The Bible Only?

[Ukulelemike]

Sorry - I stand corrected But I doubt if he still believes that, for whether in heaven or hell (& I hope heaven) he knows the truth. 

 

But no - it is his doctrinaire imposed interpretation - whether it's right or wrong. Note this distortion of Scripture:

So how do we read the account of Joseph, & God's providential care of his people leading them to Egypt?

I agree-that's pretty crazy. Its clear that God led them into Egypt, that it was HIs will, to protect them and allow them to safely grow into a nation-the Lord even told Abram that they would be there 400 years in Egypt.  Now, the law WAS added because of transgression-I believe it was given to them because of their stubborn refusal to follow the Lord, and the law IS against grace, but once it was given they hardly "rashly' accepted it-it was God's command that they abide by it, which of course, they didn't very well. But it was still clearly given FOR Israel, no one else.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I don't see what the prOBlem with the note is. They did eventually lose their blessings in Egypt (unless 400 years of rigorous slavery is considered a blessing) but the covenant remained as evident by the fact that they were removed back into the land of Canaan. Just because God moved them temporarily to Egypt (like he did his own Son) doesn't mean they were to remain there forever like apparently they took it. The Jews are to reside in Canaan to receive the blessings. 

 

Anyways, technically, Israel did not become a nation until they received the law. 

 

So there is nothing wrong with the Scofield note. Quite accurate actually.

 

Covenantor, I don't know why this should upset you anyways. You believe Israel is no longer under the providential care of God or any of the covenants and blessings. You believe they all have been revoke from them (the cursings still belong to them though). In fact, you would side with the PLO when it came to whom should reside in Palestine. This is a sad, long tradition withing Europe because of Replacement Theology.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Apart from the fact that this is a misuse of Scripture, I have never claimed not be influenced by other men - but I DO NOT FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Even Paul said "Follow me, even as I also follow Christ", thereby implying that men are to follow him ONLY where he follows Christ, and if he were to stray then to stop following him.

ensamples of others is what we are to follow, not words and comments, but their chaste and virtuous lifestyle.

 

 Php 3:17 ¶ Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.  we are to follow the example of life of others whom we can mark as having righteous and holy lives. as we see in the context Php 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
 21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

1Cor 4:14 ¶ I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

 

1Cor 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.  But the context of Paul's asking us to be followers of him is found in chapter 10.

 

The Now in 1Cor 11:2 changes the subject.
 

[Covenanter]

Thank you Mike - we have to read commentaries with a Berean attitude.

I don't see what the prOBlem with the note is. They did eventually lose their blessings in Egypt (unless 400 years of rigorous slavery is considered a blessing) but the covenant remained as evident by the fact that they were removed back into the land of Canaan. Just because God moved them temporarily to Egypt (like he did his own Son) doesn't mean they were to remain there forever like apparently they took it. The Jews are to reside in Canaan to receive the blessings. 

Not 400 years of slavery - Joseph was ruler of Egypt for 70 years - we don't know when the oppression began. The people prospered there long enough to grow into a perceived threat to Egypt - the land was filled with them ... the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we.

 

Anyways, technically, Israel did not become a nation until they received the law. 

Not so - And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation. (Gen. 46).

 

So there is nothing wrong with the Scofield note. Quite accurate actually.

I recommend reading without any notes, then you will have a basic knowledge of Scripture before imposing an interpretation on it.

 

Covenantor, I don't know why this should upset you anyways. You believe Israel is no longer under the providential care of God or any of the covenants and blessings. You believe they all have been revoke from them (the cursings still belong to them though). In fact, you would side with the PLO when it came to whom should reside in Palestine. This is a sad, long tradition withing Europe because of Replacement Theology.

You OBviously have never read what I have written - even a moderator defended me on this point when I was attacked. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ & superceded by the new covenant in Jesus blood. Covenant blessings are freely available to the Jews, many thousands of whom welcomed them on the day of Pentecost, &the years following. A symbolic 144,000 were delivered before the city was destroyed. The curses fell only on the generation that rejected its Messiah - see 1 Thes. 2 the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Antisemitism & persecution cannot be justified by any valid reading of Scripture. All nations are welcomed by the Gospel & become one great family of the redeemed.

 

Was Moses antisemitic when he warned:  

¹⁸ I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

¹⁹ And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

A warning repeated by Peter in Acts 3.

