Comment On Current Debate

[Genevanpreacher]

Rubbish. Our beliefs are justified by Scripture, certainly NOT by Jesuit writings. I've never read any Jesuit writings, and I doubt if anyone on the forum has. 

RC's are not 100% wrong in their basic doctrine, so teaching partial Preterism does not make that doctrine wrong. Likewise futurism, baptism of converts, the Trinity, virgin birth, heaven, etc. 

Doctrines must be tested by Scripture, NOT by who taught them. 

Amen Ian.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Doctrines must be tested by Scripture, NOT by who taught them. 

​Brother Day and I are strongly in agreement on this point.  If indeed a doctrine, as tested by Scripture, is found to be Biblically true, then its origin is in the Lord our God Himself, not in any individual or group who may have taught or popularized that particular doctrine.

[Invicta]

​I have never studied Preterism nor Catholicism, yet I arrived at my conclusion using a KJB for 20+ years before I started with the Bible I use now, the Geneva. I only attended one Independent Baptist Church, the one I got saved at, and my pastor never taught Partial nor full Preterism.  I understand the Bible and read it and study it, without using any mans teaching, and have 'come up' with what I now believe, what I call 'partial preterism'.

[And just to share some info - what Covenanter and I believe is almost identical with what the fellas who translated my bible wrote in the gloss of my 1560. Almost verbatim  - 455 years ago - in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 - and Daniel 9.]

 

So what happened? Where did I go wrong.

​I agree with Covenanter on Dan 9, Matt 24, ark 13, and Luke 21 but I am not a preterist.  

The KJV translators believed that the pope is the Antichrist, I believe the Geneva translators also did.  Certainly the earlier English translators also did, as did the early French and German translators.

[Genevanpreacher]

​I agree with Covenanter on Dan 9, Matt 24, ark 13, and Luke 21 but I am not a preterist.  

The KJV translators believed that the pope is the Antichrist, I believe the Geneva translators also did.  Certainly the earlier English translators also did, as did the early French and German translators.

​And I am not a Preterist also. Just a born again Baptist brother.

As for the anti-christ being in the view of the translators the Pope, yes there are notes that say that. But he was anti-christ, as John even said back then, there are many anti-christs. 

The Pope is still anti-christ.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Invicta]

​Brother Day and I are strongly in agreement on this point.  If indeed a doctrine, as tested by Scripture, is found to be Biblically true, then its origin is in the Lord our God Himself, not in any individual or group who may have taught or popularized that particular doctrine.

​The trouble is people have a doctrine and then try to find scriptures to agree with it.

[Invicta]

The basic premise of a literal interpretation is that we understand it literally unless there is indication in the language that it is not to be taken literally, or information that indicates it is not literal.

In the instance of the 70 weeks, when we look for relevant reference to the 70 weeks in the Bible, we find none that link with 70 literal weeks of days.

In investigating further, we find that the word used to indicate weeks in the Hebrew is very much akin to the english word "dozen" which relates to the number of things, not the things themselves.

So we look to see if any other multiple of seven timespans fits with the record.

"Months" doesn't work either.

"Years" as a timespan in multiples of seven, does work.

This can be figured out without reference to the Hebrew word, but the Hebrew supports the understanding of weeks of years, not weeks of days.

Smarter men than I have done the calculations, and indeed there were seven weeks of years from the command to the rebuilding, thereby setting the reference as weeks of years.

 

​The trouble with this teaching is that it leaves whether a passage is literal or not to the vagaries of human imagination.

 

[DaveW]

​The trouble with this teaching is that it leaves whether a passage is literal or not to the vagaries of human imagination.

 

No it doesn't - it is literal unless it tells you it isn't.

There is no guesswork.

When Jesus says "I am the vine, ye are the branches" there is no guessing whether it is literal or illustration.

The Bible is clear on this point - in the example of the 70 weeks it is obvious that it is not 70 weeks of days as the Biblical record simply doesn't work with 70 weeks of days.

If you investigate the Biblical record you find that 70 weeks of years fit perfectly. No guesswork.

To interpret the Bible any way other than literally unless it indicates otherwise is to leave it to guesswork.

The Bible tells you when it is not literal.

[Invicta]

No it doesn't - it is literal unless it tells you it isn't.

There is no guesswork.

When Jesus says "I am the vine, ye are the branches" there is no guessing whether it is literal or illustration.

The Bible is clear on this point - in the example of the 70 weeks it is obvious that it is not 70 weeks of days as the Biblical record simply doesn't work with 70 weeks of days.

If you investigate the Biblical record you find that 70 weeks of years fit perfectly. No guesswork.

To interpret the Bible any way other than literally unless it indicates otherwise is to leave it to guesswork.

The Bible tells you when it is not  literal.

​I wasn't disagreeing with the interpretation of the 70 weeks.  Just the general idea.  There are, of course, some who say that all prophecy is literal.  You don't interpret prophecy, you just read it.  one such group is SGAT, They say that the 70th week is still future, which of coursed is an interpretation, not literal.  

Edited May 3, 2015 by Invicta

[DaveW]

I've got no idea what SGAT is but I certainly believe that every part of the Bible it taken literally unless there is clear biblical indication otherwise.

It is not enough just think "well that's impossible so it must imagery".

It is not possible for a man to rise from the dead, but Jesus raised from the dead in a literal, physical body.

The text must in some way indicate it is a picture, illustration, or likeness, or it is to be taken literally.

[Invicta]

SGAT  =  Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony.  They follow B W Newton and a man called Tregelles. 

[DaveW]

SGAT  =  Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony.  They follow B W Newton and a man called Tregelles. 

Sovereign grace?

No chance of me being Aligned with that false doctrine.

Advent?

No chance of me being aligned with that false mob (assuming it indicates some form of SDA rubbish).

But just because a group such as these preaches it does not make it wrong.

Plainly, the only reasonable way to view the Bible is literally unless it plainly indicates otherwise.

Any other way just means that you make up a meaning you like.

The Bible means what it says and says what it means - including telling us by various mechanisms when it is using pictures or illustrations.

[Alimantado]

​The trouble with this teaching is that it leaves whether a passage is literal or not to the vagaries of human imagination.

​I wasn't disagreeing with the interpretation of the 70 weeks.  Just the general idea.

​Whether or not its sound, Dave's obviously presenting a systematic method, not some 'vagary'. Or if you insist the method/teaching is that, why not show how it is? Or was that just another fly-by assertion, Invicta?

See you in a few weeks when you drop in with three or four more unexplained and unhelpful one-liners...

[Invicta]

OK, perhaps you could tell me which of the parables of Jesus were figurative and which were not?

[Covenanter]

I've got no idea what SGAT is but I certainly believe that every part of the Bible it taken literally unless there is clear biblical indication otherwise.

It is not enough just think "well that's impossible so it must imagery".

It is not possible for a man to rise from the dead, but Jesus raised from the dead in a literal, physical body.

The text must in some way indicate it is a picture, illustration, or likeness, or it is to be taken literally.

I did encounter SGAT 50 years ago when I joined a church where a group had moved from a Baptist church that joined the ecumenical movement. They were very much into newspaper fulfilment of prophecy. 

As for figurative interpretation, we should be guided by the NT writers who sometimes use clear literal accounts in a surprising way. Gal. 4:21-31  1 Cor. 10:1-12. 

Some promises to Israel are applied to the church Exo. 19:5-6. 1 Peter 2:9 Is that application or fulfilment? Is Peter allegorising? Is that "replacement theology" or are God's promises fulfilled in Christ to all believers?

 

[Alimantado]

OK, perhaps you could tell me which of the parables of Jesus were figurative and which were not?

​Tell you what, if you express clearly what that question has to do with your points or my points, then I'll try to answer that.