Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Did you not notice the fact in that verse that the earth abideth forever and not sin that abides forever as you want to insinuate?
Then we have this.
1 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
1 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Do you think that “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” might be a little different than this on and given the “righteousness” sin may be gone?
>> it is you who have been misinformed about death and sin<<
1 Corinthians 15: 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Destroying means it is no more. It means it has ended and will be nor more. It has ended.
Revelation 21: 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
I’ll bet that you will insist that there will still be death and sin in that “all things new” however.
You go right ahead and make up whatever you want to make up. You will pay dearly for adding words and meaning to clear scripture.
>>BTW, I am not a Preterist.<<
Whether you like or not, admit it or not, what you preach here is Preterism. It has been proven in error over and over again in these threads. Whatever you would like to call it the teaching will still be identified as Preterism.
>>You are, however, a Dispensationalist.<<
I most certainly am as I believe what scripture says rather than make believe injections of what scripture should mean.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
No, but I did notice you completely ignored the part about, "one generation passeth away, and another cometh."
I also noticed that you completely ignored the many scriptures I posted that show there is no bodily resurrection of the flesh.
>>>Do you think that “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” might be a little different than this on and given the “righteousness” sin may be gone?<<<
No. But I did notice you ignored this fact, or never understood it:
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:1-2)
If there is "only" righteousness in the "New Heavens and New Earth," then why do the nations need to be healed? Why are there any nations at all? Where did they come from, if this is a new heaven and earth?
Maybe your timeline is wrong (again.) Recall this from John:
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:26)
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:38-39)
Note in the last passage that John indicates that the "rivers of living water" will appear on the Day of Pentecost. And in the previous passage, Jesus said it comes from the Father. Also recall that Jesus is the Father:
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)
Therefore, Jesus sends the Comforter: the Holy Ghost; which he calls "rivers of living water." And where did we see that before?
In Revelation 22:1, listed above, and here:
"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." (Rev 22:1-2)
It is also mentioned in terms of the unbelieving:
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." (Jer 2:13)
"O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters." (Jer 17:13)
From those verses we can assume that the Living Water was offered to people from the Lord, and those on the Day of Pentecost also received it. Therefore, the Living Water is the Holy Spirit, and the healing of the nations began on the Day of Pentecost.
Philip
LOL I’ve already proven you wrong on most all of the base of this discussion. Now why in the world would I not ignore what you believe is built on that error? It would be a waste of my time to spend if you can’t even understand the base prophecy.
Your Preterist beliefs are not based on sound scripture. You need to stay with like minds like Gentry, North et el. I’ve seen them debated and they make fools of themselves. They can quote scripture but the meaning of it totally escapes them.
Preterism and dominionism are based on twisting scripture and supposition. It’s no better than Catholicism.
The protestant version of the Rapture is poppycock. Totally unheard of for the first 1,800 years after Christ’s death. Never taken seriously by any of the Church fathers.
Wait, I'd better do this before someone else gets to it: if the Protestant version of the Rapture was totally unheard of for the first 1800 years then how could the Church Fathers not have taken it seriously?
James talks on this subject:
James 1:14-15
But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.
As much as I would like to feed your high opinion of yourself and your ability to scare away lesser foes with your arguments, I must confess that it is my lack of "longsuffering" that left you without an answer from me. If you would care to discuss this topic, a little less "gotcha" and a little more respect for the truth of God's word, studied HIS way would be helpful. Starting with this:
Think for a moment. Using the common sense God gave you, just THINK. WHY PAUL? There is a striking fact and a world of discussion when you ask yourself that simple question.
AFTER our Lord, in His so-called "great commission", had sent Peter and the other Apostles, Mathias included, into "ALL THE WORLD" to preach "THE GOSPEL" to "EVERY CREATURE" (Mark 16:15) and make "DISCIPLES of ALL NATIONS" (Matt. 28:19)- AFTER THIS, He raised up ANOTHER APOSTLE, Paul. WHY? He had already commissioned the twelve to go to all nations. WHY the need to raise Paul and send him? Why not make him the 12th Apostle instead of Mathias? Why make him an Apostle at all? And did Peter and the 11 perceive this raising up of Paul as some kind of change in the commission given to them?
If you want to continue this discussion, those questions must be answered. Honestly and with God's Word. Not man's "interpretation" of His word. Because He DOES tell us the answers.
And BTW, I am a "she". Not a "he". :)
FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!
Dispensationalists truly are delusional. Explain to us again how "this" generation means "that" generation in the following verse. That is a trick worth knowing:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34)
If you have time, explain to us how the temple of Ezekiel 40-48 is the future "third temple," even though Ezekiel's received the vision half-century prior to the building of the second temple (one would think his vision would have been for the second one.)
Oh, and we would really appreciate if you will discuss the wonders of how the name of the seed-line Ezekiel prophesied to be the ruling priests of the "third" temple, matched perfectly the names of the ruling priests of the "second" temple, according to Neh 11:11. Imagine that: the ruling priests over two and one-half millennium (2,500+ years) apart having the same direct ancestor, Zadok.
While you are at it, explain the motive behind Scofield ignoring this verse:
"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." (Zec 13:7)
But writing this about the next two verses:
"Zech. 13 now returns to the subject of Zech 12:10. Zech 13:8,9 refer to the sufferings of the remnant Isa 1:9 Rom 11:5 preceding the great battle."
These are the next two verses:
"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God." (Zec 13:8-9)
According to Scofield's interpretation, verse 7 occurs over 1950 years before verses 8 and 9.
I have only scratched the surface of this bizarre interpretation scheme.
Philip
I'm not going to fall for that feminist tripe where they're all offended because 'man' [and he] can be used in a gender-inclusive [and sometimes gender-unknown] sense. (i.e. mankind
does not mean only males, neither does no man should lie on the witness stand
mean that it is ok for women to do so.)
But I do apologize for not catching that you were a woman.
If you would care to discuss this topic, a little less "gotcha" and a little more respect for the truth of God's word, studied HIS way would be helpful.
I won't say that I don't like being right, I do... and that can come off as having a gotcha attitude; this is not my intent. So, I do apologize if this is how I came across.
I do however take some umbrage with the implication that I have little to no respect for God's word or its veracity.
AFTER our Lord, in His so-called "great commission", had sent Peter and the other Apostles, Mathias included, into "ALL THE WORLD" to preach "THE GOSPEL" to "EVERY CREATURE" (Mark 16:15) and make "DISCIPLES of ALL NATIONS" (Matt. 28:19)- AFTER THIS, He raised up ANOTHER APOSTLE, Paul. WHY? He had already commissioned the twelve to go to all nations. WHY the need to raise Paul and send him? Why not make him the 12th Apostle instead of Mathias? Why make him an Apostle at all? And did Peter and the 11 perceive this raising up of Paul as some kind of change in the commission given to them?
If you want to continue this discussion, those questions must be answered. Honestly and with God's Word. Not man's "interpretation" of His word. Because He DOES tell us the answers.
Given the scene of Acts 15, wherein James, Peter, Paul and other prominent church leaders fully accept the gentiles as Christians and, furthermore, laying only light commands on them —Namely: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
— it is obvious that the reason to go to the gentiles was of course to fulfill prophecy:
After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,
and I will set it up,
so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things 18 known from long ago.’ James quoting Amos 9 in Acts 15. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.Which introduces 1 Cor 13, the love chapter, and shows that love is greater than all of these spiritual gifts — because without love, these gifts are useless. Indeed, there's an easy disconnect between word and deed that James points out: If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
So, in a sense it is irrelevant that Paul was the apostle to the gentiles: God had already decided that they would be recipients of the free gift of salvation, and His own Love, being perfect, would not merely say "you are saved" but would do the saving.
Indeed, that 1 John 2:3-6 says
Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, “I have come to know him,” but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, “I abide in him,” ought to walk just as he walked.how could Christianity fail to go to the gentiles in fulfillment of the great commission?
I think you’re missing the point here. IF Christ commissioned Peter and the 11 to go to ALL nations with the gospel, why the need for Paul? Peter and the 11 ALREADY had that command from Christ. As Matthew and Mark point out clearly.
>>>Your Preterist beliefs are not based on sound scripture. You need to stay with like minds like Gentry, North et el. I’ve seen them debated and they make fools of themselves. They can quote scripture but the meaning of it totally escapes them.<<<
Very interesting analysis. Most postmillennialists, like Gentry, were former dispensationalists. I don’t know of any postmillennialists who have switched to dispensationalism. In fact, dispensationalists are leaving the Darby/Scofield doctrine in droves because they believe dispensationalism is not biblical.