 

Do I side with the PLO? No - they worked all sorts of terrorism in the last century & that seriously harmed their just grievance that they were being forced from their homes & lands by Israeli settlers, most of whom were not victims of persecution but were encouraged to settle there. But I cannot find anything in the teaching of Jesus & his Apostles that even suggests that Jews should become a Jewish nation in the promised land. The blessings in Jesus are infinitely greater than the earthly blessings promised to the Patriarchs.

 

I do side with the Palestinian people, most of whom want to live in peace with Jews & Christians & not be forced from the land they have occupied for generations.    

 

 

 

[Covenanter]

I remind you of what Scofield actually wrote - a direct contradiction of Scripture:

 

Gen. 12

The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Exodus 19:8 . Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Exodus 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from Genesis 12:1 to Exodus 19:8, and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:15-18 but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made" ; Galatians 3:19-29 ; 4:1-7 . Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.

God loving care for Israel - as promised to Abraham - did not end with their "rash acceptance of the Law" because the Law was not given as a condition receipt of the unconditional promises, but was for the orderly condition of the nation in the promised land. Both Joshua & Solomon understood that the promises were indeed realised to the people. Solomon certainly know there was more, as Stephen declared - & suffered for the truth.

 

The promises were perfectly fulfilled in Christ, when all who responded to the Gospel of Jesus were truly & eternally saved. Many tens, hundreds of  thousands in Apostolic times & who knows how many down the ages, who with all families of the earth be blessed. (Gen. 12, 22, Gal. 3, etc)

 

That Law that Israel "rashly accepted" is a restatement of the promises - wonderful promises - that Peter applies to the church. Never forget that the church comprises both Jew & Gentile as one people of God in Christ, inheriting all the promises to Abraham & the Patriarchs.

 

1 Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, ² as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: ³ if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. ⁴ To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ⁵ ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ⁶ Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. ⁷ Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disOBedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, ⁸ and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disOBedient: whereunto also they were appointed. ⁹ But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: ¹⁰ which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not OBtained mercy, but now have OBtained mercy.

¹¹ Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; ¹² having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

[candlelight]

Covenanter wrote:

"You OBviously have never read what I have written - even a moderator defended me on this point when I was attacked. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ & superceded by the new covenant in Jesus blood. Covenant blessings are freely available to the Jews, many thousands of whom welcomed them on the day of Pentecost, &the years following. A symbolic 144,000 were delivered before the city was destroyed. The curses fell only on the generation that rejected its Messiah - see 1 Thes. 2 the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. Antisemitism & persecution cannot be justified by any valid reading of Scripture. All nations are welcomed by the Gospel & become one great family of the redeemed."

"Symbolic?"  Since when is the Bible, symbolic?  When we read and study the Bible, it is literal.  The Bible is to be taken literally.  This sounds like RCC theology.  The 144,000 Jews are in the Book of Revelation.  These virgin Jewish evangelists, come from the 12 tribes of Israel, and will preach the gospel to the lost in the Great Tribulation.

Why is this heresy allowed on an IFB site?  This is preterist theology and comes from the RCC.  It has reared it's ugly head in Protestant churches, and should not be allowed on Online Baptist.  Why is this not addressed by a moderator? 

[John81]

One could ask the same question with regards to someone holding most end times views. It's only been within the past hundred to hundred-fifty years or so that the pre-mil view has gained a following, especially here in America. Prior to that some form of post-mil was the most commonly held view and it was that view most early Americans held to.

 

Baptists have and continue to hold various end times views; there is no one end times view that Baptists have always adhered to or hold to now.

 

While there can be room to argue what is or isn't symbolic, the Bible does use symbolism. When Scripture says Jesus is the door, we pretty much agree that's symbolic, that Jesus isn't a literal door.

 

Some Protestant churches hold a pre-mil view, but most here wouldn't suggest we ban discussion of the pre-mil view because some Protestants preach that.

 

The best approach to end times views is to examine them by Scripture.

[candlelight]

One could ask the same question with regards to someone holding most end times views. It's only been within the past hundred to hundred-fifty years or so that the pre-mil view has gained a following, especially here in America. Prior to that some form of post-mil was the most commonly held view and it was that view most early Americans held to.

 

Baptists have and continue to hold various end times views; there is no one end times view that Baptists have always adhered to or hold to now.

 

While there can be room to argue what is or isn't symbolic, the Bible does use symbolism. When Scripture says Jesus is the door, we pretty much agree that's symbolic, that Jesus isn't a literal door.

 

Some Protestant churches hold a pre-mil view, but most here wouldn't suggest we ban discussion of the pre-mil view because some Protestants preach that.

 

The best approach to end times views is to examine them by Scripture.

John, why is it that you constantly try to play "peacemaker" on Online Baptist?  My post was directed to Covenanter and the moderators on this site.  It was not directed to you?

[John81]

What does Scripture say about peacemakers?

 

OB is a discussion forum.

[candlelight]

What does Scripture say about peacemakers?

 

OB is a discussion forum.

 

I know what the scripture says, John.  However, you seem to post in every thread on OB.  You are not a moderator.  You are doing the jOB of a mod, but I would rather have the discussion with Covenanter and a moderator.  Can you understand that?

[Arbo]

Trying to quell an uprising by the "natives"!  

[John81]

Use the quill to deal with the quell.

[candlelight]

Simply, put why is the word "symbolic" used to describe something in the Bible?  I feel like I am sitting in my RCC growing up.  The RCC used the word "symbolism" to describe the Bible.  The Bible is literal.  It is quite simple to understand what the 144,000 means if the book of Revelation is read in context.

Calvinists are allowed to promote apostasy on OB, yet anyone who is an RCC is chased away?  What is the difference?  Both religions are promoting heresy on an IFB site.

[Covenanter]

John, why is it that you constantly try to play "peacemaker" on Online Baptist?  My post was directed to Covenanter and the moderators on this site.  It was not directed to you?

Now it's my turn to defend John He reads the posts he replies to as a Berean & considers whether they are supported by Scripture & offered constructively. He may not agree with everything I write, but OBviously welcomes other Scriptural viewpoints.

[HappyChristian]

Okay, let's calm down.  

 

First off, there is symbolism in scripture - pictures of Christ, etc.  Now, I do not agree with Ian that the 144,000 were symbolic because I believe that is yet in the future.  

 

Preterism as an eschatological explanation was laid out by a Jesuit - to counter the teachings of the Protestants that the RCC was the Whore of Babylon (which, BTW, is symbolic of something...it isn't literally a woman) and the Anti-Christ (FWIW - I am not a Preterist, but I don't believe the Whore is the RCC...at least not as she is now).  But the belief seems to have been taught before that. Eusebias made reference to it (he lived back in the 3rd/4th century) - 

 

But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour, from his foreknowledge as THE WORD OF GOD, foretell should come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us. For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account, bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. ... And, it is right we should wonder at the fulfillment of this prediction, since at no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation as this was. ...

He pointed out moreover, the cause of their desolation when He said, "If thou hadst known, even in this day, the things of thy peace:" intimating too His own coming, which should be for the peace of the whole world. ...

But, when ye shall see it reduced by armies, know ye that which comes upon it, to be a final and full desolation and destruction. He designates the desolation of Jerusalem, by the destruction of the Temple, and the laying aside of those services which were, according to the law of Moses, formerly performed within it. ...

The manner moreover of the captivity, points out the war of which He spoke; "For (said He) there shall be (great) tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon this people: and they shall fall by the edge of the sword." We can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus, how these things took place in their localities, and how those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were, in fact, fulfilled. ... On this account He said, "Let those who are in its borders not enter into it, since these are the days of vengeance, that all may be fulfilled which has been written." Any one therefore, who desires it, may learn the results of these things from the writings of Josephus.

 

It's something that was also taught by Barnabas, Clement, and Justin Martyr in early days.  So it was taught before the RCC made it an eschatology.   There's actually more than one school of thought in Preterism, most of the modern beliefs developed via the writings of Calvin, Lightfoot, Grotius, and Luther.  There is the total past fulfillment (meaning Christ came in AD70).

 

Partial Preterism teaches that there were some prophecies fulfilled, with others yet to come.  There are two partial thoughts - one that has a few fulfilled with most still to come, and one with most fulfilled with little still to come.

 

So....where do we go from here?

 

 This site is a Baptist site.  But we do welcome others who come here to fellowship and discuss.  While I do not like the contention that some on here promulgate, a healthy discussion is good for us - iron sharpeneth iron, so a man  sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.  That's a biblical principle that is often seen here: one might not agree with another, but we look at scripture together and we help each other become firmer in our beliefs.  

 

There are some who attempt to "sharpen" others by belittling them in one way or another, and that is unbiblical.  None of us has all the answers, although some on here seem to think they do...

 

When those who believe differently to the point of heresy become abusive in their attitudes, or are not willing to hear what others are saying, they are removed - after a process BroMatt has put in place in which folks are warned (yes, at times a ban is immediate if the situation warrants). Were we to put everyone off who didn't agree with us, I'm afraid none of us would be here.

 

If we don't agree, explain why, using scripture & other sources to do so.