Question for Reformationist

SemperReformanda · Sep 17, 2002

Reformationist-

Thank you very much for your kind words! It's always nice to receive encouragment from the brethren. I look forward to reading more from you as well.

Yours,

John

JohnR7 · Sep 17, 2002

Originally posted by SemperReformanda
JohnR7- 
All this to say that there are great spiritual riches to be discovered in reading the thoughts, songs and prayers of those who have gone before us. God has gifted the Church with many wise teachers, and most of them are dead.

Ok, you covered that ground, so there is really no reason for me to nit pick at it, lets just go on from there.

Matthew 5:20  For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

At the time Jesus was preaching the sermon on the mount, the Pharisees and the Scribes were the teachers. For most people, they did not feel they had to be as good as their teachers. Jesus taught otherwise. He said they were righteous but it was not enough, that our righteousness must go beyond their righteousness. We must be greater than them.

To be sure, when compared to people like Moses and Daniel, we would be doing good if we could just be as righteous as they were, when they were alive in a body like we have. But in terms of christians in general who have gone before us, our righteousness should exceed theirs. We are in the latter rain, and the closer we are to when Jesus returns, the greater is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the greater should be out righteouness.

So, we need to go beyond Calvan. As you say, there are few teachers today who go beyond Calvan or any of the other teachers from 100 years ago. That means is we want to go on, it is going to have to be up to the Holy Spirit to teach us.

John 6:45  It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.

We would not even have a Bible if God had not given it to man. God can do the same work in our life that He can do in the life of those who give us scripture.

Yes there is a great cloud of witness and their witness is that they carried the torch. It was handed to them, they carried it, and now it is handed to us, and it is our turn to be a witness and a testimony for God. Our work begins where they left off.

There is no reason to go back and do all over again, what they have already done. Thanks, JohnR7

 

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

JohnR7-

He said they were righteous but it was not enough, that our righteousness must go beyond their righteousness. We must be greater than them.

I have to respectfully, but STRONGLY disagree. The Pharisees weren't righteous at all. Not even close. In fact they are the group singled out for the most violent of Jesus' rebukes. And some of these can strip paint from walls.

Jesus referred to the Pharisees at times as "vipers", "white-bleached tombs", "sons of Satan" and other things. He told them that they cleaned the outside of the cup, but that the inside was still filthy. Further, in one of His parables He specifically used a Pharisee as His example of FALSE righteousness, and a publican (considered an enormous sinner in those days) as His example of true righteousness and repentance.

The Pharisees were "righteous in their own eyes." For our righteousness to exceed that of the Pharisees is not for us to work harder, but to turn in true humility to Christ for forgiveness. Jesus in the quote you referenced is calling upon us to rely upon Him as our righteousness, not for us to somehow work harder.

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

We are in the latter rain, and the closer we are to when Jesus returns, the greater is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the greater should be out righteouness.

Please show me in the Scriptures how you come to this conclusion. I used to share it very strongly, but have since moved in a different direction. I'd be interested to see your reasoning on this, specifically this concept of the "latter rain."

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.

I'm going to ask you a question, and I hope you will accept that I'm asking it in a spirit of humility and friendliness. But has anyone ever taught you about the process of searching the Scriptures? It's something I usually include in any discipleship I do with someone.

The reason I ask is because it seems especially important in your situation. You've said that it's just you and your Bible, so HOW you study the Bible seems pretty critical.

Do you understand about context?

Please read the entire chapter of John 6. Or even just Verses 41-51. Jesus is here quoting the Old Testament. We can't just hold that quote up in a vacuum and stuff whatever meaning we want into it, like a spiritual sausage or something. Instead, it's vital to look at how CHRIST used it. And it isn't remotely in the context of the Holy Spirit whispering special revelation to everyone, somehow invalidating previous generations of Christians.
Rather, it is in the context of the Father speaking to the hearts of men about salvation.

I'll quote a larger chunk to show you what I'm talking about:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written by the prophets, "And they all shall be taught by God." Therefore, everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God, He has seen the Father."

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

Next point:

Yes there is a great cloud of witness and their witness is that they carried the torch. It was handed to them, they carried it, and now it is handed to us, and it is our turn to be a witness and a testimony for God. Our work begins where they left off. There is no reason to go back and do over what they've already done.
Here we're in agreement! The previous generations have gone on to glory, while we're still here fighting the good fight of faith.

The disconnect I see in your logic, however, is that by your own admission, you're ignorant of what "they've done." It's true that in some ways we can see farther than those who have come before us. But that's because we're standing on their shoulders. If we hop down and start over, then we cannot even see so far as they. Which is exactly the situation the modern evangelical church-- both charismatic and non-charismatic-- finds itself in today.

Modern Christians are statistically massively less Biblically literate, and much, much less moral than the previous generations of Christians. Also, their zeal for evangelism and missions is deteriorating badly. Retirements are far exceeding new recruitment. As for personal righteousness, it's not even a contest. Modern Christianity's divorce rate absolutly mirrors that of the rest of the country.

Truth is a fixed point, set by God. If the modern church has strayed from this point it is not progress to continue on in the wrong directions. And the process of re-orienting ourselves can be greatly helped by looking to the faith and practice of previous generations of Christians.

JohnR7 · Sep 18, 2002

Originally posted by SemperReformanda
We are in the latter rain,

Please show me in the Scriptures how you come to this conclusion. 

If you do not have a Bible on your computer, why don't you use one of the on line Bibles and run a search using the words: "latter" & "rain". Then just study the scriptures that come up.

Deut. 11:14 then I will give you the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, your new wine, and your oil.

We know that Jesus turned the water into wine and also, Jesus tells us that the wine represents His Blood. Also, we know that oil represents the Holy Spirit of God or the annointing we receive from God. Grain of course is the bread of life, the word of God. 

Hosea 6:1-3
    Come, and let us return to the Lord;
    For He has torn, but He will heal us;
    He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
    [2] After two days He will revive us;
    On the third day He will raise us up,
    That we may live in His sight.
    [3] Let us know,
    Let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.
    His going forth is established as the morning;
    He will come to us like the rain,
    Like the latter and former rain to the earth.
 

Even if you go beyond that you see in Hosea 6:2 "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."  

2 Peter 3:8  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.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

We know that a day to the lord is 1000 years to us. That means the church age or the age of grace will last 2000 years from pentacost when it began. Then He will rise us up and we will live with Him for 1000 years. But the devil will be bound for that time.

Rev. 20:6b-7 they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison

 

 

 

 

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

JohnR7-

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. I'm enjoying talking with you about these things...

I also appreciate you posting these Scriptures and some of your interpretation of them.

Again, we run into the context issue. When studying the Word, we need to look at not only the immediate context of what is being said, but also to whom it's being said, and in what way it is being said. By that I mean, is it poetry, wisdom literature, history, prophecy, a didactic epistle, etc.

We run into this in a big way with your interpretation of Duet. 11:14.

First of all, to whom is God speaking? National Israel. This is a NATIONAL promise which was given to the people of Israel, the Jews. Unless you believe that by obedience to the Law you will be given a portion of the land between Lebanon and the River Euphrates.

Secondly, and more significantly, is the TYPE of Scripture we're reading. Even if you chose to spiritualize the national covenantal promises and apply them somehow to the Church, this section of Scripture isn't saying what your interpretation entails.

This is a covenant promise God is making, a pronouncement of blessings and curses. It is not a prophecy. To therefore make it a prophecy is to do violence to the text. Furthermore, this promise was already fulfilled during the time of the kings. So to look for a future fulfillment, in my opinion, is to deny what Scripture teaches on the subject.

The sense in which "latter rain" is used here is different than where it appears in Joel and Hosea. I'll address those in a sec.

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

One thing that I had hoped for was that you would explain exactly what you thought the term "latter rain" means. In the charismatic churches I grew up in, it meant the "end times" restoration of the prophetic and tongue-related gifts. This was usually considered to have happend at the Azusa Street Revival in California early in the 1900's. Also, it meant that the Early Church era was the "former rain" when lots of miracles happend, and that the "latter rain" is a current period of miracles, tongues, prophecy, etc. Implicit in this belief is that we're in the End Times.

Before I continue on the latter rain thing, could you clarify what you mean by it please? Thanks!

JohnR7 · Sep 18, 2002

Originally posted by SemperReformanda
One thing that I had hoped for was that you would explain exactly what you thought the term "latter rain" means. In the charismatic churches I grew up in, 

Yes, I was in a charismatic episcopalian church, so I know some of the charismatic teachings.

I can see where that would make you think it is more complicated than what it really is.

Joel tells us that God is going to pour out His Spirit on all flesh. We know in the book of acts that this prophecy was fufilled on the day of pentacost when the age of grace or the church dispensation began.

You seem to want to call this whole 2000 year period the "latter rain".  What I have been saying is that there will be more of a outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God at the end of this age, than at the beginning.

First of all, the most Jesus ever preached to was 5000 men along with women and children. So maybe there was 25,000 or 30,000 people there. When my pastor goes to Africa, there are up to and over 250,000 people in attendance. Often everyone in attendance receives something in the way of a miracle, healing or a salvation. For God to minister to that many people all at once, is simply going to require more power or more of a ourpouring than if there were less people in attendance.

Second of all, we are told there will be a falling away from the truth at the end of this age. 

Romans 5:20b "But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more"

Matthew 24:12
    And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

So if you do not think that there is going to be a greater outpouring of the Spirit of Grace at the end of the church age, do you then also believe that there is no more deception or lawlessness in the world now, than what there was at the beginning? To me that would be a contradiction of the teaching of Jesus that lawlessness will increase toward the end, and that is a sign of the soon coming of the Lord. Thanks, JohnR7

SemperReformanda · Sep 18, 2002

Bravo!

Great post, thanks for clarifying that. A very good post! And I'm glad to see that you agree that Paul saw much of the "latter rain" prophecy fulfilled in Pentecost. Most of the people in my old churches saw it totally in futuristic terms.

And, being an optimistic amillenialist, I agree that the Church will continue to grow and expand throughout the Church Age, and that likewise so will sin and evil. But we're talking about two different things.

Will the visible reign of Christ through His Church continue to expand throughout history? Yes. Will God's grace abound to an ever-larger quantity of people? Yes!

Does that mean that individual Christians will automatically be wiser and more spiritual than previous ones? No! We've now shifted from a quantitative discussion of the grace of God to a qualitative one. Further, the verse fragment you've quoted has nothing relevant to say in this discussion. It isn't describing a mechanistic process by which God's Grace Pump takes it up a notch whenever sin increases. It's saying that where the Law made sin abound, God's grace was even greater than the sin. Context.

I have to ask you something. Do you believe in revival? If so, then you've conceded to a major portion of my position. My position, briefly stated, is that Christ's Church is at times more or less healthy than at other times.

If there is such a thing as revival, it by necessity means that the Church has lost some of the fervor or purity which it had in the past. Which is contrary to your position that there is nothing to be learned from the past, simply because it IS past.

I used to have a very similar perspective. All of the people I grew up with felt like anyone who had come before us (or weren't "spirit-filled" like us) had nothing to teach us. It was humbling for me to begin looking at other eras of Christian belief and realizing how rootless and shallow our current expression of it really is. The idea that the current generation is somehow superior to times past requires a strong lack of historical perspective, in my opinion. This is totally NOT a judgment of you, but a general observation I have come to over time...

Blessings,
John

JohnR7 · Sep 18, 2002

Originally posted by SemperReformanda
JohnR7-
Again, we run into the context issue. When studying the Word, we need to look at not only the immediate context of what is being said, but also to whom it's being said, and in what way it is being said. By that I mean, is it poetry, wisdom literature, history, prophecy, a didactic epistle, etc.

We run into this in a big way with your interpretation of Duet. 11:14.

First of all, to whom is God speaking? National Israel. This is a NATIONAL promise which was given to the people of Israel, the Jews. Unless you believe that by obedience to the Law you will be given a portion of the land between Lebanon and the River Euphrates. 

I am reminded of a book written by Frances Shaffer that talked about: "How then should we live". He asked a question but I do not think he ever found the answer for his question.

Now we are asking: How or in what way does the Old Testament apply to us today? First we must look at some key scripture and go on from there.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Hebrews 10:1a For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things,

1 Cor. 10:11  Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

I'll tell you that this is exactly what I was talking about in that we are going to have to go beyond the early church. We are going to need a greater annointing then what they had.

People have been debating over what Paul wrote for a very long time now. They just don't get it. But Paul was one of the few people who really made an effort to show us how the Old Testamant applys to the church. He was one of the few Christians who had really studied the Old Testment at the time.

 Now you say: "we need to look at not only the immediate context of what is being said, but also to whom it's being said" Who it is being said to is US. I do not have the time to look up all the scriptures that talk about how things were written for our sake. But here is one of them:

Romans 4:23-24 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. 

I asked the pastor at the church I attend here. How can you talk to 1500 people or 150,000 people all at once and make them feel like you are personally talking to each and every one of them. He said it is very simple, I talk to everyone. Meaning he does not exclude anyone. It is the same thing with the Bible. God though the inspiration of the Holy Spirit talked though men, and God talked to everyone. He was talking to you, He was talking to me, He was talking to everyone.

