WHAT IS SOON TO COME TO PASS IN THIS WORLD - BIBLE PROPHECY

[Ahwatukee]

I didn't claim that "a futurist view of those things is fluff". Please read more carefully.

The OP takes the futurist interpretation of events. That certainly isn't the only way to view them, and it has contributed to much of the fluff peddled to the Church in the last fifty years.

My apologies to you then if I misinterpreted your post. I think that your statement "That certainly isn't the only way to view them" is what threw me off, because it makes it sound like you are in agreement with those other views.

In conjunction with this, I think that when you said "and [it] has contributed to much of the fluff" that [it] was referring back to the futurist view.

 

[Dino246]

My apologies to you then if I misinterpreted your post. I think that your statement "That certainly isn't the only way to view them" is what threw me off, because it makes it sound like you are in agreement with those other views.

In conjunction with this, I think that when you said "and [it] has contributed to much of the fluff" that [it] was referring back to the futurist view.

I've no desire to bicker over this; I'm merely pointing out logical realities.

I wrote my initial comment in response to MoTC's fingers-in-the-ears approach to this forum. He's a mouthpiece for Jimmy Swaggart, shows scant evidence that he thinks for himself, and rarely responds to anyone else, while quoting himself frequently.

That said, my comment stands: the [it] does indeed refer to 'the futurist view'. However, what I said was that the [it] has contributed to the fluff; not that the [it] is the fluff.

Regardless of what you or I believe, the futurist view is not the only way to interpret the relevant passages. Frankly, I think the speculation inherent to the futurist view is silly, and I know it has borne bad fruit. I don't necessarily agree with any interpretive position. I don't need to hold to 'the opposite' view to criticize any particular view, and criticizing a particular view does not mean that I hold to any other particular view. However, most people (around here especially) seem unable to comprehend that, and instead are quick to pigeonhole, demean, and even slander those who don't agree wholeheartedly with their view.

 

[Ahwatukee]

I've no desire to bicker over this; I'm merely pointing out logical realities.

I wrote my initial comment in response to MoTC's fingers-in-the-ears approach to this forum. He's a mouthpiece for Jimmy Swaggart, shows scant evidence that he thinks for himself, and rarely responds to anyone else, while quoting himself frequently.

That said, my comment stands: the [it] does indeed refer to 'the futurist view'. However, what I said was that the [it] has contributed to the fluff; not that the [it] is the fluff.

And as I said, the way that it was written [it] seemed to be referring to the futurist view as contributing to the fluff. The futurist view is the only valid view, period! Because it is God's view. I have already pointed out that each one of those subjects that the OP listed have yet to be fulfilled, ergo, they are future events. The only way to claim those other views is by distorting the word of God.

Regardless of what you or I believe, the futurist view is not the only way to interpret the relevant passages. Frankly, I think the speculation inherent to the futurist view is silly, and I know it has borne bad fruit. I don't necessarily agree with any interpretive position. I don't need to hold to 'the opposite' view to criticize any particular view, and criticizing a particular view does not mean that I hold to any other particular view. However, most people (around here especially) seem unable to comprehend that, and instead are quick to pigeonhole, demean, and even slander those who don't agree wholeheartedly with their view.

Really? I believe those other views as false and damaging to the word of God. God did not give us His word so that there could be multiple interpretations. Take the resurrection for example. The full preterists claim that the most end time events have already taken place around the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, including the resurrection. Regarding this and during Paul's time, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place. Because of their teaching, Paul said that it was irreverent, empty chatter, which will only lead to more ungodliness and that it would spread like gangrene. He also says that because of their teaching they had wandered away from the truth and were overthrowing the faith of some.

Therefore, teaching that the resurrection has already been fulfilled, is a false teaching with eternal consequences.

That is just one Biblical end-time subject

Therefore, regardless of all these other views, there can only be one true view and that is why so many of us who have studied these issues are adamant about how and when these events will take place. I don't give credence to those other views, because I've already gone over them up and down and inside and out. In fact, the reason for all of these other views is because we are living in the last generation and Satan is using them by finding foot soldiers to carry them into the church, kind of like ant poison, where ants go into the little dome and take back the poison to the rest of the colony, killing them.

Another good example is this nonsense of the church going through God's wrath and being gathered after the Lord returns to the earth to end the age. Believers are supposed to be watching for the imminent appearing of the Lord, not the wrath of God! By putting the church through God's wrath they ignore the fact that Jesus already suffered God's wrath, satisfying it completely so that the wrath of God no longer rests upon the believer. By their teaching, they also put the church through the same wrath that the wicked will go through, even though we know that God does not punish the righteous with the wicked.

So, some of these 'other views' are damaging and have eternal consequences for those who believe and teach them.

 

[Dino246]

Really? I believe those other views as false and damaging to the word of God. God did not give us His word so that there could be multiple interpretations. Take the resurrection for example. The full preterists claim that the most end time events have already taken place around the destruction of the temple in 70 ad, including the resurrection. Regarding this and during Paul's time, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already taken place. Because of their teaching, Paul said that it was irreverent, empty chatter, which will only lead to more ungodliness and that it would spread like gangrene. He also says that because of their teaching they had wandered away from the truth and were overthrowing the faith of some.

Therefore, teaching that the resurrection has already been fulfilled, is a false teaching with eternal consequences.

This is a great example. I liken much futurist speculation to "irreverent, empty chatter" (notice that I said, "much", not "all").

What do you say about "88 Reasons Why Jesus Will Return in 1988"? Biblically-sound truth? Or "empty chatter" that leads to ungodliness (abandoning earthly responsibilities and standing on your rooftop... or worse)? How many people's faith was damaged or destroyed because the rapture didn't happen when some misguided preacher said it would? I'd call that "false teaching with eternal consequences."

Don't bother saying that I'm picking on one bad example, because you are doing essentially the same thing. Nowhere have I claimed to hold to the full preterist view, or any preterist view for that matter. Like I said before, criticizing futurism does not make me a preterist... at all. I am not about to accept any view in its entirety, because I don't think that any view has a corner on the truth.

 

[Diakonos]

I am not about to accept any view in its entirety, because I don't think that any view has a corner on the truth.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you aren't sure about a doctrinal position. But one cannot point out a wrong doctrinal position unless one can point to the right one. I.e. You can't know what's wrong unless you know what's right.
You should settle this subject for yourself before you tell anyone they are wrong. We must take out the log in our own eye first. Then we will be able to see clearly and remove the speck in our brother's eye.

 

[Dino246]

There's nothing wrong with admitting you aren't sure about a doctrinal position. But one cannot point out a wrong doctrinal position unless one can point to the right one. I.e. You can't know what's wrong unless you know what's right.

Respectfully, that's hogwash. It's about six logical fallacies in one. It's like when a foolish adult asks an innocent child, "Well if you didn't break the plate, then who did?" The child does not need to identify the guilty party to prove his or her own innocence.

You should settle this subject for yourself before you tell anyone they are wrong. We must take out the log in our own eye first. Then we will be able to see clearly and remove the speck in our brother's eye.

The "speck" passage applies to sinful behaviour, not variant interpretations of much-contested Scripture passages.

I am pointing out problems with a particular view, not saying (necessarily) that it is "wrong". Also, I am not telling people that they are wrong, but that their position has serious flaws. I don't need to stand on any particular position to identify the flaws with another position.

 

[Yahshua]

In order to get any of those other views, one has to allegorize, twist, bend and mutilate the scriptures to get them to fit.

But the very same can be said for those supporting the futurist view, which I did for many years...but it just didn't harmonize with all prophetic passages for me.

For instance,

We know that Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 2 is a timeline from Daniel's day to the eternal kingdom. And at no point is that statue broken until the eternal kingdom comes and smashes the feet. One metal flows right into the next seamlessly, and we are told that each metal represents a world-ruling empire.

At no point is there a break in the statue.

So can't we conclude that at no point is there a break or pause from the end of the Roman Empire (legs of iron) to the beginning of the 10-toed nations that have qualities of Rome in them?

And yet the futurist view puts the 10-toed nations still into the future even though both "legs" of the original Roman Empire were finished around 500AD.

It's like we've ripped the feet off the statue.

 

[KJV1611]

But the very same can be said for those supporting the futurist view, which I did for many years...but it just didn't harmonize with all prophetic passages for me.

For instance,

We know that Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 2 is a timeline from Daniel's day to the eternal kingdom. And at no point is that statue broken until the eternal kingdom comes and smashes the feet. One metal flows right into the next seamlessly, and we are told that each metal represents a world-ruling empire.

At no point is there a break in the statue.

So can't we conclude that at no point is there a break or pause from the end of the Roman Empire (legs of iron) to the beginning of the 10-toed nations that have qualities of Rome in them?

And yet the futurist view puts the 10-toed nations still into the future even though both "legs" of the original Roman Empire were finished around 500AD.

It's like we've ripped the feet off the statue.

The stone cut without hands destroyed the beast that is supported by TEN toes. When did Jesus destroy a wicked beast that stood on TEN commandments for salvation, I mean um ten toes?

 

[Yahshua]

The stone cut without hands destroyed the beast that is supported by TEN toes. When did Jesus destroy a wicked beast that stood on TEN commandments for salvation, I mean um ten toes?

lol well I don't agree with a preterist view either, I was just making a point. You know me, KJV, I'm a commandments guy lol

 

[KJV1611]

lol well I don't agree with a preterist view either, I was just making a point. You know me, KJV, I'm a commandments guy lol

I couldn’t resist yahshua! 😊

 

[Ahwatukee]

But the very same can be said for those supporting the futurist view, which I did for many years...but it just didn't harmonize with all prophetic passages for me.

For instance,

We know that Nebuchadnezzar's statue in Daniel 2 is a timeline from Daniel's day to the eternal kingdom. And at no point is that statue broken until the eternal kingdom comes and smashes the feet. One metal flows right into the next seamlessly, and we are told that each metal represents a world-ruling empire.

At no point is there a break in the statue.

So can't we conclude that at no point is there a break or pause from the end of the Roman Empire (legs of iron) to the beginning of the 10-toed nations that have qualities of Rome in them?

And yet the futurist view puts the 10-toed nations still into the future even though both "legs" of the original Roman Empire were finished around 500AD.

It's like we've ripped the feet off the statue.

Hello!

Well, there obviously is an extended period of time from Rome as the legs of pure iron, to that ten-toed kingdom has yet to manifest. It will be an extension or a revived Roman empire, which has to do with the woman who rides the beast in these last days. Who said that the ten-toed kingdom has to come immediately after the legs of iron? Furthermore, I believe that those ten toes are synonymous with the ten kings in Revelation, which is yet future.

That the ten-toed kingdom is made of iron and partly baked clay, demonstrates that it will not have the same power of the Roman Empire when it was legs of pure iron.

The statue represents all human government, with the ten-toed kingdom being last and still future. I can say this because, when the Rock (Christ) falls on the feet of the statue, it is smashed to pieces, like chaff on the threshing floor and then blown away by the wind without leaving a trace, which represents the end of human government. Then, the Rock that falls on the feet of the statue becomes a huge mountain and fills the entire earth, which represents the Lord's millennial kingdom.

The meaning of the Rock falling on the feet of the statue and smashing it to pieces, will be the result of God's wrath via the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, which will decimate the majority of the population of the earth and dismantle all human government. Then when Jesus returns, He will end the age and establish His millennial kingdom, i.e. the Rock becoming a huge mountain filling the entire earth

In conclusion, since the nations are still here, then the Rock has not yet fallen on the feet of the statue and is therefore yet future.

 

[Yahshua]

In conclusion, since the nations are still here, then the Rock has not yet fallen on the feet of the statue and is therefore yet future.

Truly. I agree. The Rock is still future.

But if the statue represents a timeline of ALL human governments as you say (which I agree with), and we know the Roman Empire has ended, isn't it then equally as plausible that we've been living through the time of the 10-toed nations for the last 1500 years, since 500 AD?

 

[Ahwatukee]

Truly. I agree. The Rock is still future.

But if the statue represents a timeline of ALL human governments as you say (which I agree with), and we know the Roman Empire has ended, isn't it then equally as plausible that we've been living through the time of the 10-toed nations for the last 1500 years, since 500 AD?

While it is true that Rome's rule has ended, it will be extended or revived, but not with the same power, which is represented by the baked clay.

There will literally be ten future kings who will give their power and authority to the beast.

"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who within one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast."

These ten kings are the ten toes of the statue. And since the beast/antichrist has not yet been revealed, how could we be living in the time of the ten-toed kingdom? This ten-toed alliance will come into being during the middle of the seven years, which has not yet begun.

By the way, the Rome that Revelation 17 & 18 is speaking of, is the pagan religious system that came out of the Roman Empire, namely Roman Catholicism, which began with Constantine, who was both Emperor and pope. This is why the popes demand authority over all people and to Roman Catholicism. Currently they don't have the power to enforce that authority, but when that antichrist is revealed she will ride him, i.e. use his authority and power to restore hers.

 

[Diakonos]

The "speck" passage applies to sinful behaviour, not variant interpretations of much-contested Scripture passages

False teaching is sinful.
You should know how to explain a given passage of Scripture before you can tell someone they are wrong. This also applies to the premises of deductive doctrines.

Respectfully, that's hogwash

You cannot measure something unless you know the reference point(s) of the measuring rod you are using. The Bible is the measuring rod of truth. You must know an aspect of truth before you can correct someone...because they might know other details that you are unaware of, giving them the clarity to understand the measuring rod more accurately than you.
How could I tell someone they are using something incorrectly unless I know how to use it?

 

[mustaphadrink]

The OP takes the futurist interpretation of events. That certainly isn't the only way to view them, and it has contributed to much of the fluff peddled to the Church in the last fifty years.

88 Reasons, anyone? Let's start taking a critical look at the fruit of this view.

And that is the problem. Which view/idea do you base your prognostications on? like most subjects in Christianity, there is your side of the story, my side of the story and then there is the truth. So how does one know wich is the truth? Ah yes, I think I have got it. The truth is what I say it is.

But there is the problem again. The lies that Satan is deceiving the world with reckons that what he says is the truth because he says it is. And it is sad that so much of the world even Christians who believe his lies to be the truth. That is why you can't open your mouth these days and not upset someone.

Gone are the days when we would have a good yarn or discussion and at the end of it we all get up, say goodbye and go home happy for a bit of enlightened conversation.

Recently I have been offering my two bob's worth on a homosexual promotion you tube site. Almost without exception all the homosexuals that are praising it for telling the so called truth get up set wheh I show them that it is lies.

"How can it be lies if I don't think it is?" What does the bible say "As a man thinks so is he." If you think that homosexuality is hunky dory of course you are going to say it is a wonderful thing. Evidence is not required as what you say is evidence.

"There is no medical or scientific evidence that a person is born homosexual."

"I still beleive that they are. "

"Without evidence?"

"I am homosexual so that is evidence."

"Evidence of what?"

"That you are born homosexual."

"So if I say I was born a cow that is evidence I am a cow?"

"If the cap fits wear it."

Logic is not the province of those who are trying to prove their hypothesis of any kind.

 

[Blain]

And that is the problem. Which view/idea do you base your prognostications on? like most subjects in Christianity, there is your side of the story, my side of the story and then there is the truth. So how does one know wich is the truth? Ah yes, I think I have got it. The truth is what I say it is.

But there is the problem again. The lies that Satan is deceiving the world with reckons that what he says is the truth because he says it is. And it is sad that so much of the world even Christians who believe his lies to be the truth. That is why you can't open your mouth these days and not upset someone.

Gone are the days when we would have a good yarn or discussion and at the end of it we all get up, say goodbye and go home happy for a bit of enlightened conversation.

Recently I have been offering my two bob's worth on a homosexual promotion you tube site. Almost without exception all the homosexuals that are praising it for telling the so called truth get up set wheh I show them that it is lies.

"How can it be lies if I don't think it is?" What does the bible say "As a man thinks so is he." If you think that homosexuality is hunky dory of course you are going to say it is a wonderful thing. Evidence is not required as what you say is evidence.

"There is no medical or scientific evidence that a person is born homosexual."

"I still beleive that they are. "

"Without evidence?"

"I am homosexual so that is evidence."

"Evidence of what?"

"That you are born homosexual."

"So if I say I was born a cow that is evidence I am a cow?"

"If the cap fits wear it."

Logic is not the province of those who are trying to prove their hypothesis of any kind.

I don't have any evidence to prove but I tend to listen to what the spirit says before I put my faith in interpretation logic or even my own beliefs and in the last year which is the only year I have ever experienced this my spirit has been stirring a deep sense of a dangerously nearness of his coming, I have always hoped always paid attention to the signs but never experienced this before.

I am sorry you struggle with homosexuality I am as a Christian as well it must be difficult to deal with especially if you attacked by other Christians but God turns all things for our good and you seem to have a great sense of wisdom and understanding about you I have to say your post was very insightful and well written

 

[Dino246]

False teaching is sinful.
You should know how to explain a given passage of Scripture before you can tell someone they are wrong. This also applies to the premises of deductive doctrines.

You cannot measure something unless you know the reference point(s) of the measuring rod you are using. The Bible is the measuring rod of truth. You must know an aspect of truth before you can correct someone...because they might know other details that you are unaware of, giving them the clarity to understand the measuring rod more accurately than you.
How could I tell someone they are using something incorrectly unless I know how to use it?

Your assertions are logically flawed. I don't need to hold to any position to see the bad fruit coming from one particular position.

It's called "unbiased perspective".

 

[Dino246]

And that is the problem. Which view/idea do you base your prognostications on? like most subjects in Christianity, there is your side of the story, my side of the story and then there is the truth. So how does one know wich is the truth? Ah yes, I think I have got it. The truth is what I say it is.
...
Gone are the days when we would have a good yarn or discussion and at the end of it we all get up, say goodbye and go home happy for a bit of enlightened conversation.

I wonder... if we all had these discussions in person, would they be more productive and respectful, or would they quickly degenerate into fisticuffs? Of course, that could also depend on the quality of the coffee (or beer) being served.

 

[Yahshua]

I wonder... if we all had these discussions in person, would they be more productive and respectful, or would they quickly degenerate into fisticuffs? Of course, that could also depend on the quality of the coffee (or beer) being served.

I lean towards the notion we'd be more respectful. There's a level of boldness when communicating online I think because of the inherent anonymity baked into the medium. Meanwhile, in person we'd have to deal with the consequences of being seen a certain light afterwards.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I don't have any evidence to prove but I tend to listen to what the spirit says before I put my faith in interpretation logic or even my own beliefs and in the last year which is the only year I have ever experienced this my spirit has been stirring a deep sense of a dangerously nearness of his coming, I have always hoped always paid attention to the signs but never experienced this before.

I am sorry you struggle with homosexuality I am as a Christian as well it must be difficult to deal with especially if you attacked by other Christians but God turns all things for our good and you seem to have a great sense of wisdom and understanding about you I have to say your post was very insightful and well written

The only thing I struggle with is finding enough time to do everything that I want to do which is surprising seeing as I am retired.