Sister Posted October 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 17 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,727 Content Per Day: 1.04 Reputation: 2,305 Days Won: 5 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 1, 2014 So when Peter writes, "The end of all things is near." 1 Peter 4:7 (NIV2011) he was writing to us? Stormcrow How long does a man live for? Our lives are just a puff of smoke - 70 years, 80, maybe 100, and some die very young. Once we are dead, everything goes to the grave with us. Our time is always at hand, for every generation, because we don't live for that long - for all go to the grave at the end of their short life, and once in the grave, we cannot change the state of our souls. And what's the next stage after death? John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 1 Peter 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Peter 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. The dead know nothing. When they are woken up to be judged, whether in the first resurrection, or the second, this prophecy "the end of all things is near, or at hand," will be fulfilled for that soul. And if you want to view it your way brother, then "the end of the world" did not come to all of them, because the christians fled Jerusalem, after Christ's death, and scattered to Syria, Greece, Asia Minor etc. They did not get killed in 70AD. So the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, was not the end of the world, and the saints would of died never hearing of it....only hearing of the destruction of Jerusalem. Big difference. Even John, the youngest apostle was on an island in Patmos around 70AD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sister Posted October 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 17 Topic Count: 50 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,727 Content Per Day: 1.04 Reputation: 2,305 Days Won: 5 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 1, 2014 We are in Him and He is in us. His words are for every generation that are His. Wisdom exposes what is specifically for a specific time or people and what is for all. Paul's writings are for all. Even if it is history, there are lessons to be learned. Amen Onelight The christian family now, gets a glimpse of how the christian family back then operated. Their words of encouragement should apply to us today also. Philemon 1:17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.Philemon 1:18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;Philemon 1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides. Who does this? pays another's debts? What an inspiration! What love this displays amongst the brethren! Have we been turning our backs on our brothers in need? Always something to learn. Philemon 1:21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earnest Posted October 1, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 18 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/19/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) I haven't read all the previous posts so I apologize if this has been covered. John Darby, the creator of "Dispensationalism" created the "two peoples of God" (Jews and the church) theory specifically so he could discredit Mt 24 from applying to the church. He had already plagiarized the "pre-tribulation rapture" concept from Edward Irving and others at the Albury prophecy conferences in the late 1820s. That is where the pre-trib rapture was first "revealed". Irving was a good friend of Lady Powerscourt and spent a week or more at her castle in August of 1830. She is said to have attended at least one of the Albury conferences and was so impressed she created her own conferences in the early 1830s. All dispensationalists accept that the pre-trib rapture idea came from the Powerscourt conferences, presumably by Darby. But there is no doubt that it was taught at the Albury conferences because it was described in their "Dialogs on Prophecy" books published after each conference. There is no doubt that Irving was a guest of Lady Powerscourt in 1830 because it was described in the book "Life of Irving" by Oliphant. There is no doubt that Darby came up with the "two peoples of God" after he learned about the pre-trib rapture because one of his contemporaries (whose name escapes me at the moment, [perhaps Benjamin Newton or possibly George Meuller]) describes how excited Darby was when he invented it. The contemporary said something to the effect that "Darby, if you accept that you give up one of the most important parts of Christianity." (I apologize if this is poorly quoted. It has been many years since I referred to this quote.) It might also be in this context that George Meuller said something to the effect of "There came a time when I had to decide whether to accept Mr. Darby's teaching or accept the teaching in my Bible. I chose to keep my precious Bible and part company with Mr. Darby." Mt 24 clearly contradicted Darby's pre-trib rapture idea, so Darby invented the distinction between the Jews and the Church so he could claim this passage did not apply to the Christians. According to Dispensational teachers like John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie, the most important distinction of Dispensationalism is not the so called "dispensations", but "rightly dividing the Word of God" into applying to either the Jews or the Church. This declares that there is one "Gospel" for the Jews and another "Gospel" for the Church. Paul warned about this in Galatians where he said that if he, or even an angel from Heaven, preached a Gospel other than the one he preached to the Galatian church, let him be condemned forever. To make sure he was clearly understood, he repeated himself. So, when Dispensationalists preach more than one gospel (There is no argument about this. Some of them have preached up to four "Gospels", that is four different ways of being saved.) how serious should we be about what they teach and why? These multiple gospels come from their "dividing the Word of God" into some passages that don't apply to the church, such as Mt 24, and other passages that do. I "think" the two peoples of God may have come out of the Albury conferences too, but I don't specifically remember. This post is not written with bitterness, hostility or confrontationality. The facts are irrefutable and the questions are those I must ask myself. Edited October 1, 2014 by Earnest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted October 1, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 22 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Yes, 1 Pet 4:7, James 5:8, and Rev 1:3 are for us. near ni(ə)r/ adverb adverb: near 1. at or to a short distance away; nearby. "a bomb exploding somewhere near" 2. a short time away in the future. "the time for his retirement was drawing near" 3. almost. "a near perfect fit" synonyms: almost, just about, nearly, practically, virtually; literarywell-nigh "near perfect conditions" 4. archaicdialect almost. "I near fell out of the chair" preposition preposition: near; preposition: near to 1. at or to a short distance away from (a place). "the parking lot near the sawmill" synonyms: close to, close by, a short distance from, in the vicinity of, in the neighborhood of, within reach of, a stone's throw away from; informalwithin spitting distance of "a hotel near the seafront" 2. a short period of time from. "near the end of the war" 3. close to (a state); verging on. "she gave a tiny smile, brave but near tears" (used before an amount) a small amount below (something); approaching. "temperatures near 2 million degrees K" 4. similar to. "a shape near to the original" adjective adjective: near; comparative adjective: nearer; superlative adjective: nearest 1. located a short distance away. "a big house in the near distance" synonyms: close, nearby, close/near at hand, at hand, a stone's throw away, within reach, accessible, handy, convenient; informalwithin spitting distance "the nearest house" antonyms: far 2. only a short time ahead. "the conflict is unlikely to be resolved in the near future" synonyms: imminent, in the offing, close/near at hand, at hand, (just) around the corner, impending, looming "the final judgment is near" Greek NASB Number: 1448 Greek Word: ἐγγίζω Transliterated Word: eggizôRoot: from 1451;Definition: to make near, refl. to come near:-- List of English Words and Number of Times Used approached (10), approaching (7), came (1), came close (1), came near (1), come near (2), comes near (2), coming near (1), draw near (3), drawing near (2), hand (7), near (5). New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. When Peter writes in 1Peter 4:7 "the end of all things is near", given the definitions from both the English and the Greek of the word, how do you possibly justify it applying to people living 2,000 years later??? Preterists are to be commended for the importance they place on the "time statements", but if they'd apply the same literalness to the rest of scripture I think they'd see they've painted themselves into an untenable corner. So you agree that the time statements are literal? If so, how can they possibly pertain to us??? The proper manner by which to interpret scripture (or any text) that is both a mixture of the literal and symbolic, is to read the literal at face value and use it as the key for understanding the symbolic. What the church has done is flip this completely on its head, so that the symbolic ("stars falling to earth") becomes literal and the clearly literal time statements ("the end of alll things is near") are symbolic! In other words, in order to understand the symbolic, people must view it in terms of the literal! This is the only proper way to approach Biblical hermeneutics! And again, if the words the apostles wrote to their audiences were not relevant to them, why did they bother writing to them as though they were??? Edited October 1, 2014 by Stormcrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persuaded Posted October 1, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 2 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 1, 2014 Yes, 1 Pet 4:7, James 5:8, and Rev 1:3 are for us. We are to live as though our life will be required of us, at any moment. Also, the only context in which scripture expressly indicates that God is using a different clock than we on the earth is in regard to Christ's second coming, as an expression of His mercy. How many on this forum would have been denied a chance to believe, if He had come ten or twenty years ago? Peter says His delay is so that more may choose Him: [2Pe 3:7-10 NKJV] But the heavens and the earth [which] are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day [is] as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning [His] promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Yes, 1 Pet 4:7, James 