-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
None taken.
As for the direction this thread is taking, I'm a little lost as well.
As for the direction this thread is taking, I'm a little lost as well.
Many people feel there are gray areas, and I have not yet seen one I think fits the description.
And have to get going, but will check back at the next opportunity.
God bless.
Please clarify the discussion at hand.
As I have already stated: If you insist that this thread is about the "understandabilty" of God's word, I bow out. (See statement directly above.)
If this thread is about "gray areas" and variations of understanding, let's begin by defining what would constitute a "gray area".
Your call...
As I have already stated: If you insist that this thread is about the "understandabilty" of God's word, I bow out. (See statement directly above.)
If this thread is about "gray areas" and variations of understanding, let's begin by defining what would constitute a "gray area".
Your call...
Regarding "gray areas of Scripture"
When I use or hear the term "gray areas" this indicates any passage or concept of Scripture regarding which there are multiple views. As such, almost any passage falls into this category; however, some views are far more valid than others.
Examples include, but are not limited to: (nut-shell only, and in NO particular order)
- Day of worship: Saturday vs. Sunday
- Baptism: sprinkling vs. immersion
- State of the dead: unconscious sleep or eternal torment
- "Thou shalt not Kill"
- Pre-trib / post-trib / mid-trib
- Pre-millennial / post-millennial
- Works vs. Faith vs. Grace
- To drink or not to drink
There are some absolutes in Christianity, but that is not the scope of this thread. (Although it may be helpful to at least identify them.) And it must be added that even the absolutes have varying nuances of understanding.
When I use or hear the term "gray areas" this indicates any passage or concept of Scripture regarding which there are multiple views. As such, almost any passage falls into this category; however, some views are far more valid than others.
Examples include, but are not limited to: (nut-shell only, and in NO particular order)
- Day of worship: Saturday vs. Sunday
- Baptism: sprinkling vs. immersion
- State of the dead: unconscious sleep or eternal torment
- "Thou shalt not Kill"
- Pre-trib / post-trib / mid-trib
- Pre-millennial / post-millennial
- Works vs. Faith vs. Grace
- To drink or not to drink
There are some absolutes in Christianity, but that is not the scope of this thread. (Although it may be helpful to at least identify them.) And it must be added that even the absolutes have varying nuances of understanding.
I wouldn't use that kind of terminology of "loop holes" and "gray areas".
Just because some of the deeper things in God's Word is not understood by some doesn't make it have gray areas or loop holes. Many don't study to the depth to get all the picture of a matter, often leaving out relevant Scripture in other Bible Books where God gave more information. Some haven't figured out yet that it's important at times to translate the meaning of names and places from the Hebrew, because it has direct bearing on His Message in the chapter, and sometimes reveals clearly His Message there.
Also, God chooses when something He put in His Word will be clearly understood according to its times and seasons, like the example of Daniel wanting to understand the events he was given about the last days, and being told those in the end will know.
God also chooses to whom He will open up His Word to in understanding according to their Faith. A non-believer who reads His Word like it's literature like any other will go away sorely displeased at not being able to understand it, or they will denounce it as fraudulent, or even that's it's just a book of poetry.
It's these kind of things that makes God's Word The 'Living' Word.
Just because some of the deeper things in God's Word is not understood by some doesn't make it have gray areas or loop holes. Many don't study to the depth to get all the picture of a matter, often leaving out relevant Scripture in other Bible Books where God gave more information. Some haven't figured out yet that it's important at times to translate the meaning of names and places from the Hebrew, because it has direct bearing on His Message in the chapter, and sometimes reveals clearly His Message there.
Also, God chooses when something He put in His Word will be clearly understood according to its times and seasons, like the example of Daniel wanting to understand the events he was given about the last days, and being told those in the end will know.
God also chooses to whom He will open up His Word to in understanding according to their Faith. A non-believer who reads His Word like it's literature like any other will go away sorely displeased at not being able to understand it, or they will denounce it as fraudulent, or even that's it's just a book of poetry.
It's these kind of things that makes God's Word The 'Living' Word.
God is fully capable of condescending His thoughts into our language so we may understand what He intends for us to understand.
He is also able to quicken our spirit in the new birth so we may comprehend.
There are no grey (gray) areas as far as God's perspective and intent goes. Unfortunately the grey area resides upstairs between our eyeballs...
1 Corinthians 13:12 (HCSB) For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.
He is also able to quicken our spirit in the new birth so we may comprehend.
There are no grey (gray) areas as far as God's perspective and intent goes. Unfortunately the grey area resides upstairs between our eyeballs...
1 Corinthians 13:12 (HCSB) For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known.
Last edited:
LOL there are grey areas on nearly every page. every time two genuine Christians guided by the Holy Spirit disagree on a verse we have a grey area.
I love the idea that we can all understand God's will and God's truth from the Bible. It was clearly only poor old Paul who could only see through a glass darkly. The truth is that in our studies we only gain knowledge of the outskirts of His ways.
The truth is that the Bible is written as a universal teacher, to prosaic westerners, and to more poetically minded easterners, and so on and all can learn about God and gain truth from it. We gain a little here and a little there (and get bogged down in schemes) but truth grows up gradually over many years, and even then each of us only has partial truth. All of us are restricted by our upbringing, environment and limited ability to understand God's message and ways.
Fortunately we only need to know the few essential truths to be saved.
I love the idea that we can all understand God's will and God's truth from the Bible. It was clearly only poor old Paul who could only see through a glass darkly. The truth is that in our studies we only gain knowledge of the outskirts of His ways.
The truth is that the Bible is written as a universal teacher, to prosaic westerners, and to more poetically minded easterners, and so on and all can learn about God and gain truth from it. We gain a little here and a little there (and get bogged down in schemes) but truth grows up gradually over many years, and even then each of us only has partial truth. All of us are restricted by our upbringing, environment and limited ability to understand God's message and ways.
Fortunately we only need to know the few essential truths to be saved.
P
I am in full agreement with this, although I would say "Lawyers" get a bad rap, in my view.
The Associate Pastor of my fellowship says rather frequently, "God has not called us to be Lawyers," lol.
I beg to differ. It is just my humble opinion that some of us have been called to be Lawyers, that is...advocates who have an understanding of Scripture.
So let's not say loop-holes and gray areas were created by lawyers, but, by men (as you originally state), and men who refuse to first exegete the Scriptures and then secondly expound those Scriptures. If there is a motive for handling the Word of God that is not the original intent (to declare God to Man, and in this Age to declare Christ), then we might consider the lawyer to be an ambulance chaser, lol.
Paul did quite a bit of lawyering, disputing with those of opposing views and advocating the Savior. There is none other example in Scripture that I think those with the hearts of evangelists have to look up to, nor a model that better examples our goal to a lost and dying world.
Those that wrest the Scriptures could one of two peoples, either ignorant, or evil. Christians can, and often do (myself included) fall into the first category, but never the second. And if our behavior and doctrine follow the Biblical Model, who can bring anything against us.
I think we can be successful advocates, primarily because we have an Advocate. And again, a great model for us to seek to replicate.
God bless.
The Associate Pastor of my fellowship says rather frequently, "God has not called us to be Lawyers," lol.
I beg to differ. It is just my humble opinion that some of us have been called to be Lawyers, that is...advocates who have an understanding of Scripture.
So let's not say loop-holes and gray areas were created by lawyers, but, by men (as you originally state), and men who refuse to first exegete the Scriptures and then secondly expound those Scriptures. If there is a motive for handling the Word of God that is not the original intent (to declare God to Man, and in this Age to declare Christ), then we might consider the lawyer to be an ambulance chaser, lol.
Paul did quite a bit of lawyering, disputing with those of opposing views and advocating the Savior. There is none other example in Scripture that I think those with the hearts of evangelists have to look up to, nor a model that better examples our goal to a lost and dying world.
Those that wrest the Scriptures could one of two peoples, either ignorant, or evil. Christians can, and often do (myself included) fall into the first category, but never the second. And if our behavior and doctrine follow the Biblical Model, who can bring anything against us.
I think we can be successful advocates, primarily because we have an Advocate. And again, a great model for us to seek to replicate.
God bless.
P
but again I would like to reiterate the scope of thread deals primarily with a view that there are loop-holes and gray areas.
Please clarify the discussion at hand.
I absolutely believe that God's word is given to us as a guide, and that it is possible to understand His will through the word, so let's just take that one off the table.
