| Poster | Thread | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Todd,
Quote:
The reason I sound like I do is that I am amazed that people are so confident in their pet views that they give absolutely no consideration to differing viewpoints many which have been held for the vast majority of church history.
I certainly am not afraid to admit that I am not beholden to any particular eschatological view because I am not so arrogant to believe that I can understand completely matters that have been fairly debated by godly men for centuries.
I used to believe pretty much along the lines of what you laid out below before I ever realized there were actually alternative explanations than the typical dispensational paradigm which actually make much more sense. Unfortunately the great majority of evangelical churches only teach from a dispensational viewpoint so that is all people know. They are quite frankly ignorant of other interpretations, like those held by someone as respected as RC Sproul, for example (he was a partial preterist). No one can say he didn't know his Bible.
Interestingly, I come from a different background. My parents were not believers. My mother became a believer when I was in school. This was subsequently followed by two of my siblings. I went to church (as I was required to go) but I never truly "believed" until much later. During high school, I did "pretend" to be a Christian among most of my church and youth group peers. However, my friends in high school largely knew me a little better. In fact, I was quite agnostic when it came to belief in God up until a year before giving my life to the Lord.
Consequently, I didn't really believe ANYONE or ANYTHING doctrinal when I came to Christ. It was largely due to a strong sense of skepticism prior to believing in Christ Jesus. When I came to Christ, I didn't know whether "Ephesians" was in the Old Testament or New Testament. However, I immediately read through the Word of God the week that I was saved. I kept repeating this over and over again.
Due to my previous lack of belief and deep skepticism, I suppose that I was more of a "tabula rasa" (i.e., "clean slate") than most people who are raised in Christian families. With this in mind, I had a tendency to question everything that I was taught. I also had little access to (or even desire to read) Christian books on doctrine.
More importantly, I just didn't hold any ministers, denominations or even local churches (together with their doctrines) with particularly high regard. This is not to say that I didn't respect them or feel that there were preachers who were devout and sincere in their love for Jesus. I was simply able to separate sincerity and love for God from matters of doctrinal truth.
I simply believed that the Bible was the only indisputable truth for deriving beliefs from. So, any time I heard a preacher, I did so with a metaphorical "one eye open" consideration -- always weighing what was said by what I read in Scripture.
I suppose that this sense of skepticism -- a sense of "critical thinking" that is rooted only in Scripture -- followed me outside of church meetings too. Recently, a brother asked if I ever had a sense that we are not being told the whole truth on a matter. He further emphasized this question within the context of mainstream narratives, education, history, etc. My answer is an emphatic "YES." It's less than a suspicion and more of a manner by which I hold God and His Word above all else.
I went through college and graduate school with this in mind. I had to sit through courses in which quite a few of my professors taught ideas that were in conflict with -- or directly opposition to -- God's Word. So, I judged all lectures, lessons, labs and textbook claims with a mind that placed God above all. This didn't mean that I rejected anything and everything that I was taught (by no means!). Rather, I tested what they said by what I knew to be true from God's Word.
I'm reminded of something that is often overlooked in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Most people understand his exhortation in the first chapter, how he shares the timeline of his life following his conversion in chapters 1 and 2 as well as his public rebuke of the apostle Peter in chapter 2. However, I think that many people overlook the reason he shared these things.
In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul points out the reason behind his subsequent timeline following his conversion. He wrote:
.......
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11-12 (ESV)
.......
Paul then proceeds to explain just how little interaction he had with the apostles or other early believers following his conversion. This was to illustrate that he didn't receive his gospel from any man. He wasn't repeating what he had been taught. Rather, he received it "through a REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST" (verse 12). It's interesting that Paul uses the same terminology for how he received his Gospel as John later used (i.e., "revelation of Jesus Christ") around 90-95 A.D. to show his servants "what must soon take place" (Revelation 1:1-3).
Thus, the apostle Paul was pointing out that the things that he received came through such divine spiritual revelation rather than by sitting and learning at the feet of others. He had very little interaction with any of those "who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9) until later after his conversion. So, the gospel that he presented came from the Lord and not from man.
In the context of believers today, we have this gospel and revelation contained for us in the form of the New Testament -- consisting of Gospels, a detailed history of the early church (Acts), epistles (letters) and a book of prophecy (Revelation). All of these New Testament help shed light upon the things we find in the Old Testament.
This is something that I increasingly find missing in the Church today. I spoke with someone not long ago who has been a believer nearly all their lives (for around 30 years). Yet, in the course of a discussion about the Word of God, this person admitted to me that he had never read the Word of God -- either the Old or New Testaments -- through. He believed that (over the years) he had likely read most of the New Testament and quite a bit of the Old Testament. Yet, he wasn't sure if he had ever read a single book (including any epistle) from start to finish.
Last year, I saw a poll that included a question about reading the Bible. Among people who considered themselves Christians, more than 70% admitted that they had never read the entire Bible.
The implications of this is heart-wrenching! This also begs the question as to how doctrine is formed for others. If a Christian has settled upon doctrinal positions, how did they derive to it without having read the Word of God through even one time?
My guess would be that people often arrive to doctrinal views through the teachings and traditions of man (including denominations and local church leaders). While teaching is certainly vital for local churches (and teaching is included among Paul's list of spiritual gifts in his letter to the Corinthians), I believe that indoctrination is very different from a doctrinal foundation that comes from the revelation received by simply reading God's Word.
I also think that this is one of the reasons why Paul instructed Timothy to devote himself to the public reading of Scripture (I Timothy 4:13). While teaching is very important, it becomes indoctrination when the students lack familiarity with Scripture and an accompanying ability to rightly handle the word of truth.
This is true for all matters of doctrine. It is a principal that is also true in academic settings and life itself. Science is based upon mastery of various basic principles along with repeat observation.
Sadly, in today's version of "academia," many students are merely indoctrinated -- eager believers of what a professor or teacher told them was "true." They don't engage in real research, study or peer review because, unfortunately, professors and teachers often don't require it. In fact, many feel insulted if their students don't simply take their lectures as "truth."
It's often been pointed out that conspiracy theories grow in the minds of people who are lazy with their "research" -- individuals who seek confirmation for their preexisting biases. It's difficult to convince such individuals because they often feel that they are "in the know" from a more limited number of sources that are, in turn, devoid of scrutiny, criticism, peer review or even observation. Yet, the same can be said of the professors and teachers who are satisfied with indoctrinating students rather than teaching students how to conduct real, intensive research and determine a matter on this basis.
This is what I feel happens in the modern church. We have plenty of access to books, teachings and tools. We have teachers who instruct us in matters of doctrine. We even read the Word of God topically -- and often in a manner to reinforce preexisting views and beliefs. Yet, with all of the resources available (including many copies of Scripture in multiple languages and translations all by our smartphones), many still fail to ever completely read the Word of God.
All of these things that I've written is to point out the flaw when it comes to staking positions on matters of Scripture -- including eschatology. I would go so far as to say that it isn't proper for believers to meander to books and teachings about doctrine without having a good fully-foundational understanding of God's Word. Moreover, it is not a good thing to stake a doctrinal position without first having such a foundation. It is difficult to identify error if we don't know the Scriptures well enough to compare those things.
This doesn't mean that we will always agree with those who seem to know their Bible well. For instance, there are many areas of doctrine in which I strongly disagree with many of R.C. Sproul's teachings. However, the same is also true with other preachers and teachers too (including some of whom I really enjoying hearing their messages). It's also one reason why I think that it's okay to not take a position with absolute certitude if I am not completely convinced by a clarity in Scripture.
_________________
Christopher
|
|  2023/11/22 3:25 | Profile | TMK
Member
Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA
| | Re: | | Believe me, I don’t agree with R.C.’s Calvinism but even ol’ RC couldn’t get everything right.
You are correct about the importance of knowing scripture instead of knowing about scripture or knowing what others know about scripture.
I have read the Bible through yearly for many years and it is strange how the more I read it the less I am convinced of much I was taught in my younger years. I suspect views I hold today may be tweaked moving forward.
_________________
Todd
|
| | 2023/11/22 7:28 | Profile | Lysa
Member
Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3699
East TN for now!
| | Re: The identity of the antichrist | |
Dominic,
We're not going to be here, right?
wink, wink, wink!!!!
_________________
Lisa
|
| | 2023/11/22 8:24 | Profile | deltadom
Member
Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead
| | Re: | | Why would the verses be in the bible if we are not suppose to face the antichrist
He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, will venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us Christians. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.253, 254.
Bercot, David W., editor. Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs . Hendrickson Pub. Kindle Edition.
Revelation 13:7
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
On Christ and Antichrist (Hippolytus)
6. Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king,John 18:37 so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; John 1:29 so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, John 2:19 and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm
Daniel 7:21
“I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,
_________________
Dominic Shiells
|
| | 2023/11/22 12:15 | Profile | ESchaible
Member
Joined: 2023/6/24
Posts: 548
| | Re: | | Lysa made an interesting point, and I think that reveals the root and cause of a great deal of disconnect in discussions concerning eschatology.
The eschatological presuppositions someone holds will act like a lens through which they interpret every other event spoken of in the Bible regarding the end/new beginning.
With that said, these discussions would be more orderly, I think, if everyone clearly stated their current stance on the pre-tribulation rapture (not for discussion purposes, but more so everyone knows how they are viewing prophetic scriptures), or their stance in general, as it currently stands.
I have a meager understanding of the terms that surround this study, so I am sure I personally, in some way, diverge from them all at some of the finer details. But based on my current understanding of the lingo, and the broader teaching they espouse, here is my stance.
I don't believe in a rapture at all per se, I believe in the resurrections, and a catching up with Jesus as He returns, but not a "vanishing", as it us popularly taught.
From my understanding I am pre-millenial, at least insofar as that is stating specifically that Jesus returns to set up a 1000 year reign before a final unleashing of Satan on the earth.
I believe in an actual antichrist and false prophet, two literal persons yet future. My understanding at present is that the antichrist will be the Islamic imam responsible for leading the final regime that ushers in the time of Jacobs trouble, ie. the attempted eradication of the Jews.
The false prophet, I would think it follows logically and scripturally, would be the man Islam believes to be the return of Jesus (who they merely hold as a prophet, and will promote and support their final imam).
Babylon the great city... Well there's the rub. But if I were to follow my eschatology thus far and look at the current world system, and the scripture surrounding this topic, my best guess is Saudi Arabia.
Other than that, the Bible is pretty cut and dry about the rest of its eschatology.
|
| | 2023/11/22 13:14 | Profile | TMK
Member
Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 6650
NC, USA
| | Re: | | ES-
I believe exactly as you do regard long the timing of the “rapture” (at the Second Coming).
I do not believe in a literal millennium or a literal New Jerusalem or a literal future Antichrist or false prophet or mark of the beast or tribulation etc. My mom and my best friend would both strongly disagree with me but oh well.
_________________
Todd
|
| | 2023/11/22 13:38 | Profile | ESchaible
Member
Joined: 2023/6/24
Posts: 548
| | Re: | | TMK,
I guess I should have stated I do believe in a physical kingdom of Jesus, on earth for eternity.
We should start a discussion about the kingdom of Jesus after the end, that would be interesting.
|
| | 2023/11/22 13:49 | Profile | deltadom
Member
Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead
| | Re: | | Do you have evidence to back up your positions biblically
_________________
Dominic Shiells
|
| | 2023/11/22 14:36 | Profile | ESchaible
Member
Joined: 2023/6/24
Posts: 548
| | Re: | | TMK,
What are the popular labels for your stances? I only ask because I honestly have no idea what alot of them mean, and I only know the ones associated with my beliefs because someone at some point told me that's what I was... So I could be wrong about them as well. I haven't read enough literature outside of the Bible regarding eschatology to know the terminology very well, at least as it stands in the modern academic study.
Could you list the stance you have, and than the popular academic label for it after?
Also, this is possibly the only theological arena I think this would be helpful in, as I don't believe very many people understand even slightly the numerous stances there are in these things. Much different than other doctrines, and another world from essential doctrines.
|
| | 2023/11/22 14:57 | Profile | deltadom
Member
Joined: 2005/1/6
Posts: 2359
Hemel Hempstead
| | Re: | | If you hold a view how can you back it biblically
_________________
Dominic Shiells
|
| | 2023/11/22 15:00 | Profile |
|
