Politics and the Bible

65 Responses to Politics and the Bible

1. ken sagely says:

   January 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm

   hello jerry, your right there are alot of problems in this country. the root of them is the rejection of authority of the bible isa 8/20 and the author of the bible the lord jesus christ for he said in jn 5/39 search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: they are they which testify of me. there are some committed christians who are in leadership in the house and senate. they can do better in making there voice heard! one very important thing we can do as believers is apply i tim 2/1-2. i exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications,prayers,intercessions,and giving of thanks be made for all men: v2 for kings,and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable live in all godliness and honesty. they have a tough job! like lk 12/48 says ” For unto whosoever much is given,of him shall be much required” but our prayers can make a difference! ken
2. Jerry says:

   January 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm

   Dear Ken,

   You are surely correct that the Bible commands us to pray for the leadership of our country.

   How different the Bible’s stance toward political concerns than some of the false cults, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which think Christians should have absolutely no part in matters pertaining to the government.
3. Jerry says:

   January 15, 2012 at 11:42 am

   I just learned that Tim LaHaye of Left Behind fame has just written a letter to those in South Carolina in support of Newt Gingrich.

   Here is the link:

   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48778

   Tim LaHaye is far more famous than I am. But I suspect that I have taken more time to directly study the Bible than he has. In any case, his understanding of Bible prophecy would be furthered remarkably were he to pay attention to the cross references and notes I have given on that subject in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.

   I also believe that his knowledge of politics would be furthered greatly if he were to read my post above on the subject of “Politics and the Bible,” and follow the link I furnished there, and download the PDF file from that site, and for once study the evidence.

   Here is that link again, where in this comment area links seem to be preserved “live,” so all you or he need do is “click” on it:

   http://www.southernnh912.com/

   My study of that downloaded PDF file shows me that Newt Gingrich is absolutely unsatisfactory as a potential candidate. He has famously “flip-flopped” on many issues, showing, as I remarked above in my post, that he lacks a moral compass, in violation of James 1:6-8,

   Jas 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
   Jas 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
   Jas 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

   I fully understand that we are not about electing the next “Theologian in Chief,” nevertheless Mr. Gingrich fails in his personal life to meet the James 1:6-8 test because he is now living, happily married, to his third wife, and for her sake I learned from the cited article above that he has converted from a Protestant to a Roman Catholic. This is more evidence that he lacks a solid, moral compass.

   I lived in South Carolina as a student at Bob Jones University. There are many fine Christians there. At the time I was attending BJU the discussion was all about whether a Roman Catholic would be suitable to elect as our next President. I recall fellow students being rather upset at me because I would not commit to an opinion on the subject.

   Today, more than personal religious faith, of far more significance and crucial importance is a candidate’s position on the national debt and the national economy. If these issues are not properly and promptly addressed, the rest won’t matter should this country’s economy come to a sudden and horrific halt as a result of catastrophic economic collapse.

   I commented in my post that there is a lot of misinformation being spread about many of the candidates.

   But some candidates, who have garnered a significant portion of the vote in the first two primaries, and one in particular, namely Ron Paul, seem to be better informed about fiscal matters than the rest of the candidates. Some say Ron Paul is too old to run. Well, with age often comes wisdom. He certainly meets the James 1:6-8 test. And while he does not tout his religious faith, contrary to what many suppose, on a private person and family level the evidence is that he is a strong person of faith, and is not connected with a false religion or a false cult.

   I wish there were other candidates who were as faithful to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as Dr. Ron Paul. Some Christians object to Paul’s stance on Israel. From the standpoint of the Constitution, Paul is absolutely correct. He is not against Israel, he supports Israel. He rightly believes that Israel is fully capable at this point of standing up for itself, and standing on its own, without our interference. Should Israel, as our ally in the Middle East, ask for our help, it appears Ron Paul would not withhold our help. Dr. Ron Paul seems to me to be in line with what our first President, George Washington, advised in his Farewell Speech, namely, avoid intangling alliances. Some Christians object to Dr. Paul’s stance on drugs. He does not support the so-called federal “war on drugs.” It surely has been a failure for many years. From a Constitutional position, again he is correct. He is not for illegal drug use. He rightly considers the matter a state’s rights issue, not a federal matter.

   Form your own opinion based on facts, not hearsay, by downloading the PDF from the site I’ve mentioned,

   http://www.southernnh912.com/

   Study each of the candidate positions by studying the primary source material linked in that PDF chart.

   Pro 21:8 The way of the guilty is crooked, but the conduct of the pure is upright.

   English Standard Version
4. Scott Cheatham says:

   January 16, 2012 at 11:44 am

   Great thoughts here Bro. Jerry. I’ve shared these online with others. Be blessed!
5. Jerry says:

   January 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm

   Thank you for spreading the word. More people need to have access to the facts in terms of primary source documentation as given by the linked PDF file. I continue to be concerned that not many Christians are really aware of the significant issues at stake!
6. A. Way says:

   January 16, 2012 at 4:26 pm

   If politicians were to follow the Bible example, there would be one law for the native born and one for the alien.

   Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is home born, and to the stranger that sojournes among you.

   Leviticus 24:22 You shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

   Numbers 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojournes with you.
7. Jerry says:

   January 16, 2012 at 6:07 pm

   Dear A. Way,

   Good to see a comment from you again.

   I think “alien” in the Bible is not to be equated with illegal alien.

   Do you have reference to the provision in our Constitution that the President MUST be a natural born citizen to qualify to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief?

   If this is your reference, that Constitutional provision is a very wise one, and our current President has never offered genuine public proof that he meets it.

   This means, technically and legally, that should he be unable to show such proof, his holding the office violates the Constitution, and renders all his actions during his illegal presidency null and void.

   I wonder what he is trying to hide?

   But in any case, feel free to clarify for me how you understand the term “alien” as it might apply to us here in the United States today.
8. A. Way says:

   January 16, 2012 at 9:12 pm

   Funny – I do not read in the texts quoted a differentiation of “legal” or “illegal”. Of course, I only quoted this for the many who wrongly feel that the U.S. is a “Christian nation”. The founding fathers were indeed very wise, establishing a country where one was free to practice the religion of their choice, keeping the church and the state separate. Shows they learned from the past. Too bad we are rapidly loosing that memory.
9. Jerry says:

   January 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm

   Here is a primary source bit of documentation which substantiates my statement above about Dr. Ron Paul, namely, that he is a person of faith:

   http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/statement-of-faith/
10. A. Way says:

    January 17, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Leviticus 19:18 AKJV You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

    Jesus said this in one of the two greatest commandments, which BTW, is encoded in the last 6 commandments of the Decalog. Who is our neighbor? Again Jesus answered this question in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

    Now wouldn’t that make interesting politics!!!

    Hm – – I wonder if Samaritans crossed the border if they would be considered “illegal aliens”?

    Interesting politics indeed!
11. Jerry says:

    January 17, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    You stated above:

    I only quoted this for the many who wrongly feel that the U.S. is a “Christian nation”. The founding fathers were indeed very wise, establishing a country where one was free to practice the religion of their choice, keeping the church and the state separate. Shows they learned from the past. Too bad we are rapidly losing that memory.

    At the current time our nation surely is no longer a Christian nation. There is compelling evidence that indicates it once was, or at least was intended to be by the founders. We need to return to our Biblical roots as a nation. This site should help anyone who really wants to know how to read and study the Bible, to help in this regard.

    Actually, for those who have actually studied our early history carefully, using primary source documents, as I have, it must be noted that this nation was founded as a Christian nation.

    Three or four years ago I was “attacked” by what may have been a U.S. Government “troll,” who three months after I had discussed this issue on another site, dug into my long-buried discussion comments on those then older “threads.” The “troll” soon learned from my discussion spurred by his questioning and denials that I was more acquainted with the issues and sources than he was. When he asked for verification of my claims, he was most surprised when I furnished the evidence and documented my sources–several of which he had never so much as heard of before. I knew from both his questions and his responses that this person was extremely well educated. I learned that he was an attorney, so he presumably knew his own field.

    Remember, I not only taught English, I taught history at the high school level for a number of years.

    Our founders said, in so many words, that the plan they devised for this nation would only work, in their opinion, for a Christian nation.

    Our founders distinguished carefully between Christianity and the various all very imperfect denominational representations of it.

    Our founders believed in “the law of nature, and nature’s God.” Almost no one today seems to know or remember what that meant at the time it was written. Knowing this one fact makes all the difference in the world as to how one views what the founders of this nation intended this nation to be.
12. A. Way says:

    January 18, 2012 at 11:39 am

    And they gave us slavery, and manifest destiny. Are these “Christian”? Do get me wrong! The founding fathers understood the power of the church and its ability to crush the people. When the state again supports the church – look out. It won’t be pretty. Remember the dark ages where the church ruled the state.
13. Jerry says:

    January 18, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    There is no likelihood that the State, meaning the Federal Government, will ever here in the United States choose to “support the church.” Our founding fathers placed a restriction about that in the First Amendment. By the way, the concept of the “separation of church and state” is not to be found in any of the founding documents.

    The issue addressed in the First Amendment as understood by our founders was the matter of having an official State Church (the “established church”) supported by the Federal government by means of federal taxes, after the pattern of the Church of England of that time. Our founders did not want anyone to have to pay taxes for a church that held beliefs contrary to their own. Nor did they want the government in any manner to restrict religious freedom. And since the power to tax was understood to be the power to destroy, no church was to be taxed by the government at any level.

    The current judges and justices in our state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, seem at times to be utterly ignorant of the founding documents, the arguments that led to their carefully crafted production, and the original intent of the framers of those documents as seen by how they themselves practiced what they preached (or wrote). “Religion” meant Christianity and the teaching of the Bible; Congress shall establish no law has reference not to Christianity or the Bible, but to denominational expressions of Christianity and the Bible. When I argued with school administrators and others about this issue, it was sufficient as a matter of debate to simply demonstrate that use of the Bible in the classroom, since and when it could not be equated with a specific church or denomination, was perfectly legal in terms of the First Amendment, court decisions at any level to the contrary not withstanding. The rule is, as well stated in a Supreme Court decision years ago, that any decision of any court, even the Supreme Court, which on its face contradicts the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights, is invalid. Somewhere here I have the precise documentation for that assertion, but have no time just now to search for the source of it.

    As for slavery, you surely know that it was Christian, Bible believing legislators and political figures (like Wilberforce in England) who first abolished slavery in modern times because they knew that such an institution violated the teaching of the Bible.

    I bet they didn’t teach that in your high school history or English class, but my students learned about this in my classes!

    There is a most interesting connection between John Newton, a former slave-ship captain, who was converted to Christ and subsequently wrote the famous hymn, “Amazing Grace,” and the Reverend Thomas Scott, the individual who compiled the cross references in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Wilberforce, and a little church in England. I tell about that in one of the reading selections I created for my students.

    There was an article, now some years ago, by Alex Haley, author of Roots, in the Reader’s Digest, about the story of Newton and Amazing Grace which tells part of this interesting story in history. I shared that article with my students, too.
14. A. Way says:

    January 18, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Jerry said:”There is no likelihood that the State, meaning the Federal Government, will ever here in the United States choose to “support the church.”” Then he said:”The current judges and justices in our state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, seem at times to be utterly ignorant of the founding documents, the arguments that led to their carefully crafted production, and the original intent of the framers of those documents as seen by how they themselves practiced what they preached (or wrote).”

    Yep – these United States will never “support the church”. Right!!!
15. Jerry says:

    January 18, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Your opinion, however, may be based upon a particular view of Bible prophecy proffered by a particular denomination.

    Such a view does not come from a careful study of the Bible itself.

    Such a view does not come from an understanding of current law, from basically unchangeable law in the form of the First Amendment, or the current thinking of such other forces at work as those who oppose any sign of religion in the civic life or market place of the nation, confusing “freedom of religion” with what they desire, namely, “freedom from religion.”

    The idea that the government will cooperate with and work to enforce the Sunday Sabbath (of course there is no such thing in the Bible) was a belief held in the nineteenth century by one particular group, but surely is an outdated notion now.
16. A. Way says:

    January 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    The Constitution of the United States guarantees liberty of conscience. Nothing is dearer or more fundamental. Pope Pius IX, in his Encyclical Letter of August 15, 1854, said: `The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of liberty of conscience are a most pestilential error–a pest, of all others, most to be dreaded in a state.’ The same pope, in his Encyclical Letter of December 8, 1864, anathematized `those who assert the liberty of conscience and of religious worship,’ also ‘all such as maintain that the church may not employ force.’

    The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O’Connor: ‘Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.’. . . The archbishop of St. Louis once said: ‘Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.’. . .

    Yep – this was written in the 1800s. But Rome – never changes. Just look at Europe, secular Europe, today.
17. Jerry says:

    January 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    Not much chance of the Roman Catholic Church gaining the kind of foothold here that they once had in Europe and Latin America.

    Times have changed.

    But what you posted surely should serve as a pointed warning to the evils of false religious systems that do not follow the teaching of the Bible alone and in its entirety!

    I like the content of this latest comment of yours very much. Thank you for sharing it with us all here.

    Might we be in greater danger today of having to adhere to Sharia Law than to Roman Catholic teaching? In the news earlier this month, or perhaps late last year, the Federal District Court in Alabama ruled against Alabama’s new Anti-Sharia Law. The Federal Court is out of its mind, and needs to be let out of its cage–they all need to be retired permanently from service on the court. They cannot logically have it both ways: first they denied Alabama’s right to merely display the Ten Commandments. Now they forbade Alabama to have a law, approved by the voters of that state if I recall correctly, to forbid any appeal to Sharia Law or International Law or the laws of another nation in any court decision rendered in Alabama.

    Something doesn’t seem right about such decisions.
18. A. Way says:

    January 18, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    I don’t think you understand. It will be protestantism which will be that which enforces human dogma. Protestantism no longer reflects its roots. It now reflects more of that which it arose to reject. And most can not see it… Amazing.

    I find it interesting that how twice you have said we have laws which will protects us, and twice you call those that enforce those laws out of touch. If those that enforce our law won’t, what good is the law? We already lost the right to due process with the NDAA 2012. There goes the 5th and 6th amendment, and perhaps equal protection of the 14th. And you THINK the 1st will stand? I’m glad you are confident.
19. Jerry says:

    January 19, 2012 at 10:52 am

    Dear A. Way,

    We will find salvation neither in politics nor in Protestantism.

    Our only hope for salvation is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    One can only believe in Christ if one learns of Him directly from the primary source documents that we all have access to that are found in our New Testament.

    And the only safe place to study the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, is on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, apart from all denominational and cult influences.

    People who truly come to Christ as their personal Savior experience dramatic change in their lives because the Holy Spirit speaking through God’s written Word becomes an active factor for regenerative change in their lives as He produces within them the fruit of the Spirit.

    Now, if that happens to enough people, the culture will change because of the impact each of their lives produces on those around them.

    This is the only Biblical solution I know of that will positively and certainly work.

    It is time for more people to start doing Real Bible Study. They can learn how to do that by reading what is posted here.

    But like Jesus said, regarding the straight and narrow way, which really is the strait and narrow way, “few there be that find it.”
20. Jerry says:

    January 19, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Dear A. Way,

    I just had another thought.

    Where there is no penalty, there is no law.
21. A. Way says:

    January 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Great! We should do away wit ALL LAW – then there would be no penalty.

    You are right – salvation is not found in religion.
22. A. Way says:

    January 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    The wrong interpretation of scripture is a driving force in politics. Dispensationalism ideas have strongly influenced American foreign policy! They have lead to support for Israel largely based on the supposed blessing that such support will bring.

    Dispensationalists insist their interpretation is literal, supported by the history and grammar of Scripture. They come to Scripture EXPECTING to see a secret rapture, a seven-year tribulation for the Jews, and a third coming of Christ to establish an earthly thousand-year reign from Jerusalem.

    “If we come to the text already knowing what it is going to say, all we find is what we wish to find…thus the biblical texts are not allowed to speak as originally intended.” James M. Efird: Left Behind? What the Bible Really Says about the End Times 2006. Certainly a violation of true Bible study.

    Some of the problems with Dispensationalism: A Post-rapture tribulation, a break in God’s plan, separating the 70th week of Daniel’s 70-week prophesy, and the separation of the church and Israel. The Bible uses the words “Israel” and “kingdom” in both literal and symbolic senses. Dispensationalism only allows for literal understanding of these terms.

    These things have greatly influenced politics in this country.
23. Jerry says:

    January 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    You have written some very interesting comments!

    First,

    The wrong interpretation of scripture is a driving force in politics.

    Yes and No. Yes, in that nations and individuals have utterly neglected the Abrahamic Covenant Provisions, and even more, the Davidic Covenant Provisions.

    This being the case, there is not much Scripture that forms a driving force in politics.

    Some focus all too exclusively on the issue of abortion, as though this were the chief issue pertaining to justice that the Bible contains. The Bible covers much more than this. The national debt is an issue vital to the subject of justice, and the Bible does have much to say about that, but neither our politicians nor our Evangelical Christians seem to be aware of this matter addressed by the Bible.

    I would say that it is the wrong interpretation of Scripture that is the driving force in religion, especially the false religions that had their start in the nineteenth century, religions that claim to be the only true faith, that claim they have an “inspired Prophetess,” and one of which that started out on the basis of two errors: (1) a failure to understand Bible prophecy; (2) a fixation on the Seventh Day, which even became part of the group’s name! But getting back today, even Evangelicals are to be faulted in this department of not interpreting Scripture correctly, for they are not reading, studying, believing, and practicing the Bible and its truths the way they should. My recommendation to them all is that they visit this site, and read from the oldest archives up to the present and learn how to do Real Bible Study alone on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island with a plain text Bible until they learn the basics from the New Testament itself, apart from denominational and false cult influences.

    Second,

    Dispensationalism ideas have strongly influenced American foreign policy!

    If you do not believe in the Biblical dispensationalism taught by the Bible, you remain an unbeliever. Too many are ready to fault dispensationalism and dispensationalists without knowing the first thing about the subject. You are very likely to be included among those who speak of that which has not been carefully studied to determine its truth or error from first-hand primary sources on the subject as these sources are compared against what the Bible itself teaches.

    Third,

    They have lead to support for Israel largely based on the supposed blessing that such support will bring.

    Did you ever think to check with the Bible itself before making such a claim?

    Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
    Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    What was this “great nation” that God was to make of Abraham’s offspring? You won’t find it in Europe or in North or South America.

    Psa 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

    It would seem to me that your point of view directly conflicts with what the Bible directly states.

    Fourth,

    Dispensationalists insist their interpretation is literal, supported by the history and grammar of Scripture.

    Now you are talking! And revealing the falsity of your own position. You cannot perceive the meaning of any written communication if you do not properly apply the Rules of Interpretation I have spelled out in detail in the October 2010 Archives at this site. So far I have enumerated 23 such rules. Your statement denies the most central and important rule of all, namely, that we must go by the literal interpretation of a text FIRST before seeking any other. Normally, it is not necessary to seek another interpretation, for the literal interpretation is what is normally intended by an author. When a literal interpretation is not intended, the author will indicate this quite clearly in context.

    If you deny the necessity and primacy of literal and grammatical interpretation, you do not know anything at all about the subject. You cannot arrive at a correct interpretation using any other central principle. No wonder you so often are mistaken in your interpretations!

    Fifth,

    They come to Scripture EXPECTING to see a secret rapture, a seven-year tribulation for the Jews, and a third coming of Christ to establish an earthly thousand-year reign from Jerusalem.

    No, they came to Scripture not seeking a secret rapture, nor expecting one, but discerning from the direct statements of Scripture itself that there will be a Rapture of believers who are alive when Christ comes first for his Church (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) at a time which is not revealed. The Rapture does take place before the Great Tribulation, because it is always mentioned in context as taking place BEFORE the Great Tribulation begins. This is clear in three different passages in the New Testament, and I’ve discussed them in detail with you before. In 1 Thessalonians 4 the Rapture is mentioned, but not the Great Tribulation. In 1 Thessalonians 5 the Great Tribulation under the name “Day of the Lord” is mentioned AFTER the mention of the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. It could not be any plainer than that.

    To believe otherwise is to hold a belief clearly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament.

    The Seven Year Tribulation indeed pertains to the Jews. Scripture plainly calls it the time of Jacob’s Trouble:

    Jer 30:7 Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.

    Anyone who needs more Scripture than that can readily consult the cross references for this verse to find them.

    I guess some folks don’t know how to count. Now we have a “third coming” of our Lord Jesus Christ. Does it ever occur to them that the Second Coming is an extended event which includes Christ’s Coming FOR his saints, followed by his public manifestation to the world as He comes WITH his saints? That is what my plain text Bible teaches. Maybe some pages fell out of the one you are reading so you missed it. But even logic would tell you that He could hardly come with His saints until after He had come for them. There is an INTERVAL of time during which quite a number of events are predicted to take place, too many events to sandwich all in one so-called “last day.”

    When Christ returns after the Great Tribulation with His saints, he establishes His kingdom here upon this earth, where he will rule not one thousand years, but forever, from the Throne of David in earthly Jerusalem in the literal land of Israel. This is REQUIRED by the provisions of the Davidic Covenant. Those who deny this simply demonstrate they disbelieve what God has promised in His covenant to David and to literal, natural Israel.

    Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
    Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
    Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    Sixth,

    “If we come to the text already knowing what it is going to say, all we find is what we wish to find…thus the biblical texts are not allowed to speak as originally intended.” James M. Efird: Left Behind? What the Bible Really Says about the End Times 2006. Certainly a violation of true Bible study.

    Straw man argument. This assertion is contrary to fact and cannot be proven from the recognized scholarly sources written on this subject from the Premillennial and Pre-tribulation Rapture point of view.

    If this quotation is representative of what Mr. James M. Efird knows about the subject, he has not carefully studied the subject to know anything about it.

    It is a “straw man” argument because he is charging his opponents with “coming to a text already knowing what it is going to say,” an assertion he cannot prove. He has not read the primary sources; I have, for a great many years. I hope he knows more about “true Bible study” than this necessarily brief citation of what he has to say reveals.

    Are you, Mr. A. Way, suggesting that the flaw in Bible study named by Mr. Efird accurately represents any possible error you suppose that I have made in Bible interpretation?

    Seventh,

    Some of the problems with Dispensationalism: A Post-rapture tribulation, a break in God’s plan, separating the 70th week of Daniel’s 70-week prophesy, and the separation of the church and Israel.

    Problems? Rather, these are strengths derived from a careful, direct study of the Bible:

    (1) A Post-rapture tribulation.

    I already demonstrated from Scripture itself in 1 Thessalonians 4 & 5 that this is the order presented in Scripture in every passage where both the Rapture and the Tribulation are mentioned in the same context. This occurs in three passages, and is consistent in each one. 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 contain the other mentions of both the Rapture and the Great Tribulation. But Jesus taught the same truth, and Paul explicitly states that this teaching he was presenting in 1 Thessalonians 4 was based expressly upon “the word of the Lord,” a reference to the earthly teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you check the cross references given in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible you will be led directly to the relevant Scripture.

    (2) A break in God’s plan

    I have on several previous occasions presented and thoroughly defended the fact that there are many instances in Bible prophecy where there is a gap of time unspecified as to length between adjacent statements of prophecy. This is undeniable, and is absurd to deny since it is an obvious fact in Scripture understood and acknowledged by all who do not have a prior commitment to false doctrine which forces them to deny the obvious. I have listed where these gaps occur at Isaiah 61:2 in both the New Treasury and the Cross Reference Guide. Isaiah 9:6 is the first example on the list:

    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: [THERE IS AN OBVIOUS TIME GAP RIGHT HERE] and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given” is past history and took place and was fulfilled at Christ’s birth in Bethlehem at the First Advent. What follows in this prediction in Isaiah is unfulfilled prophecy, and will be fulfilled in the future at the Second Advent. We are now living in the unannounced time gap between these two Advents.

    The throne of David is an earthly throne. It is not and never has been and never will be in heaven. Christ’s rule in His kingdom on this earth will be “from henceforth even for ever,” once it has been established by Christ at His Second Advent in Jerusalem.

    (3) A break in God’s plan separating the 70th week of Daniel’s 70-week prophecy

    Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
    Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. [THERE IS AN UNANNOUNCED TIME GAP HERE]
    Dan 9:27 And he shall (1) confirm the covenant with many for one week: (2) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, (3) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

    Note the mention in Daniel 9:26 of “the prince that shall come.” This is a reference to a person, and that person is commonly referred to, and correctly so, as the Anti-Christ.

    Notice verse 27 makes reference to “he” in the opening words of the verse, “And he shall confirm the covenant…” The “he” has reference to “the prince that shall come” mentioned in verse 26, the nearest and proper prior reference to which “he” can refer.

    The numbered statements in verse 27 refer to what “he,” the Anti-christ will do in the future during the Great Tribulation. That my assignment of the events named in verse 27 to a yet future time is directly confirmed by the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

    Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
    Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

    The events of Matthew 24:15 are still future; the “end” spoken of in Matthew 24:14 is also still future, and are to this time as yet unfulfilled prophecy.

    This PROVES that I am correct in asserting there is a TIME GAP present in the prophecy of the 70 Weeks exactly as I have specified, for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself places the events at the “end,” not in His own day, nor at the time of 70 AD, for the Anti-christ did not appear and desecrate the Temple in that day.

    On any proper interpretation of the 70 Weeks, there must be a gap between the 69th Week and the 70th Week, for the prophecy states that AFTER the 69th Week but before the 70th Week Messiah would be cut off. That necessitates a GAP.

    (4) The separation of the church and Israel

    It is perfectly clear in Scripture that the great covenants, the Abrahamic and Davidic in particular, were given to the nation of Israel, not the church.

    Israel is to inherit the land of Israel forever. The church does not inherit the land of Israel.

    Isa 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.
24. A. Way says:

    January 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Just so you readers know, you follow 19th century theological beliefs. John Nelson Darby, “the father of dispensationalism,” was a founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement. His most influential contribution was his promotion of dispensationalism and the secret rapture. 19th century. Scofield taught dispensationalism. One of his students was Hal Lindsey, who said physical nation of Israel is still God’s chosen people and the key to Bible prophecy. This idea continues to influence American politics.
25. A. Way says:

    January 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Re-Reading what I wrote implied that Lindsey was a direct student of Scofield. Not the case. Lindsey studied in Texas, at a school started by a student of Scofield. So there is a close link. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

    As for the “unannounced” break in the timeline, it is educational to study the origin of what is termed, “futurism”.
26. Jerry says:

    January 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Dear A. Way and all,

    Just so our readers know, you have indicated over time that you are Seventh Day Adventist in your position, a denomination which traces its roots to events surrounding the “Great Disappointment” when the predictions of Miller about the date of the return of Christ did not materialize in 1844. This date is still considered important in Adventist prophetic chronology. When Christ did not literally come on that date, an event imagined to have happened in the “heavenly sanctuary” was substituted. The Seventh Day Adventists were mistaken back then about Bible prophecy, and are still very mistaken today. There is also historical connection from that time between Adventists and what are now called Jehovah’s Witnesses, and also to a far less degree to the Mormons and as I recall the Church of Christ, all of which arose about the same time period. Charles Taze Russell and Barbour were affiliated for a while with one another. Adventists back then and today follow the false theology of theological materialism, a very mistaken minority viewpoint which denies there is any life after death, but instead asserts “soul sleep,” and denies consciousness after death until the resurrection. It also equates Jesus with Michael the Archangel. Furthermore, materialist theology denies the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment in the Lake of Fire, which the Bible clearly teaches.

    By the way, Jesus was a Futurist when it comes to believing in and properly understanding Bible prophecy. I proved that in the above comment I wrote yesterday when I showed the relationship that exists between Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15, for Jesus placed the events in the end times, as Futurists do today.

    And so our readers know, I do not follow either Darby or Scofield, I follow the Bible. The one human author I have spent considerable time studying from the nineteenth century is Mr. George N. H. Peters, who wrote a three volume work on The Theocratic Kingdom.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists know nothing about Bible prophecy when it comes to the central theme of Bible prophecy as that prophecy is grounded in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Both the Witnesses and the Adventists deny the Davidic Covenant, and are therefore not in accord with Scripture in their belief system.

    Notice that Mr. A. Way never answers the Biblical arguments which I present with better Biblical arguments of his own.

    I suggest that Brother A. Way and everyone else would greatly enjoy and benefit from a trip to Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island with a plain text Bible or two and a good source of cross references to the Bible to study out the following verse more deeply:

    Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

    I invite him and everyone else to consider carefully the question: What is implied in this verse for anyone who does NOT hear, particularly in the light of the further statements in the verse itself.

    Here are some suggested cross references to consult for Isaiah 55:3. I believe these cross references are sufficient to make for a very intriguing and exciting Bible study for those who will take time to feed on God’s Word:

    3. Incline. Is 51:1. Ps 78:1. 119:112. Pr 4:20. 15:31. 22:17. Zc 7:7. come. Mt *11:28. Jn **6:37, 44, 45. 7:37. He 11:6. 1 P 2:4. hear. Is 44:1. 48:12. 49:1. Dt 28:1. 30:10. 2 Ch 24:19. Ps 81:8. *95:7. Pr 1:33. 2:2. +**18:17. Mt 13:16. 15:10. 17:5. Mk +**4:24. Lk 6:47. +**8:18. *9:35. Jn **5:24, 25. 8:47. **10:27. Ac 3:22. He 3:7. 5:9. soul. Heb. nephesh, Ge +12:13. shall live. Ge +*15:6. 19:20. Le +*18:5. Pr 4:4. 7:2. Je 38:20. Am 5:4. Hab +*2:4. Jn **10:27, 28. and I will make. Is 54:8. 61:8. Ge 17:7. 2 S 23:5. Je 31:33, 34. 32:40. *50:5. Ezk 16:60. 34:25. 37:26. Da x9:27. He *13:20. everlasting. Heb. olam, Ge +17:7. Ge +9:16. Is +44:7n. covenant. Is 54:10. 56:4. 59:21. Ge 15:18. Ex 6:4. Le 26:9. Dt 28:1. Jg 2:1. 2 S **7:10-16. 1 Ch 16:17. Ps +*74:20. **89:34. 111:9. Ro 11:27. He 8:8. 12:24. the sure mercies. Is +*41:9. +*54:8-10. +*59:21. 2 S +**7:10n, 15. 23:5. 1 Ch 17:13. 2 Ch 1:8. 6:42. Ps +*89:3, 28, 33, 35-37. +*132:11. Je +*33:20, 21n, 25, 26. Ezk **37:24, 25. Ac +**>13:34. of David. FS181E, Ge +3:24. Is 38:5. 1 K 11:34. 2 K 20:5. Ps +*89:49. Je 30:9. Ezk 34:23. 37:24. Ho 3:5. Ac $+*13:23.

    I have provided emphasis symbols to facilitate the general use of these references. The * symbol indicates the verse is very clear. The ** symbol indicates a critically important passage to consider. The + symbol means, when using the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible, “find more cross references on this subject here.” The +** symbol indicates “a very complete or critically important set of additional cross references can be found here.” The symbol “n” indicates the presence of a note at the indicated passage in the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. The symbol $ indicates a reference to fulfilled prophecy. The symbol “x” placed with a reference indicates a mistaken cross reference that has been retained from the original sources from which the references have been derived.

    I invite you and dare you to study these Scriptures. These matters are declared by God Himself in this very verse to be of supreme and eternal importance.
27. A. Way says:

    January 23, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Jerry is right in that I have studied the theology of the 19th century, from a time called “The Great Awakening”. By clever wording, by chance or intentional, Jerry is implying a connection between all the religions he mentioned as if they are a common origin. It is true “historically” that Mormonism and Adventism arose in the same time period around 1844 as did Evolution and Darwinism. There is however no connection between any of these. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination did not officially form until the 1860’s. And they have not set dates for Christ’ return though Jerry would like you to believe they have. Jehovah’s Witnesses is a much younger religion and I won’t even mention it.

    Jerry says I have not responded with scripture. Read this blog. I have quoted scripture extensively. In fact, when I’m not replying, this blog is pretty one sided, except when he stepped on Ken’s beliefs back a few months. There are 2 interpretations of scripture. Jerry’s and others. If others have a different interpretation, they are “obviously wrong”. 🙂

    We have gone over this ground before. The 70 week prophesy for example, fits completed history perfectly. The 70th week being the time of the Messiah. The 70th week started in AD27. In the middle of the week, the Messiah was cut off, causing sacrifice to cease. This was His crucifixion, 3.5 years after the start of the ministry. And what happened 3.5 years after? Stephen was stoned. At this point, the Jewish leadership had completely rejected the Messiah, and the gospel went to the gentiles. And who is Israel today? Galatians 3:29 AKJV And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    The state of the dead – I go with the Bible. Hell? Again, I will go with the Bible. Revelation 21:4 -Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
28. Jerry says:

    January 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    Notice I tried to be as careful as English language seems to allow when I said:

    There is also historical connection from that time between Adventists and what are now called Jehovah’s Witnesses, and also to a far less degree to the Mormons and as I recall the Church of Christ, all of which arose about the same time period.

    Notice carefully I specified “Adventists,” not “Seventh-day Adventists.” There is a slight difference. Adventists did not all uniformly stress the Sabbath or reject worship on Sunday.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists in their early history shared a common agreement theologically. And while Mr. A. Way correctly argues for a very late date for the official organization of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its founders and early leadership were going strong starting about 1843. And as for Jehovah’s Witnesses being the new denomination on the block, again, don’t kid yourself. Mr. Charles Russell began his Bible study group about 1870. In 1876 he met and worked with Mr. N. H. Barbour, an Adventist who had split from the larger group or movement because he believed the return of Christ was to be invisible, not visible. Mr. Russell had left the Congregational Church because he did not believe in the doctrine of hell or eternal punishment, and adopted the materialist theological positions from that time on. The current Jehovah Witnesses did not begin until they broke off from the original group in 1919. The original group still continues and is known as the Christian Bible Students, as I recall. They had other names in the past, including Millennial Dawn. When I attended their fellowship they emphasized what they called the “Harvest Message.” They still publish the writings of their founding leader, Charles Taze Russell.

    As I understand the history, Mrs. White believed and taught that at some point in the future those who worship on Sunday would arise against those who keep the Saturday Sabbath and persecute them. This seems to have contributed to a smoldering hatred on the part of Seventh-day Adventism toward Christians who worship on Sunday which has isolated Seventh-day Adventism from mainstream Bible-believing Evangelical Christianity. Of course, Mrs. White’s alleged Inspiration on this point fails of any Biblical support, and as a prophecy, or even interpretation of prophecy, is incorrect.

    Mrs. Ellen G. White had her first of many visions in the year 1844.

    But there is to be no further Divine revelation or Divine Inspiration after the close of the writing of the New Testament.

    As for visions, dreams, and the like, these are to be avoided like the plague. Consider the following verses of warning:

    Jer 23:25 I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.
    Jer 23:26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;
    Jer 23:27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal.
    Jer 23:28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.
29. A. Way says:

    January 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Jerry said: “But there is to be no further Divine revelation or Divine Inspiration after the close of the writing of the New Testament.” “As for visions, dreams, and the like, these are to be avoided like the plague. ”

    Of course what does the Bible say?

    Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

    From the one Jerry is directly speaking against:
    ” “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. The people of God are directed to the Scriptures as their safeguard against the influence of false teachers and the delusive power of spirits of darkness.”

    “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. ”

    “God has given us His word that we may become acquainted with its teachings and know for ourselves what He requires of us. When the lawyer came to Jesus with the inquiry, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” the Saviour referred him to the Scriptures, saying: “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” ”

    “It is the first and highest duty of every rational being to learn from the Scriptures what is truth, and then to walk in the light and encourage others to follow his example. We should day by day study the Bible diligently, weighing every thought and comparing scripture with scripture. With divine help we are to form our opinions for ourselves as we are to answer for ourselves before God.”

    “The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to
    599
    such a class that Jesus declared: “Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error.”

    “Says the psalmist: “Thy testimonies are my meditation.” “Through Thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:99, 104.
    “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom.” “He shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.” Proverbs 3:13; Jeremiah 17:8. “
30. Jerry says:

    January 25, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Dear A. Way,

    You included the following in your comment above:

    Of course what does the Bible say?

    Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

    Acts 2:17 is, of course, a citation from the Old Testament book of Joel, chapter 2, verse 28.

    One of the important Rules of Interpretation requires that we always consider the context of a particular verse of Scripture:

    Joe 2:21 Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice: for the LORD will do great things.
    Joe 2:22 Be not afraid, ye beasts of the field: for the pastures of the wilderness do spring, for the tree beareth her fruit, the fig tree and the vine do yield their strength.
    Joe 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain moderately, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.
    Joe 2:24 And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with wine and oil.
    Joe 2:25 And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.
    Joe 2:26 And ye shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of the LORD your God, that hath dealt wondrously with you: and my people shall never be ashamed.
    Joe 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.
    Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
    Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
    Joe 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
    Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
    Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

    There were dreams and visions during the Apostolic period as recorded in the book of Acts.

    God granted John the Apostle the great privilege of writing the book of Revelation. That book is the close of direct Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration to which absolutely nothing more is permitted to be added. Those who add to Scripture will be dealt with most severely, as also will those who take away from it:

    Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    In Peter’s first sermon recorded in Acts 2 the Nation of Israel is offered the opportunity to repent and believe the Gospel. A good number of individuals did, but by the time we read of the testimony of Steven in Acts 7 we find the leadership of the nation rejected the message. Had the nation and its leadership instead received the message, according to Acts 3:19-21, the “times of refreshing” spoken of by the prophets of Israel would have been theirs to enjoy.

    Therefore, the fulfillment of the promises to Israel is reserved for a future time, after the future Seventieth Week of Daniel, to the time when our Lord Jesus Christ returns at the final stage of His Second Advent (not the third coming, as enemies of the truth of the Gospel falsely charge) in power and great glory to set up His eternal earthly kingdom to rule the world from His capital city, Jerusalem, where He will sit upon the Throne of David (Isaiah 9:6, 7. Isaiah 24:23. Zechariah 14:9. Luke 1:32, 33).

    In the interim, during which we now live, we have the written Scriptures found in our Bible to go by, and we go by what is written there ALONE (Isaiah 8:20). We are not permitted to add to them or subtract from them. We do not delete the promises of the Davidic Covenant. We do not add the book of Mormon. We do not add in any sense whatsoever the visions or writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White with her false doctrines and prophecies.

    What false prophecies? What about the prophecy regarding future “Sunday Laws” that has never come to fruition, and never will, because it is not in accord with the teaching of the Bible itself. Such a false doctrine has proven injurious and divisive, setting Adventist Sabbath keepers against their wiser more Biblical Christian brethren who understand and follow the divinely revealed teaching of Paul.

    What false teaching? How about the absurd notion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?

    If Jesus is or ever was the Archangel Michael, he cannot be the Savior promised in Scripture.

    The fuller context I cited from Joel 2 shows that the events described there pertain to a time future to ourselves, and have not received their fulfillment yet. The predictions pertain especially to the land and people of Israel. At the return of Christ at the Second Advent they will repent and believe, and as Paul cited from Old Testament prophecy, “all Israel shall be saved” at that time. Then these signs and events will take place, not now, and surely NEVER to those who deny the provisions of the Davidic Covenant and the promises given by God by solemn oath to His people and nation, Israel.
31. A. Way says:

    January 25, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    This is what you deny:
    Galatians 3:29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Read the whole chapter.

    If you be in Christ, you ARE Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Not a future political Israel.
32. A. Way says:

    January 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    For a sane discussion of the teaching of eternal punishment see the following by Greb Boyd:
    Thoughts on Eternal Punishment, Part 1
    Thoughts on Eternal Punishment, Part 2
    Thoughts on Eternal Punishment, Part 3

    I can hear Jerry now! If only Boyd would do real……. 🙂
33. A. Way says:

    January 25, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Luke 6:27-36 But I say to you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, (28) Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which spitefully use you. (29) And to him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also. (30) Give to every man that asks of you; and of him that takes away your goods ask them not again. (31) And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise. (32) For if you love them which love you, what thank have you? for sinners also love those that love them. (33) And if you do good to them which do good to you, what thank have you? for sinners also do even the same. (34) And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thank have you? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. (35) But love you your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. (36) Be you therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

    Unless you are God – then you can torture sinners for eternity.
34. A. Way says:

    January 25, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Politics – the easy thing is to vote. The hard think is to live like Christ. Which is more important? Voting or to live like Christ?
35. A. Way says:

    January 25, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    From PacifistFightClub
    by Herb Montgomery

    There is a growing desire among American Christians, especially during political races, to reach out and influence others through gaining political power. Now, I want to be clear from the beginning: I do not believe we should sit back and do nothing. My fear, though, is that many of us have been duped into thinking that by voicing our opinions (i.e. voting) we have somehow advanced the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom Jesus came to establish is very different from any and all kingdoms of this world, even America. The Kingdom of God is also advanced in a very different way than the kingdoms of this world.

    This weekend, I made some statements regarding this subject in my final presentation. A fellow minister that was visiting from another affiliation questioned me afterward. The statement in our conversation that sticks with me most was, “I’m just afraid we are telling our people not to vote.” I understand my new friend’s concern. I am not saying we should not seek to influence the society around us. What I am saying is that as a follower of Jesus, following His example, we understand that as members of Jesus’s Kingdom, the weapons of our warfare are not the same as those used by kingdoms of this world. In all honestly, it’s a lot easier to just vote. It’s much more challenging to live lives that manifest radical, self-sacrificial love to others in our society, even those we are different from. God’s Kingdom cannot be advanced through the legislation of a kingdom of this world using its power over its citizens, even if it is America. God’s Kingdom is advanced by coming under our society, by humbly and lovingly serving others in our society, whether they are like us or not. God’s Kingdom is advanced through means that affect our society, not from the outside in, legislating behaviors, but from the inside out in a much more profoundly transformative way.

    Let’s be clear: The United States is not the kingdom of God. Our country is, in my opinion, the best kingdom that this world has to offer at present, but even at its best, the United States is not the kingdom Jesus came to establish. It’s still merely a kingdom of this world.

    Right now within American Christianity, there are those who are using the above passage this week to try and say that as Christians we have duel citizenship, that we as Christians have a duty to America as well as to God. This kind of rhetoric deeply concerns many, including me.

    Notice the mindset and words of first-century Christianity. Followers of Jesus were not “dual citizens.” They saw themselves as aliens living under an earthly kingdom they viewed as foreign rule.

    “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers . . .” —1Peter 2.11 (emphasis supplied)

    “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” —Philippians 3.20 (emphasis supplied)

    “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.” —1 Peter 1.1 (emphasis supplied)

    This does not mean that they didn’t have a right to claim citizenship in these areas in which they lived (Acts 21.39; Acts 22.28). What it means is that they had taken Jesus’s words seriously. “No one can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). They had renounced their citizenship in their respective earthly kingdoms and chose to dwell under the rule of those kingdoms as aliens. They had embraced their new identity as citizens of a very different Kingdom, for which they were now “Ambassadors” living under a foreign rule (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20).

    Let me quickly share what this doesn’t mean: It doesn’t mean that we are to live rebelliously, irrespective of the laws of this country, indifferent to this world’s leaders, or that we should not pay our taxes. As followers of Jesus and members of His Kingdom, He commands us to submit to the authorities we find ourselves under, to live peaceful lives, and to pray for this world’s leaders, and pay our taxes. Yet notice the reason we pay our taxes, live peaceful lives, and respect law and order is not because we are citizens of the United States. It’s because we are citizens of Christ’s Kingdom and these are the things Jesus commanded us to do (Romans 13:1-10). I pay my taxes not because I’m an American, but because I am a follower of Jesus in America. Jesus told me to pay taxes to whatever kingdom of this world I live in. I pray not only for our leaders, but also for leaders everywhere. Jesus died for Obama, Mitt, and Newt just as much as He did for Bin Laden. In our prayers for America’s troops we, as followers of Jesus, should be praying for Al Qaeda’s troops as well. What we should be praying for is peace and the salvation of everyone, regardless of whether they are America’s enemies or not. As a follower of Jesus, I am to love my enemies, realizing that my enemy isn’t the flesh and blood before me. They have been influenced by the real enemy and I should endeavor to counter influence them through the revelation of nonviolent love and forgiveness (Luke 23:34). This is the whole story of the Cross. This is what it means to take up the Cross, not simply as our message, but as our way of life.

    In addition to this, as a side note that is different but related, let me add, that my allegiance to God’s Kingdom also doesn’t mean that I can just trash the earth while I am here. As followers of Jesus, we are called to return to our original stewardship of this earth. Some embrace this truth and feel, “this world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through.” Yes, Jesus’s Kingdom is not of this world, but this world is the territory Christ came to establish His Reign in through the revelation of radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love. This is the territory that the “meek” will inherit (Matthew 5:5).

    Jesus called us, as His followers, to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to give God the things that are God’s, and to always keep those two separate from each other, the former always held as subservient to the latter.

    When I began to see this, I was faced with some deeply profound questions. You see, on one level, I love American history. I love Democracy. I love the Declaration of Independence and what it stands for. I resonate with the philosophies of American forefathers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. But none of this belongs to the Kingdom of Jesus.

    Which do I see myself as first and foremost: an American or a follower of Jesus? How does a holiday (July 4th) that celebrates American followers of Jesus killing British followers of Jesus qualify as a great Christian holiday (as claimed by the recent The American Patriot’s Bible from Thomas Nelson Publishers) rather than a holiday that followers of Jesus should mourn? What if I can’t be both an American and a follower of Jesus? Would I be willing to be an “alien” here in my beloved country? Am I more invested in my identity as an American than as a follower of Jesus? And finally, would I give up being an American for Jesus?

    When did Jesus ever concern Himself with how Caesar ran Rome? America at its best is not the Kingdom of God. There is no such thing as a nation that wields the power of sword that looks like Jesus. As a follower of Jesus, I have to look at all of this with eyes wide open. “Christian” means “one who looks like Jesus.” Some good may have been done throughout history by the America. Some of our laws may have been originally based on a Judeo-Christian influence. But in our treatment of others, from Native Americans, through African American slaves, all the way down to our foreign policies of today, we have never been a nation that looked like Jesus. We have never been a very “Christian” nation. Manifest destiny more closely resembles a pagan paradigm than the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m thankful for a country that asks my opinion. I have to realize at the same time that I may improve, in my opinion, how this earthly kingdom operates when I vote, but I can only participate in advancing the Kingdom of God as I seek to humbly, self sacrificially SERVE the world around me. Caesar and God are not the same.

    Whether you see eye to eye with me on any of this or not at all, at the very least it’s something to think about.

    Keep loving like the sun shines and like the rain falls. Keep building the Kingdom.
36. Jerry says:

    January 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    On January 25, 2012 you made the following comment above:

    This is what you deny:
    Galatians 3:29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    Read the whole chapter.

    If you be in Christ, you ARE Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Not a future political Israel.

    I don’t find any problem with what you said in this statement, almost. Those who are truly “in Christ” are indeed Abraham’s seed, and that is based on a specific provision of the Abrahamic Covenant. If you are not “in Christ,” you are none of His.

    But you added the fatally wrong comment, “Not a future political Israel.”

    It is fatal, because it is unbelief, unbelief in the clearly declared purpose of a Sovereign God, who has stated repeatedly under oath that natural Israel, the literal physical descendants of Abraham, will both inherit the land and live there forever, to be governed by the Messiah on the Throne of David forever as He reigns from earthly Jerusalem.

    This represents, on your part, fatal unbelief in the Davidic Covenant, expressed in Isaiah 55:3 which I posted above with the cross references, inviting, even daring you to study the cross references out carefully, as you should well recall.

    Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

    Isaiah states plainly, “hear, and your soul shall live.” I asked the question above, What happens to anyone who refuses to hear? It appears from the logic of the case, that those who refuse to hear shall not live, and that is a most perilous position to take.

    God calls the Davidic covenant “the sure mercies of David.” Why are they “Sure”? Obviously because the Davidic Covenant is an unconditional covenant, and will be fulfilled exactly as God has promised.

    Now you, Mr. A. Way, and your chosen faith-group, among many others who do the same, have refused to accept and believe the provisions of the Davidic Covenant. It appears that you would rather rewrite the script, and tell God that you have a better idea, or plan, so He should drop His!

    The very first sentence in the New Testament makes direct reference to both the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenant when it states:

    Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

    It must be very significant that Jesus Christ is the son of both Abraham and David.

    This of course is in accord with Messianic Prophecy. But the Divine revelation of the Messianic prophecies throughout the Old Testament has been governed to a large degree by the provisions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.

    God said He does not change or go back on His sworn covenants:

    Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    The “sons of Jacob” which make up the Jewish race to whom the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants were solemnly sworn are very much still with us. But I don’t see any Edomites or Babylonians around today, far as I am aware, especially the Edomites.

    At the very announcement of the birth of Christ, the following message was given:

    Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
    Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
    Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    And just what are those “Sure Mercies of David”? They include the promise reflected in Luke 1:32, 33. Notice, “and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” If Jesus will then be a King over a Kingdom, surely part of what is involved when that takes place will be political, as Isaiah 9:6, 7 indicates:

    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

    I just finished work on Matthew chapter 7. My wife has alerted me to the fact that I must make better progress or it will take five years to do the New Testament! So I waited to post a response to a little of what you have posted until I completed the chapter I was working on. It was too late to begin the next chapter this evening. But looking ahead, I notice Jesus spoke specifically about these very issues there:

    Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
    Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    I note with interest that Jesus makes mention here of several pertinent particulars: (1) someone not of Israel exhibited more faith than those in Israel; (2) that “many shall come from east and west” to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, here on this earth, in the kingdom of heaven; these would be Gentile believers; (3) but the children of the kingdom in many cases won’t be there because of their unbelief; (4) their destiny is at that time to be “cast into outer darkness” where there shall be “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” no doubt representing the great anguish of those who are eternally lost and will fail to live with Christ in His eternal kingdom; (5) nothing is said here that they shall weep and gnash their teeth for only a limited time; (6) what they experience might just as well be called “torment,” and the place where that ultimately transpires for all eternity is elsewhere designated as “the Lake of Fire.”

    All this, derived directly from the words of Christ Himself, seems to be more in line with what I have been declaring on this site than what you and your sources have proposed, for it directly contradicts the position you have taken that requires a re-write of the script to fit your moral sensibilities, sensibilities which do not at all match what God has declared He will do.

    Even Abraham knew better than that, for he declared, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25)
37. A. Way says:

    January 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Fatal? Is there anything in your belief that is fatal? What is your definition of fatal? Certainly not death, as you deny there is death. But I digress.

    You confirmed, that if we are in Christ, then we are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Are you then saying that we are Israel if we are in Christ?
38. A. Way says:

    February 27, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    “But I don’t see any Edomites or Babylonians around today, far as I am aware, especially the Edomites.”

    Babylonian worship is alive and well. Very alive. The call is still to come out of Babylon. Revelation 18.
39. Jerry says:

    February 27, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    The call to “come out of Babylon” is given to believers here on the earth during the time of the Great Tribulation.

    It is not given to the church of this dispensation.

    On principle, however, we are indeed commanded not to support false cults and false religions.

    That is why I continue to encourage everyone to begin or re-start their study of the Bible by reading the Bible independently for themselves from a plain text Bible.

    At the beginning of this reading, most readers may well benefit by starting in the New Testament, and reading the Bible daily for at least twenty minutes.

    It is a good idea to read then re-read Scripture consecutively from Matthew to Revelation.

    Then progress to the repeated reading of individual books of the New Testament. I suggest that reading from the Gospel of John and the book of 1 John near the end of the NT would be good places to start. Progress to repeated reading of the Gospel of Mark.

    Then proceed to the shorter letters of Paul, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.

    Then read 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.

    Then read the book of Romans.

    In other words, get into the Bible itself. Read it repeatedly.

    You will discover that the Bible is indeed understandable.

    But to understand it correctly, you MUST read the Bible apart from denominational and cult literature.

    May God especially bless your reading of the Bible.
40. A. Way says:

    February 28, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    And why ignore the Old Testament?

    “It is not given to the church of this dispensation.”

    Dispensationalism is Jerry’s world view. What do dispensationalists believe?
    1) post-rapture tribulation. Does Jerry believe this?
    2) Only literal interpretations of the Bible, they do not see literal and symbolic meanings. Jerry definitely believes this
    3) A break in God’s plan, and splitting of the 70 week prophesy of Daniel. Yes, Jerry believes this.
    4) dispensations – and there are several interpretations on what these are. No idea which one of these Jerry fits into.

    However…

    Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17.
41. Jerry says:

    February 29, 2012 at 10:36 am

    And just so all of you who may read here know:

    Mr. A. Way is apparently an adherent of a false cult which:

    (1) fails to distinguish the difference between Law and Grace

    (2) adds to the written Word of God additional inspired revelations from Mrs. Ellen G. White

    (3) adheres to a nineteenth century mistaken view of Bible prophecy that still flounders in its defense of 1844 as a significant date in prophetic chronology, a viewpoint flawed further in part because of an absurd adherence to an artificial “day equals year” interpretation of the days mentioned in the book of Daniel

    (4) insists upon a strict observance of a Seventh-day Sabbath because of a denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath, who completely fulfilled the typology and symbolism of that Old Testament institution

    (5) denies the provisions of the Davidic Covenant found in the Old Testament

    (6) ignores the significance of the Abrahamic Covenant found in the Old Testament

    (7) and has, therefore, no proper knowledge of Bible prophecy, and no understanding at all of the Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the central prophetic theme of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, and of the Bible as a whole.

    (8) Finds the Sabbath where it is not to be found at all: the book of Genesis, which in the Hebrew text NEVER mentions it by name, and contains no examples of its observance.

    (9) Finds the Sabbath Commandment where it is not to be found at all: in the New Testament, where the Fourth Commandment is NEVER ONCE repeated as a commandment, though all other nine of the Ten Commandments are.

    (10) Believes in a materialist theology which denies the doctrines of conscious existence after death, denies the eternal (in duration, not merely effect) punishment of the wicked or unsaved (as directly affirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 25:46), and on these Adventist issues from the past pretty well agrees with the position of the more familiar but equally false cult, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Materialists in theology have ventured to re-write the script of Divine Revelation found in Scripture to a form more palatable to their supposed moral sensibilities of what God ought to be like, a form of rationalism that is a flat outright denial of what is taught in the Bible itself.

    Do I suggest that we ignore the Old Testament? Hardly. But as an experienced Bible teacher, and a very experienced and successful reading specialist, I know that the Bible is a very long book. It has 1189 chapters, and about 30,000 verses.

    When mastering a subject, one does not begin with the least familiar and most difficult portion of the subject. Mastering the 260 chapters of the New Testament is something most readers can handle for a start in getting to know the Bible. Once you have mastered the Gospels and the Epistles of the New Testament, you will be better prepared to read and understand the Old Testament.

    I suggest readers begin with a repeated reading of the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John has 21 chapters. If you read three chapters a day, you can read the Gospel of John through once a week. I suggest you do this for at least a month.

    Why start with the Gospel of John? The Gospel of John contains the heart of the Gospel. It was written for a specific purpose, and that purpose is directly stated in John 20:31,

    Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    Do you know that you now have the “life through his name” that John speaks of in this verse? If you are not absolutely sure about this matter, you can be. Just read and believe the Gospel message presented in the Gospel of John, and if you believe it, you will be.

    This is the best, and the most important, place to start your Bible reading!
42. A. Way says:

    March 2, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    It is interesting, that Jerry attacks the idea of Sabbath is not in Genesis. Of course the 7th day was blessed and sanctified in Genesis, see Genesis 2:2-3. What does Sanctify mean? Look it up in Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary. Do you not profess to have taught the bible for want 30, 40 years? It was not until last year that you decided that the Sabbath not in Genesis. You can see the discussion on this site. So if another does still see the Sabbath as set apart at creation, then they are flawed. Interesting. The Sabbath plays a significant roll in the New Testament. Since Jerry suggests starting with John, read John 5 and John 9. See how the Sabbath play a roll in the idea of restoration. The creation of this earth came at an interesting time which makes this significant. Read Revelation 12. The significance of seeing the Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11 would also be a significant clue. But without the OT, you loose the significance.

    The New Testament is best understood from the vantage point of the Old Testament. Jesus knew the scriptures. He expounded on them. Look at the discussion on the road to Emmaus. You can read the story in Luke 24. The Old Testament was a all prophetic of Christ. Repeatedly I’ve ask Jerry if he understands the old testament ceremonies. Blank. I’ll let 18th century theologian R. A. Torrey say it:

    But if the explicit prophecies are conclusive, the prophecies of types and symbols are even more conclusive… if you ask a thoroughgoing student of the Bible how much of the Old Testament is prophetic he will reply that the entire Old Testament is prophetic, that its personages are prophetic, and that its institutions, ceremonies, offerings, sacrifices and feasts are all prophetic. If you doubt his statement, and you have a perfect right to doubt it, he will sit down and take you through the whole Old Testament from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Malachi, and will show you everywhere unmistakeable foreshadowings of things to come. He will show you in Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, David and Solomon, and also in every sacrifice and offering in the Tabernacle and every part of the Tabernacle, its outer court with its brazen altar of sacrifice, its Holy Place with its seven-branched candlesticks and tables with the loaves of shewbread upon it, in the golden altar of incense before the curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place, in the curtain itself, in the Ark of the covenant beyond the curtain, with its perfectly kept law overshadowed by the blood-sprinkled mercy seat, in its various coverings, in every sacrifice and offering, in its laws regarding cleansing, in its feasts and all its ceremonies, the most unmistakeable foreshadowings and types of Jesus Christ, His twofold nature, divine and human; His sinless character; His atoning death; and His resurrection and return. And as you go on you will encounter all the facts concerning Church and Jewish history. Now at first this will seem a happy coincidence, but as you go on, chapter after chapter and book after book, the theory of ‘happy coincidence’ is ruled out by the law of mathematical probability, and you are forced to see that it is intended. You will find every fundamental truth that was to be fully revealed in the New Testament prefigured in the types and symbols of the Old Testament. Now I submit to you that any book that has the power of putting into a legislation, which is intended in the first place to meet the immediate needs of the people then living, the clearest foreshadowings of happenings and truths not to be revealed for at least fifteen hundred years, must have for its author the only being in the Universe who knows the end from the beginning – and that is, God. R.A. Torrey
43. Jerry says:

    March 3, 2012 at 9:44 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    If either you or me are carefully reading and studying the Bible on Robinson Crusoe’s Desert Island, apart from denominational and cult literature influences, surely as we do so we may very well learn something new that corrects a former lack of understanding, or even misunderstanding. Are you denying this?

    You state, immediately above,

    It is interesting, that Jerry attacks the idea of Sabbath is not in Genesis. Of course the 7th day was blessed and sanctified in Genesis, see Genesis 2:2-3.

    Now it is curious to me that you have never produced evidence which contradicts the statement I have made, that the Sabbath is never once named in the book of Genesis, nor is there a single example of the Sabbath being observed, nor is there any evidence at all that it was observed regularly as a matter of complete abstinence from all labor anywhere in the book of Genesis.

    The idea of rest is mentioned in Genesis 2:1-3, but it is God stating that He rested on the Seventh Day, and there is no hint in Genesis at all that this was made to be an obligation for man at that time.

    Did Adam and Eve rest on that First Day of Rest? Scripture does not say so. And if they had so rested, it would violate the provision of the Law you would wish to apply it to, namely, work six days then rest one. If Adam and Eve had rested then, they would have been in violation of this principle, for if on their first day creation, Day Six of the Six Days of Creation, they had worked at all, then resting on God’s own Seventh Day, His day of rest, would have been to have rested on their second day. There is no evidence in the account that this was done.

    Therefore, your argument from Genesis 2:1-3 fails. And it was you who convinced me of this truth in our discussions, or I may never have seen it yet! Now it is your turn to see it too, if you are open to believing what the Bible itself says, not what others, including me, say it says.

    Jesus invites us to come unto him and rest. Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath type, so the Sabbath is now complete, and we find our rest in Him. Just as we no longer observe the Old Testament sacrificial offerings, for our Lord Jesus completely fulfilled them on the Cross, so we no longer observe the Sabbath as instituted by God in His revelation to Moses upon Mount Sinai. Anyone who even thinks they are keeping the Sabbath today demonstrates their ignorance of what the Bible teaches about types, prophecies, and ceremonies, not to mention the Sabbath.

    Notice I am not promoting anyone’s denominational agenda here. I am strictly advocating that we all take more time and seriously read the Bible independently for ourselves.

    By the way, Mr. R. A. Torrey fully agrees with me. Read his Introduction to the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Much of what he says there is reflected in the very fine quotation from him that you reproduced in your latest comment.

    Yes, the Old Testament is most important. But I surely would not advocate that new readers of the Bible start there. Unlike most other books of great literature, where one naturally would start at the beginning and read clear to the end in sequence, that is not necessarily the best way to start reading the Bible. I say most other books of great literature, for like the Bible, Shakespeare is an exception: new readers of Shakespeare would do well to start with the easiest of his plays, not the most complex ones.

    Readers could likely manage to get through the book of Genesis unscathed, for it is largely narrative. They could likely struggle through Exodus, finding the narrative easy, but the details of the Tabernacle above their head. But reaching Leviticus, they would be limping severely at that point, and could well become discouraged in their reading.

    It is better, therefore, to start where one can read with success, and gain understanding, without the hindrance of trying to figure out material that would be most unfamiliar to the general reader.

    The best starting point is clearly the Gospel of John. It contains the reason within its text, as I cited above from John 20:31,

    John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    You do not seem to favor my idea at all. At least you have never commended it.

    Skilled Bible teachers and reading specialists and most anyone else without an agenda to push would without question be in agreement with my Bible reading suggestions that I have offered here for those new to Bible reading.

    For those who may wish to begin doing some reading in the Old Testament, I would suggest that daily and repeated reading of the Psalms and the book of Proverbs would make for a good start. Since the book of Proverbs has 31 chapters, reading the chapter that corresponds with the day’s date would be an excellent plan. Genesis would also be a good book to include early in one’s reading of the Old Testament. The book of Ruth is another delightful read which does not involve difficulty for beginning readers.

    The problem is, even the Jews who read the Old Testament faithfully have largely failed to find the truth about eternal life, or salvation within its pages. But that truth is clearly there. But that is the most important issue for individuals to be found in the Bible. The solution is plainly given and written in the Gospel of John. That is why I say to begin there.

    John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    As an aside, I would remark that I have never observed in print or otherwise any false religion to advocate personal, independent Real Bible Study.

    Types and prophecies? Very interesting material. And the place to start on that is Luke 24, if you follow the cross references I have given there pertaining to what Jesus spoke on the road to Emmaus. See the references given at Luke 24:26, 27, 44. Another comprehensive set of references is given at 1 Peter 1:11.

    Any reader who makes use of the cross references I have given in Luke and 1 Peter will become acquainted with most of the prophecies in the Old Testament that Christ fulfilled at His First Advent.

    To suggest that I am unfamiliar with types and prophecies and ceremonies–all the things that Mr. R. A. Torrey commends for our study, is nonsense. Perhaps you have not checked the cross references in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. Perhaps you have not checked out the symbol system I have added to the cross references to identify the types, and fulfilled prophecies. Perhaps you have not checked out the seven indexes I produced for The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. How can you imagine that I worked through all that material over a period of 26 years of research (to start with), without knowing anything about them? The idea is absurd on its face for anyone who has made use of my Bible reference books.
44. A. Way says:

    March 4, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Quote: “Now it is curious to me that you have never produced evidence which contradicts the statement I have made, that the Sabbath is never once named in the book of Genesis, nor is there a single example of the Sabbath being observed, nor is there any evidence at all that it was observed regularly as a matter of complete abstinence from all labor anywhere in the book of Genesis.”

    I have presented evidence, you just don’ t like it. Your argument from a negative is not your point make. The word sabbath is found once in the Psalms. Does this prove that it is unimportant? The book of Daniel does not mention Sabbath. Do you think that Daniel kept the Sabbath? You do admit that you believed all your life, until last year, that the Sabbath was defined in Genesis, correct? Can you please explain why Genesis 2:2-3 is in the Bible? For what purpose was this statement made? Please, I’d like you know your understanding. Was it just a byproduct of creation and has no significance? What is the significance of Genesis 2:2-3? I remember you claiming that the Sabbath was given at Sinai. But then you admitting that it predated Sinai. Exodus 16. I see the Sabbath in Exodus 5. You don’t. In the 10 commandments, it says, “remember”. The Ark of the Covenant is mentioned in Revelation. What was INSIDE the Ark? Please, tell us what significance this has. If it does not have significance, can you tells why?
45. Jerry says:

    March 4, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Dear A. Way,

    Of course it is your assumption that the Sabbath is important. But the Sabbath has been completed by the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is now completed. It has no necessary place in the life and work of the Church of the New Testament, which is His body.

    The Sabbath commandment was given to the Jews alone, never to anyone else. The commandment is no doubt still valid for the Jewish people. In the Millennium it will no doubt still be a part of the practice for the Jewish people and even those nations who come to worship at Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Old Testament Prophets. But this has nothing to do with the force of the Fourth Commandment for believers in Christ of this dispensation of Grace, as opposed to that of the Law, as the New Testament makes abundantly clear.

    To suppose that because the Ark of the Covenant is mentioned in the symbolism of the book of Revelation, and the Ten Commandments on two stones engraved by the finger of God are in it, and therefore the Ten Commandments are yet in force, is circuitous nonsense.

    It is nonsense because if the Fourth Commandment in particular were of such high priority for those who now believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Fourth Commandment would not have been left entirely unmentioned as a commandment within the entire New Testament.

    God blessed the seventh day upon which He then rested as a sign of the perfection of what He had just created. He only much later connected its significance with the significance of the Sabbath Rest, showing, as affirmed in Hebrews 4:9, 10, that the Sabbath is typical of our rest as found in Christ (Matthew 11:29, 30).

    There is nothing in Exodus 5 that pertains to the weekly observance of the Sabbath. It was Pharaoh who criticized the Hebrews for wanting to get out of their work to have a feast in the wilderness.

    In the Ten Commandments it is emphasized that they were to “remember” the Sabbath because, as an entirely new practice, God had already found it necessary to remind them to keep it in the manner He had prescribed for them. They were not used to staying in their homes and doing no manner of work on the seventh day of each week.

    The FACT that the Biblical writers uniformly ascribe the giving of the Ten Commandments by God to Moses at Mount Horeb, which is Sinai, as something not given before to their fathers, is internal Biblical proof that the Sabbath had not been given as a commandment before that time, excepting, of course, its institution in connection with the giving of manna in Exodus 16.

    Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
    Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

    Then follows the listing of the Ten Commandments, which constitute the covenant spoken of.

    Here are the cross references for Deuteronomy 5:2, 3 as I now have them:

    2. our God. Dt 4:23. Ex 19:5-8. 24:8. He 8:6-13. 9:19-23. with us. ver. +*3. in Horeb. Ml +**4:4.
    3. The Lord. Dt 11:10. Ex 34:10. made not. Dt 29:10-15. Ge 17:7, 21. Ps 105:8-10. Je 32:38-40. Mt 13:17. Ro 4:23, 24. Ga 3:17-21. He 8:8, 9. this covenant. Dt 29:1. Jsh 24:25. 2 K 11:17. 2 Ch 23:16. Est 9:27. Je 31:32. 34:13. with our fathers. Dt 8:16. Ne **9:13, 14. 10:29. but with us. This is a most clear statement that the Law was given first on this occasion at Mount Horeb to Moses, and never given at a prior time, including the Sabbath commandment, an affirmation confirmed by the combined witness of the following Parallel Passages. ver. +*2. Ne **9:13, 14. Je *11:4. 34:13. Ezk **20:9-12, 20. Ml **4:4. here. Dt 11:7. live this day. Dt 26:17. 29:12, 15. He 12:19.

    Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
    Neh 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

    Jeremiah 11:3 And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant,
    Jer 11:4 Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God:

    Ezekiel 20:9 But I wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.
    Eze 20:10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
    Eze 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
    Eze 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

    Eze 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.

    Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

    The above may be a more complete setting forth of the strictly Biblical evidence on this issue than you have ever seen before. In any case, you can see I have greatly extended the cross references in response to your prompting! Thank you for your continuing challenges on these issues.
46. A. Way says:

    March 5, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Except – that Sabbath was already in effect BEFORE Sinai. That is because it was already significant.

    Exodus 5 is an attempt by Moses to reinstitute the Sabbath. You can deny it if you wish, that is your right.

    And back to your dispensationalism, which came out of the 1800, fails, because the early church kept the Sabbath. Christianity in the early times after Christ was Judaism. Yes, many of the practices of Judaism were no longer necessary, because the type had met the antitype in Christ. But the 7th day Sabbath is not one of them. The ceremonial Sabbaths were done away with.

    As has been pointed out to you before, but I can’t remember you acknowledging, in MANY languages, the 7th day is called, Sabbath. Coincidence? Hardly.

    NOTE – the keeping of Sabbath does not save anyone. We are only saved by Jesus Christ. There is no other name given where by we must be saved. There is a system of religion which does claim to be God on earth. But your false interpretation of prophesy has blinded you to the reality that is happening all around you. Your staunch belief in self, trusting in your own works, shown by your support for labor unions, demonstrates to me you lack recognition of the real beast power. The keeping of Sabbath is a statement that the sabbath keeper makes that says it is God the sanctifies, Ezekiel 20:12.

    Today, all aspects of God’s law are being trampled on. Graven images: have you seen them in churches today. Yep. One can simply study the teachings of the beast power to see how the entire law of God is being done away with. The keeping of Sabbath is truly a rebuke to those who reject the reformation. There is hardly a protestant any more. The reformation failed because of the Sabbath issue. There is nothing sacred about Sunday. Nothing in the Bible at all on this issue. Sunday is very simply, pagan. No getting around it.
47. Jerry says:

    March 5, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Dear A. Way,

    Back on January 16, 2012 you commented:

    Of course, I only quoted this for the many who wrongly feel that the U.S. is a “Christian nation”.

    Of course, you may not have read your American history.

    Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer in his lecture titled “The United States a Christian Nation,” cited the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling in Shover v. The State, 10 English, 263, which included the statement:

    This system of religion (Christianity) is recognized as constituting a part and parcel of the common law.

    Justice David Josiah Brewer, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, gave the court’s opinion in the 1892 case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226):

    Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian….

    While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth it was decided that, Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been, a part of common law….not Christianity with an established church….but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.

    Go back and read the primary sources, and you will see that Justice Brewer is correct.

    It may well be that we have since veered from the path and purpose of our founding documents and founding fathers, but it would be a good thing to return to their wiser path.
48. Jerry says:

    March 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Dear A. Way,

    You just commented:

    Except – that Sabbath was already in effect BEFORE Sinai. That is because it was already significant.

    And just how far or long BEFORE Sinai might that have been? It was a very short time, and took place enroute to Sinai after the miraculous deliverance from Egypt. So your point is moot. I already specified that the Sabbath practice was instituted at the giving of the manna recorded in Exodus 16.

    Exodus 5 is an attempt by Moses to reinstitute the Sabbath. You can deny it if you wish, that is your right.

    That is your opinion, but it is hardly based upon the facts in the case. It is an assertion with no hard documentary evidence from the Bible. I dealt with the issue sufficiently in my previous comments immediately above. There is nothing in Exodus 5 that suggests any reference to a weekly institution of total Sabbath rest like was instituted at the giving of the manna in Exodus 16.

    And back to your dispensationalism, which came out of the 1800, fails, because the early church kept the Sabbath.

    Your comment may show your own lack of knowledge of the subject. Dispensationalism has no connection with the observance of the Jewish Sabbath.

    Jewish Christians at the first worshipped on the Sabbath as Jews, not Christians. As Christians, they engaged in Christian worship on the First Day of the week. Because the Jews in the synagogues soon resisted the teachings of the Christian Jews, the Christian Jews were persecuted and not allowed to propagate their new faith as they as Jews attended the synagogues, and over time ceased to worship on Saturday even as Jews.

    Furthermore, except for very small groups of uninformed and untaught believers, as well as some heretics mixed in, Christians NEVER observed the Seventh Day Sabbath for purposes of specifically Christian worship. There is not a single instance of Seventh-day Christian worship in the historical record of the New Testament. I have presented the evidence to support this assertion more fully here than you are likely to find anywhere else in our previous discussions.

    The earliest Christian writers of which we have any record state that the church traced its practice through a known chain of teachers directly back to the apostles themselves, and those writers state that they always worshiped on the First Day of the week, our Sunday, and not on the Seventh Day, the Jewish Sabbath.

    And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read…. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday), and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 67–Weekly Worship of the Christians, in Volume 1 of The Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 185, 186)

    Again, you comment:

    Yes, many of the practices of Judaism were no longer necessary, because the type had met the antitype in Christ. But the 7th day Sabbath is not one of them. The ceremonial Sabbaths were done away with.

    This is standard Seventh-day Adventist propaganda and misinformation, but not the truth of the Bible. Again, I answered these mistaken assertions with a full text argument straight out of the Bible employing my expanded cross references starting from Colossians 2:13-18 to show that Paul distinctly and emphatically includes the 7th Day Sabbath when he said:

    Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
    Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
    Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
    Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
    Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

    Note particularly this specific statement from the pen of the Apostle Paul:

    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

    The bolded expression pertaining to “an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath” is a standard expression used repeatedly in that order or its reverse throughout the Old Testament in reference to annual feasts, monthly feasts, and weekly observances. The reference “or of the sabbath” specifically refers to the weekly Seventh day Sabbath.

    But since I am currently working on Matthew 27, I do not have in my files the full set of updated cross references for Colossians 2, but I most certainly have posted them in full here on this site before in answer to your prior assertions on this theme.

    You comment:

    As has been pointed out to you before, but I can’t remember you acknowledging, in MANY languages, the 7th day is called, Sabbath. Coincidence? Hardly.

    May I kindly help your memory by stating that I fully answered this before, remarking at the time that the story of the flood and Noah’s Ark is close to universal and found in many cultures across many languages. The Sabbath may be indeed linguistically found across many languages and cultures as the name of a day of the week, but not practiced in any of those cultures in the Jewish manner unless it were fostered by the presence of Jews among them, so this is an after-the-fact phenomenon that hardly proves anything in support of your case. At the time I may have mentioned that I have a triple-academic major in English, with an emphasis on linguistics and grammar, so I have many books in my own library that delve into the history of the English language, as well as language in general.
49. A. Way says:

    March 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Quote:”Your comment may show your own lack of knowledge of the subject. Dispensationalism has no connection with the observance of the Jewish Sabbath.”

    This is a clever argument, trying to show that I don’t understand the history. But you have accused me of believing false doctrines from the 1800’s. I’m just pointing out that dispensationalism is a 1800’s doctrine, and a false one…. Nice try Jerry. 🙂

    Quote:”Jewish Christians at the first worshipped on the Sabbath as Jews, not Christians. ” Jewish Christians were the true worshipers. You continued differentiation between Jewish Christians (which at the very beginning was all the Christians) and “Christians” is a false differentiation. The Jewish ceremonial system was done. Christ’ death did away with that system of worship. It is true that many Christians were accused of being “judaizers” because of their continued observance of the Sabbath. You yourself have said, that is is absolutely forbidden to keep the Sabbath. Yet, that is no where to be found in the Bible.

    Colossians 2 – Again – ceremonial Sabbaths of which there were 7 per year.

    Sabbath in languages – this shows the universality of the Sabbath. Mark 2:27 “And he said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: “. It does not say, the Sabbath was made for Jews…, and not Jews for the Sabbath. Exodus 31:13 “Speak you also to the children of Israel, saying, Truly my sabbaths you shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that you may know that I am the LORD that does sanctify you.”

    Exodus 16 – the Sabbath just appears. No commands. Linguistically, don’t you find this odd? Not odd if it were already known. None the less, this was before Sinai. The the “type” of manna is also significant.

    Quote: “At the time I may have mentioned that I have a triple-academic major in English, with an emphasis on linguistics and grammar, so I have many books in my own library that delve into the history of the English language, as well as language in general.”

    Proverbs 27:2 Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.

    Jeremiah 17:5 Thus said the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from the LORD.
    Jeremiah 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusts in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.

    Proverbs 3:1-2 My son, forget not my law; but let your heart keep my commandments: (2) For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to you.

    Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not to your own understanding. (6) In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your paths.

    Psa 118:8-9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (9) It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

    Micah 7:5 Trust you not in a friend, put you not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of your mouth from her that lies in your bosom.

    Jeremiah 9:4 Take you heed every one of his neighbor, and trust you not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbor will walk with slanders.

    Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    The law contain 10 not 9 commandments…
50. Jerry says:

    March 6, 2012 at 12:09 am

    Dear A. Way,

    You know VERY WELL that you are expressing a very biased point of view about me when you imply a criticism (as you have done several times in the past) in response to my statement:

    Quote: “At the time I may have mentioned that I have a triple-academic major in English, with an emphasis on linguistics and grammar, so I have many books in my own library that delve into the history of the English language, as well as language in general.”

    You know that what I have asserted is true. I have taken over 94 semester hours of English at the college level. A college major is (or was in my day) 30 semester hours. A teaching major in English required 24 semester hours. I hardly need to spell these facts out any further.

    I have noticed that a common flaw in many people is that when they criticize someone else, they often are revealing either the presence of that flaw in themselves, or a spirit of jealousy, and sometimes both. Jesus talked pointedly about that at the start of Matthew chapter 7 in the Sermon on the Mount. Elsewhere he was careful to specify that we are to judge not according to appearances, but judge a righteous judgment. And he did authorize us to make such judgments when he said of false teachers, “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

    Clearly, the purpose of my saying what I did was to help jog your own admitted flagging memory of our past discussion pertaining to your comment about the term Sabbath being found in many languages.

    I was clearly successful in jogging your memory, for you clearly now reveal you do remember that discussion.

    And since you do not deny the actual truth of what I presented, it stands evident that you must admit the truth of my argument. You cannot show historically that the peoples and languages involved represent societies that practiced Saturday worship themselves. The term was only a label for the day of the week, not a reference to what they believed or their actual religious practice. Therefore, the argument you present has no bearing upon the issue.

    The law originally given exclusively to the Jewish nation did indeed contain 10 commandments.

    But the New Testament in its entirety only mentions nine of them as commandments.

    Why has the Fourth Commandment so obviously been omitted from mention as a commandment by all of the New Testament writers?

    Your Sabbatarian position can provide no adequate answer to that question from a strictly Biblical standpoint, or you surely by now would have furnished an adequate, convincing, and may I say irrefutable answer.

    And why should there be any problem with my asserting my qualifications in justification to help people have reason to believe my assertions about language, history, linguistics, and the Bible to be scholarly and believable?

    The whole point about dispensationalism as you understand it is that your understanding of it is utterly mistaken.

    First, Jesus declares his belief in dispensationalism when he in Matthew 24 places the events of Daniel’s Seventieth Week at the end time just prior to His Second Advent as seen in Matthew 24:15.

    Second, Paul even uses the term, and clearly speaks of dispensations. So this is a Biblical term.

    Third, the view I hold is the same as that held by the New Testament writers (because that is where I got it from), and also the same as the earliest Bible believing Christians, at least in terms of what they wrote and argued for the first 250 or 300 years after Christ.

    Fourth, there is no reason in logic or Bible study (or even my 23 Rules of Interpretation!) to prevent anyone from studying the Bible enough to learn something new from its pages that has generally been missed by the majority of prior Bible readers. So even if a view I may express could be determined to be new, that is not the issue. The question is, are my views an accurate representation of what the Bible teaches, not how new they are.

    Fifth, if you were to make a careful study of the history of Christian doctrine, you would find that certain doctrines were the hallmarks of certain periods in church history. It happens to be that the doctrines pertaining to the Second Advent of Christ were of particular interest and deeply studied by believing Bible scholars of the nineteenth century. But the truths were in the Bible since the Bible was written, so the doctrines are not new, just newly re-studied, or even newly and more correctly understood. There is some evidence in the Bible itself that Bible prophecy will be better understood the closer to the time of its fulfillment we are.

    You recall very well that I said:

    You yourself have said, that is is absolutely forbidden to keep the Sabbath. Yet, that is no where to be found in the Bible.

    This is the teaching of the Bible in the New Testament, and I gave you a careful exposition of the Biblical proof from the writings of Paul. Do I really need to jog your memory again?

    Paul said:

    Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
    Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
    Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
    Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

    The Galatians did not observe “days, months, times, and years” when they were truly converted to Christ by means of the ministry of Paul.

    They were since influenced to observe these things. These things include “days,” which is clearly a shortened reference to the weekly Sabbath days as observed by Jews on the Seventh Day.

    Paul flatly condemns such practice. The practice was motivated by enemies of the Gospel, Judaizers, who were promoting “another gospel,” and upon whom Paul declares a severe curse by anathematizing them, as declared repeatedly in Galatians chapter 1.

    Furthermore, Paul states outright that if it should be true that the Galatians were in this matter following those false teachers, then the Galatians have lost their salvation. This must be concluded from Paul’s statement that he feared he had bestowed labor upon them in vain. Clearly, Paul does not teach unconditional eternal security!

    I said more about this in my earlier discussion, so for any missing points in this brief review of it, I would refer you to that more complete discussion.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.