Extrabiblical Nonsense of Posttribulationism:
Some Posttribbers I have listened to have argued outside of scripture, pointing to historical evidence
that dispensationalism is a relatively new teaching and that the Church Fathers were posttribbers.
The argument against Dispensationalism and Pretribism based on historical record outside scripture
is meaningless.
I have heard people argue for pacifism, against the Trinity, etc. based on history outside of scripture.
JW's have argued against the Trinity because it wasn't until the third century that a council got together
and formulated the Nicene Creed, which included the Trinity.
This is as silly as saying that we didn't have the scripture until the Catholics got together centuries
later and compiled them.
This is silly because the Trinity is taught in scripture and what Paul and Peter wrote was God
Breathed scripture, and what the council did was agree and formulate what was already a teaching in scripture.
The council in the Nicene Creed also taught 'baptism for the remission of sins' and since I am not
one of the Jews that Peter Preached to (Acts 2:38) but rather believe the 'whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27), I must reject
that part of the creed.
If what they got was from scripture then that is where I should get it from.
So the question is not what has been taught, believed or formulated in non biblical history but what
is taught in scripture.
Its all right to read what Christians believed but not to use that as an argument.
If what is taught in history is not in scripture then it has no validity as essential truth.
If what is true is in scripture then why go to history to prove it?
The latter must always be judged by the former. (Acts 17)
This is what the Bereans did.
I believe scripture teaches that it will all pan out in the end and one shouldn't be majoring on the
minors.
The historical approach uses history or the questionable recording of history (the fallible) to
interpret the scripture (the infallible)
One should see the folly of using history to interpret or support ones views. For more on this go to
my website at:
https://cuf5.tripod.com/id89.html
Extrabiblical Nonsense of Pretribulationism:
Very few would claim that the works of LaHaye and Lindsey are equal with scripture but you would think
that this is what some of them believe through their over dependence on these prophecy experts.
I like Lindsey's work but the weakness of his examples are that they have to change with the times.
No longer are we looking at the common market but the European Union.
The popularity of the LaHaye Movies and books are sickening.
I'm waiting for them to come up with Superheroes of the Tribulation toys at a store near you.
Paul thought that Christ could come in his day (1 John 3:2; ), and he didn't need the invention of
the nuclear bomb, the common market or the United Nations to believe that Christ's coming was imminent.
If the Christians of the early church didn't think that Christ would come in their lifetime then how
could the hope of Christ's coming have purified them?
This means that either signs are not needed to precede the rapture and that the rapture is distinct
from the second coming of Christ to earth or that there always will be what looks like signs, no matter the generation.
If so, why did Christ mention signs at all?
If each generation always had signs then Christ had to be teaching to be ready at all times.
Once one defends the belief that we should go outside of scripture for essential and spiritual truth
or to verify it, then one thing a person should do is determine whether the extrabiblical sources are contradictory which
often they are.
However, that does not deal with those that attempt to fill in the gaps of the vague, eschatological
and hard to understand passages of scripture.
Peter acknowledges the special wisdom given to Paul and also speaks of those that will twist the hard
to understand statements of Paul.
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent
that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account
that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto
him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are SOME THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD, which they that are UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, AS THEY DO ALSO
THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing
ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
(2 Peter 3)
Often people twist scripture by adding to scripture. Peter warns us to be steadfast in the scriptures.
Commentary is fine but should not equal or interpret scripture. The bible interprets itself.
Why cannot we claim with the Mormons and Muslims that Catholics are apostate. This we find by going
to Mormon Literature and the Quran and looking at the Catholic church.
If Catholicism can go outside of scripture to defend their beliefs why can't others do so to refute
Catholicism?
Cult Expert James Sire wrote of twenty tactics that cults use.
18. SUPPLEMENTING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY: New revelation from post
biblical prophets either replaces or is added to the Bible as authority. Example: The Mormons supplement the Bible with the
Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
The Catholics must go to scripture in an attempt to verify tradition to Bible believers, this automatically
makes scripture superior because the latter is verified or not verified by the former.
