Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

Post by Jarhead on Tue Jul 08 2014, 06:48



Divergent Doctrines; Part I

In Defense of the Faith
Monday, July 07, 2014
Pete Garcia Original Link

I asked Jack a couple of years ago in the Members Forum, about something that had been really bothering me.  How can a person, who claims to be a Christian, filled with the Holy Spirit (who is supposed to guide you into all truth), be a Preterist?  How could a person who has the same Holy Spirit as I do, be so utterly wrong and yet still be a Christian?
I suppose you could take that same question, and apply it to any number of different doctrinal positions that has divided Christianity over the millennia.  Jack’s response really cemented in stone for me the why, of why we are so divided on so many topics…yet remain part of the same body of Christ that has existed these last 2,000 years since Pentecost.  He says…
About the only Christian doctrine upon which there is more or less universal agreement is that we are saved by grace through faith in the shed Blood and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  BUT, that is the only doctrine, in the final analysis, which really and truly bears eternal consequences. Preterists that trust Jesus for their salvation will meet up in heaven with futurists who trusted Jesus, who will fellowship with pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers and post-tribbers, who will fellowship with Calvinists and Arminians together.  Because if you trust Jesus Christ for your salvation, then you will go to heaven. That is the central message of the Gospel. The rest is the product of our longing to know God, and know the things of God, while blinded by the limitations imposed on us by our earthly perspective.  As the Apostle Paul put it, seeing the things of God 'through a glass, darkly'. Paul says we know only 'in part' but the part that we all agree on is the only part that really counts. Salvation by faith.  In the story of the Tower of Babel, God explains how the various ethnic nations came to be.
"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:6-7)
By scattering man 'among the nations' and removing the common bond of language and ethnicity, God ensured that no one man could ever again rule all men, as Nimrod did until the construction of the Tower of Babel.  It prevented any one culture or worldview to dominate all mankind. That diversity is what allowed Christianity to flourish at the point when it was introduced into history.  The reason is because Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ, rather than a commonly-accepted cultural duty.  God built that same diversity into the Church, which accounts for how and why sincere Christians can read the same Scriptures and come up with such widely divergent doctrines as preterist historicism and pretribulationist futurism. It prevents any one teacher from becoming the only accepted source of information of the things of God.
If everybody agreed on every point of doctrine, then the guy who articulates it the best becomes the Great Oracle of God. (And what if he was wrong?)  So we have diversity of understanding, but the same Scripture. And we have diversity of teachings, but share the same salvation by grace through faith. And we are equally sincere, because we share the same awesome responsibility of accountability before the Lord.  In the end, we will be judged by how we used the doctrine God delivered to us to lead others to salvation in Christ.  The necessity of diversity of understanding in the Church Age is adequately demonstrated by a peek across the divide into the coming 'Time of Jacob's Trouble' after the Church Age is concluded.  During the Tribulation, that diversity of understanding is replaced by a universal religion imposed by the false prophet and directed toward the worship of antichrist. (Jack Kinsella, Letting God Sort it Out)
I didn’t intend to quote the whole section on it, but he made so many good points and so worded it perfectly, that it was hard to decide where to end.  But I, like Jack did before me, came to the realization, that no matter how hard you try, you will never (or probably never) convince anyone about doctrinal truths, until they are ready for the Holy Spirit to really guide them into said truth.  So, it is not my job to convince people, but the Holy Spirit’s.  All I can do is lay out some facts about what the Holy Spirit has shown me, and let you pray on it and decide whether what I say, is true.
I decided to address three areas that seem to be the most hotly contested in our common faith, and share why I understand them the way I do.  The first is the Rapture of the Church, the second is the Triune nature of God (i.e.…the Trinity), and the last is our Ordinances that Christ instructed us to keep until He returns.  Although they seem unrelated, they very much are.
We see in the Ordinances that are instructed to maintain and keep until He returns for us.

  1. We are to make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even until the end of the age. (Matt. 28:18-20)
  2. We are to keep the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of His sacrifice, proclaiming His death until He returns. (1 Cor. 11:26)

We see in the Rapture, the threefold role that the Godhead play in that event.

  1. Only God the Father knows the time of it (Matt. 24:36)
  2. Only God the Son can come and retrieve us, because we are His Bride. (1 Thess. 4:16)
  3. Only those who are filled with God the Holy Spirit, will be removed, thus removing His restraining influence over the world by removing the vessels He indwells. (2 Thess. 2:7)

The Rapture
The Rapture of the Church is one that has spurned much debate since the Apostle Paul’s day.  In fact 2 Thessalonians was written primarily to address the false view that the ‘Day of the Lord’ had already began.  Paul explains to them that two things had to happen first;
1) the ‘falling away’ must occur,
and
2) the Restrainer must be removed, so that the Man of Sin can be revealed to the world.
The order that Paul lays out here, fits perfectly into what the Apostle John would record some 45 years later, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and the loosening of the first judgment, ‘the rider on the white horse’.
It was to Paul who was given the mystery of the Rapture, and according to his own testimony as found in Galatians 1-2, was taught by none other than Christ Himself, in the three years he spent in the Arabian Desert.
Paul was also shown the third heaven, which if you back up the 14 years he mentions in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6, puts him in Lystra, where he was stoned by an angry mob and left for dead.  But Paul chooses to use the Greek word ‘Harpazo’ in several places in his epistles that speak to the very act itself: 1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Cor. 12:2, but is also used in other sections of the New Testament that conveys the same affect: Acts 8:39, 4; Rev. 12:5.
The Harpazo is the Greek rendering in which we get the English phrase ‘caught up’ from.  The ‘catching up’ or ‘snatching up’ is the actual process of how the Lord removes us.  In other words, we (and those Scriptural examples) are supernaturally moved from one place (earth) to another by God. 
The word rapture itself comes from the Latin translation of ‘Harpazo’, which gets transliterated from raptus, rapio, or rapiçmur, to rapture in the English.  So any argument that tries to stand on the premise that the Rapture isn’t valid, because the word ‘Rapture’ itself isn’t in the Bible, is bogus.  Furthermore, it shouldn’t be the principle of the event itself (being caught up), as much as the timing of this event when disagreements should occur.
Assessment
Although it’s not necessary to one’s salvation to have a correct eschatological viewpoint, it is however indicative of other errors which most certainly will accompany it.
If you deny the Rapture will ever take place, you are literally denying numerous passages that speak directly about it; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-56 being the two clearest passages on it.  But to deny a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, means you are confused on who and what exactly the “Church” is.  Therefore your problem is more ecclesiological (the theological study of the Church), rather than eschatological (the theological study of the end times).
Errant views bring on issues with Supersessionism, Replacement Theology, Dominionism, and Anti-Semitism…which seem to be a growing trend amongst the Reformed and mainline denominations. 
The Church is not Israel, nor Israel the Church.  Israel traces its roots back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…while the Church only to Abraham by faith.  The Rapture is a biblical concept, and it will happen at some future point unknown to us.  It has to happen prior to the Tribulation, because the Church is not Israel, and has no biblical basis for going through that specified period of time known as ‘Jacob’s trouble’.  Those seven years are mapped out for two groups; the Christ rejecting world, and Israel.  (Jer. 30:7-11; Dan 9:24-27; Matt. 24:15-22; John 14:1-3; 1 Thess 1:10, 5:9; Rev. 3:10). 
Part II next week.
avatar
Jarhead
Admin

Posts : 2274
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile http://narrowroaddepot.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

Post by Tryphosa on Wed Jul 09 2014, 22:26

Really makes sense, thanks for posting JH. 
And the post trib talkers state the pre tribbers may go to hell for believing a false doctrine...
avatar
Tryphosa

Posts : 3716
Join date : 2013-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

Post by Tryphena on Fri Jul 11 2014, 08:53

from article...
 But to deny a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, means you are confused on who and what exactly the “Church” is.  Therefore your problem is more ecclesiological (the theological study of the Church), rather than eschatological (the theological study of the end times).


Thanks Pete, explains that crystal clear.


What is troubling (by some teachers) is their accusation that the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is false doctrine.
avatar
Tryphena

Posts : 2682
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Divergent Doctrines; Part II

Post by Tryphena on Mon Jul 14 2014, 08:54

Divergent Doctrines; Part II 
In Defense of the Faith 
Monday, July 14, 2014 
Pete Garcia 


Last week we started with theological issues that have in large part, divided the church over the millennia.  I began with the Rapture of the Church, and continue on this week to the Trinity and the Ordinances.

Continued:
So those who argue that the ‘Rapture’ isn’t biblical because the word is not found in Scripture, must then by that same standard, deny the ‘Trinity’….because that word is also not found in the Scriptures.  (See how illogical that argument is?)  The sad truth is, is that there are so-called “Christian” congregations out there who are now denying the divine triune nature of the God-head.  Oneness Pentecostals and Hebrew Roots being the two most predominant.  Pseudo-Christian Cults like the Christian Science, Unitarian Church, Mormon’s and Jehovah Witnesses have long denied the Trinity. 

The Trinity
They will argue that the concept of the Trinity is not biblical, because ‘God is one’. (See Deut. 6:4)  Furthermore, they’ll say that the ‘Trinity’ was something that Emperor Constantine concocted (as well as adding Sunday worship, Christmas and Easter holidays, etc.) to corrupt the early Christian church.  Actually, Tertullian (160-225AD) was the first to coin the phrase ‘Trinitas’, which was over a 100 years before Constantine was even born.  But the concept of the Trinity is found in both the Old and New Testament’s.
Our God is One, but He is One Being expressed in three distinct Persons.  Because in our Scripture, you have several occasions in which all three are represented all at the same time, yet they are all distinct.  (Example; Christ’s baptism)  You have in the first chapter of the first book, God referring to Himself in the plural as ‘Us’ or ‘Our’ in Genesis 1.  You also have all three speaking, and have distinctly different roles to play in this great human drama we know as life.  Carm.org has an excellent chart comparing the differences that distinguish the Three.
So clearly, God is able to exist in a way, that we finite humans have a hard time comprehending.  In this regards, we see that from the beginning, God is beginning to reveal Himself to mankind (particularly the nation of Israel) and is progressively showing His nature and characteristics to us which finds it’s culmination (albeit limited because of our finiteness) in the New Testament as being expressed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are not three separate Gods (1+1+1=3), but rather One God in three separate Persons (1x1x1=1).  The Father is the central figure, from which we come to by the sacrificial payment made by the Son, by way of the Holy Spirit’s drawing, and sealing.
We (being created in God’s image) reflect that Triune nature of God in our own beings, in that we are tri-partite; ‘body, soul, and spirit’.  In the Greek, the body is ‘soma’, the soul is ‘psyche’, and the spirit is ‘pneuma’…all three existing within us. 
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. 5:23

The Ordinances
The last area I wanted to spend most of my time with you on is the ordinances of Christ.  The first is the Lord’s Supper, and the second is water baptism.  Whereas the Rapture and the Trinity (the concepts thereof) I take literally.  The Ordinances I take symbolically.  The reason is we are instructed by Christ to do these two things until He returns, and they both are representative of something only Christ Himself could do. 
The Lord’s Supper
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”  Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that daywhen I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”  Matt. 26:26-29
Now, when Jesus did this with His disciples, was He literally giving them His flesh and His blood?  No.  He used unleavened bread and wine.  He instituted this symbolically from the very beginning, because it would represent His upcoming sacrifice on the Cross. 
Some argue that when you partake of the Lord’s Supper, you end up consuming the actual flesh and blood of Christ Himself.  This is the ‘sacrament’ in the Roman Catholic Mass known as Transubstantiation.  You can see the immense power this would give the Roman Catholic Clergy over the laity, in that if the RCC ever excommunicated you, you could not partake of the Lord’s Supper at Mass, thus you would be literally and eternally be cut off from salvation (since they also deny eternal security of the believer).  This concept in a sense, re-crucifies Christ over and over, denying that for by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)
Most Protestant organizations on the other hand, have a proper understanding of this in that it is a symbolic reference to the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross.  His body broken for us, and His blood-shed on our behalf;
For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”  For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.  1 Corinthians 11:23-26
Water Baptism
Now seeing that the Lord’s Supper is meant to be taken symbolically, and to take it literally puts you in the same camp as the Roman Catholic understanding of a continual sacrifice, why then do certain Protestant churches take and make water baptism a requirement of salvation?
There are two types of baptism listed in the Bible, the first is water baptism, and the second is baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.  The first as demonstrated by John the Baptist;
Now John himself was clothed in camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.  Matthew 3:4-6
But even he understood that his baptism (water), could not compare to the baptism which was to come, that being baptism by the Holy Spirit.
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matt. 3:11-12
The first baptism, (water) was a baptism of repentance.  In Judaism, this was called the ‘mikvah’ and was a purification rite that one underwent at various points in one’s life; before feasts, temple events, prior to marriage, etc.  For the Jews, the mikvah was not a onetime event, but something you did it numerous times.  Jesus underwent baptism by John, not because He needed to repent, but because it was required by Scripture before His ministry began. (Isaiah 40:3)  And since John was the ‘voice of one crying in the wilderness to make straight the way’, Jesus was baptized by him to identify and confirm John’s message and fulfill prophecy.
So the argument goes, that water baptism in and of itself cannot save you, but it is the final step a believer takes [hear, believe, confess, repent, and be baptized] in order for salvation to take effect.  I’ve also heard that you ‘put on Christ’ in baptism.  Or that baptism is necessary to ‘wash’ away your sins.  Now seeing that there are two types of baptism, which do you, think is more apropos?  Baptism in the water or baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ?  The Bible does not contradict itself, so let’s compare scripture with scripture and see which is clearer:
The waterActs 2:38 (See also Acts 3:19); 1 Peter 3:21 (See also Romans 5:1); Acts 22:16(See also Acts 22:12-15--for a little context)
Or the SpiritJohn 3:1618361 Cor. 12:13 (Corresponds with Eph. 4:4-5); Eph. 1:13-14(See also Acts 10:44-48); Titus 3:4-6
Considering that every passage that deals with salvation, concerns itself first with belief in Jesus Christ, and belief is where the Holy Spirit first comes in and seals you, how could the Holy Spirit then only be tied to the act of being placed in water?  The truth is, if our salvation depended on anything or anyone other than God, than it’s not God who is ultimately saving you.  One cannot be a ‘little bit’ pregnant; either you are or you aren’t.  Likewise, you can’t be a ‘little bit’ saved…either you are saved at the moment of belief, or you aren’t.  Don’t take my word for it, let’s go to the scriptures and see what they have to say:
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  John 3:18
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”  John 3:36
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. Eph. 1:13-14
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Romans 5:1
That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  Romans 10:9-10
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Gal 2:16
So the Scriptures can be taken out of context in various places to make baptism, or the Lord’s Supper, or some other work, deed, or act to seem necessary, but when you place those passages against the clear teaching of Scripture, it will fall apart, because Scripture can’t contradict itself.


Again, from CARM.
If we are saved by faith, then we are saved by faith when we believe and not when we get baptized, otherwise, we are not saved by faith.  Furthermore, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then anyone who receives Christ on his deathbed in a hospital and who also believes Jesus is God in the flesh, who died and rose from the dead for his sins,  etc., would go to hell if he doesn't get baptized before he died.  This would mean that we were not justified by faith because if we were, then the person would be saved.  Also, if baptism is necessary for salvation, then all babies who die go to hell since they weren't baptized.  Remember, when someone says that baptism is necessary, there can be no exceptions--otherwise it isn't necessary. 
Part III next week!

http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7845
avatar
Tryphena

Posts : 2682
Join date : 2013-04-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

Post by Tryphosa on Mon Jul 14 2014, 19:03

Thanks Tryph
avatar
Tryphosa

Posts : 3716
Join date : 2013-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Garcia ~ Divergent Doctrines; Part I

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum