RC Sproul and Eschatology........

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    There are a lot of words in Revelation 1. Which ones are you concerned about.

    By the way Sproul states on the interpretation of Scripture, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25:

    "In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book."
     
  3. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you interpret the words of Rev 1, just as you do the ones in Gen 1 ... Just like they were used in the first century. When you study those words in the Bible, you see that they obviously are not referring to a strict time frame. The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking" (2 Peter 3).
     
  5. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    The 180s have begun.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780

    A rather disingenuous statement. He was very clear without changing any position. You however continue your vague back handed attacks disguised as posts. If you cannot actually present a clear position maybe you should sit on the bench and watch.
     
  7. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Yet another comes to give us his interpretation of Rev 1. Oh wait, he didn't actually give any. Suddenly the screams of literalism go silent. Perhaps you should stay on the sidelines and actually listen to Sproul before giving us your wise, clear and edifying comments.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    We were all so impressed with:


    When you ever (as if that will ever happen) actually offer one I will be glad to oblige. Until then I will continue to laugh at your inane attempts at who knows what.
     
    #8 Revmitchell, Mar 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2009
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    He deals with this topic here: http://www.ligonier.org/media_player.php?tabID=1&id=458 (under literal or figurative topic)
     
    #9 Grasshopper, Mar 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2009
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    How so? Perhaps you would be so kind as to offer an explanation of your words.
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Probably the same way Sproul does Grasshopper:

    R.C. Sproul and Six-Day*Creation

    A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

    R C Sproul is the author of some 60 Christian books. He has now stated on the record:

    “For most of my teaching career, I considered the ‘framework hypothesis’ to be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation. Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods.”

    The ‘framework hypothesis’ was an attempt to maintain that the Bible was authoritative whilst at the same time denying the six ordinary days of creation. It was first outlined by Arie Noordtzij in 1924. The framework hypothesis holds that Genesis 1 is merely a ‘framework’ into which evolution over hundreds of millions of years can be fitted. Its leading proponents, Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher, have admitted that their adoption of this hypothesis was born of a desperation to fit the Bible into the alleged ‘facts’ of science.

    RC Sproul has recently published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess (P & R, 2006, 2007). In this commentary, Sproul wrote:

    “According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.”

    Sproul now goes still further and has added scientific evidence for a young earth in his commentary.

    Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International, has commented:

    “Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will take a stand on a six-day, recent creation. Many Bible timelines produced by Biblical academics will avoid earth history prior to Abraham. We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it. I was especially impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship and commitment to Biblical authority.”

    The above is from Banner of Truth…

    http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/07/10/rc-sproul-and-six-day-creation/
     
  13. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Just as the old earth advocates must prove day means something other than the normal usage, so must futurist prove that the time statements of the NT means someting other than the normal. This is what the Sproul series is about, he understands the words used in the NT concerning prophecys and is attempting to deal with them without playing games with the words as futurists do.

    By the way, the scoffers you refer to in 2Peter didn't believe Peter either when he said he was in the "last times" and the end was near. So you fit that term better than I.
     
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Not sure why you posted this, but do you also agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse? Sproul is consistent are you?
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I think they mean what they normally mean. I don't have to change anything. Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.

    We are in the last times and the end is near. But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers. I don't do that. When I see those promises, I take them for what they say.

    Let's face it. If the words meant what you think they did, then God failed in his promise because Jesus hasn't come back yet.
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I have Sproul's book The Last Days According to Jesus. I have only skimmed through it and it is certainly not a book that lends itself to that. Found the book just as I was finishing a series in SS on Revelation. Guess I will have to do some serious reading.

    I can't say that I agree with Sproul on the Olivet Discourse since I do not know precisely what he believes. I do believe that Jesus Christ is talking about two different events in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Jerusalem and the visible return of Jesus Christ at the end of time as we know it. I do know that Jesus Christ has not yet returned with Power and Great Glory. [I went back and listened again to Sproul's remarks on the Olivet Discourse in his discussion of literal vs figurative. I heard nothing I could disagree with.]

    The reason I posted Sproul's view on the literal six day creation is that it appeared you were attempting to show that those who interpreted Genesis 1 literally would have to reverse themselves [the 180 degree turn] to interpret the passage from Revelation other than literally. I believe I answered in my comments on Revelation why a strict literal interpretation is not required, in fact is not consistently possible. Although Sproul indicates he believes that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the correct method he obviously understands that there are different figures of speech used in Scripture and such figures must be recognized and interpreted as such. In his discussion of literal vs figurative he uses the term ordinary to mean strictly literal and figurative to mean symbolic. I certainly cannot disagree with that. In fact I believe that it is imperative that one understand the when and where of such usage in Scripture. It is my opinion, however, that there is nothing in Genesis1 that indicates a figurative or symbolic interpretation is warranted.
     
  18. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    OR, you should post this on the thread "Was the World Created Millions and Millions of Years Ago, part 2?" Seriously!
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
     
    #19 Grasshopper, Mar 22, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2009
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
     

Share This Page

Loading...