are based on black and white text.

And through your post you appear to be a bit of a narcissist?

Call me what ever your heart wishes, just don't call me late for dinner. LOL.

Now you are right, I don't know you and coming to a conclusion like that is probably wrong...

Probably wrong suggests that you are also probably right. I don't agree that you are probably right.

but if you read your post you are pretty self-congratulatory.

Does that really matter? Yes I am at times. Oh no, shoot me, I'm evil for doing so. LOL. I'm being sarcastic, I'm poking at ones funny bone. Making light of the situation. Having fun using hyperbole.

You may or may not be smarter or look at the bigger picture, but the fact is we all have the same Spirit and God has given all people the ability to interpret scripture to a certain degree.

Never claimed to be smarter or not...claimed to be different.

The Bible will always have some mystery to it such as the book of revelation. Guessing the author's intent in any apocalyptic literature is a bit difficult, almost mundane. This is mainly because we don't get a lot of hands on experience with apocalyptic literature.

What happens if you don't see it as apocalyptic literature? That is, you don't see it as the end of civilization.

Sufficiency in it's root is to argue that God has given us enough knowledge of who he is. He didn't give us more than he wanted or less than he wanted. God's also does not give us an exhaustive list, which rules out the possibility of it being subjective.

Actually, that pretty much defined it as being subjective. Again, you might want to re-read my post regarding the explanation of my context. I can't imagine how you can call it objective if there is no list to judge it against.

The Bible doesn't tell us EVERYTHING there is to know about Him.

I think I said that in the beginning. Yeah, I did, didn't I say we will spend eternity getting to know all about God? I also said that "it" is in the bible to serve the purpose to show that we don't know everything there is about God.

If anything, I think the purpose is to show that God is God and we know so little about God that it will take an eternity to learn even the smudgen about God and Gods ways.

Actually, coming back to my original post, there is nothing in it about whether or not we have sufficient knowledge of God at all. Certainly, you can take offense to my use of smudgen but certainly, you must agree our knowledge of God is not comprehensive by any measure. It may be sufficient for you and me and the next, it is most certainly to me, a smudgen of the totality of knowledge of God.

But, conclusively we must understand that true knowledge of God ONLY comes from scripture.

Not sure I agree with this statement. You discussed in a previous post special revelation from visions and dreams. Certainly those do not come from scripture. Test them against the veracity of scripture, yes, to that I would agree.

 

[TerryJStroud]

Definitely Pre-Millenial and Pre-Trib. I could be convinced for a mid-trib position (rapture after the "3.5 years" perspective).

I prefer pan-millenialism.... it'll all pan out in the end. ;-)

 

[Abba San]

Welcome to the forums - I think most of us agree with you. We might take a position, but in the end - we'll just be happy to be with God.

 

[Baddwin]

I agree with the majority view here in that eschatology is one of the debatable matters, and I can agree to disagree agreeably and be very happy about that fact.

Debating eschatology makes smart people look dumb, and dumb people look smart.

Only things we have to agree on is:

There will be a tribulation, Christ will return, and there will be a rapture.

In what order and what it looks like is purely secondary.

I disagree with the majority view in that all three of these are not up for debate.

1) Christ will return - Unquestionably. No doubt. Scripture is more than clear on this.

2) There will be tribulation - Have you looked out your window lately? It's going on now. Are we in the Great Tribulation? I'll tell you once I have the benefit of hindsight. =)

3) There will be a rapture - Will there? I don't know. I have yet to find anyplace where the Bible paints this in black and white. Now I acknowledge that it's a possible interpretation of scriptural promises, but I'm not ready to plant my flag on the idea that it's the only possible interpretation.

When I read scripture, particularly looking back on the ways God has dealt with us throughout history, I see a very clear pattern - God does things in completely unexpected ways. He promised to send a Messiah. Because He promised it, we could be sure that it would happen. But who would have guessed that He'd come into the world in the way that He did, and for the purpose not of ruling, but of dying? Many of those who had firm notions of what Messiah would be all about not only missed Him, but ended up actively working against God.

I can't discount the possibility that God again is going to fulfill one of the central promises of scripture in ways that will confound those looking to plug God into some kind of equation. The evangelical community seems to have taken the idea of a physical rapture from the realm of doctrine to the realm of dogma. Is this helpful? I'm not so sure. Now, again, I don't discount this as a possible interpretation of scripture, but scripture is far from clear on exactly how this promise will be fulfilled.

Speaking for myself, I focus much more on being obedient to God on a day-to-day basis, and figure that if I can do that (only with His grace!), then whenever and however He does show up, I'll be in a much better position to properly discern and respond to Him than if I'm on a constant "rapture-watch".

Now, I don't intend to imply that those who disagree with me are focused to an unhealthy degree on the rapture, nor that the rest of you aren't working daily on following Him, I'm simply speaking for the relative merits of how I spend my time and spiritual efforts within my own context.

Just more food for debate. =)

 

[Abba San]

I like this quote I came across this morning:

Roy Taylor, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America, commented, "As far as predicting the approximate time of Christ’s Second Advent is concerned, I have resigned from the Planning Committee and have joined the Welcoming Committee."

That is where I intend to be - on the welcoming committee.

 

[Baddwin]

I like it! =)