The Bible Only?

[prophet1]

Not sure what you're getting at, but Pass.

Those "church fathers" that came up with extra biblical explanations of prophecy, when the end didn't appear to be in a hurry to get there, is what I was getting at.

Anishinaabe

[Genevanpreacher]

I don't know what this is meant to prove by you.  It says that we should read and study the God's word.  It does not say that we have no need for other books. 

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

[TheSword]

Does Scripture anywhere say that we should not read other books to help us understand the the most important book? Does it say anywhere that we should not learn from people more mature in the faith than we are? Does it say anything about listening to wise counsel and/or teachers? Anything about receiving instruction?

[ThePilgrim]

Well, let's see...sounds to me like this guy thought that God's word was invaluable to a child of God,

and, to me, it sounded like he thought it fulfilled all our needs in what we need/want to know about...everything.

 

Read the 1611 original printing of the KJV - The Translators To The Reader - 3rd page.

If it fulfilled all their needs why did they study other books?  They were all "educated men", were they not?

 

God bless,

Larry

[Genevanpreacher]

If Genevan truly believed that one does not need anything but the Scripture, he would not be posting anything but Scripture.

Funny how he makes comments about the Word of God, but is against reading others written commentaries, eh? LOL

 

That is funny.

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

[ThePilgrim]

That is funny.

 

Did you know in the 'Translators to the Reader' in the first printing of the KJV, they stated that Origen was

the one who started the New Testament commentaries?

 

You know, the guy who 'originated' the perversion of the scriptures by changing what was said in the text?

 

I just wonder...did his commentaries have anything to do with him deciding to make changes to the text, which produced the ability for later generations to pervert the 'greek' texts and create a basis for 'perverted' English bibles?

 

Here is the quote: "...as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures,..."

(10th page of The Translators To The Reader. 1/2 way down 1st paragraph)

 

I was always taught that Origen was the origin of the 'prOBlem' when it came to the new modern bibles.

That says to me that the translators read other books.  Maybe some of them might even have been included in the writings of or about the writings of the "Early Church Fathers".  Am I wrong?

 

God bless,

Larry

[Invicta]

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

I really have not studied Augustine, so I cannot comment so can you please give an example of his allegory?  I do know that he wrote The City of God, which I assume referered to the church, , but apart from that?

[AVBibleBeliever]

This argument is getting nowhere - we all had to learn to read and talk and so learn the meaning of words. We have listened to sermons, sung hymns, etc. Our understanding is a matter of our educational history.

 

While our ability to READ is common ground, our UNDERSTANDING of what we read is not. Even when we read related Scripture to use the Bible as its own commentary, our religious education and beliefs will affect what we understand by the same readings. Why else should we have these discussions?

 

I have been taught amil covenant theology, and many years of reading has developed and modified my understanding. Years of Internet discussions have given me an understanding of dispensational theology, but I am not convinced. Such discussions did move me to a partial preterist position. [i've had to add "preterist" to the dictionary.]

 

That does not mean I reject dispensational theology because of what I have been taught. I believe what I do because of my reading of Scripture. 

Our understanding has a lot to do with our Believing what the word of God say's plain and simple that is for sure.

 

some people don't read so well but God's word says,  Ps 119:130 ¶ The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

But also the simple can be led astray very easily,  Ro 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

 

The best is that a simple man just read and believe the words of God just as the are found in the scriptures.
 

[Invicta]

I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.

 

As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.

 

Please don't mention people such as Irenius and Polycoarp without a direct quote as to what they said.   I have read the early church writers and I see nothing about a pre tribulation rapture in their writings, so if you have found some. let me know and I will look it up.  My studies show that they all taught that the let and hinderance in 2 Thess. was the Emperor and the Empire.  Teretullian puts it clearest and mentions it several times.  He said that Rome persecuted Christians,when they actually prayed for Caesar, because they knew of the evils that would come on the earth when the Empire was removed.  The man of sin would come, (Who the mistakenly thought would be an individual), then the end of all things would come. The did not just believe this, as Tertullian wrote, "We Know."    How did they know?  Paul told them.  "2 Thess. 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?"

 

They believed that the Emperor had to be removed as there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time, Emperor and Antichrist.

 

They were not preterists, they held to an historical teaching

[AVBibleBeliever]

I believe in just sticking to the Bible and not get into men's words whether they be early church men (not father's as Jesus said call no man father) or men of today.

[Genevanpreacher]

That says to me that the translators read other books.  Maybe some of them might even have been included in the writings of or about the writings of the "Early Church Fathers".  Am I wrong?

 

God bless,

Larry

 

Ok, let's cut to the chase here. Yes they, we, us, everyone, reads other books.

That is not why I am saying these statements.

What I am saying, is that we can, have, and maybe should, survive just on God.

Maybe that would cure our society of it's woes upon us, and our children. If we were

so inebriated with the words of God as they are written in the Bible, maybe we would

be stronger, and the world would not be 'so' hopelessly lost.

I have read (yes I said it!) books that mentioned how some men of God centuries ago

would spend hours praying, and hours reading the word of God, and then those books

talk about the great 'revivals' in their regular services that they would have; just because

those men of God immersed themselves in God and his word.

I think it would be worth it to tell our next generation the importance of 'just God' and put

away men's writings.

[ThePilgrim]

I believe in just sticking to the Bible and not get into men's words whether they be early church men (not father's as Jesus said call no man father) or men of today.

I only used the term Early Church Fathers because that is what the writings are called.  I am not a catholic and call no man father. 

As far as people saying they do not get into men's words and only use the bible, I would suggest reading through the discussions on OB and then tell me that again.

Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."

When you give your opinion on bible verses and bible doctrine, why do you think anyone should listen to or read a word you say.  For that matter why do you have a conversation or discussion with anyone if you cannot change your mind on your understanding of a bible doctrine.  If you are immovable why do you think anyone else should be. 

 

Anyone other than God Himself who thinks they have the true knowledge and wisdom of the ages and no other human being does is a fool.  Even Solomon didn't have it all.

 

God bless,

Larry

[ThePilgrim]

I put this in the IFB lounge forum and it has not even been looked at let alone commented on so I am putting it here because I think it might be relevent.

 

A question: Did God give Solomon wisdom and understanding through Solomon studying or through miraculous intervention?   To put it another way: Did Solomon study the works of other men to attain his knowledge of trees and other plants, of beasts, fowls, creeping things, and fishes or did he get it all from scripture, or did God just put it all in Solomon's head.

Some scripture (just a small part) dealing with Solomon, knowledge and wisdom:

1 Kings 4:29-34

29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.

31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.

32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.

33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.

34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Eccl 1:17-18

17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Eccl 2:13

13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

Eccl 2:26

26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God.

Eccl 7:12

12 For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.

Eccl 7:19

19 Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.

Eccl 7:25

25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

Eccl 9:13-18

 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:

14 There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:

15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.

16 Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

17 The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.

18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.

Eccl 12:9-14

9 And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.

10 The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.

11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.

12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

 

God bless,

Larry

 

[TheSword]

I really have not studied Augustine, so I cannot comment so can you please give an example of his allegory?  I do know that he wrote The City of God, which I assume referered to the church, , but apart from that?

 

I'll have to go back and dig into my stuff a little to recall and give a well-explained answer (it's been a year or two since I encountered his stuff with any depth). One thing I do recall is that he is considered the father of amillennialism, which asserts no earthly reign of Christ, because he saw the one-thousand-year figure as symbolic rather than literal. When I can muster enough time at home I'll be happy to find some more detailed examples for you.

 

 

Please don't mention people such as Irenius and Polycoarp without a direct quote as to what they said.   I have read the early church writers and I see nothing about a pre tribulation rapture in their writings, so if you have found some. let me know and I will look it up.  My studies show that they all taught that the let and hinderance in 2 Thess. was the Emperor and the Empire.  Teretullian puts it clearest and mentions it several times.  He said that Rome persecuted Christians,when they actually prayed for Caesar, because they knew of the evils that would come on the earth when the Empire was removed.  The man of sin would come, (Who the mistakenly thought would be an individual), then the end of all things would come. The did not just believe this, as Tertullian wrote, "We Know."    How did they know?  Paul told them.  "2 Thess. 2:5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?"

 

They believed that the Emperor had to be removed as there could not be two rulers in Rome at the same time, Emperor and Antichrist.

 

They were not preterists, they held to an historical teaching

 

 

Irenaeus, an exerpt from Against Heresies - "Those nations, however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;” so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption [emphasis added].

 

There aren't enough writings of Polycarp to discern his stance on the millennium or rapture. The only statements he makes are to affirm the resurrection of the saints and the reality of hell. I included him in the above explanation to show the close and short line of teaching between John and Irenaeus.

 

I've never been a fan of Tertullian. He was a Montanist, which were ardent legalists that strangely also had a lot of practices similar to Pentecostals today. Generally speaking, not someone I want to take theological input from, though some of his early apologetic writings were good.

 

Edit:

After reading your description of what you gleaned from Tertullian, I don't see how it precludes a pre-trib position. In my understanding, there appears to simply be a misapplication (i.e. bad guess) on who the eschatological prophecies referred to. Since they expected Jesus Christ to be coming again soon, they would naturally have considered Rome and the Emporer as major players in the end-times narrative. It is the same thing people do now in trying to guess who the Antichrist is.

[prophet1]

I only used the term Early Church Fathers because that is what the writings are called. I am not a catholic and call no man father.
As far as people saying they do not get into men's words and only use the bible, I would suggest reading through the discussions on OB and then tell me that again.
Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
When you give your opinion on bible verses and bible doctrine, why do you think anyone should listen to or read a word you say. For that matter why do you have a conversation or discussion with anyone if you cannot change your mind on your understanding of a bible doctrine. If you are immovable why do you think anyone else should be.

Anyone other than God Himself who thinks they have the true knowledge and wisdom of the ages and no other human being does is a fool. Even Solomon didn't have it all.

God bless,
Larry

Having a discussion, between two people that have the indwelling Spirit of God, is potentially profitable.

Reading someone's thoughts, is not the same.
There is no interaction.
There is no resistance.
Iron sharpens through resistance.

2Ti 4:3
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

These days of reading every man's teachings ( not interaction) were prophesied of a long time ago.

Anishinaabe