Thread: "Wrongly" Dividing the Word?
April 17th 2005, 09:58 PM #1
"Wrongly" Dividing the Word?
Hi. Those who read the Bible love the beauty, grace and power of God's Words in it and we read it to gain more knowledge of our Creator, why we exist and what is God's plan for mankind now and in the future.
This is an extrememly informative site on the subject of Dispensationalism, or in other words " Wrongly Dividing the Word". This doctrine is of course pitted against the other doctrine of "Full Fulfillment" so whereas the main division of Protestant and Catholics arose, we now have 2 doctrines that divide these even more.
I don't believe either belief affects our salvation in any way as all Christians live by the Spirit of Christ and follow His commands of Love God and Love Others and that is the most important basis of having a relationship with God.
God bless and love and peace to you.
'Buck was stunned when he read Ezekiel 38 and 39 about a great enemy from the north invading Israel with the help of Persia, Libya, and Ethiopia. More stark was that the Scriptures foretold of weapons of war used as fire fuel and enemy soldiers eaten by birds or buried in a common grave.'1 According to LaHaye, the 'great enemy from the north' is modernday 'Russia.' The invasion includes jet planes, 'exploding missiles, and 'atomic and explosive' devices. If LaHaye is true to his claim of literalism, then the Russian 'invasion' described in Left Behind should be a literal rendering of the events described in Ezekiel 38 and 39. There should be a one-to-one relationship between Ezekiel's description of the battle and what LaHaye and Jenkins describe. Here is how LaHaye characterizes his interpretive methodology:
The best guide to Bible study is 'The Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation.' To depart from this rule opens the student to all forms of confusion and sometimes even heresy.
When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, but take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.2
LaHaye insists that the interpreter is to 'take every word at its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise.' We learn from LaHaye that the prophecies found in Ezekiel 38 and 39 'are among the most specific and easy to understand in the prophetic word.'3 But do we find descriptions of jets, missiles, and atomic weapons in these chapters? Buck supposedly saw all of these very modern weapons when he first read Ezekiel even though no one has seen them for more than 2500 years. Can such a modern-day battle scenario be found in Ezekiel 38 and 39 if, as LaHaye maintains, every word should be interpreted in terms of 'its primary, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context clearly indicate otherwise'? Let's put LaHaye's interpretive standard to the test.
By Amazing Rando in forum Christianity 201Replies: 34Last Post: February 12th 2006, 01:51 PM
By 7thangel in forum Theology 201Replies: 24Last Post: January 16th 2005, 02:29 AM
By Arimathea in forum Theology 201Replies: 45Last Post: December 6th 2004, 09:16 AM
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 9Last Post: December 12th 2003, 12:03 PM
By John Reece in forum Eschatology 201Replies: 6Last Post: May 28th 2003, 06:01 PM