| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
| Date: |
25 May 2005 02:49:34 PM |
| Object: |
Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
By now, all of you are probably wondering what I am up to with this "Pastor"
Dave thing.
"Pastor" Dave has made it a habit to slam people's assumptions by saying
"The Bible doesn't say that" or "it doesn't say that" or something to that
effect.
The thing is, Dave is being a hypocrite every time he does it.
Everyone who studies Bible prophecy has to approach the subject with a
hypothesis, and then support the hypothesis with scripture. Everyone has to
study, meditate, compare, and analyze the Word of God in support of their
hypothesis, even 'ole "Pastor" Dave.
Now, here is the reason I keep posting up this question:
Hey, Dave, when did the Jews come up out of Babylon and rebuild the temple?
Jer 29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That AFTER seventy years be accomplished
at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing
you to RETURN to this place.
Daniel said:
Da 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the
number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the
prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of
Jerusalem.
Here's the thing: Jeremiah does not contain one reference to the seventy
years to which Daniel referred. It contains two statements.
The first statement, in Jeremiah chapter 25, states the conditions of the
beginning of the seventy years.
The second statement, in Jeremiah chapter 29--the statement I keep
posting--states the condition of the end of the seventy years.
In effect, once the Jews came up out of Babylon under the decree issued by
Cyrus the Great in 538 BC, the conditions of Jeremiah's prophecy were met,
interpretations not withstanding. (Well, sort of, but that's where
hypothesis comes in.)
The reason "Pastor" Dave won't answer the question is because he knows this
already. In order to go any further into the matter requires an
interpretation, and an interpretation requires a hypothesis.
This is "Pastor" Dave's hypocrisy: He'll slam us for saying "this means
this" and "that means that" based on our hypothesis, but he'll hypothesize
all the day long, with or without scriptural evidence, and without taking
into consideration ALL of the historical matters involved.
And now we get to the crux of the matter: Any hypothesis concerning Bible
prophecy has to account for all the factors involved, just like in
mathematics. Moreover, every time you "prove" the hypothesis (as in
geometry) the hypothesis always has to work. One cannot simply drop a fact
or two because it doesn't square with the hypothesis.
The "proof" verse above demonstrates that "Pastor" Dave's preterist
hypothesis doesn't work, because it does not account for all the variables.
In order to make it work, he has to ignore huge chunks of Jewish history,
and Jeremiah's direct statement. Once the Jews came up out of Babylon, the
conditions of the prophecy were met (if only to a certain degree) and that
prophetic period was closed.
To account for Jesus in prophecy, one has to begin the process of
hypothesis, be it the futurist, rigid historicist, linear historicist,
idealist, or preterist perspective, or my own triune perspective.
Next time "Pastor" Dave come tormenting you with his hypocritical "literal
when I want it to be/interpretive when I want it to be" hypothesis, don't
reply--just post up my question and tell him to answer it.
God Bless,
Ike
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com
*************************************
Remove X from address to reply
.
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
25 May 2005 03:52:31 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tKudnVaCM6RTSwnfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
By now, all of you are probably wondering what I am up to with this "Pastor"
Dave thing.
"Pastor" Dave has made it a habit to slam people's assumptions by saying
"The Bible doesn't say that" or "it doesn't say that" or something to that
effect.
The thing is, Dave is being a hypocrite every time he does it.
Everyone who studies Bible prophecy has to approach the subject with a
hypothesis, and then support the hypothesis with scripture. Everyone has to
study, meditate, compare, and analyze the Word of God in support of their
hypothesis, even 'ole "Pastor" Dave.
Now, here is the reason I keep posting up this question:
--
www.eickleberrybooks.com
*************************************
Remove X from address to reply
----------------------------------- Don't KEEP FEEDING pD !!!! ;-D.
We allknow he's a nut case, and we laugh when
a new prospect comes rolling into the ng.
They all fall prey to pD's ...
... "Already Happened" ... etc.
------------------------------------
The Resurrection of Jesus
=> Look in the EVA-100 Apologetics Class Material
CCBI Spring of 2005 http://bibleweb.info/
Prophecies Fulfilled According to the Gospel of Matthew
=> Look in the BIB-120 Matthew Class Material
CCBI Spring of 2005 http://bibleweb.info/
Towards a Theology of Leadership
=> Look in the MIN-100 Christian Leadership Class Material
CCBI Spring of 2005 http://bibleweb.info/
Design From a Benevolent Creator + Evidence of Design
=> Look in the Guest Area
Bibleweb.Info: A Christian Bible Study Collection
http://Bibleweb.Info/
------------------------------------------
Resolving the Olivet Discourse.
This is the best dissertation on the Subject:
Look at a screen shot in the What's New link below.
http://bibleweb.info/ftp/whats-new.html
It is ironic that Jesus' opening imperative in His "Olivet Discourse"
is "Take heed that no man deceive you". This is His command, but it begs
a question of means: "How do we avoid that?" There seems to be more
conjectures and misunderstandings over this passage than almost any
other in the New Testament.
<br><br>
For many students of eschatology - the study of last things - the so-called
Olivet Discourse has proven to be a troublesome passage; a hermeneutical
battleground between the dispensationalists and the preterists, etc.
The preterists insist that this passage - and the Book of Revelation - has
been already fulfilled, and much of it is dismissed by them as simply allegorical.
Yet even those who embrace a dispensational view have difficulty reconciling
many of the Olivet Discourse passages.
<br><br>
Our exploration of this passage will challenge more than simply our hermeneutics
alone. It will challenge our grasp of the whole eschatological plan in its entirety.
------------------------------------------
What's Your Philosophy of Christian Leadership?
Did you know that 999 out of 1000 leaders have never even
given this topic any thought.
When we look at the CEO structure of today's corporations, and see
how many CEO type leaders are in it for themselves, it makes one
wonder whether we should be investing in those companies, etc.
Is there any Biblical leadership in our USA corporations? Better yet, is there any
Christian leadership in our churches and ministries?!
Well let's first ask a prospect (YOU) just what is your
Philosophy of Leadership? Do you lead to be served, or to serve?
I had to answer several questions for a Christian Leadership class
in my CCBI (Calvary Chapel Biblical Studies) Program, on just these
questions.
I made a report for the class and would like to share mine and
one other person's reports with you.
The reports are: (in PDF format for viewing)
1- "My Theology of Leadership" - John B. Loiodice
2- "Developing My Philosophy of Leadership" - Rolando Ruiz
We also did two other small studies on two Biblical Leaders:
1- "The Leadership of Abraham of the Bible" - John B. Loiodice
2- "The Leadership of Peter of the Bible" - Rolando Ruiz
All four of these reports can be viewed in PDF format
at: http://bibleweb.info/ - From the Guest Area (1/2 way down),
or in the CCBI - Spring of 2005 selection.
IHS, Melchizedek.
------------------------------------------
<><
=== A Christian Bible Study Collection ===
Bibleweb.Info -- 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
Comprehensive Old & New Testament Bible studies,
prophecy, commentaries, concordances, apologetics,
Bible lookups, and multiple translations. PowerPoint,
movies in RealAudio, MP3, MediaPlayer, Adobe PDF
formats with free readers. A rich set of web site
links, continually being updated.
http://bibleweb.info/
Why Read the Bible?
How We Got Our Bible
Meditations on the Excellencies of the Word of God (Psalm 119)
How to Study the Bible
Battle for the Church in the Last Days
Introduction to Prophecy
Signs of the LORD's Return
How to Study Bible Prophecy
The Rapture
Are You Ready for the Rapture?
Small Group Study Materials
Verse-by-Verse, Chapter-by-Chapter, Book-by-Book
Teaching (Audio - MP3) Commentary
Small Group Bible Study Materials
(From: Calvary Chapel with Sr. Pastor Joe Focht) [Over 750 hours]
Small Group Bible Study Materials - Thru-the-Bible
Old Testament
New Testament
(From: Searchlight with Pastor Jon Courson) [Over 1200 hours]
*** Additional Materials in the Member's Area ***
--------------------
Small Group Bible Studies. Great for Men's Fellowships.
Used in several Calvary Chapel Small Home Groups.
Member's Area offers several hundred CD-R's & DVD-R's
of good small group Bible study material.
Custom CD-R & DVD-R's made from our hard drive listings.
See the Guest Area for info and Memberships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/> A Christian Bible Study Collection
<>< /> http://Bibleweb.Info/
/< Small Group Bible Studies
[XXXX(O):::=================================>
\< 250Gb online - 1.5Tb DVD archive
<> \> What's New at Bibleweb.Info
\> http://bibleweb.info/ftp/whats-new.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
03 Jun 2005 02:41:04 AM |
|
|
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@as-if.com> wrote in
news:2ff4a$4294e590$417fa92d$22626@rapidsys.com:
<Snip>
Everyone who studies Bible prophecy has to approach the subject with a
hypothesis, and then support the hypothesis with scripture. Everyone
has to study, meditate, compare, and analyze the Word of God in
support of their hypothesis, even 'ole "Pastor" Dave.
I think you have the process backwards. Starting with an hypothesis and
then supporting proof from scripture is Deductive Exegesis. This is not a
valid interpretation method because it does not require the exegete to
consider all evidence in the text relevant to the subject. Just the
opposite is true: It permits one to ignore any and all textual evidence
that qualifies or stands contrary to the proposed hypothesis. This
sometimes leads to "eisegesis" - or reading into the Bible ideas that just
aren't there.
Theologically correct scriptural interpretation can only come from
inductive exegesis. We must learn and analyze the facts and ideas revealed
in the texts, and then derive general principles from the specific
evidence. This has the advantage of forcing a consistent interpretation
based on the whole text. In other words, it permits the Bible to interpret
the Bible. It also disallows "eisegesis" or reading into the text that
which is not logically derived from all the textual evidence.
Deductive reasoning has its place in understanding the Bible. But it does
not come into play until all the inductive work is done. It is the
inductive work that provides the general principles and the specific
examples that support them. The existence of general principles permits
one to use deductive reasoning to apply those general principles to
concrete situations - even to those not identified in the Bible.
In short, inductive reasoning is needed for interpretation. Deductive
reasoning is needed to apply the interpretation to specific life
situations. But the two should not be mixed up as doing so leads to
exegetical error.
Not that I ever agree with Pastor Dave on the issue of preterism vs.
historicity (because I don't) - but (unlike you) I am glad he did not
engage in Deductive Exegesis you expected.
<Big Snip>
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
03 Jun 2005 07:52:33 AM |
|
|
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966A6F7AE6E3hohn@207.217.125.201...
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@as-if.com> wrote in
news:2ff4a$4294e590$417fa92d$22626@rapidsys.com:
<Snip>
Everyone who studies Bible prophecy has to approach the subject with a
hypothesis, and then support the hypothesis with scripture. Everyone
has to study, meditate, compare, and analyze the Word of God in
support of their hypothesis, even 'ole "Pastor" Dave.
Melchizedek didn't write this. I did.
I think you have the process backwards. Starting with an hypothesis and
then supporting proof from scripture is Deductive Exegesis. This is not a
valid interpretation method because it does not require the exegete to
consider all evidence in the text relevant to the subject. Just the
opposite is true: It permits one to ignore any and all textual evidence
that qualifies or stands contrary to the proposed hypothesis. This
sometimes leads to "eisegesis" - or reading into the Bible ideas that just
aren't there.
Quite the opposite. It does require the exegete to consider all the
evidence. That has been the problem to date. No one has accounted for all
the evidence.
However, I will grant you this. It is when one begins to consider all the
statements of all the prohets in the whole Bible that the patterns begin to
emerge and the hypothesis forms.
Theologically correct scriptural interpretation can only come from
inductive exegesis. We must learn and analyze the facts and ideas
revealed
in the texts, and then derive general principles from the specific
evidence. This has the advantage of forcing a consistent interpretation
based on the whole text. In other words, it permits the Bible to
interpret
the Bible. It also disallows "eisegesis" or reading into the text that
which is not logically derived from all the textual evidence.
I would disagree wholeheartedly. It takes both deductive and inductive
reasoning to arrive at the correct solution, just as a mathamatician comes
up with a hypothesis or therom, tests it, finds flaws, then goes back and
modifies the hypothesis. This process contiunes until the hypothesis and the
proofs begin to work together.
Deductive reasoning has its place in understanding the Bible. But it does
not come into play until all the inductive work is done. It is the
inductive work that provides the general principles and the specific
examples that support them. The existence of general principles permits
one to use deductive reasoning to apply those general principles to
concrete situations - even to those not identified in the Bible.
In short, inductive reasoning is needed for interpretation. Deductive
reasoning is needed to apply the interpretation to specific life
situations. But the two should not be mixed up as doing so leads to
exegetical error.
I can live with that. As I stated above, both the therom and the proofs have
to arrive at the same conclusions, or one has to throw the model out and
start all over (which is basic, sound scientific methodology and pathology).
Not that I ever agree with Pastor Dave on the issue of preterism vs.
historicity (because I don't) - but (unlike you) I am glad he did not
engage in Deductive Exegesis you expected.
Ah, but that's everyone's contention with PD. Damn the facts. Full steam
ahead. Nevermind if the hypothesis cannot engage all the facts.
And that isn't even the real bone of contention in these matters. The real
issue is scholarly deportment and mutual respect.
I can deal with anyone disagreeing with me if we agree to disagree in an air
of mutual respect. I can't deal with people who disagree with me badly, i.e.
arbitrarily and without sound socratic method. That's the stuff that gets my
hackles up.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
Ike
*********************
www.eickleberrybooks.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
03 Jun 2005 02:16:30 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:41:04 GMT, "J.W."
<J.W.@hw61.com> spake thusly:
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@as-if.com> wrote in
news:2ff4a$4294e590$417fa92d$22626@rapidsys.com:
<Snip>
Everyone who studies Bible prophecy has to approach the subject with a
hypothesis, and then support the hypothesis with scripture. Everyone
has to study, meditate, compare, and analyze the Word of God in
support of their hypothesis, even 'ole "Pastor" Dave.
I think you have the process backwards. Starting with an hypothesis and
then supporting proof from scripture is Deductive Exegesis. This is not a
valid interpretation method because it does not require the exegete to
consider all evidence in the text relevant to the subject. Just the
opposite is true: It permits one to ignore any and all textual evidence
that qualifies or stands contrary to the proposed hypothesis. This
sometimes leads to "eisegesis" - or reading into the Bible ideas that just
aren't there.
My point exactly, which I have stated many times.
They have it backward. They seek to make the Bible
wrap around their doctrines, instead of examining their
doctrines, to see if they are supported by the Biblical
texts. All doctrines are subject to examination under
the light of Scripture. This is how we know if they
are true or not.
Theologically correct scriptural interpretation can only come from
inductive exegesis. We must learn and analyze the facts and ideas revealed
in the texts, and then derive general principles from the specific
evidence. This has the advantage of forcing a consistent interpretation
based on the whole text. In other words, it permits the Bible to interpret
the Bible. It also disallows "eisegesis" or reading into the text that
which is not logically derived from all the textual evidence.
Deductive reasoning has its place in understanding the Bible. But it does
not come into play until all the inductive work is done. It is the
inductive work that provides the general principles and the specific
examples that support them. The existence of general principles permits
one to use deductive reasoning to apply those general principles to
concrete situations - even to those not identified in the Bible.
In short, inductive reasoning is needed for interpretation. Deductive
reasoning is needed to apply the interpretation to specific life
situations. But the two should not be mixed up as doing so leads to
exegetical error.
Not that I ever agree with Pastor Dave on the issue of preterism vs.
historicity (because I don't) - but (unlike you) I am glad he did not
engage in Deductive Exegesis you expected.
And yet, that is what they are claiming I am doing.
I appreciate your words. It is true that we do not
agree. But you have the intelligence to recognize that
I do not come up with a doctrine and then try to wrap
the Bible around it, nor do I look at the daily news
and claim, "The prophecies of the Bible are being
fulfilled today as never before, before our very eyes".
And isn't it amazing how the fulfillment of the
prophecies changes with current events? :)
BTW, I am not a "preterist". I simply read and believe
the Bible. I'll let other people worry about how the
world wants to label them.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
04 Jun 2005 06:18:43 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:3qa1a1pjjfb16c55q19lc83lkv5aj4et2j@4ax.com:
<Snip>
I appreciate your words. It is true that we do not
agree. But you have the intelligence to recognize that
I do not come up with a doctrine and then try to wrap
the Bible around it, nor do I look at the daily news
and claim, "The prophecies of the Bible are being
fulfilled today as never before, before our very eyes".
And isn't it amazing how the fulfillment of the
prophecies changes with current events? :)
I'm not fond of the infatuation by some of looking for "prophecy" fulfilled
in everything. The failure of predictions by writers like Salem Kirban and
Hal Lindsey weaned me off of that a very long time ago. It also made me
critical of just how much eisegesis goes on in the name of "Christianity in
Comfortable Shoes" - like the infatuation by some with the "rapture" and
the theology built up around it to mask its lack of biblical support.
BTW, I am not a "preterist". I simply read and believe
the Bible. I'll let other people worry about how the
world wants to label them.
If the shoe fits wear it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stated
position seems to be that most or all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in,
or no later than, A.D. 70-73. That position is universally known as either
partial or complete "preterism" - from the Latin word "praeter" meaning
"past."
I do not subscribe to that view because I cannot, in good conscience, say
that a fair reading of the entire bible and/or well documented history
supports it. But that's just my view. I have no infatuation with matters
of eschatology. I don't bother with them any more unless they are harmful
or deceptive - like the "rapture."
To me soteriology - e.g. what brings people to the Cross and into communion
with Christ - is the core of Christian belief as shown by Paul's statement
to the Corinthians that he was "determined not to know anything among
[them] except Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2.) It is only
that state of faith, communion with Jesus and spiritual regeneration -
asbrought about by God's grace - that brings about any good in Christians
anyway.
It annoys me for some to grasp onto one doctrine or another, totally
unrelated to issues of salvation - and totally unrelated to what Jesus said
was important - and then say "so and so is not Christian" if he or she
doesn't believe in such a manner. This is the spirit of denominationalism
and confusion - which the Lord did not author. (1 Corinthians 14:33.)
It gets especially bad when many hang everything on doctrines that are
undeveloped, not completely revealed in scripture - or sometimes not
revealed at all. Such things can only be a souce of sore contention. Some
people cannot live with the fact that our knowledge of God, his nature, or
the details of his workings, will not be completely revealed until we meet
him face to face. (1 Corithians 13:12.) Yet, Jesus himself told us to we
could not come to him at all unless we came as children. (Matthew 18:3-4;
Luke 18:16-17.) Thus, we should be satisfied with more of an existential
understanding of that which is not fully revealed in scripture - i.e. just
that "it is" - and allow the unknown and speculative to fall into the
column marked "mystery of faith" to await revelation when we are finally
redeemed.
Oh well. <sigh>
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
04 Jun 2005 10:45:15 PM |
|
|
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966BA5F296EB4hohn@207.217.125.201...
[snip]
It annoys me for some to grasp onto one doctrine or another, totally
unrelated to issues of salvation - and totally unrelated to what Jesus
said
was important - and then say "so and so is not Christian" if he or she
doesn't believe in such a manner. This is the spirit of denominationalism
and confusion - which the Lord did not author. (1 Corinthians 14:33.)
Ah, but He did author it, as per the seven letters to the churches in
Revelation.
There are some churches that are more successful, and some that are less,
and every range between.
There are some churches that are brilliant, and some that are awful, and
every range between.
There are some with more wheat, and some with more tares, and every range
between.
One could count off all the reasons there are seven churches, some positive
and some negative, but Jesus told us these things would be.
It gets especially bad when many hang everything on doctrines that are
undeveloped, not completely revealed in scripture - or sometimes not
revealed at all. Such things can only be a souce of sore contention.
Some
people cannot live with the fact that our knowledge of God, his nature, or
the details of his workings, will not be completely revealed until we meet
him face to face. (1 Corithians 13:12.) Yet, Jesus himself told us to we
could not come to him at all unless we came as children. (Matthew 18:3-4;
Luke 18:16-17.) Thus, we should be satisfied with more of an existential
understanding of that which is not fully revealed in scripture - i.e. just
that "it is" - and allow the unknown and speculative to fall into the
column marked "mystery of faith" to await revelation when we are finally
redeemed.
I would submit that it is more a matter of people hanging on to thier pet
doctrines, ceremonies, procedures, rituals, rules, ordinances, etc. as the
Jews did by the time Jesus showed up.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
05 Jun 2005 05:44:14 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in
news:S9GdnbAVLfnX6D_fRVn-rw@comcast.com:
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966BA5F296EB4hohn@207.217.125.201...
[snip]
It annoys me for some to grasp onto one doctrine or another, totally
unrelated to issues of salvation - and totally unrelated to what
Jesus said
was important - and then say "so and so is not Christian" if he or
she doesn't believe in such a manner. This is the spirit of
denominationalism and confusion - which the Lord did not author. (1
Corinthians 14:33.)
Ah, but He did author it, as per the seven letters to the churches in
Revelation.
I must confess some confusion as to the subject matter of your address. I
was talking about majoring in the minors of biblical doctrine. The letters
to the Seven Churches are not directed to non-essential issues. They speak
to each of the Churches with rebukes and praise for how each are remaining
faithful to the gospel.
Ephesus: praised for good works and virtue, and for hating heretics and
phonies; but rebuked for failing in their "first love" - i.e. their love
toward God, Jesus Christ and one another - which they had at the beginning.
(Rev. 2:1-6.) No one should suggest the communion of the Saints in the
Body of Christ is a non-essential doctrine. This is reinforced by the
threat of removing the Church's lampstand - i.e. its spiritual force and
protection. (Id. v. 5.)
Smyrna: Clean bill of spiritual health - along with the promise of the
crown of life for those who endure, faithful unto death. (Rev. 2:8-11.)
Pergamum: Praised for the faith of some; rebuked for harboring heretics who
destroy the moral fiber of the church and for holding the teachings of the
Nicolaitans - who were either Gnostics as some claim, or those who also
taught doctrines of "sloppy agape" and forgiveness through indulgences -
adding to the already morally lax spirit in the church. (But who knows for
sure?) (Rev. 2:12-15.) This is, again, addressed to central doctrine.
"For if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the
Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
(Romans 8:13 [NASB].)
Thyatira: Church is faithful and sound except that it tolerates a
"Jezebel," styled as a prophetess, who leads some astray into immorality
and the practice of eating that which was sacrificed to Idols. Jesus said
he would take care of her himself, as he had already given her and her
followers sufficient opportunity to repent. (Rev. 2:18-23.) The members
who have stayed faithful are merely exhorted to hold fast to what they
believe - i.e. the gospel - until he comes. (Id. v. 24.)
Sardis: Rebuked in its entirety. Church is almost entirely dead in spirit,
although it has a name and members and so on. It is told to: "Wake up, and
strengthen the things that remain. which were about to die." They were
also told: "Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep
it, and repent." (Rev. 3:1-3.) In other words, the remnant of the
faithful were told to return to, and KEEP, the Gospel which they had
aparently abandoned in its entirety while maintaining a facade.
Philadelphia: Praised for being faithful and enduring in tribulation.
Exhorted to hold fast to what they have and endure to the end - at which
time they will be rewarded. (Rev. 3:7-12.)
Laodicea: Rebuked for falling into carnal reliance on materialism and
abandoning the riches of the Spirit - in which case, they had become
spiritually destitute. (Rev. 3:14-17.) They are described as neither
"hot" - on fire in love with God and the brethren and zealous for the
Gospel - nor "cold" - that is, entirely without spiritual life as one who
is dead. (Id., v. 15.) They are urged to repent of their carnality, and
"purchase" from Jesus (cf. Isaiah 55:1-2) gold refined by fire and white
garments to cover their nakedness; to buy eye salve to anoint their eyes
that they may see; and to be zealous and repent. (Rev. 18-19.) Again,
this is an admonition to follow essential doctrine - to be clothed in, and
guided by the Spirit so as to have eternal life. (See Romans Ch. 8.)
There are some churches that are more successful, and some that are
less, and every range between.
There are some churches that are brilliant, and some that are awful,
and every range between.
There are some with more wheat, and some with more tares, and every
range between.
One could count off all the reasons there are seven churches, some
positive and some negative, but Jesus told us these things would be.
All true, but their success and failure still turned on adherence to the
central and essential teachings of Jesus Christ regarding salvation and the
saving work of the Spirit in the Communion of the Saints. These are not
the non-essential doctrines that cause divisions - that I spoke of earlier.
It gets especially bad when many hang everything on doctrines that
are undeveloped, not completely revealed in scripture - or sometimes
not revealed at all. Such things can only be a souce of sore
contention. Some
people cannot live with the fact that our knowledge of God, his
nature, or the details of his workings, will not be completely
revealed until we meet him face to face. (1 Corithians 13:12.) Yet,
Jesus himself told us to we could not come to him at all unless we
came as children. (Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 18:16-17.) Thus, we should
be satisfied with more of an existential understanding of that which
is not fully revealed in scripture - i.e. just that "it is" - and
allow the unknown and speculative to fall into the column marked
"mystery of faith" to await revelation when we are finally redeemed.
I would submit that it is more a matter of people hanging on to thier
pet doctrines, ceremonies, procedures, rituals, rules, ordinances,
etc. as the Jews did by the time Jesus showed up.
We are talking about the same thing, but then again we are not. Let me
give a couple for-instaces:
For instance, some people believe not only that there will be a "rapture"
of the Church immediately prior to a seven year tribulation period, but
that if you don't believe in it: 1) you are a false christian and will be
damned or 2) if you are alive when it happens you will have to live through
the tribulation and/or suffer death to be saved.
Now, just setting aside, for the moment, the preterist view that the
"gathering of the elect" spoken of in Matthew 24 has already taken place
(and I am not at all sure the preterist view is correct), and assuming that
"gathering" is still a future event, there is still no biblical authority
whatsoever for the proposition that there will be what is known in the
vernacular as a "pre-trib rapture." All of the proof texts for the so
called "pre-trib rapture" line up and agree with the "gathering of the
elect" spoken of in Matthew 24, in which case the "gathering" will occur
after the time of trouble - as Jesus said - and those who are alive at that
time will have to live and suffer through it or die.
But, if I say such things, then I get an emotional outpouring from those
who have been deceved by the Jenkins and LaHay FICTION novels, just the
same way some were previously deceived by Salem Kirban, Hal Lindsey and the
like. These same people - who have ZERO scriptural support for their
views, and whose views on the topic have nothing to do with the essential
soteriological message of the gospel, will still claim that I am not a
Christian, etc. You see my point now? Some one might just pooh-pooh such
beliefs as harmless even if they don't believe them. I think they are
harmful just because of the divisions they cause - not to mention the
precarious exegetical practices involved in arriving at such views, and not
to mention the elaborate and false theology constructed around it to mask
its non-biblical origins, and not to mention the "Christianity in
Comfortable Shoes" lifestyle it reinforces, rather than the idea that we
are supposed to deny ourselves, take up our own cross daily to DIE.
Another example I had in mind is one that constantly errupts in this news
group - namely, trinitarianism vs. oneness. The staunchest proponents of
either view, if they were honest, would agree that theology on this topic
is difficult owing to the many questions related to God's nature and
character that are simply left unanswered in the Bible. Where they agree
(and forgive me if I simplify this too much) is that there is Father, Jesus
the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all of whom are divine and eternal, and who
comprise one God. Both agree that Tritheism - i.e. the belief that Father,
Son and Holy Spirit comprise three gods - is heretical polytheism. Both
sides also agree that God the Father, Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy
Spirit each perform their tasks or functions in the divine economy and
unity as described in the Bible.
Where they differ is trying to EXPLAIN HOW God is manifest in Father, Jesus
the Son and the Holy Spirit as one God. The Oneness people answer this by
saying that one God (either the Father for "Father Only" movements, or
Jesus for "Jesus Only" movements) is the one person in every manifestation
of God as Father, Jesus the Son and Holy Ghost, and that each manifestation
can be made simultaneously. On the other hand, trinitarians explained it
as: God being One in essence (mia ousios), and the Father Son and Holy
Spirit are three co-equal and co-eternal subsistences (tria hypostases).
This is the formulation the Council of Nicea arrived at to draw the line
between heresy and orthodoxy. Yet, "modalism" (the first "oneness" type
movement) had already been condemned as heresy by the second century -
first, because they did not agree with the Oneness view of simultaneous
manifestation, second, because the modal position fails to account for all
the distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that are in the Bible,
and third, because they made Jesus a created being who came into existence
only upon his birth and who ended with his diffusion into the manifestation
of the holy spirit. Of these criticisms, the last two (more or less) are
still leveled at the Oneness folks.
I have my own views which is the more correct biblical explanation. But,
at this juncture, I ask instead: why is it important in the overall
picture of things to know the explanation of HOW Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are One God? Why is this important at all as long as I know they
ARE one God? Why is it important, or more important, to know Jesus'
relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit, than it is to know that
Jesus was crucified and resurrected as God's chosen means of reconciling
man to himself? - or that I must accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior? - or
that I must be baptised? Why can't I just read the Bible and say: "What I
read here JUST IS" and "WHAT JUST IS - IS THE TRUTH"? Which approach -
oneness, trinitarianism or existential acceptance of "THE TRUTH AS WRITTEN"
- is closer to what Jesus spoke of when he said we must come to him, if at
all, like children? (Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 18:16-17.)
Again, you must know the answer by now as to what happens if you take the
Oneness side versus the Trinitarians, or vice versa. Recriminations fly
back and forth like World War III was about to start. Not only have there
been the normal recriminations of "you are no Christian," etc., but some
serious name calling routinely takes place as well. Outside the world of
news groups, there have also been numerous divisions on denominational and
sectarian lines over this issue. Is this not the spirit of confusion -
which the Lord did not author? (1 Corinthians 14:33.) Do you see my point
now?
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
06 Jun 2005 12:29:50 AM |
|
|
"J.W." <J.W.@hw61.com> wrote in message
news:Xns966CA01A730AFhohn@207.217.125.201...
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote in
news:S9GdnbAVLfnX6D_fRVn-rw@comcast.com:
[snip for the sake of brevity what is a fairly good analysis of the seven
letters.]
One could count off all the reasons there are seven churches, some
positive and some negative, but Jesus told us these things would be.
All true, but their success and failure still turned on adherence to the
central and essential teachings of Jesus Christ regarding salvation and
the
saving work of the Spirit in the Communion of the Saints. These are not
the non-essential doctrines that cause divisions - that I spoke of
earlier.
Ah, but they are all still His churches, or, at least, the raw material from
which He will compile the church eternal.
There isn't much perfection to be expected while the church is still
temporal, and still in the process of becoming what it will become.But
learning is a messy process, and it requires some latitude.
The point I am trying to make is that you shouldn't get to discouraged about
"denominationalism."
First, it is a necessary part of the evolutionary process of the churches'
growth.
Second, polishing "stones" requires one to allow one stone to chaff against
another so that both will arrive at a highly polished form. In the end, both
"stones" serve their function.
Third, God is not fooled: He knows where these divisions come from, and, in
the end, He'll do a little "dividing" of His own, ala the wheat and tares,
the sheep and goats, etc. This is why He said "as many have not these
doctrines, I say unto you, hold fast to what you have so no man can take
your crown." Some of this has to do with "wolves" running amongst the
"sheep," which is a necessary thing, or faith would not be tested.
It gets especially bad when many hang everything on doctrines that
are undeveloped, not completely revealed in scripture - or sometimes
not revealed at all. Such things can only be a souce of sore
contention. Some
people cannot live with the fact that our knowledge of God, his
nature, or the details of his workings, will not be completely
revealed until we meet him face to face. (1 Corithians 13:12.) Yet,
Jesus himself told us to we could not come to him at all unless we
came as children. (Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 18:16-17.) Thus, we should
be satisfied with more of an existential understanding of that which
is not fully revealed in scripture - i.e. just that "it is" - and
allow the unknown and speculative to fall into the column marked
"mystery of faith" to await revelation when we are finally redeemed.
I would submit that it is more a matter of people hanging on to thier
pet doctrines, ceremonies, procedures, rituals, rules, ordinances,
etc. as the Jews did by the time Jesus showed up.
We are talking about the same thing, but then again we are not. Let me
give a couple for-instaces:
For instance, some people believe not only that there will be a "rapture"
of the Church immediately prior to a seven year tribulation period, but
that if you don't believe in it: 1) you are a false christian and will be
damned or 2) if you are alive when it happens you will have to live
through
the tribulation and/or suffer death to be saved.
OK, but what's the difference?
In my own writings, I denounce the "rapture" doctrines because they divert
attention from the primary function of prophecy, i.e. to build enduring
faith.
Then again, there won't be a rapture, so, in due course of time, the
fraudulence of the doctrine will reveal itself.
Also, Jesus said there would be "foolish" virgins and "wise" virgins. Those
that are not ready to make a stand will perish, and those that are will
succeed. God already knows which is which, and nothing essential will be
lossed. This is not our concern. Our concern is to keep the faith,
regardless the costs.
Now, when these immature Christians come saying "you're not a Christian"
because you don't believe in one specific doctrinal point, don't let it get
you down. In the end, they'll be the ones with the egg on their faces. Their
denunciations are of no consequence to you or I.
Now, just setting aside, for the moment, the preterist view that the
"gathering of the elect" spoken of in Matthew 24 has already taken place
(and I am not at all sure the preterist view is correct), and assuming
that
"gathering" is still a future event, there is still no biblical authority
whatsoever for the proposition that there will be what is known in the
vernacular as a "pre-trib rapture." All of the proof texts for the so
called "pre-trib rapture" line up and agree with the "gathering of the
elect" spoken of in Matthew 24, in which case the "gathering" will occur
after the time of trouble - as Jesus said - and those who are alive at
that
time will have to live and suffer through it or die.
Well, in my own studies, I've found that some very silly people took a very
little statement about the remnant of the church that will be left after
Satan sifts it like wheat (as He wanted to do when Jesus came the first
time) and turned it into the most whimsical, rediculous notion one ever
heard of. There is no "rapture" to begin with, pre-, mid-, or otherwise. The
whole concept just got out of hand.
What there is is keeping the faith, even unto death, which is the message of
prophecy.
But, if I say such things, then I get an emotional outpouring from those
who have been deceved by the Jenkins and LaHay FICTION novels, just the
same way some were previously deceived by Salem Kirban, Hal Lindsey and
the
like. These same people - who have ZERO scriptural support for their
views, and whose views on the topic have nothing to do with the essential
soteriological message of the gospel, will still claim that I am not a
Christian, etc. You see my point now? Some one might just pooh-pooh such
beliefs as harmless even if they don't believe them. I think they are
harmful just because of the divisions they cause - not to mention the
precarious exegetical practices involved in arriving at such views, and
not
to mention the elaborate and false theology constructed around it to mask
its non-biblical origins, and not to mention the "Christianity in
Comfortable Shoes" lifestyle it reinforces, rather than the idea that we
are supposed to deny ourselves, take up our own cross daily to DIE.
Well, the nonsense has been going on for some time now. The only way to
straighten it out is to state your case and let time be the judge, which is
what I am all about.
As were ith the false prophets mentioned in the Old Testament, so, too, are
the false prophets of the New Testament, making promises that God does not
intend to keep. However, there is not much we can do except rebuke the
doctrine and let time be the judge.
Moreover, nobody is "going to hell" because they believed or disbelieved a
"rapture" doctrine. They'll go to hell because they didn't follow
instructions and keep the faith.
Another example I had in mind is one that constantly errupts in this news
group - namely, trinitarianism vs. oneness. The staunchest proponents of
either view, if they were honest, would agree that theology on this topic
is difficult owing to the many questions related to God's nature and
character that are simply left unanswered in the Bible. Where they agree
(and forgive me if I simplify this too much) is that there is Father,
Jesus
the Son, and the Holy Spirit - all of whom are divine and eternal, and who
comprise one God. Both agree that Tritheism - i.e. the belief that
Father,
Son and Holy Spirit comprise three gods - is heretical polytheism. Both
sides also agree that God the Father, Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy
Spirit each perform their tasks or functions in the divine economy and
unity as described in the Bible.
Where they differ is trying to EXPLAIN HOW God is manifest in Father,
Jesus
the Son and the Holy Spirit as one God. The Oneness people answer this by
saying that one God (either the Father for "Father Only" movements, or
Jesus for "Jesus Only" movements) is the one person in every manifestation
of God as Father, Jesus the Son and Holy Ghost, and that each
manifestation
can be made simultaneously. On the other hand, trinitarians explained it
as: God being One in essence (mia ousios), and the Father Son and Holy
Spirit are three co-equal and co-eternal subsistences (tria hypostases).
This is the formulation the Council of Nicea arrived at to draw the line
between heresy and orthodoxy. Yet, "modalism" (the first "oneness" type
movement) had already been condemned as heresy by the second century -
first, because they did not agree with the Oneness view of simultaneous
manifestation, second, because the modal position fails to account for all
the distinctions between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that are in the
Bible,
and third, because they made Jesus a created being who came into existence
only upon his birth and who ended with his diffusion into the
manifestation
of the holy spirit. Of these criticisms, the last two (more or less) are
still leveled at the Oneness folks.
I have my own views which is the more correct biblical explanation. But,
at this juncture, I ask instead: why is it important in the overall
picture of things to know the explanation of HOW Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are One God? Why is this important at all as long as I know they
ARE one God? Why is it important, or more important, to know Jesus'
relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit, than it is to know that
Jesus was crucified and resurrected as God's chosen means of reconciling
man to himself? - or that I must accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior? - or
that I must be baptised? Why can't I just read the Bible and say: "What I
read here JUST IS" and "WHAT JUST IS - IS THE TRUTH"? Which approach -
oneness, trinitarianism or existential acceptance of "THE TRUTH AS
WRITTEN"
- is closer to what Jesus spoke of when he said we must come to him, if at
all, like children? (Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 18:16-17.)
Again, you must know the answer by now as to what happens if you take the
Oneness side versus the Trinitarians, or vice versa. Recriminations fly
back and forth like World War III was about to start. Not only have there
been the normal recriminations of "you are no Christian," etc., but some
serious name calling routinely takes place as well. Outside the world of
news groups, there have also been numerous divisions on denominational and
sectarian lines over this issue. Is this not the spirit of confusion -
which the Lord did not author? (1 Corinthians 14:33.) Do you see my
point
now?
Oh, yeah. I'm well aware of your point.
Without addressing this specific issue, let me say this.
The more I study the Bible, the more I find that people have had the
silliest arguments because they are one-dimensional thinkers, and believe
that the resolution to every confilct is "either/or." What I keep finding is
that the resolution to these conflicts is actually "some" and "none," that
is, these people are kind of right and kind of wrong at the same time,
mostly because they don't think in three dimensions.
Take, for example, the subject of Jesus' existance. In "The Character Map,"
I cite four instances of Jesus playing time-games with various opponents to
demonstrate His three-dimensional existance--His life in the body (was, is,
and will be), His life as the Spirit (will be, was, and is), and His life as
I AM (is, was, and will be).
The one-dimensional thinkers look at one of these singularly and say "that
is Jesus' existance."
John, by rotating the terms "was, is, and will be" introduces us to a new
concept. Moreover, he lays out a three-dimensional grid of understanding
with the word pairs "first and last, beginning and ending, alpha and
omega.," then elaborates on the concept throughout the balance of
Revelation.
Hence, the linear arguments of many are actually disputations over moot
points, because the questions that they ask in the first place are invalid:
You can't solve a paradox with a singular statement.
Now, I don't know if I just made what I am trying to say muddier or clearer,
but this is the root of many of our disputations.
John Wadsworth
john4250@value.net
Ike
*********************
www.eickleberrybooks.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Pastor Dave's Hypocrisy |
04 Jun 2005 07:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 23:18:43 GMT, "J.W."
<J.W.@hw61.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in
news:3qa1a1pjjfb16c55q19lc83lkv5aj4et2j@4ax.com:
<Snip>
I appreciate your words. It is true that we do not
agree. But you have the intelligence to recognize that
I do not come up with a doctrine and then try to wrap
the Bible around it, nor do I look at the daily news
and claim, "The prophecies of the Bible are being
fulfilled today as never before, before our very eyes".
And isn't it amazing how the fulfillment of the
prophecies changes with current events? :)
I'm not fond of the infatuation by some of looking for "prophecy" fulfilled
in everything. The failure of predictions by writers like Salem Kirban and
Hal Lindsey weaned me off of that a very long time ago. It also made me
critical of just how much eisegesis goes on in the name of "Christianity in
Comfortable Shoes" - like the infatuation by some with the "rapture" and
the theology built up around it to mask its lack of biblical support.
I agree wholeheartedly.
BTW, I am not a "preterist". I simply read and believe
the Bible. I'll let other people worry about how the
world wants to label them.
If the shoe fits wear it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stated
position seems to be that most or all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in,
or no later than, A.D. 70-73. That position is universally known as either
partial or complete "preterism" - from the Latin word "praeter" meaning
"past."
There are many subdivisions. Whose am I subscribing
to, if I say, "Preterist"? And who is anyone to label
me and try to force me to fit into some neat little
category, then subcategory, just so they can make
themselves happy and then argue against what I never
said, but that they attribute as some universal belief
by that category, then subcategory, something they
gleaned from someone's web page? I'm supposed
to be okay with that? I don't think so, Tim. :)
I agree with the five main points of Calvinism. I am
not a Calvinist however and disagree with much of
what Calvinists say as part of what they describe the
meaning of those five points to be. And which
Calvinist subdivision should I be stuck in, to make
someone else happy?
look, you worry about how man wants to label people if
you want. I'll stick to the Bible and accept only two
labels, since they are the only two that are accurate.
1) Christian
2) Pastor
I do not subscribe to that view because I cannot, in good conscience, say
that a fair reading of the entire bible and/or well documented history
supports it. But that's just my view. I have no infatuation with matters
of eschatology. I don't bother with them any more unless they are harmful
or deceptive - like the "rapture."
Maybe you haven't done enough research. Christ was
given His Kingdom when he ascended to God. And
the Bible says that the saints will take possession of
the eternal kingdom, along with Christ. If it's all
about some physical thing, since when did Christ say
that saints would be a military branch of Heaven? :)
To me soteriology - e.g. what brings people to the Cross and into communion
with Christ - is the core of Christian belief as shown by Paul's statement
to the Corinthians that he was "determined not to know anything among
[them] except Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2.) It is only
that state of faith, communion with Jesus and spiritual regeneration -
asbrought about by God's grace - that brings about any good in Christians
anyway.
Paul wrote in the first century. The only honest
statement that can be made, is that the last days
events were future TO HIM. And it is sure that Jesus'
requirement of Matthew 24:14 for the end to come
had already taken place in the first century.
And if we look at Paul's statement, does that mean
that he didn't accept Christ's resurrection, because
he said, "not to know anything, except Christ and
Him crucified"? Didn't he also say he that his hope
was the resurrection of the dead and that he preached
that also (Acts 24:14-15)?
So yes, there is more to it. the fact is, that anyone
who gives an honest assessment of the NT, knows
that Christ preached a return within the generation
alive at the time and that the Apostles expected a
return within that generation. Are we to believe that
we can trust the writings of the NT, if the Apostles
had their entire "hope" wrong? They were filled with
the Holy Spirit far beyond you and I, but they had
that wrong? And I should believe my Bible? And
Jesus had it wrong?
You see, these are the questions that bothered me.
I could deny them no longer. I was raised to believe
in future fulfillment, but I never preached it and when
I became a pastor, I avoided the subject completely.
It just didn't sit right. And when I found out that
these present, or future last days is not something
that was believed by the historic church, I knew I had
to finally, after all of those years, sit down, open
the materials and stay there, until it was resolved.
And thus, I did. :)
Now you can choose to believe as I do, or not. That
is up to you. What I find dishonest (not to apply it
to you personally, but in general), is when people
ignore the time statements in Scripture and try to
twist the words of the Bible like a pretzel, to force
"soon" to mean "thousands of years", thus suspending
all linguistic rules of logic and common sense, but
only when they open a Bible.
I also notice statements in the Bible, that aren't
brought out by the English. For example, did you
ever wonder why Felix trembled, when Paul talked
about the resurrection and judgment? I mean after
all, we tell people about that lots of times and it
doesn't have much effect.
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and
judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy
way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I
will call for thee." - Acts 24:25
It's because the translations don't bring out the
imminence that Paul stated. Take a look at the ALT,
also translated from the Majority texts and you can see
the imminence, which you can verify, using a Strong's,
if you wish.
"But while he [was] reasoning about righteousness and
self-control and the judgment, the one being about to
happen, Felix having become terrified, answered, "For
the present be going, but having time, I will call for
you."" - Acts 24:25
Note: The one being about to happen.
The Greek word there, means, "being, about to be".
Paul said it was about to happen. Not someday way off.
but about to happen. It was imminent and that is why
Felix trembled.
This is what the end timers ignore.
What is also frustrating to me, is people thinking they
are beginning to see the fruits of some coming
tribulation, when John said he was in it. And it
certainly wasn't in 96 AD. Revelation was written
before 70 AD. And when we're going to consider
a tribulation, let me see those who were tortured
for sport, because they were Christians and those
who were fed to the lions and killed in various ways,
by the tens of thousands, as they were under Nero.
And hey, while we're at it, where are the Christians
today, who are covered in tar and other substances and
used for human torches, by the thousands, as they were
used, to light up Nero's garden and the streets, as
street lamps, while still alive?
People just don't seem to realize what Christians went
through back then.
And why are we supposed to wait for a third temple to
be torn down, when Jesus' words were fulfilled to the
letter, in 70 AD?
You see, these are the questions that bothered me also.
We can see fulfillment of Jesus' words and yet, that
isn't good enough. Why? because they are afraid of
the dirt nap. They don't want to die and so, they
demand that Jesus come and live here, even though
the Bible does not teach that. Some take some words
literally, never realizing the contradiction they
create, forcing the Bible to contradict itself, by
doing so. That is another things that bothers me.
And one last thing that bothers me, is after I rebut an
argument made by someone, instead of acknowledging
it, they post another passage and say, "What about this
then?". What do you mean, "What about this then?"???
Isn't the fact that I just rebutted the argument enough
to make you stop and reexamine your claims? Oh no,
instead, they wish to pit the Bible against itself. By
their silence regarding my rebuttal, they realize that
I did just that and want me to now look at another
passage, which they think proves their claim.
But wait a minute! If the first one shouldn't be read
the way you read it, by now posting another one,
aren't you in effect saying, "Okay, you proved that
one is symbolic, but this one is literal, even though
it deals with the same event and even though you
already proved it is symbolic."??? isn't that pitting
Scripture against itself?
And thus, you can see the things that bother me, along
with people who completely ignore my rebuttal and
pretend it doesn't exist and continue on to make the
same claims, about the same passages, all the while
knowing that a rebuttal was put forth, that they could
not deal with. That clearly shows that they hang on to
their beliefs, out of ego, vanity and a fear of the
dirt nap. :)
It annoys me for some to grasp onto one doctrine or another, totally
unrelated to issues of salvation - and totally unrelated to what Jesus said
was important - and then say "so and so is not Christian" if he or she
doesn't believe in such a manner. This is the spirit of denominationalism
and confusion - which the Lord did not author. (1 Corinthians 14:33.)
But wait. It does effect more issues than you think.
Let us say for example, that I am right. Then death
has already been conquered and Christ has placed
Himself under the Father, as the Scripture says He
would do. So then, isn't saying that He is still
coequal a rejection of the father's rule over all,
even Christ? Hmmmmm... :)
It gets especially bad when many hang everything on doctrines that are
undeveloped, not completely revealed in scripture - or sometimes not
revealed at all. Such things can only be a souce of sore contention. Some
people cannot live with the fact that our knowledge of God, his nature, or
the details of his workings, will not be completely revealed until we meet
him face to face. (1 Corithians 13:12.) Yet, Jesus himself told us to we
could not come to him at all unless we came as children. (Matthew 18:3-4;
Luke 18:16-17.) Thus, we should be satisfied with more of an existential
understanding of that which is not fully revealed in scripture - i.e. just
that "it is" - and allow the unknown and speculative to fall into the
column marked "mystery of faith" to await revelation when we are finally
redeemed.
I understand what you're saying. But that does not
mean that we cannot know what He did actually say
and both he and the Apostles, preached an imminent
return, within the life time of the generation alive
then. How can we reject that and still claim to be
serving Christ with all of our hearts? Something to
think about, anyway.
--
Pastor Dave
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
