Results 61 - 78 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183908 | ||
Hi you claim that you received salvation at baptism. It is clearly a different salvation than the one PAUL speaks of, for he said, 'Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1.17). I thank God that I did not baptise anyone except --' (1 Corinthians 1.14). Then He goes on to point out that it is the word of the cross that is the power of God unto salvation. John 3.5 does not mention baptism. That is simply an inference. The reference to water rather has in mind the picture of the coming of the Holy Spirit as rain in Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-4. How can you be assured of eternal life if you can lose it? Eternal life in in fact received by hearing Jesus Christ and truly believing in God through Him (John 5.24). All who have truly received Christ have eternal life (1 John 5.13). Matthew 19.16-17 was spoken to a young man who did not have eternal life and refers to the attitude of heart that he must have in order to enter into it by following Christ. You might better have quoted Matthew 22.34-38. But if that is a requirement for salvation it leaves us all without hope. It is rather an indicating of what the saved should be aiming at. You rightly point out that salvation can be applied in different tenses. But one does not invalidate the other. If I have been saved from stormy seas and am in the lifeboat I have been saved, I am being saved (it has not yet reached the shore), I will be saved (when it reaches harbour). But it does not make my salvation less secure. Notice that it speaks of 'having been saved'. That indicates that the saving is carried out by Someone else, the Saviour. Now a life boat might sink, but the Saviour cannot sink. And if the Saviour has saved me (the aorist indicates once for all) then nothing can prevent that salvation. It is not dependent on me but on the Saviour. Of course the process of salvation goes on and must be revealed in a changed life, but that is the result of my having been saved, not a condition of it. True I have to 'work out' my salvation with greatest care, but in that I am responding to the fact that God is at work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.12-13). HIS WORK of salvation is proceeding according to plan. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure. The Lord knows those who are His. And my being confirmed to the end depends solely on the faithfulness of God (1 Corinthians 1.8-9), He is the One Who saves to the uttermost because it is through His intercession not my weak struggling (Hebrews 7.25). He Who has begun a good work in me will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.6). Jesus Christ is my Saviour not my crutch. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
62 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183906 | ||
Hi, While I can fully agree that Jesus came in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 AD just as He came in power at Pentecost and in what followed I note that no one has mentioned what Luke says. There the position is expressed with total clarity. First the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.21-24. Then the scattering of the Jews as they are led captive among all nations (Luke 21.24). Then the treading down of Jerusalem during the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24). Then the cosmic effects and men fainting for fear at what is to come (Luke 21.25-26). And then the Son of Man will come in power and great glory (Luke 21.27). I fail to see in this how His coming in glory can indicate the destruction of Jerusalem as important events are to take place between them. The 'these things' (which are to happen in that generation) are the indicators of the coming time of redemption, not the time of redemption itself (Luke 21.28), which Jesus did not know (Mark 13.32). They are the leaves that indicate that the Kingly Rule of God is near (Luke 21.29), not the actual coming of the Kingly Rule of God in His coming. There is no question therefore of unfulfilled prophecy. I do not wish to prolong this subject which has been well aired. But it important that we take all Scriptures into account. Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain what you think Luke meant, if he did not mean what he said. All best wishes jonp |
||||||
63 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183870 | ||
Dear Doc. As I was replying to a question put to me about the seal of the Spirit that was what I was emphasising. While the fruit of the Spirit is certainly the result of the Spirit's indwelling it is not in my view directly what the seal of the Spirit has in mind. The seal of the Spirit has in mind security and confidence resulting from Christs work within. I could not agree more that this must result in genuine fruit, as in fact I did mention. But I am conscious also that that fruit often takes time to grow. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4.28). As I am sure you are fully aware it may take time for a person's conversion to become obvious to others. The 'old man' does not release his hold willingly. And some have problems to battle with of which others are unaware. I am reminded of the poem - Judge not. The workings of His mind and of his heart you cannot see. What seems to your dull eyes a stain In God's pure eyes may only be A scar won on some battle field Where you would only faint and yield. That look, that air, that frets your sight May be a token that below That soul is closed in deadly fight With some infernal, fiery foe Whose look would scorch your smiling grace And send you shuddering on your face. As you would no doubt rightly point out. Jesus said, 'Why do you call Me "Lord, Lord" and do not do the things that I say?' (Luke 6.46). 'Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven, but those who do the will of My Father Who is in Heaven' (Matthew 7.21). This too is the RESULT of the seal of the Spirit in the heart. But in my view the seal of the Spirit is first given in the inner heart. 'The firm foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His' although of course it is immediately followed by 'Let every one who names the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity' (2 Timothy 2.19). But even that is initially an awareness of what must be, rather than it immediately having become an actuality in practise (although of course eventually it must be). It is the anointing within that will lead us into truth (1 John 2.20, 27). I am ever aware that the young Christian can begin to feel that he is just not coming up to scratch. He begins to fear that perhaps he has not been 'saved' after all. Thus he needs to be aware of the seal within him that can give him assurance. 'Though I am not what I should be, I thank God that I am not what I was, for I now know that I have Christ within me, and I therefore know what I should be, and that is what I intend to be'. It is God Who will work within him of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). I am sure you will have noted my later stress on the fact that it is 'by their fruits that they will be known'. But those fruits are the sign to men, not the divine seal. I am not quite sure how you gathered from my words that I did not think it was possible to discern the effects of salvation. Eventually it inevitably is, and I thought that I had made that quite clear. But what I stressed was that we are not qualified to judge the genuineness of those effects. We are not infallible judges. In the end we must leave that to the One Who judges rightly (Romans 14.10-13). You may add to your quotes the words of George Whitefield, 'I care not a jot for that man's religion whose very dog and cat are not the better for it'. But it may take time for it to be worked out. Best wishes Jon |
||||||
64 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183840 | ||
Hi The seal of the Spirit is the evidence that a person is a Christian. But that does not mean that I can judge whether another is a Christian. 'There is One that judges'. It is not for me to decide whether a person has received the Holy Spirit. Some give a very good appearance of having received the Holy Spirit and the fall away. Others seem almost untouched, but the seed is growing secretly, and gradually it flowers. Such final judgments must be left to God. The point about the seal is that it is the guarantee until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4.30) when the Buyer comes to claim His own. Salvation is through faith alone. Nothing else is required. But the faith must be genuine. Intellectual belief is not enough. There must be a genuine response of the heart. For if the Holy Spirit has been at work that will inevitably follow. Remember the people in John 2.23-24. They 'believed', but Jesus did not trust Himself to them because He knew their hearts. Literally 'He did not believe Himself unto them'. That is what saving faith is, it is 'believing yourself unto Christ' so that He might believe Himself unto you. This is often expressed in the Greek by using 'believe unto (pisteuo eis) rather than 'believe in' (pisteuo en) although the distinction does not hold in every case. For in the end Jesus did not say 'by their faith you shall know them'. He said 'by their fruits you shall know them'. For once the Holy Spirit has been received, the fruit of the Spirit must eventually result (Galatians 5.22). You will find some 'at length' articles on the Holy Spirit at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/. You are of course right that some continue to live just on a verse here and a verse there. That is fine for the young Christian. But the mature Christian should be seeing the word of God together as a whole. They should be eating solid meat, not just milk (Hebrews 5.12-14; 1 Corinthians 3.1-3). And that involves 'hard work'. That is why godly men write commentaries in order to pass on the fruits of their own studies. See http://www.geocities.com/petepartington/ for some free up to date Bible commentaries Best wishes jonp | ||||||
65 | evolving or devolving? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183826 | ||
Hi stj. I will agree that Adam was an intellectual giant within the world in which he lived before the Fall. But he did not know how to split the atom. God had not provided a library. And he had not developed the skill of counting. He did not need it. Life was too idyllic to want to go to school. You must not confuse intelligence with skills that have to be learned. No one is born able to count or read. It has to be learned. I doubt too whether he knew that he had reached 930 years. With all the modern resources at my disposal I find it easy to forget how old I am, for it is not important. Why should Adam want to keep a record of his age? He was far too intelligent to worry about that. I was of course using the term history metaphorically to indicate those who lived in historical times, and to indicate that we learrn from history. Let us not argue about terms. It is the heart of the matter that is important. But happily we may disagree and part friends. I did not answer your question partly because it contained loaded terms which need to be defined,and partly because I felt that you thought that you knew the answer already. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
66 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183776 | ||
Hi, Initially three was the limit of counting for everyone. They thought in terms of themselves, their wives and 'everything else' (that was what the original words for two and three among the Sumerians meant). It was true for absolutely everyone!! There are still tribes today, in Indonesia for example, where people cannot count beyond three, and do not want to. A missionary to the Abiponese tribe in South America was astonished at how the people managed to run their affairs, watch over their herds and so on without being able to count beyond three. Until fairly recently the aboriginal tribes in Australia could only count up to three, some four, even fewer up to ten, and one tribe even up to twenty, but not beyond. This is all a matter of historical record. (My brother-in-law, a missionary in Indonesia, testified to the fact among the tribes he lived among ). Counting is natural to you and I because we were brought up to it. But it was not originally natural for mankind. It only really began about five thousand five hundred years ago and resulted in the invention of writing as men began to note numbers down, initially very low ones, and then add signs to indicate what they meant, and then developed the signs, finally developing more advanced scripts, and more advanced numbers. There were, of course, among the Apostles men who came from the more educated classes, James and John were from a fairly wealthy family connected to the chief priestly families, Nathaniel appears to have been very sophisticated. Matthew, of course, had learned to count for the purposes of his job, and would be extremely numerate. Thus some of them would be able to enumerate to a higher level. Matthew 14.19-21 consists mainly of numbers under twenty. The other figure is 'about five thousand'. This was achieved by dividing up the company into groups 'hundreds and fifties'. Both numbers (like the century in the Roman army) would be approximations. They would indicate groups of different sizes. But they would not specifically be exact figures. People of course understood that 'five thousand' meant a large crowd. But the number was used adjectivally rather than numerically. In Deuteronomy 25.3 there would be an expert present who would count the strokes. But again the judges would be more spophisticated people, some of whom could count. In Matthew 18.22 'seventy times seven' simply meant an unspecified amount. I presume you are not really suggesting that Jesus wanted us to count up to four hundred and ninety and then stop. Leviticus 12.2-5 would be regulated by the priests who would tell the woman what to do. For the thirty three she would be told that after four sabbaths she had five days to go. In John 21.11 there was clearly a numerate disciple present including possibly James and John, Nathaniel and even Matthew. No doubt you are amazed at the thought that 'common people' could not count. The idea takes some getting used to. But the evidence is in fact overwhelming. 'Forty days would indicate a few days past a moon period. This was how they thought. Don't believe me. consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica. See also the article on the Use of Numbers on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
67 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183761 | ||
Hi Mark Thank you for your gracious permission for me to reply just once more. I will do so mainly to avoid misunderstanding. I did not say that no one could count in the 1st century, only that counting beyond ten or twenty and calculating mathematically was beyond the vast majority, and with many their limitation would be counting to three. There was little education available except for the wealthy and little reason to count and the synagogue schools were concerned with teaching people to read so that they could understand the Law, not with mathematics. Of course some were trained in numeracy, but they would be a comparatively small minority. Tradesmen would use tally sticks, and when they wanted to make an order they sent along sufficient tally sticks to indicate what they wanted. They did not need to use numbers. And so on. You tell me that the stars falling from heaven are really angels. Now it is true that there are places where it is made quite clear in the context that stars refer to angels. But not in a context like this one where all the references are to natural phenomena. In interpretation consistency is required. And there is no need to introduce angels here. So you see here it is I who am literal and you resort to symbolism, and may I gently suggest that the reason that you do so is because you recognise that the literal will not support your position. Thus you give your case away. You are not a literalist after all, only where it is not inconvenient. And that is why I objected to your suggesting that there was only one possible interpretation of Revelation 20. My interpretation there is equally as literalistic as yours. For while God can count, when He is speaking to men He speaks in terms that they would understand. And they would not understand a thousand literally. They had no conception of a literal one thousand. It was just a very large number. That was the literal meaning to them. You say that I must justify my contention that Revelation 20 is a recap of what has gone before. If you will look back at my first presentation you will find that that is precisely what I did. Incidentally the verb used of the sky is to 'roll up' like a scroll. That is much more than it being parted. It literally mean that the sky is longer spread out but bundled up in a roll. And it says of the mountains that they will be moved out of their place. Now I take all this literally as indicating the end of the world (as also in Revelation 20.11 - another recap) But I must ask myself, do you? Of course I appreciate that you cannot because of your views. You say that I should notice the references to 'after this --. But the question is, does that refer to the writer and his visions or does it refer to chronological sequence. I would suggest that it is the writer's movements and experiences that are in mind. You are happy to avoid seeing God as a bird. Good. But you then say we must demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know. Well I have done that for Revelation 6 (and for Revelation 20 when I commenced). That is what we all seek to do. But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position. We must do it in the light of the whole of Scripture. You will see symbolism where I do not. I will see picture language (symbolism is a loaded term) where you do not. But we should not therefore suggest that somehow one of us is more literal than the other. That was my argument in the first place. That we both