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

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



Message

Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 7:49:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bible Thumper
I have not seen in this forum one single preterist converted to futurism as a result of the mountain of evidence that someone has presented. Nor have I seen the reverse take place.

BT


I "converted" during my time here. I don't think I knew anything like preterism existed before I joined this community. I had those questions in the back of my mind, though, like ones about "this generation", "shortly", "at hand" while trying to fit them all in with my more dispensational eschatology.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 9:25:55 AM)

Sooner,
quote:

Then Jesus hasn’t abolished death?

I agree that Christ has abolished death in the spiritual and moral sense of the word as you point out with good biblical references. Yet, death, as Christ's enemy has not been destroyed and will not be destroyed until the end of time when Christ resurrects the dead:
1 Cor. 15:22-28 (ESV)
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 (future) 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."

This has not happened yet. People still die.

Fullpreterist,
quote:

and His return in glory for His Bride


This is future. Indeed Christ returned within the generation to whom he spoke, but his coming was in vengeance against the blood of the righteous and all of the the blood of the righteous was culminated in those who shed his blood. That generation was marked because they took the sin of their fathers to the full extreme. Their fathers had killed the prophets who foretold the coming of Christ. That generation killed the Christ whom the prophets had foretold. The coming of Christ is specific to the vengenace and the necessary closing of the Old Covenant Age. The Bride is in New Covenant with Christ and has passed on beyond the Old Covenant and subsists within the stipulations of the New Covenant. Christ did not return to take his Bride. He will do that at the end of this age. The end of Revelation represents the Bride descending, not ascending. After the destruction of the Old Order the City of God is planted in renewed earth where it has been ever since.

Hattie,
quote:

JoTop,
RE: #87
Sorry to hear you had a virus, but glad to know you are recovering, and are back.

VERY GOOD POST!!

Thanks, and I feel much better. Next time I play hosty to a housefull of party animals (viruses), I'm going to ask them to kindly clean up after themselves.

quote:

Since I do not understand the 'true' Preterist, Hyper-preterist or Pantelists views---I can't even figure out how they're all 'Post-mil'--- Would you clarify the above area; namely, who believes what in 'this' area.


It helps to think of it chronologically, at least to me it does, seeing I'm a history teacher. The original eschatology of the Church was what we now call Postmillenialism. It was corrupted by an early form of futurism as early as the Ante-Nicene Period which took place between the deaths of the Apostles and the time of Constantine (4th century A.D.) The Roman Catholic Church created futuristic interpretations to New Testament prophecy in order to shed a positive light on Rome, which the Constantinian Church had come to see as the necessary infrastructure of the Church. Since the Bible cast Rome as a beast from Daniel through Revelation and enemy of God and his people, the cosmopolitan western church threw the beast and antichrist into the future in order to "clean up" and use the Roman system as a political engine to sequester ecclesiastical power to the Roman church. To the more lucid dioceses of those times, Rome was clearly fixed for divine destruction and to wed Rome amounted to ecclesiastical harlotry, yet this is what the western church centered in the city of Rome did over time until it did indeed control all of the churches of the west under the Pope.

Postmillenialism was recovered by the Reformers, who, interpreting history as I have given above, ascribed to the Pope the role of the Antichrist. As time has passed, a more sober view of Scripture has revealed that which is hinted at in early church writers, a view that the Scripture relating to Tribulation falls within the timeframe of the catechlismic end of the Old Covenant era with the divorce of the Israel and the unshackling of the Church from the commonwealth, cleansed by the blood of Christ, empowered over sin, and commissioned to preach the gospel with power to the whole world. This the Church has been doing ever since and the Gospel has now spread to every nation on earth. This view that the Tribulation took place in the first century is called Preterism. It does not hold that there is nothing left unfulfilled in prophecy. There is still much to come, the discipleship of the nations, the conquest of all of Christ's enemies, resurrection, final judgment...

Some extremists hold that all prophecy of Scripture is fulfilled and that everything in the book of Revelation is past and done. These call themselves Fullpreterists. They call us Partialpreterists. We call them Hyper-preterists, or Pantelists.

In summary:
I. Postmillennialism
A. Historical/confessional postmill.--- still believe the Pope is the antichrist. Not many of these left.
B. (Partial) Preterists--- believe all of Matt. 24 and Rev. 1-19 (parts of 20) are past tense.
C. (Hyper/full) Preterists [pantelists]--- believe all of Scripture is past tense, there is nothing left to be fulfilled. Including resurrection!



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 9:30:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zachmarko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bible Thumper
I have not seen in this forum one single preterist converted to futurism as a result of the mountain of evidence that someone has presented. Nor have I seen the reverse take place.

BT


I "converted" during my time here. I don't think I knew anything like preterism existed before I joined this community. I had those questions in the back of my mind, though, like ones about "this generation", "shortly", "at hand" while trying to fit them all in with my more dispensational eschatology.


Good news. Thanks for this post.



sooner -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 10:56:57 AM)

quote:

I agree that Christ has abolished death in the spiritual and moral sense of the word as you point out with good biblical references. Yet, death, as Christ's enemy has not been destroyed and will not be destroyed until the end of time when Christ resurrects the dead:


You assume that the death Christ abolished is a different death than what Paul refers to. As I noted, Paul quotes OT passages dealing with spiritual death not physical.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

quote:

1 Cor. 15:22-28 (ESV)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.


Once again referring to spiritual death, not physical.

quote:

[24] Then comes the end,


Is this a different “end” than what Peter spoke of?

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.


quote:

Indeed Christ returned within the generation to whom he spoke, but his coming was in vengeance against the blood of the righteous and all of the the blood of the righteous was culminated in those who shed his blood.


So the NT teaches more than one future coming of Christ?


jazzact13 where are you????



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 11:20:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sooner
You assume that the death Christ abolished is a different death than what Paul refers to. As I noted, Paul quotes OT passages dealing with spiritual death not physical.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This passage does not deal with Christ’s final victory over death. It deals with his initial victory of Satan. If Satan once possessed the power of death, Christ demonstrates that he possesses that power by using it against Satan. There is a change of management here. Satan is no longer in control, Christ is. Death is not destroyed completely, it is brought under Christ’s reign. That’s all.
quote:

1 Cor. 15:22-28 (ESV)
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Once again referring to spiritual death, not physical.

Is it? Is it only referring to “spiritual” death and not to all death by extension? I think you are not reading carefully. The idea that exclusive “spiritual” death is the subject is made null by Paul’s exhaustive explanation of physical resurrection, which is where Paul was aiming all through the chapter. Read vs.35 and onward. The word “soma” is used frequently here, referring to the body, types of bodies. This is physical resurrection and it is physical resurrection that Christ will use as the demonstration of the abolition of all death, spiritual and physical. The primacy of Christ over spiritual death through the work of the cross has eliminated the sting of death. But death, though to the believer it has no sting, still exists. This is why we die... physically. This is what 1 Cor. 15 is about.
quote:

[24] Then comes the end,

Is this a different “end” than what Peter spoke of?

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

Yes. It is a different end. The above passage refers to the end of the Old Covenant Age. This is why the word “aion” is often used in the New Testament instead of “cosmos”. It is an eon or age that the Apostles saw as coming to an end in their approximate time. The “end” in 1 Cor.15 is contextually referring to the end of the world itself because it explicitly shows the wrapping up of the Kingdom and translation of the same over into the hands of the Father, etc... Christ’s whole work for which he reigns will be finished when death is destroyed through the Resurrection of his people.

quote:

So the NT teaches more than one future coming of Christ?

No. Where did you get that? It teaches one future to the foundational church of the first century and near at hand to them and another future to us... the last coming.



sooner -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 4:57:03 PM)


quote:

Death is not destroyed completely, it is brought under Christ’s reign. That’s all.


I don’t know, “abolished” seems to sum it up for me:

2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

G2673
καταργέω
katargeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish

quote:

Is it? Is it only referring to “spiritual” death and not to all death by extension?


The context of death and resurrection is "Adam’s death”.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Prove that “Adam’s death” brought about physical death.

quote:

The primacy of Christ over spiritual death through the work of the cross has eliminated the sting of death. But death, though to the believer it has no sting, still exists.



1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Why does Paul associate physical death with the Law?
Why does Paul quote Hosea which refers to spiritual death?


quote:

Yes. It is a different end. The above passage refers to the end of the Old Covenant Age. This is why the word “aion” is often used in the New Testament instead of “cosmos”.


True, but Peter doesn’t use “aion”, he says “all things”.

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

quote:

The “end” in 1 Cor.15 is contextually referring to the end of the world itself because it explicitly shows the wrapping up of the Kingdom and translation of the same over into the hands of the Father,


Where does the Bible speak of the “end of the world”?

quote:

quote:

So the NT teaches more than one future coming of Christ?

No. Where did you get that?


From you,

Indeed Christ returned within the generation to whom he spoke, but his coming was in vengeance against the blood of the righteous and all of the the blood of the righteous was culminated in those who shed his blood.

So was AD70 a parousia of Christ?



Stimpy -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 5:09:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zachmarko

I "converted" during my time here. I don't think I knew anything like preterism existed before I joined this community. I had those questions in the back of my mind, though, like ones about "this generation", "shortly", "at hand" while trying to fit them all in with my more dispensational eschatology.


Let's compromise for a second. Apparently you are a "Preterist" if I read your post correctly, I am not. But what we should be able to agree on is that Christ is speaking about a generation that would witness those events. We BOTH should agree this is true. Where we DIFFER is that you ASSUME that because Christ was speaking TO that particuliar group at THAT particuliar time, that therefore this means He was ALSO speaking ABOUT them as well and use the references to "this generation" etc. to back it up. "This generation" also, IN CONTEXT, can be use to reference the generation He JUST DESCRIBED! It doesn't HAVE TO mean the one He's speaking to. To ASSUME that is to assume that the Bible somehow means less to us than it did to them. In other words, why couldn't Christ be telling them this KNOWING *WE*, the "target audience", would eventually read it ourselves?!? That's not to say it meant nothing to them quite the contrary, it provided them HOPE that things would eventually get better! What seem to be forgotten by Preterists though is that Matthew 24 is Christ's ANSWER to a QUESTION asked by the diciples - "What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?". Just because Jesus answered it, doesn't automatically mean it was referring to THEIR generation. When would you EXPECT Jesus to relate these things to us but when He was PHYSICALLY HERE?!? And to those who think "soon" and "at hand" means 2,000 or so years is way to long, as many of you have undoubtedly heard before (even from me), 2 Peter 3 adequately addresses your "mocking". Also in context, for the generation WITNESSING THESE EVENTS, such things will be "at hand", "at the door", etc.

Eventually we'll undoubtedly get to the passage about the "Transfiguration" as well in re to the "some of you here not taste death til you see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" but for sake of time, I'll wait to see it raised (or raised again as I haven't read EVERY post in here yet but already know what to expect to see having been here before).



Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 7:33:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stimpy

quote:

ORIGINAL: zachmarko

I "converted" during my time here. I don't think I knew anything like preterism existed before I joined this community. I had those questions in the back of my mind, though, like ones about "this generation", "shortly", "at hand" while trying to fit them all in with my more dispensational eschatology.


Let's compromise for a second. Apparently you are a "Preterist" if I read your post correctly, I am not.


You are correct. I am a preterist.

quote:

But what we should be able to agree on is that Christ is speaking about a generation that would witness those events. We BOTH should agree this is true.


Agreed.

quote:

Where we DIFFER is that you ASSUME that because Christ was speaking TO that particuliar group at THAT particuliar time, that therefore this means He was ALSO speaking ABOUT them as well and use the references to "this generation" etc. to back it up.


I'm not assuming, I'm taking Jesus' words for what they are. To do anything other than that is eisegesis.

Matthew 16:27-28, "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."

This coming in his kingdom was a coming with angels. A coming when he would reward every man according to his works. Some of those standing there listening to Jesus' words would witness that event.

No assumptions there. Just taking Jesus at his word.

quote:

"This generation" also, IN CONTEXT, can be use to reference the generation He JUST DESCRIBED!


It did.

quote:

It doesn't HAVE TO mean the one He's speaking to.


Matthew 3:7 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Which generation was Jesus talking to here? What was that generation supposed to experience? The wrath to come?

Matthew 11:16-24, "But whereunto shall I liken this generation?"

Which generation was Jesus talking to here?

Continuing on...

"...It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

What was coming upon that generation?

Judgment?


quote:

To ASSUME that is to assume that the Bible somehow means less to us than it did to them.


I feel more safe taking Jesus words for what they are. You are the one who is actually in the position of assumption, because you take them to mean something else.

quote:

In other words, why couldn't Christ be telling them this KNOWING *WE*, the "target audience", would eventually read it ourselves?!?


Because he didn't. Because he spoke of judgment upon that generation. He wasn't ignorant of the destruction that was about to befall the apostate nation. Why wouldn't he tell his friends about it.

Concerning the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the Lord said:

"And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do". (Gen. 18:17)

Do you think the Lord would hide such a thing from his friends concerning the destruction of the Jewish system and the death of so many people of what was known to many as God's chosen people?


quote:

That's not to say it meant nothing to them quite the contrary, it provided them HOPE that things would eventually get better! What seem to be forgotten by Preterists though is that Matthew 24 is Christ's ANSWER to a QUESTION asked by the diciples - "What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?". Just because Jesus answered it, doesn't automatically mean it was referring to THEIR generation.


But that's what he said.

quote:

When would you EXPECT Jesus to relate these things to us but when He was PHYSICALLY HERE?!? And to those who think "soon" and "at hand" means 2,000 or so years is way to long, as many of you have undoubtedly heard before (even from me), 2 Peter 3 adequately addresses your "mocking".


I'm not mocking kind sir/miss. Just taking Jesus' words as they are.

quote:

Also in context, for the generation WITNESSING THESE EVENTS, such things will be "at hand", "at the door", etc.


They did. Also, he said he was coming "quickly".

quote:

Eventually we'll undoubtedly get to the passage about the "Transfiguration" as well in re to the "some of you here not taste death til you see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" but for sake of time, I'll wait to see it raised (or raised again as I haven't read EVERY post in here yet but already know what to expect to see having been here before).


I already answered this above. That coming was with angels, and it was a time of judgment. The transfiguration was not such an event.



PolarBear -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 8:03:50 PM)

For the record, I also "converted" during my time here, although my position is not 100% refined. I had always assumed some form of premil was true, because it was all I ever heard, and was trying to work out which "--trib" position had the most support. At first I thought all preterist positions were totally wacko. After reading several explanations, the lightbulb finally came on when I saw how Revelation 19-20 fit together in a postmil view. Combining that with Psalm 110:1, the stone growing to fill the whole earth in Daniel 2, the ever-widening river of life in Ezekiel 47, and Jesus' Kingdom parables of the yeast mixing in through all the dough and the huge shade tree in Matt 13, and the "big picture" came into view pretty clearly. God intends His kingdom to dominate the earth, but it will be a gradual process!

I kind of accepted partial preterism more because it's a necessary corallary to the "big picture" of postmillennialism, not because I'm all that thrilled with preterism itself. It still seems to me like there's good evidence for the late dating of Revelation, and I'm somewhat uncomfortable with Daniel's 70 weeks being fulfilled in AD70. Putting an end to sin? Huh???

JoToP, what documentation do you have that postmil was the first position held by the early church? Just curious...



Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/16/2006 9:54:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PolarBear
It still seems to me like there's good evidence for the late dating of Revelation, and I'm somewhat uncomfortable with Daniel's 70 weeks being fulfilled in AD70.


Hello! Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think we've conversed much here yet and I thought your post was encouraging. I'd recommend Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.'s book, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, for a partial preterist's defense for an early dating of Revelation. I believe I purchased it HERE in the past.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 10:51:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sooner
You assume that the death Christ abolished is a different death than what Paul refers to. As I noted, Paul quotes OT passages dealing with spiritual death not physical.

Your post is taking a blatantly blind view to evident reality. People die. It also is as blind to biblical truth, Christ's victory over death is not final. Your dichotomy of death that assumes that the Bible has nothing to say about physical death is a blind view, it ignors the bodily resurrection of Christ, Lazarus, and nullifies the future resurrection of the saints. I say again, and I'll leave you where you stand, 1 Corintians 15 is about PHYSICAL resurrection. "Soma" mean body, not spirit. You're looking for proof of your own agenda. You need to look at all of the text. Indeed Jesus has abolished death (I'm repeating myself), but that is not comprehensive. If it were, people would not be dying, there would be no dead spirits (unregenerate unbelievers), no future references to his final victory over death by resurrection, etc. (Amazing to me how some people will say the sky is not blue if their opponent can use that fact in his argument.) The abolition of death is not its destruction, it is the taking away of its eminent power. A king can be abolished without being obliterated. You're arguing Scripture with Scripture. I'm not.
quote:

Prove that “Adam’s death” brought about physical death.

Easy: Romans 5:12 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—


Of course, I realize you'll have that as spiritual death. The weight is on you to prove the qualifier though. Death is death. It may begin in the spirit, but it ends with the body. It won't end until the end. Rev.20:13.

PolarBear,
quote:

JoToP, what documentation do you have that postmil was the first position held by the early church? Just curious...

In the first place, it is within the embedded doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Church in general that the Kingdom of Christ was present active even though they did not have what we would recognize as a categorically systematic eschatology. The deaths of the martyrs is clear evidence of this view. I always wondered how the martyrs under the emperor worship cult of Rome should not have recanted a King Jesus who might reign 2000 or so years into their future. It would have been easy to save oneself from flame, lions or cross by claiming the deferment of the Kingdom to a later date. And why would the Emperor of Rome care that they worshiped a King God of the future? The angst of the emperors was that Christ was a present threat to their authority because the Christans claimed that he ruled THEN. That is what they died for. That is what they were killed for. It is blindness to and ignorance of church history to dismiss this. That notwithstanding, even Eusebius, as late as the fourth century takes exception to the growing futurist view of his time which, to his way of thinking, post-dated an earlier view of a present Kingdom doctrine. He says of Papias: "Papias reproduces other stories communicated to him by word of mouth, together with some otherwise unknown parables and teachings of the Saviour, and other things of a more allegorical character. He says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be period of a thousand years, when Christ's kingdom will be set up on this earth in material form. I suppose he got these notions by misinterpreting the apostolic accounts and failing to grasp what they had said in mystic and symbolic language(Apparantly Eusebius takes what is a popular view in his time that the word "signifying" [semaino] in Rev.1:1 sets forth the Revelation as being couched in symbolism). For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books. But it is partly due to him that the great majority of churchmen after him took the same view, relying on his early date (Papias proximity to the life of the apostles is meant here); e.g. Irenaeus and several others, who clearly held the same opinion." ("Vespasian to Trajan: Enemies within the Church", The History of the Church) Also, Augustine's City of God.
As for the date of the writing of Revelation, the late date is based solely on Irenaeus. But Irenaeus is not referring to the writing of Revelation when he mentions Domitian. He is referring to the duration of the life of John.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 10:59:47 AM)

PolarBear,

"Put an end to sin" in Daniel 9. The wording is not final as in the eradication of all sin. The phraseology is that of atonement. It is redemptive in nature. It is also directed at Daniel's people, so that the promise of redemption is promised to them within the period of the 70 so-called "weeks".



jazzact13 -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 11:47:39 AM)

quote:

Acts 12:7
And behold! An angel of the Lord stood by, and a light shone in the building. And striking Peter's side, he raised him up, saying, Rise up quickly! And his chains fell off his hands.

This can be used to prove both sides. It could mean that Peter was to rise in a quick manner or it could mean Peter was to rise immediately. Or it could mean both.


Reasonable, sooner, but I would say that at the least it can't be used to mean that Peter was to rise up soon--I think that by definition 'soon' does have the idea of a bit of a delay, while 'quickly' here has a sense of immediacy, as in "get up right now".

quote:

Acts 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

Doesn’t quickly mean soon here? Or does it mean whenever you decide to leave, perhaps a year from now, do it quickly?


I would say that in using 'quickly' it is refering to manner, not time.

quote:

Acts 25:4 Then indeed Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea; he himself would depart shortly.

Again, is it the “soonness” that is of importance or the “manner” when he decides to leave?


What are the words used, sooner? Also, consider verse 6, which says that he, Festus, didn't leave for at least ten days.

You make some good cases here, sooner, and I am impressed. But I'm not yet convinced. The first two you reference can be seen as involving manner, and in not involving any since of delay that seems to be inherent in the word 'soon' (to clarify, what kind of event would happen first--one the would happen 'immediately' or one that would happen 'soon'? When Peter and Paul are told to act 'quickly', I think that there is an immediacy to there actions that has more urgency then a 'soon' action would).

The third one is interesting, and one in which you may have a point. I will examine this further, and the rest of what you wrote. But I need to be going now.

Take care.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 1:23:19 PM)

Rev. 1:;22:6,7,10,12,20 (ESV)

Chapter 1:[1] The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. [3] Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.[7] Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. Chapter 21:[6] And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. " [7] " And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." [10] And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. [12] "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. [20] He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

What do you suppose he's trying to say???



Hattie4Him -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 5:37:53 PM)

JoToP…., Thank you; that was a great help!!
It looks like 98% of the Post-mils I've known; before changing to Pre-mil, and afterwards; were Historical/confessional and/or (Hyper/full) Preterists [pantalists].
One thing does bother me:
You wrote:
"B. (Partial) Preterists--- believe all of Matt. 24 and Rev. 1-19 (parts of 20) are past tense."

I keep hearing "all of Matthew 24", but I have yet to get anyone to answer---What about Mark 13 and/or Luke 21? It seems to work [past tense] for Matthew 24, but not for the other two. Can you explain?
Also I don't agree Rev. 1-19 (parts of 20) are past.

I found your posts to 'Sooner' and 'Fullpreterist' [#'s 102 & 105] very good and really interesting---many places I'm in agreement with you; but some in partial-disagreement, and some in full-disagreement---leastwise, I can't get it to compute as stands. Especially the reference or connection of 70 A.D and:


quote:

and the necessary closing of the Old Covenant Age. The Bride is in New Covenant with Christ and has passed on beyond the Old Covenant and subsists within the stipulations of the New Covenant. Christ did not return to take his Bride. He will do that at the end of this age. The end of Revelation represents the Bride descending, not ascending. After the destruction of the Old Order the City of God is planted in renewed earth where it has been ever since.


I believe this "closing of the Old Covenant Age. The Bride is in New Covenant with Christ and has passed on beyond the Old Covenant and subsists within the stipulations of the New Covenant. " is still future; at the end of 'this' age---which will usher in the millennium peroid/age.

Maybe it would be better for me to say---I disagree with the word "Past"; in transition---near completment but Not "Past". I connect Hebrews 8:11 and Ephesians 4:13 as a vital part of the New Covenant; these I have yet to see fullfilled, in the Bride.



FatherKnowsBest -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 7:00:18 PM)

Hi Jotop,

I glad that you are feeling better.
I don't have time right now to deal with your entire critique, but here's a short response.

According to you full-preterism is heterodoxy. But what is your standard of orthodoxy? The creeds? The creeds are subject to error just as with any document of man.

What would you say would be the unacceptable and heretical doctrines with respect to preterism?

When I came to the preterist position it was a gradual change. The biggest hurdle was accepting the resurrection as being fulfilled and the devil being in hell. But after trying very hard to find the word or phrase that would separate the coming of the Lord in 1 Thess. from the coming of the Lord in 2 Thess. I finally gave up an became a fullpreterist. The issue of not being able to find any reference to two different (2nd) comings coupled with the issue of what are we resurrected from, not to mention the timing of the whole thing, is why I adhere to this view.

The issue of ‘what are we resurrected from’ really is the issue of ‘where Christ is in this whole thing’. Jesus said He was the resurrection and the life. If Christ is in us and we are in Him then it follows that we have been resurrected from death unto life. If it is argued that Christ must be among us in physical form and we must be in a place where there is no physical or emotional pain, no hunger, no disease, no killing etc., then what is your idea of those people in heaven? Do they need to be resurrected from any kind of death? Do you believe they are disembodied spirits in need of their fleshly bodies again? What if they are given a spiritual body? Are they going to put off this body and put on the fleshly body again?

quote:

The hyper-preterist has left Satan bound, but not destroyed and has not accounted for the destruction of the last enemy, death. The resurrection clearly has not taken place because death still exists.

Actually, Satan is in hell. Why should the father of lies not be judged before his children? Death has been destroyed. Not physical death, of course, but that death that separates us from the Life. Wouldn’t you say that physical death is nothing when considered that it can never separate us from God? It only separates those who are already separated.



sooner -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/17/2006 8:42:52 PM)

quote:

Your post is taking a blatantly blind view to evident reality. People die. It also is as blind to biblical truth, Christ's victory over death is not final. Your dichotomy of death that assumes that the Bible has nothing to say about physical death is a blind view, it ignors the bodily resurrection of Christ, Lazarus, and nullifies the future resurrection of the saints. I say again, and I'll leave you where you stand, 1 Corintians 15 is about PHYSICAL resurrection. "Soma" mean body, not spirit. You're looking for proof of your own agenda. You need to look at all of the text. Indeed Jesus has abolished death (I'm repeating myself), but that is not comprehensive. If it were, people would not be dying, there would be no dead spirits (unregenerate unbelievers), no future references to his final victory over death by resurrection, etc. (Amazing to me how some people will say the sky is not blue if their opponent can use that fact in his argument.) The abolition of death is not its destruction, it is the taking away of its eminent power. A king can be abolished without being obliterated. You're arguing Scripture with Scripture. I'm not.


So I guess this means you’re not going to explain why Paul quotes Hosea?

quote:

Easy: Romans 5:12 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—


Of course, I realize you'll have that as spiritual death. The weight is on you to prove the qualifier though. Death is death. It may begin in the spirit, but it ends with the body. It won't end until the end. Rev.20:13.


Why don’t we just go where Paul goes, that is “Adam’s death”. Now from Genesis show me where physical death came as a result of Adam’s fall. Then explain to me what the Tree of Life provided.


quote:

Chapter 21:[6] And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. "


Is the resurrection covered in any place prior to Chapter 21?



CameronF -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 12:37:26 AM)

quote:

Cameron: I think you had better reread the early church fathers as 70 A.D. is mentioned as an important period.


Prove it.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 9:07:36 AM)

Hattie,
Yes, Preterists believe that all parallel passages to Matt.24 in the Gospels is past tense as well, including Mark 13 and Luke 17;21. Matt. 24 is singled out because it is the most direct statement answering the dispensation of Daniel 9. It brings Daniel to completion and breaks the seal put on Daniel 12.

quote:

Also I don't agree Rev. 1-19 (parts of 20) are past.

I didn’t use to either, but an understanding of how the eras turn over between Old and New Covenant brings the lights on brilliantly. I once held a fractious view where certain verses stood out in favor of futurism, but the intervening verses didn’t seem to fit. Now, it reads like a smooth whole.

quote:

I believe this "closing of the Old Covenant Age. The Bride is in New Covenant with Christ and has passed on beyond the Old Covenant and subsists within the stipulations of the New Covenant. " is still future; at the end of 'this' age---which will usher in the millennium peroid/age.

Well, with reference to the covenants, Hebrews 8 is very instructive: Verse13 states, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” The New Covenant is the one predicted by Jeremiah (31) in which it is defined that his law is written on his people’s hearts so that, by grace, we are able to obey him by the power of the Spirit. That speaks of present redemption. So, the Old Covenant with its sacrifices, priests, Temple, etc. is translated away from us and resides, as it were, in Christ in the heavenly Temple. In the New Covenant, we are his people and he is our God and we are kept from straying by a change of heart (“circumcision of the heart” as Moses put it, something the commonwealth of Israel did not have, though the law was incumbent upon them.)
quote:

Maybe it would be better for me to say---I disagree with the word "Past"; in transition---near completment but Not "Past". I connect Hebrews 8:11 and Ephesians 4:13 as a vital part of the New Covenant; these I have yet to see fullfilled, in the Bride.

Sure, there’s a connection between those verses in the overall scheme of redemption. But the “knowing him” is the response of the sheep to his call John 10:14 (ESV) “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,”... John 10:27-28 (ESV) “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. [28] I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” This is the Church under the New Covenant. It is a present reality. As for the unity of the Church, that is a progressive reality. The institution of the Church is like a covenantal justification (wrought in the Upper Room Discourse). The history of the Church is like a sanctification of the Church through time, a continual purifying and unifying of the Body.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 10:20:40 AM)

Larry,

quote:

I glad that you are feeling better.

Thank you. Praise the Lord!




quote:

According to you full-preterism is heterodoxy. But what is your standard of orthodoxy? The creeds? The creeds are subject to error just as with any document of man.

I make no apologies for holding to the Creeds and Confessions. They are the unified Voice of the Bride. If what you consider to be orthodox is simply reading the Bible, you’re wrong. God doesn’t come to his people looking for the Seed he has planted, he comes to his Bride looking for the plant it has produced and the fruit that plant bears and that is what the Creeds and Confessions do. This end-all, be all expression that the Creeds and Confessions are not inspired has nothing to do with this subject. This is not about Pharisaic Traditionalism, its about responding to the Call. Has the Holy Spirit exegeted his Word to the Church for the past 2000 years or is he just now speaking? Pantelism is just one other form of saying that the Church has not been properly taught throughout the ages and that only now, an insightful few are “getting it” for the first time. That’s where heterodoxy comes from.
quote:

What would you say would be the unacceptable and heretical doctrines with respect to preterism?

That there is no future judgment. This digs deeply into the doctrine of God. Without future judgment there is no final justice and if there is no final justice, God is not just. This idea that God culls to heaven out of a perpetually fallen world is a cheap victory which is no victory at all. The rebel dropping into hell one at a time while the living rebels continue to propagate their seed on and on is unjust. And if there is one thing the Bible assures the oppressed saint of on earth it is that justice will be irrevocably done and there will come a time when the “way of the ungodly shall perish”. Forever. Besides, The Church wants to be judged. We have something to show for the Seed, the persecution, the inner struggle, and all of the overbearing circumstances of living in the world of sin. We want to lay a treasure at the feet of Christ, the fulfillment of the Dominion Mandate, which is still binding on the head of humanity. We want Christ to search our bows for fruit because, unlike the Pharisaical Israel of Matt.23, we have fruit to give. That’s why we want judgment, too. And that’s why the early Church confessed “from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”
quote:

When I came to the preterist position it was a gradual change. The biggest hurdle was accepting the resurrection as being fulfilled and the devil being in hell.

I’ll say it’s a hurdle. Kind of hard to get a totally fulfilled resurrection when there’s still death in this world.
quote:

But after trying very hard to find the word or phrase that would separate the coming of the Lord in 1 Thess. from the coming of the Lord in 2 Thess. I finally gave up an became a fullpreterist. The issue of not being able to find any reference to two different (2nd) comings coupled with the issue of what are we resurrected from, not to mention the timing of the whole thing, is why I adhere to this view.

Context is the distinguishing factor, not syntax. There have been dozens of “comings” throughout history. I find no syntactical distinctions between those passages and the coming of the Lord in 2 Peter 1:16, but the context certainly reveals that it is referring to his Incarnation.
quote:

The issue of ‘what are we resurrected from’ really is the issue of ‘where Christ is in this whole thing’. Jesus said He was the resurrection and the life. If Christ is in us and we are in Him then it follows that we have been resurrected from death unto life. If it is argued that Christ must be among us in physical form and we must be in a place where there is no physical or emotional pain, no hunger, no disease, no killing etc.,

You’re chasing a wild goose. Paul answers simply what we are resurrected from and what we are resurrected to in 1 Cor. 15, a passage, by the way, that I have noticed full preterists tend to avoid. We are resurrected from corruption and to eternality. That is a present active condition and one Paul wanted to assure his readers was not permanent. And since the resurrection of the saints marks the event in which the final enemy is destroyed, it is an eschatological event and it has not happened yet. It is with resurrection that Christ will destroy death, then Death and Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire. The cosmic version is found in 2 Peter 3.
quote:

then what is your idea of those people in heaven? Do they need to be resurrected from any kind of death?

Yes.
quote:

Do you believe they are disembodied spirits in need of their fleshly bodies again?

Yes. So did Peter. 2 Peter 1:13-15 (ESV) “I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, [14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. [15] And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.” See Paul, also, 2 Cor. 5:1-10.
quote:

What if they are given a spiritual body?

Not yet. Hebrews 12:22-23 (ESV) “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, [23] and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,”
quote:

Are they going to put off this body and put on the fleshly body again?

They have no body to put off. They wait for their bodies. Otherwise why are they called “the dead in Christ”? What is it about them that is dead? Their bodies. But if they have a resurrected body now, why are they still called dead?

quote:

Actually, Satan is in hell.

No. Satan is in a pit (in a figure of speech), otherwise, how is it that he still “walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour? Revelation 20 has not yet been fulfilled. Satan has not yet been released from the pit to once again deceive the nations. That is future. And he is not cast into hell until after that event.
quote:

Why should the father of lies not be judged before his children?

He will be.
quote:

Death has been destroyed.

No it has not. It has been abolished, so to speak. What does that mean. Abolished is not a synonym to obliterate. It is a change of venue. Christ now holds the scepter of death. Its sting is removed to the saint. Yet, the saint still dies.
quote:

Not physical death, of course, but that death that separates us from the Life. Wouldn’t you say that physical death is nothing when considered that it can never separate us from God? It only separates those who are already separated.

Then why did Jesus weep at the tomb of Lazarus, knowing that he was going to raise him from the dead? Because death, all of death is a cosmic tragedy. It was brought about by sin and so long as it exists in any way, shape, or form it is an ensign before God, an intolerable emblem of the presence of sin in his Creation. It must be obliterated or there is no victory.



JoToP -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 10:21:51 AM)

Sooner,

I'm through with the equivocation game. See my post to Larry. It explains my views on death.



Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 11:12:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CameronF

quote:

Cameron: I think you had better reread the early church fathers as 70 A.D. is mentioned as an important period.


Prove it.


I know Eusebius mentions it in his history of the Church, for one.



Mr. -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 7:49:04 PM)

Dear Preterists, I just wanted to ask your opinion on something.

2 Thes. 2:1-10, "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

The part I want to focus on is "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming".

Preterists hold that Nero was the Antichrist, but a question that usually comes up is: "if Nero was the antichrist, and the Lord came in AD 70, how could Nero have been slain by the Lord if he died in AD 68?"

I believe my question has been answered by comparing two sources.

"Now as Vespasian was returned to Cesarea, and was getting ready, with all his army to march directly to Jerusalem, he was informed that Nero was dead, after he had reigned thirteen years and eight days." (Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 4.9.2.491)

A few months ago or so, Tom answered one of my questions regarding a quote from Josephus. I shortly after purchased Josephus's works and read through parts of this section. Just a few days ago I was reading in J. Stuart Russell's Parousia and I came across the following.

"Further, 'the man of sin' is doomed to perish. He is 'the son of perdition,' a name which he bears in common with Judas, and indicative of the certainty and completeness of his destruction. 'The Lord is to slay him with the breath of his mouth, and to destroy him with the appearance of his coming.' In this significant expression we have a note of the time when the man of sin is destined to perish, marked with singular exactitude. It is the coming of the Lord, the Parousia, which is to be the signal of his destruction; yet not the full splendor of that event so much as the first appearance or dawn of it. Alford (after Bengel) very properly points out that the rendering 'brightness of his coming' should be 'the appearance of his coming,' and he quotes the sublime expression of Milton, -- 'far off His coming shone.' Bengel, with fine discrimination, remarks, 'Here the appearance of His coming, or, at all events, the first glimmerings of His coming, are prior to the coming itself.' This evidently implies that the man of sin was destined to perish, not in the full blaze of the Parousia, but at its first dawn or beginning. Now what do we actually find? Remembering how the Parousia is connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, we find that the death of Nero preceded that event. It took place in June A.D. 68, in the very midst of the Jewish war which ended in the capture and destruction of the city and the temple. It might therefore be justly said that 'the appearance, or dawn, of the Parousia' [insert Greek words here...[;)]] was the signal for the tyrant's destruction.

"It does not follow that the death of Nero was to be brought by immediate supernatural agency because it is said that 'the Lord shall slay him with the breath of his mouth,' etc. Herod Agrippa was smitten by the angel of the Lord, but this does not exclude the operation of natural causes: 'he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost' (Acts xiii. 23). So Nero was overtaken by the divine judgment, though he received his death-blow from the sword of the assassin, or from his own hand."

I believe my question has been resolved. Do you preterists agree?



sooner -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/18/2006 11:05:50 PM)

quote:

I make no apologies for holding to the Creeds and Confessions. They are the unified Voice of the Bride.


Really? Everyone agrees with the creeds?

quote:

Has the Holy Spirit exegeted his Word to the Church for the past 2000 years or is he just now speaking?


Has the Holy Spirit taught us everything there is to know or does He continue to build on Truth?

quote:

Pantelism is just one other form of saying that the Church has not been properly taught throughout the ages and that only now, an insightful few are “getting it” for the first time. That’s where heterodoxy comes from.


And the Reformation was what?

quote:

We want Christ to search our bows for fruit


Shakespeare?

quote:

Paul answers simply what we are resurrected from and what we are resurrected to in 1 Cor. 15, a passage, by the way, that I have noticed full preterists tend to avoid.


I haven’t, but you won’t answer my questions.

quote:

No it has not. It has been abolished, so to speak.


Why do you add “so to speak”? Oh wait there it is:

2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death(so to speak), and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

quote:

Abolished is not a synonym to obliterate. It is a change of venue.


Anybody see “change of venue” in either Thayer of Strong? Me either.

G2673
καταργέω
katargeō
Thayer Definition:
1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
1b) to deprive of force, influence, power
2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away
2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
2c) to terminate all intercourse with one

Strong

G2673
καταργέω
katargeō
kat-arg-eh'-o
From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: - abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Use the word abolish in any sentence then replace it with “change of venue” and see if makes sense.

College basketball coaches have voted to abolish the 3-point line.

College basketball coaches have voted to change the venue of the 3-point line. It will now be found on the football field.


quote:

Because death, all of death is a cosmic tragedy. It was brought about by sin


Yet you won’t go to Genesis to prove your premise. If physical death was not the result of Adam’s fall, what does that do to your resurrection theory of I Cor 15? Nor will you dare to answer what the Tree of Life provided.

quote:

It was brought about by sin and so long as it exists in any way, shape, or form it is an ensign before God, an intolerable emblem of the presence of sin in his Creation. It must be obliterated or there is no victory.


But where does Paul say death will ever be obliterated? Remember what you said:

Abolished is not a synonym to obliterate.

Since Paul taught that Jesus abolished death, then you should be able to point to where Paul taught Jesus obliterates death.

quote:

I'm through with the equivocation game. See my post to Larry. It explains my views on death.


Yes, it is your view on death. But what was Paul's? Or Hosea’s for that matter?



bygraceiamsaved -> RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread (1/19/2006 11:17:03 AM)

quote:

And the Reformation was what?


It wasn't new doctrine, in fact the Reformed doctrine has been around since Augustine and before. In fact it's been around since Christ and the disciples began teaching it.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI