Dear Terry,
My comments are as follows:
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Rayburn" <terryrayburn@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Significance in Language


>
>
> --- Doug Skiles <skiles@...> wrote:
>
>> Dear Terry,
>>
>> So, could the original authors speak (or write) about things
>> that they had no knowledge of?
>
>
> [I wouldn't say "NO knowledge", but certainly very limited in
> some cases.  For example, look at 1 Pet. 1:10-12: "...the
> prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made
> careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time
> the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating...." --Terry]
DGS: From the amount of material that was in the OTS concerning the Messiah, 
I would have to disagree with the phrase "very limited".
>
>
>> To say that one who uses the literal "when possible" approach
>> is a literalist is incorrect and a misrepresentation of what I
>> have said.
>
>
> [Sorry if I sounded like I was misrepresenting you.  I wasn't
> intending to address you personally, but only to *nicely*
> ridicule Alford's statement.  I think it's foolish to say that
> non-literal interpretation somehow destroys the Scriptures, when
> the Scripture writers themselves do it so often.
> DGS: I didn't say that every non-literal interpretation destroys the 
> Scriptures.  What I did do was to compare unScriptural allegories with 
> biblical typologies.
> Also, every Amillennialist I've met says they use the literal
> "when possible", too.  It's just that their "when possible" is
> different.
>DGS:  I totally agree with you.  But you are allowing yourself the 
>safe-guard of not allowing an eschatological viewpoint to dogmatically 
>drive you.  This is indeed worth pondering.
> By the way, I notice you haven't addressed the few Scriptures I
> cited that were interpreted non-literally <wink> --Terry]
>DGS: 1 Peter 1:10-12 - What "exactly" did they not literally know 
>concerning the coming Messiah from the OTS except "when" the time would 
>come.  I don't claim to set a date for when the millennial will start but I 
>believe God when He says it will.
>
>> If you really want to have sincere discussions stay on point
>> and away from personal judgements...
>
>
> [Just a reminder...remember, I'm the one who is an "Informed
> Pan-Millennialist", so I have no "personal judgements".
>Aren't you making the personal judgement about eschatology eventually 
>panning out?  (just pulling your leg:)
> I believe I could make a case for Realized Millennialism (AKA
> Amillennialism) so strong that the average person in the pew
> would be totally convinced.  But I'm not making that case,
> because I'm not convinced enough myself.
>
> What bothers me is the STRONG Pre-Trib Pre-Mill "literalist" who
> pounds it into the congregation's heads, as though it was part
> of the Fundamentals of the faith, when they don't even have the
> knowledge to make a case for the other side.  Even the pagan
> (Mormon) author Steven Covey has enough common sense to "Seek
> first to understand, and then to be understood." (7 Habits of
> Highly Effective People)
>I apologize if I appear to be deciding who is effective and who isn't, for 
>my cause is to do justice to the Scriptures and not to compare one man with 
>another.
> I have believed for a long time that if one can't make at least
> a fair case for the opposition, then they don't understand their
> own position that well, even if they're right.
>DGS: You need to clarify this a little bit for I don't understand where 
>there is a Scriptural example I can go, to justify this type of approach in 
>which "fairness" can be a rule unless we both adhere to the same 
>hermeneutic.  We may have similiar points that we agree on but the onus is 
>still on Christs' statement "What saith the Scripture"?
> In any case, no offense meant at all.  DGS: none taken  Sharpening iron 
> can
> produce a little friction sometimes, but the Spirit-filled
> believer will only take it as warming the heart.  I have an
> off-the-reservation opinion that if one isn't reasonably filled
> with the Spirit at a given time, they shouldn't be discussing
> theology until they are filled.  Draw near to Him, commune with
> Him, pray for His guidance, then fire away.
>
> I can't close, though, without a reminder that you still didn't
> address the few Scriptures I gave that clearly were not
> interepreted literally by the New Testament writers <grin>.
> --Terry]
>
> Blessings,
> Terry
>
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Terry Rayburn" <terryrayburn@...>
>> To: <soundofgrace@...>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Significance in Language
>>
>>
>> > Doug,
>> >
>> > With all due respect to Alford, his statement is foolish.
>> >
>> > All one has to do is study the New Testament gospels
>> > and epistles, look for Old Testament references, and
>> > see how Jesus and the apostles interepreted the Old
>> > Testament passages.
>> >
>> > When the Old Testament passages were prophetic,
>> > and were "literally" fulfilled, they nevertheless often had
>> > a totally different meaning then would have been given
>> > to them in a "literal" interpretation.
>> >
>> > Or they were fairly literally fulfilled, but no one could
>> > have understood what they meant until the prophecy
>> > came to pass.  This is why I believe it's a mistake to
>> > "force" a meaning on obscure prophecies today.
>> >
>> > I've never met a "literalist" who has done such a study
>> > of New Testament references to Old Testament
>> > prophecies and not have their eyes opened, and their
>> > faith in a "literalist" hermeneutic shaken (though some
>> > won't admit it, yet can't explain it).
>> >
>> > Some examples:
>> >
>> > Zech. 13:7 is quoted in Matthew 26:29, "I will strike the
>> > Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."
>> > No one in Zechariah's time could possibly have
>> > understood that the ultimate meaning was the running
>> > away in fear of the disciples at Jesus' crucifixion.
>> >
>> > Psalm 118:22,23 is quoted in Matthew 21:42, "The stone
>> > which the builders rejected Has become the chief
>> > cornerstone.  This was the LORD's doing, And it is
>> > marvelous in our eyes."  Who could have known what
>> > the precise meaning was in David's day, yet Jesus
>> > makes it obvious.
>> >
>> > Some modern-day "literalists", had they lived in Isaiah's
>> day,
>> > when reading the passage about John the Baptist referred
>> > to in Luke 3:4-6, would have concocted some theory about
>> > valleys being filled with something (blood? water? who
>> > knows?), and mountains and hills being brought low
>> > (maybe by some earthquake, or God's fist slamming them
>> > down? who knows?).  The point is it was figurative
>> > language, but there was no way for the people of Isaiah's
>> > time to know that until the prophecy was fulfilled in John.
>> >
>> > Dean Alford would say, "there is an end to all significance
>> in
>> > language and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony
>> > to anything."  But he would be wrong.
>> >
>> > Even in short-term prophecy, "literalism" can get you in
>> > trouble.  When Jesus said, in John 2:19, "Destroy this
>> temple,
>> > and in three days I will raise it up," it wasn't until after
>> He
>> > rose from the dead that even the disciples knew what He
>> > meant, let alone the Jews.
>> >
>> > One of my favorites is from Jeremiah, referenced by Matthew
>> > when Herod slaughtered the infants in his attempt to kill
>> > the Messiah.  "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation,
>> > weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
>> > children, Refusing to be comforted, because they were
>> > no more."  Literal?
>> >
>> > There are MANY more examples.  I just grabbed a few
>> > from the Gospels, but they are in the epistles, too.
>> >
>> > It's an easy study to do if you have a New King James,
>> > since the OT references are in italics.  An honest
>> > interpreter, after that study, should at least admit a
>> little
>> > difficulty in interepreting the prophecies of Matthew 24
>> > and Revelation, don't you think?
>> >
>> > Blessings,
>> > Terry
>> >
>> >
>> > --- Doug Skiles <skiles@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I just wanted to add this small but extremely important
>> >> comment which makes the premil position to be supported by
>> >> text.  If in the discussion to establish the A mil position
>> as
>> >> the genuine eschatology, one's hermeneutic allows for a
>> doing
>> >> away with the plain, literal sense, then "there is an end
>> to
>> >> all significance in language and Scripture is wiped out as
>> a
>> >> definite testimony to anything".-- Dean Henry Alford
>> >> There has to be a baseline for any measurement which
>> restrains
>> >> individual speculation as a tool of interpretation.  Why
>> would
>> >> anyone consent to distort words from their plain sense and
>> >> chronological place in the prophecy on account of
>> considering
>> >> a possible difficulty or "risk" of abuse which the doctrine
>> of
>> >> the millennium may bring with it.  --Dean Henry Alford.
>> >> Sincerely, Doug.
>> >> --
>> >> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> >> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>> >> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>> >>
>> >> To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> >> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >        Visit "Grace For Life"
>> >  An Oasis of Rest for the People of God
>> >  http://www.graceforlife.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
>> around
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>> > --
>> > Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> > http://www.soundofgrace.com
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>> > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>> >
>> > To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>>
>> To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>        Visit "Grace For Life"
>  An Oasis of Rest for the People of God
>  http://www.graceforlife.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>