- Jul 21, 2018
- 1,027
- 130
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hum..... speaking of lack of grace..... The first question I raised to you; and you came back with this:
And then.... (speaking of insults). You have been pretty consistent in asserting an arrogant attitude that your eschatology and definition of a "historicist" is superior to other people you perceive to be preterists or futurists. Despite the fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that the definition of "historicist" has changed through out church history.
Premillennial and Postmillennial particularly are ever changing schemas, specifically because people aren't using the Bible to explain to them what the Bible means.
What you call "historicism" appears to me to have more in common with post WWII dispensationalism than it has with any eschatological schema the Reformers, the early church fathers or even what the RCC in the middle ages, would have believed. Yet the more I pressed you on that issue; the snottier you get.
That's not a sign of maturity. Not even in a secular sense.
And.... this is because I amply demonstrated that what you were asserting was the difference between those two passages, wasn't really there. (The tenses were both the same.)
If you're going to "rightly divide the word of truth"; you can't "cherry pick" Scripture and say: "I like this 'present tense' here; but reject that 'present tense' over there." (because that 'present tense' doesn't support your thesis).
CLARIFYING THE MISUNDERSTOOD PRESENT TENSE
I find it fascinating, that it appears to me, that this link that you posted here, is written by a futurist. He makes some statement (in there somewhere) about "live and reign" (with Christ) in Revelation, as being present tense; insisting the "millennial reign" hasn't happened yet. For the amillennialist though; (which up even well into the 20th century) the vast majority of theologians were amillennialist. "Live and reign with Christ" (1000 years) fits "present tense".
Theologians through the past 1900 years apparently weren't confused by that. But... maybe they were also more keenly aware of passages like:
Ephesians 1:
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Obviously the "millennial reign" began at the resurrection. Which also makes sense in the context of the atonement. Why would Jesus "not reign" if he'd accomplished the atonement? The assertions compared to the truths about redemption that are alleged to be espoused to; don't make sense.
Yet that "old paradigm" has been consistently followed for the past 1900 years; and is the only thing that holds the constancy of the grammar of the text to itself. If you believe "holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" than you'd have to concede that God caused them to express verbs the way that they did for His purposes.
There's no "Well the author was thinking 'this' and that's why he wrote the verbiage one way here; but it doesn't mean the same thing over there." That's the same fallacy of: "This part of Scripture is Divinely inspired; but that part over there isn't." It's either all true or none of it's true; and if only part of it's true, than none of it matters because there's no way of knowing what part is true.
THIS is why the Scripture tells..... believers to compare it to itself.
A lot of people also get caught up in: "Well, what did 1st century Jews believe this meant?" Or "What did someone of the era of king David believe this meant?" Or "What is the historical context". These question all turn into useless "traditions of men" because first and foremost; we have NO WAY of knowing what king David thought this meant; or what Isaiah thought that meant.
If there's a way of finding out, some of this could be useful to know. For example, it's not necessary to understand that "when the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crows twice, you will deny me three times" was not that there were chickens in the court yard. "The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" was a colloquial term that indicated what time of night they'd hear two trumpet blasts in the city; who's purpose was to let Roman soldiers know when their watch was about to begin. The "crowing of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" was generally at 3 A.M. Which would be useful for those trying to construct a timeline of what happened; but it's not necessary to understand the context of how this event related to Peter and Jesus. It's an interesting detail, but would not affect what one understands about redemption.
And this is why.... believers are told to compare the Scripture to itself because proper interpretation is found in letting the text define itself. (As opposed to "shots in the dark" of what any individual thinks it might mean!) This is why 100 different people have 100 different interpretations.
And thus they DON'T do THIS!
But apparently you know this, because you get all hot under the collar when it's brought up.
Despite the fact that your accusations are invalid because comparing Scripture to Scripture is exactly what I've done.
And thus your result has been:
Says you who'd said this to me: (Yeah, right on!)
Which, shall I ask again? Am I'm more presumptuous than you are arrogant?
Which, much like you're neglecting to reference the entire verses in Corinthians and Hebrews; Do you have the humility to go back and say "Ooopse, I forgot to include verse 9 of Revelation 17."
(I won't hold my breath in anticipation that you would be willing to admit you made an error. That doesn't seem it would be consistent with your measure of maturity at this point.)
I don't know? You tell me. Are you done being willing to compare Scripture with Scripture?
Actually, the inchoate arrogance lies with you. The object of qualifying the thread for "Historicists Only" is for the purpose of precluding unsolicited posts from other paradigms, and it is a rule of the forum. But the rules are not for you, right? You’re special, which makes your opinion special.
Even so, what makes you think historicists must buy your opinions, based on eisegesis and ad hominem. Obviously, you think a lot about yourself. Your refusal of the explanation of the Greek tenses because it was authored by a futurist is a prime example; it’s a fallacious, ad hominem response. The author’s work is merely acknowledging the original understanding concerning the tenses that were first spoiled by the amillennialists when Constantine legitimized the church, which enervated the church by supplanting Chiliasm. Premillennialism predates Amillennialism by about three hundred years; it was the faith once delivered. Premillennialism has its basis on texts such as Matthew 25:31 and Psalm 110, and, of course, the Revelation.
In essence, you are entitled to your opinions but not your own truths. In my mind, we are done here. Proponents of amillennialists are never going to accept the truth about the Greek tenses and the scriptures that support premillennialism and historicism but will merely twist or evade the evidence that originally led the Church to teach Chiliasm. And this is why I qualified my post for “historicists only.” Any further response on your part will be met by reminding you of the aforesaid.
Upvote
0