RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread

RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Prophecy & End Times

Message

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 5:20:59 PM)
quote: Futurists having given plenty of scripture, bygrace, and have dealt several times with your 'history'. Your claim is false here, I don't think saying "this didn't happen" or "it wasn't that bad" is dealing with it, so my claims are anything but false.

jazzact13 -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 5:45:10 PM)
quote: And where have I not? By making baseless insulting remarks about futurists. I'm willing to debate in a reasonable manner, but I'm finding your shtick tiresome. quote: Well that's funny Jazz because I have shown you numerous times throughout this discussion from the very beginning. No, you haven't. You have said that all the example I gave were judgments, but I can read them and see that this is not the case. Moreover, I can read them and see that they involve literal clouds. quote: No, they haven't. They gave scripture and then made up a whole dialogue and scenario which has nothing to do with the scripture given. I could make this exhibit A for "where you have not". quote: I don't think saying "this didn't happen" or "it wasn't that bad" is dealing with it, so my claims are anything but false. I think there is only response to this, and as it wasn't dealt with in the earlier post, here it is again... quote: III, X, 9 - Description of Country of Gennesareth Significance: The Lakes and Rivers Full of Blood, according to Prophecy - the quantity of blood is not as specified by either the second angel sounding his trumpet which has a huge mountain all ablaze thrown into the sea turning a third of it to blood. - nor is it total as with the bowl judgments of 16:3-4 which sees the sea and the rivers and springs of water turn to blood. What we have in this instance is a pitiful ship battle on a lake where the Romans vanquish 6,500 including the number that was killed in the city before. IV, IV, 3 - Jesus Makes a Speech to the Idumeans Significance: Revelation 11:1,2 I've skimmed over this long section and I can see no correspondence to the 42 months of the Gentiles which is part of the seventieth 'seven' nor anything about measuring or counting. This section describes some of the political intrigue going on within between the zealots and the city's government, by one Jesus, a high priest (but not our Lord Jesus). IV, IV, 5 - Manifest Indications of Coming Judgment Significance: Revelation 11:13 So the Idumeans hastily camped outside of Jerusalem and there was a terrible storm and an earthquake. This does not fulfill Rev 11:13 where a severe earthquake collapses a tenth of the city. Rather than kill 7000 like the Bible says, the conclusion these people draw is that "these wonders foreshadowed some grand calamities that were coming." IV, VI, 3 - Wickedness and Perversion of Seditious Jews Significance: Revelation 9:21 This is in conjunction with the sixth Trumpet of second Woe. Nowhere in this section do I see any plagues of God at work here. Now there is an account of barbarous action with the killing of Dolesus, but nothing speaking about their refusal to give up their magic arts or sexual immorality. V, I, 6 - The Makeup of the Roman Army Significance: Revelation 9:13-21 The number of the mounted troops in Revelation is 200 million. In Josephus' account there are 2000 from here and 3000 from there, but nowhere the number John says he heard in his heavenly vision. V, VI, 3 - Hailstones of One Hundred Pounds Thrown Upon City Significance: Revelation 16:21 In Revelation it is hailstones coming from the sky, in Josephus, it is a stone coming from a siege engine. This kind of weapon is common in war at that time. In Revelation, they curse God because of the hail coming from the sky. In the Roman siege, the Jews can see the stones coming at them because they are white so the Romans blacken the stones to the sentries on the towers can't see them coming. VI, II, 1 - Titus Gave Orders To Demolish Tower Of Antonia. Significance: The Ceasing of the "Daily Sacrifice", Fulfilling Daniel 9:27 Daniel 9:27 says: "In the middle of the `seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering." Now there is no peace treaty here yet in existence and Titus identifies the people from whom the ruler who will put an end to sacrifice and offering in the seventieth 'seven' comes from, but Titus does NOT cut off the daily sacrifice by demolishing the Tower of Antonia. Josephus says "...the sacrifice called the "Daily Sacrifice: had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it... He does not say Titus stops it. Titus is not yet in the city at this point and is still trying to convince the Jews to give up. Titus even offers through Josephus as a messenger that John could "offer the sacrifices which were now discontinued by any of the Jews whom he should pick. It is very important here to note that Josephus states that Titus says he has no intention of defiling the Temple, "nor thereby offend against God." Titus is not the anti-Christ. VI, III, 4 - Account of infanticide and cannibalism Significance: Fulfillment of Revelation 9:6, In Josephus, "So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die, and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough to hear or to see such miseries. In Revelation: "They (the locusts) were not given power to kill them, but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes a man. 6 During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them. In the one we have the natural consequence of siege warfare. This happened all the time, even Sun-Tzu wrote about such dire circumstances in their siege warfare in China. Life was rough back then, we have it easy. On the other hand with prophesy, these locusts come out of the abyss and torment people. VI, VI, 1 - Ensigns carried to the Temple, Acclamations to Titus. Significance: Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 The ensigns are not an idol abomination. The Temple has already been burned, and these ensigns are put "near to its eastern gate; and there they did offer sacrifices to them" Also, the soldiers do this, not Titus. Daniel 11:31 is a specific reference to Antiochus which serves as lens for dual focus going to the end-time anti-Christ. Daniel 9:27 is a great abomination. Rev 13:15 and 2Th 2:4 show us how great and terrible this idol is. Daniel 12:11 is the most generic reference to the abomination-desolator in the Hebrew and is in answer to a question so that it does not give us more information about it, but instead uses the timing of it to give more detail on the days to come at the end of the seventieth 'seven.' VI, VII, 3 - What Afterward Befell the Seditious Significance: Revelation 6:16 This is in response to how they accepted defeat (not well, so Titus was moved to indignation against them). "...the tyrants and that crew of robbers who were with them was in the caves and caverns underground; where, if they could once fly, they did not expect to be searched for, but tried, that after the whole city should be destroyed, and the Romans gone away, they might come out again and escape from them." These people are hiding from the Romans and hoping to live. Revelation 6:16 is about the Day of the Lord, and the people's response to the sun/moon/star event which will be going on then. These people are hiding from God and hoping for a quick death. They are not the same. VI, VIII, 3 - The Possessions of the City After Plunder Significance: Revelation 18:11-12 The list of goods that Capitalism trades in could also very well describe the contents of the World Trade Centers that came crashing down on 9-11. VII, II, 1 - Simon the Tyrant Taken, Reserved for Triumph Significance: Revelation 6:16, etc. Book 7 contains an interval of about three years. There has already been made one reference to Revelation 6:16 and said that verse is in conjunction with the Day of the Lord's sun/moon/star event. This isn't the Day of the Lord either. Mark T. The above is teleosis' work, not mine. It was the openning post to a thread that despite going for 11 pages never really dealt with the claims made by teleosis.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 8:40:28 PM)
They were dealt with and I have no idea what your point is above, except to either say that the writings of Josephus do not prove anything, which is the same claim that those who say there is no holocaust make.

sooner -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 9:04:46 PM)
quote: Glad to see that this how you plan to 'win' the debate, sooner--basically ignore the evidence against your claims, and keep claiming your claims anyway. Do you work for the New York Times? Dan Rather? Howard Dean? or even Michael Moore? I'm not playing that game with you, sooner, and I'm not letting you off the hook. If you have problems with my evidence, prove why. Simply giving implied insults is hardly becoming, nor is it sufficient. My first observation is I wonder what you used as proof before Ice and LaHaye wrote their book. You seem to argue from their book, not your own understanding. Perhaps we can have a cut and paste competition? quote: "'Engys' is used twice in the book of Revelation. In fact, the word 'engys' bookends Revelation in 1:3 and 22:10. The apostle writes, "Blessed in he who reads and those who hera the words of the prophecy, and heed the things that are written in it; for the time is 'near' (1:3). At the end of the book an angel speaks to John and says, "Do not seal up the words of ths prophecy of the book, for the time is 'near'... G5034 τάχος tachos takh'-os From the same as G5036; a brief space (of time), that is, (with G1722 prefixed) in haste: - + quickly, + shortly, + speedily. Yes, the events of Revelation were quickly approaching and shortly to occur. Now, lets use your method of interpretation: Act 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither. Lets see, he is not saying he is leaving soon but rather when he does leave it will be in a dead sprint. Does that about sum it up? 1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. Paul is not saying he will come to them in the near future, but rather that when he comes he will be sprinting. Correct? That Paul was quite an athlete. Phi 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. Apparently Paul taught Timothy how to run as well. Those poor Philippians, they probably thought Paul meant Timothy was coming soon in the future. They didn’t know it meant when he does finally come, he will be running. Phi 2:24 But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. Paul was an amazing man. Beating, shipwrecks and imprisonments and he still manages to do wind sprints when entering a city. 2Ti 4:9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: Don’t worry about when you get here, just when you do make me proud and come running in. 2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Why, look what Wesley says about this: 2Pe 1:14 - Even as the Lord Jesus showed me - In the manner which had foretold, Joh_21:18, &c. It is not improbable, he had also showed him that the time was now drawing nigh. He equates shortly with drawing nigh. John Gill: 2Pe 1:14 - Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle,.... Which is another reason why the apostle was so pressing in this case, and so much urged the exhortation, and was so diligent in reminding the saints of it, and stirring them to observe it, because he knew he had but a little time to live Even dispie John MacArthur in his Study Bible says “anticipated dying soon”. Why would he say this? Because he knows when Paul said shortly it meant in the near future. Perhaps you can look in your LaHaye Prophecy Bible and see LaHaye’s comments on 2 Peter 1:14. Do you think he’ll interpret it the same way he does Rev 1:1,3? Probably not, not as much money in Paul having speedy process of dying. quote: "Many Greek scholars, both futurists and nonfuturists, agree that the idea of tachos here (Rev. 1:1) has to do with swiftness of execution when the prophetic events begin to take place... Fine, assuming everything they say is true, the events began taking place in the 1st century. No problem for preterist. quote: So, sooner, you think I'm wrong? Very well, here is your chance to prove it. Take your time, do your homework, and come prove me wrong. Mission Accomplished in a very “short” amount of time.

jazzact13 -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 9:17:40 PM)
quote: They were dealt with and I have no idea what your point is above, except to either say that the writings of Josephus do not prove anything, which is the same claim that those who say there is no holocaust make. That is a rather classless remark, bygrace. I have no knowledge of any futurist here saying that the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 did not happen, which if such were the case would to parallel to saying the Holocaust didn't happen; however, there is no rewriting of history in saying that AD70 did not fulfill prophecy, any more then any claiming that the Holocaust did not fulfill prophecy. Your rhetoric is becoming extreme here, bygrace. Cool it, and get your mind back in the topic. quote: My first observation is I wonder what you used as proof before Ice and LaHaye wrote their book. So I use sources, sooner, thus that make me stupid? So I try to learn, does that make me somehow unable to comment? So I seek knowledge, sooner, does that make me unfit? Where did you gain your own knowledge of whatever your views are? Does study and research and learning make your claim null and void? How about this, sooner--deal with the content, and not the sources, ok? Gotta go, I'll continue later

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 10:33:35 PM)
quote: That is a rather classless remark, bygrace. I have no knowledge of any futurist here saying that the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70 did not happen, Then you are either in denial or haven't read the posts. I think it is anything but classless, it's true. quote: Your rhetoric is becoming extreme here, bygrace. Cool it, and get your mind back in the topic. I disagree that it is either rhetoric or extreme. If you want to see extreme look at some of the titles on this thread. That is extreme and it's time it was shown for what it is. And just look at your posts on this thread alone Jazz, that is not rhetoric IYO? To you it is truth, the same with my posts. I was futurist(dispensationlist) for many years, so I'm not just talking out the top of my hat.

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/9/2006 10:35:43 PM)
If you don't know why sooner would have a problem with LaHaye and Ice then there are some real issues to be dealt with.

Ps103 -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 8:45:29 AM)
Is it possible to have this conversation without resorting to snideness and namecalling? I think it should be...if we try.

JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 10:29:58 AM)
Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view.

Hattie4Him -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:18:57 AM)
Can ya'll Temporary put aside the debate going on for a question? NaturalBranch (New Member---Post #18) asked, "My question to the Preterist is, now what? What happens next? The world keeps on going? Then what?" As usual the answers given have fallen short, stand incomplete and inadequate for a satisfactory understanding. Therefore, let me ask the same question, in another way: It is my, and other Pre-mils, understanding that Post-mils believe the Great Tribulation happened in 70 A.D., that Satan was bound/chained and put in the Abyss (bottomless pit) for a thousand years (he can't deceive the saints), and that This IS the millennium. Now if Post-mil means Past the millennium; on the other side of the millennium---- How can it still be the millennium? If Satan is still chained/bound and in the bottomless pity---- How can it be Post (Past)-millennium? On-the-other-hand, if it is Post-mil and Satan has been released from his chains for a season (can deceive the saints)---- How can THIS BE the millennium NOW; if there is nothing left but the Second Coming? Anyone willing to explain which it is; Pre-mil (futurist ??), The-mil (futurist ??), Post-mil (futurist ??---looking for the Second Coming), OR is THIS 'the new heaven and new earth (preterist ??) ?

Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hattie4Him Can ya'll Temporary put aside the debate going on for a question? NaturalBranch (New Member---Post #18) asked, "My question to the Preterist is, now what? What happens next? The world keeps on going? Then what?" As usual the answers given have fallen short, stand incomplete and inadequate for a satisfactory understanding. I wasn't gonna come back but I had a thought as I've thought about what has been discussed here. There was a purpose why God established Israel as a theocracy under the Old Covenant. I believe that since the Old is now obselete, the Israel of God in the New Covenant fulfills the actual role that the carnal pattern represented, but had flaws. Those in the kingdom of God are kings and priests before their God. I just thought that the kingdom of God being among us (the real thing, not the Old Covenant pattern) means something. I can't fully grasp what little bit of a truth I may have caught for a moment. Yes, it could sound like "replacement" theology. But I believe there is something more which I haven't quite comprehended or understood yet. Carry on...I'll probably still just browse when I have time.

Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:28:11 AM)
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE sooner, A Personal Message (PM) has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:29:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bygraceiamsaved They were dealt with and I have no idea what your point is above, except to either say that the writings of Josephus do not prove anything, which is the same claim that those who say there is no holocaust make. This is twisting someone's statements. If you can't refrain from this sort of response then it would be best for you to steer clear of this topic. Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:30:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jazzact13 Your rhetoric is becoming extreme here, bygrace. ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE Referring to another's statement in this manner is considered inflammatory and may result in action taken in accordance with the Terms of Service. Please curb your participation accordingly. Please do not reply to this message within the Community. Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns. Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.

JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:37:09 AM)
Hattie, Postmillenialism is a reactionary term to Premillenialism. The word itself does not truly represent the doctrine. Your summation: quote: "...the Great Tribulation happened in 70 A.D., that Satan was bound/chained and put in the Abyss (bottomless pit) for a thousand years (he can't deceive the saints), and that This IS the millennium." ... is accurate. Postmill does not hold that we live after the millenium, but that we live in the millenium, therefore the name is somewhat of an inaccurate reflection of the doctrine. Intramillenialism might be a better view. It was Premillenials who misnamed Postmillenials due to a strawman understanding of the doctrine. (Its like Baptists and Methodists... both were named by someone else other than themselves). Preterists are postmillenialists. Traditional or historical Postmill held that the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope were the Antichrist. This is reflected in Calvin and the Westminster Confession. Preterists hold to most of the historical doctrines of Hist. Postmill. True Preterists (partial Preterists) believe that Matt. 24 and most of Revelation are fulfilled prophecy. Hyper-Preterists believe all prophecy is fulfill, which eliminates the Kingdom, the Church, Coming Judgment, the Resurrection, etc. True Preterists do not hold this view. A "futurist" is a person who holds to a view of the Kingdom exclusively (there is a great deal of oscillation over this determinative) in the future. This includes Premillenialists of all types (Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, and Post-Trib). Amillenialists believe that the Kingdom is completely spiritual (abstract, actually) in nature, figurative and representative and that the world will go on like it is now pretty much forever (as do the Pantelists, or Hyper-Preterists). There is a lot of variation in Amill. Most of them consider themselves to be (tongue-in-cheek) Panmills, meaning that it doesn't really matter and will all "pan out" in the end. This view denies the efficacy of much Scripture. If God has revealed things to his Church, nothing in Scripture is unimportant. I hope this helps. I'm sure many "aetos" will be swinging in to amend this post.

JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 11:41:31 AM)
quote: NaturalBranch (New Member---Post #18) asked, "My question to the Preterist is, now what? What happens next? The world keeps on going? Then what?" 1 Cor. 15:20-28 (ESV) But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [27] For " God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. [28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. Question to the appropriate futurists, if all our hopes are pinned on his Return, What about now?

bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 1:41:07 PM)
JoTop: I believe you have represented all views, especially the partial preterist view very well. [sm=thumbsup.gif]

RJR_fan -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 2:30:08 PM)
quote: Now if Post-mil means Past the millennium; on the other side of the millennium---- How can it still be the millennium? If Satan is still chained/bound and in the bottomless pity---- How can it be Post (Past)-millennium? We anticipate our Lord's physical return AFTER the church age, the missionary age, the current age. The binding of Satan is in a very restricted and specific sense -- he can no longer decieve the nations. In other words, this is our "window of opportunity" to make disciples of all nations. And how do we bring the nations under the discipline of God's Kingdom? By preaching, teaching, and baptizing 'em. As the church is faithful to proclaim the word and administer the sacraments, church members are empowered to pursue their callings in a godly way. Whether they are called to serve God's glory as shoemakers or magistrates or jurors.

LoyalGypsy -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 2:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zachmarko quote: ORIGINAL: Hattie4Him Can ya'll Temporary put aside the debate going on for a question? NaturalBranch (New Member---Post #18) asked, "My question to the Preterist is, now what? What happens next? The world keeps on going? Then what?" As usual the answers given have fallen short, stand incomplete and inadequate for a satisfactory understanding. I wasn't gonna come back but I had a thought as I've thought about what has been discussed here. There was a purpose why God established Israel as a theocracy under the Old Covenant. I believe that since the Old is now obsolete, the Israel of God in the New Covenant fulfills the actual role that the carnal pattern represented, but had flaws. Those in the kingdom of God are kings and priests before their God. I just thought that the kingdom of God being among us (the real thing, not the Old Covenant pattern) means something. I cannot fully grasp what little bit of a truth I may have caught for a moment. Yes, it could sound like "replacement" theology. But I believe there is something more, which I have not quite comprehended or understood yet. Carry on...I'll probably still just browse when I have time. John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." Greetings, quote: I believe that since the Old is now obsolete, the Israel of God in the New Covenant fulfills the actual role that the carnal pattern represented, but had flaws. If one takes notice to John 10 verse 16, there is no separation of the flock, it does mention however “other sheep” that are not of this fold” (gentile) and “them also I must bring” IMHO this does not do away with the fact that there are two folds of sheep Jesus is speaking of, and one does not replace the other according to “them also I must bring” According to John 10:16. How is it that the new Israel? As you mentioned above has any basis in biblical truth? Loyal Gypsy

Hattie4Him -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 3:11:02 PM)
JoToP, I must confess this left me with more question marks than answers: quote: Postmill does not hold that we live after the millenium, but that we live in the millenium, therefore the name is somewhat of an inaccurate reflection of the doctrine. Intramillenialism might be a better view. Are you saying the Second Coming comes before Satan is loosed to deceive the saints, at the end of the thousand years? Are you saying the millennium will still be the millennium when Satan is deceiving the saints (after the thousand years has expired)? OR are you saying that Satan will not be loosed to deceive the saints? I'm not sure what you mean here. "Preterists are postmillenialists. Traditional or historical Postmill held that the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope were the Antichrist. This is reflected in Calvin and the Westminster Confession. Preterists hold to most of the historical doctrines of Hist. Postmill. True Preterists (partial Preterists) believe that Matt. 24 and most of Revelation are fulfilled prophecy." Being Post-mil at the beginning, I believed and knew all the Creeds, Confession of Faith, and etc. by heart (Not lip service) ---but it lacked for me; it wasn't enough; so I changed to Pre-mil (actually Mid-trib.). Among other things, I don't believe the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24) happened in 70 A.D.; however I do believe it was Perilous times that brought forth the end of that age and usher in the kingdom age. "A "futurist" is a person who holds to a view of the Kingdom exclusively (there is a great deal of oscillation over this determinative) in the future. This includes Premillenialists of all types (Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, and Post-Trib)." I hold to a view the kingdom is Now; the millennium is in the future. "Panmills, meaning that it doesn't really matter and will all "pan out" in the end. This view denies There is a lot of variation in Amill. Most of them consider themselves to be (tongue-in-cheek) the efficacy of much Scripture". I always understood "Pan-mil" was a person who exclusively believed the Rapture and/or Second Coming would all "Pan-out"; Not an A-mill. "If God has revealed things to his Church, nothing in Scripture is unimportant." I AGREE!!

Hattie4Him -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 3:22:45 PM)
quote: We anticipate our Lord's physical return AFTER the church age, the missionary age, the current age. The binding of Satan is in a very restricted and specific sense -- he can no longer decieve the nations. In other words, this is our "window of opportunity" to make disciples of all nations. And how do we bring the nations under the discipline of God's Kingdom? By preaching, teaching, and baptizing 'em. As the church is faithful to proclaim the word and administer the sacraments, church members are empowered to pursue their callings in a godly way. Whether they are called to serve God's glory as shoemakers or magistrates or jurors. GREAT POST!!! I AGREE with this 100%!! However, I believe there will be a space between the church age, the missionary age, the current age--- and our Lord's physical return; which will not be a millennium age either. See, I have a problem---I don't see the kingdom and the millennium as the same thing. You said, *"The binding of Satan is in a very restricted and specific sense -- he can no longer decieve the nations."* And I DO agree---for now; but will be able to again after the thousand years when he is loosed.

jazzact13 -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 3:33:47 PM)
I will be more careful then, fritz, and I apologize. quote: G5034 τάχος tachos takh'-os From the same as G5036; a brief space (of time), that is, (with G1722 prefixed) in haste: - + quickly, + shortly, + speedily First, sooner, might I ask you to check the font size when you post? Your past couple of posts have been in a font size that is smaller then usual, and it is a a bit more difficult to read. I do give you credit for going to the original language, which has not often happened; however, I do not think that you have yet dealt with the words used in Revelation. Rev 1:3 uses 'en tachei'. Also, although the excerpt from my post that you quoted was about 'engys', I couldn't see any place where that was dealt with. quote: Fine, assuming everything they say is true, the events began taking place in the 1st century. No problem for preterist. But if the original words should not be translated as, for example, 'soon', will you agree to not reference them in trying to support preterism?

LoyalGypsy -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 3:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JoToP Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view. Greetings, Thanks for the info... As Taken from this web site, http://www.preterist.org/articles/seraiah_response_ch6.asp quote: In Matthew 16: 27-28, Christ is again speaking to the twelve this time in the area of Caesarea Philippi. Peter has just made his statement as to the identity of Christ. (16: 13-17). As Christ continues to speak to the twelve (and not to anyone else in a supposed futuristic context), He says: "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27- 28) If one reads the rest of the whole picture in that web site philosophy I still cant find where in scripture Jesus said anything other than John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. The Holy Spirit or the one who will leads us into all truth is not the second coming, it is not Jesus according to the second coming as one can read for themselves in John 15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. The Spirit of truth proceeds from the father (Read Genesis 1:1) the Spirit testifies of Christ. Again I ask to whomever is willing to give an example where in scripture did Christ’s Second Coming occur? According to the preterists view in Light and According to John 16:7 and John 15:26 it says he went away and sent another, so one must assume that he has not yet returned and will not return until the Holy Spirit is finished teaching us that truth which proceeds from God. IMHO that link to God, (silver cord) which is Jesus after our own kind, is still in the working (salvation) phase, once that link is severed the world will know it. Ec 12:6 - Show Context Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Loyal Gypsy

Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 5:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy How is it that the new Israel? As you mentioned above has any basis in biblical truth? Perhaps we should discuss that question HERE.

Hattie4Him -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/10/2006 5:25:29 PM)
quote: I don't see the kingdom and the millennium as the same thing. Let me clarify. The millennium, to me, happens when this church age has ended and Hebrews 8:10-13, and 10:16 is ushered in; a time when, *"And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying get to know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."*---that tells me the "window of opportunity" --- preaching and teaching will wax old and vanish away.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI