Posted on 06/07/2010 7:28:42 AM PDT by topcat54
We recognize that Scripture frequently uses metaphors. The Lord’s Supper is a metaphor. Some of us believe that for SOME metaphors, God will also reveal in eternity that there was ALSO A VERY LITERAL reality as well.
Do you ever get the feeling that there are many who really don’t WANT to believe the Bible anyway? Many who just want to argue with God? N0 faith-obedience?
I’m a Bible-Literalist AND I beieve that the metaphores in the Bible are literally metaphores. I believe the similes in the Bible are literally similes, because I believe words like “as” and “like” literally. Parables are literally parables, too.
Many times, Bible-literalism is criticized simply because the critic wants a natural explanation for everything supernatural. Or does he really want an explanation at all-—God hides things from the wise-guys.
God created natural elements and supernatural elements as well. All of these are referred to in Scripture, and the two are equated by critics to their own confusion.
What a monster that would make God.
But we do know better, and we do know that the believing Jews of that time, who met the faith and obedience requirements of God at that time, were saved and we will see them in Heaven.
Praise God for His compassion and faithfulness!
There is certainly MUCH to learn contained within your statement... Rightly divided... rightly divided.
Of course, you are correct in your assumption. But while correct, your statement is being purposefully ignored, as is the lion's share of the Prophecy.
Replacement theology is a stubborn theory which has been, and will always be debunked by anyone with the slightest bit of study in the prophecies - beginning pretty easily with Genesis 49, in which a prophecy is given about the children of Jacob. It begins with this line:
Gen 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.
Genesis 48 gives very specific prophecies about Ephraim and Manasseh:
Gen 48:19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
Gen 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
These prophecies, known as "the Blessing," among MANY others, defy replacement theology, and preterism as well - For they have *not* knowingly come to pass (I think they have, though folks are to bound by doctrine to see), nor can they be said to be inherited by the "church."
The first example specifies the condition of each of the tribes of Israel in the "last days." The most liberal view of "the last days" is that they began with Christ, or shortly thereafter in the time of the Apostles... surely now we are in the very end of days... on the cusp of it... Where are these things fulfilled?
These things remain unanswered by any, so get used to being ignored.
Likewise, while I am not a purebred Dispensationalist, It is certainly a fallacy, born of confusion, if one cannot see the "times" and "seasons" which are so foundational to the Scriptures. Dispys come awfully close to seeing the "seasons" within their method, and thereby, I am happy to stand with them.
To believe the replacement theorists, one must deny the prophecy, and ignore about half of the Old Covenant.
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Those who deny the words of Yahweh do not understand that *none* of His words return to Him empty.
THANKS.
I don’t know of any Dispy who’d disagree with either of those—certainly not the ‘analogy of faith’ that all Scripture is congruent.
The 2nd one about the clear is never trumped by the unclear . . . more than plausible, though I wouldn’t treat it as a doctrine of the faith, per se.
God’s perspective on clear and unclear are probably a bit different than ours.
correcting missed plural . . . perspectiveS
THANKS.
I don’t know of any Dispy who’d disagree with either of those—certainly not the ‘analogy of faith’ that all Scripture is congruent.
The 2nd one about the clear is never trumped by the unclear . . . more than plausible, though I wouldn’t treat it as a doctrine of the faith, per se.
God’s perspectiveS on clear and unclear are probably a bit different than ours.
No, that's NOT what I mean by "fundie".
Fundies are naive and hold an overly literalist understanding of the Bible.
For instance "..This obscure doctrine [Chiliasm] was probably known to but very few except the Fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first two centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort [naive fundies]."(Wadington's History, Page 56).
<>
The heretic Cerinthus -- a contemporary of the Apostle John -- was a millenarian also known as a "chiliast".
Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
“And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.” (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
“Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... “ (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).
Eusebius (A.D.325:
) “This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)
Epiphanes (315-403:
) “There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St.John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense.” (Heresies, 77:26.)
Etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I’m a Bible-Literalist AND I beieve that the metaphores in the Bible are literally metaphores. I believe the similes in the Bible are literally similes, because I believe words like “as” and “like” literally. Parables are literally parables, too. Many times, Bible-literalism is criticized simply because the critic wants a natural explanation for everything supernatural. Or does he really want an explanation at all-—God hides things from the wise-guys. God created natural elements and supernatural elements as well. All of these are referred to in Scripture, and the two are equated by critics to their own confusion.
THANKS MUCH.
What a monster that would make God. But we do know better, and we do know that the believing Jews of that time, who met the faith and obedience requirements of God at that time, were saved and we will see them in Heaven. Praise God for His compassion and faithfulness!
AMEN.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
In a bit of a rush or I’d repost with formatting and colors. LOL.
LUB
Considering YOUR definition of a “fundie,” you have no right to call me that. You know nothing. I can assure you that I am neither naive nor “overly literalist,” so when the Scripture says “hand of God,” unlike Benny Hinn (a wacko) I do not believe it means that God is literally using a physical hand. However, the Bible is literal in many places and, unlike liberals and those who have tried to diminish scripture, I believe that there is a literal Hell, there was a literal Noah, that there is a devil and so on.
In a bit of a rush or I’d repost with formatting and colors.
If you can't say it in flat ASCII, work on it until you can.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You need to address this to the other guy too then. He made it personal first.
Among these is that when I have warned one Freeper in a sidebar, all those involved in the sidebar should consider themselves warned as well.
This is based on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.
As you KNOW, I didn't call you by ANY name (fundie or otherwise).
I said it was a fundie "teaching". At this point in your understanding, you want to believe that teaching -- a teaching you did not come up with on your own since it dates back, and was viewed as a heretical belief, clear back in the first century:
"Then is it Jacob the patriarch in whom the Gentiles and yourselves shall trust? Or is it not Christ? As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race" (Justin Martyr, *Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew* "Christ is the King of Israel, and Christians are the Israelitic Race" Ch. CXXXV, c. A.D. 150).
As I quoted before, the "obscure doctrine of Chialism/Millennarianism] was confined to those of the simpler sort." [per Origen](Waddington's History, pg. 56
Read 2 Peter 3 alongside of 1 Corinthians 3.
Premillennialism is destroyed by these Scriptures.
Yes, indeed. However, I have noted in other notes from the moderators that the message is always sent to the “perpetrator” of the violation. The other individual on here called me a fundie and then explained his definition of it, which was a personal attack. He knows nothing about me but I was hasty and left off the “about me” in my response post.
And for whatever it’s worth (and this was the regular moderator), I had a poster on here write something extremely sexually vulgar on here to me. I am a woman and the poster was a man. I notified the moderator and nothing was done and the disgusting and filthy remark was left on here. Lovely.
I guess my point is that you “moderators” tend to sometimes get on people for very minimal violations while others who make what I consider fairly egregious offenses are left to roam.
Enough said.
Vulgarity and profanity are not allowed on the RF - whether directly or by reference. If that happens to you on the RF, ping me.
Likewise, here on the RF we can and do hold posters to a higher standard, e.g. not "making it personal" by reading the other poster's mind.
"Open" RF threads can be particularly offensive because posters argue for/against in a town square format. The other thread types "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" and "ecumenical" offer safe harbor for anyone uncomfortable with the town square format.
I haven’t hired you as my style coach, supervisor, editor, kibitzer, sounding board, commentator, graphics designer, critic, opinion spewer, . . .
and likely never will.
However, feel free . . . I’m sure many find such pontifications amusingly absurd.
I totally get that. Like I said, I was only defending myself against attack. Meanwhile, I have probably hit the abuse button a max of about three times in about eight years because I know people can be “passionate,” and for the most part, this is a good place. I get way worse attacks from my liberal friends on facebook. Good day.
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.