However, when the Catholics quote scripture regarding tradition they forget to read the context of
these passages which explains the reason for the tradition of that time. .
4. IGNORING THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT: A text of Scripture
is quoted but removed from the surrounding verses which form the immediate framework for its meaning. Example: Alan Watts
quotes the first half of John 5:39 ("You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life"), claiming
that Jesus was challenging His listeners' over emphasis of the Old Testament, but the remainder of the immediate context reads,
"and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (verses 39-40), which shows
that Jesus was upholding the value of the Old Testament as a testimony to Himself. (Scripture Twisting, Sire)
I have said many many times before, this is similar to trying to defend the use of outhouses today
because at one time that is what we used.
If today we have indoor plumbing then it is hardly necessary to use outhouses anymore.
If Tradition was used prior or during the writing of grapho/scripture, then why wouldn't tradition
have finally been written down when Paul and Peter wrote their letters?
Check out:
Extrabiblical Nonsense: https://cuf5.tripod.com/id16.html
Catholics have put their extrabiblical teachings on an equal level with scripture.
"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together
and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some
fashion
to form one thing and move toward the same goal.' Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ,
who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the
age." (Cathechism of the Catholic Church, pg 26, Libreria
Editrice Vaticana)
See how they use part of a biblical verse, but then pile a bunch of extrabiblical nonsense on top
of it to make their beliefs more appealing? The Cults do the same thing.
3. BIBLICAL HOOK: A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention
of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most
people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture. Example: Mormon missionaries quote James 1:5 which promises God's
wisdom to those who ask him and, then, follow this by explaining that when Joseph Smith did this he was given a revelation
from which he concluded that God the Father has a body. (Scripture Twisting, Sire)
"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred
Scripture, and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation
of souls." (Catechism, pg 29)
"But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle
of correct interpretation...'Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same spirit by whom it was
written." 1. "Be especially attentive 'to the
content and unity of the whole scripture... 2. Read the scripture within
'the living Tradition of the whole church." (Ibid, pg 32)...
"As a result the Church, to whome the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does
not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone.
Both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
devotion and reverence. " (#82)
Their traditions have contradicted
the Word of God and in fact make it very difficult to communicate with them. As in a cult, unless you demonstrate to them
that the Bible stands alone as our ultimate source of truth YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. They believe in the virgin birth of
Christ, but need to come up with the Immaculate Conception of Mary (not Jesus) to explain how Christ could be born of Mary
but without sin. They have an elaborate system that one has to get through before they are acceptable to Christ: Purgatory,
baptism... They accomplish this by taking half an idea from the bible then making a transition to their tradition to come
up with the other half.
What Catholics actually do is provide all the arguments
for Mormons and any other cult that goes outside scripture to defend their beliefs.
The Catechism teaches that Mary is the Queen of Heaven (966) and one argument I have heard is that
the Mother of the King in Jewish Culture is the Queen but if this was the case concerning Mary why was she never referred
to as a Queen in the gospels by Jews?
Not only does Jesus NOT call Mary Queen, He doesn't even call her Mother.
Not only does the Catechism call her Queen but it calls her Queen of Heaven and the OT/Jewish reference
to a Queen of Heaven is not good. (Jeremiah 7:18ff)
If one wants to say that Jewish Culture taught that the mother of a King was a Queen, then they should
accept what is spoken of in Jewish scripture concerning the Queen of Heaven.
The rationale for Queen of Heaven is condemned in scripture and is only said of Mary outside of scripture
and much later than the compilation of scripture.
So if one wants to go outside scripture to defend their particular beliefs they might as well join
forces with Mormons, Homosexuals and Catholics because they do the same.
Could this be one reason why those that major on the minors in eschatological issues often join with
Heretics to oppose those that don't agree with their particular view?
This is why it is important to understand the basics and instead of joining with Heretics to oppose
those that don't agree with you on the timing of the rapture you join with fellow Christians to fight the right fight.
For more on this go to Catholics, Jews and Scripture at:
https://cuf5.tripod.com/id45.html
BJ Maxwell
