Search results

True. It also says "now" and "when" in Psalm 12. This implies specific fulfilment.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good. Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Jesus...

It is what most Protestants believed before Dispensationalism took over.

So, you seem to have an anti-Protestant view. The fact is that I am referring to a classical Protestant view, which developed through time. As for having some source, your conclusion is wrong. In the discussion on Revelation 3, there are multitudes of sources (i.e. most say "cold =...

Protestant tradition is right in this regard. It is right to say that Protestant tradition did lead to the naming of the King James Bible as part of the interpretation of Revelation 10. KJBOs have done the same with Psalm 12.

So, according to Psalm 12:5, is it true to expect that now God will arise? And now meaning in this current evil generation?

Tradition is not a sure guide. However, it is not acceptable to doubt the Scripture. Jesus pointed to the cold category in Revelation 3, which means folks who are indifferent and outside Him. The new interpretation of saying that cold means refreshing should not be rejected merely because it is...

a. in regards to linking together Ps. 12 and Rev. 10 passages, I have seen no commentator. b. in regards to interpreting Ps. 12 prophetically I have seen no commentator. Those two facts do not make it wrong. Of course, I know your view is that I am wrong, therefore my view of (a.) and (b.)...

Just to reiterate, once again, for the willingly ignorant. I am not reading into Revelation 10 the Historicist interpretation. I am pointing to the existing interpretations of Revelation 10. Whereas, with Psalm 12 being prophetic, yes, I am interpreting that psalm specifically unlike how I have...

I have shown how the Protestant tradition (not, of course, universally) viewed Revelation 10. And I have also shown that there is a readiness to uphold more than a singular fulfilment/interpretation to various passages, as testified by eminent witnesses. This is false indeed: in fact the...

Yes, it is an ongoing promise. But, are you therefore going to disallow any specificity, e.g. it says "now" and it says "when". False again. The modernist hermeneutic "language rules" about reading in their meanings to original languages words is not "normal", as it is not the way Christians...

I don't hold the Historicist view as "the correct one" (singular), but a multiple fulfilments view which includes Historicism. Psalm 12 is prophetic in nature, and therefore is consistent with what broadly is called "multiple fulfilments". Content wise, Psalm 12 in the prophetic interpretation...

And yet I have said, over and again, that there is very strictly, limitedly, narrowly, the meaning of the Spirit. In the rigid, structured pattern of having two or three or four possible fulfilments, it is limited to the limits of them, and that's it. This is not a free for all. This is not to...

The words point to one object, which is the word "them". What you are actually saying is that you don't accept the Protestant interpretation of Revelation 10, besides the fact that you are unwilling to accept that Psalm 12 could be prophetic.

Your side is always misreading and (deliberately) missing the point. The point is that in his commentary on the four views, he lists one of the views as the Historicist view, and in the Historicist view of Revelation 10, the interpretation is of the Reformation and the Bible.

So, let's be clear, once again, since there is a barrage of ignorance from the other side: 1. Eminent Protestant commentators interpreted Revelation 10 to be the Reformation and the Bible. 2. Some lesser interpretors specifically name the King James Bible. 3. In his summary of the traditional...

By that standard: Most interpretors we would consider have said that cold is indifferent and bad. A few recent ones have said cold is good and refreshing. Now, going on your rule of "face value", you would have to favour cold is something bad. The plain reading, the very context of the...

I am not arguing for or against a majority view, except that I said that the "cold" of Rev. 3 is seen by many to be bad. Some do. That's true. What challenge, I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't ignored something I am not aware of in the first place.

Wrong. There is only one version being upheld, and it is the King James Version. The Protestants upheld the KJB for years, so it hardly requires "apostolic authority" to stick with the Protestant way.

Actually, Jesus will spue out the lukewarm, but what he wants is people for Him, not half for Him.