|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/25/2006 1:32:03 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
AN OVERVIEW
This is the way I learned these:
Differences in end-times views can be a bit overwhelming at times, especially if you have only been taught one system before. So here is my attempt at giving you a quick overview of the major systems out there so you can understand and join in the discussions more quickly!
First a few basic definitions:
Millennium - The "thousand year" reign of Christ described in Revelation 20.
Second Advent - The Second Coming of Christ, when He returns to earth as He promised.
Rapture - The event when the church is "caught up" in the clouds to meet Christ. Some views may object to the term "rapture" to describe this event.
FOUR MAJOR SYSTEMS - Not to say that there aren't a thousand variations on these, and another ten thousand systems besides ... but here are the four biggies. The vast majority of Christians basically hold to one of these four systems.
Dispensational Premillennialism (pre-mil) - This is what the "Left Behind" book series is based on.
Tribulation: A future 7-year period immediately preceding the second coming. The Church escapes the tribulation via rapture. Jews who subsequently believe remain behind.
Second Advent: Christ returns at the beginning of the millennium (the end of the tribulation) but raptured His church 7 years prior (the beginning of the tribulation), i.e. "pre-trib."
Millennium: Christ will reign in a future millennium in bodily form on the earth after the second coming. He will rule from a physical throne in Jerusalem. The kingdom has a political dimension to it. Righteousness will prevail. The O.T. Jewish economy will be restored. Temple worship, priestly order and animal sacrifices will be restored.
Historical Premillennialism (pre-mil) - Differs in many details from Dispensational pre-mil and is based on significantly different theological premises.
Tribulation: A future 7-year period immediately preceding the second coming. The Church will go through the tribulation.
Second Advent: Christ returns at the beginning of the millennium (the end of the 7-year tribulation) and raptures His church, i.e. "post-trib."
Millennium: The millennium is future. Christ will rule with absolute control. It will be a time of righteous rule. Christ reigns now in heaven, but His present reign is invisible to the world. Only Christians see it by faith. The public manifestation of Christ's glory will not take place on earth until the millennium.
Amillennialism (a-mil) - Literally means "no millennium," which is a misnomer since we are currently in the millennium according to this view. The difference between a-mil and post-mil mainly concerns the nature of the millennium.
Tribulation: The church is in the tribulation now, but the tribulation will grow progressively worse. Christians must expect to suffer tribulation and persecution during the entire church age.
Second Advent: Christ returns at the end of the millennium and raptures His church.
Millennium: We are in the millennium now, but the millennium will never become a "golden age". The millennium is the church age. After the millennium will be the second coming followed by the eternal state, the latter being a "golden age". Christ's reign is not an earthly reign, but a heavenly one. Christ currently reigns in heaven over the souls of believers who have died.
Postmillennialism (post-mil) - Has a more optimistic outlook on the church age than the other major systems.
Tribulation: Culminated in 70 AD. Roughly 64-70, beginning with the persecution of Christians by Nero. Was predicted by Christ to be within a generation (Matt. 24:34) and was experienced by John (Rev. 1:9)
Second Advent: Christ returns at the end of the millennium and raptures His church.
Millennium: We are in the millennium now. The millennium will slowly, progressively become a "golden age" where the great commission is fulfilled and the world is converted to Christianity. Christ reigns now from heaven. His kingdom is on earth. He will continue to rule until "He has put all enemies under His feet"
There you go!
< Message edited by Hattie4Him -- 1/25/2006 2:12:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 1:42:42 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Debbie,,, You wrote:
"I disagree that Partial Preterism is either amil or postmil as they are whole different doctrines."
Did you read this? [Post #102]:
quote:
Hattie,
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!
So are you saying that you disagree with this?
< Message edited by Hattie4Him -- 1/25/2006 2:01:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 3:58:04 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hattie4Him
Debbie,,, You wrote:
"I disagree that Partial Preterism is either amil or postmil as they are whole different doctrines."
Did you read this? [Post #102]:
quote:
Hattie,
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!
So are you saying that you disagree with this?
Hattie: I am disagreeing with Josh's statement that Partial Preterists are either amil or postmil.
BTW: Partial Preterism would disagree with most of your definitions. Some I do agree with.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 4:37:15 PM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 688
Status: offline
|
BygraceIamsaved,
In the first place, I never said I have anything against lexicons, I use them frequently myself. I do have a problem with amateurs thrusting definitions in your face as if they somehow end the argument. I was referring to sooner’s tactic of showing multiple definitions of the word “abolish” from Thayer which he needn’t have done since I have ready access to that lexicon along with Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich and Liddel and Scott, so that if I wanted a definition, I can as easily make those references as sooner did. How sooner betrays his amateurishness is in listing the multiple definitions without giving qualifications connected to the context, nor has he addressed that issue. First of all, the fact that so many definitions are presented in the lexicon is precisely because of the variability of the word’s usage. Therefore, the lexicon alone cannot define the word without reference to how the word is used in the framework of the text. Secondly, I provided sooner with a context, or “right division” if you will for the usage of the word. He objects to the use of “change of venue” because he doesn’t understand how I arrived at that usage, not of the word itself, but of the systematic category for the doctrine. The problem is that sooner has no use for the systematic I gave him because either he doesn’t understand it (which I highly suspect is the case) or else it is irrelevant to his overall paradigm, which is that all of Revelation is fulfilled.
Sooner has not connected the word “abolished” with reference to Christ’s abolition of death to how the word is used in relation to the law. They are similar. We say the law has been abolished, yet we take issue with the antinomian for saying that we are in no way obligated to the law. Our argument against the antinomian is that he/she fails to reckon with the “change of venue” or the dispensational shift that has taken place between the Old and New Covenants and how the law relates to that change. The same is true of death. Death has been abolished. And yet death exists. Sooner can only hold that physical death is not a bad thing and that it is in no way related to the Fall. If what has been abolished is only spiritual death (and I would hold out to sooner that God has always redeemed his people through regeneration, the reversal of spiritual death, and that regeneration since Christ is not, in itself unique), then, from sooner’s perspective, physical death is simply a part of the natural order and has no spiritual bearing or moral considerations whatsoever (yet, someday, sooner will grieve for the loss of a loved one if he hasn’t already... why?) The idea that physical death is a neutral principle in the natural order of things is both unbiblical and unorthodox... it is a unique innovation on Christian doctrine, yet it is necessary to be held by one who has taken the extreme view that all of Revelation was covered by the events of the first century.
Why, then, does sooner hold that all of Revelation has been fulfilled? Because of such phrases as “soon”, “near”, “at hand”, etc. That is the whole strength behind taking a hyperpreterist view. Once again, sooner is dependent on a word to serve as the end all be all definition of a doctrinal system. This is probably because sooner has spent to much time shoring his case of preterism and too little time establishing a relationship between his eschatology and the other doctrines of Scripture. He also assumes that I think the same way he does when I remind the Premillennialist that such passages as Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Revelation use the words above to set the time frame for the passages. It is quite true that the time context must be held closely, but that is not all that bears upon these passages, nor are these phrases even the most important considerations to bear on the passages. What is far more important is how the New Testament prophecies are grounded in Old Testament eschatology. Matthew 24 is a clear commentary on Daniel 12. It makes no sense whatsoever without reference to Daniel 12 because what was sealed and shut up by God in Daniel 12 is broken and opened up by Christ in Matthew 24. The Lamb who alone is worthy to open the seals has broken the seal on Daniel 12 when he says “Let the reader understand”. The seal, which was a decree that understanding was not comprehensively possible until the turn of events arrived, was broken by Christ so that his apostles could know the events of their day, be watchful and wakeful and warn the Church to do the same. This answered the disciples’ question at the outset of the chapter.
Matthew 24 serves as a broad outline to understanding Revelation. The hyperpreterist assumes that because the “soon” and “near” phraseology is used in Revelation that the Holy Spirit is bound to make revelation only within a first century time frame. This is an arbitrary interpretation without biblical foundation. The Holy Spirit is not so bound. Indeed he reveals that the events of Revelation are, for the most part, first century events, but he is in no way confined, if he so desires, to extend the revelation beyond that time frame for the sake of the future Church and it is reasonable that he should. One passage in particular that I have not heard the hyperpreterists address is where, in Revelation 20, Satan, after 1,000 years in the bottomless pit, is released to resume his former deception of the nations. Does the hyperpreterist assume that the entire 1,000 years (a figurative term, I definitely hold) occurred in the first century. Does the hyperpreterist hold that that entire era elapsed during that time and that Satan was released from his prison before A.D. 70? The hyperpreterist seems readily content to agree with the partial preterist that 1,000 years signifies a long period of time and should not be taken with strict literalism as the Premillennialist does. But for the period from A.D.27 to A.D. 70, a period of 43 years, to encompass a “millennium” of any sort, plus a season of Satanic resumption stretches interpretation far beyond the limits. Satan is still bound because the Millennium is still ongoing. He has yet to be released and this is a future event recorded in the book of Revelation. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not seen to be bound by the time frame limitations that the hyperpreterists have artificially imposed upon him. He has indeed given the Church an insight into the deeper future and why not? If he has always shared the future with his Church in the Old Testament and if he shared the future with the Church under the apostles, why would he leave the Church of the New Covenant in the dark? This warning of Satan’s future resumption is necessary to keep the Church’s vigilance high.
_____________________________
And if you don't like THAT answer, I have more in
J  T P's
The Blogge
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 4:45:25 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is probably because sooner has spent to much time shoring his case of preterism and too little time establishing a relationship between his eschatology and the other doctrines of Scripture.
And this is the problem that I believe to be the main problem. Without doing this eschatology means little.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 4:48:04 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hattie: I am disagreeing with Josh's statement that Partial Preterists are either amil or postmil.
BTW: Partial Preterism would disagree with most of your definitions. Some I do agree with.
If you would check, you'd see that was written by JoToP; not Josh.
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/25/2006 5:03:42 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is the post that I was referring to Hattie written by Josh. The bold is mine.
I did not ask YOU about what Josh wrote; Re-read Posts #177 & 178---what I was referring to.
I know you disagree with Josh; that's because he is Josh, and Josh is like me. Nonetheless, I asked if you disagree with JoToP in Post #102 [what I put in Post# 177]. The bold is mine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/25/2006 5:05:59 PM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 688
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JoshuaMiller79
I have a question about orthodox preterism. Obviously if I'm not able to make the jump from partial to full preterism then I'm going to have to figure out what to do with the remaining prophecies that have not been fulfilled. It seems like most partial preterists are either amill or postmill. Is there anyway to couple partial preterism with premillenialism(historic &/or dispensational)?
I was fascinated with preterism because it answers more questions and at least in theory makes more sense then any other eschotological view. But after thinking about everything it makes my head heart because before I knew about preterism I though that premillenialism made more sense then the amill and the postmill views and now it looks like I might have to adopt one of those views to make partial preterism work.
My head hurts!
Joshua,
True Preterism (what is commonly called Partial Preterism) is a more precise form of Postmillennialism. In fact, when I'm asked what my eschatological view is, I almost always simply reply that I'm Postmillennial. I actually prefer that term because it speaks historically about the true aims of the eschatology, which is the expansion of Christ's Kingdom in the earth. "Preterism" refers to a hermeneutic device, an approach to the Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation. The term really doesn't say anything about the essence of Kingdom doctrine.
Preterism can in no way combine with Premillenialism, they are quite opposites. Preterism is not Amillennialism. Amill. holds that the the Kingdom of Christ is related only to spiritual principles and in no way impacts the propositional world. Postmillenialism (and Preterism by extension) hold the Christ's Kingdom is spiritual, but that it has a profound effect on the propositional world and will, in the end, actually conquer it under the dominion of Christ. This doctrine goes hand in hand with the cosmic redemptive doctrine of Reconstruction.
P.S. I find it amusing that Hyper-Calvinists do not call Reformed Protestants Partial Calvinists, but Hyper Preterists call true Preterists Partial Preterists. True Preterists are actually the only full preterists there are and those who call themselves Full Preterists are actually Hyper Preterists, i.e. too much preterism.
_____________________________
And if you don't like THAT answer, I have more in
J T P's
The Blogge
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/25/2006 6:16:19 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hattie4Him
quote:
This is the post that I was referring to Hattie written by Josh. The bold is mine.
I did not ask YOU about what Josh wrote; Re-read Posts #177 & 178---what I was referring to.
I know you disagree with Josh; that's because he is Josh, and Josh is like me. Nonetheless, I asked if you disagree with JoToP in Post #102 [what I put in Post# 177]. The bold is mine.
Hattie I am confused. I have no idea what you want and as long as your posts address me in the above manner I will not answer.
To make it easy this is what Partial Preterism believes and what it is.
http://mikeblume.com/hoopla.htm
If this agrees with JoTop then I agree, if it doesn't then JoTop is not speaking of Partial Preterism.
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/26/2006 11:32:07 AM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hattie I am confused. I have no idea what you want
STOP!!!
My question to You is Not if you agree with JoToP on Partial-preterists.
My Question is:
Do you agree with JoToP that:
Partial-preterists IS Postmillennialists.
OR
Do you believe:
Partial-preterists IS NOT Postmillennialists.
REVIEW THESE:
1.) JoToP, Post#65:
"Preterists are postmillennialists".
2.) bygraceiamsaved, Post #67:
"JoTop: I believe you have represented all views, especially the partial preterist view very well."
3.) Hattie4Him, Post #92:
"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."
4.) JoToP, Post#102:
"The original eschatology of the Church was what we now call Postmillenialism. ……..
Postmillenialism was recovered by the Reformers. …..
They call us Partial-preterists."
5.) bygraceiamsaved, Post #170:
"I am not postmil nor to my knowledge have I ever claimed to be, I am partial preterist"
6.) Josh, Post #171:
"It seems like most partial preterists are either amill or postmill".
7.) bygraceiamsaved, Post #174:
"I have always claimed to be Partial Preterist. I have been a Partial or orthodox Preterist for about ten years now."
8.) bygraceiamsaved, Post #175:
"I disagree that Partial Preterism is either amil or postmil as they are whole different doctrines."
Everytime I think I understand these things, you come along and say something different and confusing. What ARE you saying? You can Not have it both ways; somebody is wrong!!
If Partial Preterism and/or Postmillennialists can Not agree with each other; How do you expect us, who are studying these things, to get straight answers?
< Message edited by Hattie4Him -- 1/26/2006 1:07:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/26/2006 2:04:36 PM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 688
Status: offline
|
Pat and Bygrace,
I try not to get to closely involved in what appear to me to be personal misunderstandings between posters, but generally feel its best to let them work out their differences in the normal course of discussion. But since my name continues to come up in the discussion, I'll just let you know what I think about this semantical issue and leave it at that.
I do hold the view that Preterism is a derivative of Postmillennialism. It can easily be shown how it sprang from Postmillennialism and both hold to many of the same (and certainly the most important) distinctives. It is true that there are different kinds of Postmillennialists just as there are different kinds of Amillennialists (traditional amill. vs "optimistic" amill or "hopeful" amill.) and different kinds of Premillenialists (Historical Premill., Scoffield or Dispensational Premill., Pretrib., Midtrib., Posttrib., and whatever one may call the LaHaye/Hunt?Ice breed of Premill.... I call them Tribulationists). Although the Roman Catholics are generally futurists, I refer to Medieval Rome as Political Postmill. The early Protestants were what we would now call Historical Postmillenialists. This was the prevailing eschatology until the challenges of the 1830s and the rise of Premillenialism. There has always been an a priory Preterism within Historical Postmill., but it was not categorized until recently. I can still remember hearing the term Preterist Postmill. as opposed to Historical Postmill. Now it seems that Preterism is beginning to own its own identity, but I personally still identify it with Postmillennialism and probably always will. I don't consider my views as seriously different from Historical Postmillennialsts... I don't know very many, a few among the Primitive Baptists.
If Bygrace does not hold that Preterism is Postmillennial, I don't consider that a serious disagreement. For that matter, I have friends in my own church (which holds Preterism as a distinctive) with whom I disagree on certain fine points.
I sharply disagree with the Hyper-Preterists, however. Their view eliminates commanding doctrines of the faith and has tendencies toward heresy. Note that I did not say Hyper-Preterists are heretics, nor that Hyper-Preterism is heresy. I simply say that if one follows the doctrine (and I have known some who have) far enough into the doctrines of grace, one will wind up with a "different gospel" than that which was delivered to us by Paul (Gal. 1).
I hope this helps.
_____________________________
And if you don't like THAT answer, I have more in
J T P's
The Blogge
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/26/2006 3:45:06 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I hope this helps.
Yes, that is exactly what I needed to know!! It was not that anyone was wrong; but all information given, and received, was incomplete. Thank you once again for hearing, understanding, and answering me. You have been a great help these last several weeks!! At the least, I now have a general idea where different posters are coming from.
However, I think A-mil, Post-mil, and now Preterism is just too much (too complicated; involved and hard) for simple straight forward, all cards-on-the-table type folks to understand. I'll stay where I am thank you; much less confusion, and leaves me time to live life out-side of the world of studying. I'm tired of studying until my head hurts from trying to get it all straight in my understanding; you guys sure don't make things simple.
God bless,
Pat
< Message edited by Hattie4Him -- 1/26/2006 5:06:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/26/2006 7:27:19 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 132
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
BygraceIamsaved,
In the first place, I never said I have anything against lexicons, I use them frequently myself. I do have a problem with amateurs thrusting definitions in your face as if they somehow end the argument.
You see BygraceIamsaved, only JoToP is the professional. If you don’t believe me just ask him.
He tried to tell me abolish means “change of venue”, I showed from both Strongs and Thayers that “change of venue” was not a definition by those Lexicons. JoTop’s response is that I’m “thrusting the Lexicons in his face”. Look for yourself and see if you find that definition in the lexicons or if JoTop is inventing it to fit his argument. When challenged with this he then changed it to “render idle”, a definition from the lexicons by the way. Then I asked why people still die if Jesus “rendered idle” death at the Cross. He did not answer. Of course he never answered why Paul in I Cor.15 quotes OT passages that deal with spiritual death. Perhaps he feels it is beneath him to have to answer questions from this obvious amateur.
I can only assume he believes the “abolish” that is found in II Tim. has a different meaning than the “abolish” found in I Cor. 15. Fine, all I ask is that you prove it. But telling me I Cor 15 is speaking of physical resurrection, therefore proving his point is no proof.
JoToP when attending Gentry Seminary learned the Creeds and Confessions and argues from those. His views were set in concrete then. I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise but I have not found enough evidence that full-preterism in unbiblical. The very questions I have asked go to the root of my understanding but I get no answers other than “death did not exist before the Fall because that is not how God does things”. Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it for me.
quote:
How sooner betrays his amateurishness
Hmmmm……...does that mean I started acting like a scholar when I betrayed my amateurishness? Or did you mean to say, “how sooner expresses his amateurish”.
Perhaps if you would like more of a challenge, then fly your theories here and see if you can double-speak past Frost: http://christcovenant.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e0d36ff751e0d5d658b379afc504f6a7&showforum=14
quote:
First of all, the fact that so many definitions are presented in the lexicon is precisely because of the variability of the word’s usage. Therefore, the lexicon alone cannot define the word without reference to how the word is used in the framework of the text.
So true, but why didn’t the scholars include your definition of “change of venue”?
quote:
Secondly, I provided sooner with a context, or “right division” if you will for the usage of the word. He objects to the use of “change of venue” because he doesn’t understand how I arrived at that usage, not of the word itself, but of the systematic category for the doctrine.
Double-speak for, “I made my own definition to fit my view”.
quote:
The problem is that sooner has no use for the systematic I gave him because either he doesn’t understand it (which I highly suspect is the case)
Gee. Are you saying I’m stupid?
quote:
Sooner has not connected the word “abolished” with reference to Christ’s abolition of death to how the word is used in relation to the law. They are similar. We say the law has been abolished, yet we take issue with the antinomian for saying that we are in no way obligated to the law. Our argument against the antinomian is that he/she fails to reckon with the “change of venue” or the dispensational shift that has taken place between the Old and New Covenants and how the law relates to that change .
So JoToP is saying the Law has had a “change of venue”. Does the Law still have power over us today? What part does the Law play in the New Covenant?
quote:
Sooner can only hold that physical death is not a bad thing and that it is in no way related to the Fall.
Yet you could not go to Genesis and prove me wrong.
quote:
The idea that physical death is a neutral principle in the natural order of things is both unbiblical and unorthodox... it is a unique innovation on Christian doctrine, yet it is necessary to be held by one who has taken the extreme view that all of Revelation was covered by the events of the first century.
Yet you said death was all encompassing/”the whole nine yards” but when I brought up plant death, you then inferred that death is only “soulish” death. I then posted non-preterist who in fact believe “soulish” death did in fact exist prior to Fall. Again no response. So was plant death “very good” in God’s creation? So many unanswered questions.
quote:
Why, then, does sooner hold that all of Revelation has been fulfilled? Because of such phrases as “soon”, “near”, “at hand”, etc. That is the whole strength behind taking a hyperpreterist view.
Really? Dispies will tell you the same thing about the partial-preterist view.
quote:
Once again, sooner is dependent on a word to serve as the end all be all definition of a doctrinal system. This is probably because sooner has spent to much time shoring his case of preterism and too little time establishing a relationship between his eschatology and the other doctrines of Scripture. He also assumes that I think the same way he does when I remind the Premillennialist that such passages as Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Revelation use the words above to set the time frame for the passages.
Of course you’ve never really made an attempt to explain this have you? Sorry, I don’t just assume you know everything. Perhaps make a case how full-preterism violates Christology, soteriology, or ecclesiology, or any other “ology” then perhaps you can convince me.
quote:
It is quite true that the time context must be held closely, but that is not all that bears upon these passages, nor are these phrases even the most important considerations to bear on the passages.
Thomas Ice and Jack Van Impe would also agree with that statement. In fact this is the argument dispies use against you.
quote:
What is far more important is how the New Testament prophecies are grounded in Old Testament eschatology.
And according to the OT, whose eschaton are we dealing with? The Church?
quote:
Matthew 24 is a clear commentary on Daniel 12. It makes no sense whatsoever without reference to Daniel 12 because what was sealed and shut up by God in Daniel 12 is broken and opened up by Christ in Matthew 24. The Lamb who alone is worthy to open the seals has broken the seal on Daniel 12 when he says “Let the reader understand”. The seal, which was a decree that understanding was not comprehensively possible until the turn of events arrived, was broken by Christ so that his apostles could know the events of their day, be watchful and wakeful and warn the Church to do the same. This answered the disciples’ question at the outset of the chapter.
What do you believe this refers to?
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
quote:
Matthew 24 serves as a broad outline to understanding Revelation. The hyperpreterist assumes that because the “soon” and “near” phraseology is used in Revelation that the Holy Spirit is bound to make revelation only within a first century time frame.
Yep, Jack Van Impe says the same thing about you.
quote:
This is an arbitrary interpretation without biblical foundation. The Holy Spirit is not so bound. Indeed he reveals that the events of Revelation are, for the most part, first century events, but he is in no way confined, if he so desires, to extend the revelation beyond that time frame for the sake of the future Church and it is reasonable that he should.
So for what hermeneutical reason do you put a gap in-between Rev 19 and the rest of the chapter? Another question you never answered.
quote:
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not seen to be bound by the time frame limitations that the hyperpreterists have artificially imposed upon him.
But He is bound by the ones you impose on Him? Again, I can just hear the dispies using this argument against you.
quote:
This warning of Satan’s future resumption is necessary to keep the Church’s vigilance high .
Message to the Church: Keep doing what you’re doing, not because of your love for Christ, but because the “devil’s gonna getcha” if you don’t. Nice.
quote:
There must be a final judgment or God is not God.
So now you define God?
quote:
quote:
This is probably because sooner has spent to much time shoring his case of preterism and too little time establishing a relationship between his eschatology and the other doctrines of Scripture.
And this is the problem that I believe to be the main problem. Without doing this eschatology means little.
bygraceIamsaved perhaps you then can explain how full-preterism violates the “ologies” of Theology.
quote:
P.S. I find it amusing that Hyper-Calvinists do not call Reformed Protestants Partial Calvinists,
They are called 2,3 or 4 point Calvinist. Same thing don’t you think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/26/2006 9:38:24 PM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 1484
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hattie4Him
Debbie,,, You have always claimed to be Historical Post-mil/Full preterist; when did you change? You sound the same to me.
Pat
I believe I've known Debbie for about a year now since the old Christianity.com forums and I don't believe that I have ever heard her once say she was a full preterist, but I've heard her say she was a partial preterist.
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR PRETERISM - 1/27/2006 11:44:11 AM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1747
Status: offline
|
Thank you Zach.
I agree with most everything you have posted JoTop and what was given as examples of what I believe were partial quotes which takes away the full meaning of what I said or agreed with.
Partial Preterism agrees with postmill in that we do believe that Christ is yet to return and I guess you could say we agree that it will be after the tribulation but partial preterists believe that the tribulation happened in 70 A.D. and If you are a premillennialist you believe that after the second coming of Christ there is a 1000-year reign here upon the earth, after which Satan is loosed for a little season, to do his last dirty work upon the earth. During the 1000-years, of course, he is bound, then he is loosed for that little season. And then he is cast into the lake of fire. Partial preterism does not believe in a literal 1000 year reign or in a future tribulation. There are many differences in postmil which conflict with partial preterism. It was not taken from postmil but we do agree with the parts that are Biblical just as we agree with premil that the coming of Christ for the Church is future as well as the Great White Throne judgment and the resurrection of the dead but we did not come from premil either.
We agree with Amil on a few things as well but we did not originate amil either. I disagree that we can be labeled in any of those categories fully as we disagree with more than we agree with.
Partial Preterism even agrees with much of Full Preterists but I go with JoTop in both his definition and critique of Full Preterism in that it does go to far and Partial Preterists do believe in a physical resurrection of Christ from the grave. If this didn't happen and it was spiritual then the Cross didn't accomplish anything and I don't believe that nor does any Partial Preterist. It was the physical resurrection of Christ that proved hiim to be God. We also believe that the future resurrection of the dead will be physical and that we will recieve new glorified bodies and this is where we agree with premill.
< Message edited by bygraceiamsaved -- 1/27/2006 11:47:40 AM >
_____________________________
"Man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God's majesty"---John Calvin
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
)I still disagree.
