Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

[John81]

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. 

Indeed, whatever truth we have on these matters is in Scripture. Most would agree upon that point. The difference comes in peoples understanding of just what certain verses or passages mean. In some cases we could have half a dozen born again Christians in a room all reading the same verses and each having a different understanding of just what they believe the verses mean.

 

The back and forth postings between those already firmly decided on different views aren't very helpful; especially when they seem to always have those who can't help but posting in the flesh in ways that add bad witness to an already contentious thread.

 

The partial preterists aren't going to sway the committed pre-tribs and the pre-tribs aren't going to sway the committed partial preterists. There is really no good point in these two groups posting back and forth at one another.

[Invicta]

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.

 

That is what I found in my researches.   

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

 

In regard to promises made to Israel, as compared to the blessing of God using Israel to get the finished work of Christ to mankind.

[wretched]

Indeed, whatever truth we have on these matters is in Scripture. Most would agree upon that point. The difference comes in peoples understanding of just what certain verses or passages mean. In some cases we could have half a dozen born again Christians in a room all reading the same verses and each having a different understanding of just what they believe the verses mean.

 

The back and forth postings between those already firmly decided on different views aren't very helpful; especially when they seem to always have those who can't help but posting in the flesh in ways that add bad witness to an already contentious thread.

 

The partial preterists aren't going to sway the committed pre-tribs and the pre-tribs aren't going to sway the committed partial preterists. There is really no good point in these two groups posting back and forth at one another.

 

True, the answers are in Scripture.

 

False, on put 6 believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. Zero would come up with preterism. That is man made only and OBscure as an understatement.

 

I have said it before and will again. I have been a member of more Bible believing churches in more places on this planet than anyone I have ever heard of and I have never heard a peep of this heresy until this forum.

 

I think some folks spend way too much time on the internet where you can read of any whacked out idea in the world. Because it is on the internet spouted out by two or three muttenheads doesn't make it anywhere near legitimate.

 

Yaw can keep tolerating this bunk if you want to, I won't. I will yell nay every time I see it

 

[wretched]

 

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! 

 

 

Although I appreciate and understand exactly what you are saying here Pilgrim, I do need to also point out the scores of warnings throughout the NT of false teachers, false gospels, antichrists and etc. To discern, mark and avoid.

 

Having said that, I think we should take this or any forum with a grain of salt. If we are going to waste precious time on the internet instead of spreading the Gospel and making disciples in our local church as commanded then we might as well let it fly. The mods can clean it up if need be and it makes for fun reading.

 

Some have tolerated preterists/ism for so many months now, they are actually confused about it's validity.

 

Wake up folks, in order to accept preterism you have to believe you are currently living in Christ's 1000 year earthly kingdom. What is the prOBlem here? That premise alone is the red flag, dead-giveaway that the entire idea is devilish poppycock.

 

Coventanter can paste every page from the internet and books (not Bible) he learned this from but it will not change that basic premise.

 

It is not my place to say whether a man is saved or not. But we are to know them by their fruits and there is some stinky fruit in this preterist nonsense.

[Genevanpreacher]

True, the answers are in Scripture.

 

False, on put 6 believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. Zero would come up with preterism. That is man made only and OBscure as an understatement.

 

I have said it before and will again. I have been a member of more Bible believing churches in more places on this planet than anyone I have ever heard of and I have never heard a peep of this heresy until this forum.

 

I think some folks spend way too much time on the internet where you can read of any whacked out idea in the world. Because it is on the internet spouted out by two or three muttenheads doesn't make it anywhere near legitimate.

 

Yaw can keep tolerating this bunk if you want to, I won't. I will yell nay every time I see it

 

I disagree.

 

Put 6 believers in a room with NO seminary teaching and you would come up with partial preterism.

Because it takes men with the ability to 'come up with a good story' to create a two bride system of God's gospel.

And that is a false doctrine. God wants man to not be unequally yoked, and he does not unequally yoke himself either.

Two brides equals 2 gospels, and there is/are not two.

 

What I 'think' I know was not taught me by any man, but just by reading, and studying the Bible for 27 years.

 

I am a saved baptized believer in Jesus Christ, and I have followed him for those 27 years, to the best of my ability

to keep my eyes upon his working in my life, in all areas. And some 'little' man who has seminary teachings, accepted

by all the 'great' teachers, Baptist or not, isn't/can't/won't derail me into believing a perverted gospel of God lifting a 'race'

of 'chosen' people above the converted people of God, no matter what 'race'.

 

I wish those who believe this, that God has a people called 'Israel', that are so special to him that he will wait for another time, after Christians,

[his TRUE chosen people], are gone, to bless them with some promise of a future 'paradise' by placing them in 'their own land', would look at it

one more time. Being so imbibed with the present 'false teaching' view of this two bride system of belief, there almost is no hope of them actually

seeing it till it is too late.

 

So a temple is on the brink of being built.

So there are a people that call themselves 'Jews', [but aren't.]

So what, some people call themselves IFB.

Where does this all end?

 

No where.

 

I'll stick with scripture, you can stick with the 'properly educated ministers produced by the seminaries of the world'.

[Steve Schwenke]

I disagree.

 

Put 6 believers in a room with NO seminary teaching and you would come up with partial preterism.

Because it takes men with the ability to 'come up with a good story' to create a two bride system of God's gospel.

And that is a false doctrine. God wants man to not be unequally yoked, and he does not unequally yoke himself either.

Two brides equals 2 gospels, and there is/are not two.

 

What I 'think' I know was not taught me by any man, but just by reading, and studying the Bible for 27 years.

 

I am a saved baptized believer in Jesus Christ, and I have followed him for those 27 years, to the best of my ability

to keep my eyes upon his working in my life, in all areas. And some 'little' man who has seminary teachings, accepted

by all the 'great' teachers, Baptist or not, isn't/can't/won't derail me into believing a perverted gospel of God lifting a 'race'

of 'chosen' people above the converted people of God, no matter what 'race'.

 

I wish those who believe this, that God has a people called 'Israel', that are so special to him that he will wait for another time, after Christians,

[his TRUE chosen people], are gone, to bless them with some promise of a future 'paradise' by placing them in 'their own land', would look at it

one more time. Being so imbibed with the present 'false teaching' view of this two bride system of belief, there almost is no hope of them actually

seeing it till it is too late.

 

So a temple is on the brink of being built.

So there are a people that call themselves 'Jews', [but aren't.]

So what, some people call themselves IFB.

Where does this all end?

 

No where.

 

I'll stick with scripture, you can stick with the 'properly educated ministers produced by the seminaries of the world'.

Case in point.

1.  In order for anyone to come to the preterist or partial-preterist position, they must have a working knowledge of extra-biblical history, that is history that is not recorded in Scripture.  

The account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is NOT recorded in Scripture - MAN HAS TO TELL US THAT.  The preterist position READS extra-biblical historical events into Scripture (i.e. private interpretation) and declares those prophecies fulfilled.

 

2.  God raising up a nation of people called Israel, and putting them in GOD's Land is in the Bible, so I don't know what your fuss is about that.  It is as plain as the nose on your face.  The OT is filled with prophetic utterances from Deuteronomy to Malachi about such things.  The fact that these prophecies about ISRAEL being in their Land (GOD's LAND), is OBviously a future prophecy to be fulfilled.  I know this because even the LATE prophets prophesied this, AFTER Israel had been there for over 1,000 years.  

 

3.  ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED - physically from the destruction of the Anti-Christ, and spiritually from sin through faith in Christ.  

Hebrews 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

Hebrews 8:6-13 has not yet been fulfilled ENTIRELY.  A careful reading of the passage makes this painfully OBvious.  If it were completely fulfilled, we would have no need of teachers.....but here we are, teaching one another at the express written command of the Apostle Paul!  Therefore, there must be an element of this NT that has not yet been completely fulfilled!

 

PS - my sole appeal has been to the Scriptures, not my "education."  

PPS - I have not been to seminary.

PPSS - I just read my Bible and study it.  I have very little time to do more than that right now.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

We need a night guard. This is ridiculous.

[John81]

True, the answers are in Scripture.

 

False, on put 6 believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. Zero would come up with preterism. That is man made only and OBscure as an understatement.

 

I have said it before and will again. I have been a member of more Bible believing churches in more places on this planet than anyone I have ever heard of and I have never heard a peep of this heresy until this forum.

 

I think some folks spend way too much time on the internet where you can read of any whacked out idea in the world. Because it is on the internet spouted out by two or three muttenheads doesn't make it anywhere near legitimate.

 

Yaw can keep tolerating this bunk if you want to, I won't. I will yell nay every time I see it

I didn't say anything about putting six believers in a room with Scripture and no influence. We all have some influence, even if it's minimal, whether right or wrong. Sunday school is man made yet most of our churches have such.

 

Yet the fact does remain, every idea out there regarding the meaning of biblical prophecy had it's beginning in how someone understood a certain verse or passage of Scripture. No doubt some were heavily influenced with some preconceived ideas or previous teachings, but right or wrong, they see the view they hold to as being scriptural. Sit down a pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib Christian and each will turn to Scripture to support their view and refute the others.

 

For any of us to simply say "my view is right because I get it from Scripture" isn't going to carry any weight with those holding a different view for they say the same thing. No doubt, each view can't be right.

 

Those with an open mind and a heart set upon knowing the truth will consider other views based upon Scripture and they will search the Scriptures regarding their view to see if it holds up. Then hopefully they will heed the leading of the Holy Ghost and adjust their view or hold more firmly to their view accordingly.

 

For those who have set their minds upon the view they hold being the Bible view (whether they are right or wrong), there is no point in arguing, debating or attempting to discuss the matter with them. They are set upon their view and uninterested in anything else.

 

Prior to the World Wars it was common among many Christians to believe in the view that Christians were going to make the world better until one day the world was so good Christ would return. After those wars that view was mostly cast aside. However, in recent years that view is once again on the rise. The core adherents to this view are not worth the time to address because their minds are set on that view and they will contemplate nothing else.

 

Christians read the Scripture and some determine all use of alcoholic drinks are forbidden while others determine drinking a little is okay. Some see nothing wrong with a Christian smoking a cigar while others see smoking as sin.

 

This is nothing new. Christians have been viewing Scripture differently from the beginning. Even Paul dealt with this as he had to tell the Corinthian Christians they were wrongly understanding and applying Christian liberty in not only accepting but praising an illicit relationship between a man and his step-mother.

 

This is why God appointed certain men to be preachers and teachers of the Word and why He gave us the Holy Ghost to help us.

[Steve Schwenke]

 

 

Christians read the Scripture and some determine all use of alcoholic drinks are forbidden while others determine drinking a little is okay. Some see nothing wrong with a Christian smoking a cigar while others see smoking as sin.

 

This is nothing new. Christians have been viewing Scripture differently from the beginning. Even Paul dealt with this as he had to tell the Corinthian Christians they were wrongly understanding and applying Christian liberty in not only accepting but praising an illicit relationship between a man and his step-mother.

John, I agree with what you are saying.  However, I respectfully disagree when you compare issues of doctrine to issues of liberty.  I believe this is an "apples/oranges" argument.  They are not the same thing.  There is room for charitable disagreement on liberty, but not on doctrine.  The NT is filled with warnings about false teachers and false doctrine.  I do not believe it to be appropriate to say that since there are differences in liberty that therefore we should accept differences on doctrine.  

 

I will say that allowing for minor differences on the nuances of dispensationalism gives us room to have good, sound, rational discussions to help everyone grow.  But that is a far cry from saying that we should just accept those who are teaching a completely different method of interpretation.  As Geneva noted, it affects the interpretation of every doctrine, and the application of Scripture.  

 

In Christ,

[Covenanter]

John, I agree with what you are saying.  However, I respectfully disagree when you compare issues of doctrine to issues of liberty.  I believe this is an "apples/oranges" argument.  They are not the same thing.  There is room for charitable disagreement on liberty, but not on doctrine.  The NT is filled with warnings about false teachers and false doctrine.  I do not believe it to be appropriate to say that since there are differences in liberty that therefore we should accept differences on doctrine.  

 

I will say that allowing for minor differences on the nuances of dispensationalism gives us room to have good, sound, rational discussions to help everyone grow.  But that is a far cry from saying that we should just accept those who are teaching a completely different method of interpretation.  As Geneva noted, it affects the interpretation of every doctrine, and the application of Scripture.  

 

In Christ,

Paul was writing Scripture - before NT Scripture was complete. Before his letters, they only had the preached word & the OT prOBably only as read in the synagogues. We now have the complete Scripture, with the OT explained by the NT writers. 

 

How much liberty do we have for INTERPRETATION beyond the writings of the NT? 

 

I maintain that Scripture should be understood, not interpreted, in its historical & grammatical context, with guidance from cross references & Apostolic interpretation. [Yes - Apostolic interpretation, which does not give me a licence to interpret Scripture. ] That means understanding the Old Covenant Scriptures in terms of the New Covenant fulfilment - as Hebrews explains.

 

I further maintain that dispensationalism is an interpretation system imposed on Scripture.  

[John81]

John, I agree with what you are saying.  However, I respectfully disagree when you compare issues of doctrine to issues of liberty.  I believe this is an "apples/oranges" argument.  They are not the same thing.  There is room for charitable disagreement on liberty, but not on doctrine.  The NT is filled with warnings about false teachers and false doctrine.  I do not believe it to be appropriate to say that since there are differences in liberty that therefore we should accept differences on doctrine.  

 

I will say that allowing for minor differences on the nuances of dispensationalism gives us room to have good, sound, rational discussions to help everyone grow.  But that is a far cry from saying that we should just accept those who are teaching a completely different method of interpretation.  As Geneva noted, it affects the interpretation of every doctrine, and the application of Scripture.  

 

In Christ,

I apologize if I gave the impression I was comparing issues of doctrine to that of liberty as that was not my intent. My intent was to point out how the Corinthian Christians had misconstrued the doctrine of Christian liberty so badly that they embraced a very sinful relationship as being good (much like some churches today are embracing sinful homosexuality as good under the guise of Christian liberty) and Paul had to correct them on the matter.

 

I would agree that a discussion regarding the Scriptural basis for or against a pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib rapture could be beneficial. That said, one member attempted such and was attacked for not being pre-trib and there can be no discussion under such conditions.

 

While I don't hold to the partial preterist position, in most cases Covenanter has presented his position with Scripture (whether we agree with his extrapolation of Scripture or not) and mostly without attacks and bad attitude. Unfortunately, several on the pre-trib side based many of their responses in the various threads mostly upon personal attacks, jabs and what appeared to be unloving attitudes. Such responses hurt rather than help the pre-trib view.

 

Most recently I attempted to gain a solid understanding upon one particular point in two separate threads. Unfortunately a Mod locked both threads shortly after this, and worst of all, in one thread after DaveW posted a reasoned answer to my question that could have served as the basis to get to the heart of my question but the Mod used some jabs by DaveW in that response as reason to lock the thread so the matter couldn't be pursued.

 

As we are told clearly in Corinthians, even if we are doing or saying what's good and right, if it's not done in love it counts for nothing.

 

Of all that I've heard and read, and I've heard and read more than I can count, on the pre-trib view, that which Pastor David Jeremiah put forth has been the most reasoned biblically I've come upon; and he did so without taking potshots at others. I wish I could personally ask him a couple of questions because I believe he would answer with love and patience and help me understand his answer.

[Genevanpreacher]

Case in point.

1.  In order for anyone to come to the preterist or partial-preterist position, they must have a working knowledge of extra-biblical history, that is history that is not recorded in Scripture.  

The account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is NOT recorded in Scripture - MAN HAS TO TELL US THAT.  The preterist position READS extra-biblical historical events into Scripture (i.e. private interpretation) and declares those prophecies fulfilled. [ I said no 'seminary teaching', not  no history.]

 

2.  God raising up a nation of people called Israel, and putting them in GOD's Land is in the Bible, so I don't know what your fuss is about that.  It is as plain as the nose on your face.  The OT is filled with prophetic utterances from Deuteronomy to Malachi about such things.  The fact that these prophecies about ISRAEL being in their Land (GOD's LAND), is OBviously a future prophecy to be fulfilled.  I know this because even the LATE prophets prophesied this, AFTER Israel had been there for over 1,000 years.  [No. you are wrong. All those promises were broke and curses put on, look at Malachi again. Israel failed.]

 

3.  ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED - physically from the destruction of the Anti-Christ, and spiritually from sin through faith in Christ.  

Hebrews 9:28  So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. [The 2nd time is the return of Christ for us all.]

 

Hebrews 8:6-13 has not yet been fulfilled ENTIRELY.  A careful reading of the passage makes this painfully OBvious.  If it were completely fulfilled, we would have no need of teachers.....but here we are, teaching one another at the express written command of the Apostle Paul!  Therefore, there must be an element of this NT that has not yet been completely fulfilled! [Below is the section you are discussing - you must have misread it...]

 

⁶ But now hath he OBtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

⁷ For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

⁸ For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:[*The covenant sealed with the blood of the cross!]

⁹ Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

¹⁰ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

 [This is OBviously speaking about the Spirit of God that indwells EVERY Believer, {also known as Christians}. Otherwise how can God do this?]

¹¹ And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. [because this is speaking of the fulfillment of the previous verse, and speaking of the 'finished' lives of believers when we are all in the presence of God in his New Heaven and New Earth.]

¹² For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

¹³ In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

 

PS - my sole appeal has been to the Scriptures, not my "education."  [i was not referring to your education, just the brainwashing seminaries] Not that all are corrupt, just most.

PPS - I have not been to seminary. [No, but exposed to the 'common' type teaching that has been taught by men who went to corrupt seminaries.]

PPSS - I just read my Bible and study it.  I have very little time to do more than that right now. [As do most of us.]

[DaveW]

We have had SDA guys come on here from time to time pushing their interpretation of the Bible.
They sincerely believe their interpretation is right.
That doesn't make them right, no matter how sincere their belief.

And they get banned here very quickly, despite there not being opportunity to discuss their difference of interpretation - because everyone knows their interpretation is wrong, even though they don't or can't see it.

Wrong interpretation is wrong.

[wretched]

The prOBlem is not attitude or a different "view" of anything. It is complete fabrication to relate Revelation to 70AD, the tribulation of the local Christians as THE great tribulation and then to completely mysticise Revelation into a surreal historical record of 70AD.

 

Had Revelation been written currently or even 26 years after these events, the step by step, day by day, blow by blow would be clearly laid out and not prophetically. It was written as a mystery that only those Indwelt can understand by FAITH. Had it been historical, It would not have been written that way. The OT certainly wasn't, the historical records were laid out as such as with the Gospels and the Epistles.

 

We are not in the 1000 year earthly reign of the Lord. The Gospel and us aren't reigning over anything. Satan runs loose now within the entire cultural mindset of the world more than ever.

 

Our work is not done. You can be confused by these protestants with their RCC invented false teachings if you want to but it is a sad state of affairs when we get so confused over care for the poor and lost with care for false teachers. Jesus set that example for us to follow and He was never "understanding" of them.

 

This preterist nonsense is not of God period.