Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
Not at all I love the KJ. It is the abuse and false doctrines that have arisen because of this. If you read that article carefully it condemns the similar practice in Romanism. It is the deception of pietism as Paul taught in the letters to the Corinthians.
Read the article that is not the case. It is the cult and yes it is a cult that has arisen from unlearned men. It is lengthy but very well thought out. It is also the most scathing rebuke I have ever seen but appropriate in the light of the way our Lord rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees. They still exist today and their leaven must be discerned and avoided as well as it moves people way from Christ-likeness to angry fundamentalism (stone people to death crowd) which is what these blokes were during Christ’s time here.
Great subject — start another thread and let’s discuss it.
And you?
Bible, NT, OT and Psalms in parallel. Currently Ezra, Psalms and Matthew.
Currently re-reading J. Gesham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism, because some of the problems that infested the church then are popping up again. (Why do the emergents think they're new and fresh?). Stalled in the middle of Thomas Boston's Crook in the Lot. Most recently in the past, Meredith Kline's God, Heaven and Har Magedon. And work related crap (specifically, Ralf Hildebrandt The Book of Postfix), of course.
Various and sundry audio bits. Way of the Master, James White's Dividing Line. Apologetics.com's weekly program. John McArther. Ingris Schleuter's Crosstalk. All when they look intersting, ignored when not. White Horse Inn.
Member in good standing, not under discipline, of a local EFCA church.
Took the TV out about a year ago.
Good for you. I haven't watched with any regularity since Babylon 5 finished it's run, around the turn of the millenium. Too much dreck, too much waste of my precious time.
We are like grass. Who wants to explain to God why they pissed away so much time watching Gilligan's Island?
Why?
Honestly trying to gauge your state, in order to make a proper answer.
No one is denying that Jesus will come again, and once again I have no idea what a “preterist” believes, I can only know what the bible says by intentional study. If any man lack wisdom let him ask the Lord for some.
I will and will love having you on there. You are a great brother and defender of the faith. I’ll ping you and others when I start. I am very busy getting ready for a mini-vacation and will start it when I get back from Canada on the 18th.
As long as Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, I don't care if I have an extra chromosome. :-)
A preterist believes what you have been defending for some 200 posts -- that the abomination of desolation is past, along with virtually all of Matthew 24 -- including the "coming of the Lord" in verse 30.
Jesus returned to build his temple,He returned as God coming to his people and that's what Malachi says will happen.
We have ample words in prophecy and scripture to know that. Where we differ is that I believe that Christ is on his throne today, has been for a couple thousand years and that the temple being rebuilt is Christ and his church, but apparently you think he needs a chair someplace in Jerusalem. If that were true then you really need to built on an addition to your house if he and the Father are come to dwell with you.
The new Jerusalem is Christ's people, there is plenty of scripture that tells you that, and in fact Augustine wrote a book called just that, The City of God.
From what I can see, some really have aproblem believing Christ when he said his kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, that he has returned and is building the temple, one lively stone at a time. Is there an end? Of course, and nobody knows when it will be. If we didn't believe that Christ was coming again, why then do we watch?.
In the postmil. and amil. thought when did the 1,000 yr reign occur?
Ping me. I'm interested.
Once again let’s note for the record it says "the sign of the son of man in heaven shall appear". It quite plainly does not say that that Jesus will physically appear anywhere.
I take it you have never read Josephus. The account of all that happened surrounding the sack of Jerusalem and destruciton of the temple in AD70.
Chipper, if you are satisfied with not being able to exegete a single passage of Scripture and not being able to compare Scripture with Scripture, that’s fine by me. You can get your eschatology from modern pop futurists if you wish.
But please do not pooh-pooh the preterist view when you are incapable of such exegetical work.
Your emperor still is not wearing any clothes.
But you said “all creation is under the curse”. Aren’t the righteous part of creation?
Chipper, you are merely demonstrating yet again that you cannot exegete a simple text of Scripture. You do realize, do you not, that not every "coming of the Lord" means the second coming?
Amils generally believe that the "thousand years" spans the time from Christ's first coming to His second coming. Many postmils believe that as well, however postmils generally see progress in the positive effect of the gospel over time. That’s why some postmils believe that the "thousand years" begins sometime during the inter-advent age.
Baloney -- read it again for the first time:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." [Mt 24:29-31]
It says clearly: "they shall see the Son of man coming". If that is not a physical coming, then just what kind of coming is it???
Like Mt 24:30??? What kind of coming was that???
Well, comparing Scripture with Scripture and seeing what the Bible mean when it speaks of "coming in (or with) clouds", it is a coming consistent with what Jesus said to the high priest in Matt. 26:64, "Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’"
If we apply a Jewish mindset, and not a futurist/dispensationalist one, and read, for example, Daniel 7, we will see what Jesus was referring to:
13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.This is speaking of Jesus ascension to the Father when He received the throne of the promised kingdom (i.e., the throne of David in heaven). The visible evidence of this event on the earth was the ending of the old covenant system as represented by the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the old temple.
Ver. 30 And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, &c.] the son of man himself: just as circumcision is called the sign of circumcision, #Ro 4:11 and Christ is sometimes called a sign, #Lu 2:34 as is his resurrection from the dead, #Mt 12:39 and here the glory and majesty in which he shall come: and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, #Mr 13:26, Lu 21:27 and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly. (John Gill, 1809)
Are you asking in order that you might learn to interpret the Bible correctly? If so then read post #579.
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.