Why there is confusion on “End Times” among Baptist.

[John Young]

2 hours ago, Jerry said:

talking about making angels mean pastors throughout the rest of the book?

What I am saying is that it is an example of substitution theology. The book is clear that it is speaking of angels throughout. Yet the word "pastors" fit the person's theology better so it is substituted. Such substitutions are not in the text yet it is made to fit through through sheer will of the teacher and, statement as if a fact. Sure there is attempt made at justification through reasoning and allusion to messengers being the general meaning of the word angels so ergo it must be pastors, yet it is substitution nonetheless, which breaks the picture scripture is making in the use of Angels in each stage. 7 church angles, 7 trumpeting angels, 7 pouring angels. 

That's not to say there is no justification for substitution imagery if scripture makes it in the process of symbolism and allegory which it clearly does in other instances. Yet it needs contextual basis and not mere assertion due to the fact what is clearly presented is inconvenient for the teacher.

Edited September 29, 2023 by John Young

[Jerry]

Some particular encounters of angels are the Angel of the Lord (in the OT) - which is sometimes (or most of the time) Christ. In Revelation, I believe there is at least one reference to an angel which is Christ (based on the description and what that angel does and the timing of the event - ch 10 fits Christ having the book given Him in chapter 5, and landing on the earth, reclaiming the earth at the end of the seven year tribulation period).

If at least one reference to an angel in Revelation is not a physical angel (but Jesus), then why couldn’t chapters 1-3 be something other than a literal angel? Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 uses the Greek word for angel to refer to John the Baptist. Luke 7:24 and 9:52 and James 2:25 refer to human messengers. So there are definitely examples of that word referring to non-angelic messengers (ie. humans).

[SureWord]

3 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Some particular encounters of angels are the Angel of the Lord (in the OT) - which is sometimes (or most of the time) Christ. In Revelation, I believe there is at least one reference to an angel which is Christ (based on the description and what that angel does and the timing of the event - ch 10 fits Christ having the book given Him in chapter 5, and landing on the earth, reclaiming the earth at the end of the seven year tribulation period).

If at least one reference to an angel in Revelation is not a physical angel (but Jesus), then why couldn’t chapters 1-3 be something other than a literal angel? Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 uses the Greek word for angel to refer to John the Baptist. Luke 7:24 and 9:52 and James 2:25 refer to human messengers. So there are definitely examples of that word referring to non-angelic messengers (ie. humans).

Who ever refers to a pastor as an angel of a church? These angels are literal angels.

Galatians 3:19- Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Galatians 1:8- But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

[John Young]

12 hours ago, Jerry said:

If at least one reference to an angel in Revelation is not a physical angel (but Jesus), then why couldn’t chapters 1-3 be something other than a literal angel?

As the original example so too are the assumptions and substitutions in regard to the angel of the Lord. "Because it fits" is not sufficient reason. Particularly when Hebrews makes it clear that no angel is a son. There needs to be more than that to build doctrine on. In regards to the angel of the Lord, it is more appropriate to simply consider him the Lord's personal representative angel, as Matthew 28 shows plainly they are not the same.

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Matthew 28:1-5 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: 4 and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. 5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. 6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. 8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Edited September 30, 2023 by John Young

[Jerry]

Unfallen Angels are called sons of God in the Old Testament.

Representive angel? There are many passages where the Angel of the Lord is clearly the pre-incarnate Christ. That is a big area of theological difference!

[John Young]

7 hours ago, Jerry said:

Unfallen Angels are called sons of God in the Old Testament.

These are all examples of substitution by assertion. There is no verse that indicates they were called sons and several that indicate they are never called sons. 
 

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

There are many passages where the Angel of the Lord is clearly the pre-incarnate Christ.

There are only assertions made by teachers. No verse actually shows this and one passage as shown above that clearly shows He is not.

This shows the power of assertion even in light of clear passages to the contrary. And many of us are guilty of it in some way or another because we just assumed it was so. Until we can deal with all the scriptures as they are written, (not just about angels and God's sons) our doctrine will be lacking.
 

[Jerry]

Well, we will have to disagree on these two issues. I agree with the solid fundamentalist preachers and commentators of the past who teach both positions I have stated above. I have been blessed too much by seeing Christ in the OT passages that speak of the Angel of the Lord to let anyone else take them from me.

Genesis 48:15-16
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

Hm, the second person of the Trinity is called the Angel which redeemed me in this passage (referring specifically to the Angel of the Lord that Jacob encountered) - ouch! Guess I believe God’s Word over a new position.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Jerry

[Joe Chandler]

On 9/29/2023 at 9:29 AM, John Young said:

Its the same thing as what the bible says about Stewardship. Here is a good video: 

I think we would all benefit from a definition of terms. Covenant theology is a systematic theology. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology. Systematic theology has a doctrine, build on certain principles that lead a man to interpret the bible according to those principles. Dispensationalism breaks down the world into times or dispensations. Calvinism breaks down the bible by covenants. There appears to be no system to Stewardship and therefore it is not a theology. I listened to the entire video and agree with the idea that we are to be stewards of the mysteries of God. Bro Shifflet does not seem to be advocating for any theology at all. I would further say that any Dispensationalist or Calvinist would agree that we are to be stewards of the mysteries of God, but would interpret that within the confines of their respective systematic theologies. How any of that determines whether the angels in Revelation are actual angels or just messengers I cannot fathom. How stewardship determines whether of not Israel and the church are separate does not make any sense to me at all. Stewardship Theology does not exist as a systematic theology and therefore anybody can claim to be a Stewardship theologist and it means nothing.

[Invicta]

On 9/30/2023 at 3:43 AM, SureWord said:

Who ever refers to a pastor as an angel of a church? These angels are literal angels.

Galatians 3:19- Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Galatians 1:8- But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Do angels preach the gospel? 

[Jerry]

At least one does during the Tribulation period:

Revelation 14:6
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

[Invicta]

The tribulation on the church has been going on from the founding of the church. 

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Invicta

[Jerry]

Where I come from, we call that twisting and explaining away the Bible - or a bait and switch! Yes, the church had always had its share of troubles, but the seven year tribulation period has not happened yet. It is after God raptures the church, turns back to Israel (Daniel 9:24-27 - it is the 7 year peace treaty with Israel that the one-world Antichrist makes and then breaks halfway through, leading to the great tribulation, the last 3 1/2 years - see Daniel 7:25; 12;7; Revelation 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5) - THAT hasn’t happened yet, neither have ANY of the events of Revelation 4 on), and ends with Jesus returning physically to earth (Zechariah 12-14) - that definitely hasn’t happened yet!

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jerry

[Disciple.Luke]

Certain Study Bibles, Charlatan Televangelists, and people too lazy to read the Bible instead "end times" fiction books and movies.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Disciple.Luke

[Invicta]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:00 PM, Jerry said:

Where I come from, we call that twisting and explaining away the Bible - or a bait and switch! Yes, the church had always had its share of troubles, but the seven year tribulation period has not happened yet. It is after God raptures the church, turns back to Israel (Daniel 9:24-27 - it is the 7 year peace treaty with Israel that the one-world Antichrist makes and then breaks halfway through, leading to the great tribulation, the last 3 1/2 years - see Daniel 7:25; 12;7; Revelation 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5) - THAT hasn’t happened yet, neither have ANY of the events of Revelation 4 on), and ends with Jesus returning physically to earth (Zechariah 12-14) - that definitely hasn’t happened yet!

Where does it say the tribulation is seven years?

I think that is adding to scripture. 

[BrotherTony]

6 hours ago, Invicta said:

Where does it say the tribulation is seven years?

I think that is adding to scripture. 

That's a rather inflammatory statement, especially in light of the fact you haven't shown how it's allegedly adding to scripture. Most IFB churches clearly understand that there is a seven year period after the rapture of the church known as the Tribulation.