TheSword

I am 23, and about 3/4s done with college with no prospects right now, I am constantly battling the temptation to worry about it. But I simply claim Proverbs 2:5-6 and I keep trusting in the Lord. Having already tried multiple times to sort of "help God out" I have given up trying to find a wife for myself, Definitely don't get caught up trying to manufacture a relationship. God does everything better than we could ever do for ourselves, just look at salvation. It's as hopeless trying to manufacture a marriage in your own strength as it is to get to heaven. 

Trying to decide which one start with is always somewhat of a conundrum. Just like your husband, I intended to do Bibliology in the next section instead of moving on to Christ and the Holy Spirit as most systematic theologies do. Part of where many people fail is in not giving the Bible enough weight and precedence in developing their theologies and as a result they always end up with an inferior product. I think that is exactly why UM and John91 expressed their concerns over it above. Part of the fundamental aspect of what is missing from most systematic theologies I have seen is the lack of due attention and reverence given to the Bibliology up front to establish it as the sole source of divine truth.
I would like everyone to rest assured that will not be the case in my work. A major part of the fundamental perspective is the inspiration, inerrancy, preservation, and reliability of the Bible and it is one of my foremost concerns for this endeavor.

Yeah, it's the reason there is a dearth of fundamental literature in general. Truly, it's kind of a great problem to have because it means people are wholly given to the work of God. Right now I am not engaged in full-time ministry and so this will be my main project until I get established in a ministry in my new church and then I suppose will become my "leisure" activity.
Agreed. I think I will actually address this thoroughly in both Theology Proper and Soteriology (salvation) when it comes time to work through the whole Calvinism thing.
Haha, I certainly appreciate your cooperation.

Consider the table of contents in the book, "A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine" by Thomas Paul Simmons.

Trying to decide which one start with is always somewhat of a conundrum. Just like your husband, I intended to do Bibliology in the next section instead of moving on to Christ and the Holy Spirit as most systematic theologies do. Part of where many people fail is in not giving the Bible enough weight and precedence in developing their theologies and as a result they always end up with an inferior product. I think that is exactly why UM and John91 expressed their concerns over it above. Part of the fundamental aspect of what is missing from most systematic theologies I have seen is the lack of due attention and reverence given to the Bibliology up front to establish it as the sole source of divine truth.
I would like everyone to rest assured that will not be the case in my work. A major part of the fundamental perspective is the inspiration, inerrancy, preservation, and reliability of the Bible and it is one of my foremost concerns for this endeavor.

I see this as a very important point. Stick to what Scripture actually deals with and says, not speculations of what we (or others) might think certain things may mean or not.
One of the main problems with many Christian writings along the lines proposed is the constant interjection of the authors speculations and guesses. Even worse when the author puts forth the speculations and guesses of those he disagrees with and then proceeds to offer his own speculations and guesses as an alternative.
Recently I began reading an article online in which the author began by stating his intent to only speak what Scripture actually says with no outside input. Yet a few paragraphs in he began pointing out problems with some others speculations and then, rather than simply pointing out what Scripture actually says on the matter and leaving it at that, he writes a couple of paragraphs offering his own speculations and ends that section by saying his speculations must be right but with not a bit of Scripture to even attempt to back up that claim.
I didn't finish reading the article as the author lost credibility just that quick.
The point being, I highly recommend following the idea of allowing the Bible to speak for itself and leaving out extra-biblical commentary.

I 100% agree with this and it is my intent. What I mean by incorporating philosophy into it would be taking the biblical claims about God to their logical ends to extrapolate and explain how those qualities and facts affect both our relation to Him and how it relates to other doctrines. Additionally, when building a systematic theology from the bottom-up, there must be some amount of reasoning for things such as the existence of God, otherwise it will be circular reasoning. Rest assured that it will be minimal and still supported by biblical evidence and principle on every point.
 

Given the lack of a reliable systematic theology from a fundamental perspective (of which has come up several times on this forum as well), largely because the people who are capable of writing one are wholly engaged in other ministry or are unwilling to commit themselves to do so, I've decided to explore undertaking the task to write one. It's sure to be an extremely long (years if not decades) and arduous process.
I'm of the mind that a good systematic theology should start with Theology Proper (Doctrine of God). Unfortunately it's probably my least favorite one to develop, but it is critical for a foundation. My purpose for this post is to canvas you here on OB for what elements you believe is important to cover in developing this doctrine (e.g. existence of God, attributes of God, etc). Even if I disagree on something, I welcome your contributions!
***If you are of the mind that one should not read/write books or that developing a coherent theology is a waste of time, I do not want or need your input. Please do not comment on this thread if you're not going to contribute to the above stated goal of this discussion***

Given the lack of a reliable systematic theology from a fundamental perspective (of which has come up several times on this forum as well), largely because the people who are capable of writing one are wholly engaged in other ministry or are unwilling to commit themselves to do so, I've decided to explore undertaking the task to write one. It's sure to be an extremely long (years if not decades) and arduous process.
I'm of the mind that a good systematic theology should start with Theology Proper (Doctrine of God). Unfortunately it's probably my least favorite one to develop, but it is critical for a foundation. My purpose for this post is to canvas you here on OB for what elements you believe is important to cover in developing this doctrine (e.g. existence of God, attributes of God, etc). Even if I disagree on something, I welcome your contributions!
***If you are of the mind that one should not read/write books or that developing a coherent theology is a waste of time, I do not want or need your input. Please do not comment on this thread if you're not going to contribute to the above stated goal of this discussion***

October 06, 2015
William Tyndale and The English Bible
If you read the Bible in English, you owe a debt of gratitude to William Tyndale. Today marks the anniversary of Tyndale’s execution at the stake for the “crime” of translating the Bible into English:
The “father of the English Bible” was apparently born in a hamlet near the Welsh border about 1490. He arrived at Oxford with a gift for languages and began studying the writings of the greatest linguist in the world, Erasmus. He poured over Erasmus’ Greek New Testament and other writings, and he soon began lecturing from them. The Bible was still virtually unavailable in English, and an idea formed in William Tyndale’s mind.
He began proclaiming the value of pure Scripture and of the need to translate it. He was threatened and opposed. “We are better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s,” one man said, voice rising. Tyndale’s reply is among the most famous in church history: “If God spares me, ere many years I will cause a boy that drives the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you do.”
He approached the Bishop of London for help in rendering the Bible into English, but was rebuffed. Tyndale nevertheless began working on his project. Finding his life in danger, he fled to the Continent. There he continued translating, smuggling copies of Matthew and Mark back into London. Spies combed Europe for him, and Tyndale played a cloak and dagger game, hiding and running, translating and smuggling. By 1525 complete copies of the New Testament were being secretly read in England.
On May 21, 1535 Tyndale was betrayed and seized. He languished in a miserable prison cell. His witness there converted the jailer and his family. On October 6, 1536 he was tied to the stake outside of Brussels, strangled, and burned. He was 42.

Tyndale’s final words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” That prayer had already been answered, for King Henry VIII had approved of a new English Bible by Miles Coverdale, Tyndale’s friend. Henry never realized that Coverdale’s Bible was nearly 70 percent Tyndale’s work. In 1604 James I approved a new translation of the Bible into English, and Tyndale’s work became the basis of 90 percent of the King James Version.

No, ALL things are, indeed, possible to him that believeth. However, that does not, ipso-facto, mean it will all happen to meet your will. It is STILL God's will that will come to pass when we pray for it.  
 When my dad recently passed away, my brother and his family solidly believed that God would grow my father's leg back after it was removed. Dad's leg didn't grow back.  I believed God can do anything and prayed for God's will to be done, and my dad p[assed away peacefully, never regaining consciousness or having to experience the pain of the loss of his leg.  I believe God could have grown my dad's leg back, had He chose, but I just don't believe that was God's will-it was his will to take my dad home.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to... belief? Nope it's repentance. 
Repentance is a part of salvation. 

Biblical repentance isn't a turning from sin(s) per se, it's a turning away from a life against God to a life of believing and following God. Biblical repentance is about turning from doing things our own way to accepting Christ as Saviour and Lord.
In so doing there is a repentance of sin but it's not turning from specific sins such as gossip or adultery that saves; it's the repentance of turning from self to God and accepting His free gift of salvation that sets us in right standing with the Lord.

You know, Matt, given your comments in that other thread about salvation and these comments here now, it really does look like you're doing your uttermost to interpret folks' understanding of salvation on here as some kind of works salvation. I worry I'm overly jumpy when it comes to people trying to outline their beliefs about salvation--you seem to take it to another level.
Firstly, here's what the board's statement really says:
In blue is a section you hacked out of your quote. I don't see anything in this quote that could be interpreted as man having to stop committing sins in order to be saved. Do you mean something else when you say "quitting bad"?
Secondly, if you think a statement is unclear or you question its meaning, why not begin by politely asking for an explanation, instead of telling the author what they are saying in bold font?
And lastly, why do you want to be on an web forum where you find yourself challenging the mods to throw you off? Doesn't that suggest you consider yourself to be strongly at odds with everyone here, or at least the admin? If I thought I was enemy no.1 on a forum, I'd decide whether to change my behaviour in order to stay or else leave by myself.

Same here, I do enjoy the discussion. Although, I think we've strayed from the topic. To continue, perhaps it should be moved to its own thread or debate forum. I don't like derailing a thread and splitting into to topics. It makes things hard to follow.
I once read a book from Zondervan's Counterpoints series called The Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation that was a fascinating reading. Each author gives arguments for their position and are responded to by the other two in turn. The issue is such that there is a lot of wiggle room in interpretation, and I think that's probably intentional. Prophecy is always much clearer looking back on its fulfillment than it is trying to discern it beforehand. I imagine when it happens we'll all look back with amazement at how we missed the obvious. For my part, the only one I've completely ruled out is the post-trib position as indicated in the paper I sent you a while back. I haven't seen enough to completely rule out pre-wrath, though I do still strongly lean pre-trib because it makes so much more sense to me in the grand scheme of things.

Something they like to omit from the narrative is that fossilization, especially in a marine environment, requires rapid burial. I never see anyone try to explain how a whale was buried at all, much less rapidly, since they float upon death, without something like a catastrophic flood. It's laughable how many facts have to be ignored to make the evolution story work.

Something they like to omit from the narrative is that fossilization, especially in a marine environment, requires rapid burial. I never see anyone try to explain how a whale was buried at all, much less rapidly, since they float upon death, without something like a catastrophic flood. It's laughable how many facts have to be ignored to make the evolution story work.

In that case, I get to be Captain American and I want my shield back! They have no right to withhold my property!

A whale fossil was discovered on a mountain in California on September 4...
The fact that a whale fossil was found on a mountain isn't necessarily the focus of the article; they focus on HOW it got there. The article opens by explaining how it got there, and it closes by (once again) explaining how it got there.
Link to article --> Evolutionary article that spins one whale of a tale!
This makes much more sense to me and is a better explanation...
Genesis 7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
 

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/this-gender-confused-boy-is-being-poisoned-and-abused-and-were-all-applauding/
So, why isn't this illegal? If mom got him a tattoo, she would go to jail. If she gave him booze, she would go to jail. Cigarettes? Jail. Estrogen Patches? HERO MOM!
When will they tire of denying basic humanity? If you doubt the climate is changing and its man's fault, you're a Climate Change Denier, even if there is plenty of evidence behind you. If you are a Creationist, you are lambasted as a Science Denier, even though neither can be fully proven out and there is more evidence for creation than evolution.  BUT, if you deny the reality of the DNA in your body which marks you as male or female, THEN you are applauded as a free-thinker and compassionate and 'just being yourself', and they give you press and maybe a reality show! DNA DENIERS is what they are-far more solid science behind the facts of the DNA than Evolution or (man-made) Climate Change, but THAT reality is to be dismissed for the sake of the mentally ill not feeling bad for wanting to be something they clearly are not.
When I was 11, I wanted to be Batman. Maybe I really AM Batman and have been denying the inner Batman all these years because stupid society deems it unreal. Well, maybe its time I put on the cape and cowl and demand respect for who I really am: I am the NIGHT! I am BATMAN! because I WANT to be!

Again, on what basis are you making this claim? If you figuratively interpret "body" in Eph 4, then in order to be consistent you must also interpret "Spirit", "hope", "Lord", "faith", "baptism", "God", and "Father" in a non-literal way.
You cannot read the understanding of congregation or assembly (ekklesia) into the meaning of body (soma) because it does not fit within the semantic range and is never used in that sense. We may use "body "to describe an assembly in modern English, but 1st century Greek-speakers did not. This word refers to a physical mass and almost always associated with the corporeal tissue of a human, animal, or plant. In the rare instances it does reference a non-physical body, it is always used to reference a heavenly body, thereby rendering an earthly congregation/assembly invalid. This is what I meant in my earlier post by anachronism.
Yes, Ephesians is about unity, but there is no reason to restrict its meaning and applicability to a single local body. Additionally, if your interpretation is correct, it conflicts with Rom 12:4-5:
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Since, at this point, Paul had never been to Rome and was certainly not a part of the church there (he was baptized in Damascus if you recall), he cannot be including himself in anything but a universal body.
As mentioned above, you cannot make this assumption based on the text. You have to bring in outside pre-understandings to make that work.

As a pre-tribber, though probably not an expert, I'll address it...
When you look at Rev 14:14-20, there are two possibilities:
1) The reaping in v. 16 is different from the reaping in v. 19. - If this is the case, you might be correct that it refers to the Rapture, though you would be hard-pressed to exegetically support a hard distinction between subject and purpose of the two reapings in context because nothing is ever done with whatever is reaped in v. 16.
2) The passage describes only one reaping - If this is the case, it most certainly cannot describe the Rapture of true believers because they who are reaped are thrown into the winepress of God's wrath (v. 19). This would conflict with 1 Thess 5:9, which I believe we agree says that Christians will not partake of God's wrath.
I lean towards option 2 because it fits the natural flow of thought better. The reaping in v. 16 does not specify anything beyond harvesting the vine. Indeed, the word it's translated from (therizo) can be taken to include gathering of what is harvested and storing it, but it is not a necessary component of the word. Rather, it is specific to mean cutting down of the vine/tree/branch. Even the English word "reap" is definitely a cutting down and non-gathering activity when applied to an agricultural context. In contrast, the "gathering" in v. 19 speaks of no reaping, but rather of gathering the crop and transporting it to the winepress. Additionally, the angel with the sharp sickle is merely cutting the grapes off the vine and not cutting down the vine. What I believe we see here is Jesus cutting down the vine (reaping) and the angel gathering the grapes from the vine for the wrath of the winepress. Finally, there is nothing contextually to demand that believers are in view for vv. 14-20. It is a distinct and separate segment of thought from the believers in vv. 12-13.
Based on all of that, I do not view Rev 14:14-20 as a description of the Rapture.

Brethren,
I just finished watching the movie that Matthew 24 posted. The one hour and 53 miniutes of the movie was actually one hour and 53 minutes listening to the hereitic Steven Anderson lambasting those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.
The movie is not a movie; it is a series of sermons and  lectures by Pastor Steven Anderson and his co-host Pastor Roger Jimenez. On occasion, they have Brother Kent Hovind. What respect that I had for Kent Hovind is totally gone. I feel sorry for Kent. 
Also I listened to the anti-Semitic rant of Pastor Anderson on another audio clip that is on his website. Pastor Anderson is anti-semitic to the core.
The lecture / movie is a series of twisted logic and interpretation derived from Matthew 24 and Revelation. Andersons interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 is also pathetic and a waste of time.
During the entire video he completely ignores all of the Old Testament references to the time of, "Jacob's Trouble," or, "The 7 year Tribulation period," and totally ignores the promises of God pertaining to the Jews in the time of, "Jacob's trouble." Also, it is very obvious that Pastor Anderson believes in, "Replacement theology," and that the nation of Israel in not, I repeat, not the "elect," nor or ever will be.
Although Anderson slanders Darby and Scofield, he praises Luther and Calvin. "Birds of a feather flock together."
His hatred, yes hatred, of the pre-tribulation rapture is evident throughout the entire video.
Besides making snide remarks, slandering, and belittling those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture here are a few choice words that he gave to those brethren who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture:
1. Anderson says the pre-tribulation rapture is a False Doctrine.
2. Based on Tradition (Darby and Scofield). Not on the Bible.
3. The pre-tribulation rapture is, and I quote Andersons own words "A fairy tale."
4. Anderson plainly says that those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture "Do not believe the Bible."
5. Anderson plainly says that those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture "Have no heart for God."
6. Anderson plainly says that those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture "Are brainwashed."
Also, Anderson plainly states that those mistaken brethren who believe in the pre-tribulation rapture are comparable to the Muslims, Buddhists, the Dali lama, and the Jews. In fact, Anderson says that those who believe in the pre-tribulation rapture will receive the anti-Christ as Jesus coming again.
In my estimation Pastor Anderson is anti-Semitic, cannot rightly divide the scriptures, a false teacher, and is causing harm to the independent Baptist fundamental movement.
Alan
 
 

The OP stand is that of pre wrath it appears from his little chart. The chart shows a 3.5 year Rapture.
Sadly all the research and eloquence in the world won't erase the simple facts of Matthew 24 and repeated in Luke:
    36, But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
    37, But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    38, For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
    39, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
    40, Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    41, Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
    42, Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
    43, But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
    44, Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
All saved will know when the Great Tribulation begins and would certainly know the Seals so any thoughts of a rapture mid or post is just not "how can I say kindly" intelligent.
I don't care what big shot wrote what book. The big shots should be serving God in their local church. It just may be them who are supposed to lead the last few to the Lord before any of this will occur anyway and what are they doing? This?

Okay, let's try this ONE LAST TIME.
You want to fellowship, discuss, etc? Start in the intro area and give your testimony of salvation.
I think there is probably a discussion on this that's not locked (if you want to comment on it [after reading it] and can't find it, ask and someone can probably find it for you).
You want to come right out of the blocks with "setting everyone straight", your stay is extremely limited in time. Got it?
 
Is this in retaliation to a pre-wrath position? Nope, it will be the consequences of your approach and attitude if you persist. BTW, FWIW -- one of our mods is pre-wrath (be sure to mention that if you get banned and decide to tirade elsewhere about your treatment here.)