Will you provide me with a link to the Ken Gentry debate? I can’t find it.
BTW, how did you like Tommy Ice’s closing argument in his debate with Gary Demar: in particular his arguments about compartmentalism and historiography as applied to dispensationalism?
That debate can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WrtZ_H7OU&list=PL258BECF766209765
Are you familiar with the Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera? He was, in my opinion, the father of Dispensationalism, many years before Darby. He proposed that an individual, called the Antichrist, would do the following.
• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
• Abolish the Christian religion.
• Deny Jesus Christ.
• Be received by the Jews.
• Pretend to be God.
• Kill the two witnesses of God.
• Conquer the world.
Pretty neat stuff, huh?
Philip
>>>James talks on this subject: James 1:14-15 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.<<<
I like what James said. His book is one of my favorites. But that verse has no bearing on our discussion of Daniel 9:24-27, though CynicalBear certainly wanted it to. You can read the context at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3116855/posts?page=189#189
Philip
In a world without Christianity, everywhere is somewhere that doesn't have the Gospel — even in Israel.
Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem for the holy spirit, but after that they stayed... and God sent/allowed persecution (even Paul's while he was still Saul) to disperse the 'clumping' around Jerusalem. This is why Saul was originally on the road to Damascus in the first place: it was one of the places the early Christians had gone after that initial dispersion.
And you're not getting my point: God didn't need Paul, He would have gotten to the gentiles regardless. — moreover, the other apostles did go around places: legend has Thomas going all the way to India. (Link to legend/traditions of where the apostles went.) Arguably though John seemed to have "stayed in the area" (probably in part due to caring for Jesus's mother) his gospel is perhaps the one that has most blatantly gone out into the world so others could believe: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 21:30) [Indeed, at the very outset John shows Jesus is God, in human flesh, and fallen (dark) man needs Him. By the third chapter, Jesus himself is saying this of Himself and that His purpose is saving the whole world.]
...and here we go down the “legend/tradition” road. Already. I am not interested in legend/tradition. I am interested in God’s word. So you’re saying that the “clumping” around Jerusalem was not God ordained? And so the 12 were NOT in God’s will regarding remaining in Jerusalem even after the Holy Spirit was poured out? Just why were they there to begin with after Pentecost? Why not just disperse in 12 directions with the gospel? And meet back in Jerusalem to discuss their great successes with the Gentiles?
So now you are into Eastern religious reincarnation as well? Or was it a resurrection? Here is a verse that may not help you but certainly will for a Holy Spirit filled believer.
Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
How preposterous to believe that it was either reincarnation or resurrection of Elijah. (I kid you not)
Elijah pointed the way to the Christ just as John the Baptist did. Thus John the Baptist came in the “spirit and power of Elijah. There
BTW You may want to compare Malachi 4:5 to two witnesses in Revelation who prophesy before the “great and awesome day of the Lord comes” which is the battle of Armageddon.
>>2) And Zechariah 12:10 wasn't really fulfilled when the soldier pierced Jesus with his spear, even though John said it was. (I kid you not, again!)<<
So that Roman soldier was really a Jew? Was he a spiritual Jew or an ethnic Jew? After all, Zechariah12:10 is talking about ethnic Jews is it not?
>>Oh, I forgot. You cannot read well.<<
Oh really! You have sunk to that already? Hmmmm.
>>"Preterist: a theologian who believes that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation) have already been fulfilled."<<
Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond," signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism]
A little more research would have saved you that embaressement. You are indeed preaching preterism.
>>I am a postmillennialist, a doctrine fairly common in the Reformed Presbyterian community.<<
LOL The same as Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Rousas John Rushdoony and other reconstructionsists? Do you also believe we should be forced back under the laws of Moses? Do you agree with North that stoning should be re-instituted? You hang with a weird bunch there!!
>>But you would not be familiar with that<<
Not familiar with the likes of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, North and Gentry? Are you kidding me?
>>You don't even understand that simple verse. Dispensation in that verse means "administration," not "Age!" Good grief!<<
Dispensation - a certain order, system, or arrangement; administration or management. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensation]
And you accuse me of not being able to read. ROFL!!!! Have I mentioned that your credibility is not so good on what to believe?
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.