Name That Figure of Speech

[/QUOTE]
Yes Martin....you have it quite correct here.

 

Yes I know Vines is a new testament dictionary that I use John but the word Tabernacle as it appears the next 15 is the New Testament word so his take is valid even though we commented on the other Old Testament words for Tabernacle yes I know vines is a new Testament dictionary that I used John but the word tabernacle as it appears acts15 is a new Testament word so his take is valid even though he commented on the other old Testament words the Tabernacle.

 

John, I have another passage which uses figurative language that is, in my view, pretty important to understand:


John 15
King James Version (KJV)

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.


First, I am assuming that its okay to discuss the passages that use figurative language, so if I am mistaken on that as a goal of your thread let me know.

We see similar statements of Christ (i.e., I am the Door, I am the Good Shepherd, I am the True Bread) and usually there is something that is not true contrasted with what is True, right? Now we don't see an apparent contrast given in the text, so, do you think that we could, seeing that this is somewhat common to teachings (and I won't mention which ones because that would defeat the purpose of getting you to expound your view on this statement), see an implied contrast in the teaching?


God bless.

 

World War II and newspaper eschatology does not determine biblical eschatology

 

I understand that would be the case in your prophetic system. Perhaps it would be an interesting discussion for another thread.

The Greek word translated 'authority' in Matthew 28:19 is exousia. [I am writing this for the benefit of others; I know you know it] It is translated 'authority' 29 times in the KJV and 'power' 69 times. All power is given to the Lord Jesus in heaven and on earth. One of the words rendered 'authority in the KJV is kuriotes. According to Ephesians 1:20, Christ is now seated at the right hand of God, 'far above all principality and power and might and dominion and every name which is named, not only in this age but in the age to come. And [God] put all things under His feet.......' If God 'in this age' put all things under our Lord's feet, what extra thing will be under His feet in your 'millennium'?

I am aware that you were a missionary in japan, and for that you have my max respect. A friend of mine was a missionary out there for some years and is now Pastor of Osaka International Church. I get regular reports from him and so I know how hard the work is out there.
I don't want at all to compare my pathetic little trip with the Gideons to Lesotho with your work, but all the short time I was there people were all but biting my arm off to get hold of a Gideon Testament or Bible. I am aware of Matthew 7:21 but is was clear that God was working there in a way that He is certainly not working in Britain, nor, I think, Japan. Perhaps Luke 1:53 has something to do with it. The greatest revivals in history are taking place at the present time, and who knows what God will do in the coming years? The ultimate fulfilment of Psalm 72 will indeed be when our Lord returns, but there is no reason for a millennium at that time.

Not wishing to brag, but you likewise are not telling me anything I don't know. Tarshish was in the far west (Spain) and Sheba and Seba in the far south, as the people of that time knew it. Christ's dominion is 'to the ends of the earth' (v.8).

See above. The earthly reign of Christ will be when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth. He will have no more dominion then than He has now (which is all of it), but it will, of course, be visible to all.

 

John of Japan

Hello John...

Before any liberal apostasy in the early 1900"s those puritans and reformers who hold to postmill theology were not theological liberals
As I suggested earlier...if we look to the scriptures instead of the current events we will see where it is going....

Liberal theology, social gospels are wrong no matter what eschatology they abuse.

No one suggests mankind is getting better....responsible amill. or responsible postmill do not suggest any such thing

Depraved mankind is not getting worse and worse...it is still only evil continually.

The depravity of man is a given....I do not care what liberal apostates say.

There is no...IF.....mankind is depraved.

We are to be faithful bringing the gospel to the lost world as you have done for most of your life.
Depraved man will not be....christianized, moralized, turn over a new leaf, or any such nonsensical ideas ....Depraved man needs a new heart, the gospel must be victorious for this world to change.The New birth alone can bring change.

Yes it has....the church has grown soft and has not obeyed MT.28 as well as it should. Weak doctrine. weak views of God's sovereign grace produces the fear of man which brings a snare.

If the premill scheme is correct ...that will be fine with me...
If the postmill scheme is correct, there is still much work to do...

 

At this point what you are suggesting here escapes me...
ohel....mo edh.....tent of meeting?
mishkan....dwelling?dwelling place

The tabernacle was the place God would meet with His people...until Jesus tabernacled among us.

David had made an attempt to restore a form of it...2sam6
17 And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle that David had pitched for it: and David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.

One passage looks forward;
isa16:
5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.


Not sure how you see this making a difference to the question at hand in Acts15....
The tabernacle was central for a long time in the OT....but it gives was to the heavenly and spiritual realities in Christ, Hebrews 8-10 show this...

 

John of Japan,

from Ken Gentry;

Postmillennialism has not only been discarded in this century on clearly unorthodox grounds; it has also been made a straw man so that modern advocates of the other schools of interpretation can easily knock it down and get on to other interests.

The worst possible interpretation is put on postmillennial tenets, or the eccentric aspect of some postmillennial writer’s position is set forth as representing the basic school of thought.

As instances of these procedures we can note the following.

Hal Lindsey says that postmillennialists believe in the inherent goodness of man,
[1] and Walvoord says that the position could not resist the trend toward liberalism.
[2] He also accuses it of not seeing the kingdom as consummated by the Second Advent.
[3] William E. Cox claims that postmillennialism is characterized by a literal interpretation of Revelation 20.
[4] Adams portrays the postmillennialist as unable to conceive of the millennium as coextensive with the church age or as a present reality,
[5] for he (according to Adams) must see it as exclusively future – a golden age just around the corner.
[6]Finally, it is popularly thought and taught that postmillennialism maintains that there is an unbroken progression toward righteousness in history – that the world is perceptibly getting better and better all the time – until a utopian age is reached. Geerhardus Vos portrays the postmillennialist as looking for “ideal perfection” when “every individual” will be converted, and some will become “sinless individuals.
”
[7]All of the above claims are simply inaccurate. The Calvinist, Loraine Boettner, certainly does not believe in man’s inherent goodness, and B. B. Warfield can hardly be accused of not resisting liberalism. That A. A. Hodge did not see the second coming of Christ as the great day of consummation is preposterous.

In addition, J. Marcellus Kik and many others insisted on a figurative interpretation of Revelation 20. Certain sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Dutch theologians, as well as Jonathan Edwards and E. W. Hengstenberg, were all postmillennialists who saw the millennium as coeval with the interadventual age (in which there would be progressive growth for the church in numbers and influence). Charles Hodge, Snowden, and Boettner were all postmillennialists who explained that the growth of Christ’s kingdom in the world suffers periodic crises, and Boettner has especially stressed the fact that it grows by imperceptible degrees over a long period.

Finally, anyone who thinks of postmillennialism as a utopian position misunderstands one or the other in their historically essential principles. Indeed, a chapter in Boettner’s book, The Millennium, is entitled, “The Millennium not a Perfect or Sinless State,” contrary to the misrepresentations of Vos. Nobody has ever propounded, in the name of evangelical postmillennialism, what Vos claimed (least of all his Princeton colleagues or predecessors). Therefore, the recent opponents of postmillennialism have not been fair to its genuine distinctives, but rather have misrepresented it as a general category of interpretation. This surely provides no firm ground for rejecting the position.

Misrepresentation Cures

All of this misrepresentation could easily be cured by three simple correctives:

First, the opponent of postmillennialism should read its leading, current-day representatives, not simply secondary sources bent on rejecting the eschatological system.

Second, the opponent should also read these representatives carefully. Some of the denunciations of postmillennialism cite the appropriate articles and books, but do so in an anti-contextual manner. All theological statements should be read in their contexts rather than jerked from them.

Third, he should have in mind an adequate definition of postmillennialism (such as Gentry gives in an earlier post: “Definining Postmillennialism”). How can you reject something of which you have no working definition? But such is the large-scale practice in evangelical debate today.

 

ibid;
A further criticism which cannot be applied uniquely to postmillennialism is that it interprets biblical prophecy both figuratively [2] and literally.[3] The premillennialists see symbolic interpretation as a failure of nerve, and amillennialists take literal understanding of prophecy as crude and insensitive. But the fact remains that none of the three schools interprets biblical prophecy exclusively in either a literal or figurative fashion. (And, by the way, nobody really adheres to the rule, “Literal where possible,” as is evident from the respective treatments of the beast of Revelation, which could possibly be a literal monster but obviously is not.)

All three eschatological schools end up finding both kinds of literature in the prophetic passages, and it is dishonest to give an opposite impression. If anything, the fact that postmillennialism is seen as too literal by amillennialists and too figurative by premillennialists perhaps suggests (certainly does not prove) that it alone has maintained a proper balance. The upshot is this: the charge of subjective spiritualization or hyperliteralism against any of the three eschatological positions cannot be settled in general; rather, the opponents must get down to hand-to-hand exegetical combat on particular passages and phrases.

 

John of Japan,

I am sorry my posts have not been as clear as I would like, my Dr. increased my blood pressure meds, and I am not as crisp as I would like to be, but Martim knew what I meant, but let me further clarify for you..JOJ...

Well John...maybe this will clarify it for you....
I believe Jesus rules and reigns from the throne in heaven right now.
He rules heaven and earth in the MIDST of His enemies psalm110
He dwells in Heaven , but rules also on earth through His Church who rules with Him.
How do we know this?
Acts 9
9 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Now John.....who was Saul persecuting in verse1?
What does Jesus say to Him in verse 4?

How do you account for this John??? What does your literal hermeneutic suggest to you here?

Jesus on a heavenly throne, disciples attacked by Saul on the earth, Jesus says Saul is persecuting HIM

 

John of Japan,

PMT 1016-004 by Greg L. Bahnsen (edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.)

(Gentry note: This is the fourth in a four-part series on “Misguided Grounds for Rejecting Postmillennialism.” This article was originally written by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, but is presented here as edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. In this article, Dr. Bahnsen considers “Premature Charges.”)

In addition to the misguided and failed attempts to dismiss postmillennialism based on
(1) newspaper exegesis,

(2) misrepresentation,

and (3) the application of two-edged criticism (which applies to the critic as well as the position criticized), there are current day charges against the position which are premature or unfounded.

To this category belongs the allegation that postmillennialism is founded on Old Testament passages rather than New Testament evidence,[1] that the New Testament knows nothing of the proclamation of a semi-golden age.[2] Such statements do not bear their own weight in the face of postmillennial appeals to New Testament passages like the kingdom growth parables of Matthew 13, the apostle John’s teachings about the overcoming of Satan and the world (e.g., John 12:31-32; 16:33; I John 2:13-14; 3:8; 4:4, 14; 5:4-5), Peter’s Pentecost address (Acts 2:32-36, 41), Paul’s declaration that all Israel shall be saved (Rom. 11:25-32), his resurrection victory chapter in I Corinthians 15 (esp. vss. 20-26, 57-58), the statements of Hebrews 1-2 about the subjection of all enemies to Christ in the post-ascension era (1:8-9, 13; 2:5-9), and numerous passages from Revelation, notably about the vastness of the redeemed (7:9-10), the open door for missionary triumph and the Christian’s reign with Christ over the nations (2:25-27; 3:7-9), the submission of the kingdoms of this world to the kingdom of Christ (11:15), and the utter victory of gospel proclamation (19:11-21). Opponents of postmillennialism may wish to dispute its interpretation of such passages, but it is groundless for them to allege without qualifications and without detailed interaction with postmillennial writings that the position is not taken from the New Testament itself.

 

Martin you said;

Rebuttal to Amillennialism — The Four Keys to the Millennium

The reason I am a postmillennialist and not simply an amillennialist is the myriad of scriptures which indicate the overcoming power of the Gospel.

That is not to say that the kingdom of God will not suffer setbacks and struggles in history. While postmillennialism is not a “Pollyanna” view, we should not ever be discouraged or think that the Gospel faces limitations of any kind.

The Christian’s passion should be for the glory of God, and for the kingdom to be advanced among the lost.

When I have read histories of past ages, the most exciting thing has been to read of the kingdom of Christ being promoted with supernatural power and signs following. In understanding history, I see the fulfillment of scriptural promises and prophecies of the glorious advancement of Christ’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

The Bible gives us an eschatology of victory. Before the Second Coming of Christ, the Gospel will be preached and will take root, grow, and bear fruit throughout the world. For many, this is too incredible. It goes against the whole spirit of modern Christianity.


For about 100 years, most Christians have been taught to expect defeat.
However, the idea of postmillennialism is not new. In fact, until the 20th century, most Christians held to a hopeful eschatology. In fact, throughout the history of the Church, most regarded the eschatology of defeat as a strange idea.

 

Okay, fair enough. Do you mind if I throw my own view your way?

When Christ said "I am the True Vine," what He contrasted Himself with was with the "Vine" that would have been understood by Jews: that is, Israel.

Meaning, Israel is likened to a vine plucked up from one place and planted in another (and I will give supporting passages), which pictures Israel taken out of Egypt and receiving (according to the fulfillment of that time, I think you would agree there remains a future fulfillment as well as what has been fulfilled in Christ) the temporal promises of God (rest in their own country, safety from enemies, provision) by being brought into the Land.

In other words, their relationship with God, and the provision that accompanied that...was the Vine Christ contrasts Himself with.

Meaning, when He stated "I am the True Vine," that they (Israel, not just the Disciples) were to look to Him for their relationship with God and provision, rather than their relationship through the Covenant of Law.

What do you think?


God bless.