SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Access over 100,000+ Sermons from Ancient to Modern
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Miracles that follow the plow : International Prayer Call For Israel

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:

"Why only eschatology?"

Because it is more speculative.

There is no continuity in the history of the Church concerning eschatology. and there is no continuity today on the subject.



 2017/1/19 17:41Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6230
NC, USA

 Re:

David-

Brother I did not mean to offend.

I have considered starting from scratch and trying to read the scriptures to study eschatology with no commentaries or footnotes but I have determined that I have so many preconceived notions in my head, from several camps, that I honestly don't think I could approach it with a clean slate. I applaud persons who can do this and would encourage them to do so.

But I do think it is a mistake to try to apply what is written in Revelation, which is a highly symbolic, complex and layered book, to headlines today. I think we have to remember it was written specifically to certain Christians who were experiencing persecution in the 1st century for their comfort and encouragement. I think much of the mysterious imagery is coded language for something they may have understood but that is lost on us today. I realize that is just my opinion and certainly some of it is yet future as to us, but even that imagery is mysterious and open to much interpretation.


_________________
Todd

 2017/1/19 18:18Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

TMK wrote: "I have considered starting from scratch and trying to read the scriptures to study eschatology with no commentaries or footnotes but I have determined that I have so many preconceived notions in my head, from several camps, that I honestly don't think I could approach it with a clean slate. I applaud persons who can do this and would encourage them to do so. "

I think it is a good thing to do what you considered. Yes I know we all have preconceptions, but I think it is still possible to take a fresh look at the scriptures with no thought but to understand what we are reading. We can ask the Holy Spirit to help and illuminate the truth to us.
Many times I have had to adjust my views because what I read again in this way revealed truth in a way I had not seen before.

Regarding Revelation, what you say might have some validity if it were not for the fact that a lot of what is written there is contained in and supported by numerous other passages throughout the OT. These cannot all be classified as all symobolic or allegorical, as the things written by such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, etc were written to Jews living in Judah with the temple in Jerusalem. So when they spoke of Jerusalem, the land and the temple, that is exactly how they would have understood it.

Take for example Isaiah Ch.2 ....

"The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem."

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."

"And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem."

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plow shares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

So how was this supposed to be understood to those who heard it? Surely it was understood to be the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth (AKA the Millennium). What I think we can agree on, is that this has never happened yet.

Can I also ask, those who see the return of the Lord and Day of the Lord as bringing in a New Heaven and New earth (as in 1 Peter 3) without a millennial period on earth, do you see this prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled in the way it says with Jerusalem as the head of the nations? This is an honest question that I'm interested to understand how you see it.


_________________
Dave

 2017/1/20 4:22Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Heydave

RE: /// do you see this prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled in the way it says with Jerusalem as the head of the nations? This is an honest question that I'm interested to understand how you see it.///

Hebrews 12:22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To 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, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 25See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Gal 4 :24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.


 2017/1/20 8:03Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2529


 Re:

But does it have to be so speculative? Soteriology or ecclesiology or Christology is not overly speculative. The overly speculative forecasts have many times come from adherents of a early pre-trib rapture. Because these things have failed in the past does not mean we are obligated to continue. Why would the Lord author the scriptures and one fourth or perhaps as much as one third of those scriptures turn out to be regarding eschatology just so they could remain undecipherable and non understandable all the way until the end? All scripture is given for instruction.

It seems if there is no continuity in the church today regarding eschatology it can't be on the Lord's end.

Quoting,

"Before we despair of certainty, and resign everything over to the hopelessly disagreed prophecy experts, let us first consider whether our enemy has a vested interest in fomenting such confusion in order to keep these issues hidden from the church, and to discourage the average believer from trusting in the grace of the Spirit’s help to arrive at the truth (the much neglected priesthood of every believer; 1Jn 2:27)."


_________________
David Winter

 2017/1/20 8:23Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2529


 Re: proudpapa, Q & A on the Day of the Lord and the Millennium

Crucial Timing of the Day of the Lord

Question:
Is there any backing to support the day of the Lord as the thousand year reign? The scripture says that a day is as a thousand years with the Lord. If that is what you just explained please excuse me.

Answer:
I see nothing that makes the thousand year reign of Christ the equivalent of the ‘day of the Lord’. The millennium is not the ‘day of the Lord’, but rather follows from it. The ‘day of the Lord’ is more specific, and failure to mark its more defined character has been the source of much needless confusion and error. Let me explain.

When the particular term the ‘day of the Lord’ is expanded to include the entire millennium, or when it is extended backwards to include the entirety of the tribulation, as in pretribulational thought, something is blurred that robs the term of its great value in interpretation, as the definitive point of division between ‘this age’ and the millennial age that follows.

The scripture does, however, speak of the new circumstance that follows the ‘day of the Lord’ by the less specific phrase “in that day”. But I think it is more accurate and scriptural to distinguish the day of the Lord as the more definite and particular point of a sudden divine intervention at the end of the tribulation (“in one day” Isa 66:8; Ezek 39:22; Zech 3:9; 14:7; 2Thes 2:8). The ‘day of the Lord’ is the point of the change, and the less specific phrase ‘in that day’ is sometimes more inclusive of the conditions that follow from it. This, however, is not a distinction I would expect everyone to make, and I do not regard it as critical. But more specifically, and far more importantly, the day of the Lord marks the sudden destruction of the Antichrist (2Thes 2:8), which is also the moment of Israel’s national deliverance at the end of Jacob’s trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1). It is the time that the OT faithful are raised together with all who “sleep in Jesus” (Dan 12:2; 1Thes 4:14-17; 1Cor 15:23). It is the ‘moment’ Christ’s glorious return “at the last trump” (compare Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; 1Thes 4:16; 2Thes 2:8; 1Cor 15:52; Rev 11:15). It all happens at once.

Whether the ‘day of the Lord’ includes the millennium does not seem to me a crucial point of concern. However, to extend the ‘day of the Lord’ backwards to include the tribulation supports a serious error. I’ll explain.

The view that the rapture starts the day of the Lord, and that the day of the Lord therefore includes the tribulation, did not exist before the advent of the system of prophetic interpretation called “pretibulational – dispensationalism” that took root in the middle of the 19 th century.

Because the ‘day of the Lord’ is so obviously related to the ‘blessed hope’ of the church (1Thes 5:4; 2Thes 2Thes 1:7 et al), it was impossible to maintain the idea that the rapture could potentially occur any moment UNLESS the ‘day of the Lord’ could be understood to include the tribulation. There is no scripture to that effect, but to maintain the theory of a pre-trib rapture, this re-location of the day of the Lord was considered a “necessary inference”. I know that sounds confusing, because it is. It is a violation of the simplicity of scripture that places the ‘day of the Lord’ AFTER the tribulation. Let me show you why this is so important, and then you can help show someone else, should the question arise.

Many scriptures could be cited in both of the testaments to show that the day of the Lord does not include the tribulation but rather concludes it (see for example Rev 16:15 where the thief like return of the Lord is shown as still impending even so late as the sixth vial. The seventh vial then announces the arrival of “the great day of God”). But I know of no better example than Joel’s prophecy, particularly when it is compared with the Lord’s words in His Olivet prophecy. Listen to the language of the following scriptures, and note the key prepositions BEFORE and AFTER.

“And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, BEFORE the great and the terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 2:30-32). “Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe: come, get you down; for the press is full, the fats overflow; for their wickedness is great. Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is NEAR (at hand; approaching, but not yet here) in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel” (Joel 3:13-16).

The same is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:20. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, BEFORE that great and notable day of the Lord come”

But now listen to Jesus:

“Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:29-30).

Note that Jesus places the stellar upheaval and eclipse immediately AFTER the tribulation, whereas Joel’s prophecy shows this as happening BEFORE the great and notable ‘day of the Lord’. How then can the day of the Lord be held to include the tribulation if the darkness that comes BEFORE the day of the Lord is said by Jesus to come ‘immediately AFTER’ the tribulation? It simply cannot be done; scripture doesn’t permit it. But it must be done if pre-tribulationism is to survive.

Many have shown that to place the ‘day of the Lord’ AFTER the tribulation is FATAL to the pre-trib theory. In fact, the comparatively recent habit of placing the ‘day of the Lord’ before the tribulation was unheard of until after Alexander Reese, a missionary from New Zealand, wrote a book called “The Approaching Advent of Christ: An Examination of the teaching of J.N. Darby and his Followers,” published in 1937. Reese’s book forced dispensationalists (those that advocate the pre-trib view of the rapture), to change their earlier view of a ‘post-tribulational’ day of the Lord. Henceforward, dispensationalists would place the ‘day of the Lord’ at the beginning of the tribulation. (Also in response to Reese’s book, pretribulationists were now forced to ‘assume’ a new separation between an earlier resurrection of “church saints” (considered as belonging to a separate body) and the resurrection of the OT faithful, which Reese showed to everyone’s admission to occur AFTER the tribulation (compare Isa 25:8: 26:19; Dan 12:2, 13).

So, according to this novel view, the OT saints are not raised at the rapture, but seven years later when Christ comes to establish His millennial rule over the nations. Astonishing, isn’t it? See what a war has been raging over these things? But what is the real significance of so much confusion? Before we despair of certainty, and resign everything over to the hopelessly disagreed prophecy experts, let us first consider whether our enemy has a vested interest in fomenting such confusion in order to keep these issues hidden from the church, and to discourage the average believer from trusting in the grace of the Spirit’s help to arrive at the truth (the much neglected priesthood of every believer; 1Jn 2:27). These matters have the potential to become very determinative of a great deal. A lie always costs; and this one in particular threatens to exact an ominous toll.

Later, another significant book was written in 1973 by Robert Gundry: “The Church and the Tribulation.” Gundry exposed the impossibility of starting the ‘day of the Lord’ with the pre-tribulational rapture, because the rapture, as taught in the pre-tribulational scheme, must be an “imminent” (un-signaled) event that can potentially occur any moment. Gundry proved that this is impossible; because Paul shows clearly that the “day of the Lord” CANNOT come EXCEPT the ‘Man of Sin’ is first revealed (2Thes 2:1-3). Obviously, the ‘day of the Lord’ is not an ‘imminent’ event in Paul’s eschatology. So what were the pre-tribulationists to do? Well, they would invent yet another gap. After Gundry, the rapture would be seen as happening sometime further back BEFORE the beginning of the ‘day of the Lord’ in order to allow time for the prior revelation of the ‘man of sin’. That’s the new solution proposed to circumvent Gundry’s otherwise decisive argument. There’s no standard position on how long this new gap should last.

All of this goes to show the confusion that comes by a mis-location of the ‘day of the Lord’, and thus, the disarming loss of its safeguarding simplicity. So I am less concerned with whether one includes the millennium as part of the ‘day of the Lord’, as I am with the errors that follow when the day of the Lord is understood to include the tribulation. A right view of the ‘day of the Lord’ and its relationship to the basic events of prophecy goes further than anything else I know towards establishing the right order of events, and thus avoiding many a needless confusion. I pray that we will come to a greater clarity on this for all of these reasons and more, as the ‘day of the Lord’ is also a central issue in the replacement debate as well. Hope this contributes to a better understanding. I wish I had the time to be more thorough and clear, but this may help you be on the look out for some of these issues as they come up in your own study. (END)

Doc: Quoting from the response,

"A right view of the ‘day of the Lord’ and its relationship to the basic events of prophecy goes further than anything else I know towards establishing the right order of events, and thus avoiding many a needless confusion."

I have found this to be true and very helpful.



_________________
David Winter

 2017/1/20 9:15Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re: Docs

RE : /// But does it have to be so speculative? Soteriology or ecclesiology or Christology is not overly speculative.///

The other subjects do not have so many Scriptures to consider while trying to piece them together nor are the Scriptures involved with the other subjects intertwined with as much imagery.

RE : /// It seems if there is no continuity in the church today regarding eschatology it can't on the Lord's end.///

It is not just in today time that there is no continuity but there is no continuity through out history regarding the subject. for example :

Most of the Ante-Nicene writers where Pre-Millennialist though they make mention that there where amillennialist amoung them in that day.

But that Pre-Millennialism in that day did not include a pre-trib rapture nor was Israel as a Nation included in there eschatology, They where of the understanding that the Church had replaced Israel.

And than from Augustine to the Reformers including the Anabaptist amillennialism was the dominate understanding.

And than revivalist like Johnathan Edwards was Postmillennalist.

And than Darby and Scolfield with dispensational pre-trib pre-millennialism made a big impact.

And now we seem to have alot of what is termed historic pre-millenalist (some have said Spurgeon held to this eschatology also) they reject the pre-trib views of Darby but unlike the Ante-Nicene writers what happens in the Middle East and Israel is a central tenet of there eschatology. (I have not found that to be a tenet in Ante-Nicene eschatology)

If I misrepresented any of the above it is out of ignorance and not intentional and I am open to correction.

The point is there is no continuity of thought through out Church History concerning eschatology.


edit: clarity

 2017/1/20 9:26Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re: proudpapa

Proudpapa,

Thanks for your explanation, which is saying you take these scriptures such as Isaiah 2 as allegorical. However the scripture you show in the NT regarding Zion and Jerusalem do not in my understanding show this.

Hebrews 12:22 clearly states it is talking about the 'heavenly Jerusalem, whereas Isaiah 2 is very clearly talking about a Jerusalem on earth.

In Galatians 4:24 Paul clearly says he is using these images of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory for the Law coming out of Jerusalem that was still present in the day he wrote and the New covenant coming out of Jerusalem above (Heaven.

What Isaiah is saying is there will be a new earthly Jerusalem in the future.

I'm not sure you really answered my question with these scriptures. Do you see a New Jerusalem on earth after this present earth is destroyed (as per 1 Peter 4) and do you see Isaiah 2 being fulfilled then and there, rather than in a Millennial kingdom?


_________________
Dave

 2017/1/20 10:05Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2529


 Re:

The question remains though,

Were one fourth or one third of the total scriptures that are dedicated to eschatology and last things meant to be undecipherable and always cloaked in non understanding? Uop to one third of the scriptures were never meant to be undertstood? If the apocalyptic genre of Hebrew literature is presented in images and symbols in places does that automatically mean it was meant to forever remain a riddle as to its proper meaning?


_________________
David Winter

 2017/1/20 10:22Profile
docs
Member



Joined: 2006/9/16
Posts: 2529


 Re:

TMK,

You haven't offended me. I can assure you of that.

Regarding Revelation, you don't have to depend on Revelation alone to interpret its symbols etc. Revelation is filling in the details of earlier prophecies from Daniel and other prophets. The OT gives many clues as to what Revelation is speaking of. But you haven't offende me. I just remain of the opinion that the notion that you can't really understadn any of it so just be ready can't be supported from scripture. It's an anomaly to me to believe that such large portions of scripture regarding the last things were inspired by God for the Church but never were intended to be understood by the Church. In the view of the OT prophets all eschatology they forecast led to the Day of the Lord - all roads lead to the Day of the Lord and this coming Day was the dominant theme in OT eschatology and was the backdrop in which NT eschatology was framed. So WHAT is the Day of the Lord and WHEN does it occur can be very valuable tools to help open our understanding in my opinion.

Blessings.


_________________
David Winter

 2017/1/20 10:31Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy