| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
The Bible says we cannot know the time of the Lord's return (Matthew 25:13). But the Scriptures make it equally clear that we can know the season of the Lord's return (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6):
"You yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night... But you brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night or darkness; so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober."
This passage asserts that Jesus is coming like "a thief in the night." But then it proceeds to make it clear that this will be true only for the pagan world and not for believers. His return should be no surprise to those who know Him and His Word, for they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to give them understanding of the nature of the times.
Furthermore, the Scriptures give us signs to watch for — signs that will signal that Jesus is ready to return. The writer of the Hebrew letter referred to these signs when he proclaimed that believers should encourage one another when they see the day of judgment drawing near (Hebrews 10:25-27). Jesus also referred to the end time signs in His Olivet Discourse, given during the last week of His life (Matthew 24 and Luke 21). Speaking of a whole series of signs which He had given to His disciples, He said, "When you see all these things, recognize that He [the Son of Man — that is, Jesus] is near, right at the door" (Matthew 24:33).
A Personal Experience
Every time I think of "Signs of the Times," I am reminded of a great man of God named Elbert Peak. I had the privilege of participating with him in a Bible prophecy conference held in Orlando, Florida in the early 1990's. Mr. Peak was about 80 years old at the time.
He had been assigned the topic, "The Signs of the Times." He began his presentation by observing, "Sixty years ago when I first started preaching, you had to scratch around like a chicken to find one sign of the Lord's soon return."
He paused for a moment, and then added, "But today there are so many signs I'm no longer looking for them. Instead, I'm listening for a sound — the sound of a trumpet!"
The First Sign
One hundred years ago in 1907 there was not one single, tangible, measurable sign that indicated we were living in the season of the Lord's return. The first to appear was the Balfour Declaration which was issued by the British government on November 2, 1917.
This Declaration was prompted by the fact that during World War I the Turks sided with the Germans. Thus, when Germany lost the war, so did the Turks, and the victorious Allies decided to divide up both the German and Turkish empires.
The Turkish territories, called the Ottoman Empire, contained the ancient homeland of the Jewish people — an area the Romans had named Palestine after the last Jewish revolt in 132-135 AD.
In 1917 Palestine included all of modern day Israel and Jordan. In the scheme the Allies concocted for dividing up the German and Turkish territories, Britain was allotted Palestine, and this is what prompted the Balfour Declaration. In that document, Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, declared that it was the intention of the British government to establish in Palestine "a national home for the Jewish people."
The leading Evangelical in England at the time was F. B. Meyer. He immediately recognized the prophetic significance of the Declaration, for he was well aware that the Scriptures prophesy that the Jewish people will be regathered to their homeland in unbelief right before the return of the Messiah (Isaiah 11:11-12).
Meyer sent out a letter to the Evangelical leaders of England asking them to gather in London in December to discuss the prophetic implications of the Balfour Declaration. In that letter, he stated, "The signs of the times point toward the close of the time of the Gentiles... and the return of Jesus can be expected any moment."
Before Meyer's meeting could be convened, another momentous event occurred. On December 11, 1917 General Edmund Allenby liberated the city of Jerusalem from 400 years of Turkish rule.
There is no doubt that these events in 1917 marked the beginning of the end times because they led to the worldwide regathering of the Jewish people to their homeland and the reestablishment of their state.
Since 1917
Since the time of the Balfour Declaration, we have witnessed throughout the 20th Century the appearance of sign after sign pointing to the Lord's soon return. There are so many of these signs today, in fact, that one would have to be either biblically illiterate or spiritually blind not to realize that we are living on borrowed time.
I have personally been searching the Bible for years in an effort to identify all the signs, and it has not been an easy task to get a hold on them. That's because there are so many of them, both in the Old and New Testaments.
I have found that the best way to deal with them is to put them in categories, and in doing that, I have come up with six categories of end time signs. We will explore these catetories beginning in Part 2 of this series.
Can you be more specific? Exegete a passage a demonstrate the theory conclusively.
Zech. 13:8,9.
Is this a literal 2/3rds or spiritualized in some manner.
Given that the term "spiritualize" is a suspect term in dispensational circle, I'll leave it to you to decide. Either way you are in an interprerative bind.
Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as [it is] in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as [it doth] also in you, since the day ye heard [of it], and knew the grace of God in truth:
Which apostle went to central america, or was that REALLY what Paul was saying or was he using a figure of speech?
The error of dispensationalism is in trying to read the biblical prophecies like they read the evening newspaper.
LOL, prophecy - Jesus would be born in Bethelehem - spiritualized or reading like a newspaper? Further error on your part not realizing that pretrib also are capable of discerning figures of speech and symbolic metaphors when we read prophecy, for instance Jesus doesn't have a literal sword coming out of His mouth on His return. Please gather better understanding of the method before you mischaracterize it like this.
It is another error of dispensationalism to see the spiritual as somehow diluted.
No, there are key spiritual aspects to the prophetic, but there are hard, physical realities too - to the extent that in the Mosaic law false prophets were killed when their prophecies failed to come to pass. No letting them off by 'spiritualizing' it.
Hardly. It is simply contrary to the erroneous views of dispensationalism.
So far, apart from vague fluffyness, you really haven't shown dispensationalism to be false. On the contrary, when asked in response to your claim that Mt 24 is fulfilled in AD 70, you provide everything BUT evidence of such. You make Jesus out to be a false prophet in that case.
I'd be more than delighted after you show me verse by verse the fulfillment of MT 24 in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
LOL, hardly, but then your 'spiritualization' of passages apparently is correct. BTW, consider what you said elsewhere in regards to Zech -
Exegete a passage a demonstrate the theory conclusively.
I await with baited breath to exegete this passage.
He provides the sacrifice with His blood from the Son for this temple.
When we think upon the burnt offering He provides, then like the bronze alter outside the temple, we look upon our sins and confess them to us, cleansing our selves by washing in what He has provided, and by 1st John 1:9 He is faithful and just to forgive us those sins. At that point we are cleansed and may enter into the Holy Place. This happens today in our human spirit and with our soul as a thinking process.
IMHO, insight is provided regarding the future testing of humanity when we find the animal sacrificial system initiated again in the Millennium.
Why? The issue was whether dispensationalism envisions God's warth being poured out upon millions of people living in Israel during the futurist "great tribulation". It plainly does as the comments by Walvoord and LaHaye demonstrate.
The question is, do you agree with their interpretation?
Cop out.
God's warth upon those living in Israel (as well as the rest of the world btw) during the tribulation period is very clearly evident from scriptures - both OT and NT.
The real question is what part(s) of the Bible do you really believe, or is God lying here in Zech 13.
:) I'm just giving you more time to scrounge up your 'answer' TC. You've failed miserably so far to match the events of AD 70 with Mt 24.
Not at all. I just don't believe the dispensationalist interpretation that it is speaking of a future generation of Jewish people who will suffer God's wrath for no biblical reason.
You see, dispensationalism forces it hermeneutical approach on the text regardless of what the rest of the Bible may say on the subject. When people disagree and point out the inconsistencies with that approach, the dispensationalists fall back on their standard one liners.
Why will God pour His wrath out upon the millions that dispensationalists envision are killed without Christ during the future "great tribulation"? What does the text actually say to support that view?
True to form and as predicted here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2300721/posts?page=33#33
the outright dismissals seem to be flowing freely.
That matchup is clear as even many futurists are forced to admit. I provided one simple piece of evidence from the writings of Marcellus Kik where he carefully compares Christ's language in Matthew 24 with the prophecies of the OT.
Dispensartionalists, on the other hand, do not compare Scripture with Scripture, preferring the simplistic approach of reading the Bible in the light of the evening newspaper and claiming it is all "obvious". That does not trump sound biblical exegesis.
If you are really interested in understanding the issues, there amy many good articles and texts on the subject. I suggest you start with this one: On the "transitional verses" in Matthew 24.
That is not an ad hominem. The fundamental problem is that dispensationalists cannot grasp that non-dispenationalists do not come to the text with dispensational presuppositions. Likewise, because of your presuppositions, you cannot imagine a more valid interpretation of the text. How is that ad hominem?
Oh there are a whole bible's worth of reasons TC. It is the same reason the rest of the world is judged - on their rejection of Jesus - and more specifically Jesus as Messiah. Or are you saying that the Babylonian captivity and the Diaspora were for no biblical reasons either?
Your comment foolishly limits the judgment mainly to Israel and not applying it universally as supported from the rest of scripture (woops, we pretrib types don't apply the rest of what the bible says). In short, you are blinded to the fact that Zechariah 12—14 is not just Israel's judgment but Israel's redemption. Tell us, is the church replacing Israel in this passage too?
You see, dispensationalism forces it hermeneutical approach on the text regardless of what the rest of the Bible may say on the subject. When people disagree and point out the inconsistencies with that approach, the dispensationalists fall back on their standard one liners.
LOL, I must not have gotten the notes as to what these 'one liners' are. The bible from the OT to the NT speaks about a final judgement of the world and its peoples. Or are you now accusing God of being unjust in His punishment of His creation? Your comment just further goes to show the shallowness of your understanding of dispensational hermeneutics. My personal studies of end times prophecies cross reference all across the bible and closely review what the whole bible would say. AFA hermeneutical approaches, I still am waiting to see the superiority of your views in regards to Mt 24 being fulfilled in AD 70. . . . . . .
Why will God pour His wrath out upon the millions that dispensationalists envision are killed without Christ during the future "great tribulation"? What does the text actually say to support that view?
For the same reason God will further condemn them to eternity in hell - their willful rejection of Christ. What does the text actually say? Please TC, say you have even taken the time to read the whole bible. For starters and historical background, read the story of Noah. Then review the Exodus story of Israel and those God killed in judgement for their rebellion(s). Study the prophetic pronouncements on the various countries surrounding Israel in the OT. Now with that foundation, start researching Rev 6:8 (1/4th of the world's population killed), 16-17; the angel judgments of Rev 8; an additional third of the remaining population is killed Rev 9:18. I will not insult your intelligence to let you look up the multitudes of 'reasons', for they boil down to one - rejection of and open rebellion towards God.
Or are you going to claim that these were some how fulfilled in AD 70 as well.
Believe what you will.
The Lord knows as do at least a couple of FREEPERS.
Thanks for the derision. It’s money in my heavenly bank.
Sorry TC, Marcellus struck out and grossly failed to relate to the whole of scripture on the subject - choosing to only focus upon the clouds and associated metaphors. There was absolutely no linkage to the events in AD 70 in that little snippet. Speaking of failing to address the whole of biblical prophecy presented in Mt 24
The gospel was not spread throughout the whole world in AD 70 (24:14)
The "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place" (24:15) Silence on Kik's part. Paul references the prophecy of the same even - so who was this guy? (crickets)
What evidence that Christ returned in AD 70 (24:30, 37).
There have been greater tribulations for Israel in the years past AD70 (24:21)
My, four significant areas of Jesus' prophecy that Kik completely fails to address with the exception of an obfuscation of Christ's return. And you accuse pretribs of shallow bible study practices"
Dispensartionalists, on the other hand, do not compare Scripture with Scripture, preferring the simplistic approach of reading the Bible in the light of the evening newspaper and claiming it is all "obvious". That does not trump sound biblical exegesis.
Ah, you seem to have all the one liners and grossly mischaracterize dispensational comparisons of scriptures across the bible. The more I review preterism, the more it seems like the flat earth society.
See, a key component of Christianity is historical agreement. We find that in the OT prophecies regarding Christ's first advent, it is proper exegesis to expect to find the same/similar in NT prophecies. As the list above indicates, the overwhelming a priori demands that the NT prophetic events cumulated in AD 70. That is not sound biblical exegesis, particularly when the main prophetic NT book - Revelation - wasn't written until about 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.
If you are really interested in understanding the issues, there amy many good articles and texts on the subject.
Well, at least this tells me where you got your ideas regarding the changing of 'signs'
However, the good Dr. runs aground on the use of PERI DE - it is more commonly translated But of . . rather than "now concerning" (try a key word search with bible software). He tries to link this to being a 'transition' - sorry, contextually Jesus was referring back to His statement in verses 29-31. Sorry, basic bible reading 101.
Do you believe with Dr Gentry that Zechariah 12—14 was a parallel passage to the Mt 24-25 (Olivet Discourse)?
Actually, mine was on . . . priorities . . . of various belief systems . . . including Calvinist types.
Collected more than a thousand variables. Analyzed only 4 of them for the Dissertation.
Fascinating stuff. Would sure like to be able to analyze the rest of the data. LOL.
Well put.
Lurkers will thank you in eternity.
Others will deeply regret not paying attention to your words.
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.