John Darby

[Naomi25]

There is no one telling others to interpret symbolically or not. The symbolism, or metaphor, or figure of speech, is there for all to see. The problem arises when there is no symbolism and people start claiming that what is literal is symbolic.

He says, proving my exact point.
I didn't say there were little people in the text telling everyone to interpret symbolically. Or people whispering over their shoulders as they read. I said they like to 'be told to interpret symbolically...OFTEN BY the fact that there is the explanation of the symbol close after'. You know..in the text itself. I thought this was fairly obvious. It's called genre and we learn about it in school.

You say that the problem arises when there is no symbolism, but again...shouldn't the text inform us? Because, while certain images in scripture might not have a biblical description 'right after' it, there are many times the OT uses such images when they ARE. That would make it poor biblical literacy that leads one to conclude it MUST be interpreted 'literally', don't you think? When the bible has gone to the effort to give the interpretation for such images previously? In point of fact, one ought to conclude that any interpretation of an image that does NOT come from scripture, when scripture HAS one, is suspect.

Let's take this example from Revelation:

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle... And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength... The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

Other than the sharp two-edged sword, what was symbolic was clearly explained. But when we go to Hebrews 4:12, we know that that sharp two-edged sword stands for -- the Word of God. The spoken Word of God goes out of the mouth of Christ as a sharp two-edged sword and exposes the thoughts and intents of the heart.

And right here....you are doing EXACTLY what every Amillennialist does. Congratulations!
If an image is used...anywhere in scripture, but of course, in Revelation, we look first right there, but then in other scriptures, just as you have done, for the meaning.
This idea that we make up what the images mean is fairly ridiculous.
Revelation has more references to the OT than any other book in the bible. It is saturated with them. You can't read it without having ones fingers all throughout the OT, flipping back and forward to see how particular phrases and images are used.

Now when we turn to Revelation 20, there is no logical reason to doubt that a (or one) thousand years is literally one thousand years. The fact that this term is used SIX TIMES in seven verses should be enough to believe that it literally means 1,000 years, and a thousand years is a Millennium.

Except...not really. Again, if we go back to the OT, we see that 1000 is often used as number indicating the total fulfillment of a complete number. For example: 'God owns the cattle on a thousand hills'. Really? Only 1000? Why not 1001? Well, of course he owns the cattle on 1001 hills...the point is he owns them ALL.
'A day in your court is better than a 1000 years elsewhere'. But...1001 years elsewhere would be better than a day in his courts? Again...no...no amount of days is better than God's courts.
Numbers in scripture can and do serve both actual and symbolic uses. Sometimes both at the same time. What makes the 1000 years of Revelation so unlikely to be 'literal' is several compounding issues; the first is it doesn't fit within the 'two age' structure the bible itself gives; 'this age and the age to come'. It doesn't fit within a time framework of Christ's return...and what I mean by that is, when we read all the passages discussing Christ's return, we are left with the distinct impression that this event will end not in an earthly reign where death and those still in natural bodies will still exist, but nothing less that eternal life on a new heavens and earth. And the last is the passage itself. We may assume the angel is literal, why would we not...perhaps the key is also. But to assume an actual physical chain and lock would restrain a spiritual being is ludicrous. Clear imagery is at work here; still a very real restraint, but one that would work on a spiritual being.
The point being; in a passage that deals in both literal and symbolic imagery, there is not a 'clear assumption' one way or the other. Especially when we have examples in scripture of the number in question being used in symbolic way. Ordinarily I would say that would not be enough to lean towards symbolic interpretation, but when we factor in the other, quite clear, biblical teachings on the return of Christ and the end of all things, the picture becomes clear and the symbolic reading becomes more likely.

 

[farouk]

He says, proving my exact point.
I didn't say there were little people in the text telling everyone to interpret symbolically. Or people whispering over their shoulders as they read. I said they like to 'be told to interpret symbolically...OFTEN BY the fact that there is the explanation of the symbol close after'. You know..in the text itself. I thought this was fairly obvious. It's called genre and we learn about it in school.

You say that the problem arises when there is no symbolism, but again...shouldn't the text inform us? Because, while certain images in scripture might not have a biblical description 'right after' it, there are many times the OT uses such images when they ARE. That would make it poor biblical literacy that leads one to conclude it MUST be interpreted 'literally', don't you think? When the bible has gone to the effort to give the interpretation for such images previously? In point of fact, one ought to conclude that any interpretation of an image that does NOT come from scripture, when scripture HAS one, is suspect.


And right here....you are doing EXACTLY what every Amillennialist does. Congratulations!
If an image is used...anywhere in scripture, but of course, in Revelation, we look first right there, but then in other scriptures, just as you have done, for the meaning.
This idea that we make up what the images mean is fairly ridiculous.
Revelation has more references to the OT than any other book in the bible. It is saturated with them. You can't read it without having ones fingers all throughout the OT, flipping back and forward to see how particular phrases and images are used.


Except...not really. Again, if we go back to the OT, we see that 1000 is often used as number indicating the total fulfillment of a complete number. For example: 'God owns the cattle on a thousand hills'. Really? Only 1000? Why not 1001? Well, of course he owns the cattle on 1001 hills...the point is he owns them ALL.
'A day in your court is better than a 1000 years elsewhere'. But...1001 years elsewhere would be better than a day in his courts? Again...no...no amount of days is better than God's courts.
Numbers in scripture can and do serve both actual and symbolic uses. Sometimes both at the same time. What makes the 1000 years of Revelation so unlikely to be 'literal' is several compounding issues; the first is it doesn't fit within the 'two age' structure the bible itself gives; 'this age and the age to come'. It doesn't fit within a time framework of Christ's return...and what I mean by that is, when we read all the passages discussing Christ's return, we are left with the distinct impression that this event will end not in an earthly reign where death and those still in natural bodies will still exist, but nothing less that eternal life on a new heavens and earth. And the last is the passage itself. We may assume the angel is literal, why would we not...perhaps the key is also. But to assume an actual physical chain and lock would restrain a spiritual being is ludicrous. Clear imagery is at work here; still a very real restraint, but one that would work on a spiritual being.
The point being; in a passage that deals in both literal and symbolic imagery, there is not a 'clear assumption' one way or the other. Especially when we have examples in scripture of the number in question being used in symbolic way. Ordinarily I would say that would not be enough to lean towards symbolic interpretation, but when we factor in the other, quite clear, biblical teachings on the return of Christ and the end of all things, the picture becomes clear and the symbolic reading becomes more likely.

@Naomi25 1000 can be a figure of speech in some places, but not necessarily in others...

 

[farouk]

Incorrect.
We see in Romans 9 that God's 'purpose of election' was at work even as early as Isaac and Esau. Indeed...that it "might continue" at this stage. This outright tells us that those belonging to God, even at this point, were 'elect'. We know, from other passages (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6) that righteousness came by faith even then; election and faith, even from Adam through the OT were always intertwined.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— Romans 9:9–11



Why on earth would they have been? Christ, as he was called, had not yet been revealed. But you ought to say that when Christ DID appear and then revealed the New Covenant in his blood and the people he would have for himself...which in truth was nothing less that what he promised Abraham "in you ALL nations of the earth will be blessed" (in other words, all nations will be welcome into the elect in order that my purposes may be fulfilled).



Again, incorrect.
To the Church we also see clear references to them as 'the elect':

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. -Romans 8:32–33

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. -2 Peter 1:10

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. -2 Timothy 2:10

Paul and Peter are speaking to the Church in these verses. This thoroughly refutes your claim that the Church is never called the elect.


It ought to be unsurprising that 'building' is primarily placed upon the Disciples shoulders, considering the nature of the 'New' covenant. They were not told by Jesus to pick up the old ministry of the prophets. No, instead Jesus had come and revealed some truly new ways the Kingdom was going to go forward and then established the new covenant to do just that. New ways of thinking, new ways of relating to God and each other and 'religion'....faith. Of course they were not 'taking over the old', but 'building'.
But that in no way means that God discarded his people or his way of 'electing' people. And we know this because the NT clearly tells us such. Faith and grace is what saved Abraham, and faith and grace is what saved the Disciples and every person since, Jew OR Gentile:

But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.” ......
So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! -Romans 11:4–8,11–12

That, as all the verses shown above, clearly marks OT Jews saved by faith as 'elect', NT, Jews saved by faith 'elect' and Gentiles saved by faith 'elect'. We are also called the Church...because the Church is Christ's body. The body is who were are, elect is what we are. We were chosen BY God to become part of Christ's body.


Ah yes. Of course...but...they are never called Tribulation Saints either...are they?

The real problem here is you are falling back onto 'names' rather than meanings. What do I mean by that? Simple: what does it mean to be a part of the body of Christ? Biblically? Concisely:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. -1 Corinthians 12:12–13

"With one Spirit we are all baptized into one body"....Jesus Christ.
In other words, anyone redeemed in Christ and baptized with the Holy Spirit, is considered the 'body of Christ'. And that includes ALL the times we, the body, are called "saints". Let's have a look at how many times we are called saints:

Matthew 27:52, Acts 9:13, Romans 8:27 ,1 Corinthians 14:33 ,2 Corinthians 1:1 , Ephesians 4:12 , Philippians 4:21 ,Colossians 1:26 ,1 Thessalonians 3:13 , 2 Thessalonians 1:10 , 1 Timothy 5:10 , Philemon 5 , Hebrews 13:24, Jude 3
Revelation 5:8

That, is just a single mention from each book the word appears in, in the NT. There are, in fact, 61 results. 15 of the 27 books of the NT apply the word 'saint' to what is irrefutably members of the Body.

So, here's your dilemma. You need to prove WHY when we come to Revelation the word 'Saint' must be suddenly employed in a different manner...because as I said, the term 'tribulation saint' is a fantasy. You also need to prove why these 'saints' are to be categorized in a different manner to the rest of the body...ie: "with one Spirit they are baptized into the Body of Christ". Because if that's how they are saved, redeemed, elected....you again, have a serious problem in your attempt to separate them from the herd, as it were.



Uh. Huh. Some fancy logic happening.
The OT folks were never called elect (except for when the bible did it), but "we're all called elect". The Church was not "once" called elect (except all the times the bible called them that)...but "we're all called elect".
Maybe that makes sense in your brain, but nowhere else.

And no...no I don't believe you have proven biblically that the Rapture has to occur before the tribulation period. To the contrary, actually. You can attempt to start here though:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, -2 Thessalonians 2:1–3

This passage clearly says: 'that day WILL NOT COME until....UNTIL the rebellion and man of lawlessness COME FIRST.'

That ought to be a bit of a problem for you.

@Naomi25 There's plenty in the NT about election! John 6, Romans and Ephesians would not be the same without it...

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That would have been most difficult for you to do, seeming as though "tribulation saints" doesn't appear in scripture. And, compounding that problem, considering 'saints' is thoroughly used throughout the NT in conjunction with the "one body".
As I keep telling you; the onus is upon you to prove biblically that there is a crucial distinction between the sort of Christian these supposed 'trib saints' are, and the 'body saints' are, that one gets to receive certain promises and titles (baptized into one body of Christ in the Spirit) but the others do not. If you cannot, they are one and the same and the distinction you are attempting to foist upon them will not stand.

Okat so strain at teh gnat of a word made up to signify a specific group of people. Maybe you should refrain from the use of the Word trinity for that doesn't appear anywhere as well!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As I keep telling you; the onus is upon you to prove biblically that there is a crucial distinction between the sort of Christian these supposed 'trib saints' are, and the 'body saints' are, that one gets to receive certain promises and titles (baptized into one body of Christ in the Spirit) but the others do not. If you cannot, they are one and the same and the distinction you are attempting to foist upon them will not stand.

I have! with numerous SCriptures, but you either haven't bothered to read them or just ignore them for they prove there is a distinction.

By the Way when are you going to answer my Question.

In teh sheep goa judgment, the sheep are granted entrance into teh kingdom. One reson is they did good things to Jesus brethren. Who ar those brethren. They are not sheep for that would make the Lord fooloishlyi redundant. So who are they?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Luke 20:34 tells us that marriage is for 'this age' but NOT for 'the age to come'.

I agree what is your point?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Matt 13:32 that blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven in 'this age' NOR in 'the age to come'.

I agree what is your point?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

2 Cor 4:4 relates that Satan is given to be ruler over this fallen world in 'this age' but is NOT in 'the age to come'.

I agree what is your point? It doesn't say every moment of every day of tehis age now does it! It is just showing He can and does rule in this age, but not in the next. This passage doesn't sayihow long when it began or when it ends.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Eph 1:21 reassures that Christ is still Lord over Satan and all other authority, both in 'this age' AND in 'the age to come'.
Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 tell us that 'the age to come' is where we receive eternal life.

I agree, what is you rpoint?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The picture emerging is one of an age of sinful fleetingness, and another age where things are eternal.
Now, those are the biblical classifications of the 'two ages'. And you would do well to note it is not I that calls what we dwell in 'this age', but those who write the NT. It is Paul himself....AFTER Pentecost, who calls it 'this age'.
Once again, the problem for you ought to be 'where do I insert another age'? If there is truly going to be another period upon the earth after Christ's return where Satan is 'bound' and sin is...restrained to some extent, but death still walks, as does rebellion is some form....then don't you feel there ought to be an allowance for it? It is clearly not as we are now. But, clearly not as we will be in eternity.
And it still does nothing to address the absurdity of you insistence that Jews are one with us now and one with us in eternity, but apparently the 'bible tells us' that in this period between ages, they're going to be separate again? Despite Christ's work to bring down that wall of separation and to unite a one people under him?
No scripture is going to support that idea.

Why does the 1,000 year kingdom have to be another age? I don't see a biblical warrant for it despite you saying I must!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. -Luke 24:25–27

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. -2 Corinthians 1:20

It is not in Israel we find our salvation. It is not in the Rapture that we find our salvation. It is not in the Millennium that we find our salvation.
There is only one thing that we find our salvation: Jesus Christ.

I never said otherwise, so this is an irrelavent post.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So, I think you will find that all shadows and types point to him. The very rare ones that don't, are ones that still ultimately point to him. What do I mean by that? John the Baptist, for example. It was prophesied that 'Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah'. In Matt 11:14 Jesus tells us that John the Baptist 'IS Elijah who is to come'.
So, even the Prophet Elijah, who was again prophesied as returning...in John...was still pointing at Jesus Christ.
It all points at Christ. Because it's all about him; his salvational work and his glory.

Well ultimately all things point to the glory of god and Jesus so that is just repeating the obvious! But in ther bible for the age we live in- OT types do point to other things.

Like the feast of Trumpets point to the rapture and tabernacles point to what Gentile believers have to do in the 1,000 year kingdom once a year (or a delegation)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The arc of the covenant was a type of God's holy throne, of which Christ sat down on next to the Father once he had made payment for sins. Christ fulfilled the laws, but living them perfectly and then dying in obedience, thereby making the old covenant obsolete and bringing in the new.

Wrong. SCripture says this was modelled after the ark in heaven.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

All this to say: If we look at all these things in the OT and say: 'they were types and shadows of a better thing Christ bought in' but then reach the promises of the kingdom and then say 'except that...that's not shadow, that's legit'....not only does it break with all hermeneutical consistency, calling into question the very basic but essential Christian doctrine on other essential issues, but it totally ignores the fact that the FIRST thing Christ openly taught when he began his ministry is 'the Kingdom of heaven is at hand'.

Made up argument that makes no sense at all!

Letting Scripture speak for itself does nothing to call into question essential Christian doctrines.

And you ignore that Jesus came as Israel's Messiah to grant to Israel ther oft promise kingdom here on earth

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Forgive me, but you may believe you posted verses previously that showed a distinct difference between 'church' and 'tribulation saints', but you have not.

I most certainly did. You saying no doesn't make it false.

I can only guess why you reject them.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And I'm sorry, but just saying "John, 3rd John, Jude and Hebrews" as 'scriptural proof' of these two groups is laughable at best. You expect me to peruse the whole of John and Hebrews and just pluck out your proof verse for you?
3 John is short, so I read it, and it says absolutely nothing towards your point, however, so it doesn't encourage me to persist even if I were foolish enough to. And a quick glance back through our conversation shows you haven't given the specifics of these verses to me before, so...poor form in regards to 'proof'.

I am not going to go through all the posts, but based on which books, I know they were not to show a difference between church and tribulation saints.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes I refuse to see it, because it is not there! You rely upon what? A word in Revelation and your own doctrine telling you the Church MUST be gone by then?

No and I gave you the verses and even cited a manuscript that shows why the rapture has to be before the tribulation starts.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Whereas scripture repeatedly calls Christians 'saints', repeatedly tells us we must endure tribulation. And repeatedly tells us that we are all of one body if we are IN Christ.

Yes we are saints. I never said different. Just like Israel is called saints and the tribulation believers are called saints. Why are you rehashing this?

Yes the church is one body in Christ. But ISrael and Adam are not teh church and based on Rev. 20 the tribulations saints are not part of the bride of Christ as well. How many times do you need to read this before it sinks in?

Y*es we m ust endures tribulations. But not THER TRIBULATION which is a specific period of time in human history that is noted by seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments poured out by God on this earth, as SCripture says to prepare the nation of Israel to receive her Messiah and tro punish the unbelievers.

Why you wish to he church to have to undergo gods punishment on this earth when the Bible says we won't is a new mustery!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And just saying "cause the Church has to be Raptured first" is NOT a reason. Because logically, you are still then left with people who fit the body of Christ in every possible description: saved by grace, filled with the holy Spirit. There is NOTHING in scripture that says they should NOT be part of the body...regardless of WHEN they are saved. There is NOTHING in scripture saying that these people would NOT be part of the bride and therefore welcome at the marriage supper of the Lamb. And by your own reasoning, if people part of the body of Christ are promised to 'escape tribulation', then these too ought to fit the criteria. Except they conveniently don't. It's your doctrine that doesn't fit here, not the 'saints'.

Show me where saints in the tribulation are filled with the Spirit! They are marked with an external seal to identify them as Gods, but they are people who can lose their salvation if they falter and take the mark!

They are of course welcomed at the marriage supper! Just as the OT saints are. But trib saints are never called the bride! They are called priests and reign for 1,000 years! Now given that the earth is to be repopulated during the 1,000 years it could be they are given authority over nations and tribes. But that is just a guess.

I would wish them to escape tribulation, but they don't for they di dnot get saved before the rapture. That is simply the bible as written and not yor allegorical presuppositions which don't fit.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

How many times must I tell you that if YOU want to make a distinction between the Church and these 'saints', then you must prove that they are not worthy to be the bride. That they are different from the other Christians who are. That they are not worthy to escape tribulation like the other Christians apparently are.

Well I can't for the bride is a class from time, not who is worthy or not worthy.

The Bride started at Pentecost and ends when the Groom comes and snatches His bride.

Try reading this short manuscript and see how so much of the return of Jesus, the rapture, the lime lag we live in now etec. are all portrayed as part of teh Jewish Wedding system of Jesus day:

http://www.arielcontent.org/dcs/pdf/mbs113m.pdf