Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Where do the interpretations come from?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:07 PM

I've been reading quite a few written debates by Tim for a year now and TBC here on this forum just recently. I must say I was raised in a church that was Amillennial with different interpretations depending on the speaker and until a year ago I had given up on understanding the bible due to it. There were always questions that plagued me that the Amillennial teaching just could not settle. It seems that the interpretations for end time prophecy come from no where like a magic trick. So here's my question. Where do the Amillennial interpretations come from? I can not to this day follow it back to anything that makes sense without someone telling me what they say it means. This is why I have a hard time even hearing you Bro. Doughty.

I would not be fair without an example of what I mean. From Matthew 24:15-21, you say it doesn't apply because in verse 16 we don't have to flee to the mountains we can fly on a plane anywhere we want. In verse 17 you say we have air conditioners so no one needs to go up on top of the roof. Verse 20 you say we have 4 wheel drive vehicles so that would be a hinderance at all if it was winter. And the ‘abomination of desolation’ was Titus when he destroyed Jerusalem in A.D.70.

So my question is who told you that's the truth behind these scriptures because I can't find any of that in the bible anywhere. Where does the interpretation come from?
Michael

#2 LoganMM

LoganMM

    Berean Regular

  • CCP
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading, Spending time with my wife, and teaching children about Jesus.
  • Regirstration Type:CCP

Posted 13 January 2012 - 09:51 PM

The sad answer is that he(Bro Doughty) decides what the bible say's. I won't say it's always arbitrarily, but it often seems to be.

#3 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 14 January 2012 - 08:14 AM

I have another example Bro. Doughty. You say that all the OT scriptures are good stuff but what the Aposltes say superceeds the prophets and all the prophets drew back their arrows and the arrows went up and came down on pentecost. Then you say that is when the New Covenant came about....when Jesus sat down in heaven it really happned then but we didn't know about it until pentecost. You further state that no one can really understand that unless you are born of the Spirit. I really mean this when I ask it. WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
Michael

#4 Roger Samsel

Roger Samsel

    Berean Regular

  • In Depth Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:24 AM

The debate is not about what the Bible says. It is about what the Bible means.

Chiliasts believe the Bible means exactly what it says. Amillennialists believe it means something different than what it says. In fact, to an Amillennialist, the Bible often means the very opposite of what it says. Many interpretive and grammatical gymnastics are required to get Amillennialism.

As for the question where does it come from, you only need to ask, "Who is the master of bending, twisting and distorting the word of the Lord? Who is it that has the greatest stake in overturning the message of the Bible, the hope of the saints, and the Gospel of Christ?" Answer that, and you will know where this comes from.

Roger
"For error is plausible, and bears a resemblance to the truth, but requires to be disguised; while truth is without disguise, and therefore has been entrusted to children." - Irenaeus

#5 LoganMM

LoganMM

    Berean Regular

  • CCP
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Reading, Spending time with my wife, and teaching children about Jesus.
  • Regirstration Type:CCP

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:58 AM

That is the trouble with choosing subjective feelings over objective truths. Inevitably those who profess their subjective feelings are true will say those who don't feel the same as they do are wrong and without true spiritual understanding. Statements like "I love numerology, it blesses me." (this may not be an exact quote, but the second half is exact) are scary. It is as if to say that without numerology you are missing a big blessing in your life. Do the blessings of God flow through occult means? This is exactly like those who practice mystical prayer exercises(invented by men) which are found nowhere in the bible and yet they say by these occult subjective means they will arrive in communion with Jesus, because they are "Christians" and who else could it be on the other line when a Christian prays? Practices such as Lectio Devina, which is basically a mantra meditation(see vain repetition, Matt. 6), or those who walk prayer labyrinths, or the whole listening/centering prayer movement. Practices where it doesn't really matter what you believe, because anyone who does these exercises will have the same experience. I've read testimonials of both wiccans and professing Christians who say they were visited by "beings of light" while practicing listening prayer. Your can even find "christian" books on the subject in metaphysical bookstores.


2 Cor. 11:12-15
12 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.


There are many people who will believe counterfeit claims that make they feel good. It is a shame when they build followings, for an example see Harold Camping.

-Logan

#6 Micha6:8

Micha6:8

    Berean Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut
  • Interests:Learning my bible as if it's the last one on earth.
  • Regirstration Type:Open Discussion only

Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:36 PM

The debate is not about what the Bible says. It is about what the Bible means.

Chiliasts believe the Bible means exactly what it says. Amillennialists believe it means something different than what it says. In fact, to an Amillennialist, the Bible often means the very opposite of what it says. Many interpretive and grammatical gymnastics are required to get Amillennialism.

As for the question where does it come from, you only need to ask, "Who is the master of bending, twisting and distorting the word of the Lord? Who is it that has the greatest stake in overturning the message of the Bible, the hope of the saints, and the Gospel of Christ?" Answer that, and you will know where this comes from.

Roger



I'm glad I posted this now. I debated with myself if I should being that I am not a pastor, but Roger you just clarified something for me, pertaining to where the interpretations come from. I have been reading the ECF and especially Irenaus Against Heresies. I used to think or should say I was taught to believe that the men who teach wrong doctrine, such as what Irenaus wrote about in Against Heresies and what John the apostle wrote in his epistles to refute gnosticism, were doing so to cleverly craft and mislead. I was taught they were knowingly doing so as to gain from it. Now I'm sure there are some that did that and still to this day some are doing that, but most I'm not so sure that all are knowingly misleading others. As I ponder your statement a scripture passage from 2 Timothy came to mind. This is where Paul it writing about what would come about in the last days (plural).

2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.


I see now that people just like the Gnostics really did believe what they taught. They really thought it was the right way. I'm sure they thought Irenaus was out of his mind and a heretic. Some of you guys have been combating this for years, but it's all new to me and I'm having a hard time with it. It bothers me to tears that I have brothers and sisters who are being deceived (led astray) just as I was by those who are denying (making confession against) the power of God to do what he says he will do and instead go after some illusionary meaning they claim is spiritual.

The other issue that I see in all of Tim's debate papers, here in the debate TBC had on this forum and repeated over and over in the debate with Chuck Doughty is the exultation of Christ but completely against his word as it is written and twisting it in crafty ways that have me confounded. Roger you said it 6 years ago in the TBC forum debate.

Quote (Amill Team)

Since Daniel is saved by the shed blood of Christ, He will inherit everlasting life, immortality, and incorruption. His inheritance will be never-ending and unlimited. 'Eyes have not seen, nor ears heard of the things God has prepared for them that love him. Would you limit Daniel, then, to anything less than the best that Christ has to offer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this answer reveal? First, notice that the direct answer to our question was, No, they do NOT believe that Daniel will be resurrected to inherit a portion of the Land of Canaan in the Kingdom of Christ, even though this is the explicit teaching of these Scriptures. Thus, their position requires them to disbelieve portions of Scripture.

Second, notice that in the same breath in which they deny this teaching, their language appears to exalt Christ. Amillennialism, while it appears to glorify and exalt Jesus on the surface, nevertheless subtly calls God's word into question.


This really tears me to pieces. Am I wrong to say that this is exactly what Paul was writing to Timothy. If I am wrong I will admit it and correct myself but I don't think so. This has been on my mind all day.


*edited in order to show english is my first language
Michael




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users