Re: [Minor_Prophets] FW: Re: Who's Will will be done?
- RE: In these final days, when the Reformed community should be sticking together, they are being torn apart by self-appointed teachers and theologians.Ken, we do not get to decide how God's end-time program will develop. While you (and others) may desperately desire that the church unify and strengthen, that is not God's plan and it will always cause you frustration - until you submit to His Will rather than your desire. In these final days, we are witnessing God's judgement on the church and the seperation of wheat and tares. Do not expect something else.I used to call Harold, "The High Priest of Predestination." Now you hear 5% of bible doctrine and 95% of Depart Out.
God's command to "come out" and "depart out" is, in fact, the Word of God and every bit as much the Gospel as doctrines on total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, etc. Again, you do not get to limit the Gospel to areas that you want, you must submit to the whole counsel of God.
False teachings do not emanate from a God who tells only truth.
Increased understanding of God's Word (progressive revelation) is the norm throughout history. You know this to be true, but are building another strawman in order to help support your case. Let's get real.
This is why I oppose Depart Out and always will.
You oppose God's command to come out of Babylon because you want something else, or because you are under strong delusion. I read your posts very carefully and have yet to see you present any Biblical Validation to support your position. You use selective verses which do not harmonize with the rest of Scripture. As I stated in a previous post, isolating Scripture allows all manner of error - is the foundation to all false doctrine and the means of providing (self) comfort when we don't like what God says.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- Hi Rev. VanderWal:
I trust that you and your family are doing well, and that you enjoyed
a blessed Christmas celebration.
While preparing to respond to Ken's most recent post to me, I began
searching through your old posts for one in particular - one in which
you gave a particularly faithful and succinct distillation of
salvation by grace. About a week earlier or later, Leon quoted a
contemporary Reformed Baptist minister likewise offering an equally
wonderful and faithful summary of salvation, but it seemed easier to
search through your posts.
My purpose was to remind Ken, and hopefully Latter Rain drifters by,
that the true and faithful gospel was preached hundreds of years ago,
and continues to be today. I didn't find your earlier post, but
stumbled upon on this one which caught my attention.
Ok. Your response flew right over me then. But, this time, it not
only makes sense, but seems to call into question whether "spiritual
understanding," "deeper spiritual truth," or the use of the term
"spiritual" should be used at all with regard to allegorical
That "...no man can come to me [Christ] except the Father draw him..."
is a truth which can and is both understood and accepted by the
regenerate and unregenerate alike. It is interpreted "spiritually" by
the regenerate, and remains a "proverb" to the unregenerate.
Well, it just occurred to me that allegory (to those who subscribe to
it - as myself to some extent) is no different. Theoretically, one
could develop a dictionary of all the words in the Bible, and apply
allegorical meanings to those words (eg. "rock" means this, the number
four means the other thing, etc.). With this in hand, the reader
could supposedly dissect a historical passage, for example, and
discover some Biblical truth which otherwise would not be apparent.
Of course, and according to most all who study this way, that Biblical
truth must agree with what is already taught clearly elsewhere in
order to confirm its accuracy.
So, we would arrive at the same point as the one who does not use
allegory - albeit, via a more complicated route. That is, the
discovered Biblical truth would be "spiritually" understood by the
regenerate, and remain a "proverb" to the unregenerate - yet, both
should have equal ability to arrive at that truth.
There does seem to be a sense among some that the acceptance and
pursuit of allegorical interpretation is somehow evidence of
regeneration. In fact, our hermeneutical style or abilities can't
save us any more than works. Only God can can reveal the "spiritual"
interpretation of scripture as His Spirit witnesses with our spirits
that we are the sons of God.
Anyway, thank you for that post. I hope you are enjoying the same
unseasonably warm weather that we are in the east. Take care.
--- In Minor_Prophets@yahoogroups.com, "Martin VanderWal" <pastor@...>
> Dear Burt,
> You will notice that in my original statement of the question I
> avoided the terminology found in your answer.
> I do not believe that there is a "deeper spiritual meaning" to the
> Scriptures. I believe the Scriptures are spiritual, revealing the
> kingdom of heaven and the salvation of God, things received only by
> faith, the gift of God which He works in His elect. But the death
> of the Son of God on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead
> is a reality and truth both historical and spiritual, with no
> compromise on the part of either.
> Therefore it is not a matter of avoiding spiritual interpretation,
> as you state. But it is a matter of properly understanding what is
> spiritual interpretation. If by that phrase you mean the way the
> Scriptures show forth the truth of God's glorious kingdom as blessed
> spiritual reality and truth, then I must agree whole heartedly. But
> if by it you mean that we can learn such things as the death of the
> church and the date of Christ's return from the Scriptures, as
> truths so-called that have been hidden for centuries, then I must
> whole-heartedly disagree. For this latter I prefer the term that
> has been used in church history and hermeneutics: allegorical
> Interesting that Donna should bring up John Bunyan in an latter e-
> mail. An excellent example. While a book such as "Pilgrim's
> Progress" is a fine work, it is clearly and avowedly allegorical.
> Scripture is different from the book. Obviously, Scripture is
> inspired. Also, Scripture never makes the claim about itself to be
> allegorical. (Cf. Genesis 1:1!!) Back to Pilgrim's Progress, I
> think John Bunyan himself would not want his book to be used as a
> doctrinal resource. I've said it this way to people before:
> illustrations and examples are nice. Sometimes they are downright
> handy. But they are only that. They cannot be a ground for
> doctrine. A window is not a foundation: it would be foolish to
> build a house on a window!
> I hope you find the above helpful. If any questions.....
> Rev. Martin VanderWal
> Hope Protestant Reformed Church
> Redlands, CA
> --- In Minor_Prophets@yahoogroups.com, "renntech750" <burt@p...>
> > Hi Rev. VanderWal:
> > I'm not sure I understand exactly your question. Are you asking
> > whether it is best to avoid spiritual interpretation? I'm not sure
> > I'd go quite that far.
> > When you glance back through history, certain names or groups seem
> > pop up as being associated with spiritual interpretation of
> > Origen, the Roman Church, Arthur Pink, and currently making
> history -
> > Harold Camping. There may be others, but these come to mind first.
> > All of the above have said some good things at one time or
> > But, they all share another thing in common. They strayed from
> the Truth.
> > Should this be a warning to those having an appreciation for what
> > be a spiritual dimension to some of scripture. Yes. Should this
> > warn those against spiritual interpretation? I'm not ready to go
> > there quite yet.
> > Burt