http://runesoup.com/2013/07/very-bad-company/
I don't recommend most of the rest of the stuff on
his site, though. Most of this I already know about,
but this is a real good compendium in one place. I
didn't know about the connection to the person
who wrote (and later claimed to hate) the heretical
and blasphemous but lovey dovey sounding
A Course in Miracles. Didn't know or remember
some other details, but in general this is not new,
it just ties it all together in one place.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Chiliasm and rapture issues.
Chiliasm refers to the idea of the thousand year reign
of Christ on earth after the Second Coming and
before the Final Judgement.
First off, any idea that Jesus' Second Coming results in
a rule on earth that is limited in its time is wrong. Clearly
Jesus will rule forever, fulfilling the Messianic expectation
in its political and forever rule, never dying, form. This
expectation the Jews had when Jesus came the first time,
not paying attention to other issues in the Messianic
prophecies, though those who DID pay attention to these
accepted Jesus including many priests according to The
Book of Acts.
(Which is why we Orthodox Christians retain a pronunciation
of The Divine Name that is lost to Jews, who stopped using
it out of fear.)
The typical chiliastic statement is, "the thousand year reign
of Christ on earth." This is dead wrong. That is only phase
one of His rule on earth, or in fact phase two, the Kingdom
of Heaven having been established, but not fulfilled, on
earth at His first coming. Daniel speaks of a great boulder
that pounds the statue to dust and that this refers to a kingdom
that in the days of the legs and toes of iron would be
established, and never overthrown.
The first coming of Messiah (Hebrew for Anointed, Christos
in Greek) accomplished this, and this rule is seen in the
Church, but many Church writers have thrown such a focus
on this as to miss that this is only a starting point, while
the dominionist/kingdom now etc. heretics (such as Pat
Robertson in less obvious forms, and the New Apostolic
Reformation in more dangerous forms) thinks the church
(meaning usually whoever agrees with them) will fully
establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, take over nations
and finally the world for Jesus and present this to Him to
rule over when He comes back. (disputes about the antichrist
and the rapture in all this vary.) This is essentially what is
called post millenial eschatology, that the Christians will
rule earth for a thousand years, then Jesus comes back and
does the Judgement.
Pre trib is pre tribulation rapture, which may occur in
post mil and amil and pre mil contexts. the terms trib
and mil are sometimes confused.
Pre Millennialism has Jesus coming back to establish
His literal physical rule over all the earth, but while this
is more biblically correct, it still focusses on the idea
of a thousand year rule of Christ, as if this comes to
an end.
It doesn't.
As The Creed says, "of His kingdom there shall be no
end."
Chiliastic movements, often accompanied by heresy
and hysteria, have been well documented in western
Europe through Roman Catholic dominated times and
after The Protestant Reformation.
A good example of a more recent event was the Russellite
expectation of The Second Coming in AD 1844, the
failure of which led to many sects developing incl. the
Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
(The alleged restoration of the original church is also a
part of these movements, and the restoration movement
of the 1800s gave rise also to Mormonism via a fake
vision, of which there are two or three conflicting accounts
hand written by Joseph Smith, who profiteered off this
popular concern. Baptists also to some extent are into this
notion, and the Landmark Baptists go whole hog crazy
claiming a lineage through every last damn heretical often
anti trinitarian sect ever persecuted by Rome.)
Chiliasm was denounced early on by the Eastern Orthodox
Church (before it was called that, just called Catholic
meaning universal, before Rome hived away and copped
the term "catholic" to mean only themselves), because of
the focus on the thousand years, as if there was a limit to
Christ's reign.
To counter this, the phrase entered the Creed, "of His
Kingdom there shall be no end."
The following shows the present Orthodox position on all
this, from
http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/end_w.htm#_Toc26622239
"The Inconsistency of Chiliasm.
of Christ on earth after the Second Coming and
before the Final Judgement.
First off, any idea that Jesus' Second Coming results in
a rule on earth that is limited in its time is wrong. Clearly
Jesus will rule forever, fulfilling the Messianic expectation
in its political and forever rule, never dying, form. This
expectation the Jews had when Jesus came the first time,
not paying attention to other issues in the Messianic
prophecies, though those who DID pay attention to these
accepted Jesus including many priests according to The
Book of Acts.
(Which is why we Orthodox Christians retain a pronunciation
of The Divine Name that is lost to Jews, who stopped using
it out of fear.)
The typical chiliastic statement is, "the thousand year reign
of Christ on earth." This is dead wrong. That is only phase
one of His rule on earth, or in fact phase two, the Kingdom
of Heaven having been established, but not fulfilled, on
earth at His first coming. Daniel speaks of a great boulder
that pounds the statue to dust and that this refers to a kingdom
that in the days of the legs and toes of iron would be
established, and never overthrown.
The first coming of Messiah (Hebrew for Anointed, Christos
in Greek) accomplished this, and this rule is seen in the
Church, but many Church writers have thrown such a focus
on this as to miss that this is only a starting point, while
the dominionist/kingdom now etc. heretics (such as Pat
Robertson in less obvious forms, and the New Apostolic
Reformation in more dangerous forms) thinks the church
(meaning usually whoever agrees with them) will fully
establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, take over nations
and finally the world for Jesus and present this to Him to
rule over when He comes back. (disputes about the antichrist
and the rapture in all this vary.) This is essentially what is
called post millenial eschatology, that the Christians will
rule earth for a thousand years, then Jesus comes back and
does the Judgement.
Pre trib is pre tribulation rapture, which may occur in
post mil and amil and pre mil contexts. the terms trib
and mil are sometimes confused.
Pre Millennialism has Jesus coming back to establish
His literal physical rule over all the earth, but while this
is more biblically correct, it still focusses on the idea
of a thousand year rule of Christ, as if this comes to
an end.
It doesn't.
