You know...with most things in life I’m able to let personal attacks false accusations roll right off of me; but you’ve taken it beyond too far.
How dare you presume to know what I believe. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I consistently tout the unparalleled accuracy of the KJV in rendering the Greek/Hebrew and that it is without error. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I have never attempted to correct an KJV English rendering with a Greek or Hebrew word, and that I am overly careful not to. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I only ever use the original languages to narrow range of meaning for the English word and enhance the understanding of it. How dare you bear false witness against me. What? Know ye not that a false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord among brethren are an abomination unto God (Pro 6:16-19)?
How dare you call me a hypocrite. I’ve made all of this plainly clear every time it’s come up and always uphold the authority, accuracy, and inerrancy of the KJV and only supplement other resources for better understanding it. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you sit there and claim English superiority and show a remarkably poor grasp of the language, its usage, or its history. How dare you call me a hypocrite when you claim to be a Christian and then seethe contention and malice rather showing love to your neighbors and brethren (Matt 22:39; John 13:34-34, 15:12, 15:17). Why do you call Him Lord and do not the things that He says (Luke 6:46)? What? Know ye not that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10)?
After taking a few days of cooling off I got on to respond to a couple of personal messages. I let my curiosity get the better of me and decided to check a notification from this thread. Why, I’ll never know. You’ve cemented the decision to leave this forum for good because you’ve sullied the environment beyond the point of Christ-honoring edification. Shame on you. I hope for your sake and the sake of those who will continue on OB that you take some serious prayer time and figure out how to treat your brothers and sisters in Christ with love and respect, because this vile garbage absolutely breaks the heart of God and if your unkind and unloving attitude chases away someone earnestly seeking Jesus Christ you'll have to live with that for eternity...and so will they.
It's become clear that some on here refuse to allow a fruitful adult discussion to occur. Those that actually want to discuss things in a respectful and mutually edifying way are unable to do so because of the poor attitudes, attacks, and generally unchristian behavior of some. Of late, it's enticed me to retort in an unedifying way, and I that disgusts me. Clearly I need a break from OB . At this point I'm not sure whether I'll come back or not, but for those of you who've remained cordial and respectful, I'll still respond to messages for a short while should you need anything or desire to interact some other way. Bro. Matt and Mods, this was an excellent and enjoyable site for a while, thank you for your hard work on it and best of luck in the future.
For those that are the reason for this decision, please feel free to continue to leave ungodly comments and show your colors.
Hello Pot. My name is Kettle, and I think you got your black all over me because yeah...I did stoop to your level a little bit with that. Allow me to translate that usual ending of a Pauline epistle for you: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you."
Why? You don't think the original meaning is discernable in English? I thought you had faith in the KJV ....Or is it that you don't care what the original meaning was and prefer whatever meaning you can muster from a wide range of disparate definitions? Either way, I don't really care anymore. I'm all done dealing with you. Adding "Brother" to a snarky comment doesn't make it kind or respectful. It makes it sarcastic and hypocritical.
Because I believe God, and His Word by extension, don't change (Heb 13:8; Mal 3:6) and His truth remains the same regardless of how a language developes/changes over time and so we are not free to choose any definition we want because that leads to various strange doctrines (Heb 13:9) like Pentecostals babbling unintelligably, Lutherans pouring water all over babies' heads, Calvinists teaching double-predestination, or Catholics claiming the Pope is Peter's successor and has the authority of Christ. I believe originally intended meaning matters and we're to make valid applications from it.
I see what you're saying, I just disagree with it because I think it plays a little too fast and loose with the Word of God and leaves biblical truths at the whims of ever-changing human communication.
I agree with much of what you have to say, particularly regarding Tertullian. I know a lot of people like Caroll's The Trail of Blood , but I really think a lot of it is a stretch as well. One thing I would add to your millennial discussion is that the shift in thought from a soon-coming of Christ in terms of premillennialism appears to have held strong through the first 3-4 centuries. After that (around the time of Augustine), there was a definite shift to what you described because people grappled for a way to fit their current understanding into the concept of the millennium when they hadn't yet seen the Second Coming. What I see from my study of the issue (which I would like to study more to be honest) is that the shift to premillennialism (and associated views of the rapture) are a return to that ideology rather than a new concept.
I'll have to go back and dig into my stuff a little to recall and give a well-explained answer (it's been a year or two since I encountered his stuff with any depth). One thing I do recall is that he is considered the father of amillennialism, which asserts no earthly reign of Christ, because he saw the one-thousand-year figure as symbolic rather than literal. When I can muster enough time at home I'll be happy to find some more detailed examples for you.
Irenaeus, an exerpt from Against Heresies - "Those nations, however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;” so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption [emphasis added].
There aren't enough writings of Polycarp to discern his stance on the millennium or rapture. The only statements he makes are to affirm the resurrection of the saints and the reality of hell. I included him in the above explanation to show the close and short line of teaching between John and Irenaeus.
I've never been a fan of Tertullian. He was a Montanist, which were ardent legalists that strangely also had a lot of practices similar to Pentecostals today. Generally speaking, not someone I want to take theological input from, though some of his early apologetic writings were good.
After reading your description of what you gleaned from Tertullian, I don't see how it precludes a pre-trib position. In my understanding, there appears to simply be a misapplication (i.e. bad guess) on who the eschatological prophecies referred to. Since they expected Jesus Christ to be coming again soon, they would naturally have considered Rome and the Emporer as major players in the end-times narrative. It is the same thing people do now in trying to guess who the Antichrist is.
Does Scripture anywhere say that we should not read other books to help us understand the the most important book? Does it say anywhere that we should not learn from people more mature in the faith than we are? Does it say anything about listening to wise counsel and/or teachers? Anything about receiving instruction?
I would also consider myself a young-earth creationist. I'm always so baffled at how a professing Christian can embrace a system that must be embraced by faith and exists solely to explain existence without God....especially when it relies on incredibly bad "science" and has to throw every scientific method out the window in order to make it work...
I know this was a couple days and a couple pages ago, but it is factually incorrect so I feel I must point it out. A study of church history and writers from the post-Apostolic era of the church reveals a premillennial, and normally pre-tribulational, interpretation was the dominant view until about the 4th-5th century when Augustine's allegorical approach to Scripture began to take over. The clearest examples can be found in the writings of Irenaeus and his mentor Polycarp (a disciple of John who penned Revelation). When people began to fret over the fact that Jesus had not returned as soon as they expected, they began to find ways to re-explain eschatological issues such as the rapture, tribulation, and second coming of Christ.
As it relates to the OP, study of such material should help one see why divergent views arose as well as the beliefs commonly held shortly after Biblical writings ended. This should also help avoid making the same interpretive mistakes as those who have gone before us.
But are they saved and mature Christians producing more saved and mature Christians? If the answer is no then it's not a healthy family and the children aren't well-rounded.
With the gospel presented unapologetically but with love. The Holy Spirit will do the rest.
You're confusing U.S. legal provisions with God's. Just because the government considers someone a legal parent doesn't mean God does. What's meant by there only being one parent is that a same-sex couple MUST rely on a third individual to produce a child and one of them will have absolutely no biological part in it. In order for that child to be concieved, they had to have gone outside the bounds of God's established family structure and outside God's process for procreation. What they've effectively done is to remove God from the process in order to fulfill their own desires of having children. That is called self-will, and God absolutely hates it because it's the root of all sin.
Further, it doesn't matter how loving parents are by society's standard. If they're not bringing those children up in the nuruture and admonition of the Lord, they are failing their responsibility as parents. It would be better that they had no children than to teach children to live an ungodly life. In light of Matt 18:6, it is inconceivable to me that a professing Christian would encourage and enable a child to be raise in a home guaranteed to raise them contrary to the Bible. You might not be able to do anything to remove a child from such an unsafe situation, but I can't imagine how any Christian could justify condoning it and claim to be following Jesus.
I know you've got a lot of questions you're currently fielding in this thread, so I hope you don't mind adding one more. I think it's kind of critical to the reasoning of your position because one of your main premises is on Rev 14:14 and the last trump.
Here's my question...how do you view Rev 12-14, specifically Rev 12? The seventh/last trumpet occurs in Rev 11:15 and there is a lot of activity between that and what you're proposing is the rapture in Rev 14:14. So I guess the main thing to answer is whether you view Revelation strictly chronologically (as far as events in the world vs. how experienced the vision) and Rev 11 moves to Rev 12 to Rev 13 to Rev 14 without interruption before the seven vial judgments come in Rev 15? I understand Rev 12-14 as a parenthesis in the timeline. How one views this chronology necessitates completely different explanations of the characters and images in Rev 12-14, as well as the timing of such things as the rapture.
You don't like Greek (which I purposefully didn't use here because you would dismiss it anyway) and you don't like English. Ok, fine. Please show me chapter and verse where the Bible re-defines "testament" and "covenant" the way you're making the distinction. There are no instances of "a covenant is..." or "a testament is.." To my recollection, the Bible doesn't come with its own dictionary so I'm not sure how you can know what any of the words really mean if you don't use the English definitions? Is the Bible written in English or in its own language? You can't have it both ways.