Yes, I know the feeling, but then we stepped into the ground of the romanist.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let GOD Be GOD!
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
Yes, I know the feeling, but then we stepped into the ground of the romanist.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
The best "objective" measure is the genre of literature. Revelation is apocalyptic and therefore, the "rules" of interpretation are quite different from the narrative of Genesis or the Gospel of Matthew.
Here's a book that would help you: A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible: Playing by the Rules
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Do you have any scripture to the effect we should suddenly start taking the Word of God metaphorically when we open the Revelation, or is that your opinion?
You know, I bet I could recommend many books to you that you would neither read nor agree with.
Does reading it in a book written by man make it a fact?
Whether you recognize it or not, this is also a bit condescending for it sounds like you are saying:
"If you will only read this book, then you will know and understand the scriptures as well as I do."
I am talking about playing the "pope" through better manuscriptural evidence, and subjectively deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical, and then placing one's self on a plateau of instruction between God and man in these matters.
These things don't particularly affect me personally for I am well grounded in the Word; however that does not mean I cannot recognize them.
Now, in all Christian kindness, I don't feel you actually conscientiously think this way; but it is an easy trap into which one can fall.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You have the terrible habit of putting word into my mouth or thoughts into my heart.
Genres of Biblical literature are not subjective. Going to the Greek or Hebrew (because they are the originals--at least in language) over the KJV is not a matter of condescension or "papacy."
Our conversations were (and I stress the past tense here) quite good for a while. Recently, however, your true colors have become quite clear. Though I don't agree with your beliefs, I enjoyed the interaction. Now, however, you have degenerated into truly insulting remarks and insinuations. Your sarcasm has been biting and all this is conduct unbecoming a Christian.
Our discussion is over. Given your sarcasm and accusations...you simply aren't worth my time.
Blessings to you,
The Archangel
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Archangel
You committed the heresy of questioning, deliberately or not, the sacred doctrine of Darby/Scofield and possibly Bullinger!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
1. The Book of Revelation does not literally mention "7yrs of Great Tribulation".
2. The Book of Revelation does not literally mention "an antichrist".
3. The Book of Revelation does not literally mention "a future physical Millennial Kingdom on earth".
4. The Book of Revelation does not even literally contain the word "millennial" or the words "Millennial kingdom".
5. The Book of Revelation does not literally mention "the Lord Jesus Christ physically ruling and reigning from the throne of David in Jerusalem".
6. The Book of Revelation does not literally mention "the throne of David" in Jerusalem or elsewhere!
7. The Book of Revelation only mentions the words Lord Jesus Christ one time and that was not in reference to ruling. That was Verse 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one who kept going to the Greek and telling the reader the only real Word of God we have is the originals.
How many of your congregation have their own set of the originals and are able to read them?
No, even you have but a "copy" of something from the past which you cannot even be sure of its authentication because someone like dear old Origin might have seen fit to make a change.
Can you guarantee your "copy" is exactly what was penned in the first century by the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
If the doctrine of the Priesthood of the believer is indeed true; then IMO this would call for each and every believer to be able to hear directly from God without the need of a go-between (pope) to interpret the Book containing God's instruct for them and tell them what it says.
Surely by now one would believe God is able to get His Word in the hands of every common man in a form that man can read, absorb, and at least understand the writing if not the meaning.
For myself I have decided what "version" I feel is the living Word of God available to me in this age.
I don't feel other men need make the same choice I have; but I cannot understand why they cannot make some choice since there are many versions to pick from.
The only reason I can see for not making a choice is that then one would have to start believing the words of said choice and stop correcting the words according to man's wishes.
It seems scholarship does not easily give up its lordship over the common man.
Ok, then show where scripture tells us that beginning with the Revelation we should view the Word as symbolic or metaphorical and not literal.
Again, I respect this to be your opinion; but it is only your opinion, not fact.
When you put it out as statement of fact, then it does have the ring of lordship.
The next time you personally correct one of your congregation in this area, ask them what they feel in their heart.
They may willingly accept your lordship; but you will know the truth.
I agree, but then we reached a point where you began correcting others with scholarship which is beyond the reach of the common man.
I hope my true colors have shown that I accept no lordship from another man over me or anyone else and feel free to expose it.
Interaction of opposing beliefs can be quiet enjoyable when both are working from the same authority; but when one places oneself in authority over another, the interaction suffers and the enjoyment fades.
How is that, by bringing to light the end result of your "scholarship"?
Do you not realize that by making the "originals" the only true word of God, then you have taken the Word of God out of the hand of each common Christian and forced them to look to a few men's ability in languages for "true" understanding?
Do you not realize when part of the Bible is said to be taken metaphorically, then the world wonders if the rest of the Bible is also metaphor?
Do you not realize the pulpits of America are full of men who question the resurrection? Where did they get the license to do so?
If bringing these end result things to your attention hurts your feelings, then I am sorry; but that does not change the reality of it all.
Are we to just go-along-to-get-along?
I say sometimes the money-changers of scholarship need their tables over-turned.
I have made some disparaging remarks in the above concerning "scholarship".
Let me say I feel scholarship can be a very useful thing if used to discern what God said rather than telling us what God should have said. The problem is that scholarship does not feel we, as yet, even know what God said.
I suppose that is up to you; but I hope I have left something in your heart for you to ponder.
OldRegular please note what I did say:
IMO "taking the book of the Revelation" literally means....
I did not say Revelations "mentions", I said it "means".
This is truly an example of "putting words in one's mouth" to create a strawman argument.
OldRegular if you wish to argue against the things I said a literal interpretation of Revelation means then I suggest you will have to search the WHOLE body of scripture and not just the "chosen" passages upon which you hang your theological hat.
I don't know how many times people (myself included) have written such words to Olegig. Its the same "ole" gig, having to defend ourselves from insinuations.
I believe that if we just don't engage the olegigs of this board - people who just seem to be consistently determined to argue for its own sake - we can then get back to meaningful and fruitful discussion.
There are a number of people on this board, by contrast, where I have serious disagreements who still manage to be agreeable in their disagreeing.
Have I insinuated others views are heresy? That has been said of me and I saw no one standing up in reprimand.
Why is it that when one presents tough scripture in opposition to another's position, the scriptures are not addressed as they stand?
It seems the practice has been that anything outside of a person's private theology is branded "heresy" or "insinuation".
Asterisktom perhaps you would like to tell the dear readers how one is to discern what is literal and what is metaphoric.
Where is the scriptural evidence showing that when one gets to the Revelation, then one should spiritualize it as a metaphor?
Another question for you:
If we are indeed presently in the Kingdom; then is 1Cor 15:50 to be taken metaphorically?
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Are we not "flesh and blood",,,,how can this be?
Asterisktom, if one is free to take some passages metaphorically then how does one even get past the Genesis account of creation?
When taken literally, is it not a bit beyond the understanding of man?
Do you take the creation account literally or metaphorically?
And if God is not again going to deal with the Jews in the future; then please explain Jer 31:35-37.
I have not raised my voice, I have not called folks names, I have not branded them as such-and-such.
I have only presented scripture that shows the end result of a given theology does not totally agree with the Word.
I would hope it more than a mere "insinuation".
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
You know Tom, you're exactly right. For instance, I disagree with Allan on many occasions, but we have a warm and cordial relationship. If I ever had the chance to go to South Dakota again, I'd like to have lunch with him.
Unfortunately, there are some...well, many...who have bought into the lie of a certain strain of fundamentalism that knowledge or education is sinful. I can understand ignorance, but this "worldview" is not ignorant, it is sinful. This worldview seeks to make an idol of a particular biblical translation and it seeks to make an idol of one's lack of education. These things are sad to see. The worldview I describe usually tends to say "what this means to me is..." rather than trying to find out the original intent of the author and how the first audience would have understood the text. So, rather than have the authority of scripture, they become an authority unto themselves. And as self-authoritative persons, they vengefully attack all who threaten their worldview--like the king threatened with being deposed.
I think you're right, the only way to combat this is not to engage them in discussion.
By the way, I have really enjoyed your posts. You state things quite well and I enjoy reading what you have written.
Blessings,
The Archangel
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
It seems this discussion got derailed with the introduction of Jezebel, she has been distracting men for centuries. :laugh:
Let me go back to this question addressed to Winman, if I may. What I believe Winman was arguing was that God certainly has the ability to effectually save every soul. He could choose to blind everyone like he did Paul on the road to Damascus or allow them to touch the nail scared hands as he did for Thomas or have them live in the belly of a big fish for a few days. Certainly WE ALL agree God COULD do this, but he doesn't. WHY?
Two possible answers:
Calvinistic Answer: He hasn't elected all to be saved and thus doesn't really desire for all to come to repentance.
Non-Calvinistic Answer: He uses effectual means in special occasions (such as the ones mentioned) to accomplish his purposes in bringing his message of reconciliation to the world. However, it is not God's desire to make worshipers, but to "seek out those who choose to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
In other words, if Christ is the groomsman and the church is the bride, he doesn't want an "arranged marriage," but instead a one based upon true love. What other reasonable motive might God have for giving men the choice to sin in the first place; and the choice to be reconciled in the second place?
Let me go back to this question addressed to Winman, if I may. What I believe Winman was arguing was that God certainly has the ability to effectually save every soul. He could choose to blind everyone like he did Paul on the road to Damascus or allow them to touch the nail scared hands as he did for Thomas or have them live in the belly of a big fish for a few days. Certainly WE ALL agree God COULD do this, but he doesn't. WHY?
Two possible answers:
Calvinistic Answer: He hasn't elected all to be saved and thus doesn't really desire for all to come to repentance.
Non-Calvinistic Answer: He uses effectual means in special occasions (such as the ones mentioned) to accomplish his purposes in bringing his message of reconciliation to the world. However, it is not God's desire to make worshipers, but to "seek out those who choose to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
In other words, if Christ is the groomsman and the church is the bride, he doesn't want an "arranged marriage," but instead a one based upon true love. What other reasonable motive might God have for giving men the choice to sin in the first place; and the choice to be reconciled in the second place?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You can squirm all you want olegig but you said what you said and you are pathetically wrong.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
So GOD doesn't give all people the GRACE to believe? Is that your answer for Winman?
a great line :thumbs:
If I may offer a third answer for your consideration:
God calls men to salvation based on His foreknowledge in real time of their acceptance of His call.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I wouldn't see that as a third independent option, but as an additional part of the second. I agree with Adam Clarke who wrote:
To foreknow, here signifies to design before, or at the first forming of the scheme; to bestow the favour and privilege of being God's people upon any set of men, Romans xi. 2. This is the foundation or first step of our salvation; namely, the purpose and grace of God, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began, 2 Tim. i. 9.
Then, he knew or favoured us; for in this sense the word to know is taken in a great variety of places, both in the Old and New Testaments. And as he knew the GENTILES then, when the scheme was laid, and before any part of it was executed, consequently, in reference to the execution of this scheme, he foreknew us. This is the first step of our salvation, and the end or finishing of it is our conformity to the Son of God in eternal glory, ver. 17, which includes and supposes our moral conformity to him.
When God knew us, at the forming of the Gospel scheme; or, when he intended to bestow on us the privilege of being his people; he then destinated or designed us to be conformed to the image of his Son; and, as he destinated or determined us then to this very high honour and happiness, he pre- destinated, fore-ordained, or pre-determined us to it. Thus we are to understand the foundation and finishing of the scheme of our salvation.
The foundation is the foreknowledge, or gracious purpose of God; the finishing is our being joint heirs with Christ. Now, our calling or invitation (see on ver. 28) stands in connection with both these. 1. It stands in connection with God's foreknowledge; and so it is a true and valid calling: for we are called, invited, or chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, who may bestow his blessings upon any people, as may seem good in his sight, 1 Pet. i. 2; consequently, we have a good title to the blessings of the Gospel to which we are called or invited. And this was to be proved, that the Jew, to whom the apostle particularly wrote, might see that the Gentiles being now called into the Church of God was not an accidental thing, but a matter which God had determined when he conceived the Gospel scheme. Thus our calling is connected with God's foreknowledge. 2. It stands also in connection with our being conformed to the image of his Son; for we are invited by the Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Thess. ii. 14. And therefore, supposing, what the apostle supposes, that we love God, it is certain, from our being called, that we shall be glorified with the sons of God; and so our calling proves the point, that all things should work together for our good in our present state, because it proves that we are intended for eternal glory; as he shows in the next verse. For we must understand his foreknowing, predestinating, calling, and justifying, in relation to his glorifying; and that none are finally glorified, but those who, according to his purpose, are conformed to the image of his Son."
Actually the only thing that has been put forth here is that your use of your knowledge or education is being used in a manner that would attempt to place you between God and the common man.
I suppose it is your choice whether to term it sinful or not.
Would you care to stand up in front of the world and proclaim which copy, version, or manuscript is the true Word of God handed down to all?
So now when someone takes an interpretation of a given set of manuscripts over your interpretation of a different set of manuscripts, it is sinful?
I find that just a bit arrogant.
Yes, it is a sad thing to see even in today's time a man of God who does not really believe he has the Word of God.
So far in this discussion the only authority that has been questioned and rejected is the authority you would like to exercise over the scriptures.
I think the readers can fairly well judge who is trying to exercise some self-authority here.
That might be a very good idea, then you might not be faced with scriptural passages that cast your private theologies in a bad light.
I too was enjoying asterisktom's development of his interpretation of Daniel 9; and wish he would continue so we can see where he takes us.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
pinoybaptist eloquently addressed the premise of the following OP in another thread. I suggest that the discussion return to a discussion of the OP.
GOD tells us in Matthew’s record of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 1:20-23
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Note particularly Verse 21:
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Also note thet Verse 23 tells us that through this virgin born son GOD is with us.
In Verse 21 we are told that this Virgin born son, JESUS, shall save his people from their sins.
Now who are HIS people whom HE will save. They are those given to HIM by GOD the Father:
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
So let GOD be GOD! Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus Christ came to save HIS people and HIS people only.
GOD tells us in Matthew’s record of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ:
Matthew 1:20-23
20.But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Note particularly Verse 21:
21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Also note thet Verse 23 tells us that through this virgin born son GOD is with us.
In Verse 21 we are told that this Virgin born son, JESUS, shall save his people from their sins.
Now who are HIS people whom HE will save. They are those given to HIM by GOD the Father:
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
So let GOD be GOD! Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus Christ came to save HIS people and HIS people only.
Thank you. I really do want my words to be worthwhile to read. Don't we all, though?