In fact the word 'Trinity' comes from Tertullian around AD 200, long before the Church of Rome came to dominance.
-
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!
Why [I believe] Premillennialism is false
- Thread starter Saint of Circumstance
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eschatology
- Status
You may be correct, My grandson had some of my books and the historian I am thinking of (can't remember his name ) said that until the word was invented there was nothing to argue about,
Do you have any original writings that mention that?
Or Mrs Oliphant's Life of Edward Irving of earlier date.
Justin Martyr (First Apology; ca 155 A.D.)
As many are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to live accordingly, are instructed to entreat God with fasting...then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were...For Christ also said :"'Unless you be born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God".
Irenaeus (Against Heresies, ca 180 A.D.)
We are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and invocation of the Lord, from our old transgression; being spiritually regenerate as new born babes, even as the Lord has declared "except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Loads more like that, unfortunately.
Thanks. I know that Constantine thought like that.
Saint of Circumstance
Member
My Wife flew to New York City yesterday... THEN, next week, I will fly there and Be "together with her".
"Together with her" is Hardly simultaneous to her going FIRST.
Saint of Circumstance
Member
The ECFs uniformly interpreted Matthew 24 as fulfilled up to the point where they believed the Great Tribulation was past! That early tradition fully contradicts the futurist view, and yet futurists don't submit to the ECFs on their understanding. So, one must be entirely selective in ones use of the ECFs, picking and choosing only those traditions that conform to ones tradition.
Furthermore, the Reformers' commentaries of Matthew 24 interpret the chapter as mostly *OR COMPLETELY* fulfilled! Even the JFB commentary prefers this understanding. Why refuse to submit to this well-established tradition?
The historical interpretation of Matthew 24 has been uniformly PRETERISTIC in its bias.
Furthermore, the Reformers' commentaries of Matthew 24 interpret the chapter as mostly *OR COMPLETELY* fulfilled! Even the JFB commentary prefers this understanding. Why refuse to submit to this well-established tradition?
The historical interpretation of Matthew 24 has been uniformly PRETERISTIC in its bias.
Saint of Circumstance
Member
Was Jesus' Promise to Come to them "As a Thief" Literal? (Revelation 3:3)
Did He fail to Fulfill that promise to those LITERAL people?
Just how many comings of Christ "as a thief" does scripture teach?
Last edited:
I am not claiming that they did, but they pretty much held to a premil view!
Many see those churches are either representing the different stages of future church history, or else being a type of church that would be found in any church time!
That like all of us not called as Apostles, had a mixture of good and bad theology!
That is why he waited until death bed, as he wanted to live like a sinner maybe?
Saint of Circumstance
Member
"many see" is not a foundation to build doctrine upon.
Now if you could replace "many see" with "scripture teaches", then we could begin to build doctrine....
Can you?
But even if we take either of those scenerios, it still doesn't answer the question of how many comings of christ as a thief does scripture teach?
What do "Many see" about that?
My understanding is there is only one Coming of Christ "as a thief" taught in scripture, and Jesus applies that event to First century peoples, indeed PROMISES it would befall THEM.
His interpretation must be authoritative for us.
Last edited:
His second coming would be as paul describes to us....
Yes.
No. The events of AD 70 are not a coming of Christ, and they did not come 'as a thief.'
Yes.
AS a thief. In the manner of a thief - with stealth, unbeknown to most until its too late.
There are two models in scripture: (Noah and Lot)
Luke 17
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Ho-hum, business as usual...
Noteworthy; God removes His remnant from the place of judgment before his wrath falls - in this age it will be the Harpazo (AKA The Rapture).
HankD
Last edited:
Were you with her "in the air" or only in New York City?
When Jesus returns, History as we know it comes to an end, and that affects the entire Earth, not just Israel AD 70!
Saint of Circumstance
Member
Ok... and that addresses my post you quoted....how?
- Status