As The Creed says, "of His kingdom there shall be no
end."
Chiliastic movements, often accompanied by heresy
and hysteria, have been well documented in western
Europe through Roman Catholic dominated times and
after The Protestant Reformation.
A good example of a more recent event was the Russellite
expectation of The Second Coming in AD 1844, the
failure of which led to many sects developing incl. the
Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
(The alleged restoration of the original church is also a
part of these movements, and the restoration movement
of the 1800s gave rise also to Mormonism via a fake
vision, of which there are two or three conflicting accounts
hand written by Joseph Smith, who profiteered off this
popular concern. Baptists also to some extent are into this
notion, and the Landmark Baptists go whole hog crazy
claiming a lineage through every last damn heretical often
anti trinitarian sect ever persecuted by Rome.)
Chiliasm was denounced early on by the Eastern Orthodox
Church (before it was called that, just called Catholic
meaning universal, before Rome hived away and copped
the term "catholic" to mean only themselves), because of
the focus on the thousand years, as if there was a limit to
Christ's reign.
To counter this, the phrase entered the Creed, "of His
Kingdom there shall be no end."
The following shows the present Orthodox position on all
this, from
http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/end_w.htm#_Toc26622239
"The Inconsistency of Chiliasm.
There is presently a teaching about the thousand-year
kingdom of Christ on earth prior to the Universal
Judgment that is gaining increased acceptance
among different Christian denominations. This
teaching is known as chiliasm, from the Greek
chiliasmos, meaning "a thousand years." The
essence of this teaching is as follows: Long before
the end of the world, Christ will once again
return to earth, defeat the Antichrist, resurrect
the righteous only, and establish a kingdom on
earth in which the righteous, as a reward for
their struggles and sufferings, will reign with Him
for a period of thousand years, enjoying all the
good things of temporal life. After this, another
resurrection will follow in which the rest of the
people will be raised from the dead. Then the
Universal Judgment will take place, and God
will reward the righteous and punish the sinners.
The defenders of this teaching base their arguments
on the vision of the Apostle John in the 20th
chapter of the book of Revelation.
"There it is said that an Angel descended from
heaven and bound satan for a thousand years and
that the souls of those beheaded for their witness
of Jesus Christ and the word of God came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand
years. "This is the first resurrection," says
the book of Revelation (Rev. 20:5). "When
the thousand years have expired, Satan will be
released from his prison and will go out to
deceive the nations" (Rev. 20:7-8). Soon there
follows the judgment of the devil and of those
who were deceived by him. The dead will be
raised up and judged according to their deeds:
"... And anyone not found written in the Book of
Life was cast into the lake of fire … This is the
second death" (Rev. 20:14-15). Upon those who
have been resurrected in the first resurrection,
however, the second death will have no power.
|Chiliastic views in antiquity were spread chiefly
among heretics. The Second Ecumenical Council
in 381 AD., condemning the heretic Apollinarius,
condemned his teaching about the thousand-year
Kingdom of Christ. To put a stop to further
attempts at introducing this teaching, the Fathers
of the Council inserted into the Creed the words
about Christ: "His Kingdom shall have no end."
In other words, when Christ's reign begins there
will be no interruptions in His eternal Kingdom.
In more recent times, chiliastic views were
resurrected in some Protestant sects.
"As has been indicated, in this teaching there are
proposed two future resurrections and two
judgments: one for the righteous and later another
for sinners; and there are two future comings
of the Savior. "
Let's stop right there. YES, THIS IS TOTALLY
WRONG, if anyone holds this view. There is only
one Second Coming, and there is no interruption
to Jesus' reign on earth, though a revolt is
attempted but put down.
There are not two future judgements but one
judgement, apparently those in the first resurrection
all of whom were true to Jesus and many if not
most died for Him, are not at risk at the
Judgement. However, there are others out there,
especially those born during the initial phase of the
earthly rule, and all those who never knew Jesus,
or who knew and fell away from Him, who are
subject to this judgement.
Jesus speaks of gradations of damnation, and
of Sodom and Gomorrha having it better in the
Judgement Day because they would have repented
if they had had the opportunities of some cities
who had those opportunities and did not repent,
than for those cities.
Double Second Comings are definitely taught in the
pre tribulation rapture scenarios that involve a secret
coming by Christ to take the believers out of the way
of persecution by the antichrist, then another public
Second Coming to destroy the antichrist. This is
totally wrong, refuted in Matt. 24 and II Thess
The image of rebellion in Revelation that is suppressed,
is like a reenactment of the situation where Absalom
rebelled against David. Never did David get conquered
or cease being king, and Absalom was defeated.
(or you could say this was a pre play of what Revelation
says will happen.)
"There is a purely earthly reign of Christ with
the righteous ones as a definite historical epoch.
Formally, this teaching is based on an incorrect
understanding of the expression first
resurrection, while inwardly its cause is rooted
in many contemporary sectarians' loss of faith in
eternal life and in the blessedness of the
righteous in Heaven, with whom they have
no communion in prayer. Another cause is to
be found in utopian dreams hidden behind
religious ideas and inserted into the mysterious
images of the book of Revelation.
It is not difficult to see the inconsistency of the
chiliastic interpretation of the 20th Chapter of the
book of Revelation. Parallel passages in Sacred
Scripture clearly indicate that the first resurrection
signifies spiritual rebirth into eternal life through
baptism. Here are some typical passages in
apostolic epistles:"Awake, you who sleep, arise
from the dead, and Christ will give you light …
You are risen with Christ" (Eph 5:14; Col. 3:1
and 2:12; Eph. 2:5-6). Proceeding from this,
by the thousand-year reign we must understand
the period of time from the very beginning of the
Church of Christ until the end of the world. In
the 20th chapter of Revelation, St. John consoles
the faithful with the thought that those who were
killed for Christ did not perish. Instead, they reign
in Heaven with their Savior."
While this understanding is not wrong, it is incomplete.
Those passages point out that being died and risen
with Christ in baptism, we have the beginning of the
life of The Kingdom of Heaven, which we will not have
in full until we are in Heaven, and later resurrected to
live forever.
"The second death signifies the condemnation of sinners
after the Universal Judgment. It does not concern
"the resurrected in the first resurrection."
This means that those spiritually regenerated in
Christ and cleansed by God's grace will not be
subject to Condemnation but will enter the blessed
life of Christ's Kingdom."
Well, yes, even the chiliasts would agree with that.
"It is important to understand that the 20th chapter of
the book of Revelation does not introduce any new
teaching about the end of the world and the Second
Coming of Christ."
Correct, you can find elements formally compiled and
developed in Revelation, present in Old and New
Testament writings.
" Its purpose is to summarize the battle between
the devil and the Church which permeates the whole
history of mankind. The devil is defeated twice:
first spiritually, by the redemptive death of the
Savior, and at the end of the world, completely
and finally, when he will be thrown into the lake
of fire. Christian martyrs began to celebrate their
victory over satan immediately following their
death for Christ."
Yes, the devil is bound in the sense of being crippled,
but that he is bound in the sense Revelation speaks
of is false, or he wouldn't be able to tempt believers
and unbelievers even more so. The Orthodox faith
involves an ongoing battle against the demonic as well
as fleshly and worldly temptations, so clearly the
binding that done to the devil by Jesus Christ is more
like a crippling. A very severe crippling.
Revelation speaks of the devil not being able to tempt
the nations, until he is released for one more time, and
those nations will follow him in revolt and face
destruction.
So if all this refers strictly to the time of the Church on
earth, when did the release of satan occur? True there is
severe crippling of him. An old pagan oracle could not
function until its demon was fed by many blood sacrifices,
then all it could do was explain that the relics of a very
holy Christian man nearby impeded the demon too much
for it to function.
The great error of chiliasm is to put a limit on Christ's rule.
There is no end to His rule, but the present views of many
Orthodox churchmen on the fine details in Revelation can
still be in error. amillennialism is a notion that almost
started with St. Augustine, who brought a lot of Manichaean
baggage with him, and created such notions as extreme
predestination that Orthodoxy has always rejected. These
notions, also rejected by RC, were taken up by Luther and
Calvin.
Augustine in doing this was reacting to Pelagianism, which
denied that the fallen human was all that fallen, and claimed
one could be perfectly good without divine help if one just
used one's will all the time correctly. While a certain amount
of righteousness possibility and rejection of extreme and
obvious unrighteousness is possible is shown in many of God's
statements OT and NT, it is also stated and obvious that people
tend not to make these right choices, or they do so only
intermittently and that they choose many other things that
are less obviously bad, more deceptive.
Jesus says none can come to Him unless The Father draws
them, so extreme is the bondage of the will BUT THAT
DOESN'T MEAN that the person in this condition is
without fault, and it doesn't mean that more people can't
be added by God to the list of those being drawn to Jesus,
in response to prayer by Christians.
This whole issue of predestination vs. free will is a Mystery
but one thing is clear, that the early church writers denounced
determinism and predestination notions in general as pagan.
So the tack taken by the Calvinists is not entirely biblical and
not part of early church teaching.
Augustine practically invented amillennialism as a response
to the delay in Christ's Second Coming. RC and mostly EO
are technically amil, so is Church of Christ and probably
some others. These do not expect a reign on earth by Christ
in two segments one Second Coming but two phases of rule,
rather, a Second Coming resulting in an immediate Judgement.
The possibility that the events are telescoped where Scripture
makes it look like this, and more detailed in Revelation, is
ignored.
Regarding the Rapture the same page (different writer)
says this.
"Why does St. Paul speak of an ascension of the righteous?
The Fathers suggest at least three answers to this question.
St. Gregory of Nyssa says that the ascension is a
natural consequence of the purity of the transfigured
resurrection body: "...this change which takes place...
when the resurrection trumpet sounds which awakens
the dead in an instant transforms those who are left
alive to incorruptibility according to the likeness of those
who have undergone the resurrection change, so that
the bulk of the flesh is no longer heavy nor does its
weight hold them down to earth, but they rise up
through the air..." ("On the Making of Man" 22,6).
St. John Chrysostom and others say that it is to provide
Christ with a proper escort for His appearance on
earth and to demonstrate His favor toward the
faithful. "If He is about to descend, why shall we
be taken up? For the sake of honor. When a king
enters a city, those who are in his favor go out to
meet him, but the condemned await their judge
inside. Or, when a loving father comes, his children,
and also those worthy of being his children, are
taken out in a chariot to see and kiss him, but the
servants who have offended him remain indoors.
So we are carried out upon a chariot to our Father...
See how great our honor is? As He descends we go
out to meet Him, and what is more blessed, we shall
be with Him always" (Homily 8 on Thessalonians)."
discussing the timing however, the writer observes:
"We must interpret 24:40-42 in light of Christ’s
insistence that He will return "at an hour you do
not expect" (24:44). It would seem strange if
Christ were to make this point over and over in
the early verses of chapter 24, then in verses 40-42
describe an occurrence which would certainly tip
everyone off that something was about to happen,
and all the more peculiar if that tip-off were to
happen seven years before His appearance, as the
dispensationalists assert. "
The dispensationalists, whose special notions are
NOT necessary to biblical faith on the one hand, or to
any last days events calculations on the other, are dead
wrong in thinking the great tribulation lasts seven years,
when Revelations says clearly it would be three and a
half years. 1260 days.
But Jesus does says "immediately after the tribulation of
those days" He would appear in the sky, visible to all.
Now while part of this discourse can include a veiled
reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and
The Temple in AD 70 there are events that don't fit all
that and there is a pattern of a sort of foreshadowing of
fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture. a double fulfillment.
Jesus said that when ALL these things start happening
at once, THEN take note and be happy for your
redemption draws near. Redemption is not only done by
payment but by raid and taking out of captivity or
destroying the tyrant that has you captive. THE Redemption
of course was done at the Cross, but this laid the groundwork
for the final redemption of the body as well as soul St. Paul
refers to meaning the resurrection of the believers, and of
course the redemption of those fleeing the antichrist or hiding
from him or being tortured or killed by him for not worshipping
him and not taking his mark in hand or head, this redemption
of believers would be by the destruction of the antichrist.
So Jesus DOES give a list of indicators, if they occur all at
once, that point to His imminent Second Coming, the day and
hour cannot be anticipated, but the year can be, but only after
the antichrist has made himself disgustingly obvious.
http://stjohnshanghaisandiego.org/St._John_of_Shanghai_and_the_West_Orthodox_Christian_Mission_in_San_Diego/End_Times/Entries/2014/5/3_St._Ephraim_the_Syrian__Concerning_the_Coming_of_the_Lord%2C_the_End_of_the_World%2C_and_the_Coming_of_Antichrist.html
shows that St. Ephrem the Syrian clearly depicts a post
tribulation Rapture, contrary to the out of context and
dishonest misquote of him by some pre tribbers.
St. Ephrem also shows no particular gap between the
Second Coming and Last Judgement, though this may
just be a telescoping, expecting readers of Revelation
to get the details. c. AD 306-373.
shows that St. Ephrem the Syrian clearly depicts a post
tribulation Rapture, contrary to the out of context and
dishonest misquote of him by some pre tribbers.
St. Ephrem also shows no particular gap between the
Second Coming and Last Judgement, though this may
just be a telescoping, expecting readers of Revelation
to get the details. c. AD 306-373.
the little red hen revisited.
An example of the problem we face is this written
by usually excellent Berit Kjos. When it comes to
religious issues such as in her book "Under the Spell
of Mother Earth," she is pretty good. However, her
article shows a simplistic and unbiblical analysis, a
failure caused by the right left paradigm. Yes, the
teacher in this story is WRONG, but not for the
reason Kjos says.
"We all know the story of the Little Red Hen
who wanted some bread to eat. She asked
some of her barnyard friends to help make
it. But the cat, the dog, and the goat all
said "no." Finally she did all the work
herself. Yet, when the bread was done and
its fragrance spread throughout the farm,
her unwilling neighbors were more than
willing to help her eat it.
by usually excellent Berit Kjos. When it comes to
religious issues such as in her book "Under the Spell
of Mother Earth," she is pretty good. However, her
article shows a simplistic and unbiblical analysis, a
failure caused by the right left paradigm. Yes, the
teacher in this story is WRONG, but not for the
reason Kjos says.
"We all know the story of the Little Red Hen
who wanted some bread to eat. She asked
some of her barnyard friends to help make
it. But the cat, the dog, and the goat all
said "no." Finally she did all the work
herself. Yet, when the bread was done and
its fragrance spread throughout the farm,
her unwilling neighbors were more than
willing to help her eat it.
"Won't you share with us?" they begged.
"No," she answered. "Since you didn't help,
you don't get anything."
In the context of traditional values, the
moral of the story is: you get what you
work for. But those who have learned to
think and see from the new global
perspective are led to another conclusion.
Listen to the kinds of questions the
first grade teacher asked her class:
"Why was the Little Red Hen so stingy? Isn't it only right that everyone gets to eat? Why wouldn't she share what she had with some who had none?" [5]
The concerned mother who heard and
reported this story asked, "What kinds
of values were the children taught?"
The new interpretation emphasizes
love and sharing, but what is missing?
How might it confuse a child's values?
The answers are obvious. The children
were taught socialist values. The new
interpretation vilified values that had
motivated Americans to be diligent,
responsible and fair. The teacher's
questions were actually strategic
suggestions prompting the group to
ridicule traditional values, to see reality
and society from the new politically
correct perspective, and to intimidate and
shame anyone who dared to disagree. "
Now, the real problem is this. The other animals
were not starving, they were not in the situation of
nothing to eat, obviously. If they were, they probably
would have helped being desperate.
Not sharing with the needy is not the issue. Demanding
that people contribute and share IS the issue, and the
contributing and SHARING needs to be done by the
others, not just the producers who yes, need to share.
Jesus taught to "give to him who asks of you" without
seeking it back. To be like The Father in Heaven Who
gives generously to all, even those who are not His
friends.
However, we are finite, limited beings. Jesus never said
to strip yourself of all resources and be starving and
freezing and homeless as a result (though some might be
as individuals called to such a radical renunciation of
the world as a counterbalance to be too relying on these
and tending to ignore God, here comes monasticism,
but that is another matter).
St. John the Baptist didn't say, give away your only cloak
which you need to wrap yourself in at night to keep warm,
but if you have two cloaks, give one to someone who has
none.
Theoretically, you could argue that
a. the little red hen was right to do this, even in terms of
thinking charity and the needs of others, because it taught
them to be more proactive,
b. she could also have given them a little and said you want
more you are going to have to help me, you see it tastes as
good as it smells, but I am only giving you a little bit because
you didn't help me, do better nexr time.
c. the often quoted by "conservatives" from St. Paul that
who will not work shall not eat, is obviously about freeloaders
not those whose only options are place of work that are full
of temptations and persecutions and who are willing to help
around the churches or help individuals, or for that matter,
who are unable to work full time or more than intermittently
or at all. These conditions can vary, and it is not good to
adopt someone and take care of everything on the one hand,
or to ignore them altogether, people do need help to get on
their feet and sometimes to stay on their feet.
NEVER should you be doing charity as an act of grandeur,
feeling above others, the test of this is, would you accept
charity yourself or are you too proud? Pride is a SIN.
Caution about what demands might come with or after
help is given is another matter.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
possibilities from an Eastern Orthodox monk's visions
There are prophecies from Elder Paisios that circulate,
and these were called into question by a monk who
had known him for years, who said he never heard him
say any of these things. But Elder Paisios rarely said
them to anyone, didn't like to talk about what he had
been shown, probably for fear of attention being drawn
away from Jesus Christ to himself.
also, they are somewhat disturbing even if hopeful in
some ways.
One of these prophecies is that world war three will start
in a situation between Greece and Turkey, and another
that the kurds will get their homeland that they want.
The present situation in Iraq is beginning to look like that
could happen.
Also he said the USA would blow up like a balloon. The
person reporting this said he didn't know what this meant,
and Elder Paisios had not elaborated. But there are
several ways this could be fulfilled, all could happen. One
would be the breakup into many segments predicted by a
Russian analyst and others. Or division between two
or more conquering nations. Then there is Yellowstone
and the Long Valley Caldera also getting active, and the
possibility explored in one youtube video that the fracking
and massive underground gas deposits through the midwest
and the collapsing salt dome under Louisiana and New
Madrid Fault could all combine to a catastrophic explosion.
and these were called into question by a monk who
had known him for years, who said he never heard him
say any of these things. But Elder Paisios rarely said
them to anyone, didn't like to talk about what he had
been shown, probably for fear of attention being drawn
away from Jesus Christ to himself.
also, they are somewhat disturbing even if hopeful in
some ways.
One of these prophecies is that world war three will start
in a situation between Greece and Turkey, and another
that the kurds will get their homeland that they want.
The present situation in Iraq is beginning to look like that
could happen.
Also he said the USA would blow up like a balloon. The
person reporting this said he didn't know what this meant,
and Elder Paisios had not elaborated. But there are
several ways this could be fulfilled, all could happen. One
would be the breakup into many segments predicted by a
Russian analyst and others. Or division between two
or more conquering nations. Then there is Yellowstone
and the Long Valley Caldera also getting active, and the
possibility explored in one youtube video that the fracking
and massive underground gas deposits through the midwest
and the collapsing salt dome under Louisiana and New
Madrid Fault could all combine to a catastrophic explosion.
Tom Horn twists The Bible on how to rebuke
Tom Horn published this statement in his series
"Blood on the Altar," which by the way is very
perspicacious in other matters. Especially the warning
that persecution against Christians will come from
other Christians and observes that the USA is back
of most of the foreign persecution of Christians. I
haven't read all of it yet, but the first two entries are
important.
However, in this statement he is in serious unbiblical
error.
"For example, just about every solid Bible expositor
know has been tirelessly harassed online the last
few years by fake defenders of the faith. Yet, not
once have these self-proclaimed “guardians of the
truth” actually followed the Bible’s mandates
themselves, mandates that very specifically outline
how believers are to deal with error in the church.
The New Testament books of Matthew, Galatians,
Thessalonians, Romans, and others provide
guidelines for dealing with differences between true
believers. These verses teach us that if we perceive
a brother or sister as falling into error, we are to go
to him or her PRIVATELY in a spirit of humility and
redemption. If those we approach will not receive
our advice, we go to the elders of the church
PRIVATELY and share our concern. If the elders
believe the issue is legitimate, they go to the person
PRIVATELY in hopes of restoring him or her. If the
person still refuses council, the church is to have
nothing more to do with him or her. With that in
mind, the next time you are online reading some
diatribe about Chuck Missler, Gary Stearman,
Steve Quayle, David Flynn, J. R. Church,
L. A. Marzulli, Cris Putnam, Jonathan Cahn, yours
truly, or any of the other current favorite targets,
ask yourself if the hatchet people attacking them
ever bothered to obey Scripture and go to the
person PRIVATELY with their concerns in a loving
spirit of restoration (they haven’t), and then “be
careful little eyes what you read,” because
destructive forces seek to contaminate your mind
and spirit (see Prov. 4:23–27) in order to prep you
for service to the dark side."
first off, the private consultation is about differences
between believers that may include doctrine but
mostly are about sin or harm by one to another or
to a third party observed.
Secondly you don't go to the church elders to talk to
them, you get two or three witnesses to go with you
on the next attempt, so that there is a record of what
was said by who, no he said she said and various
lies and claims something wasn't said that was said,
etc.
THIRDLY you take the matter to the CONGREGATION
make it public and THEN if your brother still won't hear
you, let him be as a publical or a tax collector, in other
words, have nothing more to do with him or her, shun
him or her, ostracize them.
BUT THIS MATTER HORN ADDRESSES IS ABOUT
PUBLIC TEACHING OF ERROR. Not claiming Horn
or whoever cheated you or has been abusive or stole
from you or is trying to break up your marriage or
slandering you behind your back or whatever.
Tom Horn and the rest of the supposed serious Bible
expositors (and there are problems with their Bible
expositions) are speaking and writing PUBLICLY.
THEY ARE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN THE
POSITION OF TEACHERS.
Therefore the contradiction to them must be public to
undo whatever harm they have done.
And all this talk of public vs. private is not in the
Epistles cites Horn uses. On the contrary Paul says
to Titus and/or Timothy to condemn sinners publicly
so others will fear and says that evil teachers must
be silenced and after warning a divisive person or
one of corrupt mind two or three times ostracize
them. The latter is not indicated as private, though
of course if such as an individual approached you
this would be step one, but step two would be to
warn others.
By going online, and publishing, and so forth, these
writers make themselves into teachers, public
people, and as such have no claim to privacy, and
I also find it difficult to believe that no one ever, ever,
EVER attempted to address these people privately
or semi privately, email, written, spoken to after a
lecture, or on a blog conversation post if any of these
Bible expositors ran such.
But that doesn't matter. This is a public situation which
was made public by these Bible expositors and is
therefore to be publicly addressed.
However, if you lift the first sentence
"just about every solid Bible expositor...has been
tirelessly harassed...by fake defenders of the faith" is true
enough, Robert Gundry got trouble when he published a
book showing the Church WILL go through the tribulation,
and those who expose the errors of the charismatics are
ostracized and vilified.
Those who expose the errors of Calvinism's double
predestination and generally mechanistic dead kind of
framework of thought and of once saved always saved
are called heretics, when in fact these notions are not
to be found in early church writings, and do not exist
in The Bible without contradiction of them in The Bible
and since The Bible IS WITHOUT ERROR in its
original monographs and hardly any serious copying
error, and the statements that contradict calvinism are
too lengthy to be a copyist slipup, it follows that
predestination is not as extreme as Calvin and Zwingli
thought, and the whole picture is more nuanced than
finite human mind can understand, but of course the
arrogance of Calvin (who was a tyrant who ordered a
man killed for making a cartoon of him in Geneva)
dictated that human rationality could comprehend
everything. (In this he was on track with the more
mechanistic kind of Roman Catholic scholastic thinking.)
Calvinism has a track record of producing despair and
sin and strange manifestations of demonic oppression and
suicide not to mention personal abusiveness towards his
wife, stalked the revivals of Jonathan Edwards. In Texas
many years ago a real Christian was teaching against sin
and getting trouble from so called Christians who argued
"I drink and do drugs and fornicate and I am a Christian,"
but finally got them to read The Bible not just listen to a
couple of verses out of context followed by a grace and
once saved always saved and not under the law - which
readily translates in hearers to anything goes - and see
that Christians are required to be moral.
Tom Horn has important things in his books, but they are
mixed with a lot of dubious stuff, and the attitude expressed
is clearly one of ambition and sensationalism appealing to
the flesh of the readers, and his own.
Chuck Missler has such New World Order military industrial
complex etc. connections that I can only assume some other
agenda is involved in this promotion of concerns about
nephilim hybrids etc.
Oh, yeah, he repeats the old canard that www adds up to 666 when
you treat the letters of the alphabet as 1 to 9 the tenth letter is 10,
the eleventh is 20 and so forth. When you do this with the English
alphabet, you get 555.
While there is much interesting and dangerous research chronicled
by him and Missler with sources cited, there is also nonsense like
this.
"Blood on the Altar," which by the way is very
perspicacious in other matters. Especially the warning
that persecution against Christians will come from
other Christians and observes that the USA is back
of most of the foreign persecution of Christians. I
haven't read all of it yet, but the first two entries are
important.
However, in this statement he is in serious unbiblical
error.
"For example, just about every solid Bible expositor
know has been tirelessly harassed online the last
few years by fake defenders of the faith. Yet, not
once have these self-proclaimed “guardians of the
truth” actually followed the Bible’s mandates
themselves, mandates that very specifically outline
how believers are to deal with error in the church.
The New Testament books of Matthew, Galatians,
Thessalonians, Romans, and others provide
guidelines for dealing with differences between true
believers. These verses teach us that if we perceive
a brother or sister as falling into error, we are to go
to him or her PRIVATELY in a spirit of humility and
redemption. If those we approach will not receive
our advice, we go to the elders of the church
PRIVATELY and share our concern. If the elders
believe the issue is legitimate, they go to the person
PRIVATELY in hopes of restoring him or her. If the
person still refuses council, the church is to have
nothing more to do with him or her. With that in
mind, the next time you are online reading some
diatribe about Chuck Missler, Gary Stearman,
Steve Quayle, David Flynn, J. R. Church,
L. A. Marzulli, Cris Putnam, Jonathan Cahn, yours
truly, or any of the other current favorite targets,
ask yourself if the hatchet people attacking them
ever bothered to obey Scripture and go to the
person PRIVATELY with their concerns in a loving
spirit of restoration (they haven’t), and then “be
careful little eyes what you read,” because
destructive forces seek to contaminate your mind
and spirit (see Prov. 4:23–27) in order to prep you
for service to the dark side."
first off, the private consultation is about differences
between believers that may include doctrine but
mostly are about sin or harm by one to another or
to a third party observed.
Secondly you don't go to the church elders to talk to
them, you get two or three witnesses to go with you
on the next attempt, so that there is a record of what
was said by who, no he said she said and various
lies and claims something wasn't said that was said,
etc.
THIRDLY you take the matter to the CONGREGATION
make it public and THEN if your brother still won't hear
you, let him be as a publical or a tax collector, in other
words, have nothing more to do with him or her, shun
him or her, ostracize them.
BUT THIS MATTER HORN ADDRESSES IS ABOUT
PUBLIC TEACHING OF ERROR. Not claiming Horn
or whoever cheated you or has been abusive or stole
from you or is trying to break up your marriage or
slandering you behind your back or whatever.
Tom Horn and the rest of the supposed serious Bible
expositors (and there are problems with their Bible
expositions) are speaking and writing PUBLICLY.
THEY ARE PUTTING THEMSELVES IN THE
POSITION OF TEACHERS.
Therefore the contradiction to them must be public to
undo whatever harm they have done.
And all this talk of public vs. private is not in the
Epistles cites Horn uses. On the contrary Paul says
to Titus and/or Timothy to condemn sinners publicly
so others will fear and says that evil teachers must
be silenced and after warning a divisive person or
one of corrupt mind two or three times ostracize
them. The latter is not indicated as private, though
of course if such as an individual approached you
this would be step one, but step two would be to
warn others.
By going online, and publishing, and so forth, these
writers make themselves into teachers, public
people, and as such have no claim to privacy, and
I also find it difficult to believe that no one ever, ever,
EVER attempted to address these people privately
or semi privately, email, written, spoken to after a
lecture, or on a blog conversation post if any of these
Bible expositors ran such.
But that doesn't matter. This is a public situation which
was made public by these Bible expositors and is
therefore to be publicly addressed.
However, if you lift the first sentence
"just about every solid Bible expositor...has been
tirelessly harassed...by fake defenders of the faith" is true
enough, Robert Gundry got trouble when he published a
book showing the Church WILL go through the tribulation,
and those who expose the errors of the charismatics are
ostracized and vilified.
Those who expose the errors of Calvinism's double
predestination and generally mechanistic dead kind of
framework of thought and of once saved always saved
are called heretics, when in fact these notions are not
to be found in early church writings, and do not exist
in The Bible without contradiction of them in The Bible
and since The Bible IS WITHOUT ERROR in its
original monographs and hardly any serious copying
error, and the statements that contradict calvinism are
too lengthy to be a copyist slipup, it follows that
predestination is not as extreme as Calvin and Zwingli
thought, and the whole picture is more nuanced than
finite human mind can understand, but of course the
arrogance of Calvin (who was a tyrant who ordered a
man killed for making a cartoon of him in Geneva)
dictated that human rationality could comprehend
everything. (In this he was on track with the more
mechanistic kind of Roman Catholic scholastic thinking.)
Calvinism has a track record of producing despair and
sin and strange manifestations of demonic oppression and
suicide not to mention personal abusiveness towards his
wife, stalked the revivals of Jonathan Edwards. In Texas
many years ago a real Christian was teaching against sin
and getting trouble from so called Christians who argued
"I drink and do drugs and fornicate and I am a Christian,"
but finally got them to read The Bible not just listen to a
couple of verses out of context followed by a grace and
once saved always saved and not under the law - which
readily translates in hearers to anything goes - and see
that Christians are required to be moral.
Tom Horn has important things in his books, but they are
mixed with a lot of dubious stuff, and the attitude expressed
is clearly one of ambition and sensationalism appealing to
the flesh of the readers, and his own.
Chuck Missler has such New World Order military industrial
complex etc. connections that I can only assume some other
agenda is involved in this promotion of concerns about
nephilim hybrids etc.
Oh, yeah, he repeats the old canard that www adds up to 666 when
you treat the letters of the alphabet as 1 to 9 the tenth letter is 10,
the eleventh is 20 and so forth. When you do this with the English
alphabet, you get 555.
While there is much interesting and dangerous research chronicled
by him and Missler with sources cited, there is also nonsense like
this.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
The Rephaim argument in the Nephilim theories
There is a biblical problem with the notion that the Rephaim
will not rise in the resurrection of the dead. Aside from
context indicating this only means "your enemies are down
for the count," there is this passage clearly speaking of only
humans, who are going to be struck down for worshipping
false gods, and for mixing the worship of such with worship
of YHWH, those who call on both YHWH and Malcham.
Note that it says they shall not rise again, clearly rising is
about a group that has been damaged getting its act
together to counterattack, it won't happen in these cases.
This is not any context relevant to the general resurrection
and Last Judgement, and Marzulli, Horn, Missler, et. al.,
read this into it.
"They that swear [take an oath] by the sin of Samaria
[an idol], and say, thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, the
manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and
never rise up again (Amos 8:14)."
So clearly this phrasing "fall, and never rise up again," is
not about being soulless angel hybrid whatnot without any
eternal future good bad or indifferent.
post tribulation rapture scriptures
Matt 24:29 et. seq CONTEXT Jesus answering the question when He will come back and what are the signs of His coming
"IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
THEN THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN WILL APPEAR IN HEAVEN, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, AND THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY,
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, AND THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, FROM ONE END OF HEAVEN TO THE OTHER."
2 Thess. 2:1-8 "Now brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND OUR GATHERING TOGETHER TO HIM, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, wither by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
LET NO ONE DECEIVE YOU BY ANY MEANS; FOR THAT DAY"
what day? the day of Christ coming, what is all this about, what is THE CONTEXT? "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him," i.e., the rapture
"FOR THAT DAY WILL NOT COME UNLESS THE FALLING AWAY COMES FIRST, AND THE MAN OF SIN IS REVEALED, THE SON OF PERDITION, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
"do you not remember that when I was with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."
I know you have been taught that this means that the restainer is The Holy Spirit and that His being taken out of the way means He will be gone from the earth because the Church in which He dwells has been raptured, or taken up, but "taken out of the way" doesn't mean removed from earth, especially given the context of standing in the way to restrain, to block an advance, merely taken aside out of the way of the advance He is restraining, and The Holy Spirit being infinite as are the other Two Persons of The Trinity (Jesus infiite in His divinity but finite in His humanity) would hardly be outright absent from creation anyway and the supposed tribulation saints what of them, they don't have The Holy Spirit? nonsense.
Continuing 2 Thessalonians
"And then the lawless one will be revealed. WHOM THE LORD WILL CONSUME WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING,"
And when is "His coming"? According to Jesus' own words, "after the tribulation of those days," incl. after the sun and moon are darkened which happens right after the tribulation of those days, followed by "the sign of the Son of Man" in the sky, and when are we gathered up to meet Him? When He comes back at that point, no secret coming very obvious, and
WHEN ARE WE GATHERED TO HIM?
When He comes back to destroy the antichrist who, since his history and reign ends there, has been persecuting the Church up to that time.
real simple.
don't forget Revelation 7:9-14 "these are the ones who come out of the great tribulation."
I know your false teachers and false prophets have all kinds of explanations to contradict the plain simple meaning of Scripture, and draw on all kinds of intellectual gyrations but this is the SAME way all heretics and false teachers handle Scripture.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture and while you're at it, there is something one good teacher called the 20-20 rule, always read 20 verses before and 20 verses after a Scripture verse you are given, to be sure you have its context and know what it is in fact about.
That doesn't mean it isn't a partial view and the full view to be found by combining all Scripture relevant, but when you do combine all relevant Scritpure, and do NOT spiritualize away but take seriously all of it, the result is POST TRIB.
anything else leaves The Bible looking like it radically contradicts itself. Which is why some things are chopped up and they shift ground and something refers to the rapture if they please to use it for that, but suddenly doesn't refer to the rapture if it gets in the way of their ideas.
The reason the rapture is our blessed hope is because we will be with Jesus from then on, and will experience His Kingdom on earth, and eventually the New Jerusalem. There will be survivors on earth who were unbelievers but who didn't worship the antichrist who will be the people we rule over with Him, it looks like. The Last Judgement after which there is no change or conversion, is after that.
Again, Jesus and Paul teach POST TRIB and so did the entire early Church, used to persecution. Only in later Europe and America especially the latter, spoiled rotten with no memory of persecution or experience of it, can this pre trib nonsense get a hearing. But this in itself shows, that the people are NOT Bible centered, they don't study context and read entire books or letters at a time, because if they did they would not take recent history as determinative, like we haven't had persecution in a long time so it won't happen and Christ will get us out, a subjective stance with cultural notions taking "bride" too literally, like why would a man want to see his bride all beat up drag herself to the altar?
Well, if that's the only way she could get there because of attempts to keep her from him, he would be proud of her not disgusted.
But aside from that, the beauty of the Bride of Christ in God's eyes is not lack of persecution but lack of sin and presence of bravery and loyalty to Him regardless or circumstances.
This latter is the picture you get if you really read The Bible and not just dither through selected stuff and whatever makes you feel "inspired" or whatever your standard is.
"IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
THEN THE SIGN OF THE SON OF MAN WILL APPEAR IN HEAVEN, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, AND THEY WILL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH POWER AND GREAT GLORY,
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, AND THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER HIS ELECT FROM THE FOUR WINDS, FROM ONE END OF HEAVEN TO THE OTHER."
2 Thess. 2:1-8 "Now brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND OUR GATHERING TOGETHER TO HIM, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, wither by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
LET NO ONE DECEIVE YOU BY ANY MEANS; FOR THAT DAY"
what day? the day of Christ coming, what is all this about, what is THE CONTEXT? "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him," i.e., the rapture
"FOR THAT DAY WILL NOT COME UNLESS THE FALLING AWAY COMES FIRST, AND THE MAN OF SIN IS REVEALED, THE SON OF PERDITION, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
"do you not remember that when I was with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."
I know you have been taught that this means that the restainer is The Holy Spirit and that His being taken out of the way means He will be gone from the earth because the Church in which He dwells has been raptured, or taken up, but "taken out of the way" doesn't mean removed from earth, especially given the context of standing in the way to restrain, to block an advance, merely taken aside out of the way of the advance He is restraining, and The Holy Spirit being infinite as are the other Two Persons of The Trinity (Jesus infiite in His divinity but finite in His humanity) would hardly be outright absent from creation anyway and the supposed tribulation saints what of them, they don't have The Holy Spirit? nonsense.
Continuing 2 Thessalonians
"And then the lawless one will be revealed. WHOM THE LORD WILL CONSUME WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING,"
And when is "His coming"? According to Jesus' own words, "after the tribulation of those days," incl. after the sun and moon are darkened which happens right after the tribulation of those days, followed by "the sign of the Son of Man" in the sky, and when are we gathered up to meet Him? When He comes back at that point, no secret coming very obvious, and
WHEN ARE WE GATHERED TO HIM?
When He comes back to destroy the antichrist who, since his history and reign ends there, has been persecuting the Church up to that time.
real simple.
don't forget Revelation 7:9-14 "these are the ones who come out of the great tribulation."
I know your false teachers and false prophets have all kinds of explanations to contradict the plain simple meaning of Scripture, and draw on all kinds of intellectual gyrations but this is the SAME way all heretics and false teachers handle Scripture.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture and while you're at it, there is something one good teacher called the 20-20 rule, always read 20 verses before and 20 verses after a Scripture verse you are given, to be sure you have its context and know what it is in fact about.
That doesn't mean it isn't a partial view and the full view to be found by combining all Scripture relevant, but when you do combine all relevant Scritpure, and do NOT spiritualize away but take seriously all of it, the result is POST TRIB.
anything else leaves The Bible looking like it radically contradicts itself. Which is why some things are chopped up and they shift ground and something refers to the rapture if they please to use it for that, but suddenly doesn't refer to the rapture if it gets in the way of their ideas.
The reason the rapture is our blessed hope is because we will be with Jesus from then on, and will experience His Kingdom on earth, and eventually the New Jerusalem. There will be survivors on earth who were unbelievers but who didn't worship the antichrist who will be the people we rule over with Him, it looks like. The Last Judgement after which there is no change or conversion, is after that.
Again, Jesus and Paul teach POST TRIB and so did the entire early Church, used to persecution. Only in later Europe and America especially the latter, spoiled rotten with no memory of persecution or experience of it, can this pre trib nonsense get a hearing. But this in itself shows, that the people are NOT Bible centered, they don't study context and read entire books or letters at a time, because if they did they would not take recent history as determinative, like we haven't had persecution in a long time so it won't happen and Christ will get us out, a subjective stance with cultural notions taking "bride" too literally, like why would a man want to see his bride all beat up drag herself to the altar?
Well, if that's the only way she could get there because of attempts to keep her from him, he would be proud of her not disgusted.
But aside from that, the beauty of the Bride of Christ in God's eyes is not lack of persecution but lack of sin and presence of bravery and loyalty to Him regardless or circumstances.
This latter is the picture you get if you really read The Bible and not just dither through selected stuff and whatever makes you feel "inspired" or whatever your standard is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
