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 ...
>>>Gentry identifies himself as a preterist and is identified so on the preterist sites. The only thing he disagrees with is hyper preterism. Don’t try to claim that either Gentry or you are not preterists again.<<<
If you would take time to read my posts, I explained that. Many Postmillenialists wear the “preterist” label as a badge of honor to “stick in the face” of creepy dispensationalists who slander and smear other doctrines in order to hide the fact that they can’t justify their own made-up doctrine.
I am beginning to worry about you, Cynical Bear. This kind of obsession cannot be healthy. Why don’t you take some time out from your witch hunt, and outline and explain your doctrine from a biblical perspective. We might learn something.
I personally enjoy biblical exegesis. I place very little weight on opinions. You know what they are like.
Philip
Saturday, February 08, 2014 10:07:25 PM • 895 of 901
PhilipFreneau to CynicalBear
>>>http://www.raptureready.com/who/Kenneth_Gentry.html<<<
Come on, Cynical Bear, you can do better than use that goofball site as a reference. “Rapture Ready” ... LOL!
There will be no “pre-trib” rapture. That is modern, new-age, cult doctrine, with no scriptural foundation whatsoever.
This is the last time I address this with you. The term preterist means someone who believes the book of the Revelation has been fulfilled. I don’t believe that, nor does Gentry.
If you would apply yourself to studying the scriptures in a manner where you rely on the scripture to prove the scripture, instead of relying on charlatans like Scofield and the Rapture Ready smear guy, you might be amazed at what you don’t know. I would also recommend praying for guidance and an open heart.
Philip
>> Many Postmillenialists wear the “preterist” label as a badge of honor<<
Yeah you “wear the “preterist” label as a badge of honor” all right.
Friday, February 07, 2014 12:36:11 PM • 861 of 901
PhilipFreneau to af_vet_1981
>>>It is only due to preterism's need to have a 70 date that they must try to force the prophecies to fit it.<<<
I am not a preterist, but I know enough about it to know that you have, unfortunately, bought into the lie spread by the dual-covenant crowd.
Have I mentioned your credibility is really taking a hit here?
>>>A little more information on you buddy Gentry and his friends. Kenneth Gentry [http://www.theopedia.com/Kenneth_Gentry]<<<
Hear Ken in his own words. He is very knowledgeable and well spoken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWM7TLWqr5g
>>>Christian Reconstructionism (also known as theonomy) is a highly controversial movement within some conservative Christian circles.<<<
Highly controversial? That is a Saul Alinsky tactic. I wonder if Saul learned his evil deceptions from dispensationalists, since they preceded him?
>>>It maintains that the world should be brought under (reconstructed) the lordship of Jesus Christ in all areas: social, moral, political, judicial, military, family, art, education, music, etc. <<<
Sounds good to me. That sounds like the doctrine of early America before dispensationalism and their cop-out, "don't bother me, I'm going to be raptured" doctrine weaseled its way into Christianity.
>>>Reconstructionts maintain a strong belief that the Bible is true and inerrant. <<<
Get out! For real? Are you kidding me? The Bible is true? Who would have thunk that? I didn't know things were getting that bad! What are you going to tell me next, God is God? This generation means this generation? One plus one is two? LOL!
>>>Christians are the new chosen people of God, replacing national Israel.<<<
Of course. You don’t' believe in that "Plan B" heresy, do you. Jesus Christ, who is God the Father and Creator of the Universe, will not look kindly on those who give aid and comfort to his enemies: those who refuse to recognize his divinity.
>>>Generally postmillennial 'that through the preaching and teaching of the gospel, the world will be converted to Christianity and that Christ will return after a period of time after the world is converted.<<<
That is where I differ. I believe Christ will return exactly as written in Rev 20: after Satan is defeated. I don't know how long after that, because it doesn't say.
>>>There is a debate among some Christian reconstructionists on whether or not slavery should be reinstituted; not all are in agreement.<<<
What a coincidence. There is a debate among dispensationalists on whether or not "burning at the stake" should be instituted; most are in agreement. LOL! Freepers shouldn't play the Jesse Jackson card. It is unbecoming.
>>>Christian reconstructionism began with the publication of the Institute of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdoony in 1973. This 800 page work expounded on the 10 Commandments. <<< On, no! Not the Ten Commandments?
>>>After Rushdoony's death in 2001, his son-in-law Gary North took the reins and has become a prolific writer, further advocating Christian Reconstructionism.<<<
I have read one of Gary North's books, the 1993 "Rapture Fever - Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed." I was particularly enlightened by Chapter 4, "Dispensationalism Removes Earthly Hope," which begins,
"One of the great evils of dispensationalism is that it self-consciously strips from Christians the Old Testament's many comforts offered by God to His people. Dispensationalists regard the 23rd Psalm as the equivalent of Santa Claus: a comforting story fit for children but not for adults.")
According to dispensationalists, he writes, "Our task is to escape this world, not change it."
I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to see dispensationalism without the fluff. When the curtain is drawn, what is revealed is a very gloomy doctrine, that refuses to rejoice in the Lord in the same manner that Israel refused. Do you remember this from childhood?
"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing." (Ps 100:1-2 KJV)
One of the reasons God said he abandoned the nation on Israel (saving only a remnant) was this:
"Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;" (Deu 28:47 KJV)
The Deuteronomy 28 prophecy foretold the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, and God's permanent separation from Israel, except for those who accept Christ.
>>>I’ve got lot’s of stuff on Gentry’s buddy Rushdoony. Of course old scary Gary North Rushdoony’s son in law was gem also. Want me to go on?<<<
Certainly. This is some very good stuff.
Philip
>>>Don’t try to claim that either Gentry or you are not preterists again.<<<
You haven’t earned enough of my respect to tell me what to do. At the rate you are going, I doubt you ever will.
>>>Have I mentioned your credibility is really taking a hit here?<<<
Cynical Bear, these are not the unwashed masses you are trying to fool. They can read the scriptures I post, uncensored. They can also “read” the scriptures you don’t post. Every time you cast aspersions, it provide me with the opportunity to tell the readers a little more about the unbiblical, hopeless, new-age invention called Dispensationalism that you cling to like an inquisitioner; the invention that has made rich some of the real dregs of society, like Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping, Jim and Tammy Faye, Jimmy Swaggart, Tim Lahaye and John Hagee.
I’ve posted multiple scripture passages. You have either chosen to ignore them or have twisted them to suit the preterist view.
Or Gentry, Bahnson, et el.
Given that Peter and the others ran away to avoid being arrested, you surely don't mean it when you say there were these vast multitudes at his crucifixion mourning him. His mother, the Virgin Mary, whom we venerate as the most blessed Jewish woman ever born, was certainly there, as was the Apostle John.
>>>And here I thought you meant it when you said you came to your beliefs by simply “reading” scripture. But then like Nixon “I’m not a crook” you said “I’m not a preterist” too.<<<
You have read too much into what I have written; the same way you read too much into the scriptures. I said I learned my beliefs by reading the scripture, and that is true.
Are you calling me a liar, again?
>>>I’ve posted multiple scripture passages. You have either chosen to ignore them or have twisted them to suit the preterist view.<<<
Show me again. I must have missed your “proof.”
Nah, your preterist views have gotten enough exposure. There is plenty online showing the errors of the preterist view for those who want to know how wrong they are.
CB wrote: >>Or Gentry, Bahnson, et el.<<
My response: I don’t know much about Bahson; but Gentry would never dream of milking widows out of their last dollar like the mainstream dispensational charlatans do (on a non-stop basis.) Have you ever saw him, or any other postmillennialist on TV tearfully showing photos of the “poor children in Africa,” and begging you to “send every dollar you can?” No. They are true conservatives, and live conservative lives. Not so for the mainstream dispensationalists, who really could care less about anything but money.
How do you explain why all the money-grubbing dregs are dispensationalists?
You don't know the half of it. Scofield despised the King James Version, but was forced to use it in those days (early 1900's) if he wanted to sell any books (almost everyone used the KJV.) So, what did he do? He pretended there were newer or better (insinuating "more reliable") manuscripts out there than the one the KJV translators used, not revealing the fact that the changes and omissions he favored supported all the new-age cult doctrines, including his. That is why you find this margin note by Scofield for Matthew 23:14:
"The best MSS. omit verse 14." [Scofield margin note]
This is the verse:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew 23:14)
What would the Swaggart's of the world do if they could not tearfully pray long and hard "for the children of Guatemala?" The horrible manuscripts Scofield pushed are another story, altogether.
True to form, all the modern old and new-age cult translations omit that verse, or pretend it does not belong, as follows, beginning with the Holman Christian Standard, the modern "bible" by the Southern Baptist Convention:
[“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and make long prayers just for show. This is why you will receive a harsher punishment.] (HCSB)
The (HCSB; footnote reads: "Other mss omit bracketed text")
The New American Standard uses similar bracketing, with this claim: "This v not found in early mss."
The New International Version, the New American Bible (a modern Catholic translation,) and the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses have a blank line.
The Jehovah Witness's add this footnote: "[these] were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures."
The New Internation Version has this claim: "Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47."
The Catholic New America Bible claims: "Some manuscripts add a verse here or after Mt 23:12 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. Because of this, you will receive a very severe condemnation.” Cf. Mk 12:40; Lk 20:47. This “woe” is almost identical with Mk 12:40 and seems to be an interpolation derived from that text."
They don't put it in there because it can be found in other books? Maybe God wanted it in those other books. Lame . . .
It get's worse: this is Scofield's note for 1st John 5:7
"It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. 1Jn 5:7."
Generally agreed by whom? This is 1st John 5:7:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7 KJV)
That is the Holy Trinity they are trying to get rid of! After all, how else can you convince someone that Jesus Christ, who is God the Father and Creator of the Universe, is going to return to earth in the flesh and sit on a throne in dusty old Israel for 1000 years [that is thousand, with a "T",] without diminishing his divinity? What better way than to destroy the notion of the Trinity than water down the scriptures?
The Jehovah Witnesses have this:
"7 For there are three witness bearers: 8 the spirith and the wateri and the blood;j and the three are in agreement." (NWT)
The Catholics have this with no footnote:
"7So there are three that testify, 8the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord." (NAB)
The New American Standard has this:
"7 For there are three that testify 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.:" (NASB)
With this footnote: "A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit"
And, of course, the Southern Baptists (my former denomination,) have this:
"7 For there are three that testify:" (HCSB)
With this footnote: "1 John 5:7 Other mss (Vg and a few late Gk mss) read testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth:"
I hope everyone can see the pattern. Only a cursory search will demonstrate that the new-age manuscripts were previously discarded because they are corrupt. The two major manuscripts that are used to compile a complete manuscript don’t even agree with each other.
Philip
You are contradicting yourself. Either all prophecy is fulfilled (the Preterist view,) or some (Rev 20:7-15) is not (the Postmillenialist and futurist view.)
>>>Except here you don't believe 1,000 years is literal.<<<
You do? Do you also believe the following: The beast rises out of the sea? A third of the trees will be burnt up? A third part of men will be killed? All green grass is burnt up?
No wonder new-ager's don't care what happens to our society and the earth. What's the use? You are going to be "raptured", and the earth will be destroyed. What a sad commentary on life for those who forget that Christ came to earth to save the world.
LOL! I just thought of something. Who would have thought that both a hard-core Catholic (you) and a hard-core Dispensationalist (Cynical Bear) would team up against a traditional, conservative Christian. It would appear from the evidence presented here that both new and old-age cults stand together.
>>>In your 871 comments you wrote that the rapture and resurrection have already occurred in the year 70. <<<
That is not true. If you do not understand what I write, please do not pretend you do.
This is what I have written all along: I said the first resurrection had already taken place. The Bible says "FIRST", not "Final," and not "The Only". The second resurrection (the final one mentioned) will occur in the future after Satan is defeated, just like the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28) and Revelation 20. This is when we all stand before Christ (Rom 14:10.) The first resurrection fulfilled this prophecy by Daniel:
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
Take note that not all were resurrected (it says many, not all.) It is also for Daniel's people, only, that is, "THY PEOPLE," who were the children of Israel. Some were left behind: all the Gentiles and, from a literal reading (e.g., "many" or "multitudes",) some of Israel!
Like I said, over and over again, and as both Jesus and Daniel said, the First Resurrection was for the Chosen People of Israel: the remnant--the elect--the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel that Jesus said he came exclusively to gather (Mat 15:24,) along with the holy men of old, which he and Daniel also implied.
The remainder of your post is merely an elaborate rehash of your false assumptions about what I have written and believe:
>>>You realize that your assertion, if untrue, is heretical according to the Apostle to the Gentiles: And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.<<<
There were some in those days, prior to AD70, that believed the first resurrection had already occurred. But the first resurrection did occur, on schedule, in AD70. Therefore, Hymenaeus and Philetus were false prophets and teachers, as are others who, today, take Paul's passage about them out of context, which is heresy.
For someone who believes in a false doctrine (catholicism,) that doesn’t even adhere to its own translations of the Bible in many areas, I must assume you are only pretending to be a strict constructionist on these matters.
Philip
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
This is what Gentry say about Zechariah 12 in "Before Jerusalem Fell" (I highly recommend this book: )
"That such is the referent in Revelation 1:7 seems to be additionally indicated by the fact that the verse is a blending of Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10. The Zechariah 12:10 passage indisputably refers to the land of Israel: . . . Furthermore, in Jesus’ teaching there is a recurring emphasis upon the culpability of the generation of Jews then living. ln Matthew 23 He calls down a seven-fold woe upon the scribes and Pharisees, those who “sit in the chair of Moses” (Matt. 23:2)."
He briefly mentions Zech 12 in the other book I have read by him, "The Beast of Revelation." There may be more on Zech 12 in some of his other books. I don't know.
>>>The LORD is on Israel's side here; this is for the benefit of Israel, not an everlasting judgement on Israel.<<<
If I recall correctly, Jesus sent the "cloud" and "flood" of the Roman Armies to destroy Jerusalem and the outlying cities of Israel, exactly like Moses prophesied 1500 years prior. Maybe the only reason he even bothered was to gather his elect: the lost sheep of the House of Israel who were faithful. The children of Israel were, as a whole, very evil and stiff-necked people in those days, exactly like Moses predicted.
>>>The people besieging Jerusalem are in trouble with God.<<<
The Roman Empire? It was in trouble, and it no longer exists.
>>>All the people of the earth are going to be in trouble with God because they are besieging Jerusalem.<<<
Certainly you are not referring to this passage, because it is referring the Church, and how Satan and his minions attack the Church worldwide:
"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." (Rev 20:7-9 KJV)
The word "breadth," in the dictionary, means the full width from "side to side." Therefore, the breadth of the earth means the entire face of the earth, not a small area like Jerusalem, or even Israel.
The camp of the saints is located on mount Sion, where the "beloved city," New Jerusalem, is located. The passage is referring to the Church that Satan is coming after, and it exists world-wide (covers the breadth of the earth:)
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
"Now therefore ye [saved Jews and Gentiles]are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (Eph 2:19-22 KJV)
AF, you may be referring to the leadership of old Jerusalem: the ones who had the ordinary Jews in bondage with their blizzard of rules and regulations; the ones who would stone you to death in a heartbeat; the precursors to the "Inquisitioners" and "Witch Hunters;" the ones that Isaiah spoke of:
"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Isa 28:14-18 KJV)
The chief cornerstone referenced above, Jesus Christ, can be found in the Holy Temple on heavenly mount Zion, referenced three paragraphs above.
>>>The horses (cavalry) are going to be blinded. In general, there was no Jewish cavalry. The Romans had the cavalry. This is implying that the LORD is going to take out the enemy forces.<<<
He did: the Jewish leadership of those days, and their followers, were the enemy of the elect. Christ later destroyed the Roman Empire.
>>>The Jewish leadership is going to turn to God.<<<
Well, they didn't. Only the remnant was saved. Those of today have one chance and one chance only: turn to Christ and believe in him with all your heart.
>>>The LORD is going to make the Jews victorious against the besiegers and Jerusalem will be inhabited.<<<
He did and it is. He gathered his elect to Himself, let the Romans destroy most of the rest, and eventually destroyed the evil Roman empire with his best tool, Christianity. The elect live in heavenly new Jerusalem.
>>>The LORD is going to save the rest of the Jews from the besiegers first, before he delivers Jerusalem.<<<
Like I said, Jesus (a Jew) did gather his elect. But what you are saying is true, but not like you think. Those Jesus destroyed were not Jews, but instruments of Satan. Another Jew, Paul, wrote about the real Jews versus the Satan's minions:
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter . . . " (Rom 2:28-29 KJV)
The mere fact that someone claims to be a Jew is meaningless. I am a Jew; but I follow Jesus' instructions and avoid the teachings of the Rabbis. Recall that Jesus even denied some were Abraham's children, which is a vital prerequisite for being a Jew, and an Israelite in general:
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39 KJV) John the Baptist also said it:
"Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Luke 3:8 KJV)
The remnant and elect, the real chosen people, were saved; and they serve in heavenly mount Sion as the foundations of our faith, and as priests to the high priest, Jesus Christ. Those are the only chosen people, and they all came from the house of Israel.
>>>Every Jews is going to be super warrior of God, like David (think Samson).<<<
LOL! That is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
>>>God is going to destroy all the Gentiles that attacked Jerusalem.<<<
He did.
>>>The people living in Jerusalem are going to realize Jesus really was and is the Messiah, and he has come back to save them from their enemies.<<<
A remnant did. Their enemies were not the Romans, but the Jewish leadership. Recall that Jesus barely mentioned the Romans. His enemies were his own people, that is, until he disowned those who were against him.
>>>They won't be able to stop crying, tears and tears and tears of repentance on a national scale.<<<
That was fulfilled here:
"And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him." (Luke 23:27 KJV)
I still believe you are a Talmudic Jew pretending to be a Catholic.
Philip
I don't see anything in those verses you quoted, one way or another, about mourning. I strongly advise against adding words to the scripture.
The Romans were not blamed for the crucifixion:
"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" (1 Th 2:14-15 KJV)
>>>John is providing evidence that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of being pierced so that ye might believe.<<<
And I believe.
Philip
I forgot this point and question in my previous post. This is Zechariah 12:10:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn." (Zec 12:10 KJV)
If to a "literalist" the phrase "all the families that remain" means "every person in every family," and "a thousand years" means exactly 1000 years, then who are they who pierced him?
Philip
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.