Has modern prophecy seeking made Christianity irrational?

[Interplanner]

I think I have a concern that will really grip you. I can tell you are very concerned that the truth of the Gospel and of God's commands be taken seriously by our generation, and that you have that concern even if certain prophetic events don't take place. I do too.

You may know from other theology study that all religion was pretty much put in the irrational cateogory in the previous century. One form of it was existentialist, another neo-orthodox. Dr. Schaeffer (L'Abri Fellowship International : The Official Website) would summarize it by saying that those teachers thought the Bible was historically false but "spiritually" true. This was a very broad meaning of spirituality, like what Jung would use in psychology, but that is a separate question.

Because of this kind of set back, and general cynicism, when Israel 1948 happened, many Christians began to think that all that modern thought had been upstaged. Or actually began to think so later with the efforts of, say, Lindsay, to make it more readable or commonly understood. There was some conception that God had reasserted himself historically to "answer" the modern skeptics.

There was actually a mistake in this, though, which showed up in 1981. By 1981 (40 years after 1948 minus 7) the scheme Lindsay had made so popular should have taken place. As you may know, this lead to tons of publications and attempts to clarify or qualify it all, and still does. Many people have done what Pastor Camping did 2 years ago, because the pull is there: it would just make sense that a person should be able to logically quantify what is going on and come to a chrono-mechanical "truth" that could be published for today.

I think you will find that this type of effort has had the opposite effect; it has diluted the power of the Christian message. And not just because one guy who got national press was wrong. That was merely one of many waves after Lindsay was wrong.

So because I grew up in that, in a youth group that read THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH more than the Bible, or before the Bible, I have sought to find something for our generation to sink into, that would answer the split-knowledge world Schaeffer described. The answer is not in modern eschatology or modern events.

However the perception of many Christians is that truth is supposed to be that way and so the modern Israel thing seems just right. They don't mind total conflict with the letter to Hebrews, so Israel is "restored" but it is irrational. They jump to the future as soon as they read anything in Mt 24A, but truth is irrational so that's fine. They split Dan 9's 70 weeks apart, and ignore how much detail in the 'war will continue' paragraph is similar to the DofJ, but truth is irrational, so splitting and ignoring is just fine. They don't read Josephus because it is not "Biblical," but truth is history-free and irrational, so they are doing exactly what the modern idea of true dictates.

Instead, the answer is in the NT background, which, unfortunately but not surprisingly, you seem to have no background. The sense of the reality of God's judgement that comes through the horrendous destruction of Jerusalem as described in Mt 24A and Lk 19 and 21 is, may I say, bone-crushing. How could anyone doubt the day of God's justice once you've had the least glimpse of what is actually being said there?

then there is the martyr-quality vitality of the apostles faith, because they knew Christ was now enthroned as Lord and Christ (Acts 2, Eph 1). Roman administrators quaked in their seats as they listened to Paul explain this world was God's kingdom (Acts 25, 26) or Christ's (1 Cor 15). Contrast this with the incessant debate today about escaping hardship in this world through the rapture. Not exactly the same thing. And there is all the postponement people saying Jesus/Paul were not really talking about what the OT said would happen when they referred to the kingdom of God. How odd that Christians should not want a manifestation of the reign of God to present to the world, but are willing to say that's what we have in modern Israel with its layers of complications!

I'm sure your intentions are very genuine as you try to find a reality in modern events, but the modern irrational jumps may have beat you to it and had too much effect on our generation already. Are we the same, or different, from those who think truth is irrational?

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

Yeah, Christians are known for being "irrational" tho..

Call us Crazy for Christ..


BTW, NOTHING can dilute the message of the Gospel of Christ.

NOTHING.

 

[Biblewriter]

You may know from other theology study that all religion was pretty much put in the irrational cateogory in the previous century. One form of it was existentialist, another neo-orthodox. Dr. Schaeffer (L'Abri Fellowship International : The Official Website) would summarize it by saying that those teachers thought the Bible was historically false but "spiritually" true. This was a very broad meaning of spirituality, like what Jung would use in psychology, but that is a separate question.

There is very little difference between this and what you are preaching. They said the Bible was historically false but true "spiritually." And you say the Old Testament prophecies are false literally but true "spiritually." Both of these concepts are lies forged in hell and pawned off on people as the truth of God.

They said the actual facts stated in the Bible were not true, but the doctrines it teaches were true. You say that the prophecies so explicitly stated in the Old Testament do not men what they say, but mean something entirely different from what they say.

Their excuse for all their false doctrines was that they think modern man knows that many of the things so explicitly stated as ancient facts in the Bible were simply not true. Your excuse for your false doctrine is that you interpret a few passages in the New Testament to mean that all the promises have been transferred to a completely different people, in a completely different place.

Their error, aside from unbelief in what God said, was relying on the wisdom of modern man in such matters as evolution and ancient history. Your error, which is also unbelief in what God said, is relying on your own wisdom to interpret what God said.

We have repeatedly pointed out that not even one of the New Testament passages which you always point to actually says what you claim it teaches. But you have refused to even read what we have written.

You claim that our problem is that we do not know enough about the history of that time, but then you have demonstrated that you do not know nearly as much about ancient history as you claim to know.

I have, as a certified and licensed professional in one of the most wide ranging fields of science, repeatedly assured everyone here that evolution is not proven science. It is just a belief that almost all scientists feel they must not question. And I also assure them that I have also studied the writings of Josephus, and they have to be interpreted to make them mean that Matthew 24 was fulfilled at time, just as every passage in the New Testament has to be interpreted to make it mean what Interplanner and his friends make them out to teach.

Neither any passage in Josephus nor any passage in the New Testament actually says what these people claim they say. These are nothing but interpretations of the meanings of what they say, and these interpretations are being palmed off in an unsuspecting public as an excuse to deny what nearly half of the Old Testament explicitly says.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

There is very little difference between this and what you are preaching. They said the Bible was historically false but true "spiritually." And you say the Old Testament prophecies are false literally but true "spiritually." Both of these concepts are lies forged in hell and pawned off on people as the truth of God.

They said the actual facts stated in the Bible were not true, but the doctrines it teaches were true. You say that the prophecies so explicitly stated in the Old Testament do not men what they say, but mean something entirely different from what they say.

Their excuse for all their false doctrines was that they think modern man knows that many of the things so explicitly stated as ancient facts in the Bible were simply not true. Your excuse for your false doctrine is that you interpret a few passages in the New Testament to mean that all the promises have been transferred to a completely different people, in a completely different place.

Their error, aside from unbelief in what God said, was relying on the wisdom of modern man in such matters as evolution and ancient history. Your error, which is also unbelief in what God said, is relying on your own wisdom to interpret what God said.

We have repeatedly pointed out that not even one of the New Testament passages which you always point to actually says what you claim it teaches. But you have refused to even read what we have written.

You claim that our problem is that we do not know enough about the history of that time, but then you have demonstrated that you do not know nearly as much about ancient history as you claim to know.

I have, as a certified and licensed professional in one of the most wide ranging fields of science, repeatedly assured everyone here that evolution is not proven science. It is just a belief that almost all scientists feel they must not question. And I also assure them that I have also studied the writings of Josephus, and they have to be interpreted to make them mean that Matthew 24 was fulfilled at time, just as every passage in the New Testament has to be interpreted to make it mean what Interplanner and his friends make them out to teach.

Neither any passage in Josephus nor any passage in the New Testament actually says what these people claim they say. These are nothing but interpretations of the meanings of what they say, and these interpretations are being palmed off in an unsuspecting public as an excuse to deny what nearly half of the Old Testament explicitly says.

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Mat 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Mat 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Mat 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
Mat 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.


Have fun with that one..

 

[riverrat]

I think I have a concern that will really grip you. I can tell you are very concerned that the truth of the Gospel and of God's commands be taken seriously by our generation, and that you have that concern even if certain prophetic events don't take place. I do too.

You may know from other theology study that all religion was pretty much put in the irrational cateogory in the previous century. One form of it was existentialist, another neo-orthodox. Dr. Schaeffer (L'Abri Fellowship International : The Official Website) would summarize it by saying that those teachers thought the Bible was historically false but "spiritually" true. This was a very broad meaning of spirituality, like what Jung would use in psychology, but that is a separate question.

Because of this kind of set back, and general cynicism, when Israel 1948 happened, many Christians began to think that all that modern thought had been upstaged. Or actually began to think so later with the efforts of, say, Lindsay, to make it more readable or commonly understood. There was some conception that God had reasserted himself historically to "answer" the modern skeptics.

There was actually a mistake in this, though, which showed up in 1981. By 1981 (40 years after 1948 minus 7) the scheme Lindsay had made so popular should have taken place. As you may know, this lead to tons of publications and attempts to clarify or qualify it all, and still does. Many people have done what Pastor Camping did 2 years ago, because the pull is there: it would just make sense that a person should be able to logically quantify what is going on and come to a chrono-mechanical "truth" that could be published for today.

I think you will find that this type of effort has had the opposite effect; it has diluted the power of the Christian message. And not just because one guy who got national press was wrong. That was merely one of many waves after Lindsay was wrong.

So because I grew up in that, in a youth group that read THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH more than the Bible, or before the Bible, I have sought to find something for our generation to sink into, that would answer the split-knowledge world Schaeffer described. The answer is not in modern eschatology or modern events.