see literal positions and positions which are based on picture language. It is necessary to use language in a way that people will understand. That is why the Old Testament prophets presented heavenly truths in terms of life on earth. It was the only thing that the people would understand. But they spoke better than they knew, as the New Testament makes clear. In fact if you carefully look at the language that you use you will be surprised how much of it is in fact picture language, and not literal at all. We are so used to it that we do not realise it. How boring it would be if we removed all picture language from our conversation. I do not want to convert you to my position. It is not the details that matter (neither of us can change what will happen) but underlying truth. All I ask is that you do not claim somehow to be 'more literal' than others when you turn to seeing things in picture language when it suits you. Best wishes and God bless you. It has been pleasant having a discussion with you. jonp | ||||||
68 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183757 | ||
Hi You may believe that Revelation is all chronological, but it does not say so. In fact 6.12-14 if taken literally must mean that the second coming has happened and that there can be no millennium after that as there will be no world. If the stars have fallen to earth (just one would devastate the earth) and the sky has vanished like a scroll and all the mountains and islands have removed from their place humanity could not possibly survive. The fact is that there are a number of visions in Revelation each leading up to the time of the second coming e.g. to 6.12-17 which refers to the second coming; to 14.14-20 which refers to the second coming; to 19.11-21; to 20.11-15 to take four clear examples. It is clear that you actually know little about the use of numbers in the ancient world. It is my specialist field. Most military leaders could not count. They relied on a few experts. They mainly counted their soldiers by the numbers of military units. But a century under a centurion might only contain sixty soldiers. But they would still count it as a century. Weavers and herders would be unlikely to be able to count beyond say twenty, and many not even as many as that (they had not been to school) and they did not need to. The herder knew all his animals and could tell whether there was a gap. Numbers were used roughly. Few people could count very far, beyond say ten or twenty. Thus the third day meant the same as three days and three nights, and so on. Nor were years in Palestine counted on the basis of orbits round the sun. They were based on twelve moon periods, with every now and then a third month introduced in order to keep the seasons in tune. So, no, speaking of 1000 years as a round number is not making it symbolical. It is looking at numbers as they were used in those days. This is an historical fact not a matter of interpretation (or indeed of argument. It is so). You have not explained how it is that chapter 20 repeats all the events that have happened previously. It is history repeating itself gone too far. It really is not good enough to quote some verses and say - 'Look they say what I said'. The problem is that large numbers of evangelical Christians do not agree with you. And anyway no one takes the whole Bible absolutely literally, not even you. Do you believe that we have to hate fathers and mothers. Do you cut your hand off when it sins? Of course not. But you would have to if you took the Bible literally. So we all have to judge when to take something literally and when not. And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable. You cannot really sensibly avoid the fact. And if we decide to rely on the fact that Jesus and Paul would have taught such an important doctrine if it was true I suggest that we are taking a very sensible position. A chapter from a book which clearly contains much symbol cannot overturn that. Best wishes Peter |
||||||
69 | Can anyone explain to me the meaning of | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183755 | ||
Hi John 5.17-23 tells us Jesus and the Father always work together. This is because they are one God. It is impossible for the One not to work in complete harmony with the other. Thus what One does the Other does. In their essential Being they share with each other in everything. Thus the Son can give life equally with the Father, and all judgment is committed to the Son. However by becoming man there was a part of Jesus, the human part, which could behave contrary to the Father and did not share in all the secrets of the Godhead. Thus He did not know the time of His second coming (Mark 13.32). jonp | ||||||
70 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183743 | ||
Rehi Coper You ask for a timeframe. Jesus gave a clear time frame in Luke 21 (Matthew 24/Mark 13). He spoke first of 'these things'. Then He spoke of what would follow 'these things'. Of 'these things' (what led up to the destruction of Jerusalem) He said that they would happen in their generation. They were the leaves on the fig tree (Luke 21.29-30). But of His glorious coming which would follow 'these things' He said that He did not know the time (Mark 13.32). If He did not know the time of it He could not possibly be saying when it would occur. He also said that it would come at the end of the times of the Gentiles, which themselves would follow the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.20-24). How then can His words about His glorious coming refer to that destruction? See Luke 21.20, 24, 27. Matthew omits some of this simply describing it as 'great tribulation', a tribulation which lasted from the destruction of Jerusalem to the present day in accordance with Deuteronomy 28 and occurs during the times of the Gentiles. With regard to Matthew 16 he said that some in that generation would not die until He came on the clouds of Heaven to the throne of God to receive Kingly Rule as in Daniel 7.13-14. That coming was from earth to Heaven as Daniel makes quite clear. It has nothing to do with His glorious appearing on earth. |
||||||
71 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183738 | ||
When I originally commented in a brief note in reply to someone’s concern about what Martin Luther had said about certain books of the Bible that his ‘popular’ views on the canon were not reliable because they were spoken as a preacher and teacher and not as a scholar I had in mind the statements that he made that were well publicised, not his lifeteaching as a whole. I was dealing with a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately for Martin Luther he is remembered popularly for the controversial things that he said and not for the good ones (a misfortune for most famous people. Few are interested in the good things that they said). Examples include, “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.” This is then cited popularly as that he called it ‘a right strawy epistle”. Then again he later said, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.” Concerning the Book of Revelation he said, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and again, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.” The impression given (which I have elsewhere called ‘atrocious’ evangelically speaking) is that people can treat the Scriptures as something which can be accepted or otherwise depending on how their own spirit leads them. Of Esther he says, Esther…which despite their [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical.” Later, of course he dropped these statements from his translations of the Scriptures and he did include all the books in his Bible translations as Biblical books, in contrast with the Apocrypha of which he said that they were, “books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read”. But the damage was done and Martin Luther gained the popular image of a man who did not treat the whole canon of Scripture on a par. No doubt Martin Luther on the whole wished that he had never said these things, but unfortunately for him he did and it is these statements for which he is popularly remembered. I hold Martin Luther in the highest regard (what true evangelical would not). Beside him we are all pinpricks. But we still have to admit that he made mistakes which have unfortunately been perpetuated and have caused many people problems, and that such statements are best disregarded. |
||||||
72 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183735 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your question about Revelation 3.10. Firstly we should point out that 'about to come on the whole world' is an interpretive translation. Literally it is 'is coming on the whole world' (no time frame). But this is talking about the hour of testing not the Parousia. Such hours of testing have come again and again through history. It certainly cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem for that was of very limited effect, however intense it might have been for those involved. This trial was to be widespread. 'On the whole world' was looking from John's perspective of the world of his day. It was hyperbole. Compare 'from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2.5 and 'your faith is proclaimed in all the world' in Romans 1.8 neither of which can be taken literally. John was talking of widespread trials and testings. Certainly the first century Christians experienced such an 'hour of trial'. Christians through the ages have experienced such hours of trial. Many are similarly experiencing an hour of trial today. To all such Jesus said 'I am coming soon'. But as Peter makes clear 'soon' in Gods timetable can be a thousand years, and we can add two thousand years. For with God that is but 'two days' (2 Peter 3.3-10). The same applies to 'the last hour' in 1 John 2.18. It is likening history to a day and saying that we are in the final hour. But again we need to remember that with God an hour can be what we see as a long time. Just as the church has been in 'the last days' for two thousand years (Hebrews 1.1-3: Acts 2.17). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
73 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183701 | ||
Martin Luther was a linguist but he was not a critical scholar as far as the canon was concerned. His 'decisions' were based purely on personal opinion. I am not criticising Luther as a person, just his approach to the canon. His achievements speak for themselves but his views about the canon were atrocious. | ||||||
74 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183691 | ||
It concerns me Mark that you can say 'if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture.' I know of no Scripture that says 'there will be a millennium which will follow the second coming of Christ'. Indeed the truth is that if there is a doctrine of such a time it is completely ignored in the New Testament Gospels and letters. Can you really see pre-millennialists of the present time never mentioning the millennium clearly? That surely suggests that the New Testament writers did not belive in a millennium. There is only one New Testament Scripture that you could point to as possibly teaching a millennium and that is Revelation 20.1-7. But it is very doubtful if that is teaching a millennium after the second coming of Christ. Revelation 20 is a new vision, and it is a summary of what has gone before. Jesus Himself spoke of Satan being bound in His day (Mark 3.27). It is a way of indicating that God has limited his power. He could not literally be bound because he has no body. Those who were martyred for Christ, and those who refused to receive the mark of the wild beast enjoy the 'first resurrection'. That is the resurrection described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6 in which all who are Christ's have a part. 'You has He made alive --- who were dead in trespasses and sins'. And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming. (It does not actually say that it will not be longer than that). Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally. Most people were not numerate. It simply indicated a long period. Peter confirms this when he is the only one to mention the thousand years and there he refers it to the period between Christ's first coming and His second coming. The loosing of Satan for a little while is described in Revelation 9.1-11; 12.12. Thus Revelation 20.7 refers to a period after the time when God's people have been witnessing for some time and before the second coming. Thus it has already been described in Revelation. Now I realise that you probably interpret Revelation differently from me. But it is not on a basis on which all evangelical Christians can agree. My view of the whole of Revelation is that apart from Chapters 21-22 it is all speaking about what you would presumably call 'the church age', and that it began at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ. Now I do not question your right to disagree with me. But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally. I certainly do believe in the fact that Jesus Christ will come personally in glory at the consummation, but I do also believe that the whole Book of Revelation (apart from chapters 21-22) has been in process of fulfilment through the centuries. That is the whole purpose of John's symbolism. It is to some extent applicable in every generation. In fact it is quite clear that the book comes up to the time of the second coming a number of times in different visions (e.g. Revelation 6.12-17; 14.14-20; 19.11-21). All this is open to interpretation, but it cannot be denied that it is to take it literally in so far as symbolism can be taken literally. See for this interpretation the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
75 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183685 | ||
Hi Tim. The danger with labels is that we can begin to isolate ideas. As with Futurists there are different types of Preterist. There are many who both believe that Jesus in some sense came at the destruction of Jerusalem (and at Pentecost) but still believe in His return in glory. Cearly those who do not believe in a visible return of Christ must be seen as stretching Scripture, but that is not true of all Preterists. See the Commentary on Revelation at http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ which coul be described as both preterist and futurist. It is all a matter of definition. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
76 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183684 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your reply. My point was that 'Th Second Coming' was not a Biblical phrase as though it was a subject in itself. But you will note that I did also say that there would only be two physical comings (thus ruling out a rapture before the final consummation). But if Jesus could say 'Lo I am with you always' then clearly He was intending to return in invisible power to accompany His disciples on their worldwide mission. Further more He said, 'If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' thus having in mind many comings. Compare also Revelation 3.20 which teaches the same. See http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp |
||||||
77 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183649 | ||
Hi Brad, My point is partly that we do not necessarily have to say 'this position is right' or 'this position is wrong'. Very often there is truth in a number of positions because the Bible has a number of factors in mind. That is why people have garnered them from The Scriptures. Thus the fact that Jesus in some way 'came' in the destruction of Jerusalem does not necessarily signify that He will not come personally at His second coming, and vice versa. The problem lies in our trying to fit divers verses into a single picture. See the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
78 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183636 | ||
Hi, We must be careful that we do not just fit Scripture into a neat pattern. It is dealing with matters of huge complexity. For example there is no doubt that Jesus came to His disciples at Pentecost. His promise was 'lo I am with you always even to the end of the age (Matthew 28.20). It is not enough to say that He came in the Holy Spirit. He was talking about Himself personally. At Pentecost they were to see 'the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule (Matthew 16.28) which had to happen in the disciples' lifetime and it continued on through Acts. Indeed we must distinguish His coming in power (to happen 'from now on' - Matthew 26.64 which has in mind Daniel 7.13-14 where the coming is to the throne of God but as Jesus says to be revealed in power on earth - 'you will see') from His coming in glory (Matthew 16.27; 24.30-31). But this is not to see two 'second comings'. If you like His coming in power was a continuation of His first coming. Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming' (although it does speak of His coming personally at the consummation of all things). Jesus' activity is not to be limited to two events, although His bodily ptresence is. We must not be tied down to a primitive way of simplifying the complexity of God's ways. We do love to systematise everything. And then if we are not careful we become arrogant and think that only we are right. With regard to interpreting the Old Testament we should recognise that the New Testament sees much of it as fulfilled in the heavenly Kingdom and the true Jerusalem as being the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.24-28; Hebrews 12.22; and regularly in Revelation. The New Testament does not take the 'literalist' stand. It recognises thet the Old Testament prophets had to describe things in the terms that could be understood in their own day (there was then no conception of a possible hevenly kingdom), but much of what they said could not be taken literally (although of course much could). We must use discernment. For fuller treatments of these subjects see http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |