| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 40.5 | Not censoring Biblical interpretation | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Tue Feb 25 1997 10:43 | 33 |
| Hello Peter,
Sorry I'm not able to get here often - it's partly because of that, that I
moved the discussion to a note of its own. That, and in case it would be
useful to anyone else!
ok ... so:
� I know of views that don't think there will be any rapture at all. I know
� that in the Church that my wife is a member they don't believe in any
� rapture. Now they are a non-denominational church with Baptist roots.
As Wayne observed, they most probably hold an amillennial view of prophecy.
But I suspect that what they disagree with is a particular interpretation
of 'the rapture', rather than actually doubting the truth of 1 Thessalonians
5:17. So they almost certainly agree that the church will be 'caught away'
to meet the LORD when He returns. That is all that's intended by 'rapture'
in 2.1.
Actually, my pastor is amillennial too, and would agree with the above. He
holds that 'the millennium' is the day of grace, between Jesus' crucifixion
and His second coming, and that the '1000 years' is merely a token of a
long time, or the perfect interval (unless you're musical;-). That is not
my personal view, but I can still worship there!
� My reason for responding is based on what you said, it seems that I would
� be censored if I debated that the rapture will not take place, yes or no?
No, you would not be censored, but to be taken seriously, you would need to
explain what you understand 1 Thessalonians 5:17 (in particular) to mean.
God bless
Andrew
|
| 40.6 | | ALFSS1::BENSONA | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Feb 25 1997 13:12 | 10 |
|
The Statement of Faith should exclude language referring to or worded so
to imply a millenial reign on earth. It is unnecessary. And it is, as
this string has brought up, a point of contention among Christians, and
among Christians here.
Of course, it won't bother me if it doesn't change. But it is an
unnecessarily narrow statement/implication.
jeff
|
| 40.7 | Never Did Agree With This | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 13:58 | 10 |
| I never did agree with the idea of saying the guidelines
are the Bible and the Bible only, but then adding specific
*interpretations* of the Bible.
I think we should just hold up the Bible as standard and
allow for noters to have whatever interpretation of it they
have so long as they assert that their standard is the Bible
and the Bible only.
Tony
|
| 40.8 | | ALFSS1::BENSONA | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Feb 25 1997 14:52 | 23 |
| > I never did agree with the idea of saying the guidelines
> are the Bible and the Bible only, but then adding specific
> *interpretations* of the Bible.
> I think we should just hold up the Bible as standard and
> allow for noters to have whatever interpretation of it they
> have so long as they assert that their standard is the Bible
> and the Bible only.
> Tony
Assertions of the Bible as the standard are not in themselves
effective for the apparent purposes of this conference. Barthians,
Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, and other groups might
effectively argue that their standard is the Bible. But their standard
is actually presuppositions which inform all of their interpretation
of the Bible. This is different.
The standard has got to be the Bible. But that doesn't preclude folks
from discussing their interpretation of specific Biblical content and
principles.
jeff
|
| 40.9 | | ROCK::PARKER | | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:23 | 4 |
| Listen to Andrew. He, unlike Jeff and I, at least spelled millennial
right (two n's, not one)! :-)
/Wayne
|
| 40.10 | I Understand Your View Jeff | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:47 | 17 |
| re: .8
Then the standard of the Conference is the Bible + (whatever
interpretation of it).
My only point is that those are two different things.
There are, I believe, sincere people who believe the Bible
is the standard and yet may interpret it differently. I
wouldn't want to insist that every JW is insincere.
And I'm not meaning to hint that I have any less of a problem
with some of these beliefs than any person who feels a need
to insist upon more than the Bible only as a standard (i.e.
a need to insist on any interpretation of the Source).
Tony
|
| 40.11 | | ALFSS1::BENSONA | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Feb 25 1997 16:12 | 21 |
|
> Then the standard of the Conference is the Bible + (whatever
> interpretation of it).
> My only point is that those are two different things.
The range of reasonable Biblical interpretation is actually very
narrow. The Bible has enough content in its different books, taken
together, to understand what it is saying. We would expect no less
from God for he wrote it for our sake so that we might know him and
enjoy him.
>There are, I believe, sincere people who believe the Bible
>is the standard and yet may interpret it differently. I
>wouldn't want to insist that every JW is insincere.
I wouldn't even suggest that any JW is insincere for they obviously are
sincere. Sincerity of personal conviction concerning interpretation
doesn't change what the Bible says, which is generally very clear.
jeff
|
| 40.12 | "I Have Many Things To Tell You, But..." | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 16:58 | 8 |
| Actually, Jeff, I think oftentimes the Bible is purposely
quite veiled!! Something about riddles and enigmas (Proverbs
somewhere/NKJV).
But, thats another topic and one I don't really want to
bother with.
Tony
|
| 40.13 | 2 Corinthians 4:4 | GRANPA::BROWN | My kids call my father Granpa Brown | Sat Mar 01 1997 07:26 | 3 |
| How about 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says The god of this age has blinded
the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the
gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. NIV
|