However the perception of many Christians is that truth is supposed to be that way and so the modern Israel thing seems just right. They don't mind total conflict with the letter to Hebrews, so Israel is "restored" but it is irrational. They jump to the future as soon as they read anything in Mt 24A, but truth is irrational so that's fine. They split Dan 9's 70 weeks apart, and ignore how much detail in the 'war will continue' paragraph is similar to the DofJ, but truth is irrational, so splitting and ignoring is just fine. They don't read Josephus because it is not "Biblical," but truth is history-free and irrational, so they are doing exactly what the modern idea of true dictates.

Instead, the answer is in the NT background, which, unfortunately but not surprisingly, you seem to have no background. The sense of the reality of God's judgement that comes through the horrendous destruction of Jerusalem as described in Mt 24A and Lk 19 and 21 is, may I say, bone-crushing. How could anyone doubt the day of God's justice once you've had the least glimpse of what is actually being said there?

then there is the martyr-quality vitality of the apostles faith, because they knew Christ was now enthroned as Lord and Christ (Acts 2, Eph 1). Roman administrators quaked in their seats as they listened to Paul explain this world was God's kingdom (Acts 25, 26) or Christ's (1 Cor 15). Contrast this with the incessant debate today about escaping hardship in this world through the rapture. Not exactly the same thing. And there is all the postponement people saying Jesus/Paul were not really talking about what the OT said would happen when they referred to the kingdom of God. How odd that Christians should not want a manifestation of the reign of God to present to the world, but are willing to say that's what we have in modern Israel with its layers of complications!

I'm sure your intentions are very genuine as you try to find a reality in modern events, but the modern irrational jumps may have beat you to it and had too much effect on our generation already. Are we the same, or different, from those who think truth is irrational?

Your usual stuff that is insignificant.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

 

[Douggg]

Hi Inter,the Late Great Planet Earth book certainly helped me. It had just come out at the time I was a new Christian and my roomate in the army shared his. It was great.

I don't see any negative effect that it has had on our generation. Harold Camping different story because he was (is) trying to pinpoint the day of the rapture, and as far as I have heard, not heard anyway, without any other eschatology details of how things fit together, like Arthur Pink for example.

Have you read anything of Arthur Pink's book the Antichrist? From the Forward: http://www.biblebelievers.com/Pink/antichrist01.htm

Fully conscious are we that we have in no wise exhausted the subject. As the time of the manifestation of the Man of Sin draws near, God may be pleased to vouchsafe a fuller and better understanding of those parts of His Word which make known "the things which must shortly come to pass". That others may be led to make a more thorough inquiry for themselves is our earnest hope, and that God may be pleased to use this work to stimulate to this end is our prayer. May He deign to use to His glory whatever in this book is in harmony with His Word, and cause to fall to the ground whatever in it is displeasing to Him.
Arthur W. Pink,
Swengel, Pa. October, 1923.

In the book, one chapter "Israel and the Antichrist", it was 20 years prior to Israel becoming a nation again, in 1948. From that chapter, "It must be borne in mind that the Jews are to return to Palestine and there re-assume a national standing whilst yet unconverted."

Did his book have the same impact as Hal Lindsey's ? No, because in 1923, travel and knowledge did not explode (Daniel 12) like in Hal Lindsey's 1970's time.


Doug

 

[Interplanner]

BW, since when is behold the Lamb of God "entirely different" from the sacrificial system? It is the Christian (Messianic) answer to the sacrificial system. You just dumped the letter to Hebrews, but who needs that?

"Tear down this temple and I will raise it up in 3 days." Yep, that's entirely different all right. No possible connection to the literal OT prophecies eh?

Just so everyone knows, the "interpretations" that BW is refering which are so horrifying are the 2500 NT uses of the OT!

 

[Interplanner]

If we didn't have the Reformation interp principle of using the NT to guide our use of the OT, we'd all be back finding allegories of the accounts in the OT or even of the NT! That is the significance.

You all have to come to terms with what the sample standard sermon of Paul said about the OT and about the promises and about what one part of the OT said about another (Isaiah on David's promise). That's all. That is the significance.

 

[riverrat]

If we didn't have the Reformation interp principle of using the NT to guide our use of the OT, we'd all be back finding allegories of the accounts in the OT or even of the NT! That is the significance.

You all have to come to terms with what the sample standard sermon of Paul said about the OT and about the promises and about what one part of the OT said about another (Isaiah on David's promise). That's all. That is the significance.

I have come to terms that 90% of your posts are incoherent.

 

[SG9]

"Has modern prophecy seeking made Christianity irrational?"

IMO, yes, and for perhaps many reasons. It seems to me that the more that people compare the more differences they discover and this might cause issues, especially as there seems to be a lot of things to discuss, these days.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

I have come to terms that 90% of your posts are incoherent.

Im not sure if its a language barrier, I didnt want to say anything but I guess Im not the only one..

 

[Biblewriter]

Just so everyone knows, the "interpretations" that BW is refering which are so horrifying are the 2500 NT uses of the OT!

This is absolutely false! The interpretations I am referring to are the way you systematically wrest these 2500 New Testament uses of the Old Testament.

In many cases, you pretend that these places in the New Testament say the very opposite of what they actually say. So the interpretations I am speaking of are not anything in the New Testament, but your interpretations of what they mean.

The overriding principle, Bible Interpretation 101, class 1, point 1:

If a proposed interpretation of any statement in the Bible contradicts any other statement in the Bible, the proposed interpretation is incorrect.

 

[xXChristPeripheralXx]

This is absolutely false! The interpretations I am referring to are the way you systematically wrest these 2500 New Testament uses of the Old Testament.

In many cases, you pretend that these places in the New Testament say the very opposite of what they actually say. So the interpretations I am speaking of are not anything in the New Testament, but your interpretations of what they mean.

The overriding principle, Bible Interpretation 101, class 1, point 1:

If a proposed interpretation of any statement in the Bible contradicts any other statement in the Bible, the proposed interpretation is incorrect.

Truth in its simplest form..

Kind of a prerequisite for discernment of prophecy...

 

[Interplanner]

So Jesus wasted his time in Lk 24, where he taught what all the Law and Prophets said about Messiah, which then becomes the material the apostles preach and write in their letters. Because they "contradicted" what the OT said.

 

[Biblewriter]

So Jesus wasted his time in Lk 24, where he taught what all the Law and Prophets said about Messiah, which then becomes the material the apostles preach and write in their letters. Because they "contradicted" what the OT said.

You have yet to demonstrate the first place in which the Holy Spirit contradicted in the New Testament even one thing He had previously said in the Old Testament. You cannot demonstrate such a place, because the Holy Spirit never changes, never lies, and never forgets what He said before.

People who want to set one scripture against another always start talking about the human authors of various books of the Bible, as if it made any difference whatsoever whether the Holy Spirit said it through Isaiah, Ezekiel, Obabaiah, Paul, Peter, or Jude. It is all the exact words of the Holy Spirit, and it all agrees with itself.

 

[Interplanner]

It is no more "against" the OT than "do not lie" is against love, as in Rom 13! I'm not surprised, though, that you don't understand. It is the fulfillment of the OT, which progresses it, innovates on it, for the glory of Christ's gospel, because God has decreed that that is what OT scripture should do, in Rom 16's finale. Decree = a king or emperor's decision.

As Acts 13 says, shown by quoting Isaiah, the promises to David have been transfered to Christ. That is why the apostles start preaching as they do. In ch 1, interest in "Israel's" kingdom is shut down. In 2, the enthronement of Christ is declared. See the contrast?

 

[Biblewriter]

It is no more "against" the OT than "do not lie" is against love, as in Rom 13! I'm not surprised, though, that you don't understand. It is the fulfillment of the OT, which progresses it, innovates on it, for the glory of Christ's gospel, because God has decreed that that is what OT scripture should do, in Rom 16's finale. Decree = a king or emperor's decision.

As Acts 13 says, shown by quoting Isaiah, the promises to David have been transfered to Christ. That is why the apostles start preaching as they do. In ch 1, interest in "Israel's" kingdom is shut down. In 2, the enthronement of Christ is declared. See the contrast?

My problem with your entire approach is that you substitute the words "the fulfillment" for the much more scriptural "a fulfillment."

Indeed everything written about the first coming of Christ was fulfilled. And it was not only fulfilled, but literally fulfilled, down to the tiniest detail.

But there is no way to even pretend that many of the prophecies were fulfilled in our Lord's first coming. That is why you have to resort to the unreasonable claim that these prophecies were only meant to typify what is now taking place. But you cannot find even a partially logical way to explain the typical significance of the precise borders of the land described in Ezekiel 47, or its divisions among the twelve tribes of Israel described in Ezekiel 48. These are only two of a great many such prophecies.

 

[Interplanner]

Because the "land" now means something else says Heb 11. They weren't even trying to sacralize the land back in the patriarchal period, it says. You've decided not to follow Heb 11.

Once again, you simply won't read Acts 2, 3, 13 'just as it is' because you're "interp-free" (the only person in the world) and it can't possbily mean that Jesus is enthroned specifically in the Davidic sense intended by Ps 16 and Is 55. It has been months now, maybe 6, that you could have commented and you just you counter comment. But you won't because you are interp-free.

None of these passages says they were "a" fulfillment, or even that tiny details mattered. Acts 13 says God fulfilled all the promises to the patriarchs and Acts 3 is Peter saying the same thing as Acts 13 and Gal 3 by the Spirit.