Posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:16 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God’s redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity...
(Excerpt) Read more at graceonlinelibrary.org ...
>>>In all honesty when you post you use the same approach the JWs use to “prove” the trinity wrong. They find out of context verses, switch hermeneutics within a passage from literal to symbolic to allegory and back to literal again to stuff their arguments neatly in the kit bag.<<<<
LOL! I have been accused of a lot of things, but never before have I been accused of watering-down the trinity. That is what you are accusing me of, aren’t you?
Philip
That was the Lord's way of saying that the old nation of Babylon, that had held Israel captive at one time, had seen its last days. LOL!
As an aside, I can see where you are going here too - but in fact, even in the allegorical, this didn't happen. For the Babylonian god system, the 'stars of heaven and the constellations thereof, the sun, and the moon' were not dimmed or caused to fail, as the very same pantheon can be seen all the way up through Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, Rome, and even to this day - The Babylonian Mystery Religion is by no means gone...
So IMHO, Using the allegorical the way it must certainly be used, this prophecy did not occur. Continuing the Babylonian prophecy into Is 14 makes it altogether unlikely.
If you cannot present your case without comparison or multiple web links to the ideas of others then why bother? I have yet to see a prederist lay out their view without starting with why futurists are wrong. Perhaps your ecumenical thread should cover your prederist theory.
A non-trivial percentage of Dispensational Caucus threads go that very way.
It's probably not a coincidence that he actually denies the Trinity too.
I must have missed that. Please provide a link.
No dispensationalism does not assert there are separate paths of salvation.
Some are more consistent that others.
The way I have heard it, with my own ears, involves separate eternal destinies. And, of course, separate promises. This from a man involved at the time (he's dead now) in some way with LaHaye's pretrib group.
I guess I did not fully understand the significance of an ecumenical thread.
From the guidelines on the Religion Moderator's page:
Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.
I'd say it's pretty much impossible for a thread about certain historically novel eschatological positions to be "ecumenical", based on FR history.
The Mosaic covenant was conditional. The Promise to Abraham was unconditional.
Well that is the problem with your presentation. You only address matters in opposition to another idea. It is all about others and their errors.
You keep mentioning Scofield. Perhaps post something from his works which shows a shift in hermeneutic.
>>>So my advice is to present your case for prederism and see if it can stand without trying to compare it to other views.<<<
The more I read your responses, the more I am convinced you have never bothered to read my posts. Otherwise you would know that I always post scriptural references in support of my views.
This is what I believe, in a nutshell:
Christ fulfilled all of the old testament prophecies (Luke 21:22, John 5:39.) He also inherited all the old covenants (Gal 3:16.) He was only sent to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (Mat 15:24,) and those were also the only ones to whom he sent his disciples (Mat 10:5-6,) until much later: around the 10th Chapter of Acts, when they were also sent to the Gentiles, along with the new apostle, Paul. Christ said his apostles would not have gone over the cities of Israel until his first coming (Mat 10:23.) He also said some would not taste death before his coming (Mat 16:28,) and that it would occur in the generation of his disciples (Matt 24:34.)
That paragraph, with references, provides the foundation for the interpretation of other parts of the New Testament.
The reason Christ was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was because they were his elect. It fulfilled the O.T. prophecy were he bound up Judah and Israel into one fold. Those lost sheep, along with the disciples and apostles, were resurrected around A.D. 70, in the generation in which Jesus said they would be resurrected. That was the First Resurrection, spoken of in Rev 20. They are also identified as the 144,000 in Rev 7 and 14, and as the firstfruits, redeemed from among men. They were all from the children of Israel: the faithful remnant. In other words, Israel was, and will always be, the chosen people; but only those of the first resurrection. Since their resurrection they have served as priests to Christ, the high priest, in his holy temple, as indicated in Rev 20. The disciples sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Mat 19:28,) and are partially identified in the first clause of Rev 20:4.
The destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in the generation that Christ said it would occur, was mentioned in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, along with various references in the Revelation in which the city is named, Babylon the Great. John wrote the book of Revelation around 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia: hence the four references to the seven churches in Asia. The Revelation was written primarily for the seven churches, but also for the other servants of Christ.
The Revelation has five main themes: the destruction of Jerusalem; the rise and fall of the beast, Nero; the first resurrection; the binding, loosing and eventual destruction of Satan; and the second coming, aka, the final judgement. The destruction of Satan and final judgement have not occurred, to date. I do believe Satan has been loosed upon us already, and he is coming after the Church, world-wide (e.g., the breadth of the earth.)
I have no scriptural support for the statement I made about Satan being loosed already. Just call it a hunch; but I have plenty for the other statements.
The First Resurrection carried to heaven, at a minimum, all who had received the awesome power of the holy ghost, and chose to remained faithful (there was a falling away prior to the resurrection.) The rest of us are saved by hearing the Word by preachers that He sends (Rom 10:13-15,) which is exactly the way I was saved about 40 years ago.
There you have it. My super-brief, nutshell version of post-millennialism. Nothing fancy.
Philip
Yes I posted from Revelation 19 because you stated Revelation 20 is yet to be fulfilled. I asked if you see Revelation as fulfilled.
Yeah I observed that as well. In some cases the same prophecies are allegory but literally fulfilled. Thus my comments concerning shifting hermeneutics.
I never heard until your post the part about separate eternal destinies. I have read Ryrie, Ironside, Walvoord and a few others. Not even what I heard of LaHaye was it ever hinted of different eternal destinies. Perhaps their critics have made such claims or others but the above dispensationalists do not make such claims. If you have quotes supporting your statement from their actual works I would be happy to view them.
I am not saying such ideas may not be out there but have not seen the actual dispensational theologians state so.
It has been and always will be saved by Grace through faith in the shed Blood of Christ.
If your studies of eschatology came from independent research why do you riddle us with web links and encourage us to read books from partial prederists?
That is fair. Scofield, and his followers, pride themselves in their "literalism." Can you explain how he "literally" derived this? I can't. This is part of his note for Rev 1:20 [my bold and italic highlights:]
(4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period, there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after Rev 3.22. Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, "where Satan's throne is," after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, Song Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonies. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not "fulfilled." Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea.
If that is not spiritualizing the scripture, nothing is. He even threw the pope into the mix. And he wasn't finished with the papacy. This is part of his note for Rev 18:2:
"Two "Babylons" are to be distinguished in the Revelation: ecclesiastical babylon, which is apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy; and political babylon, which is the Beast's confederated empire, the last form of Gentile world-dominion. Ecclesiastical Babylon is "the great whore" Rev 17:1 and is destroyed by political Babylon Rev 17:15-18 that the beast may be the alone object of worship."
What did he say? LOL! He made it all up, or someone made it up for him.
Philip
>>>If your studies of eschatology came from independent research why do you riddle us with web links and encourage us to read books from partial prederists.<<<
Riddle? Hardly. One of the most supreme biblical scholars in the world, the devout Presbyterian and Calvinist, R.C. Sproul, recommended Ken Gentry’s book, “Before Jerusalem Fell;” one fo the ones I recommended when mocked and pushed by those with an axe to grind.
Do you have a problem with scholarship? Should we just pretend we know it all?
Philip
>>>Phil I believe your title alone disqualifies this thread as “ecumenical.” <<<
What ecumenical thread are you referring to?
LOL. I asked the moderator to remove the ecumenical label.
Philip
Thanks. Your nutshell view is precisely partial prederist. You did a good job attributing hard historical events with your view of literal prophetic fulfillment but only partially. Some of what you assert is a literal interpretation some is not.
To have a consistent hermeneutic you would then have to explain for example how Nero was thrown in the lake of fire and how his victorious (not defeated) army became worm and fowl food after the Army of Christ crushed them. Of course you would have to shift to an allegory to explain that away as would every eye would see Christ come again. The Scriptures are clear Christ is coming to defeat the armies of the beast. Not help the beast destroy Jerusalem. The beast is defeated in Revelation not victorious. The history does not match even the allegory. Plus Nero was no where near Jerusalem and led no armies there.
In summary the cold hard historical facts we all know to be accurate do not match your interpretation of Revelation. If you think Darby and Scofield are confused what about Ireneaus and other early theologians? View all of Book V of Against Heresies. Let me know what a Christian in the second century after the wars of 70 and 132 AD thought about the tribulation and the beast. Synopsis? Did not happen yet.
>> “It has been and always will be saved by Grace through faith in the shed Blood of Christ.” <<
.
Then you have completely missed what Dispensationalism is.
Dispensationalism has all of genetic Israel as one, and the “church” as another body.
That is why all the dispies simply equate Israel with Jews, throughout all of history. I know you must have read some of their posts in the “Parenthetically speaking” thread.
I see no issues with his approach. It is clear he saw the 7 churches as literal and the messages to them as literal, and that such assurances, rebukes and promises apply to the church in all ages to include today. I would not go as far as he did in applying an historic attribution, but in any era there are elements of the 7 Asian churches in all churches.
This is the way with most prophecy. There is an immediate context and fulfillment and ultimate fulfillment.
And in this case it can become a tangent, while the lost head to Hell and while we need more holiness, and thus not be ashamed at His coming. And He is.
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.