Prophecy re-thinking?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

So much enjoying this thread!

Mark Bassett wrote:
 
> On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:25:34 -0800, you wrote: 
> >> Back to the earlier point, related to prophect, much of the church
> >> undertood the dispensational, and classic "endtime" reading of
> >> Daniel/Revelation for a long time, with annointed prayer and Bible
> >> study. There are other aspects, I must agree, however its going to
> >> take a lot more than thesis, assertions that it was all inherited,
> >> and the claim of anointing to absolutely unseat the idea that the Lord
> >> is coming soon, national Israel is coming to a point of recognition of
> >> the Messiah by divine inspiration and sovreign work of God, and that
> >> the apostate gentile world is facing a "cutting off" from opportunity
> >> as well as judgement very soon.
> >
> >To clear the record, I believe Jesus is coming very SOON!  Do not mean to
> >say that I do not due to my prophetic ideas.
> 
> Yes, I had evidently read this into your comments. But how could I
> have avoided it, since much of the interpretation of the soon coming
> of the Lord deriving from the Olivet discourse, and a well woven and
> integral scenario (which as I have already discussed, we may or may
> not understand in the same way) was being dismissed as being of
> uninspired origin.

To sayy "uninspired" is to say I do not believe the account of Christ is
inspired.  You must not have meant that.

Anyway...  Much of Matthew 24 is preterist.  Even pretribers believe that.
But that is the first HALF of the chapter.  I believe "enduring to the end"
refers to something beyond 70 AD.  And the idea of Christ coming
when no man knows is not referring to 70 AD and His coming in wrath
as hard core Preterists hold to.  But I do strongly
feel that thoughts about the abomination of desolation and people
in Judea fleeing to mountains is all fulfilled.  That is, the 70 weeks 
of Daniel are all expired!

> >And what "Church" believed these "classic" ideas for a long time?
> >Is the RCC idea of the CHURCH tradition, giving validity to an
> >interpretation due to its TIME LENGTH OF BELIEF in that interpretation
> >akin to our understanding of what is truth?
> 
> Let me answer your question. The Apostolic church.
> I have no idea what this has to do with the RCC. Can you explain?

Yes.  I mean to sday that length of time a belief is held is not a
foundation upon which to base an argument.  The RCC believes the
idea of Tradition and Magisterium which says that their interpretations
regarding biblical issues, such as their Eucharist, is true based soley
upon the fact that they have believed that doctrine for literally 
centuries.  And your note sounded a lot like that same reasoning.
That was all.

Simply because the doctrine was always around since Apostolic revival
in the early 1900's does not mean that it is correct!

Not to be insulting, but us Apostolics simply spent too much time
in the issue of new birth and circled clear around studies regarding
issues like maturity and what has been called the "Roman Road" -
study of Romans ch's. 6 and 7.  Prophecy was simply taken from others.
Again..... Let me STRESS that I am not making an issue out of our
"dumbness" for accepting these things.  I am simply manking
an issue out of "traditions" we have held regarding prophecy.  I have
seen many an Apostolic get upset when told we may go through the 
"Tribulation."  I've even heard people say we will be lost if we do not
believe pre-trib viewpoint!!  This stems from "sacred cow" worship.
That does not make us "stupid".  Please understand me.  Many have felt I
considered us "dumb" for believing these things.  No.  Not at all.
We just did not look at it seriously enough while we were so caught
up in tongues and gifts of the Spirit.  Had we looked at the "traditional,"
or "classic" ideas of prophecy as you put it, a bit more, we may
have cast them away.  Just an opinion.
 
> Rather, it is the refuge of all the weak to find a rock of stability
> and to gain strength in despeate situations as well as through the
> long miles of life. No one comes out being greater than the master,
> and all will testify of Him, both of His greatness and of their
> weakness which meet in salvation of God.

That does mean it is okay to get the interpretation incorrect by saying 
the Beast was Hitler in 1942.

> >Let us be open that we may have been taught about prophecy is not
> >precise. Including my own thoughts!  Any agree?
> 
> Lets also be open to realization that some of what we are expressing
> is MORE that "what we have been taught". it is "what we SEE
> SCRIPTUALLY, confirm spiriotually, are convicted of PRIVATELY, and
> TEACH publically".

Yes, but that is all based upon the premise that Revelation, for example,
is based solely on ENDTIME prophecy.  It is a paradigmthat in itself must
be looked at.  Yes, much of Revelation is "ENDTIME", but I argue that
not all, and not as much as we think, truly is.

> It seems a little *limp* to consent to having our ministries reduced
> to parrotting "what we have been taught" :-)

This is exactly what I was not making an issue out of, nor even thought.
Let me say it again.  I make issue out of our acceptance of other
doctrines.  Not our supposed "stupidity," which I think is non existent,
as though we were "parrots".  That is twisting what I said, albeit 
unintentional or unconscious twisting.

> Just wanting to iron out some wrinkles here. Its one thing to say "hey
> I have a revelation and I want to teach you". Its another thing to do
> so while neglecting to confess "I reject YOUR revelation" :-) See,
> uncomfortable though it may be, it works both ways, and makes ministry
> AND fellowship a profoundly responsible thing.

That is also the very thing I never said.  Read no more into my words than
what is in black and white (or whatever screen colour you are using ;-)  ).
I reject NOBODY'S beliefs about prophecy.

You have missed my whole point.  I am ONLY saying that Revelation
COULD be about issues we have not even realized, due to our holding
to a paradigm.  
 
> I appreciate your thoughts, as much as i have read them Brother Blume.
> Please continue, and dont be dismayed by comments. We are, all who
> live by faith, assured that the WORD will alone prevail.

Thank-you, brother.  I just have a hard way of explaining myself.
Obviously I am coming across differently than what I intend.

> Apostolics LOVE the WORD of GOD. Apostolics SEEK GOD alone, and shun
> profane and misleading wives tales. Apostolics inherit things that, in
> the light of God's word, they put behind them. Apostolics are looking
> forward to the completeleness of illumination with the coming of the
> Lord. Apostolics defer to Jesus Christ as head of all power and
> principality and know completeness (though we may sometimes see as
> through glass darkly) in Him, and the comfort and edification of His
> spirit.

And Apostolics are human.

> We are not the only ones seeking to articulate the impressions of the
> deep, but I think we are the best at it :-) I KNOW that much.

That is why I said that if we would look at prophecy with the attittude
that our thoughts came mostly from oter non-apostolic groups, if they
were truly wrong, we would certainly find the reality!!!!  That is a far cry
from saying we are "parrots".

This is an exciting series of discussions! And will be moreso once
we clear up our intentions of issue, and 
"get right into the meat of it!"

> Praise the Lord!
> 
> -mw bassett
> milford, ct
> http://eli.wariat.org/~mbasset

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm