|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/10/2006 6:24:56 PM
|
|
|
FatherKnowsBest
Posts: 74
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: Moscow, ID
Status: offline
|
JoToP,
quote:
ORIGINAL: JoToP
Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view.
Would you say that I am a hyper-preterist? Which view would you say is the most tolerable: the view that I hold or a pre-millenial view?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/10/2006 8:11:33 PM
|
|
|
RJR_fan
Posts: 1168
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: RTP, in sunny NC USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
JoToP,
quote:
ORIGINAL: JoToP
Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view.
Would you say that I am a hyper-preterist? Which view would you say is the most tolerable: the view that I hold or a pre-millenial view?
THe pre-mil view, of course. With the church of all ages, dispensational saints look forward to the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Amen.
_____________________________
Blogging my way through the Turkish New Testament
Meet my beloved mentor, RJR
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/11/2006 7:12:47 AM
|
|
|
FatherKnowsBest
Posts: 74
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: Moscow, ID
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomSmedley
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
JoToP,
quote:
ORIGINAL: JoToP
Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view.
Would you say that I am a hyper-preterist? Which view would you say is the most tolerable: the view that I hold or a pre-millenial view?
THe pre-mil view, of course. With the church of all ages, dispensational saints look forward to the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Amen.
Okay Tom, I'm sure that by "body" you mean the fleshly part of a man. So as long as I believe in the reanimation of our fleshly bodies; the re-establishment of the Law; the saving of all those who are called Jews; those who are called Jews have the Abrahamic covenant and blessings; the defeat of the church, and I tell everyone the end will soon come, then that is better than taking a consistent interpretive approach to scripture and believing in all the promises of the King of kings and His apostles?
It all hinges on what Paul meant by the word "body".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/11/2006 8:19:44 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2243
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
quote:
ORIGINAL: TomSmedley
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
JoToP,
quote:
ORIGINAL: JoToP
Earnest Hampden-Cook is what we call a Pantelist, or Hyper-Preterist and does not represent the views of Preterism except in pretence. Try Marcellus Kik, Gary DeMarr, and Ken Gentry better represent the Preterist view.
Would you say that I am a hyper-preterist? Which view would you say is the most tolerable: the view that I hold or a pre-millenial view?
THe pre-mil view, of course. With the church of all ages, dispensational saints look forward to the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting, Amen.
Okay Tom, I'm sure that by "body" you mean the fleshly part of a man. So as long as I believe in the reanimation of our fleshly bodies; the re-establishment of the Law; the saving of all those who are called Jews; those who are called Jews have the Abrahamic covenant and blessings; the defeat of the church, and I tell everyone the end will soon come, then that is better than taking a consistent interpretive approach to scripture and believing in all the promises of the King of kings and His apostles?
It all hinges on what Paul meant by the word "body".
Greetings,
Prehaps the meaning of the word body is found as mentioned in the last verse “These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.”
If one reads verse 27 there will be 2 glorification “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again”
What is interesting here is that Jesus came to this hour for this purpose yet God is comforting him that he will be glorified again, so there must be another hour and another purpose by what Jesus spoke in response where he said ? “But for this purpose I came to “this” hour.”
John 12:27-36
27 "Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name."
Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."
29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.
34 The people answered Him, "We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; and how can You say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?"
35 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.
36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them.
Notice in verse 32 there are three distinct events that are going to take place, the first is now (Judgement) in verse 31 and second now the ruler of this world will be cast out, even more interesting third in verse 32 Jesus said “And I, “if I” which simply means he is the only one, there will be no other, but he also says “lifted up from the earth”
The Bible says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord, so we can rule out the body from that revelation because it is speaking of the Spirit.
However verse 32 Jesus mentioned “lifted up from the earth, this rules out the Spirit and is speaking of the Body, simply because the Spirit is not lifted, the Spirit becomes absent from the body remains on the earth.
So they are separate “from” one another, so to be lifted “from” the earth suggests the physical, not the Spiritual, because he said
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
IMHO It does not mention being lifted up in the Spirit or this event as happening according to what many preterists are suggesting as the Second Coming of Jesus,
IMHO God will not repeat what was already finished, but he does have another purpose or hour for Jesus to glorify his name, according to John 12:27… to glorify it again.
Loyal Gypsy
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/11/2006 6:47:27 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 128
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I do give you credit for going to the original language, which has not often happened; however, I do not think that you have yet dealt with the words used in Revelation. Rev 1:3 uses 'en tachei'.
That is Revelation 1:1 where “en tachos” is used.
Rev 1:1 ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννῃ,
It is also used in these verses:
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.
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.
Acts 25:4 Then indeed Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea; he himself would depart shortly.
Now remember what Ice says: if is coupled with the preposition 'en', causeing this phrase to function grammatically as an adverb revealing to us the "sudden" manner in which these events will take place.
Now let’s look at each passage:
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.
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?
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?
Clarke says this:
He - would depart shortly - So had the providence of God disposed matters that Festus was obliged to return speedily to Caesarea; and thus had not time to preside in such a trial at Jerusalem. And this reason must appear sufficient to the Jews; and especially as he gave them all liberty to come and appear against him, who were able to prove the alleged charges.
Isn’t it obviously clear that Festus will be leaving in a short amount of time? Yet Ice contends given his stand on “en tachos” that it has nothing to do with when Festus would leave but that when he decides to leave it will be quickly. You buy that?
Examine Rev 1 again:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Isn’t it clear that the angel is telling John these events will begin to take place soon?
Here is the Ice rendering:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which ,when they begin to happen will happen quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
quote:
Also, although the excerpt from my post that you quoted was about 'engys', I couldn't see any place where that was dealt with.
I have no idea where “engys” comes from:
Rev 1:3 μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα· ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.
G1451
ἐγγύς
eggus
eng-goos'
From a primary verb ἄγχω agchō (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base of G43); near (literally or figuratively, of place or time): - from, at hand, near, nigh (at hand, unto), ready.
It is used in these passages:
Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
What does this mean to you? That summer is coming soon? Since you obviously disagree, what does it mean?
Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Joh 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
This phrase seems to be the preterists best friend. Explain how you get “at hand” to mean 2000+ years. Ice assumes those who read his works already have pre-suppositions that agree with him and thus thinks no one will research his statements.
quote:
"In the original Greek text, both Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 read nearly the same way. The verses do not say the kingdom of God (or heaven) is at hand, but 'the season (kairos) is sure'.
Why is he talking about the Kingdom? Rev 1:3 nor 22:10 mention the kingdom.
quote:
But if the original words should not be translated as, for example, 'soon', will you agree to not reference them in trying to support preterism?
I have made the case they can. If the original words can be interpreted to mean events that are soon to occur, will you agree not to reference them to try to dispel preterism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/12/2006 7:08:43 AM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 721
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
Larrysawhill,
I was reading in Genesis 15 last night and I thought about things. I was wondering if how I'll explain this sounds like a full preterist position.
Genesis 15:13-16 (ESV), "Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
In Galatians we read about the law holding us in b*ndage, being our school master until we come to faith in Christ Jesus. I believe the children of Israel's time in Egypt is symbolic of that, do you agree? In Genesis 15, the Lord said he would bring judgment upon that nation that would afflict the children of Israel, the nation that held them in b*ndage. So, would the preterist position be similar in the sense that God planned to bring judgment upon the law, or Old Covenant way of things, which held his people in b*ndage?
We know that those of the "law", the Egyptians pursued the children of Israel, even after the passover. In the early church, the legalists seemed to pursue the Christians and bring them back into b*ndage as Galatians speaks about. However, a flood would overwhelm these Egyptians as they pursued them. It didn't happen at the passover, although the passover had an effect. Would you view AD 70 as the flood that overcame the Egyptians may symbolize? It was a time of salvation and deliverance for the children of Israel, this flood. I've looked at the passing through the Red Sea differently before, but I was wondering if this is how you view things, or how full preterism may interpret things. I'm just using the OT as an example to try to understand how people think.
After this flood, that is the judgment upon the nation that held the children of Israel in b*ndage, the world did not end. There were still battles to fight, an inheritance to possess, enemies in the land. Similarly, I understand the full preterist view does not ignore the sin and evil that is in the world today, but still declares that God is in the midst of his people, that his tabernacle dwells among them, as it was with the children of Israel. I don't know about all the details in the Exodus account, or how it may be properly "allegorized", but I wanted to ask you, Larry, if this is similar to how you view things.
Thanks.
EDIT -- I was thinking about another Scripture this morning: "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Cor. 15:56) How would you interpret this verse if full preterism believes the power of sin or the law (?) was broken on the cross or in AD 70, or somewhere thereabouts? Would the strength of sin being broken affect death in anyway?
< Message edited by zachmarko -- 1/12/2006 11:08:59 AM >
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/12/2006 5:43:56 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2243
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zachmarko
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
How is it that the new Israel? As you mentioned above has any basis in biblical truth?
Perhaps we should discuss that question HERE.
Greetings,
Perhaps it could be discussed there, however IMHO I sense that Preterism in this thread is anti-Israel (Jew), and if so then that view must also be anti-spiritual Israel (Christ) simply because there is a connection,
Do you know that Hanukkah is CRITICAL to understanding the end of days? The Hebraic way of understanding Bible prophecy (the end of days) is that Biblical history is prophecy.
In the end of days, the 'sons of Zion' will oppose the 'sons of Greece' (Zechariah 9:13). This is a replay of Hanukkah. In ancient times, the 'sons of Zion' were the Maccabees. Today, the 'sons of Zion' are those who embrace the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and who oppose the dividing of the land of Israel.
The Bible calls these 'sons of Zion' (Ephraim and Judah) (Zechariah 9:13). The common terms today for the 'sons of Zion' are Bible believing Zionist Christians and Bible believing Zionist Jews.
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/12/2006 10:02:12 PM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 721
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
Greetings,
Perhaps it could be discussed there, however IMHO I sense that Preterism in this thread is anti-Israel (Jew), and if so then that view must also be anti-spiritual Israel (Christ) simply because there is a connection,
So basically what you are saying is that preterism would be anti-Christ (because to you it would be "anti-spiritual Israel (Christ)"). It was Christ that called the Jews in his generation vipers and hypocrites whom others would rise in judgment with them. It's not anti-semitic, it's about God being just with the apostate nation. Those who don't believe in Christ are already condemned.
I have the impression sometimes that some of the Zionists or futurists that I've met here or elsewhere are actually more like those we could call Judaizers, or people who await a different Messiah other than the Jesus who already came. Some people sound more like they are in Judaism than they sound like Christians. It's more like Judaism in disguise, appearing as if it were Christianity. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Legalists desiring to ensare Christians back into b*ndage. This, of course, is my opinion.
quote:
Do you know that Hanukkah is CRITICAL to understanding the end of days?
Nope.
quote:
The Hebraic way of understanding Bible prophecy (the end of days) is that Biblical history is prophecy.
In the end of days, the 'sons of Zion' will oppose the 'sons of Greece' (Zechariah 9:13). This is a replay of Hanukkah. In ancient times, the 'sons of Zion' were the Maccabees. Today, the 'sons of Zion' are those who embrace the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and who oppose the dividing of the land of Israel.
The Bible calls these 'sons of Zion' (Ephraim and Judah) (Zechariah 9:13). The common terms today for the 'sons of Zion' are Bible believing Zionist Christians and Bible believing Zionist Jews.
LG
To be honest, if I am allowed to have my own opinions, I believe Zionism such as stated above has nothing to do with true Christianity.
< Message edited by zachmarko -- 1/13/2006 6:30:03 AM >
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 7:38:40 AM
|
|
|
FatherKnowsBest
Posts: 74
Joined: 9/10/2005
From: Moscow, ID
Status: offline
|
Hi Zach,
Actually I have not thought that deep about Gen. 15, or about the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites. I like your thoughts about it though.
I have, however, viewed the exodus out of Egypt and the receiving of the Law as a type of receiving the New Covenant and Christ coming in 70AD. Just as it took the Israelites forty years in the wilderness receiving and learning the Law, and throwing of the yoke of slavery, it took about 40 years for the Christians to receive full revelation of the New Covenant and throw of the yoke of the Law. The Christians then received the adoption, the redemption of the body (singular, meaning of Christ), just as the Israelites entered into the promise land.
quote:
After this flood, that is the judgment upon the nation that held the children of Israel in b*ndage, the world did not end. There were still battles to fight, an inheritance to possess, enemies in the land. Similarly, I understand the full preterist view does not ignore the sin and evil that is in the world today, but still declares that God is in the midst of his people, that his tabernacle dwells among them, as it was with the children of Israel. I don't know about all the details in the Exodus account, or how it may be properly "allegorized", but I wanted to ask you, Larry, if this is similar to how you view things.
I agree. We certainly can't sit back and do nothing since Christ has come, but we are to fight the wicked that is in the world and advance His Kingdom.
quote:
EDIT -- I was thinking about another Scripture this morning: "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Cor. 15:56) How would you interpret this verse if full preterism believes the power of sin or the law (?) was broken on the cross or in AD 70, or somewhere thereabouts? Would the strength of sin being broken affect death in anyway?
My view is that the law was still in effect until the destruction of the temple. The Jewish Christians were still to obey the law, but were not under the curse of the law. The resurrection of the dead spoken of in this chapter is the resurrection of those in Hades. According to Revelations, Hades was then thrown into the lake of fire. The law condemned, and by condemning it prevented anyone from entering Heaven. By removing the law, and giving a New Covenant, the elect are now able to enter the Holy of Holies. In other words we no longer go to Hades, but to Heaven. I don't believe the Christians between the time of Christ's resurrection and His second coming went to Hades. Jesus said that those who keep His word would never die. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly where they went before the second coming. I have not settled this issue in my mind yet.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 8:54:50 AM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 721
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
Hi Zach,
Actually I have not thought that deep about Gen. 15, or about the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites. I like your thoughts about it though.
I have, however, viewed the exodus out of Egypt and the receiving of the Law as a type of receiving the New Covenant and Christ coming in 70AD. Just as it took the Israelites forty years in the wilderness receiving and learning the Law, and throwing of the yoke of slavery, it took about 40 years for the Christians to receive full revelation of the New Covenant and throw of the yoke of the Law. The Christians then received the adoption, the redemption of the body (singular, meaning of Christ), just as the Israelites entered into the promise land.
I can see Christ's sacrifice in different places in the Exodus, even as the serpent lifted up, etc. The passover, the Red Sea, the serpent, etc are all symbolic of the same thing to me, or atleast can be. But that doesn't mean since there is no linear logic to it that there is no meaning in it at all. Neither does it mean that there are no allegories that can be found in all of it. But I thought it was interesting that since the Parousia is associated with judgment, etc, that the judgment performed at the Red Sea was on that which held the Isrealites captive. What was it in Galatians that held the chosen seed in bond@ge? I believe it was the law.
quote:
quote:
After this flood, that is the judgment upon the nation that held the children of Israel in b*ndage, the world did not end. There were still battles to fight, an inheritance to possess, enemies in the land. Similarly, I understand the full preterist view does not ignore the sin and evil that is in the world today, but still declares that God is in the midst of his people, that his tabernacle dwells among them, as it was with the children of Israel. I don't know about all the details in the Exodus account, or how it may be properly "allegorized", but I wanted to ask you, Larry, if this is similar to how you view things.
I agree. We certainly can't sit back and do nothing since Christ has come, but we are to fight the wicked that is in the world and advance His Kingdom.
I thought it was neat that Rev talks about the tabernacle of God being among men, and that he would dwell among his people. The wilderness experience seems to illustrate that. It was before they entered the promised land too. So this New Jerusalem could very well be a present reality because God's tabernacle was among his people even before they entered into their inheritance completely.
quote:
My view is that the law was still in effect until the destruction of the temple. The Jewish Christians were still to obey the law, but were not under the curse of the law. The resurrection of the dead spoken of in this chapter is the resurrection of those in Hades. According to Revelations, Hades was then thrown into the lake of fire. The law condemned, and by condemning it prevented anyone from entering Heaven. By removing the law, and giving a New Covenant, the elect are now able to enter the Holy of Holies. In other words we no longer go to Hades, but to Heaven. I don't believe the Christians between the time of Christ's resurrection and His second coming went to Hades. Jesus said that those who keep His word would never die. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly where they went before the second coming. I have not settled this issue in my mind yet.
I guess we have to be careful to explain that we do not intend to imply that we approve of antinomianism. Yet, at the same time, we are justified freely by the grace of God through faith alone in Christ. It's not of our works, but his faith and Spirit in us produces the true works of love. I have a question about those who died before the Parousia. What about Moses who died, was he not glorified on the mount of transfiguration? How do we look at his appearance on the mount? Was he resurrected before it happened, or should he have still been resting in his grave asleep until the Parousia or until Christ died and many saints came out of their graves/tombs?
May God bless you and I hope you have a wonderful day.
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 9:33:31 AM
|
|
|
Mr.
Posts: 721
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
...oh and:
quote:
ORIGINAL: larrysawhill
Actually I have not thought that deep about Gen. 15, or about the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites. I like your thoughts about it though.
I didn't either before until I read Gen 15 the other night. I just noticed a similarity between the Egyptians desiring to bring the children of Abraham back into bond@ge and the Judaizers spoken of in Galatians desiring to bring the true children of Abraham (those with the faith of Jesus Christ) back into bond@ge.
_____________________________
God is love
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 9:52:36 AM
|
|
|
JoToP
Posts: 611
Status: offline
|
Larry,
Sorry I didn't get back to your question immediately. I'm recovering from a virus that put me out of commission the last few days.
I agree with Tom. Premillenialism, because it has not followed its trajectory and has laid up artificial barriers between its eschatology and its other doctrines, is preferable to hyper-preterism. Too many Pantelists do follow their doctrine to its conclusion and what is at the end of the rainbow is rank heterodoxy... some have even passed into heresy (I do not say all, but some). The problem is that the Pantelist is not being consistent with the Scripture any more than the Premill., but is over reacting to the Premill. position. I have to admit that when I first came into a Preteristic view, my tendency was to see all prophecy as fulfilled, but with wise counselors and sober reflection in Scripture I was able to find the balanced ground and have been able to ward off young, enthusiastic Preterists from that same tendency.
A careful reading of Revelation 20 in conjunction with 1 Cor.15 reveals a history that is future to us. The chapter begins with the binding of Satan, an event that is clearly past tense to us in light of Matthew 12:29; John 12:31 and all passages of Scripture that exalt Christ as ruling over the earth with all power and authority. But this binding of Satan is temporary, marked by the end of the reign of Christ (Rev.20:3). At that time, Satan will be loosed and renew his ancient career of war against the Kingdom as was first prototyped in Ezekiel 38ff. Satan is loosed to gather his minions, the historical reprobates of the earth so that in short order they may be destroyed (not bound, a temporary holding) in the sight of the Church. Verse four through six are clearly within the period of the Kingdom. Verse 11 through 15 are clearly after the destruction of Satan. The relationship between Satan’s status as bound, then destroyed is very important to understanding the economy of the Kingdom in Revelation 20. As bound, his victims rule as viceroys in judgment throughout history. As destroyed, Christ moves on a cosmic scale to bring the whole history of earth to a close with divine judgment as the final justice that has been waited for patiently by the saints of all time. The binding of Satan allows the saints to rule in history. The destruction of Satan brings the victory of God to its culmination.
This in no way disagrees with 1 Cor.15;22-28 where the end of the world comes after the total destruction of Christ’s enemies (including Satan) the last enemy being death, the destruction of which is demonstrated in the resurrection of all the saints. 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. It seems that the hyper-preterist must somehow squash the “millennium” into a few decades to fulfill all the prophecies. Although the true preterist does not see the necessity of seeing the “millennium” as literal, because it is represented as a thousand years, it must be a long period of time. Unless the hyper-preterist would like to show how the Kingdom comes before the coming of the King, which makes no prophetic sense whatsoever. Daniel clearly has the Kingdom of Christ coming in the time of the fourth kingdom which is Rome. To begin the Kingdom at the birth or resurrection of Christ and then end it in A.D. 70 is pure nonsense.
The impact of this view on other doctrines of grace and justice is devastating. The Gospel, which has the power to raise souls from the dead, is inextricably linked to the Kingdom; the Gospel is the passage into the Kingdom. Without future judgment there can be no cumulative divine justice, which is the hope of all saints. And the hyper-preterist cannot stand in the camp of the postmillenialist if they deny the comprehensive victory of the Kingdom over the world in history, which is promised from Genesis 12 to the end of the Bible. Without the Kingdom there is no capital city and the church, its offices and its keys are nullified. The gathering of the saints into “one place”, so common an aim for the Church from its roots in the Old Testament to its fruit in the New Testament is given no account under the hyper-preterist view. I could go on, but we’ll stay on what we’ve laid out here for the moment.
_____________________________
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 - 1/13/2006 8:22:02 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 128
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
Then Jesus hasn’t abolished death?
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:
Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Believest thou John?
For those in Christ, death is abolished.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Paul quotes from Hosea:
Hos 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
What kind of death is Hosea speaking of? The context is found in verse 1:
Hos 13:1 When Ephraim spake trembling, he exalted himself in Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died.
Barnes says it best:
And died - Death is the penalty of sin. Ephraim “died” spiritually. For sin takes away the life of grace, and separates from God, the true life of the soul, the source of all life. He “died more truly, than he who is dead and at rest.” Of this death, our Lord says, “Let the dead bury their dead” Mat_8:22; and Paul, “She who liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” 1Ti_5:6. He “died” also as a nation and kingdom, being sentenced by God to cease to be.
So Hosea speaks of spiritual death and Paul quotes this passage in I Cor.15. If Paul is speaking of physical death why quote Hosea? Jesus brought an end to spiritual death and that is the death that Paul is referencing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 8:59:38 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2243
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zachmarko
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
Greetings,
Perhaps it could be discussed there, however IMHO I sense that Preterism in this thread is anti-Israel (Jew), and if so then that view must also be anti-spiritual Israel (Christ) simply because there is a connection,
So basically what you are saying is that preterism would be anti-Christ (because to you it would be "anti-spiritual Israel (Christ)"). It was Christ that called the Jews in his generation vipers and hypocrites whom others would rise in judgment with them. It's not anti-semitic, it's about God being just with the apostate nation. Those who don't believe in Christ are already condemned.
I have the impression sometimes that some of the Zionists or futurists that I've met here or elsewhere are actually more like those we could call Judaizers, or people who await a different Messiah other than the Jesus who already came. Some people sound more like they are in Judaism than they sound like Christians. It's more like Judaism in disguise, appearing as if it were Christianity. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Legalists desiring to ensare Christians back into b*ndage. This, of course, is my opinion.
quote:
Do you know that Hanukkah is CRITICAL to understanding the end of days?
Nope.
quote:
The Hebraic way of understanding Bible prophecy (the end of days) is that Biblical history is prophecy.
In the end of days, the 'sons of Zion' will oppose the 'sons of Greece' (Zechariah 9:13). This is a replay of Hanukkah. In ancient times, the 'sons of Zion' were the Maccabees. Today, the 'sons of Zion' are those who embrace the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and who oppose the dividing of the land of Israel.
The Bible calls these 'sons of Zion' (Ephraim and Judah) (Zechariah 9:13). The common terms today for the 'sons of Zion' are Bible believing Zionist Christians and Bible believing Zionist Jews.
LG
To be honest, if I am allowed to have my own opinions, I believe Zionism such as stated above has nothing to do with true Christianity.
Greetings,
quote:
I have the impression sometimes that some of the Zionists or futurists that I've met here or elsewhere are actually more like those we could call Judaizers, or people who await a different Messiah other than the Jesus who already came. Some people sound more like they are in Judaism than they sound like Christians. It's more like Judaism in disguise, appearing as if it were Christianity. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Legalists desiring to ensare Christians back into b*ndage. This, of course, is my opinion.
Prehaps one needs to take a look at wht the Bible says, after all it is written by Jews.
quote:
Legalists desiring to ensnare Christians back into b*ndage. This, of course, is my opinion.
It is good to have opinions but I for one am having difficulty catching your drift, so to speak..
“People who await a different Messiah other than the Jesus who already came”
I am curious what your opinion is of the verses below 6-7 as found in Acts 1 as written by Luke,
IMHO there is no other reference made to this in scripture, to what is written below in Acts 1:6-7,
Other than the answer that is found in Matt 17:11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things.
If he was speaking of John the Baptist, then he was speaking of Israel.
“All things” means “All things” to whom will all thing be restored?… (Israel)
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
Where is it mentioned Biblically? That Jesus said it will not be restored to Israel?
I believe Jesus said “It is not for you to know times or seasons” this does not take the meaning that the kingdom will not be restored to Israel, but when, is the question?
Romans 3 Perhaps one should read This Chapter, especially what is written in verse 31
3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
3:29
Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
3:30
since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
quote:
It's more like Judaism in disguise, appearing as if it were Christianity.
On the contrary, we establish the law, as written by Paul “A Christian Jew”
Romans 3: 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all F15 who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness,
that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
“to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness”
We are still in that present time
Loyal Gypsy
< Message edited by LoyalGypsy -- 1/15/2006 3:21:32 PM >
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 9:31:24 PM
|
|
|
CameronF
Posts: 10
Joined: 6/15/2005
Status: offline
|
I very much dislike the "one-stop" threads. It is impossible to read it all and no one does and people just keep bring up the same old tired arguments. They are more a source of frustration and a turn off to discourse than any perceived convenience.
Historic Premill is a good way to dispute preterism. Preterism is an unknown doctrine tothe early church. I find it incredible that if 70 Ad were so important, that all of the early church writers seemed to miss the import. They spoke of the day = a thousand years idea like Branabas and looked for the antichrist to attack the church.
_____________________________
Always willing to listen and consider,
Cameron Fultz
Author of: Prophecy's Architecture: How to Build an End Times Doctrine
ISBN 0970433069
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/13/2006 11:22:33 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1376
Status: offline
|
Cameron: I think you had better reread the early church fathers as 70 A.D. is mentioned as an important period.
_____________________________
"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 - 1/14/2006 9:48:19 AM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 846
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
JoTop,
RE: #87
Sorry to hear you had a virus, but glad to know you are recovering, and are back.
VERY GOOD POST!!
However, you lost me here:
quote:
The resurrection clearly has not taken place because death still exists. It seems that the hyper-preterist must somehow squash the “millennium” into a few decades to fulfill all the prophecies. Although the true preterist does not see the necessity of seeing the “millennium” as literal, because it is represented as a thousand years, it must be a long period of time. Unless the hyper-preterist would like to show how the Kingdom comes before the coming of the King, which makes no prophetic sense whatsoever. Daniel clearly has the Kingdom of Christ coming in the time of the fourth kingdom which is Rome. To begin the Kingdom at the birth or resurrection of Christ and then end it in A.D. 70 is pure nonsense.
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.
Thank you,
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/14/2006 12:19:39 PM
|
|
|
bygraceiamsaved
Posts: 1376
Status: offline
|
Pat: Ya know there are a bunch of names and I have been doing some heavy soul searching the past several days which is why I have not posted and decided after much scripture reading and prayer that this since this is a non-essential that I too am hurting the cause of Christ by debating this subject among others. Christ came to free us from bondage and non-essential doctrine I believe is one of the things he freed us from.
It's not worth dividing and debating over when most of us agree on the essentials. I apologize for my attitude on this and other subjects and plan on taking a break to further ponder this. I strongly believe what I believe and have not changed my mind except I no longer feel the need to replace love with doctrine. This is where John Piper, Chuck Swindoll and lesser known ministers have been a great example. The truth should be preached but not without love and grace. I believe I have failed at both and God has hit me over the head with a 2x4 to get me to see it.
I believe Hattie and others have pointed this out as well and in my zeal I jumped right over it.
_____________________________
"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 - 1/15/2006 2:01:47 PM
|
|
|
FullPreterist
Posts: 23
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
bygraceiamsaved: I agree that many things are not worth arguing over and that we are all bound in the body by faith in Christ. However, I do not believe that the futurist-preterist debate falls into the insignificant differences category. The preponderance of the pretribulation, premillennial dispensational teachings today is doing great harm to the Church. Many have been turned off by the ridiculous speculations and fanciful interpretations of the Scriptures--especially of the Book of Revelation. For me it all comes down to this? Does Jesus say what He means and mean what He says? If He said He was coming soon back in the first century but didn't come, what must we think of that? If He told His disciples that all that He had told them (Matthew 24) would take place before their generation had passed but none of it has yet happened, what does this say about Jesus' credibility? Many have simply given up and completely ignore the
Book of Revelation. But when seen in its proper setting, it is a wonderful testimony of Christ's love and care for and vindication of His Church, His fulfillment of promised judgment on those guilty of all the righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23), and His return in glory for His Bride. To relegate it to the fanciful and unsubstantiated speculations of such as Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and Jerry Jenkins is a crime against the Church. If we believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, then we are obligated to defend it against blatant misinterpretations that turn away not only the Church but unbelievers as well. God is true; God is faithful; God is just--all these things come through beautifully in a correct understanding of the Revelation. These issues are extremely important and must be addressed by the Church at large IMHO. Take care, FullPreterist
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/15/2006 5:14:48 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2243
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FullPreterist
bygraceiamsaved: I agree that many things are not worth arguing over and that we are all bound in the body by faith in Christ. However, I do not believe that the futurist-preterist debate falls into the insignificant difference category. The preponderance of the pretribulation, premillennial dispensation teachings today is doing great harm to the Church. Many have been turned off by the ridiculous speculations and fanciful interpretations of the Scriptures--especially of the Book of Revelation. For me it all comes down to this?
Does Jesus say what He means and mean what He says? If He said He was coming soon back in the first century but didn't come, what must we think of that? If He told His disciples that all that He had told them (Matthew 24) would take place before their generation had passed but none of it has yet happened, what does this say about Jesus' credibility? Many have simply given up and completely ignore the
Book of Revelation. But when seen in its proper setting, it is a wonderful testimony of Christ's love and care for and vindication of His Church, His fulfillment of promised judgment on those guilty of all the righteous blood shed on earth (Matthew 23), and His return in glory for His Bride. To relegate it to the fanciful and unsubstantiated speculations of such as Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, and Jerry Jenkins is a crime against the Church. If we believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, then we are obligated to defend it against blatant misinterpretations that turn away not only the Church but unbelievers as well. God is true; God is faithful; God is just--all these things come through beautifully in a correct understanding of the Revelation. These issues are extremely important and must be addressed by the Church at large IMHO. Take care, FullPreterist
Greetings,
quote:
God is true; God is faithful; God is just--all these things come through beautifully in a correct understanding of the Revelation.
Very Good post,
For me however I am having a bit of confusion, as mentioned above, this is true, however Jesus himself quoted *ell more than any other in the scriptures.
The understanding of the Revelation in its simplistic form,
Jesus died and went to Hades to release the captives, if one takes away that Spiritual concept then all those who become saved under the New Testament (covenant) that release will not give them the option of understanding their sin if their sin is not revealed.
Luke 16:27-31
In the Old Testament the saints awaited that day when they would be released, as Jesus said in
Mt 13:17
for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
That option on longer exists, Jesus took the keys, and fulfilled it, because many prophets and righteous men did not hear it and did not see it, and this is it what happened when Jesus went to release those captives.
John 8, Jesus is speaking to the “Pharisees” who understood this concept of Hades, he was not speaking to the common people, he spoke very directly, and in opposite of their beliefs in John 8:21-24. In other words he spoke both salvation and doomsday!
To simplify this revelation, no one waits in Hades once the Son of Man is lifted up, this option is therefore made obsolete, there is no more Hades for the dead, and if we do not believe he is who he is, then we die in our sins.
Under the New Covenant we no longer wait in Hades for a savior, in order to see, and to hear.
This is why in verse 30 many of the “Pharisees” believed in him according to John 8:30.
This revelation is typified when May went to the tomb and Jesus “revealed” himself to her, and because she knew his voice “she responded immediately and said “Rabbi”
IMHO this is the argument between Preterists and Futurists,
If one reads John 8:21-30
The understanding of the Revelation came after Jesus was lifted up, to get a better understanding of this and more detail one must read Nu 21:9 (Torah) according to John 8:28.
IMHO from what I read and see the Preterists await and claim that return of Christ in the Second Coming was in 70 AD or in the end days is Spiritual, but the Bible shows that the Spiritual ressurection already happened at the tomb with Mary and is only the first coming. “Mary called him Rabbi” If we no longer needed to be taught then why did she call him Rabbi?”
Matt 23:8 But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
Deliverance in the name of Jesus is as the same as Jesus going to Hades (revealing sins) to have them released from Satan’s grasp.
Just as the Pharisees did not know that he spoke to them of the Father, those who do not believe do not know of their sin. John 8-26-27
The Saints of God are like Jesus, by that same deliverance.
We therefore go likewise into Hades… so to speak… to a person who is being held captive in a place that we are freed from, and lead them out of it by the power of the Holy Spirit, simply because we have those keys, in Christ Jesus.
If we do not reveal that knowledge of the tree of evil (sin), then they die in their sins.
To say it was finished in 70 AD is unsubstantiated speculation robbing people of that truth, and I agree these issues are extremely important and must be addressed by the Church at large, however the Holy Spirit is rare in most of these churches and a Church at large means it can not be found….. Which is why we must seek the truth that will be revealed to us by the Christ, in the Bible.
Loyal Gypsy
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/15/2006 5:20:14 PM
|
|
|
Hattie4Him
Posts: 846
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Debbie: RE: #93, Ahhh…, Wow! I don't know what to say; but I will try. I know that had to be hard for you to write, and because it was addressed to me, and included others, I feel I need to reply; so that healing can begin for me, and so that our relationship as sisters in the Lord can start from here---fresh. This is hard for me to write, because for 8-plus years we've both been posting in CW, in many of the same forum threads, and your words, actions [attitude], and treatment of me, and others, has stood as a continuous reminder of every reason I left Post-mil for Pre-mil. I do want you to know I have forgiven you many times over, and I have prayed for you; and now, I also accept your most gracious apology for your attitude. I Praise God for what He is revealing to you; namely, "The truth should be preached but not without love and grace." Yes, you have failed at both, least-wise towards me; However, I know God is a great redeemer of our wrongs---and we all do wrong and make mistakes whereby we find out we need to stop, turn around and start afresh. I believe God is going to bless your efforts in this.
I now need to ask you for your patience, as the greatest area of damage done, for me, has been in the area of trusting you. Do I trust you? No! Do I want to trust you in the Lord? Yes! Am I willing to try again? Very cousously, one post at a time, yes I am; but it's not going to happen over night; I pray you can understand this.
There is one thing I'd like to address on the subject of "non-essential doctrine." I don't know about other Pre-mils, I can't speak for them, but my doctrine and my eschatology are two separate things. My foundation is not built upon my eschatology; my eschatology can change, but my foundational doctrine is solid--- it can not be moved. Although I stand in the Pre-mil camp, I have said many times, and I still maintain that none of the views are wrong, but all of them are incomplete at this time. Therefore, my purpose here [in End-times forum] is not to win anyone over to my view, but to share what I know, listen, support, encourage, study, reason together, and yes, learn from others. For me, this is Bible School---Not a mission of "I'm right and you're wrong because…. ." I see eschatology as an essential part of studying Scripture, and scripture verifying and confirming scripture. I need to trust every word that is written so that I can trust God in all things. I'm Not content just to take another mans word, interpretation of what it says and means. That's what was happening before the reformation! That's why there was a need for the reformation! Just as I believe there is a need for a new reformation; one that includes loving one another—in the Lord. Keeping what has remained that is good straight and true, and adding God's kind of love mercy and grace to it. Anyway, I'm going to go for now.
God bless you, bygraceiamsaved,
Pat
< Message edited by Hattie4Him -- 1/15/2006 5:40:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/15/2006 5:36:20 PM
|
|
|
Bible Thumper
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
|
I am a convinced futurist. Others are convinced Preterists but I have never seen anyone change their mind on this one. I almost wonder if it is even worthwhile to debate the topic. Good Post, ByGrace. I am impressed with your candor and sincerity.
BT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/15/2006 11:27:33 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 128
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am a convinced futurist. Others are convinced Preterists but I have never seen anyone change their mind on this one. I almost wonder if it is even worthwhile to debate the topic.
Every preterist I have read or heard including myself didn't start out preterist. Most were raised in dispensational churches. There have been many that have changed thier mind. Interestingly I've seen many leave the dispensational view to some sort of preterist view but never one go from a preterist view ti a dispensational view.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism vs. Futurism - One Stop Thread - 1/16/2006 7:12:24 AM
|
|
|
Bible Thumper
Posts: 9
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
|
quote:
Every preterist I have read or heard including myself didn't start out preterist. Most were raised in dispensational churches. There have been many that have changed thier mind. Interestingly I've seen many leave the dispensational view to some sort of preterist view but never one go from a preterist view ti a dispensational view.
That is true. I am just speaking from my experience in this particular forum over the last few years. I have seen some rather heated debates on both sides. Instead of listening to the arguments objectively and considering whether they were true or false, they began formulating a response and often questioned the motives of their opponent in the process. 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
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
