Comments on: End Times Q&A (Part 1 of 3) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Mora http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-12162 David Mora Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:13:13 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-12162 Sara, I'm curious in Matt24:34 which generation did Jesus say would see the signs that are mentioned? yes or no: Did that particular generation see the signs of which Jesus spoke of? Maranatha! Sara, I’m curious in Matt24:34 which generation did Jesus say would see the signs that are mentioned? yes or no: Did that particular generation see the signs of which Jesus spoke of?

Maranatha!

]]> By: Mrs. Burrows http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-12134 Mrs. Burrows Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:05:16 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-12134 I "somewhat" disagree(depending on who is meant and which flavor of dispensationlism is the topic), respectfully, on the last part(and do hope you know I wasn't picking on you by suggesting inductive study...rather the hope was and is that it would be taken as a general suggestion for those reading, including myself, to foster unity where divisions could instead easily take place). John MacArthur's teachings are appreciated and those that my eyes have met with have been in agreement with others such as Zola Levitt concerning Israel in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation. On the other hand, I'm not into labels muchly that God doesn't require so don't get "too" warped over them and do look for ways to study further(in those times of disagreement) to come to agreement according to what God says with those whom God desires me to have unity. Instead, reading or hearing John MacArthur teachings supplemental to first digging inductively(and being on a learning curve with that method) with the Holy Spirit sought as the Illuminator of Truth has been a blessing to me(for example, I blended judgement of nations with the separate White Throne judgment and was confused on other issues until studying a bit and then some alongside him...see links below that touch on this.) http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2378.htm http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2379.htm http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2380.htm Many blessings of our precious Lord to you, Sarah~ :-) I “somewhat” disagree(depending on who is meant and which flavor of dispensationlism is the topic), respectfully, on the last part(and do hope you know I wasn’t picking on you by suggesting inductive study…rather the hope was and is that it would be taken as a general suggestion for those reading, including myself, to foster unity where divisions could instead easily take place). John MacArthur’s teachings are appreciated and those that my eyes have met with have been in agreement with others such as Zola Levitt concerning Israel in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation. On the other hand, I’m not into labels muchly that God doesn’t require so don’t get “too” warped over them and do look for ways to study further(in those times of disagreement) to come to agreement according to what God says with those whom God desires me to have unity. Instead, reading or hearing John MacArthur teachings supplemental to first digging inductively(and being on a learning curve with that method) with the Holy Spirit sought as the Illuminator of Truth has been a blessing to me(for example, I blended judgement of nations with the separate White Throne judgment and was confused on other issues until studying a bit and then some alongside him…see links below that touch on this.)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2378.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2379.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg2380.htm

Many blessings of our precious Lord to you, Sarah~

:-)

]]> By: sarah http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-12099 sarah Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:50:41 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-12099 Mrs. Burrows, you're right people should get their definition of dispensationalism from Scripture but they don't. The dispensationalists' build their doctrine around an unscriptual definition and around an unscriptural definition of Israel which leads their doctrine into falsehood. Mrs. Burrows,
you’re right people should get their definition of dispensationalism from Scripture but they don’t. The dispensationalists’ build their doctrine around an unscriptual definition and around an unscriptural definition of Israel which leads their doctrine into falsehood.

]]> By: Mrs. Burrows http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-12004 Mrs. Burrows Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:34:46 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-12004 Seems there are a plethora of definitions, Sarah. It is best to let Scripture explain Scripture. That should keep folks busy for a lifetime and pave the way for unity. http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2006-20,RNWE:en&q=dispensationalism+ Seems there are a plethora of definitions, Sarah. It is best to let Scripture explain Scripture. That should keep folks busy for a lifetime and pave the way for unity.

http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp.html

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2006-20,RNWE:en&q=dispensationalism+

]]> By: End Times Q and A « mikebrunjes.com http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11993 End Times Q and A « mikebrunjes.com Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:35:04 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11993 [...] These are just a few statements and of course they are defended on his blog. I tried to take ones that could stand on their and not be taken to far out of context. Of course read for yourself to get exactly what he is saying. [...] [...] These are just a few statements and of course they are defended on his blog. I tried to take ones that could stand on their and not be taken to far out of context. Of course read for yourself to get exactly what he is saying. [...]

]]> By: Philip Walker http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11981 Philip Walker Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:11:53 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11981 PuritanD: What I'm saying is that we have God's final written word, Scripture, and that it therefore is <em>sufficiently</em> clear and unambiguous. Please watch words like "sufficiently", because I don't just throw them in for the good of my health! I didn't say "completely", because I didn't mean "completely". I'm saying that because we neither have, nor will receive, further canonical revelation, all that we need to know is contained within Scripture. If I am correct [and standard dispensationalism agrees with me], then either: a position is clearly taught in Scripture; or else we simply cannot know, and no-one can make definitive statements. That goes for you, too; you can't say that there is a mystery there and you know what it is, because mysteries are unveiled by the Revealer of Mysteries, and not by human intellect. And we know that no further revelation will be forthcoming. So there cannot be a mystery. QED. Please, though, look more closely at my questions about "plain meaning". Under your logic, were the OT saints who believed in one glorious coming of the Messiah believing in the "plain meaning" of the text? By analogy, amillennialists are the confused version of the OT saints today, right? And yet presumably, it is also thus we who are holding fast to the "plain meaning"? PuritanD: What I’m saying is that we have God’s final written word, Scripture, and that it therefore is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. Please watch words like “sufficiently”, because I don’t just throw them in for the good of my health! I didn’t say “completely”, because I didn’t mean “completely”.

I’m saying that because we neither have, nor will receive, further canonical revelation, all that we need to know is contained within Scripture. If I am correct [and standard dispensationalism agrees with me], then either: a position is clearly taught in Scripture; or else we simply cannot know, and no-one can make definitive statements.

That goes for you, too; you can’t say that there is a mystery there and you know what it is, because mysteries are unveiled by the Revealer of Mysteries, and not by human intellect. And we know that no further revelation will be forthcoming. So there cannot be a mystery. QED.

Please, though, look more closely at my questions about “plain meaning”. Under your logic, were the OT saints who believed in one glorious coming of the Messiah believing in the “plain meaning” of the text? By analogy, amillennialists are the confused version of the OT saints today, right? And yet presumably, it is also thus we who are holding fast to the “plain meaning”?

]]> By: PuritanD http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11973 PuritanD Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:04:56 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11973 Philip Walker, I am in need of clarification of your post. In what way is the NT completely clear and understandable and in regard to what? In ohter words, could you further explain this statement, "That simply isn’t the case here. And so the teaching of the New Testament is sufficiently clear and unambiguous: Jesus is coming back and when he does so, he will judge the world, and then reign over his people on a renewed earth–forever." Are you saying that since another canonical revelation is not prevelant, we are unable to explore and unpack what exactly Revelation speaks regarding any millenial position? Thanks! Philip Walker,

I am in need of clarification of your post. In what way is the NT completely clear and understandable and in regard to what?

In ohter words, could you further explain this statement, “That simply isn’t the case here. And so the teaching of the New Testament is sufficiently clear and unambiguous: Jesus is coming back and when he does so, he will judge the world, and then reign over his people on a renewed earth–forever.”

Are you saying that since another canonical revelation is not prevelant, we are unable to explore and unpack what exactly Revelation speaks regarding any millenial position?

Thanks!

]]> By: sarah http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11966 sarah Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:56:45 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11966 Mrs. Burrows, I'm not confused on their doctrine...more like showing them absurdity of it. BTW, John M. definition for dispensationalism is partly wrong because he is including other doctrinal thoughts into it which can't be done and he certainly can't take Scripture's definition because it doen't line up with his at all. "You see, that is just a label that they throw. What do you mean a dispensational point of view? The word dispensation is a NT word, Paul said "It was committed unto him the dispensation of the grace of God, dispensation of the mysteries." It simply means a stewardship, it’s simply a term, that’s all. This is the accusation over and over again that Dispensationalism popped up with J. N. Darby, and C. I. Scofield, and all of that? But we are not working our way through a system, but rather attempting to interpret scripture on its own merit." John M. seems to be talking to someone who knows nothing of the history and roots of dispensationalism, and therefore, can call it "just a label they throw" "Ok, you have some basic things to deal with. Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future. And recognizes a literal kingdom, and a literal tribulation, and a literal return, and a literal rapture, and that is dispensational. The other perspective is what’s called non-dispensational or covenant theology, which has no place for Israel, no kingdom in the future, and spiritualizes everything rather than making it literal." Here is the accurate definition of dispensationalism http://sjonee.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/defining-dispensationalism/ Mrs. Burrows,
I’m not confused on their doctrine…more like showing them absurdity of it. BTW, John M. definition for dispensationalism is partly wrong because he is including other doctrinal thoughts into it which can’t be done and he certainly can’t take Scripture’s definition because it doen’t line up with his at all.

“You see, that is just a label that they throw. What do you mean a dispensational point of view? The word dispensation is a NT word, Paul said “It was committed unto him the dispensation of the grace of God, dispensation of the mysteries.” It simply means a stewardship, it’s simply a term, that’s all. This is the accusation over and over again that Dispensationalism popped up with J. N. Darby, and C. I. Scofield, and all of that? But we are not working our way through a system, but rather attempting to interpret scripture on its own merit.”

John M. seems to be talking to someone who knows nothing of the history and roots of dispensationalism, and therefore, can call it “just a label they throw”

“Ok, you have some basic things to deal with. Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future. And recognizes a literal kingdom, and a literal tribulation, and a literal return, and a literal rapture, and that is dispensational. The other perspective is what’s called non-dispensational or covenant theology, which has no place for Israel, no kingdom in the future, and spiritualizes everything rather than making it literal.”

Here is the accurate definition of dispensationalism
http://sjonee.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/defining-dispensationalism/

]]> By: Mrs. Burrows http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11921 Mrs. Burrows Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:55:42 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11921 Should have added this which shows verses using the word dispensation. http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=dispensation And maybe these concerning interpretation(which will involve literal versus figurative, parable, simile, metaphor, exaggeration, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, etc. In other words, deep stuff!)? http://www.preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID34418%7CCHID784254%7CCIID,00.html http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Your-Bible-Inductive/dp/0736905448/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-0097580-7734566 Should have added this which shows verses using the word dispensation.

http://blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=dispensation

And maybe these concerning interpretation(which will involve literal versus figurative, parable, simile, metaphor, exaggeration, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, etc. In other words, deep stuff!)?

http://www.preceptaustin.org/inductive_bible_study.htm

http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID34418%7CCHID784254%7CCIID,00.html

http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Your-Bible-Inductive/dp/0736905448/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-0097580-7734566

]]> By: Mrs. Burrows http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/comment-page-1/#comment-11913 Mrs. Burrows Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:34:30 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/13/end-times-qa-part-1-of-3/#comment-11913 Maybe this will help, Sarah? http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-N-6.htm Maybe this will help, Sarah?

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-N-6.htm

]]>