So your premise that it was intended for Isreal, or that He was talking to Isreal is just not accurate. He may have been talking to Isreal, but He was talking to us also.

The question then becomes not how does it apply to us, as if it were Robert's rules of order. The question now is, what is God speaking to us though the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and though Holy men.

Now are you still with me? Let us look at something else you said: "Unless you believe that by obedience to the Law you will be given a portion of the land between Lebanon and the River Euphrates."

This portion of land is the "promised land". What we enter into are the promises of God. As Peter says: "exceedingly great and precious promises,"

Now, I think what you are wanting is some sort of Rosetta stone that will say: "Rain = Holy Spirit".

Anyways, if you want to believe the whole 2000 year period is the latter rain, that is fine, who am I to try and change your thinking on that one. Thanks, JohnR7

JohnR7 · Sep 18, 2002

Originally posted by SemperReformanda
I used to have a very similar perspective. All of the people I grew up with felt like anyone who had come before us (or weren't "spirit-filled" like us) had nothing to teach us. John

That is kinda funny really. When I was in the Charismatic Church I saw a lot of people who loved to "party" on sunday but they lived in the flesh all week. This reminds me of the sort of pridefull statement they may have made.

One thing is for sure: God is no respector of persons and He does not have personal favorites. He simply does not favor one person over another. He tells us that who so ever is willing let them come. We can be just as great as anyone who gave us our scripture. The question is, are we willing to pay the price in Holiness and Sanctification. Some people refer to it as consecration and dedication. If we do what they did, God will use us in just as great of a way as He used them. It is just that very few of us are really willing to pay the price that they paid, in order to be used by God, the way He was able to use them.

One example is where Paul says: "I discipline my body and bring it into subjection," (1 Cor. 9:27a) Some of the different translations use the word buffet, beat, subdue and so forth. Most of us want to pamper our body, not discipline it. So that gets in the way of God being able to use people as He would want to use them. There is no obedience. Look at what happened to Moses when he hit the rock twice instead of once. He messed up a shaddow and type and God was not happy about it. Of course God is reasonable. He told Ezekiel to cook his food over human dung, and Ezekiel got upset over that one. So God told him he could use cow dung, just as long as people knew what the proper shaddow and type was to be.

Originally posted by SemperReformanda I have to ask you something. Do you believe in revival? 

In our church we have camp meeting every major holiday. Because people are off from work and can travel in from the major cites where our program shows on their tv. The camp meeting just keep getting better and better. As long as I have been a christian it just keeps getting better and better. You just don't know how it can become any more powerful than what it was the last time, but it always gets better. The pastor is 81 and they have had those meeting for over 40 years now. Of course for those who are in the world, it goes from bad to worse. But for us, is just keeps on getting better.

Proverbs 4:18
    But the path of the just is like the shining sun,
    That shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.

 

SemperReformanda · Sep 19, 2002

JohnR7-

I think you misunderstood my point earlier, for which I take responsibility. I should have stated it more clearly. Both of use aren't entirely understanding one another, and I have a sense that in the end we'll realize we're much closer on these issues than we thought. Isn't that so often the case?

I'm not a Dispensationalist. I'm a Covenantalist, and therefore believe that Israel is the Old Testament expression of the Church. The OT was written to the Church, just as much as the NT. That's not the issue. I say this in response to the 3 Scriptures you quoted about OT applicability. ALL Scripture is God-breathed, absolutely. All of it is relevant and important to a believer's life.

People have been debating over what Paul wrote for a very long time now. They just don't get it. But Paul was one of the few people who really made an effort to show us how the Old Testamant applys to the church. He was one of the few Christians who had really studied the Old Testment at the time.

It's statements like this that are why I urge you so strongly to expand your reading to include other Christian thinkers, historians and pastors. Paul, being a former Pharisee, certainly studied the OT with more vigor than most. But a huge percentage of the early church was Jewish. It's simply not accurate or even conceivable that this statement could be true. Jews were raised in intimate familiarity with the Law and Prophets. Why do you think Jesus so often referred to the OT with the unspoken presumption that everyone listening would know the exact passages to which He referred?

And the early church fathers were familiar with the OT, and they also saw the OT as applying to the Church. It is only in the past 100 years that Dispensational understandings have divorced the OT from relevance. The Christian Church has ALWAYS seen the OT as relevant and important.

The question isn't whether to apply the OT, but in HOW?

SemperReformanda · Sep 19, 2002

The question then becomes not how does it apply to us, as if it were Robert's rules of order. The question now is, what is God speaking to us though the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and though Holy men.

I have to differ. The question is very much "how does it apply to us."

WE don't get to choose how it applies to us. As you said, we need to see what the Holy Spirit is saying to us through the passage. And in order to do that, we have to have an understanding of HOW we are related to the OT people to whom it was spoken. Which comes back to context.

If we don't first look at how the Bible defines our relationship to the OT church, then we can just run along our merry way making up things as we go along. Which is seen every day in pulpits across America, particularly in Charismatic churches. For many, all of the OT is nothing but an allegory into which they can read any meaning that they want to.

So yes, there does need to be some "order." But not an externally imposed order, but rather one based on what the Bible says about our relationship with the Jews. I think we can at least agree on that?

This portion of land is the "promised land". What we enter into are the promises of God. As Peter says: "exceedingly great and precious promises,"

To an extent, we agree. Most of the OT is God's picture book to show us Christ and the Church. And the analogy of the Promised Land with the promises of God for our salvation and eventual residence with Him for all eternity is certainly Biblical and valid.

But analogies are exactly that, analogies. They are not 100% one-for-one representations. So while I certainly accept the "big picture" that the Holy Land is a representation of our blessings in Christ Jesus, I don't believe I have warrant to try to allegorize every detail of it.

For instance, I can't just decide that "Euphrates River" in this case means "river-front property" for me today. Now that's an absurd example, but you see my point. I likewise don't see the use of "latter rain" there as something I can build a specific doctrine on.

SemperReformanda · Sep 19, 2002

Before we continue...

I need a clarification on something please. I'm enjoying this line of discussion, but I don't want to lose sight of what we started talking about.

If the Latter Rain isn't all 2000 years, (and I haven't stated a solid position on that yet, I'm still exploring the issue, personally) then it must begin at some point.

Therefore, when did we enter "the Latter Rain." And how do you know it to be true?

I know much of this centers on the 2 days/3rd day thing, and I'll be responding to that soon. I just have to get some real-life work done first...

SemperReformanda · Sep 19, 2002

One last thing...

When I referred to "revival" I wasn't talking about the scheduled pseudo-revivals we conduct nowadays where the Holy Spirit is supposedly booked for a show like some Las Vegas performer. I meant the historical phenomenon in which at times the Church around the world experiences an awakening, and a renewed commitment to evangelism, right doctrine and holy living. Do you believe that such a thing exists?

SemperReformanda · Sep 19, 2002

*grin* One more last thing....

When I said I haven't taken a solid position on the "Latter Rain", I want you to know I'm not just saying that for the sake of discussion. I certainly reject the concept that I grew up with, which I described to you earlier. But I'm interested to hear more of your thinking on it, since I'm still clarifying my position on eschatology.

There are basically 3 views on prophecy-- futurism, partial preterism, and full preterism. The futurists think that virtually ALL the prophecies in the prophets and NT have been irrelevant and unfulfilled to the present time. The partial preterists believe that some have clearly been fulfilled, that some are progressively fulfilled throughout the Church Age while others are clearly in the future at the end of ends; and there is the full pretersist position, which believes that virtually all Bible prophecy has already been fulfilled.

I incline strongly toward the partial preterists in the middle. Where would you see yourself?

SemperReformanda · Sep 23, 2002

JohnR7-

I'm still waiting to hear back from you, please. When did the "Latter Rain" begin, and how do you know this to be true, please?

Also, do you believe that Revival, as I described it, exists as a phenomenon in the historical life of the Church?

ThatOneGuy · Dec 9, 2002

Hey y'all,

I've really enjoyed reading this thread!  Hopefully, someday, I too will be able to express my thoughts so clearly and humbly as I've seen done here.

As for church history, I read a great book a few months ago on the history of the American church.  I highly, highly recommend it, as it is an eye-opener on how... differently... evangelicalism looks now, over against that of the early American church.

 The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, by Mark Noll

I imagine it holds little for SR, as your knowledge of early American evangelicalism seems formidable, but for the rest of us historical (and often theological and philosophical) barbarians, I think Noll does a great job of describing the current condition of American evangelicalism, as regards the weakening of our loving God with our minds.

/p

p.s. i'm not texan

Question for Reformationist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads