CCGR
Member
whoops sorry.
Tribulation
- Thread starter Saeliel
- Start date
C
Crisler
Guest
I have not read this whole thread but I have a simple thought on this matter, I am Pan Tribulation, I figure it will all pan out in the end.
I dont worry about how close or far away it is. I live my ife daily as if he will come any moment. I work to save all I can and to enjoy each moment in this flesh as if it is my last. In this way I have no reason to worry about when it happens
Edward
I dont worry about how close or far away it is. I live my ife daily as if he will come any moment. I work to save all I can and to enjoy each moment in this flesh as if it is my last. In this way I have no reason to worry about when it happens
Edward
CCGR
Member
That's a good way to look at it.
We have no reason to look for a future fulfillment of the tribulation when it was already fulfilled in the years leading up to 70 AD in Jerusalem. For instance, note Daniel 9:24-27's 70 Weeks of years. Counting each week as 7 years (even dispensationalists=pre-trib agree on 70 weeks=490 yrs), we see that the 69 weeks/483 years Daniel mentions end at the time generally accepted as the start of Christ's ministry - 26 AD. Daniel indicates that one-half week (3.5 yrs) later, the destruction will be "decreed." Exactly following that time frame, near the end of His earthly ministry, our Lord decreed the destruction of Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24 and its parallels in Mark and Luke). In 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem followed exactly a 3.5-yr tribulation under the Roman empire. You can also see this 3.5 year tribulation mentioned 4 times in Rev 12 and the surrounding text. To my knowledge, every conservative scholar connects the Olivet Discourse with a 70 AD fulfillment in some manner (specifically, the destruction of Jerusalem. Many scholars find it to have unfulfilled pieces, as well). This makes much sense of the time frame Jesus gives -- specifically, that "this generation" would see the tribulation He had decreed. Thus, we conclude that since the tribulation has already occurred, and the Rapture has not (which is simultaneous with the Final Resurrection and the Final Judgment), the rapture is neither pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, partial, etc. For an excellent discussion of the four main conservative views on Revelation, the millenium, etc., try the Counterpoints series -- Four Views on Revelation and Three Views on the Millenium. My view is the preterist (partial -- not hyper/heretical/heterodox) view, and is clearly established both by Scriptural warrant and obvious historical fulfillment (esp. cp. to Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius, historians of the time of Jerusalem's destruction).
In response to arguments favoring various positions:
(from "seven reasons" on pre-trib; I'm dealing only with those not attacking post-trib, as they are irrelevant to my view)
1. The known day and the unknown day cannot be the same day.
-- Yet the preterist view does not require this, as the Rapture is at the (yet unknown) end of time.
4. If all unbelievers are destroyed, then who will populate the millennium?
-- Everyone. We are presently in the Millenium.
5. Revelation 3:10 clearly says, "I will keep you from the hour."
-- There are three problems with this argument:
a. It is not (with any certainty) addressed to the church universal. It is addressed plainly to a specific, historical church (Philadelphia, as I recall).
b. We still have no reason to directly connect the Rapture and the Tribulation, especially given that the Tribulation has already occurred
c. Following Christ's advice (Matt 24:16 and the Lukan parallel, as I recall), believers in Jerusalem actually fled to the mountains, side-stepping the worst of the Roman persecutions (so it has, in a sense, a possible fulfillment for God's elect in Jerusalem).
6. By Revelation 19, the wife is already ready.
-- This is why 70 AD, marking a total "divorce" of the nation of Israel, marks a completion (of sorts) in Christ's marriage to the True Israel of Romans 9 (i.e. the Church).
(longer argument):
"7. By Revelation 4, the crowns are already awarded.
"And round about the throne were four and twenty seats [thrones]: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads [victory] crowns of gold" (Revelation 4:4).
Who are the elders? Some may think that the elders are angels. But God doesn't award victory crowns to angels. These crowns are reserved for sinners who overcome by faith. You can say the elders are the church, or Israel, or a combination of both, or the New York Yankees, minus one player. I don't care. But definitely human.
Crowns come when Christ comes. (2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 22:12)
Therefore, Christ must have come prior to Revelation 4:4, but after Revelation 3 when the church is still on earth. Somewhere in between there."
-- This argument has a small amount of force to it, but it's so speculative that it can serve only as a secondary argument. It takes quite a logical leap to get crown=post-rapture, so this can only stand if supported by primary arguments. I'm also not exactly sure how a dispensationalist (pre-tribbers affirm the eschatological/"end times" view of classical dispensationalism) can honestly call his/her reading a "plain, literal interpretation" when seven letters addressed specifically to seven historical churches are seen otherwise (i.e. as referring to stages of history).
*** el cuko -- excellent!
Watcher -- my response to the website you've posted.
(Me) Most of this website was just rhetoric ("I have a personal dislike for preterists, and they're all-around bad people!") and has nothing to do with the arguments. I'll examine the arguments themselves.
(Site) In order to make 70 AD the magic year, you would have to delete dozens of prophecies that were never fulfilled. When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about China's 200-million-man army? When did 100 pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?
(Me) The author has apparently never read a preterist commentary or the works of historians on the 70 AD destruction. All of these questions have been dealt with in detail. This is irresponsible scholarship.
For instance, Josephus records the powerful hailstorm, as well as the Mark. China's 200-million-man army is obviously a red herring. The author needs to cite and actually argue for the rest of his objections.
(Site) The questions are endless. Why did we have the rebirth of Israel? If Jerusalem was forever removed from being the burdensome stone, why has it now returned to that status? When did all the Jews shout, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," as Jesus said they would?
(Me) These are also fairly vague and don't respond to Preterist argument at all. I'm disgusted that this false teacher claims to have refuted preterism when he won't even answer Preterist responses!
He can't even deal with the most basic of Preterist arguments -- for instance, that Israel's divorce was _as Christ's Spiritual Bride_, not as a physical nation!
(Site) After being so strict in their interpretation of Matthew 24:34, preterists then run rough-shod over many clear statements of scripture. They say that although the "resurrection" happened in 70 AD, the bodies of Christians were left in the grave.
(Me) He's here arguing against full preterism -- NOT partial preterism. Full preterism is obviously false and obviously heresy. Eschatological prophecies never indicate that the final resurrection was soon -- only things like the Olivet Discourse, many (I can't remember any that aren't) prophecies in Revelation, etc.
(Site) Preterists take the dangerous step of spiritualizing all passages of scripture that relate to the nation of Israel, and claim that these refer to the church, the "New Israel." They teach that the "old earth," which scripture says will pass away, is the Old Covenant. The new heaven and new earth, they say, is the New Covenant, and the "elements," which scripture says will burn with fervent heat when this happens, are the "elements of the law."
(Me) Now he's mostly arguing Covenant Theology as a whole -- NOT preterism. To argue against such a complex and well-argued position (Reformed scholars have always been the most prolific and effective writers) requires more than a one paragraph hand-wave.
(Site) Preterism produces some very bizarre explanations for why the world is still experiencing suffering and calamity. One explanation I ran across cited God's need for population control as the reason for mankind's suffering. Here is what one preterist author wrote:
"I believe that people are born and people die. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. God is the providential population controller. He brings famine, disease, natural catastrophes, wars and tumults. One-third of the population of Europe was destroyed by the Black Plague in the early part of this millennium. Eight Hundred fifty thousand were killed in the 1556 earthquake in the Shanghai province of China. Two million were killed in World War II. Thirteen million were killed under Stalin and 6 million under Hitler. God is very equipped to control population."
(Me) This is known as a straw man argument. It is a fallacy in which one sets up a "patsy" to tear down. In other words, you don't present your opponents' best argument(s). For one of the best scholars on dispensationalism, I offer Walvoord. For one of the best (modern) scholars on preterism, I offer Gentry. This author's argumentation should be ignored because he won't even interact with _actual_ preterist argument. He might even pick up "Four Views on Revelation," a basic explanation of the four main conservative views on reading John's Apocalypse, to find many of these answers. This is simply irresponsible.
