| Author | Message | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 589 Registered: 7-2003 |
Just read Greg's letter...and his explanation is consistent with everything I've ever heard. I don't usually get to read on the weekends, so I'm just catching up! Like Greg said, I'm not sure what I believe on it, but I like the idea that we will be saved from the hour of God's wrath. As you've pointed out, there are many Christians being persecuted today, but that's not God's wrath. That's Satans. I think what God has in store would be much more severe. I guess that's why I tend to not focus on the particulars too much except to know that some day, Christ will come for his own. And I want to be ready. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1133 Registered: 11-2002 |
Ric_b, I was also given the advice to keep going to the SDA because even if I honestly coud make no sense out of the religion and even if I admitted I didn't believe a word of it because then at least God would be seeing me going to the right church and He would then know I was sincere about trying to understand and follow the truth. I said to this person, "So you want me to try to trick God?" The answer was, "No, it would not be trying to trick God. It would be showing God you really want to understand the truth and follow Him in all truth and righteousness." The conversation ended. It's so weird. | ||
| Pw Registered user Username: Pw Post Number: 190 Registered: 6-2004 |
A., Pastor Greg is honest in his answer. Those who claim they have an answer to everything are not of God because even Paul didn't have all the facts about certain things because he said we see through a mirror darkly for now. SDA's will act like they have the entire truth because of EGW and even if it's been proven wrong they will spiritualize it somehow. My only question to the SDA's is..how can a person end up in hell if they don't believe it's an actual place? Hello? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 987 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hell, they say (as you know, of course!) is that final burning that destroys and cleasnes the earth before the New Earth is created. It's another example of their using traditional Christian/biblical terms which the Christian community understands in a consistent way, but the Adventists mean something completely different when they use the terms. It's such an effective method of deception and confusion. I am so thankful for the truth and reality that God reveals to us when we embrace Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 232 Registered: 4-2000 |
JUDE 3 & 14 (NASB) In consulting my Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, I discovered that the interchangeable word for "saints" (verse 3) and "His holy ones" (verse 14) come from the same koine Greek word--although different tenses. The koine Greek word for "angels" is NOT used in these two passages. For example, the Greek word for "angels" is used in Matt. 16:27 by Jesus. Therefore, we can conclude hermeneutically that Jude 3 and 14 refer to human beings and not to angels. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 465 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hmmmm.....interesting thoughts on the use of "hagios" in Jude 14 Dennis. You may be right, however for the sake of discussion I have to say I'm not convinced it's an open and shut case. "Hagios" is used in four places in the NT in direct reference to angels (Mk. 8.38, Lk. 9.26, Acts 10.22, & Rev. 14.10). It should be noted that the uses of "hagios" in Mk. 8.38 & Lk. 9.26 are in similar contexts as the use of the word in Jude 14, i.e. Jesus returning accompanied by either holy angels (hagios aggelos) or holy "ones" (hagios). The exact meaning of hagios as used in Jude 14 seems a bit inconclusive to me, but I would be interested to hear your additional thoughts. At any rate it's really something of an academic debate because we know from other more clear texts that both things are true. We know that Jesus brings both the angels and the departed saints with Him when He comes (Mk. 8.38, Lk. 9.26, & 1 Thes. 4.14). Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 595 Registered: 7-2003 |
Welcome back, Chris. Very interesting observations both Dennis and Chris. Sometimes I think I'd like to learn Greek, but it's on a long wishlist of things I'd like to study. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris, Although when "hagios" is used by itself it never refers to angels. When "hagios" is used by itself it usually refers to the saints. Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 466 Registered: 7-2003 |
That does appear to be the case Jeremy. I don't think that means hagios by itself can't refer to angels, several commentators believe it does in Jude 14, but that may stregnthen the case Dennis is making. I *LOVE* looking at the original languages, I just wish my knowledge was a little deeper! Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 467 Registered: 7-2003 |
Just one other little interesting factoid, hagios is used 248 times in the NT. Only 25% (or 61) of these occurances are translated "saint", "saints", or "saint's" by the NASB. The other 75% of the time the word is used to refer to something or someone else, most notably the Holy Spirit (hagios pneuma - 92 usages). Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 233 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, Thank you for your comments. It is great to have you back. The importance of the original languages for the serious interpreter of Scripture cannot be overemphasized. If William Miller would have had some knowledge of the biblical languages, it would be safe to say that we would never have heard of groups like Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of God (Seventh Day), Shepherd's Rod, Branch Davidians, etc. One time when William Miller was asked a question about a passage that the original biblical language could have easily clarified, during one of his public meetings, he quickly replied, "I can read my English Bible very well, thank you." Biblical words must be studied, first of all, etymologically. In the case of Jude 3 and 14 the contextual evidence comes to our rescue. Being that the root word in both passages is the same; namely, the koine Greek word for "saints" and "His holy ones," we can conclude that angels are not referred to. For example, it would be soteriologically and historically inaccurate to insist that the "saints" in verse 3 are actually angels. Being that Jude uses the same root word twice within a few verses gives a contextual understanding--especially when we already know the exact meaning from the earlier usage. To be fair, I did not get any type of vision or dream for my limited exegesis of these passages in Jude. However, in my view, the overall contextual, lexicographical, and grammatical factors provide sufficient evidence for "saints" instead of "angels" in Jude 3 and 14. For whatever its worth, the following Bible translations refer to human beings (saints) instead of angels in Jude 14: KJV, NKJV, Weymouth, Amplified Bible, Williams, etc. Other translations (like NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, NRSV, Moffit, Luther's German Bible, Phillips, etc.) use "holy ones" in verse 14. Fewer translations (like NEB, NCV, TEV, etc.) use the word "angels" in verse 14. The RSV uses the phrase "his holy myriads." Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 468 Registered: 7-2003 |
Very interesting Dennis! Thank you for your comments. I would agree that the immediate contextual evidence demands traslating hagios as "saints" in vs. 3 and that that is also probably the strongest argument for doing the same in vs. 14 as well. The following comment you made is *SO* true. I wish SDAs understood how true this simple statement really is: "If William Miller would have had some knowledge of the biblical languages, it would be safe to say that we would never have heard of groups like Seventh-day Adventists..." If Miller would have simply known the difference between "ereb boqer" (evenings and mornings) and the Hebrew word "yom" (day), there would have been no Millerites, no SDAs, no 1844 "message", and no investigative judgment. Really sad. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1000 Registered: 12-2003 |
Sometimes I still get a jolt of amazement and disbelief that I actually belonged to a false religion--a cult, even--and firmly believed it to be God's personal creation. Even though Jesus and the apostles warned us that there would be false prophets and teachers and doctrines of demons infiltrating the gospel, we were duped. I really am looking forward to seeing, someday, how all this fit into God's sovereign, eternal will. While I can say today that I thank God for my being raised Adventist and for how He has redeemed and is still redeeming that past in my life, still it seems there must be more to the picture than I can see. How ironic to contemplate that if it weren't for William Miller's ignorance of language, there wouldn't have been an Adventist church--at least, not the one we know! (This fact reminds me how seminal the Word is. Jesus is the Word who was in the beginning, Who is God, through whom all things were made. Word is the most creative and foundational Power in the universe. Our words either reveal truth or they conceal it. Words were the symbol of the new birth at Pentecost. Words can destroy or create, deceive or deliver. Words either reflect the Word of creation or the doctrines of demons.) It all distills down to one question: do a person's words reveal a deep embracing of truth, or do they reflect a desperate attempt to rationalize what we want to believe? Colleen | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 134 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris & Dennis, you're both so right about the words referring to Humans (Saints) that Christ returns with. You just helped me reinforce my Orthodox view of events. :-) Loren | ||
| 33ad Registered user Username: 33ad Post Number: 135 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen said: Quote:"It all distills down to one question: do a person's words reveal a deep embracing of truth, or do they reflect a desperate attempt to rationalize what we want to believe?" Colleen, now you're touching on a cardinal Orthodox point. Orthodox theologians believe that Protestantism is a subtle Roman Catholisism as it makes everyone their own "Pope". In other words, the Bible is open to any interpretation the reader wants it to mean. Remember we were talking on another thread about the Ante and Post Nicene Fathers. They were the early church fathers who understood the scriptures very well, as they helped to put the canon together, and lived just after the Apostles had passed away. The Orthodox church accepts their commentary (Homilies) as very valuable interpretation of scripture which enabled the Church to fight heresy. They - the Fathers - also had access to documents and word of mouth from the Apostles that are now lost to us (Sacking of Constantinople & fire of Library of Alexandria) Chris & Dennis make valuable contributions to our forum with their understanding of Greek. I'm also certain they agree with me about the importance of the information provided by the Fathers. I'm quite aware they are not going to agree with me on all the points that Orthodox hold, but at the end of the day we are sourcing our beliefs from the same pool. Thus, they may concede that Orthodxy is closer to the Truth than most Protestants would like to believe. If you are using the Ante-Nicene fathers to help interpret points of NT scripture, then you are not "Sola Scriptura", but are using part of "Holy Traditon". That statement scares most Protestants and they would deny using the "Tradition", but where the rubber meets the road, that is in fact what is happening. This can only be good, because I believe it brings us closer to the correct interpretation of scripture, and consequently the "Right Living" that Christianity is all about. I have tried here to explain to you how I went so radically to the Eastern Christianity. I hope this makes a little more sense to you now. BTW, It is not my intention to knock down anyone's beliefs, only to help you to understand where I'm coming from. God bless Loren | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1146 Registered: 11-2002 |
Colleen, were you raised SDA? | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 278 Registered: 10-2001 |
I wrote out a long "essay" on why I believe in a pre-trib rapture of the saints a couple of years ago. This is just for consideration. I don't think it is very profitable to debate pre-trib/ mid-trib/ post-trib. The essay is quite long and this is just a piece of it. If anyone is interested in the whole thing, you can e-mail me at reedsome05@aol.com Parable of the Lost Son Here we have a man with a lot of wealth and two sons. One son decides to squander his wealth and see the world. He ends up hungry, broke, feeding the pigs and then repents and returns to his father. When his father sees him in the distance, he runs to him, kisses him, gives him the best robe and a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. Then he throws a big feast for him and the older son is jealous and doesn't go to the feast. As I read and studied this parable the Holy Spirit began to reveal a deeper meaning than the obvious. The definition of a parable is: 'An earthly story with a heavenly meaning' Jesus spoke in parables with a simple story relative to everyone and a parallel meaning to those who understood the things of the Spirit. When the disciples asked Jesus in Matthew 13:10 "Why do You speak to them in parables?" He answered and said unto them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. He goes on to say that the reason it wasn't given to them is because their hearts had become dull. Their eyes were closed. They listened with their ears and saw with their eyes instead of listening to their hearts. In the parable, the father has two sons. I believe these represent the Jews and the Gentiles. The Gentiles first squandered their inheritance. For approximately the first 4000 years they were lost. The Jews are God's chosen people, for the first 4000 years or so until Jesus' first coming they were the light to the Gentile world. God used them to show the nations His power by defeating their enemies in miraculous victory. When Jesus came, the gentiles received Him while the majority of the Jews didn't recognize Him as they were looking for a king to come and reign. When the lost son returns home to his father, the father puts the best robe on him. The robe represents Jesus. He is the robe of light. Isaiah 61 speaks of the second coming of the Lord. In verse 10 Isaiah says: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garment of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteouseness, as a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. verse 11: For as the earth brings forth its bud, as the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth, So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations." Next, the father put a ring on his hand. This represents the inheritance being given to him. The signet ring was used like a stamp or seal to sign important documents showing ones authority such as in Esther 3. In Genesis 41:42 Pharoah gave his signet ring to Joseph and clothed him in garments of fine linen, giving him the authority of the king. Our inheritance is eternal life through Christ Jesus and we are sealed by the Spirit. Ephesians 1:13,14: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possesion, to the praise of His glory. Next, he put sandals on his feet. These represent protection and provision. Deut. 33:24,25: And of Asher he said: "Asher is most blessed of sons; Let him be favored by his brothers, and let him dip his foot in oil. Your sandals shall be iron and bronze; As your days, so shall your strength be." Asher was Leah's maid's son by Jacob in Genesis. Leah was Jacob's first wife, but he really wanted to marry Rachel, just as the Gentiles (the church) are Christ's bride even though He chose the Jews first. Remember, I believe that the older son represents the Jew or Israel and the younger represents the Gentile or the church. I realize they are brothers and both Jews in the story, just as we are all children of God. Then the father called for a great feast for his son (the younger). When the older son came near the house and heard the music and dancing, he called to one of the servants and asked what these things meant. The servant told him that his brother had come home and was received safe and sound and his father had thrown a great party for him. The older son is jealous and angry and wont go into the feast even though the father pleads with him to enter. He tells his father he has kept his commandments from the beginning and this brother has foolishly wasted his inheritance! Why is he getting this special feast while the faithful son gets none? The father explains to the older son that he is always with him and all that he has is his but it is right that they make merry for his brother because he was lost and is found, he was dead and is alive! This is obvious that the older son is the chosen Jew and the Gentile is the one who was lost and is found, was dead and is alive. The younger humbles himself and returns to his father and receives forgiveness and grace while the older is confident in his commandment keeping and feels entitled because of his status. The younger goes into the wedding feast while the older remains outside. I believe this is representative of the marriage supper of the Lamb which I believe will occur in heaven during the tribulation for those that are Christ's. Paul explains this plainly in Romans chapter 10. Israel rejected Christ and the prophets while the Gentiles believed and were saved. Rom. 10:1-11: Bretheren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them." But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is to bring Christ down from above) or, "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead) But what does it say? "The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." verse 16-21: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to to the ends of the world." But I say, did Israel not know? first Moses says: "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, (the Gentiles) I will anger you by a foolish nation." But Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me." But to Israel he says: All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and contrary people." Paul goes on to say that Israel's rejection is not total: Chapter 11:1-10: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel saying, "Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone and left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this time, there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But it is of works, it is no longer grace, 0therwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks, but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened. Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day." And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them; Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always." So what is the purpose of Israel's rejection? Rom. 11:11-14: I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more is their fullness! For I speak to you as Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. He goes on to say how we were grafted in because of our belief in Jesus and the Jews will be grafted back in, but when? Rom. 11:25: For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. That is the rapture! When the Gentiles go in, the Greek word for come in means to enter, reception, welcome. And so Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away the ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, when I take away thier sins." What is the fullness of the Gentiles? Isaiah 11:1-4: There shall come forth a Rod (Jesus) from the stem of Jesse (Israel), and a Branch (Christians) shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, The Spirit of counsel and might, The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. His delight is in the fear of the Lord and He shall not judge with the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing of His ears; But with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth, He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. 1:10 "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. At the time of the rapture the Jews become provoked to jealousy as in Romans 11 because they are keeping the commandments still and we go to the feast! The marriage supper of the Lamb! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1002 Registered: 12-2003 |
Susan, I was definitely raised Adventist! Colleen | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 78 Registered: 4-2004 |
Loren, I think you make a good point concerning the use of "Holy Tradition". I was attempting to say the same thing on the other thread. IMO, we Protestants use interpretations by the Early Fathers on a regular basis without realizing it. We don't realize it because we as a group have never studied the writings of the Fathers. However their interpretations have been handed down over the centuries, becoming tradition. We see the same thing occuring in modern Protestantism. A good example is the belief in the Pre-Trib rapture. This is essentially a new teaching born in the 1830's. (The origin of the "doctrine" is clouded in controversy, which is unrelated to my point here) I see the wide-spread acceptance of this idea as a modern version of holding a tradition. Dane | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 79 Registered: 4-2004 |
Sabra, Much of your last post speaks to something that I have often wondered about. Please understand that I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the Pre-Trib teaching. In your essay you lay out the case for Israel's salvation. Then, you tie it to a Pre-Trib rapture, which we all know is the standard Pre- Trib view. My problem with this is that I have never seen a logical necessity of linking a salvation for Israel to a Pre-Trib schema. Why can't they be saved under the Post-Trib? Dane |
