Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Before, during, or after? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 203124 | ||
Dear val, Actually, I've only ever heard Dispensationalists avow these ante-Nicene fathers as belonging to their ilk. I've even dug around to try to root out the original quotes on which they base their conclusions. Only small fragments of Papias' writings have survived, but nothing that could be conclusively premillennial. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus divided time into four sections and the world into four zones. They asserted that the present age was the reign of Christ. While Tertullian, a man none too keen on sound doctrine, was a Montanist. Now it is true that Montanists believed in chiliasm... but do we really want those guys as strange bedfellows? Montanists believed they had prophetic gifts that trumped the Scriptures themselves. Anyway, if someone can actually make these particular ante-Nicene folks sound like John Nelson Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Hal Lindsey, or Tim Lahaye ... well... then... they're capable of exegetical sleight-of-hand that makes Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Eckhart Tolle look like school children! I lean on the premillennial side myself, but I sure don't want to throw in with sloppy scholarship! I lean toward premillennialism only because Scripture appears to lend itself to such an interpretation. When it becomes indisputable, though I'll treat it as indisputable. But in the mean time I'll stick with the things that are non-negotiable essential truths, and let everyone else sell books and movies. :-) "You will bear me witness, my friends, that it is exceedingly seldom I ever intrude into the mysteries of the future with regard to the second advent, the millennial reign, or the first and second resurrection. As often as we come across it in our expositions we do not turn aside from the point, but if guilty at all on this point, it is rather in being too silent than saying too much." --Charles H. Spurgeon In Him, Doc PS Augustine and John Chrysostom were amillienial. I think they carry a lot more weight than those earlier fellows. Still and all, they don't persuade me. Mostly what bothers me on the forum is a tacit assumption that a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scriptures requires one millennial view or another. That's what is technically known as poppycock. |
||||||
2 | Before, during, or after? | Bible general Archive 4 | Val | 203131 | ||
I understand. With all honesty though, I have studied Daniel throughly, actually three times inductively. You know how hard that is. What touched me was that these fulfillments in Daniel were literal events. Diving into the details of Daniel there are events that have not transpired. Why would we not take those as events that are going to happen in the future? Literal events? These details are what leds me to my view. I respect anyones view who has sincerely studied. I may not draw the same conclusions. Money motivation is for the Lord to judge. That road probably runs both ways in the millennial views. Don't know. I personally can't see that person's heart so only the Lord is qualified to judge that one rightly. But I understand what your saying we must be careful who we listen to. | ||||||
3 | Before, during, or after? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 203139 | ||
Dear Val, It isn't so much to whom we listen as it is who is listening. We should respect honest scholarship even when we disagree. We should promote an open discussion about things for which there is room for debate. To do otherwise is to walk no differently than those who suppress the truth! Posting on an open forum is like teaching a multitude. James 3:1 comes to mind. Certainly we have our opinions, even opinions based very commendably on a great deal of study, but we must be honest enough to offer them up as opinions. Our most idle post will be, after all, judged (Matthew 12:36). Therefore, we ought to stand uncompromisingly on the doctrines for which the Scripture refuses to compromise. Spurgeon was dealing with this exact issue when he wrote, "Some Christians are very curious, but not obedient. Plain precepts are neglected, but difficult problems they seek to solve. I remember one who used to be dwelling upon the vials and seals and trumpets. He was great at apocalyptic symbols; but he had seven children, and he had no family prayer. If he had left the vials and trumpets and minded his boys and girls, it would have been a deal better. I have known men marvelously great upon Daniel and specially instructed in Ezekiel, but singularly forgetful of the twentieth of Exodus, and not very clear upon Romans the eighth. I do not speak with any blame of such folks for studying Daniel and Ezekiel, but quite the reverse; yet I wish they had been more zealous for the conversion of sinners in their neighborhoods, and the more careful to assist the poor saints." Elsewhere, he wrote of a preacher who, "...is great upon the ten toes of the beast, the four faces of the cherubim, the mystical meaning of badgers' skins, and the typical bearings of the staves of the ark, and the windows of Solomon's temple: but the sins of business men, the temptations of the times, and the needs of the age, he scarcely ever touches upon. Such preaching reminds me of a lion engaged in mouse-hunting." Our forum is read by many more curious than are obedient. Mouse-hunting may have its place as we communicate one-on-one. But out in the public, we are fishers of men! In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | Before, during, or after? | Bible general Archive 4 | Val | 203143 | ||
No doubt the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord is our commission. I agree. Thank you for your thoughts. | ||||||