Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

[Steve Schwenke]

As to the eschatology threads, for the most part they are a waste. The main contributors are OBviously in debate mode, not discussion mode. Each side firmly committed to putting forth their view as the only possible acceptable view while at the same time firmly committed to attacking opposing views.

 

Therefore, these threads are always argumentative and combative. They serve no good because of the antagonism they breed.

 

There have always been those within IFB holding to slightly or more broadly different eschatological views. That was part of the "independent" aspect and eschatological views were not considered a fundamental matter.

 

Unless there are those willing to actually discuss eschatology with open minds, giving serious consideration to views presented and giving serious examination to whatever view currently held to see if it holds up, needs modified or may perhaps be wrong, there is little profit in getting into the subject here.

The highlighted portion of John's post is the source of my frustration.  I joined this forum (and a few others) not to debate, but to be a source of encouragement and help.  My expectation with other members is to do the same.  

There are some people who have legitimate questions regarding eschatology that should be answered, but it is impossible to get a SOUND answer on this forum because of the many various systems of interpretation present.  

The frustration comes out because our side has taken great pains to show the many prOBlems with preterism, partial-preterism, a-millenialism, etc., and in great detail.  Our posts are not given any SERIOUS examination, but are blithely dismissed by a misappropriated verse, some undocumented historical reference that is questionable, or some ad hominem against a mythiical "inventor" of the futurist viewpoint.

I have given suggestions for reading and study, only to be told that after "trying" to read a little bit, it seemed to confusing, so they ditched it.  Well, that attitude does not demonstrate any serious consideration from the other side.  I HAVE seriously considered the other side, and find it full of holes, which we routinely point out.  That is why I reject the opposing view point - it raises more questions than it answers.  

There are some aspects about eschatalogy within the futurist point of view that we COULD have good discussions on, but anytime somebody starts a thread on end times events, the preterists high-jack the thread, and off we go again.

 

That is exactly why some of us have loudly protested the inclusion of professed preterists (or partial preterists) on the forum, since the vast majority of us are futurist in our beliefs.  All they do is stir up strife and confusion, all in the name of trying to "teach" the Scriptures, and the rest of us are not allowed to have a rational DISCUSSION of varying aspects of a system that we can largely agree on.

 

Yes, frustrating indeed.

[wretched]

And yes, the premil return of the Lord IS A FUNDAMENTAL Bible belief.

 

Only the tolerance and acceptance by some of the nonsense of preterism has given it some minor undeserved credibility temporarily. But it is another false teaching of the endtimes invented by the whore.

[Jim_Alaska]

The highlighted portion of John's post is the source of my frustration.  I joined this forum (and a few others) not to debate, but to be a source of encouragement and help.  My expectation with other members is to do the same.  

There are some people who have legitimate questions regarding eschatology that should be answered, but it is impossible to get a SOUND answer on this forum because of the many various systems of interpretation present.  

The frustration comes out because our side has taken great pains to show the many prOBlems with preterism, partial-preterism, a-millenialism, etc., and in great detail.  Our posts are not given any SERIOUS examination, but are blithely dismissed by a misappropriated verse, some undocumented historical reference that is questionable, or some ad hominem against a mythiical "inventor" of the futurist viewpoint.

I have given suggestions for reading and study, only to be told that after "trying" to read a little bit, it seemed to confusing, so they ditched it.  Well, that attitude does not demonstrate any serious consideration from the other side.  I HAVE seriously considered the other side, and find it full of holes, which we routinely point out.  That is why I reject the opposing view point - it raises more questions than it answers.  

There are some aspects about eschatalogy within the futurist point of view that we COULD have good discussions on, but anytime somebody starts a thread on end times events, the preterists high-jack the thread, and off we go again.

 

That is exactly why some of us have loudly protested the inclusion of professed preterists (or partial preterists) on the forum, since the vast majority of us are futurist in our beliefs.  All they do is stir up strife and confusion, all in the name of trying to "teach" the Scriptures, and the rest of us are not allowed to have a rational DISCUSSION of varying aspects of a system that we can largely agree on.

 

Yes, frustrating indeed.

 

Brother Steve, take heart and trust in His Word. The truth will always prevail, simply because truth stands on its own. It doesn't matter if some don't believe it, it is still the truth. On the other hand, a lie takes someone to believe it, on its own it cannot stand.

There are those here who know and believe the truth when they see it. And likewise there are those same people who know lies and deception when they see it. Just keep doing what you know is right.

 

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

 

 John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

 Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

[ThePilgrim]

The highlighted portion of John's post is the source of my frustration.  I joined this forum (and a few others) not to debate, but to be a source of encouragement and help.  My expectation with other members is to do the same.  

There are some people who have legitimate questions regarding eschatology that should be answered, but it is impossible to get a SOUND answer on this forum because of the many various systems of interpretation present.  

The frustration comes out because our side has taken great pains to show the many prOBlems with preterism, partial-preterism, a-millenialism, etc., and in great detail.  Our posts are not given any SERIOUS examination, but are blithely dismissed by a misappropriated verse, some undocumented historical reference that is questionable, or some ad hominem against a mythiical "inventor" of the futurist viewpoint.

I have given suggestions for reading and study, only to be told that after "trying" to read a little bit, it seemed to confusing, so they ditched it.  Well, that attitude does not demonstrate any serious consideration from the other side.  I HAVE seriously considered the other side, and find it full of holes, which we routinely point out.  That is why I reject the opposing view point - it raises more questions than it answers.  

There are some aspects about eschatalogy within the futurist point of view that we COULD have good discussions on, but anytime somebody starts a thread on end times events, the preterists high-jack the thread, and off we go again.

 

That is exactly why some of us have loudly protested the inclusion of professed preterists (or partial preterists) on the forum, since the vast majority of us are futurist in our beliefs.  All they do is stir up strife and confusion, all in the name of trying to "teach" the Scriptures, and the rest of us are not allowed to have a rational DISCUSSION of varying aspects of a system that we can largely agree on.

 

Yes, frustrating indeed.

In your list of "systems" which you say contain holes you did not list pre-trib.  I assume that is because you "believe" that their is no possibility that your interpretations can be wrong in any fashion.  I assume this because you insist that all other ideas be banned from the forum.  I am not perfect in my wisdom and no one else on this forum is either.  I do not enter into the eschatology debates because I don't think I will have all the answers while my mind still occupies this mortal flesh.  This world is what it is because men who could get along with each other would rather fight about their petty little differences, which in the eternal scheme of things don't amount to a hill of beans.  

 

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

It does not matter what a saved person believes when it comes to the big, important, all consuming, arguments about when our Lord is coming.  When He comes we should be found doing His work and not fighting one another.  What are our priorities anyway?  Protecting our reputations for having great amounts of knowledge and boosting our egos, is that what we are about?  I pray not! 

[DaveW]

There's a lot of assumptions there, and a lot of "reading in".....

[Covenanter]

 

"This is an attitude of Frustration.

Your side pretends we never address things Scripturally.  You claim that we are "inventing" things, adding things, preaching a "false gospel" or regurgitating "Brethren" doctrine.  

When one of us takes the time to lay out our understanding of a controversial passage of Scripture, it is as if your side bends over backwards to completely, utterly, and finally DISMISS our side with absolutely no consideration as to the truthfulness of it.   You have blinders on, and refuse to accept anything that does not fit your pre-determined interpretation.  

The fact is that the only way you can get to your conclusion is to blithely dismiss the literal interpretation of Scripture, and settle for less."  [steve Schwenke]

 

As the main target of Steve's "attitude of frustration" quoted by GP, I should contribute to this thread.

 

In many of my posts, I do carefully consider the points made, & reply inline with Scripture support. 

 

I do consider some doctrines have been "invented" not by the forum member, but by others whose teaching is widely accepted, particularly the "dispensation system" of Scripture interpretation which claims to be based on a literal reading of Scripture without "spiritualising" or "allegorising" both terms being used pejoratively. Also dispensationalism is regarded as a refutation of "covenant theology." 

 

AFAICS the basis for our disagreements is that I believe that the OT revelation, covenants, prophecies & promises primarily relate to the Lord Jesus Christ, his incarnation & his finished saving work at Calvary, accomplishing salvation for all mankind, by repentance & faith in Christ. Thus the old covenant is fulfilled & subsumed by the new covenant. We are now bound by the NT, with the OT explained by the Apostles in their preaching & epistles. There is not to be a further fulfilment centred on Israel, quite separate from the Gospel age (which unites Jew & Gentile as one people of God in Christ) nor is there a system of salvation for a future generations of Jews other than that accomplished at Calvary. 

 

Did I accuse anyone of "preaching a false gospel?" Read what I wrote:

 

Gabriel outlines the prophecy in Dan. 9:24

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

That, surely, is a summary of the saving work of Jesus at Calvary. The idea of purifying Israel some other way during a yet future 70th week destroys the NT teaching of Jesus FINISHED saving work. It amounts to another gospel, which is NOT another. Gal. 1:6-9

 

You are making Gabriel preach another gospel. 

 

And the reply:

 

Steve:

You have accused us of preaching "another gospel."

I preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner.

I am sure Pastor Markle preaches the same gospel.

 

Thus,

YOU HAVE FALSELY ACCUSED US.

 

My reply:

 

 

I am happy that you & Scott "preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only salvation for the lost sinner" but do not believe that ethnic, national Israel is a separate entity with what amounts to a Gospel distinct from that we preach to lost sinners today. Jew & Gentile together comprise the redeemed people of God, a holy nation.  

[Invicta]

The highlighted portion of John's post is the source of my frustration.  I joined this forum (and a few others) not to debate, but to be a source of encouragement and help.  My expectation with other members is to do the same.  

There are some people who have legitimate questions regarding eschatology that should be answered, but it is impossible to get a SOUND answer on this forum because of the many various systems of interpretation present.  

The frustration comes out because our side has taken great pains to show the many prOBlems with preterism, partial-preterism, a-millenialism, etc., and in great detail.  Our posts are not given any SERIOUS examination, but are blithely dismissed by a misappropriated verse, some undocumented historical reference that is questionable, or some ad hominem against a mythiical "inventor" of the futurist viewpoint.

I have given suggestions for reading and study, only to be told that after "trying" to read a little bit, it seemed to confusing, so they ditched it.  Well, that attitude does not demonstrate any serious consideration from the other side.  I HAVE seriously considered the other side, and find it full of holes, which we routinely point out.  That is why I reject the opposing view point - it raises more questions than it answers.  

There are some aspects about eschatalogy within the futurist point of view that we COULD have good discussions on, but anytime somebody starts a thread on end times events, the preterists high-jack the thread, and off we go again.

 

That is exactly why some of us have loudly protested the inclusion of professed preterists (or partial preterists) on the forum, since the vast majority of us are futurist in our beliefs.  All they do is stir up strife and confusion, all in the name of trying to "teach" the Scriptures, and the rest of us are not allowed to have a rational DISCUSSION of varying aspects of a system that we can largely agree on.

 

Yes, frustrating indeed.

 

Steve, I do read all your posts and I understand the pre tribulaion rapture teaching well  as  I have said many times I was in the Brethren for a number of years, and went to meetings of the subject.  After some years I had some questions on the subject and they refused to answer, so I looked into the teaching further and found it wanting.

 

I have been accused of going against hundreds of year of Baptist teaching.  No sir.  I believe what baptists believed since the reformation.  When I posted extracts from baptist declarations of faith from 1644, 1646, 1689, 1966, 1973, to show that Baptist teaching had been consistent through the centuries, I was accused of spamming.  Before the reformation, the Waldenses believed simimilar as did the Hussites, the Lollards, et al.  It is you that are teaching Brethren doctrine, not Baptist.  I must say that.  I know you don't like it, but it is true.  

[Genevanpreacher]

And yes, the premil return of the Lord IS A FUNDAMENTAL Bible belief.

 

Only the tolerance and acceptance by some of the nonsense of preterism has given it some minor undeserved credibility temporarily. But it is another false teaching of the endtimes invented by the whore.

 

Hello? To whom do you proclaim as this "whore"?

The Catholic Church?

Can there be anyone that you can find anywhere right now that is a Catholic who believes 'preterism'?

I have personally spoken to prOBably a hundred or more Catholics, at their own front door, about different subjects over my time as a minister,

and have never, not even one time, had one even mention the thought of 'preterism', much less partial preterism. And on our visitations I have

spoken to hundreds, if not thousands, of people from different denominations, with the same results. Never a mention - anyone 'claiming' to be

saved always spoke from the dispy view. And some were even Baptists.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Searching the internet for Catholics and Preterism, I came across the Catholic forum. The Catholics have much to say on Preterism, and they subscribe to the doctrine.

Further research reveals that the doctrine was said to be invented by either Luis De Alcazar, or by John Henten (also known as Hentenius)... both Roman Catholic Jesuits.

[Steve Schwenke]

 

In your list of "systems" which you say contain holes you did not list pre-trib.  I assume that is because you "believe" that their is no possibility that your interpretations can be wrong in any fashion.  I assume this because you insist that all other ideas be banned from the forum.  I am not perfect in my wisdom and no one else on this forum is either.  I do not enter into the eschatology debates because I don't think I will have all the answers while my mind still occupies this mortal flesh.  This world is what it is because men who could get along with each other would rather fight about their petty little differences, which in the eternal scheme of things don't amount to a hill of beans.  

 

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.  35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

It does not matter what a saved person believes when it comes to the big, important, all consuming, arguments about when our Lord is coming.  When He comes we should be found doing His work and not fighting one another.  What are our priorities anyway?  Protecting our reputations for having great amounts of knowledge and boosting our egos, is that what we are about?  I pray not! 

 

With all due respect, Bible Doctrine is important.  We are to know the truth, love the truth, seek after the truth, teach and preach the truth.   Jesus IS the truth, and so is His word - the KJV. 

 

The difference between a futurist viewpoint of Scripture, and the preterist view is NOT MINOR.  It is such a major difference that it cannot be overcome.  

While many might think we from the futurist school of interpretation are the argumentative ones, the opposite is true.  This forum is populated by MOSTLY those who hold to a similar viewpoint of eschatology.  But the small handful of those who oppose what most of us believe cannot leave us alone to have good, sound, rational discussions about the futurist viewpoint without interrupting our conversations and completely derailing them.  The INSIST upon forcing their false doctrine upon us, despite our best efforts to oppose them.

 

And, if memory serves me correctly, the Scriptures admonish us to not only beware of false doctrine, but also to warn others of false doctrine.

 

Yes, there are many things that are "minor" that we can agree to disagree on.  But major Bible Doctrines do not fall into that category.

 

I whole heartedly agree that all of us can and should do more to serve Christ.

 

In Christ,

[Steve Schwenke]

As the main target of Steve's "attitude of frustration" quoted by GP, I should contribute to this thread.

 

In many of my posts, I do carefully consider the points made, & reply inline with Scripture support. 

 

I do consider some doctrines have been "invented" not by the forum member, but by others whose teaching is widely accepted, particularly the "dispensation system" of Scripture interpretation which claims to be based on a literal reading of Scripture without "spiritualising" or "allegorising" both terms being used pejoratively. Also dispensationalism is regarded as a refutation of "covenant theology." 

 

AFAICS the basis for our disagreements is that I believe that the OT revelation, covenants, prophecies & promises primarily relate to the Lord Jesus Christ, his incarnation & his finished saving work at Calvary, accomplishing salvation for all mankind, by repentance & faith in Christ. Thus the old covenant is fulfilled & subsumed by the new covenant. We are now bound by the NT, with the OT explained by the Apostles in their preaching & epistles. There is not to be a further fulfilment centred on Israel, quite separate from the Gospel age (which unites Jew & Gentile as one people of God in Christ) nor is there a system of salvation for a future generations of Jews other than that accomplished at Calvary. 

 

Did I accuse anyone of "preaching a false gospel?" Read what I wrote:

 

And the reply:

 

My reply:

No, the basis of our disagreement is your treatment of the Scriptures.  I find it highly OBjectionable, despite your faith in the true gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation. 

 

I am thankful you have that one right.

 

And while I strongly oppose your system of interpretation, which could easily be misunderstood as some type of personal vendetta against you, I by no means hate or dislike you.  You are a brother in Christ, and I am thankful you are saved and on your way to Heaven.  Our differences will be resolved there for sure!

 

I am strongly opposed to the doctrine you teach.

 

It is nothing personal against you, or anyone else.  It is the system that bothers me.

 

In Christ,

[John81]

Searching the internet for Catholics and Preterism, I came across the Catholic forum. The Catholics have much to say on Preterism, and they subscribe to the doctrine.

Further research reveals that the doctrine was said to be invented by either Luis De Alcazar, or by John Henten (also known as Hentenius)... both Roman Catholic Jesuits.

One thing about the RCC is their willingness to "believe" anything and use anything they can in the name of furthering themselves.

 

In Haiti, and elsewhere, the RCC even yokes with Voo-doo.

 

The only true core belief of the RCC is the belief in promoting the RCC while always seeking more influence and power for the RCC. This is why there are Charismatic Catholics, Seventh Day Catholics, Catholic animists, Catholic spiritualists, traditional Catholics, contemporary Catholics, and a variety of sects within Catholicism each designed to appease particular desires of certain people in order to maintain them within the RCC.

[Genevanpreacher]

With all due respect, Bible Doctrine is important.  We are to know the truth, love the truth, seek after the truth, teach and preach the truth.   Jesus IS the truth, and so is His word - the KJV. 

 

The difference between a futurist viewpoint of Scripture, and the preterist view is NOT MINOR.  It is such a major difference that it cannot be overcome.  

While many might think we from the futurist school of interpretation are the argumentative ones, the opposite is true.  This forum is populated by MOSTLY those who hold to a similar viewpoint of eschatology.  But the small handful of those who oppose what most of us believe cannot leave us alone to have good, sound, rational discussions about the futurist viewpoint without interrupting our conversations and completely derailing them.  The INSIST upon forcing their false doctrine upon us, despite our best efforts to oppose them.

 

And, if memory serves me correctly, the Scriptures admonish us to not only beware of false doctrine, but also to warn others of false doctrine.

 

Yes, there are many things that are "minor" that we can agree to disagree on.  But major Bible Doctrines do not fall into that category.

 

I whole heartedly agree that all of us can and should do more to serve Christ.

 

In Christ,

 

Yes, Bible doctrine IS important. I agree most wholeheartedly!

Yet, what you say is just about why we press the issues also.

We believe our understanding of the scriptures in this matter 

are also of the most importance. Because it changes everything

that you can perceive in the view of other doctrines in the Bible.

It equalizes the justice and mercy of our Lord. God gave all for and to

all, and the view that you carry is unequal justice and mercy, along with

an unequal relationship between Gods chosen people - the SAVED.

[Covenanter]

OBviously we need an authority who can tell us for sure whose understanding of Scripture is correct. 

 

I believe the Apostles are the authority we have to give us that understanding as they teach from the OT, & apply the Law, Prophets & Psalms as written for our learning. They had Jesus & the Holy Spirit to give them inspired teaching. 

 

Teaching from the Law, Prophets & Psalms while not accepting the interpretation of the Apostles is at best uncertain ground. 

[John81]

Yes, Bible doctrine IS important. I agree most wholeheartedly!

Yet, what you say is just about why we press the issues also.

We believe our understanding of the scriptures in this matter 

are also of the most importance. Because it changes everything

that you can perceive in the view of other doctrines in the Bible.

It equalizes the justice and mercy of our Lord. God gave all for and to

all, and the view that you carry is unequal justice and mercy, along with

an unequal relationship between Gods chosen people - the SAVED.

Could you explain what you mean with regards to these different matters of equal/unequal? Sorry, but I'm not following this as put forth in the manner above.