You will also see no real refutation or explanation of words like the following: near, soon, at hand, around the corner, close, shortly, approaching, impending. The Bible uses all this language. Christ also indicated that many of His hearers would not taste death before the coming of the Kingdom of God in power, and that that generation would not pass away. This author claims to have a "literal" or "plain" reading of the text (I assume, as all pre-tribbers do), but he won't submit to the most obvious statement of all: that the events were _close_.
(Watcher) I'm sorry but I will never be able to get past the preterist view that all prophecy has been fullfilled and nothing remains on the prophetic calendar.
(Me) If that were the view, I couldn't get past it either! I'm glad that you have this problem, as it is clear that events like the Rapture, Resurrection, and Final Judgment are yet to come. That is why I suggest you read orthodox preterists (not hyper-preterists, as that author was attacking). Pick up Counterpoints' Four Views on Revelation to see a basic outline of pP's view on Revelation. Kenneth Gentry has also written a number of other good books on the subject, including: Before Jerusalem Fell, The Beast of Revelation, and He Shall Have Dominion: a Postmillenial Eschatology. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus is also fairly good. I suggest Gentry and Sproul because, in my opinion, they're the only two recent Preterist authors with much sense. There are many Preterists that make great arguments, but they haven't written any books. Many other preterists write, but have poor argumentation (for instance, Chilton and DeMar). Their errors in scholarship are probably the reason for their fall closer to heterodoxy (or actually there, in the case of Chilton).
(CCGR) Not enough false profits, famines, earthquakes in diverse places, no plagues, no judgements. Where's the anti-Christ?
(Me) He is actually the Beast. John refers to "many antichrists," not just one. The Beast has a dual fulfillment (king and kingdom, which dispensational authors will grant) -- Nero and the Roman Empire. You'll notice, for instance, that Nero's name (in Hebrew gematria) adds up to 666. Gentry's "The Beast..." presents a compelling case in this regard. His summation of Preterism in "Four Views..." is good enough for someone not looking for an in-depth study.
Regarding the other things -- compare Revelation with Josephus' account of the destruction of Jerusalem. The semblance is fascinating and plainly apparent. Gentry discusses many of them in "Four Views..."
(Crisler) I have not read this whole thread but I have a simple thought on this matter, I am Pan Tribulation, I figure it will all pan out in the end.
(Me) Yet should we not study all the Truth God has revealed to us?
Soli Deo Gloria,
John Roberson
In response to arguments favoring various positions:
(from "seven reasons" on pre-trib; I'm dealing only with those not attacking post-trib, as they are irrelevant to my view)
1. The known day and the unknown day cannot be the same day.
-- Yet the preterist view does not require this, as the Rapture is at the (yet unknown) end of time.
4. If all unbelievers are destroyed, then who will populate the millennium?
-- Everyone. We are presently in the Millenium.
5. Revelation 3:10 clearly says, "I will keep you from the hour."
-- There are three problems with this argument:
a. It is not (with any certainty) addressed to the church universal. It is addressed plainly to a specific, historical church (Philadelphia, as I recall).
b. We still have no reason to directly connect the Rapture and the Tribulation, especially given that the Tribulation has already occurred
c. Following Christ's advice (Matt 24:16 and the Lukan parallel, as I recall), believers in Jerusalem actually fled to the mountains, side-stepping the worst of the Roman persecutions (so it has, in a sense, a possible fulfillment for God's elect in Jerusalem).
6. By Revelation 19, the wife is already ready.
-- This is why 70 AD, marking a total "divorce" of the nation of Israel, marks a completion (of sorts) in Christ's marriage to the True Israel of Romans 9 (i.e. the Church).
(longer argument):
"7. By Revelation 4, the crowns are already awarded.
"And round about the throne were four and twenty seats [thrones]: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads [victory] crowns of gold" (Revelation 4:4).
Who are the elders? Some may think that the elders are angels. But God doesn't award victory crowns to angels. These crowns are reserved for sinners who overcome by faith. You can say the elders are the church, or Israel, or a combination of both, or the New York Yankees, minus one player. I don't care. But definitely human.
Crowns come when Christ comes. (2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Peter 5:4, Revelation 22:12)
Therefore, Christ must have come prior to Revelation 4:4, but after Revelation 3 when the church is still on earth. Somewhere in between there."
-- This argument has a small amount of force to it, but it's so speculative that it can serve only as a secondary argument. It takes quite a logical leap to get crown=post-rapture, so this can only stand if supported by primary arguments. I'm also not exactly sure how a dispensationalist (pre-tribbers affirm the eschatological/"end times" view of classical dispensationalism) can honestly call his/her reading a "plain, literal interpretation" when seven letters addressed specifically to seven historical churches are seen otherwise (i.e. as referring to stages of history).
*** el cuko -- excellent!
Watcher -- my response to the website you've posted.
(Me) Most of this website was just rhetoric ("I have a personal dislike for preterists, and they're all-around bad people!") and has nothing to do with the arguments. I'll examine the arguments themselves.
(Site) In order to make 70 AD the magic year, you would have to delete dozens of prophecies that were never fulfilled. When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about China's 200-million-man army? When did 100 pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?
(Me) The author has apparently never read a preterist commentary or the works of historians on the 70 AD destruction. All of these questions have been dealt with in detail. This is irresponsible scholarship.
For instance, Josephus records the powerful hailstorm, as well as the Mark. China's 200-million-man army is obviously a red herring. The author needs to cite and actually argue for the rest of his objections.
(Site) The questions are endless. Why did we have the rebirth of Israel? If Jerusalem was forever removed from being the burdensome stone, why has it now returned to that status? When did all the Jews shout, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," as Jesus said they would?
(Me) These are also fairly vague and don't respond to Preterist argument at all. I'm disgusted that this false teacher claims to have refuted preterism when he won't even answer Preterist responses!
He can't even deal with the most basic of Preterist arguments -- for instance, that Israel's divorce was _as Christ's Spiritual Bride_, not as a physical nation!
(Site) After being so strict in their interpretation of Matthew 24:34, preterists then run rough-shod over many clear statements of scripture. They say that although the "resurrection" happened in 70 AD, the bodies of Christians were left in the grave.
(Me) He's here arguing against full preterism -- NOT partial preterism. Full preterism is obviously false and obviously heresy. Eschatological prophecies never indicate that the final resurrection was soon -- only things like the Olivet Discourse, many (I can't remember any that aren't) prophecies in Revelation, etc.
(Site) Preterists take the dangerous step of spiritualizing all passages of scripture that relate to the nation of Israel, and claim that these refer to the church, the "New Israel." They teach that the "old earth," which scripture says will pass away, is the Old Covenant. The new heaven and new earth, they say, is the New Covenant, and the "elements," which scripture says will burn with fervent heat when this happens, are the "elements of the law."
(Me) Now he's mostly arguing Covenant Theology as a whole -- NOT preterism. To argue against such a complex and well-argued position (Reformed scholars have always been the most prolific and effective writers) requires more than a one paragraph hand-wave.
(Site) Preterism produces some very bizarre explanations for why the world is still experiencing suffering and calamity. One explanation I ran across cited God's need for population control as the reason for mankind's suffering. Here is what one preterist author wrote:
"I believe that people are born and people die. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. God is the providential population controller. He brings famine, disease, natural catastrophes, wars and tumults. One-third of the population of Europe was destroyed by the Black Plague in the early part of this millennium. Eight Hundred fifty thousand were killed in the 1556 earthquake in the Shanghai province of China. Two million were killed in World War II. Thirteen million were killed under Stalin and 6 million under Hitler. God is very equipped to control population."
(Me) This is known as a straw man argument. It is a fallacy in which one sets up a "patsy" to tear down. In other words, you don't present your opponents' best argument(s). For one of the best scholars on dispensationalism, I offer Walvoord. For one of the best (modern) scholars on preterism, I offer Gentry. This author's argumentation should be ignored because he won't even interact with _actual_ preterist argument. He might even pick up "Four Views on Revelation," a basic explanation of the four main conservative views on reading John's Apocalypse, to find many of these answers. This is simply irresponsible.
You will also see no real refutation or explanation of words like the following: near, soon, at hand, around the corner, close, shortly, approaching, impending. The Bible uses all this language. Christ also indicated that many of His hearers would not taste death before the coming of the Kingdom of God in power, and that that generation would not pass away. This author claims to have a "literal" or "plain" reading of the text (I assume, as all pre-tribbers do), but he won't submit to the most obvious statement of all: that the events were _close_.
(Watcher) I'm sorry but I will never be able to get past the preterist view that all prophecy has been fullfilled and nothing remains on the prophetic calendar.
(Me) If that were the view, I couldn't get past it either! I'm glad that you have this problem, as it is clear that events like the Rapture, Resurrection, and Final Judgment are yet to come. That is why I suggest you read orthodox preterists (not hyper-preterists, as that author was attacking). Pick up Counterpoints' Four Views on Revelation to see a basic outline of pP's view on Revelation. Kenneth Gentry has also written a number of other good books on the subject, including: Before Jerusalem Fell, The Beast of Revelation, and He Shall Have Dominion: a Postmillenial Eschatology. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus is also fairly good. I suggest Gentry and Sproul because, in my opinion, they're the only two recent Preterist authors with much sense. There are many Preterists that make great arguments, but they haven't written any books. Many other preterists write, but have poor argumentation (for instance, Chilton and DeMar). Their errors in scholarship are probably the reason for their fall closer to heterodoxy (or actually there, in the case of Chilton).
(CCGR) Not enough false profits, famines, earthquakes in diverse places, no plagues, no judgements. Where's the anti-Christ?
(Me) He is actually the Beast. John refers to "many antichrists," not just one. The Beast has a dual fulfillment (king and kingdom, which dispensational authors will grant) -- Nero and the Roman Empire. You'll notice, for instance, that Nero's name (in Hebrew gematria) adds up to 666. Gentry's "The Beast..." presents a compelling case in this regard. His summation of Preterism in "Four Views..." is good enough for someone not looking for an in-depth study.
Regarding the other things -- compare Revelation with Josephus' account of the destruction of Jerusalem. The semblance is fascinating and plainly apparent. Gentry discusses many of them in "Four Views..."
(Crisler) I have not read this whole thread but I have a simple thought on this matter, I am Pan Tribulation, I figure it will all pan out in the end.
(Me) Yet should we not study all the Truth God has revealed to us?
Soli Deo Gloria,
John Roberson
CCGR
Member
Welcome TheFe! Looks like you have plenty of experience in spiritual discussions. Excellent posts, many good points.
I must admit I don't buy the names into numbers theories. If you spell out Prince William or Bill Gate's full name you can make it equal to 666 too.
I have read literature (Jack Chick) claiming the pope can be an ideal candidate for an anichrist..with exception to the Jews respecting him though.
I must admit I don't buy the names into numbers theories. If you spell out Prince William or Bill Gate's full name you can make it equal to 666 too.
I have read literature (Jack Chick) claiming the pope can be an ideal candidate for an anichrist..with exception to the Jews respecting him though.
M
Mr_Eon
Guest
Yeah, but Chick's literature comes from the voices he hears in his head - and I don't think that it's God talking to him.
He's a hateful, loathesome, twisted creature that is a parody of a human being. If Jack Chick told me that the sun would rise tomorrow in the East, I'd get up early to check, rather than take his word for it - so consistently manipulative and dishonest is he.
He's a hateful, loathesome, twisted creature that is a parody of a human being. If Jack Chick told me that the sun would rise tomorrow in the East, I'd get up early to check, rather than take his word for it - so consistently manipulative and dishonest is he.
CCGR
Member
I didn't say I agreed with his theories, I was just mentioning that I don't buy the numerology in names and guesswork on who the anti-Christ will be etc
(CCGR) Welcome TheFe! Looks like you have plenty of experience in spiritual discussions. Excellent posts, many good points.[b said:
(Me) Thank you for the warm welcome
(CCGR) I must admit I don't buy the names into numbers theories. If you spell out Prince William or Bill Gate's full name you can make it equal to 666 too.
I have read literature (Jack Chick) claiming the pope can be an ideal candidate for an anichrist..with exception to the Jews respecting him though.
(Me) Yet John was clearly trying to tell his readers of events occuring soon, that the time was near (check the beginning of Revelation 1). The events had to _soon_ come to pass. Note identification of the beast (I pointed to a dual king/kingdom fulfillment) in Nero and the Roman Empire. The Scripture indicates that the number of the beast is 666 -- exactly the same as Nero's. Note that some early copies of Revelation are found to have changed this number to 616. You'll find that the difference between a Hebrew and a Greek spelling of Nero's name turns out either 666 or 616, respectively. Additionally, note that the beast (now the kingdom fulfillment) had seven heads that represents seven hills, that represent seven kings. There are seven famous hills of Rome. The seven kings? It indicates that five had already passed, one was present, and one would come after, but would be there for but a short time. As a matter of history, Nero was the sixth emperor of Rome. Furthermore, the next king in line held his position for just a few months -- a very short time. Finally, John says that an eighth king (he specifically refrains from "the," choosing "and," instead) would be seen to resurrect the beast. We see that, following Nero's death, the Roman Empire (kingdom beast) had fallen into decline, but was eventually restored by an eighth king (Vespasian, if I'm remembering correctly). Now, once again, examine the evidence. John say explicitly that the events were to occur _soon_, that they were _at hand_. If he intended to denote a temporally near fulfillment, how else could he have done it? He was as explicit as humanly possible. Therefore, since the events were to happen very soon, and the events surrounding Nero and the Roman Empire perfectly fit the prophecies, what more have we to think? Are we to think that there was another king or kingdom somewhere else in the world that, although completely unrelated to Jerusalem and the judgment decreed on the Jews according to Daniel's prophecy, was fulfilling John's prophecies? Again, the time was "at hand," meaning immediately forthcoming. Searching for another fulfillment is to search beyond the Biblical scope.
Jack Chick thinks the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Of course, he assumes a fulfillment that was _not_ "at hand," "near," "short" in time as compared to the writing of John's Apocalypse. Thus, by the words of Scriptural prophecy, we ought to accept the preterist interpretation.
I've always believed that the Antichrist would be a rather business-oriented fellow who's deep into civil rights and all. Possibly, if he is already alive, he is in a lower part of a small government. Always worried about his fellow humans and all. Yet, one of those people of which it would be said, "My, if anyone is a good Christian, he is." He's the deciever, don't forget....
I also think that it's a great possibility that the Pope might be the the False Prophet. Who else would hold that sort of religious sway and authority over so many people and be followed blindly by people who would not DARE go against him?
Another interesting thought came to mind the other day....
Certainly you guys have seen the John Edwards guy on television? The TV psychic? Well, I think that A) he isn't talking to dead people, but demons who would know everything about those people, B)he might be another person who has a large possibility of being the False Prophet. Crazy, I know, but if you look at his ratings, they're through the roof. I don't know of many people who haven't heard about him. Anything is possible -_-.
I also think that it's a great possibility that the Pope might be the the False Prophet. Who else would hold that sort of religious sway and authority over so many people and be followed blindly by people who would not DARE go against him?
Another interesting thought came to mind the other day....
Certainly you guys have seen the John Edwards guy on television? The TV psychic? Well, I think that A) he isn't talking to dead people, but demons who would know everything about those people, B)he might be another person who has a large possibility of being the False Prophet. Crazy, I know, but if you look at his ratings, they're through the roof. I don't know of many people who haven't heard about him. Anything is possible -_-.
(Vanaze) I've always believed that the Antichrist would be a rather business-oriented fellow who's deep into civil rights and all. Possibly, if he is already alive, he is in a lower part of a small government. Always worried about his fellow humans and all. Yet, one of those people of which it would be said, "My, if anyone is a good Christian, he is." He's the deciever, don't forget....
(Me) And yet, as I've already pointed out, the Bible indicates that the Beast's time was the 1st century. Therefore, we have no reason to look for a future fulfillment. To do so would be to go beyond the Scripture's own statements.
(Me) And yet, as I've already pointed out, the Bible indicates that the Beast's time was the 1st century. Therefore, we have no reason to look for a future fulfillment. To do so would be to go beyond the Scripture's own statements.
(MaxX) Yet not everyone agrees with your interpretation, TheFe.
(Me) Neither did the Pharisees agree with Jesus' interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet, starting in Matthew 5, He explained the true meaning of the Scriptures, which is often perverted (2 Pe 3:16) by those wanting to have their ears tickled with false doctrine (2 Tim 4:3). The Pharisees didn't agree, but Jesus set out to show them that they were wrong. The same thing happened in Paul's confrontation with Peter, as recorded in Galatians 2.
If someone disagrees with my interpretation, they have two options:
1. Point out my error
2. Reject the teaching of Scripture
If I have erred, I am more than willing to be shown as much. I didn't come to accept much of anything I now accept without being shown my error. If one rejects the teaching of Scripture, then their blood is on their own hands.
(MaxX) Revelation is open for much variety of opinions, but Jesus made it very clear that we are not to know the time and date of his return (and subconsequently the events of revelation).
(Me) You have made the assumption that His final coming and the events of the book of Revelation are immediately intertwined. What Scriptural reason have we to think such a thing?
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, Revelation was written to a certain group of people with a certain intention -- specifically, "to show to His servants the things that must soon take place" (1:1). Obviously, then, Revelation was intended to be understood. Again, Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy... for the time is near" (1:3). You've told us that the time was not near, that we are not to recognize what things were to take place, and that I am not blessed for trying to understand the prophecy. All three of this claims are specifically repudiated in two of the first three verses of Revelation. Please reconsider your charges against me.
Sola Scriptura
(Me) Neither did the Pharisees agree with Jesus' interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet, starting in Matthew 5, He explained the true meaning of the Scriptures, which is often perverted (2 Pe 3:16) by those wanting to have their ears tickled with false doctrine (2 Tim 4:3). The Pharisees didn't agree, but Jesus set out to show them that they were wrong. The same thing happened in Paul's confrontation with Peter, as recorded in Galatians 2.
If someone disagrees with my interpretation, they have two options:
1. Point out my error
2. Reject the teaching of Scripture
If I have erred, I am more than willing to be shown as much. I didn't come to accept much of anything I now accept without being shown my error. If one rejects the teaching of Scripture, then their blood is on their own hands.
(MaxX) Revelation is open for much variety of opinions, but Jesus made it very clear that we are not to know the time and date of his return (and subconsequently the events of revelation).
(Me) You have made the assumption that His final coming and the events of the book of Revelation are immediately intertwined. What Scriptural reason have we to think such a thing?
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, Revelation was written to a certain group of people with a certain intention -- specifically, "to show to His servants the things that must soon take place" (1:1). Obviously, then, Revelation was intended to be understood. Again, Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy... for the time is near" (1:3). You've told us that the time was not near, that we are not to recognize what things were to take place, and that I am not blessed for trying to understand the prophecy. All three of this claims are specifically repudiated in two of the first three verses of Revelation. Please reconsider your charges against me.
Sola Scriptura
My charges against you were none, but now they are many. You are basically saying that if someone does not believe in your interpretation of the allegories in Revelation, they are false prophets turning people away from God. Revelation can be interpreted in many ways. It does NOT contain "vital" doctrine (and therefore would not be open for debate). If you strongly believe you are in the right, good, but since it is not an important issue, you need not shove it down fellow believer's throats. And be careful that YOU are not being decieved.
I could debate on why you are wrong, but I do not wish to start a war on something more trivial, so I shall not.
I could debate on why you are wrong, but I do not wish to start a war on something more trivial, so I shall not.
(MaxX) My charges against you were none, but now they are many. You are basically saying that if someone does not believe in your interpretation of the allegories in Revelation, they are false prophets turning people away from God. Revelation can be interpreted in many ways. It does NOT contain "vital" doctrine (and therefore would not be open for debate). If you strongly believe you are in the right, good, but since it is not an important issue, you need not shove it down fellow believer's throats. And be careful that YOU are not being decieved.[b said:
I could debate on why you are wrong, but I do not wish to start a war on something more trivial, so I shall not.
(Me) First, I can't possibly see how a non-"vital" doctrine is not open for debate. We are to turn to the Scriptures alone for answers; ALL Scripture is profitable (2 Tim 3:16), not just that Scripture related to "vital doctrine." If one man is in error, and his brother sees it, his brother ought to point out this error to him.
Foremost, however, you need to reread my post above. I said that someone disagreeing with my interpretation had TWO options. One of those two options was to point out my error. As I said above, I've made a number of errors in my life. If I've made one here, please point it out.
If you would like a good survey of the main conservative, evangelical interpretations on Revelation, read "Four Views on Revelation."
Sola Scriptura
Ultima Avatar
New Member
Whoop. I haven't read the other seven pages yet. But from glancing at the title, I have something to say:
1. When God comes, God comes. If the evil are erased from the world, or the righteous are stolen up to heaven, then so be it. If he just wipes us out both together, then so be it. Either way, we all get the same ending: hell or heaven.
2. I saw that thing about demonspeech, as I'll call it. I think that some people can be possessed to speak of things as known or seen through demons' eyes. I read Roger Elwood's Angelwalk trilogy and I thought it was excellent.
Yes, Saul did go to the witch to know what Samuel thought. But I wonder, is it trully through the powers of darkness that the dead are raised? GOd raised his Son, Jesus raised Lazarus and others, Saul brought that boy who had fallen out of the window back, the girl who was dead got up and lived when Jesus said to. If a spirit is raised up or communicated with, then is it through an evil catalyst? I guess "Rose is Rose" is in big trouble in that case.
3. I honestly believe that when the end comes, it will be with a great and mighty destruction, for one or all. If it's the Christians in the tribulation of the Antichrist, or if the current ones are taken up and the new Christians suffer, then I think it will be gross pain. If Nero was the Antichrist, then we definitely suffered most terribly underneath his reign. If there will be no true ultimate Antichrist and merely a humongous swell of sin and deprivation, so much that perhaps even the demons return to mix in with humans, then maybe God will wipe us out then. I don't think that's going to happen though.
4. To end it all: God will come. He will come one way or another. He may surprise us with our pants down, as he has warned us in the Bible. Or maybe we'll have a countdown to his return. Or maybe He'll sneak into the world and pull a Jesus Christ on us, no disrespect intended.
5. I love this topic.
1. When God comes, God comes. If the evil are erased from the world, or the righteous are stolen up to heaven, then so be it. If he just wipes us out both together, then so be it. Either way, we all get the same ending: hell or heaven.
2. I saw that thing about demonspeech, as I'll call it. I think that some people can be possessed to speak of things as known or seen through demons' eyes. I read Roger Elwood's Angelwalk trilogy and I thought it was excellent.
Yes, Saul did go to the witch to know what Samuel thought. But I wonder, is it trully through the powers of darkness that the dead are raised? GOd raised his Son, Jesus raised Lazarus and others, Saul brought that boy who had fallen out of the window back, the girl who was dead got up and lived when Jesus said to. If a spirit is raised up or communicated with, then is it through an evil catalyst? I guess "Rose is Rose" is in big trouble in that case.
3. I honestly believe that when the end comes, it will be with a great and mighty destruction, for one or all. If it's the Christians in the tribulation of the Antichrist, or if the current ones are taken up and the new Christians suffer, then I think it will be gross pain. If Nero was the Antichrist, then we definitely suffered most terribly underneath his reign. If there will be no true ultimate Antichrist and merely a humongous swell of sin and deprivation, so much that perhaps even the demons return to mix in with humans, then maybe God will wipe us out then. I don't think that's going to happen though.
4. To end it all: God will come. He will come one way or another. He may surprise us with our pants down, as he has warned us in the Bible. Or maybe we'll have a countdown to his return. Or maybe He'll sneak into the world and pull a Jesus Christ on us, no disrespect intended.
5. I love this topic.