If you insist that this thread is about the "understandabilty" of God's word, I bow out. (See statement directly above.)
In the other thread the exchange was thus...
Originally Posted by SOGMan
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M
There are no "loop-holes" in Scripture, in my view, nor gray areas which the Word cannot speak to and lead us to a decided conclusion.
I actually believe there ARE "loop-holes" in Scripture.
There are no "loop-holes" in Scripture, in my view, nor gray areas which the Word cannot speak to and lead us to a decided conclusion.
I actually believe there ARE "loop-holes" in Scripture.
You also said...
Examples?
which is why many can study the same passage and come to widely diverse conclusions.
I asked for examples and you said start a thread. I did.
Now it seems as though the scope of the thread is not clear.
Not really.
And I am sorry you have been banned, I hope it is a temporary ban and we will be able to finish the discussion.
God bless.
P
Now this is more like it, lol.
Again we see the implication, there can be "multiple views," which I reject. God has a singular intent in the content of the revelation He has provided. The closest we are going to come to this is going to "multiple application," which is not equal to "multiple views."
An example would be the application of Prophecy. The best example might be the Coming of Messiah. We see multiple applications for this Coming in that the Prophecy of Christ foretold His Coming, but did not, in the Old Testament, make it clear that certain Scriptures would have a multiple application. When He came in the flesh, we see prophecy fulfilled, but, completion in fulfillment would not reach it's culmination in that Appearing. Christ did come, He did establish an Eternal Kingdom, but, this will have application when He returns and establishes first the Millennial Kingdom, then the Eternal State. That is why it is critical to understand revelation is progressive in Scripture.
Another might be Prophecy related to Antichrist. It is my view that Antiochus Epiphanes can be seen as a near fulfillment, and perhaps Nero another, but, the final application will be the Antichrist of the Tribulation.
We can apply salvation in multiple terms: He has saved us (from the penalty of sin), He is saving us (from the effects of sin), and He will save us (from the presence of sin).
But this is not giving Scripture multiple meanings. Each of these examples have to be determined in their precise context. And example of a multiple meaning would be making the concept of Antichrist equal to the concept of the spirit of antichrist, thus nullifying specific intent on the part of our Teacher...God.
It's not a gray area: we have no command as Christians to worship or practice ceremonial ritual on any particular day, unlike those under Law.
Paul writes...
Colossians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
That is enough for us to dogmatically assert that those who do this...are in error.
It's not a gray area. The command is that disciples are to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is synonymous with Baptizing in the Name of Christ because...Christ is God.
Those who follow the example seen in Scripture of immersion are not wrong, and those that follow the Old Testament pattern of sprinkling are not wrong. Because Christian Baptism is not salvific, the important matter is whether one has been Baptized with the Holy Ghost, indwelt of God, and immersed into Christ...which event the eye cannot see, as Christ teaches in John 3.
It is only a gray area or those who have not studied the issue sufficiently, and have their own "gray areas" from a Soteriological perspective.
It's not a gray area. "Sleep" is defined by Christ as physical death:
John 11:11-14
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
The use of this euphemism is no different than our own saying that one has "passed away." We don't usually go up to people and say "Sorry to hear they are dead."
In the Old Testament this is used quite often, and the primary error for the Soul Sleeper is that they fail to understand a proper Biblical usage of the word "soul" in Scripture. "Soul" represents the person, not the immaterial aspect of man. There are perhaps four verses where this becomes debatable, but, we can conclude dogmatically if we place the usage within the context of the Bible as a whole. When God created man He created man's body, breathed the breath of life into Adam, and man became a living soul, not...Adam received a soul.
Again this lends itself to the Soteriological perspective, and we can see that those who impose an eternal element to texts that are temporal confuse themselves into thinking that all references to the soul refer to an immaterial aspect of man. I challenge anyone involved in this error to exegete Ezekiel 18 and present a reasonable presentation of eternal punishment for the "soul" that sins. While we, on this side of reception of New Testament revelation can understand eternal punishment, in view in Ezekiel 18 is physical death. If we say eternal punishment is in view, the corollary would be that eternal salvation is obtained through the keeping of the Law, which doctrine Paul in many places denies as a possibility.
Eternal Salvation is obtained by Christ and bestowed to the ones coming into obedience to the Gospel, not something that man can for or of himself obtain through his efforts.
Continued...
Again we see the implication, there can be "multiple views," which I reject. God has a singular intent in the content of the revelation He has provided. The closest we are going to come to this is going to "multiple application," which is not equal to "multiple views."
An example would be the application of Prophecy. The best example might be the Coming of Messiah. We see multiple applications for this Coming in that the Prophecy of Christ foretold His Coming, but did not, in the Old Testament, make it clear that certain Scriptures would have a multiple application. When He came in the flesh, we see prophecy fulfilled, but, completion in fulfillment would not reach it's culmination in that Appearing. Christ did come, He did establish an Eternal Kingdom, but, this will have application when He returns and establishes first the Millennial Kingdom, then the Eternal State. That is why it is critical to understand revelation is progressive in Scripture.
Another might be Prophecy related to Antichrist. It is my view that Antiochus Epiphanes can be seen as a near fulfillment, and perhaps Nero another, but, the final application will be the Antichrist of the Tribulation.
We can apply salvation in multiple terms: He has saved us (from the penalty of sin), He is saving us (from the effects of sin), and He will save us (from the presence of sin).
But this is not giving Scripture multiple meanings. Each of these examples have to be determined in their precise context. And example of a multiple meaning would be making the concept of Antichrist equal to the concept of the spirit of antichrist, thus nullifying specific intent on the part of our Teacher...God.
It's not a gray area: we have no command as Christians to worship or practice ceremonial ritual on any particular day, unlike those under Law.
Paul writes...
Colossians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]16 [/SUP]Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
That is enough for us to dogmatically assert that those who do this...are in error.
It's not a gray area. The command is that disciples are to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is synonymous with Baptizing in the Name of Christ because...Christ is God.
Those who follow the example seen in Scripture of immersion are not wrong, and those that follow the Old Testament pattern of sprinkling are not wrong. Because Christian Baptism is not salvific, the important matter is whether one has been Baptized with the Holy Ghost, indwelt of God, and immersed into Christ...which event the eye cannot see, as Christ teaches in John 3.
It is only a gray area or those who have not studied the issue sufficiently, and have their own "gray areas" from a Soteriological perspective.
It's not a gray area. "Sleep" is defined by Christ as physical death:
John 11:11-14
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
The use of this euphemism is no different than our own saying that one has "passed away." We don't usually go up to people and say "Sorry to hear they are dead."
In the Old Testament this is used quite often, and the primary error for the Soul Sleeper is that they fail to understand a proper Biblical usage of the word "soul" in Scripture. "Soul" represents the person, not the immaterial aspect of man. There are perhaps four verses where this becomes debatable, but, we can conclude dogmatically if we place the usage within the context of the Bible as a whole. When God created man He created man's body, breathed the breath of life into Adam, and man became a living soul, not...Adam received a soul.
Again this lends itself to the Soteriological perspective, and we can see that those who impose an eternal element to texts that are temporal confuse themselves into thinking that all references to the soul refer to an immaterial aspect of man. I challenge anyone involved in this error to exegete Ezekiel 18 and present a reasonable presentation of eternal punishment for the "soul" that sins. While we, on this side of reception of New Testament revelation can understand eternal punishment, in view in Ezekiel 18 is physical death. If we say eternal punishment is in view, the corollary would be that eternal salvation is obtained through the keeping of the Law, which doctrine Paul in many places denies as a possibility.
Eternal Salvation is obtained by Christ and bestowed to the ones coming into obedience to the Gospel, not something that man can for or of himself obtain through his efforts.
Continued...
P
It's not a gray area: in view is murder, the intentional taking of another's life.
Some atheists make this error in thinking God is prohibiting killing of any kind. If this were the case then we nullify Law and Justice. And while we might distinguish between the eternal and temporal, God has revealed that the things of earth are, if they are in right relation to God and His will...to follow the pattern of Heaven.
That means that judgment is not nullified in regards to sin. Lucifer sinned, and he was judged. His ultimate judgment is eternal separation. That is...eternal death.
So this would only be a gray area, and a platform for many grievous errors, for those that cannot distinguish between killing in judgment and the unlawful taking of life. The Ten Commandments might be said to be a summary statement of the intentions of the Word of God: that man might know God's will in relation to Himself, and to his fellow man.
Christ taught that if the first two were kept...then the entirety of the Law would be:
Matthew 22:36-40
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[SUP]37 [/SUP]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]This is the first and great commandment.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Continued...
Some atheists make this error in thinking God is prohibiting killing of any kind. If this were the case then we nullify Law and Justice. And while we might distinguish between the eternal and temporal, God has revealed that the things of earth are, if they are in right relation to God and His will...to follow the pattern of Heaven.
That means that judgment is not nullified in regards to sin. Lucifer sinned, and he was judged. His ultimate judgment is eternal separation. That is...eternal death.
So this would only be a gray area, and a platform for many grievous errors, for those that cannot distinguish between killing in judgment and the unlawful taking of life. The Ten Commandments might be said to be a summary statement of the intentions of the Word of God: that man might know God's will in relation to Himself, and to his fellow man.
Christ taught that if the first two were kept...then the entirety of the Law would be:
Matthew 22:36-40
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[SUP]37 [/SUP]Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]This is the first and great commandment.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Continued...
P
This is not a gray area either: the Pre-Tribulation view is the only reasonable view to take.
This might surprise some of you, but I will illustrate with a question: who populates the Millennial Kingdom?
For those of us that do not see gray areas, and do believe that Scripture has a consistency, meaning that all Prophecy will be fulfilled, none are abandoned, and, believe that every word is there for a reason, then we can easily accept that when the Word of God states there will be a thousand years between the end of the Tribulation (at which time we see the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs) and the general resurrection which takes place at the end of the thousand year Reign of Christ, then that means...there is going to be a thousand years between those events.
Now, at the end of the thousand years we see unbelievers rise up against God and join forces with the recently released Satan.
Where do these people come from?
The obvious answer is that they are the offspring of the believers who physically live through the Tribulation.
Now here is the point: if the Rapture of the Church occurs at the end of the Tribulation...that leaves no physical believers to produce this offspring.
That denies a Post-Tribulation Rapture.
And the only rapture we see in the middle of the Tribulation is that of the Two Witnesses. We could, if we are in the habit of spiritualizing Scripture and reducing it to metaphor and figurative speech (thus canceling out the intent of the use of figurative language, which is to illustrate what is being taught), try to make the Two Witnesses something other than two men, but, the text does not really allow for this. The suggestions may seem reasonable, such as the Two Witnesses being the Two Testaments, or, Israel and the Church, or some other set of Two, but, when we look at what happens to the Two Witnesses it seems pretty clear that these are two men.
For example, the Two Testaments at no time have lain dead.
So while this is unquestionably an area of great dispute among believers, we still have to deny that this is a gray area in which we cannot come to a dogmatic Biblical conclusion on.
And I welcome any challenge to the Pre-Tribulation view, that too is one of my favorite subjects, and it's importance will be seen as it touches on some very fundamental truths which we have to understand before trying embracing one view over the other.
Continued...
This might surprise some of you, but I will illustrate with a question: who populates the Millennial Kingdom?
For those of us that do not see gray areas, and do believe that Scripture has a consistency, meaning that all Prophecy will be fulfilled, none are abandoned, and, believe that every word is there for a reason, then we can easily accept that when the Word of God states there will be a thousand years between the end of the Tribulation (at which time we see the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs) and the general resurrection which takes place at the end of the thousand year Reign of Christ, then that means...there is going to be a thousand years between those events.
Now, at the end of the thousand years we see unbelievers rise up against God and join forces with the recently released Satan.
Where do these people come from?
The obvious answer is that they are the offspring of the believers who physically live through the Tribulation.
Now here is the point: if the Rapture of the Church occurs at the end of the Tribulation...that leaves no physical believers to produce this offspring.
That denies a Post-Tribulation Rapture.
And the only rapture we see in the middle of the Tribulation is that of the Two Witnesses. We could, if we are in the habit of spiritualizing Scripture and reducing it to metaphor and figurative speech (thus canceling out the intent of the use of figurative language, which is to illustrate what is being taught), try to make the Two Witnesses something other than two men, but, the text does not really allow for this. The suggestions may seem reasonable, such as the Two Witnesses being the Two Testaments, or, Israel and the Church, or some other set of Two, but, when we look at what happens to the Two Witnesses it seems pretty clear that these are two men.
For example, the Two Testaments at no time have lain dead.
So while this is unquestionably an area of great dispute among believers, we still have to deny that this is a gray area in which we cannot come to a dogmatic Biblical conclusion on.
And I welcome any challenge to the Pre-Tribulation view, that too is one of my favorite subjects, and it's importance will be seen as it touches on some very fundamental truths which we have to understand before trying embracing one view over the other.
Continued...
P
Again, not a gray area...except to those who deny the very clear timeline of events in Revelation.
Christ can clearly be seen to return before the Millennial Kingdom.
It might interest some to know that the A-millennial view is the view most held in Church History, but...it is not the first view. It became very popular at the time of the Reformation, and was a view presented as a counter-view to the Catholic view which was pre-millennial. Ironically, many Catholics have embraced a hermeneutical approach similar to that of the reformers, to where in speaking with both those of Catholic and Reformed Theology, we have a hard time distinguishing between the two. And given the enmity between the two groups, it is not likely that many on either side understand that the similarities they have in their approach is, well...scary.
So are the conclusions both arrive at in regards to what Scripture makes clear.
Some will use Peter's statement to nullify Scripture:
2 Peter 3:8
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This is thought to render this...
Revelation 20
King James Version (KJV)
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
...as figurative.
So tell me...does the Lord not reign for a specific period? Are not Tribulation Martyrs said to reign with Him?
Even if it was not specifically a thousand years (as it so clearly states), we still see a separation of time between the two resurrections spoken of here.
Neither of which correlate to Paul's teaching of the Rapture of the Church, because when the Church is raptured (caught up), they are caught up as a whole, both living and dead.
So if the Pre-Millennial view is a gray area for anyone, it simply means they have some serious study ahead of them. This kind of issue is not understood in casual chats, but is both learned and revealed through (by God) diligent study. We can't expect to have anything settled in our hearts if we do not put forth the effort we are called to in regards tot he Word of God.
Continued...
Christ can clearly be seen to return before the Millennial Kingdom.
It might interest some to know that the A-millennial view is the view most held in Church History, but...it is not the first view. It became very popular at the time of the Reformation, and was a view presented as a counter-view to the Catholic view which was pre-millennial. Ironically, many Catholics have embraced a hermeneutical approach similar to that of the reformers, to where in speaking with both those of Catholic and Reformed Theology, we have a hard time distinguishing between the two. And given the enmity between the two groups, it is not likely that many on either side understand that the similarities they have in their approach is, well...scary.
So are the conclusions both arrive at in regards to what Scripture makes clear.
Some will use Peter's statement to nullify Scripture:
2 Peter 3:8
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
This is thought to render this...
Revelation 20
King James Version (KJV)
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
...as figurative.
So tell me...does the Lord not reign for a specific period? Are not Tribulation Martyrs said to reign with Him?
Even if it was not specifically a thousand years (as it so clearly states), we still see a separation of time between the two resurrections spoken of here.
Neither of which correlate to Paul's teaching of the Rapture of the Church, because when the Church is raptured (caught up), they are caught up as a whole, both living and dead.
So if the Pre-Millennial view is a gray area for anyone, it simply means they have some serious study ahead of them. This kind of issue is not understood in casual chats, but is both learned and revealed through (by God) diligent study. We can't expect to have anything settled in our hearts if we do not put forth the effort we are called to in regards tot he Word of God.
Continued...
P
This is one that amazes me.
It should be simple enough to the born again believer, who did not, when they were saved, think for a minute there was anything they could do to save themselves.
But unfortunately we do have groups that are confused about what is a pretty simple and fundamental truth about salvation...no works of man contribute.
And to begin that discussion I would simply offer...
Ephesians 2:8-10
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[SUP]9[/SUP]Not of works, lest any man should boast.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Titus 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
It's as easy as 3:4-5.
(thought I was going to say as "easy as 1-2-3," didn't you?)
Continued...
It should be simple enough to the born again believer, who did not, when they were saved, think for a minute there was anything they could do to save themselves.
But unfortunately we do have groups that are confused about what is a pretty simple and fundamental truth about salvation...no works of man contribute.
And to begin that discussion I would simply offer...
Ephesians 2:8-10
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
[SUP]9[/SUP]Not of works, lest any man should boast.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Titus 3:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
It's as easy as 3:4-5.
(thought I was going to say as "easy as 1-2-3," didn't you?)
Continued...
P
Seems pretty clear, we are to maintain self control and this is pretty hard to do if we are...drunk.
Some cultures incorporate alcohol in their daily lives, great. But any mind altering substance should be viewed as a potential for sin.
Do we drink an entire bottle of Nyquil when we utilize the product for medicinal use? Would we not question someone doing that? Question their motives?
Same thing with any alcohol, if the intent is to alter our mind, to catch a buzz, that is, then it is sin. Seeing that mind altering products are associated with idolatry, I would think that we would not be able to fool ourselves into thinking that catching a buzz is okay for any reason.
It's one thing to take a little wine for your stomach's sake, lol, but an entirely different issue to take it for your mind's sake. There is no prohibition against the use of alcohol, just like there is no prohibition against the use of wood. Both can be used for good, as well as evil. Both can be used to form an idol.
On the contrary...that is the specific intent of the thread, to show that there are absolutes in Scripture, and that Scripture has a specific intent in all of it's teachings.
Portraying Scripture as something that men can use to their benefit, rather than the demand Scripture places on people to understand the intent, is simply something that I disagree with.
And that brings us back to my original statement to you, that Scripture has a specific intent and God gave us His Word with the express purpose that we...know His will.
Helpful?
Critical.
So say some, but I would like to see examples.
God bless.
Some cultures incorporate alcohol in their daily lives, great. But any mind altering substance should be viewed as a potential for sin.
Do we drink an entire bottle of Nyquil when we utilize the product for medicinal use? Would we not question someone doing that? Question their motives?
Same thing with any alcohol, if the intent is to alter our mind, to catch a buzz, that is, then it is sin. Seeing that mind altering products are associated with idolatry, I would think that we would not be able to fool ourselves into thinking that catching a buzz is okay for any reason.
It's one thing to take a little wine for your stomach's sake, lol, but an entirely different issue to take it for your mind's sake. There is no prohibition against the use of alcohol, just like there is no prohibition against the use of wood. Both can be used for good, as well as evil. Both can be used to form an idol.
On the contrary...that is the specific intent of the thread, to show that there are absolutes in Scripture, and that Scripture has a specific intent in all of it's teachings.
Portraying Scripture as something that men can use to their benefit, rather than the demand Scripture places on people to understand the intent, is simply something that I disagree with.
And that brings us back to my original statement to you, that Scripture has a specific intent and God gave us His Word with the express purpose that we...know His will.
Helpful?
Critical.
So say some, but I would like to see examples.
God bless.
P
It is very true that understanding of divine truth is reliant on the revelation of truth by the Spirit of God, That has always been the case, as the Scripture presented indicates.
That doesn't mean that we nullify God's efforts through the Body of Christ, meaning that God gave the Body teachers for a reason.
We can't approach Scripture in our own understanding, and we err greatly when we impose our understanding into Scripture, rather than extract that which God has previously revealed. So we see that both our Teacher and His Word work together as we grow in knowledge of the Word. We maintain the teachings as they were given, and if we do not yet understand we maintain diligence in requesting of God the understanding He has promised. We have not because we ask not. We ask and receive not because we ask amiss.
As you said in the previous post, "There is just things we don't understand yet."
Great statement. It sums up why there are things we don't (yet) understand. Yet we know that it is God's intent that we do understand, and the better we understand, the more useful we are to God as He carries out His will in regards to the Redemption of Man.
God bless.
That doesn't mean that we nullify God's efforts through the Body of Christ, meaning that God gave the Body teachers for a reason.
We can't approach Scripture in our own understanding, and we err greatly when we impose our understanding into Scripture, rather than extract that which God has previously revealed. So we see that both our Teacher and His Word work together as we grow in knowledge of the Word. We maintain the teachings as they were given, and if we do not yet understand we maintain diligence in requesting of God the understanding He has promised. We have not because we ask not. We ask and receive not because we ask amiss.
As you said in the previous post, "There is just things we don't understand yet."
Great statement. It sums up why there are things we don't (yet) understand. Yet we know that it is God's intent that we do understand, and the better we understand, the more useful we are to God as He carries out His will in regards to the Redemption of Man.
God bless.