Revelation

[heavenlyboy34]

This is only partially correct. There is much more to it than just the fundamentalist movement. Biblical literalism is definitely an important aspect of fundamentalism as it pertains to hermaneutics. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago, released this statement:

Did the ICBI mean this in regards to the texts in their original languages? It doesn't make sense to claim that about the English translation because so much is lost in the process of translation. JMHO as a translator-in-training.

 

[mosquitobite]

Note that in the days of evil, believers are called to be circumspect and wise. That we are called especially to understand the will of God and do it, and not to be foolish.

The person the OP referred to is being foolish, because he forgot that we are specifically told NOT to do evil so that good may come. That even though goodness may be brought out of our evil, we will still be held to account for all the evil we have done.

The person the OP is referring to is encouraging the advance of evil, the Armageddon, because he thinks that the return of the Messiah will come from it. In doing so with the full knowledge that he is intentionally encouraging the Armageddon...a fuller intent than most who perform the same actions...he will be held to the same accounting as those who bring about the Armageddon with the intent to defeat God. The purpose to bring good from the evil is irrelevant, the intent is the death of millions of souls and he will be held accountable for that.

The Armageddon will come when it is supposed to no matter WHAT we do or do not do. Believers are called to continue "redeeming the time" and doing good even if we have the full knowledge of what we are up against. We should be working to live out the will of God up until the very instant He comes back for us. That means, of course, electing a President who will carry out the Golden Rule and make America that shining city upon a hill.

Doing evil do that good may come is just as evil as doing evil for evil intent. It's all equally evil. The scriptures make that abundantly clear, and the person referred to in the OP has lost the path and is clearly wandering in the wilderness.

To the OP, I'm not sure how you could reach him. Perhaps discuss the quoted section from Romans? It will be particularly difficult. Nobody wants to be told they are working for Satan... So if you try you may not want to mention that part...

Yes! This!

God wants righteousness - and no amount of chest beating for Israel is going to change His timing, His will.
We would be best to find 10 good men in our nation!

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. " Matthew 6:5-6
(Does that sound a bit like Ron Paul's answer to the question in the debate last night?)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Did the ICBI mean this in regards to the texts in their original languages? It doesn't make sense to claim that about the English translation because so much is lost in the process of translation. JMHO as a translator-in-training.

Well, if it helps to clarify anything I attended Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the inerrancy doctrine we were taught was even more restricted than the one you cite. We were taught that specifically the autograph manuscripts were inerrant, but that errors may have been introduced in the scribal copies in the original languages, and further errors may have been introduced in translation.

Autograph manuscript == the document as penned by the original author. No copies of which are extant today.

I tend to agree with this particular inerrancy doctrine. Therefore I say that only the autographs are perfectly inerrant. Beyond that we have the choice of Byzantium scripts, majority scripts, minority scripts, and a wealth of codices each with minor or major variations.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This is only partially correct. There is much more to it than just the fundamentalist movement. Biblical literalism is definitely an important aspect of fundamentalism as it pertains to hermaneutics. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was formulated in October 1978 by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), held in Chicago, released this statement:

Well, okay, I get that, but I'm saying that Fundamentalism, even though it affirmed some good things (like Biblical inerrancy, which every Christian agrees with) also affirmed a lot of very bad things:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/FundyReform.html

The leader of the modern fundamentalist movement was Jerry Falwell, and he was one of the most anti-Calvinist speakers of the day. Liberty University, Bob Jones University, Thomas Road Baptist Church, Calvary Chapel etc. were (are) all vehemently opposed to Reformed Christianity and it led them into all kinds of embarrassing errors. To this day, Arminian scholars will rarely debate Reformed scholars.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes! This!

God wants righteousness - and no amount of chest beating for Israel is going to change His timing, His will.
We would be best to find 10 good men in our nation!

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. " Matthew 6:5-6
(Does that sound a bit like Ron Paul's answer to the question in the debate last night?)

Indeed it does. This is a principle I point out often when talking to Christians about Ron Paul. The others pay lip service to Christianity and Christian doctrines (as Yeshua quotes Isaiah) Matthew 15:7-9 "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."" [KJV]

Ron Paul demonstrates himself as the only true Christian running, because he LIVES OUT a Christ-like life without 'making a show' of it like the hypocrites.

The problem is that the vast vast majority of Christians today are Pharisees, so they stick with their Pharisee buddies.

 

[Deborah K]

Did the ICBI mean this in regards to the texts in their original languages? It doesn't make sense to claim that about the English translation because so much is lost in the process of translation. JMHO as a translator-in-training.

I would hope so, although I am not absolutely sure.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Good thread. Keep it up.

 

[seapilot]

Is "futurist" synonymous with "Pre-Trib"? Pre-trib theology is shaky at best, IMO.

Futurist, which believes that Revelation describes future events.

 

[TER]

I don't necessarily agree with TER that it was voluntary: "if it's possible take this cup from me, but nevertheless not My will but Thy will be done."

Gunny, Jesus voluntarily did the will of His Father in suffering death on a cursed cross to save creation. This is a fundamental Christological teaching. It was the will of the Father that He do so, and since there is one will in the Godhead, it was the will of the Son as well. The tears of blood in the Garden was an account of the human nature of Christ which suffered from what was about to occur which was indeed unnatural (we must remember, that pain, suffering, fear, and death are actually unnatural and are a consequence of the Fall), but the divine will of Christ was always in accordance with the Father and was never in doubt about the work He came to do.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Accepting God's Word as literally true is simply what Christianity is. That is what a Christian does, its not any -ism.

That doesn't extend to things like the talking snake, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the big fish/whale etc. tho, right?

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

I don't necessarily agree with TER that it was voluntary: "if it's possible take this cup from me, but nevertheless not My will but Thy will be done."

Still, the model is Godly, because the crucifixion was done by the Herod and Pilate, as demanded by the Pharisees through the people. It was not done by God or by Messiah. It was the natural reaction of the sinful to the sinless. An evil people working to douse the Light that showed them for the sinful creatures they were.

This goes right back to the passage I cited in Romans above. Those who perpetrated the crucifixion will be held to full account for their evil-doing (or would be, if Messiah had not forgiven them from the cross) despite the fact that good would be brought from that evil.

God explaining how He will bring goodness from some evil thing is not the same as God doing that evil in the first place. The evil was done by Herod and Pilate and the Pharisees, God just took that evil and made good come from it. Because God knew the great goodness that would come from it, He permitted the evil to take place, but He did not commit it. Thus "take this cup from Me" did not happen, as it was God's will to bring salvation to the whole world.

Right, but the pertinent part of the issue is did he do it through loving means or not? If Jesus chose to send himself down as sacrifice, rather than God sending him, then I my question is answered (at least ot my satisfaction)

I don't think you'd have as easy a time persuading me that setting bears on children and indiscriminately wiping out entire ppls etc. isn't an unloving means tho

 

[Revolution9]

That doesn't extend to things like the talking snake, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the big fish/whale etc. tho, right?

Old Testament. Abrogated by the walking of Jesus on Earth.

Rev9

 

[Southron]

That doesn't extend to things like the talking snake, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the big fish/whale etc. tho, right?

Absolutely. Why not?

 

[Sola_Fide]

That doesn't extend to things like the talking snake, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the big fish/whale etc. tho, right?

Of course it does. Do you call Jesus a liar? He specifically referenced Jonah's time in the belly of the whale as a foreshadowing of the time He would spend in the tomb before He rose again:

Matthew 12:38-41 NASB

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."

But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Old Testament. Abrogated by the walking of Jesus on Earth.

Rev9

They either occured or did not occur. Jesus walking on Earth thousands of years later doesn't change that.

Absolutely. Why not?

Because, well, no offence, they're a little on the crazy side. And the Genesis stories are scientifically wrong. Creation is all in the worng order. To believe them as literal truth is just to be wrong. At best, they must therefore be allegorical in nature.

Of course it does. Do you call Jesus a liar? He specifically referenced Jonah's time in the belly of the whale as a foreshadowing of the time He would spend in the tomb before He rose again:

Referencing a story doesn't make him a liar, no.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Referencing a story doesn't make him a liar, no.

Referencing a "story"? You will fail big time if you try to put Jesus in your modern scientific box, I promise you.

Was Jesus only "allegorically" in the earth for 3 days or was He really there? If the account of Jonah is only allegorical then why should we believe Jesus ever really died, was buried, and rose again?

Also, Jesus specifically said that the flood account is true:

Luke 17:26-30 NASB

And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

You either believe Jesus or you don't. You either believe that God has told the truth to you in His Word or you don't.

 

[Gimme Some Truth]

Referencing a "story"? You will fail big time if you try to put Jesus in your modern scientific box, I promise you.

Was Jesus only "allegorically" in the earth for 3 days or was He really there? If the account of Jonah is only allegorical then why should we believe Jesus ever really died, was buried, and rose again?

Also, Jesus specifically said that the flood account is true:




You either believe Jesus or you don't. You either believe that God has told the truth to you in His Word or you don't.

Jesus didn't sit down and write the Bible so it's not a case of believing Jesus or not. I just look at facts. Humans wrote the Bible over many, many decades. I then look at the contents of the Bible and come to the onclusion that it is more likely that the outthere stuff is either human mythology or allergorical rather than first assuming that God wrote the Bible through mans hands.

If you're asking me (rather than me taking a non-literalist Christian approach) whether I think Jesus died and resurrected the answer would be "no". Do I think Jesus was a liar? No (tho he may have lied on occasion - most of us have done). I think he was/is a legend, a legend that exists to this day largely because of the Roman Empire.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Jesus didn't sit down and write the Bible so it's not a case of believing Jesus or not. I just look at facts. Humans wrote the Bible over many, many decades. I then look at the contents of the Bible and come to the onclusion that it is more likely that the outthere stuff is either human mythology or allergorical rather than first assuming that God wrote the Bible through mans hands.

If you're asking me (rather than me taking a non-literalist Christian approach) whether I think Jesus died and resurected the answer would be "no". Do I think Jesus was a liar? No (tho he may have lied on occasion - most of us have done). I think he was/is a legend, a legend that exists to this day largely because of the Roman Empire.

Ah.....so, there's your answer. It's just a fairy tale.

John 8:24 NASB

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins;
for unless you believe that I am He,
you will die in your sins."

-Jesus

But why do care what this liar said, right? It's just a fable.

 

[Miss Annie]

Jesus didn't sit down and write the Bible so it's not a case of believing Jesus or not. I just look at facts. Humans wrote the Bible over many, many decades. I then look at the contents of the Bible and come to the onclusion that it is more likely that the outthere stuff is either human mythology or allergorical rather than first assuming that God wrote the Bible through mans hands.

If you're asking me (rather than me taking a non-literalist Christian approach) whether I think Jesus died and resurrected the answer would be "no". Do I think Jesus was a liar? No (tho he may have lied on occasion - most of us have done). I think he was/is a legend, a legend that exists to this day largely because of the Roman Empire.

The way I understand it, Jesus was not a legend or a good man. He was either psychopathic liar or the Son of God.

 

[mosquitobite]

If you believe the FIRST SENTENCE of the Bible, believing in the rest of it should be easy.

If you believe God CREATED EVERYTHING, then why would anyone believe the rest is just "too hard to swallow"??