Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Am Not A Preterist
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/preterist.html ^ | John Stevenson

Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins

WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST

The word "preterist" is taken from the Latin word meaning "past." This view denies any future fulfillment of the book of Revelation and sees the events it describes as already having been fulfilled within the first century after Christ.

There are several different forms of Preterism. Full Preterism views all of the prophecies of the Bible as having already been fulfilled in their entirety since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full Preterism is a very recent innovation that has no adherents in any of the writings of the early church.

Partial Preterism maintains a future return of Christ, but views His "coming in the clouds" as described in Matthew 24:29-31 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem.

1. Jesus and Preterism.

With regards to Preterism, I am reminded of the words of Jesus when He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24).

It seems to me that the Preterist is one who is pointing to the A.D. 70 event and saying, "Look there! Look here!" But there is going to be no mistaking the coming of the Son of Man when He finally returns. By contrast, none of the believers of the early church viewed the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling the promise of the return of Christ. This brings us to our next point.

2. The Church Fathers and Preterism.

It is clear from a reading of the apostolic and church fathers that ALL of them expected a future return of Jesus Christ. It would be strange indeed if the entire church failed to understand the fulfillment of so many of the New Testament prophecies on such a major point. This is especially striking when we remember the promise of Revelation 1:7 that tells us, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. A preterist interpretation calls for this to be a reference to the "tribes of the land" of Israel, even though Israel was never described in such a way elsewhere in the Bible. But such an interpretation would demand that the Jews who suffered through the A.D. 70 event would have recognized that their sufferings were a punishment for their treatment of Jesus since the prophecy is not merely that they would mourn, but that they would mourn "over Him." Just as there is no evidence that anyone in the church ever recognized the fall of Jerusalem as the return of Jesus, so also there is a complete absence of evidence that the Jews ever recognized the coming of Jesus in those events.

3. The Resurrection and Preterism.

Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead. But the pattern for our resurrection is that of Jesus. The big idea presented in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus arose from the dead. This was not merely some sort of spiritual resurrection. The point is made throughout this chapter that His resurrection was bodily and physical. Furthermore we are told that His resurrection serves as the paradigm for our own resurrection. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). He is the firstfruits and we are the "later fruits."

When Paul came to Athens, he was mocked by the Greeks for believing in a physical resurrection. Such mockery would not have been forthcoming had he held that the resurrection was only going to be of a spiritual or mystical nature. But he went out of his way to side himself with the Pharisees who believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8).

In denying any future resurrection at the coming of Christ, the preterist also finds himself out of accord with the words of Paul when he says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). The reference to sleep is used throughout this epistle as a euphemism for death (11:30; 15:6; 15:18; 15:20). While Paul says of the coming of the Lord that it will be a time when all do not die, the preterist is left with the rather obvious historic truth that everyone who lived in the first century did indeed die.

When it comes to the resurrection, the Bible teaches that Jesus is our prototype. His resurrection is the forerunner and the pattern for our own resurrection. This point is made in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that if there is no resurrection then even Jesus has not risen.

The resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection. He was able to stand before His disciples in His resurrection body and say, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). 1 John 3:2 says that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore we can conclude that our future resurrection will be of a physical AND spiritual nature.

4. Preterism and the Lord's Supper.

One wonders whether the Full Preterist is completely consistent in his views. After all, most Full Preterists continue to partake of the Lord's Supper in spite of the fact that Paul said that the eating and drinking serves to "proclaim the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

5. Preterism and the Promise of a Soon Coming.

Preterists like to point out that Jesus and the disciples stated that the kingdom was near and at hand. What they often ignore is that this same formula was used in the Old Testament in instances where the eventual fulfillment was a long way off.

An example of this is seen in Isaiah 13:6 where, speaking of a coming judgment against the city of Babylon, the prophet says, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." Isaiah writes these words in the 8th century B.C. but it is not until 539 B.C. that Babylon fell to the Persians.

The preterist attempts to make a similar case via the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." What is conveniently ignored is the earlier context of Jesus' words in the previous chapter.

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

35 that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation." (Matthew 23:34-36).

Notice that it was "this generation" that murdered Zechariah, the son of Berechiah." The problem is that this murder took place 400 years earlier as recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This tells us that Matthew's use of the term "generation" means something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time.

6. Preterism and the Angels at the Ascension.

Another problem facing the preterist is seen in the promise that was given to the disciples at the ascension of Jesus. The event took place on the Mount of Olives.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11).

The promise that was given by the angels is that Jesus would come again in exactly the same way as they had watched Him go into heaven. This had not been a spiritual ascension, but a physical and visible one. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages fully expect a future physical and visible return of Christ.

