You are interpreting the many passages that distinguish that national issues of the OT and the Jew in light of hte one passages that can be interpreted as the church being a nation. There are many passages that make it explicit that the church is not a nation and I do not believe Peter would contradict that. My argument is not with Peter. It is with what you think Peter is saying. Be that as it may, we will not agree. I would simply say that we cannot change all of the NT teaching on the church because of one OT allusion. I think Peter's point is easily explainable without the gymnastics that you require for everything else in the NT about this issue.
-
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!
Futurists
- Thread starter Primitive Baptist
- Start date
Why should we have original views?? There is nothing new in theology. You yourself have no original views. Our views, whether you like them or not, can be explained exegetically from Scripture. I also believe that our views are the only ones that can be consistently explained without resorting to hermeneutics of convenience. The explanations of and from Scripture that you are looking for have been offered many times. Just because you don't like them or don't agree with them does not mean they don't exist.
But like you (and I previously) have said, we can disagree about this and serve the Lord faithfully and fervently and that is what we should do.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." [II Pet. 2:5-10]
Peter is clearly talking to the CHURCH. I'm sorry you're wrong, and I'm sure you are too. Nevertheless, the TRUTH stands. The text couldn't be any plainer.
Peter is clearly talking to the CHURCH. I'm sorry you're wrong, and I'm sure you are too. Nevertheless, the TRUTH stands. The text couldn't be any plainer.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Really? Are you an historic premillennialist or a dispensational premillennialist? The historic brand goes back a long ways, the dispy brand goes back to only the 1830s. I don't agree with your conclusion but historic premill has a lot more ground to stand on than the dispy brand.
Regards,
Ken
I think I will jump back into the fray since my name keeps coming up... Here is one for all you futurist to chew on... I Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words... I do not agree with all the plans of the futurist because according to these passages of scriptures there is no room for a 1,000 year reign. These verses say this is going to be one instanteous moment and if you can twist a 1,000 year reign out of this be my guest... I don't see it!... Brother Glen
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words... I do not agree with all the plans of the futurist because according to these passages of scriptures there is no room for a 1,000 year reign. These verses say this is going to be one instanteous moment and if you can twist a 1,000 year reign out of this be my guest... I don't see it!... Brother Glen
Peter is talking about the church. I never denied that. What I suggested is that you are not using his words properly. You are reading them in light of your conclusion, rather than in light of the rest of the evidence of Scripture. I do not believe that I am wrong and I have not seen any prove it. When you start with your position, it is easy to see how you get where you do. i don't start with your position.
ken, As for premillennialism, I am a dispensationalist. It goes back much further than your limited view will allow. I do believe it is the only position that rightly deals with all teh evidence of exegesis. I have read a number of works in argument against them so it is not like I am in a cacoon about it. I simply do not find the evidence to overthrow it. But I am sure that unless you change your mind before the rapture, we will not agree on that either. I am a strict believer in historical-grammatical interpretation which means I try to understand Scripture as the original author would have intended his oringal reader to understand. That is why I believe what I do. Our Sunday evening service tonight was on teh Kingdom as a time of transformation, specifically in six different areas: spiritual, political, social, physical, ethical, and religious. All of these are described as part of teh Kingdom in the OT. People of your persuasion can hardly admit more than the spiritual but that limits the revelation of God way too much for me.
As for 1 Thess 4:13-18, John Walvoord has an article in Vital Prophetic Issues that must be read before one suggest that there is "no room for a thousand year reign." This passage does not even address that issue. It is amazing how much people think that every passage must address every issue on this. They say that there can't be a pretrib rapture/earthly reign of Messiah/thousand year period/resurrection because such and such a passage doesn't mention it. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe that passage is not about that particular topic? Do not be so limiting that you fail to realize that Scripture exists as a whole. In order to understand it, it all must be put together.
KenH
Well-Known Member
This from a recent Associated Baptist Press article that I posted separately yesterday:
English evangelist John Nelson Darby, who led a series of campaigns in the United States beginning in the 1860s, is credited with formulating the theological system called "dispensationalism." It gained popularity with the publication of the influential Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, with its extensive footnotes outlining Darby's scheme, and again in the 1970s with Hal Lindsey's popular book, "The Late Great Planet Earth."
If it's my limited view, then it is one that is shared by a host of people with alphabet soup after their name.
The only way I see that you can make the view go back further is if you place its origin with Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit, who published In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij in 1590. Or perhaps Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, another Jesuit, who published Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time about the same time. The dispy scheme may have been developed from the ideas in these publications in Catholicism as they attempted to defend the pope from being labeled the antichrist by the Reformers.
Anyway, don't be disappointed if world history doesn't work out as you speculate. And I will do the same.
Regards,
Ken
Primitive Baptist
New Member
"There are many passages that make it explicit that the church is not a nation and I do not believe Peter would contradict that." --Pastor Larry
You may be misunderstanding me or something. I do not believe the church is a literal nation. It is a spiritual nation because the church is also said to offer up "spiritual sacrificies," etc.
Daniel David
New Member
Ken, I just recently posted this on another thread:
Okay, I just found this:
Morgan Edwards taught some form of pretribulationism as can be gleaned from the following statement in his book:
II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years.
I say, somewhat more --; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ's "appearing in the air" (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many "mansions in the father's house" (John xiv. 2), and so disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for "now the time is come that judgment must begin," and that will be "at the house of God" (I Pet. iv. 17)... (p. 7; the spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized)
This excerpt is from a book written about 1740. He must believe the tribulation is only 3 1/2 years. He still believes the rapture will take place before the tribulation. He is the founder of Brown University (Baptist).
[ August 05, 2002, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]
To be sure. However, I contend it goes back to Jesus and PaulOriginally posted by Ken Hamilton:
If it's my limited view, then it is one that is shared by a host of people with alphabet soup after their name.
How did people miss it for all those years? I am not convinced they did miss it although it was not predominant or well known. There have been recent studies including the last issue of BibSac on pretrib quotes. Secondly, the development of understanding of doctrine has followed a distinct pattern in church history according to the times. For a long period it was the doctrine of Christ. You had a long period of the doctrine of salvation. The reformers were charged with believing a "new doctrine," something we vehemently deny. Yet during a particular point in church history, that doctrine was the focus. I believe that the last several hundred years have been the era of eschatological study. Continued work at exegesis and correlation will improve all of our understanding of this important doctrine.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
I asked two questions in a previous post which have not yet been answered.
1. Where does the Bible teach a seven-year "Great Tribulation?"
2. Where does the Bible teach a large number of years is between the 69th and 70th weeks in the prophecy of Daniel?
1. Where does the Bible teach a seven-year "Great Tribulation?"
2. Where does the Bible teach a large number of years is between the 69th and 70th weeks in the prophecy of Daniel?
Daniel, Revelation give the time period. Other passages (Matthew, Luke, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, Daniel, Jeremiah, to name a few) describe the period of time that we are talking without delineating it as seven years. The seven year number comes from the 70 weeks of Daniel, the two halfs of 1260 days.
The same place the OT teaches a large number of years between the first and second coming of Christ. This is an attempt to force Scripture to say something it doesn't say or doesn't deny. There is no place where Scripture prohibits this large period of time. In the OT Messianic prophecies about the "sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow" (1 Peter 1:12), there is no indication of a long period of time between them. Yet you are not arguing that there is not a long periof of time. To the contrary you accept this long period of time between these when the OT (the Scriptures of Christ's day) give no indication of it though we now know it to be true. In other words, this question proves nothing, unless you read something into it from your perspective.
My question would be similar to one that I have asked others and gotten no response to. You have taken a pretty vocal and times slightly vitriolic stand against your opposition. Yet here you are asking questions that are well known. Now if you are as firm as appear and as well-studied as you would have us believe you are, why are you asking these basic questions. If you have are an informed rejector of your opposition, should you not already know the answers to these two questions? If you know them, why do you pretend as if you don't? If you honestly do not know the answer to these two questions, why are you so adamant that they are not in Scripture?
Primitive Baptist
New Member
I know the answers to the two questions. I want YOU to put those Scriptures up on the board, so we can examine them. There is no Scriptural authority to place 2,000+ years gap between the 69th and 70th weeks in Daniel's prophecy. Again, you bring up Matthew 24 after Jesus clearly taught that "this generation" would not pass till it was fulfilled. Since you want to go back to the early church for your support of Premillennialism, go to the early church to find most of them held to a Preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. Even John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon held to this view. It looks like, therefore, that argument works against you (as you keep telling everyone else.). I want you to show me (book, chapter, verse) where the BIBLE teaches there will be a seven-year "Great Tribulation" and that the saints will be "secretly" caught up prior to this event. If this view is indeed the view of God, it should be taught in the Bible, should it not? So...where is it???
[ August 05, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
[ August 05, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
Then why ask? I gave you the passages. You know them. If you want to refute them, go ahead.
Where is the scriptural authority to insert 2000 years between the first and second coming of Christ?? There is absolutely none in teh OT. Your whole hermenuetic breaks down because it is inconsistent. I still maintain that if the first century was the tribulation, not only did John not write prophecy, he didn't even write history very well. There is no way to shoe horn it in. There is not one indication from the scriptural authors who were writing during your "tribulation" that they thought they were in the Tribulation. In fact, Paul denies it, John denies ... what else do you need?
Your hermeneutic cannot stand up consistently. It is extremely selective. Any hermeneutic should be consistent throughout the text. Yours isn't.
Primitive Baptist
New Member
You're NOT answering my questions. No, I'll not defend your position for you.
[ August 05, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
[ August 05, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]
You asked two questions. 1) You asked, Where does the Bible talk about the seven year tribulation? I gave you various places. 2) You then asked, Where does the Bible teach a large number of years is between the 69th and 70th weeks in the prophecy of Daniel, and I answered that question. Do you want to address the arguments or not? I am not the one who said "seven years;" Scripture did. If you want to discuss the fact that it is not seven years, then tell us why the Scripture says what it does. Likewise, if you want to argue that there is not a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel, you will have to come with more than "Scripture does explicitly say it." You will have to answer why an unrevealed gap is acceptable in some prophecies (cf. Zech 12:10, Is 61:1-6, etc), but not others. In other words, your second contention must also call into question other passages as well.
However, I don't need you to defend my position. It defends itself quite admirably with little assistance from me. If all you want to do is go back and forth, I am not interested. If you have serious questions that you would like someone of my persuasion to answer, then I will try to do so as I have time.
Ken, Thanks for your clarification. You are right that as a systematized eschatology, its formulation is rather recent apparently. However, as I say, the pretrib position is going under great study at the present in terms of its representation in church history.
Daniel David
New Member
Primitive, see the following for a simple refutation of your statement:
The time gap in Daniel's 70th week.