Why Doesn’t Everyone Agree with Me?
I am a Calvinist; others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology; others are amillenial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul; others are creationists. I believe in reasoned inerrancy; others believe this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.
Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these divisions demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?
There are a few different ways that I could answer this.
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deeply enough (lack of scholarship).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broadly enough (lack of perspective).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
- Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning “disability” that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
- Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity (lack of a Pope).
- Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation)
Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these really are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness or naturalism. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people’s motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements.
We normally don’t know.
Here are the considerations I would aspire to make before I fall back upon the previously mentioned possibilities.
Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong.
Granted, I am convicted I am right. If this were not the case, I would simply change my position. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, tradition-bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility, as hard as it is to do.
There are some things of which I am more sure than others. For example, I am far less likely to be wrong about the existence of God than I am about my belief in a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. As well, I am humbled by the fact that there are many things I used to believe that I no longer do. I held to these former beliefs with (what seems to be) just as much conviction as many of the beliefs that I hold to now. What do I do with that? In most of those cases, the evidence, or lack thereof, militated against my previous doctrinal commitments and forced me to make hard adjustments. Very hard adjustments. For example, I used to believe that if someone did not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, they were not Christian. This was due to my fundamentalist presuppositions no doubt, but when faced with the evidence – that there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet love and trust the same Christ as me – my position either had to change, or slumber in the bedroom of naiveté. I still have those decisions to make. It is called learning.
What I must realize is this: there is not one belief that I hold to which is protected by infallibility. Infallibility is the other side of the coin of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty can only be held by those who have all the information and are interpreting it correctly. To be infallible means that you cannot fail. Since I am not infallible, by definition, I can fail. All of my beliefs are subject to my attribute of fallibility. There is no one who possesses infallibility. Even Roman Catholics who try to alleviate themselves of this reality by trusting in the dictates of an infallible magisterial authority, such as the Pope, inevitably face the same problem, since their own trust in the infallible authority of the Pope is fallible. The same holds true for Evangelicals and our infallible Bible. Our belief in the Bible is fallible, even if the Bible itself is not. No one can escape their own fallibility. Therefore we all could be wrong. We are left to rely on a process of examining and weighting the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This will often cause us to change our beliefs.
Therefore, serious consideration must always be given to the proposition that people don’t agree with me because I am the one who is wrong.
Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, regardless of who is right.
This may sound odd, but we must consider it. I said earlier that I was a Calvinist. While this does not give me exclusive right to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, it does require me to consider what part it might play in the question: Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? What I am really asking is this: Why isn’t everyone unified around the truth?
I believe that it is a real possibility—even likelihood—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity right now. In fact, practically speaking, it could do more harm than good. I believe doctrinal disagreements are often healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing viewpoints, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron in the same way.
I am not in any sense trying to relativize the truth, but to help us understand that wrong beliefs, even our own, could be serving the purpose of God and bringing Him more honor than we recognize. It is often said that heresy is God’s gift to the church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is conviction.
It is for this reason that we must be continually engaged with alternative options. As hard as it is to engage in beliefs that go against our present convictions, we need to recognize the value of the struggle. Herein lies what I believe to be one of the greatest strengths of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura—it presents the opportunity to wrestle with the issues at a level that is not allowed for in magisterium-based traditions.
What I am saying is this: it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Wrong belief is often (though not always) the result of sin. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignified reason for conflict resulting from diversity. In the end, we will find that through the conflict our beliefs become stronger, not weaker. I believe we must open ourselves up to the possibility of being wrong in order to find truer faith and conviction.
In Celebration of Division
We have learned to celebrate diversity in every area of life. We celebrate the diversity of the sexes. Men: can you imagine a world where women did not contribute to a balanced perspective? That is horrifying. Women, can you imagine the opposite (don’t answer that!)? Think of the diversity among personalities, nations, political parties, age groups, and cultures. While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate dissent in values, beliefs, and practices. Understanding diversity can often cause us to see that the answer to many issues is going to be more of a both/and rather than an either/or. We could both be right and we could both be wrong.
In the end, if God is in control, then the answer to my question is relatively simple. Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Because it is not God’s will for them to do so. This is to His glory. Why? His will is better accomplished through diversity. In this I think we can learn to celebrate diversity without yielding to the postmodern matrix of relativism, uncertainty, or apathy.
276 replies to "Why Are There So Many Divisions in the Church?"
@Dan: That is a flawed supposition (yours), for the doctrine of God, both in time and outside of time also deal with God’s Oneness!
Also, if you knew Plato and his “Platonic”, you would surely see it in the Book of Hebrews! (Heb. 1: 1-3, etc.) And also Paul was quite a Jewish Greco-Roman Hellenist, (Gal. 4: 1-7). No, the Bible just did not drop out of the sky, and then onto paper or parchment! Sorry mate, indeed my presuppositions are both Biblical, but yet historical to the reality of the whole OT itself. Note the Septuagint is a traslation in Greek, and was the Bible (OT) of the NT Church.
Yes, I am a Historic Churchman, and my authority is Word & Creed, which is also seen in Word & Sacrament. WE are very different! Btw, what do you think of the Ecumenical Councils? I think I know, but how & why do you diminish them?
There is not enough space to sufficiently argue the nuances being brought into play by this beautiful dialogue, but thanks for all the comments. I think our anthropology is very different as is our view of history and how it proceeds at ground level.
Mr. Martin, Gregory’s work is Scriptural in its tenor and scope, though it uses rhetoric to defend and refute the rhetorical style of the heresy he fought.
@Paul: Here ya go mate, really pretty simple if ya believe God’s Word! ~ Eph. 2:18 / 1 Peter 1: 2 / 2 Cor. 13: 14. There are many more verses, as the NT is shot thru with the Triune God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit! 🙂
@Fr. Robert, the short answer to your question on my position on the councils: they are guilty in large measure of changing the Way of following King Jesus into a religion of stuff you had to believe, and anathematizing anybody who didn’t accept their authority. I see them largely as vehicles of power rather than faith.
On a less-cynical note, I see them as composed of men who, however wrongheaded I think they may have been, were genuinely trying to do right, but who have been invested with a disproportionate (and inappropriate) level of canonical, near-infallible authority by later theologians. As men, their thoughts/suppositions/conclusions can and should be re-submitted to the lens of Scripture by each succeeding generation…as should ours.
And finally, I see them (and far too many theologians since) as overly obsessed with squaring all the circles and resolving all the ambiguities they find in faith, rather than being content with the reality that there’s just some stuff we don’t know.
Here is a nice quote from Augustine (speaking of the Trinity): “In no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable.” (Augustine De Trinitate 1.3.5.)
Here is a nice quote from Augustine (speaking of the Trinity): “In no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable.” (Augustine De Trinitate 1.3.5.)
And that’s just it. To really support the dogma of the Trinity–not infer that it might be a possibility, but really support it–you have to quote Augustine, or Tertullian, or Gregory, or someone else several hundred years post-Jesus. Along with Paul Leonard on this thread, along with my Anabaptist forbears, and with many others who are usually quieter than I am, this just isn’t good enough. I stand by my conviction that while the inquiry into theology can be a very good thing, to establish anything as dogma that isn’t explicit in Scripture alone, is to go beyond what is written, and that is error. To excommunicate or anathematize or disfellowship anyone on the basis of such dogma is evil.
@Dan: That was a nice soft ball question I gave you! 😉 But of course, this puts YOU outside the Historical Church, as many understand it, of course like myself! Ya might want to check the mess of the 2nd century, with the ill of Monarchianism!
Btw, there are many Anabaptist’s now that are Trinitarian! But not of course poor Menno Simons. He had a Valentinian (gnostic) place for the “flesh” of Christ.
@Fr. Robert, I do not accept either modalism or adoptionism, which I understand (maybe incompletely?) to be the basic positions of monarchianism. Rather I hold that Jesus’ clear testimony of himself was that (1) he was divine, (2) he was human, (3) he came from, and derived all his authority from the Father, (4) he remained distinct from, and subordinate to, the Father; (5) he prexisted, and participated in creation, though whether his preexistence is in eternity past, we are not told.
There are some paradoxical elements to be found in trying to tease out a systematic ontology or Christology from these truths. If it mattered, Jessica would have resolved that tension with more clarity. He didn’t. So when we try, we ought to hold our necessarily imperfect attempts with an open hand. That is all.
… And yes, I know my conclusion leaves me outside the bounds of orthodoxy as defined by the ecumenical councils and those who grant their authority. Like I said, my heritage has more in common with the Anabaptists, who most of your churches still regard as heretics…
Darn aututype… JESUS, not Jessica! Sheesh!
@Dan: The last sentence in your first paragraph (11), is simply Arian! For the biblical Christ is preexistent eternally as both the Son & the Logos, (John 1:1 / Heb. 1: 2-3).
I believe the answer to why so many Christians do not agree with each other anymore is because of the vast number of Christian denominations world wide. I read in 1994 that there may have been already up to 40,000 denominations world wide. Over the years I noticed that myself and many others did not realize we were victims of past arguments, un-reconciliation, and church splits. We had no idea we were causing a scene or making waves by asking a doctrinal question. Today with the internet and info express, seekers have found more answers to the variances. Yet, I believe due to the elitist thinking going on that their church is the only one saved, I think we are now into a new arena:of Christian betrayal. Have you seen the attacks going on online? It is so sad. Furthermore, for some years I clearly see that this is not so much about a quest for Truth, but a quest for a Following. It became so clear to me at one time when I asked this young man online if he would speak to me like that if he was sitting next to his pastor. It turned out that he and his related pastor were sitting next to each other writing to me like that. Needless to say, I was banned from that forum.
I believe most churches are getting their views from the Bible. Thereby, I believe that if people would be more gracious and patient with each other they would realize that they are just coming at it from a different perspective and still concluding with the major theme: Christ and Him Crucified. Salvation…
@Dan – I hear you buddy! I absolutely agree with your authorial intent approach to the scriptures and opposition to reinterpretations down the track when an initial plain reading of the original material suffices – even when it contradicts popular / current / historical orthodoxy.
I’m constantly amazed that some people love to revel in the ‘mystery’ of paradoxes as if they were something to be praised and not an indicator of flawed theology or assumptions… cough*trinitarianism*cough*infallibility*coughcough* 😉
I wonder if you’d agree with me that John does his own reinterpretations of OT scripture however? Logos is a platonic concept that John introduces and tries to convert into a (newly invented theology) of a pre-existent Christ (often justified by more re-interpretations of OT). However a plain reading of Genesis doesn’t yield this (nor the other gospels) – just as a plain reading of the serpent as a beast of the field doesn’t yield an eternal angelic Devil. It again requires John’s NEW re-interpretation for this concept to appear. Which while I’m open to ‘new’ – if it starts introducing new paradoxes – it must be called into question. 😉
@Fr Robert, nothing of the kind. John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” With and was…the exact sort of paradox I was talking about…divine but not same; In the beginning…when the world was made…says nothing about “before” the beginning.
Hebrews, on the other hand, plays even more into my theory. God has spoken “by” his son, whom he “appointed heir” (not a self-existent thing), and “through whom” he created the universe. None of those are incompatible with full distinct ontological beings, and that’s just v. 2. The language in v. 3 is representational, not equal, and the Son sits at the Father’s right hand…absolutely a place of exaltation and authority, but not equality. This is more clear in 1 Cor. 15:27.
So I’m afraid your charge of Arianism just won’t stick…
@Matt Beale, I would say rather that John was trying to tell the story of Jesus in Greek philosophical terms that he may not have fully understood in their Greek concept. But as to Christ’s preexistence, Jesus himself testifies “Before Abraham was, I am.” I don’t think we can infer eternal preexistence from this statement (as being either right or wrong, just not addressed). But we can certainly say Jesus in multiple cases claims to have been present at, and participated in creation. What this means ontologically in his pre-incarnate state is something that has not been revealed to us…just possibly because we don’t “need to know…”
@rob
Jesus told peter that je would die a marter,hung on a cross like Him then peter sees John and asked Him how woulld john die. Jesus tells peter dont worry about John if i will that he remain till i come you follow me. Then the sayin went out not that john wouldn’t die but that he would see his return. Nothong about coming to peter! As for your acriptures i addressed it and dismissed it as the tribes of Isarel wouldbe the pnes mourning. Not to mention the words near soon and abhand and Jesus own words in matt 16 telling the diaciplea that some of them would be alive to see Him coming into there kingdom. Jesus said in rev. behold i am coming quickly!! Not far off, or later quickly!! The readers reading that would not think quickly means anything but in there life time. All these thing will take place in this generation. Like Jesus said in matt 24. Jesus is reafirming that He will be back to complete the work of salvation, and to fufull the workof high priest. As per heb. 8-10.
Whatdo u have to support a futte 2nd coming. Bring scriptire.
Bear in mind those are John’s (much later) recollections of Christ’s words. And while Paul and the Hewbrews author also share his views on pre-existence – none (that I know of) of the other gospel writers reflect this, nor I believe did any of the earlier commentators on the O.T.
If however – John recollected accurately – you can either take it like Hebrew’s 7:9-10 example of Christ being within his Father’s “body” – just as Levi was in Abraham’s i.e. not yet born – yet conceptually paying a tithe to Melchizedek. He ‘was’ in the sense that he existed in his Father’s loins. And the verses prior about Abraham seeing his day and being glad – well God is the God of the living… Christ’s day would be his birthday and Abraham was glad to see it come. But if all that’s too much you can just take it as if he conceptually existed in the great plan for Israel that was before Abraham was born as well.
Clearly Christ (as King and Ruler, Son of God, descendent of David) at least existed in concept in God’s plan. And the Micah verse is likely referring back to his origins from the ancient Davidic line (as per my Tyndale commentary – no work required on my part) – particularly as Isaiah does similarly except more directly with the reference to Jesse rather than ‘ancient days’.
So I really think that the theology starts to differ from John & Paul onwards (original sin etc) – from what went before – and a lot of the arguments are coming from those ‘newer’…
…slice!
“newer areas – leading them to be more suspect” 😉
Dan,
The Apostles Creed of the mid-3rd century is an early written confession of the Holy Trinity.
Creeds were ALREADY ESTABLISHED beliefs, written by the early Church (in between them being fed to the lions, beheadings, and burnings) in order to fight heresies.
If you think that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Church by the 3rd century…and that the Church went to hell-in-a-handbasket, making Jesus Christ a liar…and that the Church of the apostles didn’t even last as long as the Morman church (!)…than why exactly are you Christian at all?
Some years ago, I was in a Sunday School lesson where the teacher paralleled Moses and His People going through the Sea as symbolism for Jesus delivering His people. The next week we continued talking about Moses and what happened after they arrived to the other side.
When the teacher started talking about the Golden Calf, it really dawned on me, if one takes the symbolism of the OT further, one can see how people made a giant Golden Calf after Jesus went back into Heaven. I think the first thing everyone talks about is erroneous Gnostic teachings, then this and then that. As I thought about this Sunday School lesson, I suddenly thought about the rest of the OT, and in a loose way, we can see that there is a repeat in Christian history. Could it be that the 10 tribes in the North represented Protestants? Josiah representing last day revival? Daniel representing Tribulation, and then the end? Being Jesus coming and taking care of it. Victorious victory.
By the way, CBD sells (I think still) a 3 volume set of Creeds. My question is: are we supposed to pick the right one? And how do we know if we did, pick the right one?
Furthermore, I really do believe that the best teachers are the ones that teach all of the Bible and embrace all of it.
Finally, after all my searching and reading regarding the Trinity, for example, I have come to discover that all the Trinity books out there do mention that it does fall short. Why? God is too big…He is simply too Big.
I think that all the arguing about the Trinity is due to a lack of knowledge. This dialogue could be very different, I think, if everyone here would actually read the fourth century patristic texts concerning the issue.
@Karen
God is too big to be defined. The point of the Trinitarian dogma is to establish a uniform teaching that Jesus is God, as is the Spirit. This was done to protect the Church against heresies that claimed and taught that Christ is a creature. He is not, because only God can save, and if Christ saves, then he is God. The same for the Spirit, if he is sanctifying us and being sent as the other Paraclete to actively secure our salvation, then he too is God and not a creature.
As far as Creeds go I think the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is good. The Apostles Creed is fine too, its older, but for the most part it was absorbed into the Nicene Creed.
@sam: As I have said, we don’t have room on this blog for a full defense of the literal, physical and certainly visible Second Coming of Christ! But, we can see this in the hermenutical reality of the prophecies of the Messiah Himself, as fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and they are certainly literal!
From Gen. 3:15, from and born of the seed of a woman, to Gal. 4:4, not to mention the Virgin Birth (which thankfully we would both agree, Isa. 7:17 to Lk. 1:26, 27, 30-31). Born in Bethlehem, Mic. 5:2 to Luke 2:4, 5, 7, etc. The Slaughter of the children, Jer. 31:15 to Matt. 2:16-18. The Flight to Egypt, Hos. 11:1 to Matt. 2:14, 15. The list for the literal coming of the Christ are many, so I won’t quote all, but the betrayal.. of a close friend, Ps. 41:9 to Lk 22:47-48, and of course “betrayed for thirty pieces of silver”.. Zech. 11:12 to Matt. 26: 14-15.
And as I have already noted, the statement by the two men or angels in Acts 1:11, “Men of Galilee, why to you do gazing up to heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in like manner as you say Him go into heaven. Then they returned to Jersualem from the MOUNT CALLED OLIVET..” (Acts 1: 12). And so as we can see literally in Zechariah 14: 3-4…”And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.” And so at the Second Coming, when Christ comes to deliver the Nation of Israel, in Jerusalem, “He will appear a second time, apart from sin (His death on the Cross), for salvation…
Paul is not confirming Christ pre existance, nor is hebrews. The beginning talked about is the degining of the covenant. The term heavens and earth in the old testament is a metaphore for Gods covenant people. Read isah. 1 the first verse or deut 4. Paul is stating that Jesus was on the begining of the covenant and the end of that covenamt is Him. Like pqul says in 2cor 3 they are being transformed from one glory to another. The first glory is a fading glory, whats left is a non fading glory. Hebrews 12 says the same thing about the mountain that if toutched one must be killed (sani the old covenant) that mpuntain or heavenand earth was shaken, God yet again shakes the earth once more and whats left is the new covenant thqt cant be shaken. As far as the creeds i dont care about any old creed there just uninspired men reading the scriptures in light of there present world. Just like men today. Christ is ot coming back, HE ALREADY DID!!
And again, I quote Rev. 1:7..”Behold, He is coming with clouds (the sidereal heavens, and note the sidereal day), and every eye will see Him, and they also who pierced Him. And the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.” So indeed the Second Coming of Christ will be visible, historical, and certainly creational!
@rob.you said you know greek. The term in like mannor meqn coming and going. Not coming in a phycicial form. He came back when He told His disciples he would. and all Isarel is saved. We have no salvation apart from Isarel salvation. If your waiting for Jesus to come back then you have no salvation either. Then He didnt come out from behind the vail and usher the waitong congrgation into the presence of God. Your reading prophecy literialy and thing God has feet and is gonna break a mountain in two. Its metaphorcial, not literial. The salvation of Isarel is thoae coming out of the old covenant, not a future nation of Isarel read the new testament Those in Christ are Isarel. Not by blood! Plus luke 17 the kingdpm comes without observation!! And when Jesus sent the 12 oit in matt 10 He told them to preach the kingdom of heaven was at hand. John the baptist preached the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Not far away, like you say it is. Ill side on the side of Jesus, not creeds
@sam: You go with what you believe, and I will go with what I believe! But we both will stand with the Lord of glory, in that visible and final and eschatological DAY…
“When He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.” (2 Thess. 1: 10)
See too, 2 Thess. 2: 1, with the rest of the chapter, noting verse 8! (Verses 11&12 are frightful!) But salvation is for those whom GOD has chosen – verses 13-14!
Dear Ryan, I totally agree with your message to me…how very wonderful that we agree and feel the same. But this is what happened to me: I witnessed in various related churches that we were in years back that demoted Jesus by the use of the Trinity. I think this is the great divide pertaining to the Trinity: those that use it to exalt Jesus and those that use it to demote Jesus. I know that sounds crazy, but I believe it to be true. I believe the use of the word Trinity is absolutely amazing to witness to people. Yet, I have seen groups of people who sing about Jesus, worship Him even, but do not pray to Him (John 14:14).
Those that believe that the Father was in Heaven and sent His Son to earth, yet missing the omnipresent amazing verses that also state that Jesus stated that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him. Or many other such passages. Basically, the demoting that I have seen pretty much regulate Jesus to servant hood on earth and not too much more. The position is easily recognized in the way a person prays or views the Trinity. I am speaking from Radical points of view. It would be like saying in a radical way John 4, where Jesus speaking of the Father states that God is Spirit. In a radical sense, does that make the Holy Spirit ANOTHER Spirit??? To bottom line it, I think that radical views cause the Bible to be a mystery. Take away these words and the Bible is not a mystery.
You can quote 1:7 all you want the only people mentioned is the 12 tribes. Comong on clouds is a old testament metaphore for comong in judgment. And lets say it was literial rev.1:1 the events on the book are to happen SOON when it was written. So your future end of the world fufulment is way off!! Your not fimuliar with the language of the opd testament like you say. Me and you didnt pierce Him. The jewish leqders did! Were not the tribes of the land. Isarel is. The comong on the clouds is not for us! Its covenantial judgment on old covenantial isarel.
Not to oversimplify things (the Jesus already came back argument is new to me), but if he did, what did he accomplish? I don’t mean this to be snarky – I really don’t – but I look around at a world that is still full of sin, earthquakes, famine, war, porn, murder, etc. If he came back 2000 years ago, what did he come back for? Because he certainly didn’t turn earth into a paradise (like I would have expected, right or wrong). Don’t get me wrong, nature is AWESOME! But there’s still evil here … I honestly don’t understand. Either his coming back had a purpose or it didn’t (I’m guessing it did), so the question then becomes, did it work? Was his purpose accomplished or not?
If it was, what *was* his purpose? If it wasn’t, what went wrong?
Again, I’ve read and reread what I just wrote and it sounds flippant – I don’t mean it to. Please trust me when I say I really do wonder, if jesus came back 2000 years ago, did it work? Look how divided his people still are! If Jesus came back, wouldn’t we have clear leadership, and debates like this would stop because, well, Jesus is here. If Jesus came back, would we still have to rely on 2000 year old writings for direction, or would he just … tell us? I know he already did, but if we’re arguing about it, it’s obviously not clear. Why doesn’t he just come out and say, “you’re right and you’re wrong.”
Last thing and I’ll stop, if he already came back, how come most of his followers aren’t…
*snip*
How come most of his followers aren’t aware of it?
@sam: Don’t make me start quoting the NT Greek! 😉 Btw, the list of NT Greek scholars that are Pre-Millennial, both past and present is simply deep! I will just give one: George Elton Ladd! I would also recommend the NET Bible, to our bloggers! Surely, mostly a DTS work as to the people, though many others also.
*DTS – Dallas Theological Seminary. Where I believe our blog host is a graduate?
The second comong is to fufull the duties of te priest. Read hebrews 8-10 the author estableshes Jesus as a high priest, but of another order. Just like tr priest has to ofer a sacrafice, bloood. So does Jesus He offered up himself. The proest then has to go behind the vail and offer the sacrafice to God behind the vail. Jesus has to do the same thing. The priest cant come out from behind the vail until the sacfafice is excepted. The sins of the peopke aren’t covered that year until the priest comes out. Jesus has to do the same thing. He has to present The sacrafice behind the veil. Hebrews says the true tabranacile. The sins of the people aren’t forgiven till Christ comes out behind the vail. As hebreqs puts it Jesus will apperar a 2nd time apart from sin, but for SALVATION. Inorder for salvation to be complete Jesus has to come out from behind the vail. Those 1st. Christians got the Holy Spirit for the day of redemptipn. Which Jesus said will be when the temple is destroyed. Read luke 21 when you see jeursalm surrounded know its desolatipn is near. Lift up ypur heads for you redemption draws near. Paul says inromans 13 pur salvatipn is NEARER than we cirst believed. Paul knows Jesus is comong back to complete salvation.
Btw, here is a piece about one of the old greats who taught Greek at Moody (died, 1962?), Kenneth Samuel Wuest! He did his own NT translation, as you will see, and he was Pre-Mill.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/wuest.html
Scripture does not support a pre-mill point of view. The 1000 year reign of Christ is not literial. No where in the old testament is 1000 used as a literial number. The language of rev. is of the old testament. Its clear that todays Christianity does not know the language of the old testament. And its verry sad!!
Yes, I have been reading American conservative theology for many, many years! Note the great Anglican and Brit, W.H. Griffith Thomas, who had something to do with the early founding of the DTS. It was Griffith Thomas as I remember who led me into the American Evangelical’s. Just another historical point.
I mean who’s over 50 out here? 😉
@sam: Your beating the ad hoc drum! Do you reallly want to go into the early Church Father history for Christian Chiliasm? I said something already about such. Let me again recommend a book: Regnum Caelorum, Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, by Charles Hill. And Hill does not come down Pre-Mill, but he at least knows and writes about the early historical reality!
@sam: Your showing great historical and even Jewish historical ignorance! It is a fact that the Millennial ideas are OT, and certainly Jewish! This is just factual! And some of the very early “fathers” were Pre-Mill!
No books, just come with scripture!! Thats it. If you believe that the old testament supports your view, then show me scripture. You author is un-inspired. As in not getting his message by revalation. Paul said he recieved his message by revalation. Paul didn’t teach a pre mill, or future end of world coming. Paul zaid there is about to be a resurrection of the dead. Paul said there is a judgment to come. All to be in the life time of them. You are taking there words out of theretime. The holy spirit didn’t lie, or mislead. Neither did Jesus in matt 16. GIVE ME SCRIPTURE!!! not some uninspired writer. If you can’t then why do u believe what you do.
@rob
Again another post wirh no scripture. Now if its in the old testament, and the 1000 term is used as a whole number? Then just give me the verses! If you show me, then ill say your rite. But know one has ever been ever to give me scripture to support the futurist view, or the 1000 years! Now nce again give me scripture.
@sam: I think we have “pounded” this quite enough! As I said and written, the BIBLE did not fall out of the sky! And so history, and certainly the biblical Greco-Roman Hellenistic aspect really does matter, as we seek to study and understand the Holy Scripture! (Note once again, the Bible of the NT Church was the Septuagint). I am going to stop now. I am a hospital chaplain (these days), and need to go make my rounds. 🙂
Once again. I don’t care aboit early church fathers, nor creeds, nor books, nor authors. If they go against Jesus telling the disciples that some of you standing here will nottaat death, till you see the Son of Man coming intp His kingdom. Or Jesus telling peter that John will remail alive till He returns. Then there wrong, as well as anyone else.
Not if they go against scripture!! We have not pounded it enough. I want to see your scripture with an end of the world, coming.
@sam: I am taking my lap-top with me! 😉 Btw, YOU have said nothing about the Scripture I HAVE given! I thought you were an EO person?
I have commented on all your scripture. I believe. If not then i apolagize. The thess verse states nothing about any time frame on the 2 nd coming. Your scripture cant go against Jesus words. He clearly told the disciples in matt 16 that some of them won’t tast death till he returns. I have onehour then ill be off of work, and ill continue to.orrow. search the scriptures and give me somthing that states the oppasite of all the soon, near, and at hand, about to be. It can’t be taken out ofthere time frame, of which the orignial readers read them.
Fr. Robert,
I’ll eat my hat if sam is EO! You’re kidding, right?
sam is an example of what can happen to an individual when let loose with sola scritura. They stop being a follower of Jesus Christ, and become instead a follower of the Bible, and their own interpretations of the Bible.
Please stop the insanity and stop responding to his groundhog-day baiting messages.
Glory to God for all things
I would like to know what flavour of Christianity you are Sam. You are right in a number of places about the immediate context of what you are saying, about Christ’s return.
But then you don’t take into consideration the time frame and context of what Scripture is saying elsewhere. We are saved through Israel, only because they were the bearers of Christ. It was to them whom the promise was given, and that promise was Christ.
However, Paul elaborates in Romans that not all who call themselves Israel are the true Israel, for it is only those who call on the name of Jesus who will be saved. Paul then includes both Jews and Gentiles, Male and Female, Slaves and Free as being the true Israel.