Posted on 09/01/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by xzins
There is nothing in that verse that contradicts the notion that God has dealt different with humans in different eras.
It says nothing about dispensationalism. (And 2 covenants would also be 2 dispensations.)
While DTS was busy drawing their pretty multi-colored maps of the future, Roe v. Wade was happening in their own back yard. They were so wrapped up in using God's Word as a tool of divination that they couldn't apply it prophetically to what was going on right under their noses.
Dispensationalists are de facto "cheerleaders for the other team," people whose love for Jesus has been perverted into an active desire to see bad things happen to other people.
No change at all, you have just misread all my previous comments on the subject.
You are now allowing the possible legitimacy of the post-70 AD dating of the Book of Revelation.
I have always allowed for a post-AD70 date for the Book of Revelation since when a book of the Bible was written is not a point of infallible revelation. IOW, we cannot know for sure since God has not left us with the infallible means to know for sure.
Do you agree and do you hold the same position for the somewhat popular AD90's view?
That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling ...
And what exactly would force me to make such a switch? The answer you give to this question will be telling as to whether or not you really understand my position.
You obviously didn't read the post in which I replaced "Israel" with "Church" in Romans 9-11.
It is an absurd reading of scripture.
An honest person admits that in the bible Israel sometimes means Israel; that each occasion must be studied in grammar, contexts, and history.
Let's end this obviously erroneous insistence that every instance of Israel/Jew must always mean Church/Christian. It simply isn't supportable biblically......
The histrionics involved in tossing around the words heresy/heretic, notwithstanding.
Because preterists insist that fulfillments are actual and not symbolic.
Oooh, I've often wondered how to delicately describe the wonderful situation my bride of 30+ years and I find ourselves in today. That just about sums it up.
According to Calvinism wouldn't that be all of them?
I'm just askin'.
I think you are confusing preterism with idealism.
Preterist believe in actual fulfillment of prophecies that were given in symbolical terms. E.g., when Revelation speak of "the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified" we take that symbol to be speaking of Jerusalem. So that later on in Revelation when we see references again to "the great city" as the harlot we know the author is again speaking of Jerusalem. These passages all predict the destruction of "the great city" which symbolically represented the actual city of ancient Jerusalem.
Further confirmation of this interpretation is given by the contrast between "the great city" in chaoters 11 and 17 with "the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," in Rev. 21:10. It is not a coincidence that the earthly "great city" (old Jerusalem) is contrasted with the heavenly "great city" (new Jerusalem). See Galatian 4:21-31 for additional confirmation.
Ya gotta understand the symbols to understand the book. And the symbols do not exist in a vacuum as many futurists seem to think. They are interpreted by the rest of the Bible.
Does that help?
I had incorporated that....a proper gramattico-historic method would take into account any passage that has indications it should be taken symbolically/metaphorically/allegorically.
Without those CLEAR indications a passage should be taken at face value.
How so?
If I stand up and say I'm a peanut butter sandwich, how does Calvinism help to authenticate my claim?
No it is not. My premillenial position is not based upon when Revelation was written, but by what is written in Revelation. Your preterist position is contingent upon a pre-70AD authorship of Revelation. If it was written after the destruction of the temple, then it would necessarily be a futurist book. It could still be a "futurist" book even if it were penned at the time of the crucifixion or even before (as was Daniel).
All evidence (both internal and external) points to a post 90AD date for the book of Revelation.
Would you call yourself a peanut butter sandwich if God didn't ordain it?
By saying that, Corin was referencing Calvinist's belief that nothing happens that was not part of God's plan. Therefore, those different parts of Judaism would have been part of the already written script.
So would be your standing up and admitting, "I am a peanut butter sandwich."
But you're missing something. The entire book is given in symbols and signs. It says it right up front in verse 1 of chapter 1, "things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel". So the operative method would be to take everything as a symbol unless you have some good and explicit reason not to. That's they real grammatical-historical method. You should not be surprised to see symbols and signs and types in Prophetic/revelational/apocalypic language.
I should point out the "artifical literalism" of many futurists. A good example is our friend Hal Lindsey and the subject of the "locusts" in Rev. 9. In Lindsey's semi-literal mind this reference could not be to the actual insects called locusts, so he had to invent a scenario to explain what was being seen by John. But rather than turn to the rest of the Bible to see how God used locusts in prophetic passages, he chose to interpret this passage as referring to far future men encased in Cobra helicopters. Ignore the fact that lots of the details don't fit with what we know about Cobra helicopters (thus the label "semi-literal") unless you really stretch the language, the suggestion is so preposterous it makes real theologians laugh out loud.
Of course he must also ignore the fact that there is nothing in the passage to help 1st century Christians understand these as being Cobra helicopters, and since those folks were told "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near," they must have been left at a real disadvantage.
John didn't have to go thought and footnote the symbols as you seem to think.
Exactly, now you are catching on to my position, although you keep insisting otherwise. But I think you will get it eventually.
So let's not bring up Irenaeus and his buddies again, OK?
Do you believe there are things that happen that are not part of God's plan. Was Katrina part of "God's plan"? Was it part of "God's plan" that "the older shall serve the younger" in the case of Jacob and Esau? Was your salvation part of "God's plan"?
Can you give us an outline from the Bible as to which events fall into "God's plan" and which do not? Thanks.
"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That woe and well-being proceed?" (Lam. 3:38)
Can we stipulate that Revelation was written in AD96?
It is the most likely answer.
I would say 1900 years of consistent church teaching on the matter is not "undeveloped". This is gobblygook to say they've abandoned historical teaching.
If the Jews are "God's own people" as the author claims, we all better switch to Judaism. But what can one expect from Dallas Theological Philosophical Seminary any longer.
Your answer would be "all of them."
Correct?
I'm just askin'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.