5:8, and Rev 1:3 are for us. -snip- When Peter writes in 1Peter 4:7 "the end of all things is near", given the definitions from both the English and the Greek of the word, how do you possibly justify it applying to people living 2,000 years later??? Preterists are to be commended for the importance they place on the "time statements", but if they'd apply the same literalness to the rest of scripture I think they'd see they've painted themselves into an untenable corner. So you agree that the time statements are literal? If so, how can they possibly pertain to us??? The proper manner by which to interpret scripture (or any text) that is both a mixture of the literal and symbolic, is to read the literal at face value and use it as the key for understanding the symbolic. What the church has done is flip this completely on its head, so that the symbolic ("stars falling to earth") becomes literal and the clearly literal time statements ("the end of alll things is near") are symbolic! In other words, in order to understand the symbolic, people must view it in terms of the literal! This is the only proper way to approach Biblical hermeneutics! And again, if the words the apostles wrote to their audiences were not relevant to them, why did they bother writing to them as though they were??? Again, as the part of my post that you edited says, each person that reads Peter's (or James', or John's, or Paul's, or Jesus') words will, themselves, soon see "the end of all things". Maybe tomorrow (my car's brakes are squeaking, maybe they'll give out at the bottom of that hill...), maybe in another 70 years, but for each reader of the scripture, there is a very finite time window we each are allotted, in which to accept or deny Christ. That is the "literal", but not simplistic, and not contrary to other plain teachings, way to interpret the "time statements". I'm vastly more comfortable seeing these statements as "be ready" warnings. If we instead take them to apply to fist-century-only readers, then Christ's second coming has already happened, and such emphatic promises as "every eye shall see him" and His coming will be "as the lightning across the whole sky" are made of no effect- instead, you are in effect arguing that He came in secret, or in hidden chambers, or in the wilderness, or some such. Most non-liberal (in their theology) Christians see the plagues as real, literal events. The lightnings and earthquakes of Sinai are real, literal events. The manna, the cloud, and the shikinah glory were literal. Jericho was a literal event. The long day of Joshua, and the hail (or fiery rocks/meteorite) shower afterward, are literal. Yet we have the temerity to assume that God can't do such things again, that He will will no longer intervene, and He will allow all things to remain as they are, since the fathers fell asleep. So yes, in some unmistakably obvious way, the "stars will fall from the sky". We use the phrase "shooting star" today. Is everyone that says this an ignorant buffoon that really thinks a star is shooting through the atmosphere? If I describe a sunset, is my astronomy suddenly ptolemaic rather than copernican? Literal doesn't require letter-ism. All languages contain figures of speech, and various literary and rhetorical devices. When we shelter under His wings (Psa 36, 91), it doesn't mean God has feathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted October 2, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 22 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2014 Again, as the part of my post that you edited says, each person that reads Peter's (or James', or John's, or Paul's, or Jesus') words will, themselves, soon see "the end of all things". So then, should each person also expect to see their world "melted with a fervent heat?" Peter was speaking of a specific end that cannot be allegorized into something he never intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted October 2, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 22 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2014 "...such emphatic promises as "every eye shall see him" and His coming will be "as the lightning across the whole sky" are made of no effect- instead, you are in effect arguing that He came in secret, or in hidden chambers, or in the wilderness, or some such." Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. At this point, I'm simply trying to get people to see the problems in trying to make 2,000 year-old texts about us, living today, when proper Biblical hermeneutics allows for no such thing. Again, if I write an inspired letter to my wife does that entitle you to read it as though it's addressed to you simply because we're all part of Christ's church? If not, why do you read the New Testament epistles that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormcrow Posted October 2, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 22 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 2, 2014 All languages contain figures of speech, and various literary and rhetorical devices. When we shelter under His wings (Psa 36, 91), it doesn't mean God has feathers. So we agree: figures of speech should be taken as figures of speech. But when did words like "soon" and "near" become figures of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 2, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Closed for review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts