RC Sproul and Eschatology........

[Grasshopper]

Sproul has a lecture series posted on his web site dealing with eschatology.

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=458

I wonder how those who insist on literalism in Genesis 1 deal with words in Revelation 1.

 

[OldRegular]

Sproul has a lecture series posted on his web site dealing with eschatology.

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=458

I wonder how those who insist on literalism in Genesis 1 deal with words in Revelation 1.

There are a lot of words in Revelation 1. Which ones are you concerned about.

By the way Sproul states on the interpretation of Scripture, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25:

"In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book."

 

[Grasshopper]

There are a lot of words in Revelation 1. Which ones are you concerned about.

I'm not concerned about any of them, but the words I was referring to were these:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now if day means day, and evening and morning mean evening and morning in the literal sense in Genesis, do these words in Revelation literally mean "shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"?


Somehow I see a 180 coming from many on the Genesis thread.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think you interpret the words of Rev 1, just as you do the ones in Gen 1 ... Just like they were used in the first century. When you study those words in the Bible, you see that they obviously are not referring to a strict time frame. The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking" (2 Peter 3).

 

[Grasshopper]

I think you interpret the words of Rev 1, just as you do the ones in Gen 1 ... Just like they were used in the first century. When you study those words in the Bible, you see that they obviously are not referring to a strict time frame. The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking" (2 Peter 3).

The 180s have begun.

 

[Revmitchell]

The 180s have begun.

A rather disingenuous statement. He was very clear without changing any position. You however continue your vague back handed attacks disguised as posts. If you cannot actually present a clear position maybe you should sit on the bench and watch.

 

[Grasshopper]

A rather disingenuous statement. He was very clear without changing any position. You however continue your vague back handed attacks disguised as posts. If you cannot actually present a clear position maybe you should sit on the bench and watch.

Yet another comes to give us his interpretation of Rev 1. Oh wait, he didn't actually give any. Suddenly the screams of literalism go silent. Perhaps you should stay on the sidelines and actually listen to Sproul before giving us your wise, clear and edifying comments.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet another comes to give us his interpretation of Rev 1. Oh wait, he didn't actually give any. Suddenly the screams of literalism go silent. Perhaps you should stay on the sidelines and actually listen to Sproul before giving us your wise, clear and edifying comments.

We were all so impressed with:

The 180s have begun.

When you ever (as if that will ever happen) actually offer one I will be glad to oblige. Until then I will continue to laugh at your inane attempts at who knows what.

 

[Grasshopper]

By the way Sproul states on the interpretation of Scripture, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25:

"In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book."

He deals with this topic here: http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=458 (under literal or figurative topic)

 

[OldRegular]

I'm not concerned about any of them, but the words I was referring to were these:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now if day means day, and evening and morning mean evening and morning in the literal sense in Genesis, do these words in Revelation literally mean "shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"?


Somehow I see a 180 coming from many on the Genesis thread.

Sorry I can't do a 180 on you I might be able to do a 360. Below are some of my thoughts on the Book of Revelation I used in a SS Class:

"How is one to achieve a Scriptural understanding of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and how does the Book of Revelation relate to that Second Coming? The answers to these questions are not easy and there are many divergent opinions. The Book of Revelation is indeed a most difficult book to understand. Any interpretation of the book must be tempered by the belief that it was initially written to comfort the early Christians undergoing severe persecution and that it is still a book of comfort for the Saints of God’s. Since the Book of Revelation was written for the benefit of the early Church [as well as the Church throughout time] then it must have had meaning for them, meaning that we perhaps do not fully understand. Certainly the Book of Revelation tells us the following truths:

1. That things are not necessarily what they appear to be.
2. That God is still on the throne and in control.
3. That in the final analysis God’s people will emerge victorious through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The first verse of the Book of Revelation speaks to the imminence of the events revealed to the Apostle John by Jesus Christ.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:

The things revealed must shortly come to pass. Have the events revealed in the Book of Revelation occurred as indicated? Certainly if taken in a strict literal sense the events described in Chapters 4-22 have not. However, much of Revelation is apocalyptic literature and uses various grammatical forms. These grammatical forms must be recognized if one is to corectly interpet the Revelation."

I might also add what Philip Edgecumbe Hughes said in his commentary The Book of Revelation regarding the use of the word "signify" in verse 1. "The verb signified has a particular appropriateness here, for to signify means to communicate by means of signs or to explain the meaning of signs, and this writing is by its very nature a book of signs or symbols ......"

 

[Pastor Larry]

The 180s have begun.

How so? Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer an explanation of your words.

 

[OldRegular]

Sproul has a lecture series posted on his web site dealing with eschatology.

http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=458

I wonder how those who insist on literalism in Genesis 1 deal with words in Revelation 1.

Probably the same way Sproul does Grasshopper:

R.C. Sproul and Six-Day*Creation

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:

“For most of my teaching career, I considered the ‘framework hypothesis’ to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

The ‘framework hypothesis’ was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a ‘framework’ into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:

“According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”

Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

“Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.”

The above is from Banner of Truth…

http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/07/10/rc-sproul-and-six-day-creation/

 

[Grasshopper]

How so? Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer an explanation of your words.

Just as the old earth advocates must prove day means something other than the normal usage, so must futurist prove that the time statements of the NT means someting other than the normal. This is what the Sproul series is about, he understands the words used in the NT concerning prophecys and is attempting to deal with them without playing games with the words as futurists do.

By the way, the scoffers you refer to in 2Peter didn't believe Peter either when he said he was in the "last times" and the end was near. So you fit that term better than I.

 

[Grasshopper]

Probably the same way Sproul does Grasshopper:

R.C. Sproul and Six-Day*Creation

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:

“For most of my teaching career, I considered the ‘framework hypothesis’ to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

The ‘framework hypothesis’ was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a ‘framework’ into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:

“According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”

Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

“Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.”

The above is from Banner of Truth…

http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/07/10/rc-sproul-and-six-day-creation/

Not sure why you posted this, but do you also agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse? Sproul is consistent are you?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Just as the old earth advocates must prove day means something other than the normal usage, so must futurist prove that the time statements of the NT means someting other than the normal.

No, I think they mean what they normally mean. I don't have to change anything. Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.

By the way, the scoffers you refer to in 2Peter didn't believe Peter either when he said he was in the "last times" and the end was near. So you fit that term better than I.

We are in the last times and the end is near. But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers. I don't do that. When I see those promises, I take them for what they say.

Let's face it. If the words meant what you think they did, then God failed in his promise because Jesus hasn't come back yet.

 

[Grasshopper]

No, I think they mean what they normally mean. I don't have to change anything. Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.

Typical arrogance.

We are in the last times and the end is near. But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers.

Well according to most dispie commentators, the NT writers thought they were to occur in a short period of time but they were mistaken. So according to most dispies you think the NT writers were scoffers.

I don't do that. When I see those promises, I take them for what they say.

No you don't, you just ignore the time statements.

Let's face it. If the words meant what you think they did, then God failed in his promise because Jesus hasn't come back yet.

So this is the real issue, things didn't happen the way you think they should so they just didn't happen. This is why you must play games with time statements.

 

[OldRegular]

Not sure why you posted this, but do you also agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse? Sproul is consistent are you?

I have Sproul's book The Last Days According to Jesus. I have only skimmed through it and it is certainly not a book that lends itself to that. Found the book just as I was finishing a series in SS on Revelation. Guess I will have to do some serious reading.

I can't say that I agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse since I do not know precisely what he believes. I do believe that Jesus Christ is talking about two different events in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Jerusalem and the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of time as we know it. I do know that Jesus Christ has not yet returned with Power and Great Glory. [I went back and listened again to Sproul's remarks on the Olivet Discourse in his discussion of literal vs figurative. I heard nothing I could disagree with.]

The reason I posted Sproul's view on the literal six day creation is that it appeared you were attempting to show that those who interpreted Genesis 1 literally would have to reverse themselves [the 180 degree turn] to interpret the passage from Revelation other than literally. I believe I answered in my comments on Revelation why a strict literal interpretation is not required, in fact is not consistently possible. Although Sproul indicates he believes that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the correct method he obviously understands that there are different figures of speech used in Scripture and such figures must be recognized and interpreted as such. In his discussion of literal vs figurative he uses the term ordinary to mean strictly literal and figurative to mean symbolic. I certainly cannot disagree with that. In fact I believe that it is imperative that one understand the when and where of such usage in Scripture. It is my opinion, however, that there is nothing in Genesis1 that indicates a figurative or symbolic interpretation is warranted.

 

[Marcia]

R.C. Sproul and Six-Day*Creation

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:

“For most of my teaching career, I considered the ‘framework hypothesis’ to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

The ‘framework hypothesis’ was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a ‘framework’ into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:

“According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”

Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

“Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.”

The above is from Banner of Truth…

http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/07/10/rc-sproul-and-six-day-creation/

OR, you should post this on the thread "Was the World Created Millions and Millions of Years Ago, part 2?" Seriously!

 

[Grasshopper]

I have Sproul's book The Last Days According to Jesus. I have only skimmed through it and it is certainly not a book that lends itself to that. Found the book just as I was finishing a series in SS on Revelation. Guess I will have to do some serious reading.

It's a great book.

I can't say that I agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse since I do not know precisely what he believes. I do believe that Jesus Christ is talking about two different events in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Jerusalem and the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of time as we know it.

I would like to know where you divide the Discourse and why.

I do know that Jesus Christ has not yet returned with Power and Great Glory. [I went back and listened again to Sproul's remarks on the Olivet Discourse in his discussion of literal vs figurative. I heard nothing I could disagree with.

Are you sure?

Adam Clarke:

Mat 16:27 -
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father - This seems to refer to Dan_7:13, Dan_7:14. "Behold, one like the Son of man came - to the ancient of Days - and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages should serve him." This was the glorious Mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of his Gospel through the whole world. If the words be taken in this sense, the angels or messengers may signify the apostles and their successors in the sacred ministry, preaching the Gospel in the power of the Holy Ghost. It is very likely that the words do not apply to the final judgment, to which they are generally referred; but to the wonderful display of God’s grace and power after the day of pentecost.


John Gill on Matt 26:64

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

The reason I posted Sproul's view on the literal six day creation is that it appeared you were attempting to show that those who interpreted Genesis 1 literally would have to reverse themselves [the 180 degree turn] to interpret the passage from Revelation other than literally.

Yes.

I believe I answered in my comments on Revelation why a strict literal interpretation is not required, in fact is not consistently possible. Although Sproul indicates he believes that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the correct method he obviously understands that there are different figures of speech used in Scripture and such figures must be recognized and interpreted as such. In his discussion of literal vs figurative he uses the term ordinary to mean strictly literal and figurative to mean symbolic. I certainly cannot disagree with that. In fact I believe that it is imperative that one understand the when and where of such usage in Scripture. It is my opinion, however, that there is nothing in Genesis1 that indicates a figurative or symbolic interpretation is warranted.

I agree, when you get to the vision given to John it is clearly givin is symbols and Old Testament imagery not to be taken literally. But, as you have seen Pastor Larry do, when you take the simple time statements before the giving of the vision and try to twist them in an unnatural way you do a 180 from how you treat Genesis 1.

Is there a reason, other than the conclusion that would follow, for not taking the time statements of the NT in a natural literal way?

 

[OldRegular]

John Gill on Matt 26:64

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

John Gill on Matthew 26:64

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mt 24:27,30. Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see Ac 1:9,11 Re 1:7, when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for ap' arti, rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to Da 7:13, where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews {g}: with whom one of his names is "Anani" {h}, which signifies "clouds".