Creeds vs. Bible

[asterisktom]

This is new theology to me and brings up many questions.

How long did Christ stay on earth?

Are their historic records of this event?

Do you believe He is going to appear in the future?

The days of His flesh were those years of His Incarnation. BTW, I would to hear you - or from anyone else here - what "days of His flesh" means to you. My position is that an unbiased interpretation - that is, not running to a commentary - would be to assume that these "days" were bracketed by periods that were not "flesh". Seeing that we are speaking of Christ that would be both directions of eternity of not being in the flesh.

There are no inspired historical records seeing that Scripture was closed with the event itself. There are uninspired but still helpful historical accounts from Josephus, Tacitus, and others

"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure." - the Histories 5.13

"Parousia" means "presence" so, no, I do not believe He will appear in the eschatological sense. He is here now. When we die, of course, we will be with Him in a more intimate sense. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

 

[asterisktom]

I think you'll find it is you who does not understand the meaning of "versus." You are seeking to make enemies of those which are, in reality, friends.

Not sure why you say this. I would rather be friendly than make enemies. All I am doing is writing what I believe. And asking for Scriptural feedback, not traditional. I have benefited immensely from this board and had to modify my views on several points. But that was when there was Scriptural interaction.

 

[1689Dave]

A Caution Concerning Creeds and Confessions

When I first entered my Reformed stage (what Sproul Jr. referred to as the "cage" stage!) I was quite interested with all things Reformed, including studying out the various Confessions, especially the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Although I still believe in the five Sola's I hesitate to call myself Reformed or Calvinist because of the additional baggage of those two terms.

But I noticed a tendency. Confessions tend to, over time, impose an interpretive and domineering grid over the Word of God. It is very subtle but it happens. It ends up, all too often, that the Confessions become our teachers and not the Bible. And Bible verses become footnotes to the Creeds.

Christ told us:' "A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher." Luke 6:40

Now, if we admit that confessions and creeds are not as perfect as the Bible, and need to be corrected (as in the "Jesus went to Hell" mistake) then this shows that our teacher (Creeds and Confessions) are not going to get us where we want to be. When we are fully trained we will be like our teacher - walking Creeds and Confessions.

By contrast we have the inspired observation of David:

"Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers,
for your testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the aged,
for I keep your precepts." Psalm 119:97 - 100

It is much better to direct all of our efforts, study, and devotion to the perfect Word of God. This way we have a much brighter prospect of being like our blessed Teacher.

I use the creeds as a safeguard trusting they are right for the most part until proven wrong. So I use the Ecumenical Creeds up through the Council of Ephesus which essentially agrees with Calvinism. And the Reformed Creeds up to the point they differ from the 1689 LBC. It helps from eating crow when commenting on various forums.

 

[Aaron]

Thank you for being concise. I see now where you misunderstand my position. The resurrection Christ referred to was a one-time event. It happened in AD70. The saints Christ was speaking to, some of whom - according to Christs promise - did live to see that event. That is when the dead in Christ arose and when the living in Christ rose up together with Christ to meet Him in the air. So, yes, they certainly no longer married. They became like the angels - eisangeloi.

But after that event there was a return to the usual marrying and giving in marriage, etc. When we die we will be like them. We miss out on that AD70 event, but not on being changed just as they were. But for us it is death that brings the change, not the rapture. Either way, we will forever be with the Lord.

Hopefully this is clearer.

A 'reading' absolutely divorced from the text. See? You're the 'credal' guy in this discussion.

 

[JonC]

A 'reading' absolutely divorced from the text. See? You're the 'credal' guy in this discussion.

It took me a minute (I'm not always quick on the uptake).

That is a good point.

 

[asterisktom]

A 'reading' absolutely divorced from the text. See? You're the 'credal' guy in this discussion.

At what point is my reading divorced from the text? Saying isnt proving.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

asterisktom, as I mentioned earlier, your beliefs are new to me. So far, the only thing we have in common is that we both self-identify as Baptist. Are you, or have you been, a member of a Baptist church which is in a Baptist association such as: North American Baptist, Conservative Baptist, etc.?

 

[kyredneck]

Denying a future, literal, and physical return of Christ is heresy.

Not.

Christ most certainly did what He promised, that He would come back in that generation.

Yes, there's ample scripture showing the imminent return of Christ to 'that generation'. To deny that is to make Christ and the apostles liars. What is that but outright blasphemy?

 

[kyredneck]

". . . appear the second time . . . ." Hebrews 9:28. Or more precisely the Second appearing.

28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10

Does "a very little while", and "shall not tarry" actually mean 'thousands of years and still waiting'? Did the writer of Hebrews lie? Grossly exaggerate?

 

[37818]

Yes, there's ample scripture showing the imminent return of Christ to 'that generation'

Please cite this.

 

[37818]

28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10

Does "a very little while", and "shall not tarry" actually mean 'thousands of years and still waiting'? Did the writer of Hebrews lie? Grossly exaggerate?

Wow. You really fail to understand the prophecy of was yet future event, Habakkuk 2:3, ". . . For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. . . ." Which speaks not of when but how, Matthew 24;27; Revelation 1:7.

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom, as I mentioned earlier, your beliefs are new to me. So far, the only thing we have in common is that we both self-identify as Baptist. Are you, or have you been, a member of a Baptist church which is in a Baptist association such as: North American Baptist, Conservative Baptist, etc.?

The beliefs were new to me too. I finally accepted them during a Bible study I led on Hebrews. I started out Amill and ended up Preterist. I knew even then that there was a lot of opposition to this view. Try as I may I just could not unconnect the dots I saw in Scripture. I was honestly looking for some sort of "moderate" position, hopefully through some balancing feedback from other Christians. But to my surprise there was a lot of animosity from former friends. Almost as surprising were the rebuttals I received. Most of them were either "The church has never believed this, Creeds X, Y, Z say this ... etc." or they were just plain insulting.

The church I am a member of is Independent Baptist, though I have not been able to attend for a good while, being out of the country for so long. For a while I went to a Southern Baptist church in Del Rio, Texas, but the new preacher put a stop to my teaching anymore. Though he kindly allowed me to warm the pew.

 

[asterisktom]

Wow. You really fail to understand the prophecy of was yet future event, Habakkuk 2:3, ". . . For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. . . ." Which speaks not of when but how, Matthew 24;27; Revelation 1:7.

Yes, indeed, we are all still waiting for those Chaldeans, that "bitter and hasty nation" to fill the land. Hab. 1.6.

It is you that is linking those NT verses with Habakkuk 2.3, not the Bible.

 

[Aaron]

At what point is my reading divorced from the text? Saying isnt proving.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Tom: The fox only looked brown, because it was dusk on a cloudy day.

Aaron: There's nothing in the text to suggest that.

Tom: Prove it.
​

No. You show its connections, and I will illuminate your errors.

 

[asterisktom]

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Tom: The fox only looked brown, because it was dusk on a cloudy day.

Aaron: There's nothing in the text to suggest that.

Tom: Prove it.
​

No. You show its connections, and I will illuminate your errors.

I am not going to repeat myself to accomodate you. In posts 25, 27, 30, 118, and 121 I showed plenty of connections on the larger question of timing. I might also add KyRedneck's post 129.

None of which you responded to. Unless you consider snide one-liners a response.

I also had responded to your specific point here on an earlier thread. It also received no answer.

A common situation I encounter is when I present verses A, B, C, and D. And the response is to ignore those and say, "How about verse L?"

 

[MB]

Prove your theory. This you have not done. All you have done is make false claims. There is no proof for something that exist in your mind.
MB

You're not claiming that Christ is sitting on the right hand of God. Which is what those verses prove. They do not say anything about His second coming already happening.
You also quoted this above Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Those who would not taste of death in this verse. Could have been the watchers or fallen angles. No one not even you know exactly who He was speaking of.
MB

 

[Aaron]

I am not going to repeat myself to accomodate you. In posts 25, 27, 30, 118, and 121 I showed plenty of connections on the larger question of timing. I might also add KyRedneck's post 129.

None of which you responded to. Unless you consider snide one-liners a response.

I also had responded to your specific point here on an earlier thread. It also received no answer.

A common situation I encounter is when I present verses A, B, C, and D. And the response is to ignore those and say, "How about verse L?"

I visited those posts, and I can tell you I don't have the corner on snide remarks.

Also, I'm talking about the Resurrection, and you're arguing about the Kingdom. Marriage kills your eschatology, because in Christ, there is no male or female. And there can be no marriage where there is no male or female.

Where marriage is, there is law. And where there is law, not all has been fulfilled. Matthew 5:17.

Dude, you're done.

 

[asterisktom]

I visited those posts, and I can tell you I don't have the corner on snide remarks.

Also, I'm talking about the Resurrection, and you're arguing about the Kingdom. Marriage kills your eschatology, because in Christ, there is no male or female. And there can be no marriage where there is no male or female.

Where marriage is, there is law. And where there is law, not all has been fulfilled. Matthew 5:17.

Dude, you're done.

Let's try it a different way.

1.The marriage passage addresses the contemporary hearers, not us.
2. For them there is no male or female.
3. The Law was finished the same time the marriage issue was done away with - for them.
4. That passage says nothing about our situation today.

 

[asterisktom]

There are two or three foundational misunderstandings that are at the root of much of modern eschatological misinterpretation.

1. Eschatology has to do with the last days of the Jewish people as a covenant nation.
2. Eschatological passages of the New Testament must be interpreted divorced from their Old Testament.
3. Almost all of the New Testament eschatological passages are not worldwide in application but are limited to a certain time ("this generation") and a certain place (the land of Israel, not the world, the city of Jerusalem not Rome).

 

[Aaron]

Let's try it a different way.

1.The marriage passage addresses the contemporary hearers, not us.
2. For them there is no male or female.
3. The Law was finished the same time the marriage issue was done away with - for them.
4. That passage says nothing about our situation today.

And we're back where we started. My job here is finished.