-
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!
Thessalonian Comfort or Future Coming? 2 Thess. 1
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
If it was up to me then, yes, it would be arrogant of me to assign applications, spiritual or physical, to verses in the Bible. But we have context to help guide us in particular cases. We also have the general overarching truth that the Bible is a spiritual book, written to guide us into spiritual truth. First comes the physical then the spiritual.
The "It will all pan out" saying is actually a dodge. These issues are really important, much of it having to do with salvation teaching, not mere eschatology.
Spiritualize =/= Allegorize.
When Christ said He would raise up His temple in three days was He spiritualizing, or literalizing? The Jews (proto-Dispensationalists) were hung up on the literal, totally unable/unwilling to consider the spiritual interpretation. Yet the Bible is full of these spiritual truths. Taking many of these in a literal sense causes many problems, in some cases serious spiritual consequences.
It is sad that you imagine some sort of antithesis between these spiritual truths and salvation by grace. It is that very grace that teaches us these important truths.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I was in seminary I attended church with a who spiritualized much of the book of Revelation. In fact, he believed that much of what is spoken of in Revelation is already a done deal. One Sunday evening he was asked to present some of his views to the church. Many listened intently and with respect. One woman however questioned his very salvation because he was not a dispensationalist. I did not agree with him but I defended him before this woman.
Now it seems that the roles are reversed. Here it semms one questions the ability of others to adequately understand salvation by grace through faith based on his or her acceptance of the preterist's point of view.
Now it seems that the roles are reversed. Here it semms one questions the ability of others to adequately understand salvation by grace through faith based on his or her acceptance of the preterist's point of view.
Anecdotal argumentation proves nothing. Look, I don't want to argue with you, sag. I am not going to discuss this anymore with you, because it invariably turns into just that.
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, WILL COME BACK IN THE SAME WAY you have seen him go into heaven." Do ya see it now?
quantumfaith
Active Member
Winman, how do you KNOW what the original garden was like? Honest, not sarcastic question.
There you proved my point
Thanks for proving my point Jedi. You isolated verse 11 removing the context of the verses around it. The fruit here is just too tempting for futurists to leave it alone.
“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel
Your too kind Mel
Thanks for proving my point Jedi. You isolated verse 11 removing the context of the verses around it. The fruit here is just too tempting for futurists to leave it alone.
“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel
Your too kind Mel
Anecdotal argumentation proves nothing. Look, I don't want to argue with you, sag. I am not going to discuss this anymore with you, because it invariably turns into just that.
So, you question the salvation of those who don't hold to your view point and this is your answer? And, I'm not looking to argue. Your opinion of my salvation in no way negates what I know I have in Christ. I was just interested in how far you went in your viewpoint. There are dispensationalists who will question one's salvation if he or she doesn't adhere to their theological eschatology and evidently there are preterits who are just as radical.
So, you question the salvation of those who don't hold to your view point and this is your answer? And, I'm not looking to argue. Your opinion of my salvation in no way negates what I know I have in Christ. I was just interested in how far you went in your viewpoint. There are dispensationalists who will question one's salvation if he or she doesn't adhere to their theological eschatology and evidently there are preterits who are just as radical.
Whoa, brother! Slow down.
I never questioned your salvation. God knows that wasn't even in my mind. But you, on the other hand, are being quite uncharitable to me. This is exactly why I didn't want to pursue this further.
Is your life so boring - or what? - that you have to go looking for fights?
Hank your answers remind me why I became a preterist.
You chose not to answer my questions regarding the NT writers and their seemingly 1st century anticipation of fulfillment. Apparently inspired writers such as Paul were teaching things they really didn't know or understand. I wonder what else besides "timing of events" were they wrong about.
Actually there are clues but I won't bother you with them. Even Darby seemed to understand:
"I have nothing particular to say on the four monarchies. We find Babylon, Persia, and Greece named in the book, as being already known to the Jews, and the Romans introduced by the name which their territory bore, the coasts of Chittim; so that I receive, without further question, the four great empires ordinarily recognised by every one as pointed out in this prophecy. It does not appear to me that these prophecies leave room for any doubt on the subject".
Where does the Bible speak of an end of time?
So Jesus shows up and declares the time is fulfilled the kingdom is at hand and you think Jesus was talking about the earthly reign of human government? How you got that I have no idea.
John Owen
'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state
'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly."
So "to be like Him" is not so clear.
Matthew 21
Except that later on we know Jesus was informed by the father of when these things were to occur. Jesus passed them on to John through an angel:
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 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
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.
You chose not to answer my questions regarding the NT writers and their seemingly 1st century anticipation of fulfillment. Apparently inspired writers such as Paul were teaching things they really didn't know or understand. I wonder what else besides "timing of events" were they wrong about.
Actually there are clues but I won't bother you with them. Even Darby seemed to understand:
"I have nothing particular to say on the four monarchies. We find Babylon, Persia, and Greece named in the book, as being already known to the Jews, and the Romans introduced by the name which their territory bore, the coasts of Chittim; so that I receive, without further question, the four great empires ordinarily recognised by every one as pointed out in this prophecy. It does not appear to me that these prophecies leave room for any doubt on the subject".
Where does the Bible speak of an end of time?
So Jesus shows up and declares the time is fulfilled the kingdom is at hand and you think Jesus was talking about the earthly reign of human government? How you got that I have no idea.
John Owen
'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state
'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly."
So "to be like Him" is not so clear.
Matthew 21
Who is that nation? I quote John Gill:
Wow, it doesn't take you long to change interpretations. Even though the Gentiles have been trodding Jerusalem for 2000 years, we only start counting after the tribulation?
But you reject preterism because you think it has inconsistencies, but now you acknowledge your own position has inconsistencies. Strange debating tactic, reject one view because of inconsistencies while acknowledging inconsistencies in your own.
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Though God may take away the Gospel from a people, as he did from the Jews; yet he does not, nor will he, as yet, take it out of the world: he gives it to another "nation"; to the Gentiles,
Verse 44 look familiar? Right out of Daniel 2.
Wow, it doesn't take you long to change interpretations. Even though the Gentiles have been trodding Jerusalem for 2000 years, we only start counting after the tribulation?
But you reject preterism because you think it has inconsistencies, but now you acknowledge your own position has inconsistencies. Strange debating tactic, reject one view because of inconsistencies while acknowledging inconsistencies in your own.
I ask for a verse where Jesus states He is delaying His coming and you give me a verse citing the thoughts of an evil servant. Care to find one quoting Jesus?
And if you believe in the delay theory then by implication aren't you saying His coming was originally intended to be earlier? Why would you believe that? Does the Bible teach it?
Except that later on we know Jesus was informed by the father of when these things were to occur. Jesus passed them on to John through an angel:
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 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
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.
If what you say about me is true and righteous, well, then you get a reward from God.
If it is not, well, you'll get something else from Him.
Either way I am staying out of this, other than to say that I studiously avoid casting aspersions on someone's salvation.
But I will say the following about you, Mel: In my 15 years or so on the Internet I don't think I have met a man so venemous as you. You haven't changed in the ten years I've known you. Feel free to write whatever else you want. My friends won't believe your slander - and that's good enough for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't see the obvious? Wow
Thank you.
First, I gave the verse Peter gave us that one thousand years is to the Lord as one day. That scriptural thought along with the fact that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming makes room for speculation as to that timing even from the hand of the inspired writers.
Revelation 10
5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
OK then its your problem not mine.
I dont care what John Owen, Darby or John Gill have to say.
for some it is not so clear.
Redeemed Israel.
Because the Tribulation is a another page in the History of God's dealing with mankind, It's called the Day of the Lord. The Times of the Gentiles crosses the boundary of the church age into that tribulation for 42 months.
Yes, I have chosen to deal with the difficulties of futurism than those of full preterism.
Look at the verse again, it is Jesus who is speaking about that evil servant (of whom we have many in the world today).
I explained the delay "theory" it seems to us to be a delay since God's view of a "delay" is to be interpreted as subjective to the mind of God as Peter has shown.
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 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
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.
It is indeed at hand, at the very door. To an eternal God it is as close today as then.
You didn't mention this passage in Revelation
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
HankD
The bible was written for man not God--
“It is indeed at hand, at the very door. To an eternal God it is as close today as then.”
This is one of the classic mistakes that futurists make. To try to make the point that time statements are utterly irrelevant in the bible because God is timeless therefore his time statements indicating a quick return have no meaning to a timeless God.
They always forget that the bible wasn’t written for God it was written for man. Therefore the temporal nature of the time statements are relevant to man. When Christ says he is coming quickly it is based on what is quickly to its audience – man.
This alone should be enough for all to agree that Christ’s coming was in 70 AD and not a far off time that has no relevance to its audience.
“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel
Thanks a million Mel!
“It is indeed at hand, at the very door. To an eternal God it is as close today as then.”
This is one of the classic mistakes that futurists make. To try to make the point that time statements are utterly irrelevant in the bible because God is timeless therefore his time statements indicating a quick return have no meaning to a timeless God.
They always forget that the bible wasn’t written for God it was written for man. Therefore the temporal nature of the time statements are relevant to man. When Christ says he is coming quickly it is based on what is quickly to its audience – man.
This alone should be enough for all to agree that Christ’s coming was in 70 AD and not a far off time that has no relevance to its audience.
“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel
Thanks a million Mel!
"Men of Galilee," they said. "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Waiting! :jesus:
Yes, mostly true Logos, however allow me to bring to mind one more time the Scripture in which Peter tells us that the "sooness" of the return of the Lord, is a special case and that we should indeed look at it from the point of view of the mind of God and not that of "some men":
Peter answers the charge of the "delay" of His coming in 2 Peter 3:4
...Where is the promise of his coming? ...
2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Slack: Strong's 1019
braduno {brad-oo'-no}
Meaning:
1) to delay, be slow 1a) to render slowly, retard 1b) to be long, to tarry, loiter
HankD
Last edited: