Posted on 01/14/2014 1:08:10 PM PST by Olympiad Fisherman
PFL
Please forgive my ignorance of what “PFL” stands for.
For a view of the commonly held Reformed doctrine consult Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew 24, also, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646.
“Please forgive my ignorance of what “PFL” stands for.”
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Probably internet slang, “posting for later” (by posting in the thread now, it is easier to return to it later, as a link to it will be placed here. . .
“Posts by Alex Murphy”
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:alexmurphy/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
Links...
Matthew Henry’s Commentary (click on Show Resources link)...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mt%2024&version=KJV
Westminster Confession of Faith 1646
Chapter XXXIII
Of the Last Judgement
(click on citation numbers to display Scripture proof verses)
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
PFL = ping for later
If you post in a thread and later look in “Account”, “My Comments (self-search)”, you will find your post. It’s a way of bookmarking the thread for later reading.
Hope this helps!
Thanks. I do remember reading from Matthew Henry’s commentary in Romans 11 that he believed in a future salvation of the Jews.
Romans is quite clear, all of it should be studied.
It answers virtually all of the questions most often posed regarding Jews and Israel in light of the New Testament.
Of course, then, we know that when we err in our doctrine in this regard we are evidencing our lack of study of that book.
Oh, how joyful the doctrine presented in Romans.
Regarding the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans...
But of course, without someone to point out the vast wealth of references made to the prophets of the Old Testament, David, the Psalms, etc., etc., etc. then the bulk and and essence of Romans is not revealed to the reader.
The Reformation gradually got back to a much better understanding of Scripture, even as various sects wandered away from the truth and broke away. I think Henry’s Commentary captures a lot of this understanding.
Certainly, one must be very careful in selecting sources from the Reformation time period (one I saw you quoted was a lawyer) and going forward.
From the days of the Pilgrims and lasting for a few generations, the gains of the Reformation were continued here, and civil government in New England was dominated by people who were part of or respectful to Reformed doctrine and cultural views (for example, Christmas and Easter were not observed in many towns - but the Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath, was). But gradually the immigrant mix to America changed to include far more non-Reformed, and by the 1700’s the stage was being set for the radical departures of the 1800’s.
One must bear in mind that in Great Britain, the forebearers of today’s new world order, the financiers, were already actively planning and implementing their “corruption from within” plans for churches, education, the business community, governments, the arts, etc. Just as in the financial world, scholars in the employ of the “big finance” of the day were writing the tomes that we see as the basis for “capitalism”, religious scholars - and others - in the employ of those same financiers were hard at work undermining true religion, and creating the “enlightenment”, an intellectual hearkening back to pagan Greece and Rome.
When one researches notable individuals of 16th and 17th century Europe, it is utterly amazing how so many of their bios wind up pointing back to the banking families and “big finance” of the day, either by birth, education, marriage, employment, mentor, protege, etc. It’s shocking, I’ve found enough to “get the idea” that the leadership of Europe, the aristocracy, became completely interwined with ancient banking families, and this followed right across “the pond” to America, sans aristocracy.
Yes, Paul describes the future salvation of Israel in clear doctrinal language in Romans 11 - not apocalyptic language - and this should be the basis upon which prophetic passages are understood. 2 Thessalonians is also very similar to Romans 11 as Paul describe the coming of the Antichrist in clear language without symbolism.
2 Thessalonians 2 has been interpreted various ways by scholars over the centuries.
I find this quote from Pastor Brian Schwertley helpful:
“What is particularly interesting regarding this section of Scripture is that it proves that the Thessalonians who had previously received instructions by Paul did not know anything about a pretribulation rapture. If they had been taught such a doctrine then they would have known that the day of the Lord could not have taken place, for the rapture had not yet occurred. Furthermore, it proves that Paul did not believe in a pretribulation rapture (or that he was negligent in his instructions), for Paul says nothing about a rapture that is to occur seven years before the day of the Lord.”
The rapture question is a bit different than what the article is dealing with, but I would argue that Paul clearly said in 1st Thessalonians that God will deliver the saints (1:10; 5:9) from the wrath to come (5:1-8) and the great day of the Lord. How will this be done? Well, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 specifically and contextually explains exactly how - through the rapture of the church. This is then followed up by 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8, “ For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you (in church age Thessalonians are being persecuted), and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well (how relieved? - 1 Thess 4:13-18) when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire (Revelation 6-19), dealing out retribution to those who do not know God (unbelievers) and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus (tribulation is not for the church).” Paul has already made the rapture clear before he talks about the Antichrist and the Satanic activities during the Great Tribulation in 2 Thessalonians 2. Some have even taught that the “apostasy” of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the rapture, because the word simply means in its most basic sense “departure,” which would fit in very well with the context of 1-2 Thessalonians since these two letters were written very close to each other.
We had the opportunity to sit down with Jeff Jue, Associate Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Jue is an expert on the eschatological views of the Westminster Divines and his research is a very stimulating subject. The answer to the question “What were the views of the divines?” may surprise you.
Dr. Jue also has a piece in Resurrection & Eschatology: Theology in Service of the Church: Essays in Honor of Richard B. Gaffin Jr. , on how Jonathan Edwards derived his millenial view from earlier Puritan chiliasts.
The Puritan Hope, Iain H. Murray.
Any of these are worth your time to look up.
long before John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) systematized their views into a coherent systematic theology that became part and parcel of the Protestant Reformation.
Ahhhh, no.
Read the sources above. The first is free, an hour's worth of listening. The others can be had cheaply from Amazon alternate vendors.
“Posts by Alex Murphy”
It is considered good form to ping someone when you mention them by name.
This is way, way, way, off.
1 Thess 1:10
“And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”
Does not say that Christians will be raptured away. It does agree with the doctrine of Judgement Day, since the elect will have the benefit of Christ’s atonement and thus be saved from eternal wrath.
1 Thess 4:13-18 is not about rapturing anyone away.
Such blatantly wrong exegesis is wishful thinking nonsense, stubbornly not giving up on something the interpretor wants to be true.
The “rapture” teaching and dispensationalism was in no way accepted by the majority of Reformed theologians.
Arguably the best summarization of Reformed doctrine is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and is the text to go to for an overview of Reformed Biblical doctrine.
I strongly disagree of course. Paul does not say “eternal” wrath. This is an addition you have added to the text based upon old Catholic eschatology, which is rooted in Greek philosophy and mysticism that emphasized a generalized judgment theology that stands in great contrast to the historical-prophetic emphasis of the Scriptures that extends from cover to cover. The “wrath to come” is called the “Day of the Lord” in 1 Thessalonians 5, and then “wrath” again in 5:9, These are like bookends to the book - and the rapture falls right in between them. I am surprised and saddened by so many Christian’s opposition and embarrassment of so many clear prophecy passages.
So the Westminster Divines got it wrong.
The Bible trumps confessions does it not?
If they are wrong, yes.
So the Westminster Devines got it wrong ?
You’ve done better exegesis than they did ?
They missed such a big point, as a rapture ?
But you’ve managed to figure it out ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.