Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation

Bible Truth ^ | Revised, Aug 2001 | Cooper P. Abrams, III

[Corin Stormhands]

Typical. You had nothing to say before, you have nothing to say now.

Oh, there's plenty I could say about the hypocrisy here, but I exercise my God-given free-will not to.

It's a shame about you too Wrigley. I've followed some of your posts. You used to be one of the more reasonable ones. Now your just as strident and obnoxious as the others.

It's hard to believe it's only been 8 months since I stumbled onto these threads in an honest attempt to try to understand a little more about Calvinism. And, I must admit, you guys have certainly helped me to do that.

[theAmbassador]

This is why I think we should be rather sobered to notice the vicious character of the defenses which have been offered by some Arminians for their soteriological position. They really do act as though their salvation depends on us Calvinists being wrong.

Interesting observation! I think you are correct in this. This is probably why, after I pointed out that according to their own Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation they are actually basing the 1000 year reign of Christ on this earth from a single passage of scripture, Corin descended into his vicious attacks and was immediately joined by Revelation 911.

The Arminian is just hoping that he can convince the Calvinist he is wrong in order to convince himself that he is right. They really do act as though their salvation depends on us Calvinists being wrong.

It might also demonstrate why [xzins] has accused Ambassador and myself of not answering his question when we had already answered it over and over and over again. Then there was his assertation that we amillennialists actually believe and/or said that there will be death in the New Heavens and the New Earth. I must admit, that I was a bit baffled by these rants.

I'll point out that xzins made his assertation that we amillennialists actually believe and/or said that there will be death in the New Heavens and the New Earth after we had clearly shown him that we didn't believe this. So, I think you are being far to gracious to merely call this a rant. It is nothing more than a 9th commandment violation of bearing false witness against us to score points.

[Wrigley]

Now your just as strident and obnoxious as the others.

What, am I being too strident in my opposition to the LDS falacy? That's where most of my posts have been recently. Do you think I am obnoxious to show the LDS falseness?

Yours was never an honest attempt.

[Corin Stormhands]

Corin descended into his vicious attacks...

Look guys. I don't think you really want to turn this into another "It's all Ward's fault" thread anymore than I do.

I'm NOT going to debate you guys, particularly on this issue. Because, like I've said before I'm just not sure I have an opinion (yet). Because of where I currently am, I would certainly lean to the pre side. But I'm in no way convinced. Nor am I in any way competent enough to discuss the issue (thus the lurking, trolling, prowling - whatever you want to call it).

I don't like arguing with you guys and I don't like who I am when I argue with you guys. Thus my earlier comment to Shadow.

But if you insist on pinging me/talking about me, you ought to know if there's any game I can (and will) play, it's that one. Fer cryin' out loud, y'all really are much to intelligent and too competent to let me bother you as much as I appear to.

[theAmbassador]

For grins I throw an occasional stink-bomb, but I'm not part of the debate.

Oh, so you have crappy grins too. I assume that you understand the metaphor (Mat 15:18).

You know, I did complain to the admin mod that you were not here for debating, but just for disrputing. It seems that there is a definite bias on behalf of the Arminians and other groups on this forum as nothing was done. But, hey, I can live with that.

[the_doc]

It is nothing more than a 9th commandment violation of bearing false witness against us to score points.

Yeah, I suspect that most of the dispensational premills are really Democrats in disguise. They feign niceness, but it's a hypocritical fraud.

[Corin Stormhands]

You know, I did complain to the admin mod that you were not here for debating, but just for disrputing.

What? I thought Calvinists never hit abuse. Guess I'm going to have to rethink everything now...nah, why bother.

Seriously, I don't think the Admins are pre-disposed in favor of any one group on the religion threads. I think in the grand scheme of things they'd be happy if we all went away. JR has said something very similar to that in the past.

[restornu]

It's a shame about you too Wrigley. I've followed some of your posts. You used to be one of the more reasonable ones. Now your just as strident and obnoxious as the others.

Ain't that the TRUTH, he can CUSS with the BEST OF THEM!

[Wrigley]

Hey girlfriend, your the leader of the pack. The rest of us just try to keep up.

[restornu]

are you Ward?

[RnMomof7]

Thus, it is not excluded from the realm of possibility that institutional understanding can follow the precedent set by the great apostles.

They were present to hear the words of Christ, they heard the inflection, the look in His eyes as He spoke

We are not discussing an "institutional understanding" here Chuck . This is a spiritual matter..

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[RnMomof7]

You need to read that in context and see what the apostle was addressing ,Dave

Just as the Jews treat the Passover rememberance with great respect as a "Holy time "the early church needed instructions that the Lords Supper was likewise a Holy Time..not lunch at Mc Donalds

[RnMomof7]

 
  2Ti 3:17   That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

PERFECT

739 artios {ar'-tee-os}

from 737; TDNT - 1:475,80; adj

AV - perfect 1; 1

1) fitted
2) complete, perfect
2a) having reference apparently to "special aptitude for given uses"

Throughly

1822 exartizo {ex-ar-tid'-zo}

from 1537 and a derivative of 739; TDNT - 1:475,80; v

AV - accomplish + 1096 1, thoroughly furnish 1; 2

1) to complete, finish
1a) to furnish perfectly
1b) to finish, accomplish, (as it were, to render the days
complete)


This scripture says CLEARLY that THE MAN OF GOD will finished BY the word of God..complete...and yes complete means complete


2Ti 3:17   That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.



  2Ti 3:15   And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
  
  2Ti 3:16   All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[theAmbassador]

So, what can we do to get this discussion back on track--maybe you continue your discussion of 2 Pe 3? Or perhaps we show how the 1st resurrection can't possibly be the resurrection of the dead?

[RnMomof7]

Keen observation. This means that one can readily see the confusion that reigns among the folks who believe that Scripture is all they need. If the Calvinists and Arminians, the Sabbath worhippers and the Lord's Day worshippers can not agree on such things, then it is clear that the Scripture alone can not serve as a sufficient authority.

But we do all agree on the necessary elements of Salvation.We all agree on the reading of scripture that says there is no salvation by works, and all that surrounds that

What doctrinal differences we have are" non fatal"..

I would be glad to introduce you to Catholics that do not agree with 75% of the RC doctrine..our differences are less than that Dave..get a new argument

[xzins]

child

[the_doc]

I haven’t read the rest of the thread, but I’m sure the premills will protest that:

1) they are basing their millennial position on MORE than just Revelation 20, and

1) the amills, by contrast, are basing their own millennial position on NOTHING MORE THAN JOHN 5:25-29.

We hear both of these claims over and over on these threads. But the premills are not being honest on either point.

MY RESPONSE TO "PREMILL CLAIM #1":

The premills wave their hands over several New Testament texts which they claim to be supporting their materialistic millennial view. But they are stuck in a Satanic trap (2 Timothy 2:26). As we amills have demonstrated time and time again, the premills are just reading their premillennialism into those passages.

To appreciate what I am saying, read the article by Dr. Venema (see the thread on 1 Corinthians 15:23-26), for a typical amillennial answer to a favorite premill argument. Dr. Venema proves that even George Ladd, a respected historic premill, is just stuck in the Satanic error of eisesgesis. (Ladd has no real support for his premillennial position. Ladd just thinks he does.)

***

Aside to RnMomof7 and jude and nobdysfool: You need to re-think what you have already read on these threads. The premillennial arguments have been an order of magnitude more ridiculous than you have been willing to notice. Part of your confusion stems from the fact that you have approached the premill arguments as premills yourselves.

You mustn’t do that. Insidious biases of deep-seated dishonesty in your souls will come into play if you approach the overall topic from the standpoint of defending premillennialism. What I am saying is that if you make the mistake of being willing to believe the premillennial lie, you are doomed therein. You are stuck.

You are supposed to hate error, not flirt with it until it ruins you in a way of spiritual blindness/stupidity. This is why I have repeatedly warned you that premillennialism is demonic stuff. This is why I have repeatedly warned you that you ought to be immediately disgusted at any theory which maintains that God would make His Son come back and live in an imperfect world for another thousand years.

Again, if you so much as flirt with patently nonsensical, Christ-dishonoring positions, you will soon wind up defending them (thinking they are lovely positions, of course!). You will automatically trigger the eisegetical error of premillennialism in yourselves. That’s a good way of being unreasonable, of being self-deceived. (To be perfectly frank about it, it’s a good way of being spiritually dumb, if you catch my drift! So, puh-leez get out of this mess!)

***

In my opinion, one of the funniest examples of the eisegetical crime by some premills is the way the dispies try to support their “kingdom postponement theory” by their reading of Luke 19:11. When they read that verse with their premillennial presuppositions, they say “Eureka! This is our ‘kingdom postponement’ being discussed right here!”

Pardon me for saying so, but the dispy reading of the verse is childish to the point of being idiotic. The premills need to be more careful in reading what Christ says next. Gosh, what He says immediately after v.11 makes veritable fools out of the premills. The parable which Christ gives in vv.12-27 to explain the situation which was confusing His disciples as of v.11 turns out to be a surprisingly clear statement of the amillennial (or perhaps post-millennial) position—DEFINITELY NOT the premillennial position.

The whole thing is funny when you notice what is going on. The premills’ claim to the effect that they have zillions of texts to support their reading of Revelation 20 is an eisegetical farce. It also happens to be a Satanically intricate farce!

***

Aside to RnMomof7 and jude and nobdysfool: I urge you to read Luke 19:11-27 to see why I say the whole thing is funny. (Some of you have been impressed by all of the nonsense in the premillennial position, and I submit that it’s time for you to start noticing that the premillennial hermeneutic is nonsense. The premills have no support for their position. They just have a hyper-literal presupposition concerning the interpretation of the prophecy in Revelation 20. This is how they have wound up “interpreting” everything else in the Bible in the light of a passage which they don’t understand in the first place.)

***

Hardheaded premills like the dispensationalists, however, don’t think any of this stuff is very funny. They continue to reassert their odd reading of Luke 19:11 in spite of the parable. (Ah, but if they weren’t so hardheaded, they would see the joke which has been played on them. They are in a carnal brain-fog of stubbornness. [Of course, they love to be confronted about that. It just makes their stubborn brain-fog worse.])

The undaunted premills next go on to claim that the OT prophecies are speaking of a materialistic millennial kingdom. Ah, but the Old Testament should be interpreted only in the greater light of the New. And this reveals a fatal flaw in the premillennial hermeneutic. I am referring to the fact that the premills claim their own reading of Revelation 20 as THE explanation of the OT prophecies--but, of course, this is the very point which is disputed by the amills. So, the premills argument is inadmissible in the argument.

“Wait a minute!” says the premill, “You can’t throw out our readings of the OT prophecies!”

Oh, but I just did.

In all seriousness, I am completely unimpressed with the premills’ readings of the OT prophecies. Why? Because the New Testament apostles do NOT support the premills’ readings of their materialistic millennial prophecies. For another thing, the premills are evidently reading the prophecies in the way the lost Jews of Christ’s era were reading them.

***

Aside to RnMomof7 and jude and nobdysfool: This is one of the reasons why I have repeatedly asserted that premillennialism is the position of the Enemy. I maintain that premillennialism is largely designed as a distracting plaything for lost professing Christians. (It certainly was for me--which is one of the reasons why I now hate it so much!) The fact that a few genuine Christians have gotten themselves tangled up in the trap is beside the point. It is still a trap for the enemies of Christ within the professing Church.

As a matter of fact, the very fact that premillennialism fools some regenerate individuals is both an illustration of its power and a source of its deception power. In other words, Gill and Spurgeon were ordained to be weak in eschatology through Satan’s awful wiles. The blunder by the likes of Gill and Spurgeon gives premillennialism extra credibility among Baptists—and ultimately leads right into the extreme nonsense of dispensationalism (including its decidedly deadly twin errors of easy-believism and the “carnal Christian” theory).

What I am saying is that the premillennial trap is one of the most enormous traps in the history of professing Christianity. By the same token, it is one of the most enormous traps in the Bible itself. Practically the entire Bible is used in fashioning the trap through strange visions and strange metaphors and Biblical typology. (The premillennial error is not just a trap involving one or two difficult verses. It is an utterly massive Biblical-theological trap.)

In short, the Lord is not trying to be clear in the way the naive premills are assuming. Most Calvinists realize this (see Proverbs 25:2!!!). Most Calvinists live in the awareness that the Lord Jesus loved to speak in metaphorical ways calculated to seal His enemies in theological nonsense--and repeatedly told His disciples this. Being sobered by this Scriptural fact and its awful warning value, most historic Calvinists are not premills.

(The fact that J.N.Darby was a Biblican predestinarian proves nothing. Part of the problem is that Darby was too interested in eschatology and not interested enough in soteriology. As a result of this misdirection, Darby’s followers have tended to have a weak doctrine of predestination. Many if not most of them have rejected the terribly important doctrine of reprobation. This has made them gullible in ways which I find alarming, indeed. It has made them smug in a party-spirit way [especially the DTS crowd, in my opinion] which they don’t even notice, much less regard as dangerous. [Anyway, the “Calvinism” of many dispensationalists is actually closer to the DTS “Calvinism”--which is not true Calvinism, but Amyrauldianism.])

***

The whole thing is a complex mess. The God-ordained but Satanically triggered deceptions are intricate and potentially quite baffling. But this is precisely why we need to be more disciplined than the premills are.

Gosh, the premills can’t even give theologically consistent expositions of the OT prophecies themselves. They don’t seem to have the faintest idea what the visionary Old Testament millennial prophecies are talking about. They concoct millennial theories from texts which aren’t even talking about the millennial age in the first place. (For example, Isaiah 65 is explicitly revealed to be talking about the New Heavens and the New Earth. But the premills don’t like the passage’s visionary metaphors of Paradise--so they refuse to believe what they are reading even when the Lord tells them straight-up what He is talking about.)

Aside to RnMomof7 and jude and nobdysfool: You folks need to quit respecting the premillennial approach--at all. Even if it is the approach you have always used, you need to realize that it is unsupportable trash. The premillennial hermeneutic is just a bunch of silly presuppositions which are ultimately at odds with Scripture. (The presupposition that prophecy is to be interpreted literally/materialistically may seem respectful of the veracity of God, but the presupposition is actually disrespectful toward God's Word. The presupposition is completely asinine in view of what Christ told His inner circle of disciples about His own use of metaphor. [See also Proverbs 25:2 again!])

Spiritual discpline requires us to notice, for example, the dishonest lengths to which premills will go in order to claim that the apostles agreed with the premills concerning the OT prophecies. If you want to read a really bad exposition of a New Testament text explaining an Old Testament prophecy, find and read the exposition of Acts 15:13-18 by John Walvoord (former President of DTS). No kidding. It’s really bad. It’s a weirdly dishonest exposition. (Walvoord twists the words of Amos’s prophecy to make the apostle appear to be arguing Walvoord’s own premillennial position—when, in fact, the apostle is evidently presenting an amillennial reading of Amos’s prophecy! [I was shown this by a couple of well-known DTS grads who, although former dispensationalists, now regard dispensationalism as pretty disgusting trash.])

This logically takes us back to the premills’ claim that Revelation 20 itself vindicates their reading of the Old Testament prophecy. In view of the fact that there are no NT texts which provide independent corroboration of their millennial theory, we amills are more than a little suspicious. In view of the fact that the premills are shockingly dishonest in “finding” miscellaneous NT proof-texts, we are forced to regard the premills as de facto liars.

And we notice that they can't give an apostolically consistent expositions of the OT prophecies, anyway.

My bottom-line point, again, is that the confused premills are ultimately hanging EVERYTHING on a single passage in Revelation 20--a passage which they obviously don't understand. They are trying to use that visionary text in Revelation 20 to bluster their way through OT prophecies which they still can’t expound in a sensible, consistent way—even with the “help” of Revelation 20—and they are trying to use Revelation 20 as an excuse to read their premillennial presupposition into miscellaneous other passages in the Bible.

The weirdest thing of all in this demonic, lying mess is the fact that the smug premills love to brag about how “clear” Revelation 20 is. This is just a blustering fraud on their part; ah, but I will give them credit for consistency in at least one aspect of their blustering fraud. They are so “sure” of their reading of Revelation 20, that they even have the audacity to use it defy completely clear passages which FLATLY RULE OUT their silly position.

My point, of course, is that John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3 EMPHATICALLY RULE OUT premillennialism—ALL FORMS of premillennialism, in fact. This is one reason why I don’t assume that all premills in our day of rampant easy-believism are even saved. (It’s one thing to be confused. It’s another thing to hate the Truth in the way some premills seem to hate it.)

***************

MY RESPONSE TO "PREMILL CLAIM #2":

The premills’ typical complaint that we are hanging everything in our millennial position on John 5:25-29 is an audacious lie. So is the typical complaint that we are hanging everything on 2 Peter 3. So is the complaint that we are hanging everything on Ephesians 1:18-2-7.

The fact is, these are three interlocking texts which demolish the premillennial position. (Besides, we have many other texts which support the amillennial position.)

I have no intention of reiterating the amills’ arguments at this point. If lurkers can read those passages in the light of what we have already covered on these threads and also covered in this present post, we are at an impasse--and it ain’t my fault.

***

Aside to RnMomof7 and jude and nobdysfool: You must not dare to believe that you can get your arms around the entire body of eschatology all at once. You have to work with smaller pieces and build up your eschatology more slowly. And if you will ignore what John 5:25-29 and 2 Peter 3 and Epehesians 1:18-2:7 are clearly saying, you certainly deserve to be confused. You are just being carnally stubborn and unbelieving. (So, what else is new?)

Again, I do realize that premillennialism is an extraordinarily nasty deception. But that doesn’t diminish your responsibility to get well away from it. You must buy the Truth and sell it not.

And it goes without saying that you must not be cowardly about the whole matter, i.e., complaining that the amillennial arguments are unconvincing. That is cranky and childish and just plain foul. My goodness, the amillennial arguments are crushing arguments.

Don't expect me to apologize for saying that. It's true. The premills' proud claim to be "plain-meaning" interpreters of Scripture is a joke. They reject the plain meaning of John 5:25-29, 2 Peter 3 and Ephesians 1:18-2-7. It's spiritually sick. And when we realize how proud they are of their hermeneutic, it is even pretty sickening.

So, I say that there is no excuse for you to continue in premillennialism. I would even go so far as to say that there is not even an excuse for you to be a pan-mill. (A pan-mill is just a premill who has been made to realize that he can’t prove the very position which he is still refusing to abandon.

In my opinion, what the pan-mill needs to realize is that he is not being carefully Berean but carnal. He is not being open-minded but stubborn. The pan-mill is just STUCK right where he is. That's no good. And this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.)

***

A FINAL WORD: I really am being careful in ways which some folks would never be willing to acknowledge. I am being pretty patient even while I am doing my level best to advance the discussion to the only satisfactory resolution. If my approach seems too rough, I'm afraid it's precisely because premillennialism is an uglier error than you realize. It is demonically energized. Get away from it.

[Irisshlass]

that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work"

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

<>This scripture says CLEARLY that THE MAN OF GOD will finished BY the word of God..complete...and yes complete means complete<>

Col 1:20
For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself.

Paul here doesn't mean ALL things...absolutely, completely all things....or he would of said that God reconciles Satan too...

second...that the man of God may be complete and equipped...should tell you he already has other pieces of equipment..

If I go on a trip but before leaving town I need to fill up my car with gas, after doing so, I say, ok I'm ready now...complete for my trip...that doesn't mean the gas alone was all the equipment I needed to be completely furnished...it was the last piece of equipment I needed to be completely ready to embark on my trip...

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

A FINAL WORD: I really am being careful in ways which some folks would never be willing to acknowledge. I am being pretty patient even while I am doing my level best to advance the discussion to the only satisfactory resolution. If my approach seems too rough, I'm afraid it's precisely because premillennialism is an uglier error than you realize. It is demonically energized. Get away from it.

In the beginning, before bandwidth, there was nothingness. Out of that endless void god (the_doc) and his heavenly host created...computer world, and it was good. But the scientific, military and computer angels Who dwelled in were lonely, so They brought forth Browser, and the FreeRepublic Religion Forum was born. It, too, was good and the children of the internet lived in peace and harmony and were fruitful and multiplied, but god (the_doc) warned his people not to eat of the forbidden fruit of premillennialism. Alas, they disobeyed and soon god (the_doc), in his wrath, turned away from His people and condemned them to wander in the digital wilderness, but from time to time he will suddenly appear to remind us sinners that we could be saved if only we would hearken unto him.

You REALLY need to drop the god complex you have.

BigMack

[Revelation 911]

But the "Ambassador" pinged me back

me too on #39 - pathetic lot