The God Grab Bag

[vernecarty]

Today, when I come to the book of Revelation, I don't look at it as "gee, lets see what God is going to do in the future" or "let's compare these wild images with the news".    I look it as a book written in a time of intense persecution by someone named John who wrote in what is called an  apocalyptic genre.  (This genre of colorful imagry and black-and-white good-and-evil ultimate battles does not exist today but was well accepted when Revelation was written.  People knew how to interprete an apocalypse just like we know how to interprete a Stephen King novel in our day - the reader would know what is literal and what is figurative.)  The purpose was to encourage fellow believers who had the very legitimate belief that their movement was about to be snuffed out by the powerful empires that existed in that day.

The great harlot, for instance, would easily have been identified in that day as referring to Rome and the antichrist as the emperor who ordered the general persecution of the church.  Much of the symbolism would have been recognized by those living in that time.  The goal was to get them to keep going and being faithful, not to answer questions about events two thousand years later.

Does that mean that Revelation has no relevance to the end times?  No, I cannot say that.  But, I think reading the book with the first and primary intent brings encouragement and saves folks from the end time speculations that has gone on repeatedly since I became a believer thirty years ago (as well as long before that).

May I recommmend that you listen to Dr David Jeremiah's messages on the book of Revelation?
To in any way diminish the frightful warnings in this book regarding the horrors that are to come upon a Christ-rejecting world would be tragic. Mitigating what God has clearly stated is to come upon this earth by reducing it to mere imagery and figures of speech means that we as Christinas have ceased to be light and salt to a dying world.
A world over-run by hordes of demonic beings and in which the pain and siuffering is so horrendous that men will desperately, but vainly try to take their own lives is no laughing matter.
Make no mistake about it Dave, the book of Revelation describes real events, affecting real people, with real players, and taking place in space- time. To suggest anything else is to make God a liar.
Verne

[al Hartman]

May I recommmend that you listen to Dr David Jeremiah's messages on the book of Revelation?
To in any way diminish the frightful warnings in this book regarding the horrors that are to come upon a Christ-rejecting world would be tragic. Mitigating what God has clearly stated is to come upon this earth by reducing it to mere imagery and figures of speech means that we as Christinas have ceased to be light and salt to a dying world.
A world over-run by hordes of demonic beings and in which the pain and siuffering is so horrendous that men will desperately, but vainly try to take their own lives is no laughing matter.
Make no mistake about it Dave, the book of Revelation describes real events, affecting real people, with real players, and taking place in space- time. To suggest anything else is to make God a liar.
Verne

While I agree with your every word above, Verne, I didn't take Dave's thoughts to be to the contrary.  I admit that seeming to compare John's warning to a Stephen King novel is a weak analogy, but I'm sure Dave will do better when he's perfect .

I understand Dave to be deploring the fanatic interpreting of prophecy in which scriptural images are compared to present-day scenarios, which has plagued the church since its inception.  I have neither cable or satellite TV, but can tune in at least one or two stations at any hour which are carrying one of these modern-day oracles who will tell me exactly who the beast is, what his mark looks like, and what I ought to do about it (which usually involves my generous check, money order or a credit card #).  Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you," (Mt.24:4; cf context, Mt.24:3-51, especially note v.36).

There is no question but that the world in which we live is headed for collosal destruction, involving suffering on a scale that has never been fantasized by mankind.  God is in charge of the timetable, and the sands of time are sinking.  There awaits for men and women either inheritance of glory or of judgment, and anyone who thinks otherwise is asleep and dreaming.

As to the question of the butchery of the unborn, I cannot see it as a wholly separate discussion than that of natural disaster, although the two topics may seem to be distant from one another.  The common denominator as I see it is the sovereignty of God, Who works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph.1:11).  Some people get tired of hearing such things, but we are privileged to view everything through the lens of Rom.8:28(-39).  The choice to do so or not is ours to make-- I highly recommend it.  For those who find such a decision difficult, there is the open resource of prayer...

al

[vernecarty]

Today, when I come to the book of Revelation, I don't look at it as "gee, lets see what God is going to do in the future" or "let's compare these wild images with the news".   

I disagree with both of these comments. Revelation is a prophetic book, and does indeed indicate to us what God intends to do in the future.
The Christian is a fool who does not understand the times in which he is living. I absolutely compare the news to what is written in God's Word, take for example the appearance of strange and exotic new dieseases foretold by the "pestillences" of Matthew 24.

I look it as a book written in a time of intense persecution by someone named John who wrote in what is called an  apocalyptic genre.  (This genre of colorful imagry and black-and-white good-and-evil ultimate battles does not exist today but was well accepted when Revelation was written.

This is as much as saying that the Book of Revelation has less relevance for today's readers than it did for those around at the time it was originally written, a remarkable thing to say about a book whose vast majority of foretold events are yet future.

"Does not exist today"??!! Dave cannot be serious.


 

People knew how to interprete an apocalypse just like we know how to interprete a Stephen King novel in our day - the reader would know what is literal and what is figurative.)  The purpose was to encourage fellow believers who had the very legitimate belief that their movement was about to be snuffed out by the powerful empires that existed in that day.

I view the nature and purpose of Scripture completely differently I am afraid.

The great harlot, for instance, would easily have been identified in that day as referring to Rome and the antichrist as the emperor who ordered the general persecution of the church.  Much of the symbolism would have been recognized by those living in that time.  The goal was to get them to keep going and being faithful, not to answer questions about events two thousand years later.

Revelation is a prophetic book Dave. I am really quite surprised by comments like this

Does that mean that Revelation has no relevance to the end times?  No, I cannot say that.  But, I think reading the book with the first and primary intent brings encouragement and saves folks from the end time speculations that has gone on repeatedly since I became a believer thirty years ago (as well as long before that).

This is exactly the point. Your assumption that the first and primary intent was to speak to issues and circustance already past is only an assumption, and in my view not warranted by the book's self stated outline.
John was told to write the things which he had seen, AND the things which are, AND the things which are to come.
I get a little frustrated when I hear Christians making comments about Scripture like this because I get the sense that they have not taken the time to read the material they are making confident pronouncements about. No offense Dave.
Al I hope this more detailed response clarifies my thinking are reasons for my previous observations.
Verne

[Elizabeth H]

The Christian is a fool who does not understand the times in which he is living.

See, this is the kind of tone I was hoping to avoid when I began this thread. I am interested in discussion, not in subtle (or sometimes obvious) personal jabs at the state of posters' Christian walks. I have a feeling this is why there are not more people posting on the BB because they are afraid if they voice an opinion, they will be shut down, called fools and barraged with adamant insistence that they are wrong and others are right.

It took me a long time to work up the courage to post on this BB. But I'm just not interested in being party to religious one-upmanship, ie. who can quote the most verses, who can use the longest and most intimidating words, who is best able to show off their debating prowess.

I have questions and I'm seeking answers. But I won't be helped if topics devolve into name-calling, gloomy prognostications about the "reprobate state Christians today" or the he-said, she-said stuff.

Frankly, I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And maybe I was hoping (perhaps naively) that I might find a place of genuine examination of issues without the heavy-handed Bible-verse quoting of my childhood. That's why I tried to inject a bit of humor, to try and keep things light. That went over like a lead balloon.

Here's the thing: Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. And that's OK. Because to me there is something more important than being right or wrong: it's called being kind.

Kindness matters. Without kindness you can be as right as right can be and still be absolutely wrong.

I, for one, cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness.

E.

[summer007]

Verne, I'm with you 100% on this one. I think it's a given we can all agree to dis-agree at times. But it is quite evident we are living in the FigTree Generation. And Dave can probibly handle you taking off the kid gloves. Peter and John used words like blind and the Lord referred to people sleeping and told them to WATCH. Course alot of people despise prophesy and prefer to slumber in delusion. I think it's very kind of you to sound the alarm.  God Bless Summer.

[al Hartman]

Probably I am known to some, if not most, on this board as one who wears rose-colored glasses, because I choose to look for the best in my brethren rather than seize every opportunity to demonstrate my own prowess at the expense of others.  That has not always been the tack I chose to take, but I have learned and am still learning that it is the right choice for me.  Others disagree, believing that severity is in order, regardless of the minority of the degree of differing opinions.  I cannot fault them for following their convictions.  I sometimes disagree with their choices, but I elect to address these disagreements privately, so as to not confuse the earnest seekers who read here by appearing to force someone to defend his or her posts.

Elizabeth, please bear with me as I separate some of your remarks from their original context in order to address them specifically:

I have questions and I'm seeking answers. But I won't be helped if topics devolve into name-calling, gloomy prognostications about the "reprobate state Christians today" or the he-said, she-said stuff.

I applaud your choice of words.  Although you may not have intended to, you said "I won't be helped," rather than saying you can't be helped, and your statement is truer than you may realize.  The truth is that we may run from adversity, but we cannot hide.  It will find us, wherever we flee to.  I have been offered ample reason to leave this board behind on several occasions, but I have no reason to regret not doing so.  Christ Himself is our example of learning obedience through suffering (Heb.5:8 ), so that we may learn to obey Him (v.9).  Please, let no one misread me: I do not claim to be a martyr-- only a would-be follower of the Lamb of God.

My point to you, Elizabeth, is that we may choose whether or not to be helped, wherever we are, and whatever others may choose to do.  We, and they, will answer only to the Lord for our choices.  It is not the social atmosphere in which we find ourselves that will determine our fate, but how we respond to it.

I, for one, cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness.

Here I will suggest that "places" neither can possess nor lack such qualities as love and kindness.  It is the people who occupy those places that determine what its apparent character will consist of.  That is us.  On this board, we are the people of this place.  If all the kind people go away from here to seek their own (see ICor.13:5), there will be no one left but the unkind, who will have been abandoned and left without an example.  That they may deserve no better is not anyone's call to make but Christ's.  God forbid that any of us should ever be left to receive what we deserve!

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your assessment and counsel.  But it can be no more than counsel.  You may lead a saint to the Bread of Life, but you cannot make him/her eat.  He gives to those who ask of Him, but if they do not ask of Him, all our efforts to correct them are in vain.  And if we depart, who then will urge them to ask of Him?  The teacher may teach, the preacher may preach, the counsellor may counsel, but only the Holy Spirit can touch the heart and effect change therein.

Al I hope this more detailed response clarifies my thinking are reasons for my previous observations.
Verne

Verne, yes, thanks.  I see that I overlooked what were some obviously dubious reflections on Dave's part.  As I have tried to explain to Elizabeth, above, I think it is our initial duty in such cases is to state what is right, which I believe was your intent.  I'm grateful that you read more deeply into his post than I had.  As most veteran posters know, what is written, and particularly the way it is received by the reader, is often not the expression that was intended.  With that in mind, we owe all posters who come short of blasphemy the benefit of the doubt.

Let's instruct the more correct view of the matter, and withhold suggestions of the spiritual state of the poster until his/her response is known.  Much hangs in the balance as we reflect upon doctrine (Tit.2:1), but equal weight must be accorded to our treatment of one another (1Jn.3:14-18).

God bless us all,
al

[tenderhearted]

See, this is the kind of tone I was hoping to avoid when I began this thread. I am interested in discussion, not in subtle (or sometimes obvious) personal jabs at the state of posters' Christian walks. I have a feeling this is why there are not more people posting on the BB because they are afraid if they voice an opinion, they will be shut down, called fools and barraged with adamant insistence that they are wrong and others are right.

It took me a long time to work up the courage to post on this BB. But I'm just not interested in being party to religious one-upmanship, ie. who can quote the most verses, who can use the longest and most intimidating words, who is best able to show off their debating prowess.

I have questions and I'm seeking answers. But I won't be helped if topics devolve into name-calling, gloomy prognostications about the "reprobate state Christians today" or the he-said, she-said stuff.

Frankly, I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And maybe I was hoping (perhaps naively) that I might find a place of genuine examination of issues without the heavy-handed Bible-verse quoting of my childhood. That's why I tried to inject a bit of humor, to try and keep things light. That went over like a lead balloon.

Here's the thing: Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. And that's OK. Because to me there is something more important than being right or wrong: it's called being kind.

Kindness matters. Without kindness you can be as right as right can be and still be absolutely wrong.

I, for one, cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness.

E.

Hi Elizabeth:

It is your last line "I, for one , cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness".

Amen , sister, Amen.

Our church had a dear pastor who keep saying from the pulpit.
It is also quoted in Rick Warren 40 DAYS OF PURPOSE Book.

PEOPLE DONT CARE WHAT YOU KNOW
UNTIL THEY KNOW THAT YOU CARE

He also said, because he came and saw a church come out of the ashes of a recent split.

WE MAY NOT BE A PERFECT CHURCH, BUT WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHURCH.

Meaning, we may not be perfect, but we have the structure to be of service.

If I may conjecture here, if I am wrong please say so.
I believe what you are saying.

YOU BETTER HAVE THE WALK TO BACK UP YOUR TALK, in regards of your Christianity.

Nice talking to you.

Lenore

[Mercy4Me]

See, this is the kind of tone I was hoping to avoid when I began this thread. I am interested in discussion, not in subtle (or sometimes obvious) personal jabs at the state of posters' Christian walks. I have a feeling this is why there are not more people posting on the BB because they are afraid if they voice an opinion, they will be shut down, called fools and barraged with adamant insistence that they are wrong and others are right.

It took me a long time to work up the courage to post on this BB. But I'm just not interested in being party to religious one-upmanship, ie. who can quote the most verses, who can use the longest and most intimidating words, who is best able to show off their debating prowess.

I have questions and I'm seeking answers. But I won't be helped if topics devolve into name-calling, gloomy prognostications about the "reprobate state Christians today" or the he-said, she-said stuff.

Frankly, I've had enough of that in my lifetime. And maybe I was hoping (perhaps naively) that I might find a place of genuine examination of issues without the heavy-handed Bible-verse quoting of my childhood. That's why I tried to inject a bit of humor, to try and keep things light. That went over like a lead balloon.

Here's the thing: Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes I'm wrong. And that's OK. Because to me there is something more important than being right or wrong: it's called being kind.

Kindness matters. Without kindness you can be as right as right can be and still be absolutely wrong.

I, for one, cannot flourish in a place lacking kindness.

E.

Well Elizabeth, it hasn't taken you long to figure out the dynamics of this board. You hit the nail on the head. Pretty soon someone may "warn" you.   
LOL

[vernecarty]

See, this is the kind of tone I was hoping to avoid when I began this thread. I am interested in discussion, not in subtle (or sometimes obvious) personal jabs at the state of posters' Christian walks. I have a feeling this is why there are not more people posting on the BB because they are afraid if they voice an opinion, they will be shut down, called fools and barraged with adamant insistence that they are wrong and others are right.

If it appears as if I were referring to Dave as a fool, I sincerely apologise.
The proposition was hypothetical and not aimed at any particular person.
Clearly I have no idea what Dave's spiritual state is and my comments were not intended to suggest that I do.
I can merely respond to assertions he makes and the opinons he expresses.


The exhange with you on the BB has by an large been genial Elizabeth.
Some topics do get a bitg lively and we have all learned to be a bit thick-skinned.
You are new so your sensitivity is understandable.
Few posters here are loathe to call it the way they see it.
Feel free to do the same.
Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous.
Folk on this BB are free to voice strong opinons as long as they are not abusive.
Of the hundreds registered few have been "warned" and only three accounts I know of have been deleted.
I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead...
Verne

[outdeep]

I hopped on the board with some malformed ideas and my post implied many misleading ideas.  I would much rather have Verne's straight-forward debate than the mocking and games of others I have experienced.

Verne, you are right - Revelation is indeed a prophetic book.  I am trying to work through some various things I have heard and read and these thoughts still need more perculating.  I'll try and post more when I have opportunity.

Lord bless brother,

-Dave

[vernecarty]

I hopped on the board with some malformed ideas and my post implied many misleading ideas.  I would much rather have Verne's straight-forward debate than the mocking and games of others I have experienced.

Verne, you are right - Revelation is indeed a prophetic book.  I am trying to work through some various things I have heard and read and these thoughts still need more perculating.  I'll try and post more when I have opportunity.

Lord bless brother,

-Dave

I realise that my sometimes sharp rhetorical tone notwithstanding, or perhaps because of it,    not every may recognize that I love you as a brother in Christ, my friend. I know that you know...'nuff said
Verne.

[Jem]

Verne,

Elizabeth makes a very valid point about kindness when responding on the BB. I know personally I post so rarely because I say to myself, "Do I really want to be misunderstood or skwered by Verne or Tom today?" So I tend to stick with blogs where "Be ye kind one to another" prevails.

Since we are being "thick skinned" here's a couple of examples. "Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous." That comes of much better if you say, "I don't agree with Mercy4Me's caveat at the end there." Or when you say, "I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead..." I don't know Mercy4Me, but it is hard to see how that statement was not meant to smart. It comes off as the salt in the very wound some people come here to work through. And in its context many of us are left wondering, "What the bleep does that mean?"

Another example on another thread is when you asked, "What does the Bible teach about the Christian doctrine of justification?" This is a tactic some of us are wary of. It seemed obvious you had a certain way of looking at justification and you were waiting to teach us what it was as soon as we tried to explain it and messed up according to you prerecorded idea of it. Some times teachers can do this to good effect in a classroom, but it is hard to pull off in any other setting without being a tad condescending and looking very pleased with one's self. Moonflower got the right answer though and you replied, "I was gonna say that..." So I was wondering why you just didn't say it to begin with because it felt to me like a trap.

If we all took a little more time when posting we could reedit for kindness. The natural comes first and then the spiritual, eh?

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Elizabeth makes a very valid point about kindness when responding on the BB. I know personally I post so rarely because I say to myself, "Do I really want to be misunderstood or skwered by Verne or Tom today?" So I tend to stick with blogs where "Be ye kind one to another" prevails.

Since we are being "thick skinned" here's a couple of examples. "Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous." That comes of much better if you say, "I don't agree with Mercy4Me's caveat at the end there." Or when you say, "I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead..." I don't know Mercy4Me, but it is hard to see how that statement was not meant to smart. It comes off as the salt in the very wound some people come here to work through. And in its context many of us are left wondering, "What the bleep does that mean?"

Another example on another thread is when you asked, "What does the Bible teach about the Christian doctrine of justification?" This is a tactic some of us are wary of. It seemed obvious you had a certain way of looking at justification and you were waiting to teach us what it was as soon as we tried to explain it and messed up according to you prerecorded idea of it. Some times teachers can do this to good effect in a classroom, but it is hard to pull off in any other setting without being a tad condescending and looking very pleased with one's self. Moonflower got the right answer though and you replied, "I was gonna say that..." So I was wondering why you just didn't say it to begin with because it felt to me like a trap.

If we all took a little more time when posting we could reedit for kindness. The natural comes first and then the spiritual, eh?

Points well taken Jem. I know my style often comes off as abrasive and my intention is not to appear condescending but to try and stir lively debate. I wil try to choose my words more carefully, even if it is my intention to have my comment "smart" just a little. We could all benefit from a little "smarting" every now and then...(as I am doing now. ) Thanks for the suggestions and examples.
Verne

[frank]

Verne,

Elizabeth makes a very valid point about kindness when responding on the BB. I know personally I post so rarely because I say to myself, "Do I really want to be misunderstood or skwered by Verne or Tom today?" So I tend to stick with blogs where "Be ye kind one to another" prevails.

Since we are being "thick skinned" here's a couple of examples. "Mercy4Me's caveat is ludicrous." That comes of much better if you say, "I don't agree with Mercy4Me's caveat at the end there." Or when you say, "I see Mercy4Me's assembly training still stands her in good stead..." I don't know Mercy4Me, but it is hard to see how that statement was not meant to smart. It comes off as the salt in the very wound some people come here to work through. And in its context many of us are left wondering, "What the bleep does that mean?"

Another example on another thread is when you asked, "What does the Bible teach about the Christian doctrine of justification?" This is a tactic some of us are wary of. It seemed obvious you had a certain way of looking at justification and you were waiting to teach us what it was as soon as we tried to explain it and messed up according to you prerecorded idea of it. Some times teachers can do this to good effect in a classroom, but it is hard to pull off in any other setting without being a tad condescending and looking very pleased with one's self. Moonflower got the right answer though and you replied, "I was gonna say that..." So I was wondering why you just didn't say it to begin with because it felt to me like a trap.

Jem, Elizabeth, Mercy4Me,

I hope others will have the courage to speak out on this as you three have. It is encouraging that this subject has resurfaced in several different ways recently.   You give others courage to speak out.  Remember that people did not speak up when they were being controlled through strong personalities and took big hits for their unwillingness to be vulnerable publicly.  The strong control the less certain and less confident when the timid will not speak out.  Many of us have learned that keeping quiet when there is harshness and abuse is not a good path to take.

It is clear now that there is a pervading cold, rude, and pushy "style" of strong posters who control all others to an extent.  This must be questioned since, after all, it has been proven in recent years - the strongest intellects are not always "right."  In fact, intellectuals can be some of the most irrational and love-lacking among Christians. 

The verse about "accusing and excusing" comes to mind...both are of the same mind depending on whose intellectual abilities or opinions are being scrutinized - yours or mine.   

An abrasive "style" ??  Don't we tend to understate our own shortcomings and overstate those of others?  George did this.  With him the sins of others was put under the microscope and conversely his shortcomings (understated) were just chalked up as the innate passions of the Greeks.  Exactly the same brand of justifications if you ask me. 

George would have handled that false prophet, Dave Sable, in much the same way he was handled on this board for sharing his own "opinion" of how Revelation could be viewed.  He was essentially slapped for differing in opinion; he was ridiculed publicly for thinking outside the box - right or wrong. 

Ok, let's say False Prophet, Dave was dead wrong.  Is debate stimulated when someone hits you over the head and shames you for even saying or even thinking such a God-awful thought to begin with.  And then to post it.  Well!!!  Unthinkable.  "YOU SHOULD HAVE STUDIED IT TIRELESSLY BEFORE YOU POSTED SUCH A THING."  This is typical of Verne's and Tom's tyrannical "style."

Stimulating "de" bate or bait "ing" for the next meal" ?? 

If we all took a little more time when posting we could reedit for kindness. The natural comes first and then the spiritual, eh?

I like that.  It may require more than a little extra time, however.  It may mean learning "love" in the exchange of ideas.  Stimulating debate wasn't Christ's priority when He walked this sad earth.  He came to prove His love through sacrifice - did He not?  He came loving and helping, not debating and skillfully turning phrases.  What do you think? 

frank

[just me]

Well done Frank and Jem:

I beleive that Elizabeth was trying to get new posters and opinions started here.  Some of us who are only 2 1/2 years post-assembly still like hashing things through to rediscover our beliefs.  Other like Verne, have had many more years to solidfy their beliefs.  Their responses are far to black and white for me.  I cannot stand black and white at this point.

So please post on and try to ignore the insults and "thus sayeth the Lords" so the rest of us can have a dialog as well.

Me