7. Preterism and the Judgment of the World.

When Paul preaches to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he declares to them that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed (Acts 17:31). The Preterist interpretation of this verse is that it points to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, yet that fall would have absolutely no impact upon the Athenians who had gathered to listen to Paul. He says that they ought to repent because of this coming judgment and such a warning is nonsensical if it only refers to a local judgment in a far away land.

There are some eschatological differences that exist between Christians that I consider to be relatively benign and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. This is not one of them. To the contrary, the teaching of Preterism comes uncomfortably close to the spiritual gangrene that is described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 when he speaks of those who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching. I cannot help but to be reminded of the litmus test suggested by Jesus: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit (Matthew 7:16-17).

  




TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: heresy; preterism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-199 next last
After graduating with a Bachelors Degree in Theology from Florida Bible College, John went on to receive his Masters of Divinity from Knox Theological Seminary and later did post graduate studies at Reformed Theological Seminary. Having worked for 29 years in the Fire-Resue arena, John retired in January 2007 at the rank of Battalion Chief in the Broward Sheriff's Division of Fire-Rescue. As an ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America, John has taught at Miami International Seminary, at the Boca Campus of Reformed Theological Seminary, at the South Florida Bible College and overseas at the Moldova Bible Seminary in Eastern Europe. Now he has been called to a new work as the President of Redeemer Bible College.
1 posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:52 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; BibChr; Gamecock
This Reformed pastor (PCA) with a solid reformed scholastic background clearly disagrees with preterism.

Peter, of course, wrote his letter near 65AD. Five years away from the preterist parousia, Peter did not even hint at the soon return of Jesus.

Actually, the opposite. Peter said,

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.


2 posted on 04/12/2007 8:36:40 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Good stuff. Thanks.


3 posted on 04/12/2007 8:37:28 AM PDT by irishtenor (Save the whales. Collect the whole set.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

You’re welcome.


4 posted on 04/12/2007 8:49:48 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching.

Typical hit piece. John ought to pay a little more attention to people within his own church (PCA) as there are several partial preterists therein (particularly R.C. Sproul) who ARE focused on church ministry, spreading the gospel and building up the church, and spend relatively little time on eschatology.

5 posted on 04/12/2007 9:22:14 AM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

Not to mention the fact that the author plays the guilt-by-association game with partial preterists. Every partial preterist I know would without reservation reject full preterism as heresy specifically because of some of the above points (particularly the denial of a future bodily resurrection).


6 posted on 04/12/2007 9:26:45 AM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; xzins
Exactly.

bttt

7 posted on 04/12/2007 9:35:19 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins; TomSmedley; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg
Oh, goody, a new thread.

This Reformed pastor (PCA) with a solid reformed scholastic background clearly disagrees with preterism.

True, but the fact is he is ordained in a denomination with many orthodox preterists (RC Sproul, a documented preterist, is also PCA) and the matter has never been an issue to my knowledge, certainly not at the General Assembly level.

He would have a hard time making his personal views stick within the PCA, which, at least at this point, understands Reformed theology better than you.

BTW, the PCA is also a denomination that regularly denies ordination to dispensationalists like yourself because of your biblically inconsistent views.

You're clearly fishing in uncharted waters.

Run out of Bible answers?

8 posted on 04/12/2007 9:42:39 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins; TomSmedley; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg; Frumanchu; Matchett-PI
As long as we are quoting outside sources:
Preterism is a hermeneutic method used to interpret eschatological (end-times) passages in both the Old an the New Testaments. The orthodox preterist view sees nearly all events (excluding the Second Advent [emph. added]) described in the book of Revelation and the 24th chapter of Matthew as already having been fulfilled by A.D. 70. The preterist position may be held by those who hold to the amillennial, postmillennial, or the historic premillennial positions on the Second Coming of Christ.

***

CRI considers the preterist position to be within the pale of orthodox Christianity [emph. added], since it affirms all of the essential eschatological doctrines of the historic Christian faith, which includes:

The Bodily Return of our Lord Jesus Christ in Glory for His Church The Bodily Resurrection of Believers & Unbelievers
The Universal Judgment of the Living and the Dead
The Reception of Eternal Life for the Elect, and the Allotment of Eternal Condemnation for Unbelievers The Eternality of Christ's Righteous Kingdom
A vital distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist and "hyper-preterist" [emph. added] views pertaining to eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, "hyper-preterists" go so far as to insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection has already occurred. This position is no part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith .(emphasis added)

-- Taken from a CRI letter dated May 19, 1999 authored by CRI representative Thad Williams


9 posted on 04/12/2007 9:57:00 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Among other things, preterism’s acceptance of a bodily resurrection is questioned.


10 posted on 04/12/2007 10:07:00 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Among other things, preterism’s acceptance of a bodily resurrection is questioned.

Questioned by whom? You? You can't even define your terms.

11 posted on 04/12/2007 10:11:56 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

See point 3 above.

If you can read.


12 posted on 04/12/2007 10:18:30 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; topcat54; Frumanchu; xzins; Lee N. Field; TomSmedley; HarleyD; Alex Murphy; ...
Thanks for that great and informative site, Matchett-Pi. We should post some of those essays as threads. This one caught my eye...

ANGELS WE HAVE HEARD ON HIGH
The Location of Christ's Reign
Dee Dee Warren

I am a fully recovered former premillennial, pretribulational, futurist. It is now amazing to me how easily I see the wealth of passages that utterly defeat those earlier much-cherished eschatological doctrines. That being said, I do not believe for a second that other people hold them because they are unintelligent and do not love the Word of God because I once zealously held them myself….. but I do remember that once I started taking a look at certain passages without the grid I was so carefully taught, the scaffolding just fell away. Now while I didn't receive the particular insight that I am now going to share in those earlier days, I am hoping that this may be used to open the eyes of others to consider the possibility that the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical...

13 posted on 04/12/2007 10:27:00 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins; TomSmedley; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg; Frumanchu; Matchett-PI
If you can read.

Careful, or the R-M might slap you hand.

Since the author equivocates on the definition of "preterism" that he himself offers, the question is against whom does the charge apply?

Certainly not the "partial preterist" by his own statement, "Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead".

And he makes it clear that it is only the "full preterist" variety that is not orthodox.

So the question becomes, "where's the beef?"

BTW, this is a very poor article for the president of a bible college to be authoring. Clearly the PCA does not have its best and brightest out front on this matter. But why should they, since preterism in the orthodox variety is not an issue for the PCA. Sounds more like a hobby horse for this fellow.

Specious statements such as, "I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel ..." is just plain silly, until the author has polled the entire universe of preterists and objectively documented their convictions in this area.

14 posted on 04/12/2007 10:30:14 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54; Alex Murphy; TomSmedley; Matchett-PI; blue-duncan; Lee N. Field; irishtenor
Preterism and partial or orthodox preterism are worlds apart.

Either this author doesn't know that or he's purposely trying to confuse the discussion.

Imagine that. (Now I know how blue-duncan felt when he said something about dispensationalism mucking up historic premillennialism.)

Christ reigns today from the right hand of God the Father. Otherwise, the resurrection itself is relegated to just another moment in history when, if fact, it is the pinnacle by and for and through which everything was created.

"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent" -- Matthew 27:51

15 posted on 04/12/2007 10:38:05 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; xzins
Specious statements such as, "I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel ..." is just plain silly

Not only silly, but off by 180 degrees since most orthodox (partial) preterists are postmillennial and believe that the Great Commission must and will be fulfilled by the God-ordained spread of the Gospel and all the confidence and glory with which it comes.

16 posted on 04/12/2007 10:44:06 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

He clearly said, “I have yet to meet....”

Reading, reading,.....


17 posted on 04/12/2007 11:01:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

And here I thought he said, “I have yet to meet...”


18 posted on 04/12/2007 11:03:48 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; Matchett-PI

The reject only the name “full preterist.” They modify the doctrine to be a secret, invisible coming of Christ in 70AD.

Find me one apostle or one early Christian who says that Christ returned in 70 AD.

Just one.

You’d think such a thing would’ve caused a stir.

So far as the author’s observation about preterists and evangelism, he is clearly referring to their tendency to proclaim “preterism” rather than the gospel.


19 posted on 04/12/2007 11:15:44 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Hardly helpful. He could very well have meant, “I have yet to meet a Preterist.”


20 posted on 04/12/2007 11:18:33 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Sylvan might help


21 posted on 04/12/2007 11:25:28 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins; TomSmedley; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg; Frumanchu; Matchett-PI

You’re running out of steam. I’ll give you the opportunity to head to the showers with dignity.

Or is there no one else left in the bullpen to avoid a rout?

“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matt. 16:28)

Still waiting for your plain sense interpretation.


22 posted on 04/12/2007 11:31:29 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54; Alex Murphy; TomSmedley; Matchett-PI; blue-duncan; Lee N. Field; irishtenor
These threads have been very informative. They show not only the lengths to which some people (like this PCA guy and Englesma yesterday) will go to muddy the waters, but just how defensive they can be when it comes to the idea that Jesus Christ just might be in control of the world today and that things just might be happening the way God ordains today and most especially, that the preaching of the Gospel will convert the world into faithful disciples today.

I've learned from these threads that these apparently unnerving prospects have disturbed even those who should know better. Which leads me to conclude that the the Gospel and the transformative nature of God's grace is truly the enemy of Satan who tries (and yet will fail) to prevent every knee from bowing to Jesus Christ.

What greater assistance does Satan need than true and sincere Christians who wrongly say the battle cannot be won on earth and Christ's victory on the cross must be postponed?

Are we not to imbue our politics with our Christianity, xzins, you who speak so eloquently for the unborn's right to life? Is that not a theological position God blesses? Won't the abandonment of abortion bring favor to this entire country by healing women's broken hearts and souls, and giving breath to all God's creation?

I came to the orthodox (partial) preterist, postmillennial position when I realized it was the most vigorous, joyous, positive, uplifting, energizing and Scripturally-sound means of preaching the Gospel of Christ risen to all men everywhere.

From Matchett-Pi's site:

WHAT IS PRETERISM

23 posted on 04/12/2007 11:40:18 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; xzins; TomSmedley; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Alex Murphy; Frumanchu; Matchett-PI
Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence)

As many of you are no doubt aware, I was raised a Dispensationalist. When I first became convinced that the teachings of Dispensationalism are not supported by an honest assessment of scriptures, I determined to change my thinking on the topic, and so be done with the issue summarily. Such were my intentions, but I found, much to my surprise, that the roots of Dispensationalism are so deep, and they affect so profoundly one's way of thinking about virtually every theological issue, that the task of rejecting one's own Dispensationally-flavored way of viewing the Bible is no simple task. It is a monumental struggle that requires years of deep, intense, Spirit-reliant searching of the scriptures. As I embarked on this long process, I slowly became aware of a vast array of manners in which a thorough grounding in the Dispensational ideal tends to influence one's beliefs and emphases. This in itself was shocking to me; but what came as the severest shock of all was the reflection that virtually every one of these Dispensationally-derived misunderstandings tended in some way towards the eclipse of Christ as the sum and substance of every redemptive promise and reality, the One for whom, to whom, and by whom are all things, the One who sums up all of reality, brings all things under his feet, and is in himself all the fullness of the Godhead. Let me be clear here: I have no doubt that many, if not all Dispensationalists would affirm in theory the Christo-centrism of all reality; nevertheless, the fact remains that in practice they deny the explicit Christ-centeredness of many times, persons, and realities in history - and not just minor, inconsequential persons and things, but those that stand out as epoch-defining and historically-pivotal.

I am indeed grateful for the many resources available today which demonstrate scripturally that Dispensationalism is in error. I think that our current need is not so much to argue that Dispensationalism is wrong - although such efforts will certainly continue to be helpful - as it is to show just how grave and far-reaching the errors really are. In contribution to this latter goal, I have reproduced a portion of an interaction that I had some time ago with one of my Dispensational friends. My hope is that the preceding comments and following correspondence will not be unduly inflammatory or derogatory in nature, but that they will be used by God "for the equipping of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ, until we all attain, in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man…" (Ephesians 4:12-13). We all retain errors of some sort in our striving after the full knowledge of Christ and his great work: God grant that such dialogues between fellow-believers in Christ may be useful in the doctrinal maturation of each one of us!

I will begin with a portion of a letter written by my friend, in which he responds to a comment I had made labeling Dispensationalism as "dangerous"; and then proceed to my response to his letter.

Initial Letter from a Dispensationalist Friend

I understand that you think my teaching is dangerous, but I am at a loss as to what makes it so.
I am Trinitarian according to the 1689 Baptist Confession. I believe in inerrancy as explained by Warfield. I believe in the substitutionary death and physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. I believe in the resurrection of all the saints to glory, and in the just, eternal, conscious torment of all the damned. I teach Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola fide, Sola Gracia, Sola Deo Gloria, total depravity (and inability), unconditional (individual) election, particular redemption (as generally expressed by Grudem), irresistible grace (and the priority of regeneration to conversion), and perseverance of the saints (including the Reformed view of sanctification as presented in 1689 Baptist Confession and Sinclair Ferguson's essay in the five-views book). Though those in the Reformed camp have traditionally disagreed on apologetics (Warfield vs. Kuyper; Clark vs. Van Til; Sproul vs. Bahnsen), I am, as you are, presuppositional in my apologetic, understanding the Christian worldview to provide the only reasonable basis for knowledge, ethics, morality, and brushing one's teeth. I fail to see how a distinction between the eschatological roles of true Israel and the true Church puts any of these doctrines in danger. While other dispensationalists may not be as conservative on these things as I am, they made up a strong contingent of conservative, Bible-believing Christians in America of the twentieth century.
As [ ____ ] said, eschatology is a difficult subject, but it is worth our study. Your change in position implies that you agree with me on both counts. I understand that you passionately believe what you have stated; I too passionately believe what I have stated elsewhere on this forum. That means that we both think the other person is dead wrong. Nonetheless, patience with one another is essential to forwarding the conversation, and, in my view, calling one another "dangerous" should be somewhat further down the road of disagreement.

My Letter in Response

I accept your rebuke all the more seriously, perhaps, by reason of my own experiences in being labeled unorthodox for teaching what I understood then, and still understand, to be derived exclusively from the scriptures. Before I respond specifically to your question as to my labeling of Dispensationalism as "dangerous," let me affirm to you that I am not now, and certainly never intended before now, to call you a heretic, or to say that what you believe, as you have explained yourself, is heresy. I truly and honestly rejoice at your clear and sincere commitment to the great and fundamental doctrines of the faith. I am both encouraged and rebuked by your passionate love for Christ and your diligence in studying carefully the word of our God. But I am not sure (even if I stated it too harshly or was too little specific in what precisely I was warning against) - I am still not sure that I am ready to rescind my assessment of Dispensationalism as "dangerous." Even in using the term, I intend to imply a difference between heresy and the simple schema of Dispensationalism - it is dangerous because it may lead (as I believe) to heresy, or it may assume forms which are heretical. Although those specific forms of Dispensationalism which I would call heretical I have never heard espoused by you or anyone I know from your particular circles, and neither do I expect to. But let me move from these realms of vague generalities, and mention what I perceive to be dangers of the system. All of these "dangers" are either things that I have been clearly and specifically taught as Dispensationalism, or things about which I have been confused - things which largely shaped my thinking - when I was a dispensationalist. I think some of these things you will agree with me are "dangerous" (or downright heretical): but you will not agree that they are necessarily dispensational. I would argue that they are (1) clearly taught by many dispensationalists, or (2) clearly demanded by consistent loyalty to dispensational tenets.

1.) Dispensationalism tends to a Kierkegaardian conception of faith.

I adduce this danger as one having suffered from it personally. I was always taught that, although salvation was always by faith alone, the content of that faith differed in other dispensations (the position which Ryrie clearly espouses). The way this was presented to me (and the way I understood and believed it) was that, essentially, Noah was saved by believing it would rain. And so on. In other words, it was not faith in Christ alone, but faith with respect only to itself that saved a person (and similarly, even today the abstraction "faith" has some mystical eternal life-giving power in itself). Obviously this conception of faith is somewhat Kierkegaardian, but I am convinced that it affects the minds of far more evangelicals than we would like to admit. Faith in itself is nothing, it only turns our eyes to someone who is everything. Dispensationalism taught me that faith was what saved, and not that faith was the means through which Christ saved. Regardless of how else we may differ on Acts 2 interpretations of OT prophecies, I think we would both admit that Peter was quite confident that David had a faith which looked ahead to a resurrected Christ, as did all the OT saints. The genuinely Christocentric nature of faith and salvation from the beginning is obscured (dangerously) by dispensationalism.

2.) Dispensationalism was destructive to my ability to grasp the unity and significance of the biblical story.

For instance, when I was a dispensationalist, the Davidic Covenant was of almost no import whatsoever to me. It revealed God's gracious condescencion to mankind, as did, for instance, his promise to Hezekiah that he would live fifteen more years, and so on. But as far as structuring the biblical story, I saw nothing monumental in it. I thought the bible was structured in "dispensations," and the giving of the covenant did not mark a new administration essentially different from that of "law". When I forsook dispensationalism, I was shocked by how central that covenant was, particularly among the writing prophets, in advancing the eternal kingdom of God. And I was much better equipped to make sense of Acts 2 (again) and Christ's reigning from the throne of David in the New Testament. In brief, the grand, Christ-centered, organically-connected, unified story of redemption and the spread of the kingdom was for me split into several inter-related, but not organically progressing, periods. And in the process the glory of Christ and his grand drama of redemption was dangerously eclipsed. In the exchange, by the way, the stories of the OT became "Aesop's fables," tales that contain a moral for upright living, but have no real connection to me, and no real glorying in Christ alone, and no real awe-struck wondering at how the story of redemption was unfolding until it reached its height of glory in the spiritual realities of the New Testament that were promised and typified and illustrated and yearned for in the Old Testament - much as a mustard tree growing until it is the greatest of all the herbs, and excels in the glory which inhered in its seed from the beginning.

3.) Dispensationalism tainted my mindset with leanings towards Arminianism.

This particularly with regard to the dispensational teaching of the offering of the kingdom. What is more absurd than the idea of a king "offering" to reign? This whole mindset of a God who is "sovereign" by invitation only - who reigns unless he is rejected - strikes me as fundamentally Arminian. Again, I know that you are not in any way Arminian - but I believe that Arminianism is consonant with dispensationalism, and that the largely Arminian worldview of many Christians is reinforced by dispensational teaching. Let me add here, dispensationalism contributed to my blind acceptance of the philosophy of easy-believism. If Christ was only teaching that we must give up everything to follow him into some crassly physical thousand year reign, then eternal salvation (in my mind something wholly distinct) might well have had other demands. Simply faith, which was ultimately Kierkegaardian, and demanded no accepting of Christ as "Lord," became the abstraction by which I assured myself of eternal life, with no regard for the persevering work of Christ continuing in my life.

4. Dispensationalism (as it was taught to me) embraces a horrendously insufficient view of the new covenant in Christ's blood.)

I have had more than one well-respected dispensationalist (in our old circles) try to convince me that the new covenant in Christ's blood has nothing to do with us. Because (forget the four gospel accounts, I Corinthians 11, Hebrews 8, 10, etc.) the new covenant was prophecied for "Israel" which can never be anything other than ethnic Israel (forget also what Paul said about a true Jew being one who is a Jew inwardly). So how does the blood of Christ affect us, the church (as distinct from the rest of the redeemed)? We get, (and I quote) "peripheral benefits" of Christ's blood. I consider this blasphemy, and although I do not believe that you hold to this assessment (on the contrary, your comments have apprised me otherwise), yet I think this position is one that is ultimately demanded by the dispensational way of reading OT prophecies.

5.) Dispensationalism (as it was taught to me) embraces what must be considered a blasphemous idea of a return to a system of priests and sacrifices of bulls and goats.

The author of Hebrews leaves me no doubt that any return to priests other than Christ or any spilling of sacrificial blood now that Christ's has been spilled, can be nothing other than blasphemy. But this is precisely what has been taught to me by many well-respected dispensationalists.

6.) Dispensationalism, in destroying the unity of God's redemptive purpose in the Church, minimizes the singular, all-encompassing headship of Christ.

All of creation and history was devised with the purpose of showcasing the glory and nature of God. This is particularly true with Christ's great work of redemption, the work to facilitate the accomplishment of which all of history was designed. Now, what are some of the things that Christ's great work was intended to reveal about Christ's glorious person? That he occupies the unique and solitary position of the one true bridegroom to the one pure bride (Ephesians 5:23), the one Head to his one Church (Ephesians 1:22-23), the one who, with respect to redemptive history, gathers all things together in himself (Ephesians 1:9-11). If God's redeemed are comprised of different peoples with different destinies, contra Ephesians 2:11-22, then there no longer remains a unique and all-encompassing position of highest glory for Christ to fulfill. He is effectually made one Head to two bodies which are independent of each other; one king to two different countries, each with their own customs and peculiar characteristics; one bridegroom to two brides; the one who gathers all things together in himself, and yet keeps them at distinction within himself, withholding from them the unity that his blood is elsewhere said to accomplish. It is a glorious king who can rule two mutually distinct peoples; it is a far more glorious King who can unite them both into one unique people who forever sing his praise as their one unique King.

7.) Dispensationalism tends toward a real ethnocentrism as regards Israel (which springs from a veiled materialism).

I used to think that America's allying herself with Israel, regardless of the political situation and Israel's justice or injustice at the time, would unconditionally result in blessings from God. This thinking did not come isolated from my dispensationally-flavored world view. Where, exactly, did this whole mode of thinking come from? From embracing old types and shadows to the minimization of the spiritual realities that they were meant to convey. The vast extent of NT teachings on the particular members of the Church loving and caring for each other must be a truer response to the status of "Israel" as God's chosen people than the modern cult of red-heifer hopefuls displaying a racist favoritism toward a particular ethnic group.

8.) In summary, Dispensationalism tends to downplay the Christocentric nature of all reality.

If some of these other things are true - if faith, not the object or "content" of that faith is what is important - and if the physical offspring of Abraham, not those who are in Christ, the true seed of Abraham, are God's chosen people - and if a physical Jewish millennium, not Christ's spiritual reign over the entire earth is the goal of human history, and so on - if all these things are true, then the extent to which all of history and reality can be said to be Christocentric must be dangerously limited. This is my biggest problem with dispensationalism.

I want to reaffirm that I am not accusing you of believing any of these things specifically, or of teaching anything which you suppose may detract from the glory of Christ. But I am observing that these results are very real and very extreme in many dispensationalists I have known (even in myself, when I was a dispensationalist). And I don't think it is because all of those affected misunderstood what dispensationalism really is. I think it's because the very schema of dispensationalism lends itself to these conclusions.

Please don't doubt my sincere love for you in the bonds of our precious Savior, Jesus Christ. If these things I have written are not true, show me (scripturally) how they are not, and I will, to that extent, modify my position.

In Christ,
NP

Concluding Observations

I have come to the conclusion that Dispensationalism is a much more serious threat to a well-informed biblical worldview than I was once inclined to think of it. Dispensationalism is not exclusively (or even predominantly) a complicated eschatological schema that lends itself to bizarre novels. The eschatological phenomena, which are so predominant to many people, have their roots in a soil from which spring ideas and conceptions of all of redemptive history, and which even extend to one's understanding of the position and nature of the Redeemer. Thankfully, many Dispensationalists are affected in their understanding of these weightier issues only to varying degrees, some quite minimal. However, this ameliorating circumstance can only come through allowing inconsistencies with their basic worldview to predominate in certain areas. And as Dispensationalism is allowed to flavor their thinking, to that extent their understanding even of matters of great importance will be dangerously clouded. It is a task of the greatest importance to be diligent in exposing the underlying beliefs of the Dispensational ideal, examining those beliefs in the light of scripture, and informing our brothers and sisters who have, to varying degrees, been affected by this system.

Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence)


24 posted on 04/12/2007 11:54:40 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54; Matchett-PI; Lee N. Field; TomSmedley; Alex Murphy; irishtenor; P-Marlowe; ...
I don't get how dispensationalists insist on literal interpretations and then miss one of the biggest ones by allegorizing it. Most "apostles and early Christians" would have been considered orthodox preterists because they witnessed firsthand the fulfillment of Christ's words...

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

Satan wants Christians frightened and ineffectual, so Satan encourages us to be afraid of all these impending doomsday scenarios which have ALREADY OCCURRED in history and the ONLY "doom" anyone should be concerned with is their final destination -- heaven or hell.

The Olivet Discourse and Prophetic Fulfillment

"...dispensationalism and it's own idea of a Rapture are the new kids on the block; preterism, and the idea that the Olivet Discourse and other passages refer to 70 AD events, has a much longer pedigree. Commentators such as Lightfoot (1859), Newton (1754), and Gill (1809) predated dispensationlism and agreed that 70 AD was in view in these passages. [Dem.LDM, 59] To be sure, some in the early church held a view that what was recounted in places like the Olivet Discourse was a reference to a far-flung future event (though their views didn't match exactly with dispensationlism); but others held views akin to preterism as well, so the preterist view is not a new view, but an older one revived...

25 posted on 04/12/2007 12:05:14 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Great post. I pray for many to read it and understand.

but what came as the severest shock of all was the reflection that virtually every one of these Dispensationally-derived misunderstandings tended in some way towards the eclipse of Christ as the sum and substance of every redemptive promise and reality, the One for whom, to whom, and by whom are all things, the One who sums up all of reality, brings all things under his feet, and is in himself all the fullness of the Godhead.

Amen.

26 posted on 04/12/2007 12:33:14 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You’re welcome. :)


27 posted on 04/12/2007 12:37:56 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; topcat54; Frumanchu; xzins; Lee N. Field; TomSmedley; Alex Murphy

That is an excellent site. Thanks Dr. E for the ping.


28 posted on 04/12/2007 12:52:30 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Matchett-PI

Did Jesus return in 70AD?


29 posted on 04/12/2007 7:16:02 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins; topcat54
And here I thought he said, “I have yet to meet...”

Some things never change.

One of the most prominent and public members of his own denomination, R.C. Sproul, is very clearly and unabashedly a partial preterist.

So, you can argue all you want about technicalities...like the possibility that the author may not have actually personally met Dr. Sproul...but a comment such as this one by him seems to indicate he is either woefully misinformed or willfully ignorant.

Take your pick, x, but it does little to maintain your credibility when you resort to petty arguments in defense of a spurious statement in a hit piece you posted.

I have nothing personal against the author other than his misunderstanding and mischaracterization of partial preterism.

30 posted on 04/12/2007 7:16:42 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The reject only the name “full preterist.” They modify the doctrine to be a secret, invisible coming of Christ in 70AD.

You best get your facts straight before you presume to tell me what it is I believe as a partial preterist. Just from appearances, it sure looks to me like your article and arguments have less to do with arguing against partial preterism because you understand it and believe it to be in error and more to do with spiteful reciprocation in the face of an increase lately in the criticism of Dispensationalism. Just from appearances...

31 posted on 04/12/2007 7:29:51 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins
So far as the author’s observation about preterists and evangelism, he is clearly referring to their tendency to proclaim “preterism” rather than the gospel.

Perhaps for full preterists, but that cannot be rightly said of partial preterists, unless he thinks the majority of his own denomination spends more time preaching their eschatology than proclaiming the Gospel (which only reinforces the foolishness of his statement since it is far from the truth).

32 posted on 04/12/2007 7:32:00 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

Do you agree that that is what he says....more time seeking converts to preterism?

The proof text of preterism is “this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”

In that list of prophecies in Mt 24 is the prophecy of Jesus’ own return. It is among the “ALL of these things.”

That means any variety of preterist MUST believe that Jesus returned in that generation.

Do you?


33 posted on 04/12/2007 7:43:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

didn’t your father spend about 6 months sparing with a Preterist on the ol’ Neverending Story?


34 posted on 04/12/2007 7:46:53 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; xzins; P-Marlowe; Frumanchu; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Dr. Eckleburg
Specious statements such as, "I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel ..." i

"I have yet to meet a [Calvinist] whose focus is on church ministry or the spreading of the Gospel...."

I've heard that before too. It's bogus argumentation in that context, and it's bogus here.

I have no dog in this fight, being more amillennial than postmillennial. Even so, this article bothers me.

I also remain unimpressed by angelfire.com websites. When I was a high school kid, I had an angelfire.com website. I sure didn't know what I was talking about either.

35 posted on 04/12/2007 7:55:58 PM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jude24
To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching.

The author's point. He's saying that, in his experience, preterists are busy spreading the points of preterism. I wouldn't argue with him about his experience?

36 posted on 04/12/2007 8:01:02 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xzins
While I do believe many things were fulfilled in 70AD, the Jesus coming in the clouds part I just don’t get. I believe there are things left to happen and that when He does return in the clouds, every eye will see him.
37 posted on 04/12/2007 8:03:38 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

I agree. The bible demands it.


38 posted on 04/12/2007 8:05:07 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
He's saying that, in his experience, preterists are busy spreading the points of preterism. I wouldn't argue with him about his experience?

Experience is a weak argument. Fanatics exist on all sides of an argument. There are Rapture-obsessed Dispensationialists who are so narrowly focused on the Rapture that it colors their every exegesis. (I grew up heavily influenced by such people.)

So, frankly, bollucks to his experience. I have mine too - it doesn't prove diddley-squat.

39 posted on 04/12/2007 8:07:01 PM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jude24

That was a concluding observation to point out that preterism is not simply a benign doctrinal falsity, that it robs people of the hope of the resurrection.

Whatever the case may be, do you think Jesus returned in 70AD?


40 posted on 04/12/2007 8:12:07 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Do you agree that that is what he says....more time seeking converts to preterism?

I agree that is what he says. I strongly disagree with the truth of the statement.

The proof text of preterism is “this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”

I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to how the original audience of His comments would have understood this as meaning anything but what it clearly states: that those within that generation (roughly 40-year timeframe) would see those things He referenced fulfilled.

In that list of prophecies in Mt 24 is the prophecy of Jesus’ own return. It is among the “ALL of these things.”

That means any variety of preterist MUST believe that Jesus returned in that generation.

Do you?

In a fashion, yes. By no means do I believe He returned in the full consumation of His Kingdom in final judgement.

See, the problem here is that you choose to interpret time-frame references figuratively and descriptions of the parousia literally. Scripture much more strongly supports the opposite.

Regardless though, you seem bent on an oversimplification of the preterist view that makes it easy to slip in subtle implications about what we believe. I state clearly and unequivocally that as a partial preterist I believe in a future coming of Christ in the full consummation of His Kingdom and final judgement upon mankind.

41 posted on 04/12/2007 8:13:27 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins; jude24
I wouldn't argue with him about his experience?

Natch. He probably knows about as many preterists and their personal evangelistic habits as you do.

As a seasoned veteran of the PCA, I can tell you that I’m not very impressed when folks bring up that tired argument, whether it be used against preterism, postmillennialism, strict subscriptionism, theonomy, even good, old-fashion Southern Presbyterianism. The speaker is more-often-than-not clueless.

42 posted on 04/12/2007 8:15:01 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; P-Marlowe

Yet, you just said you believe Jesus returned “in a fashion.”

I am certain that the proof text demands that Jesus have returned in that generation. If He did not return in that generation, then there is something wrong with the preterist interpretation of the proof text.

In what fashion do you think that Jesus returned?


43 posted on 04/12/2007 8:16:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins; ladyinred
I agree. The bible demands it.

At least you mentioned the Bible.

How you coming on Matt. 16:28?

44 posted on 04/12/2007 8:17:24 PM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; jude24

The speaker has an extensive reformed, PCA background if you read his bio.


45 posted on 04/12/2007 8:19:49 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The author's point. He's saying that, in his experience, preterists are busy spreading the points of preterism. I wouldn't argue with him about his experience?

Is that the best you can offer in criticism of preterism? Somebody's experience?!?

Funny how you would go to such great lengths to defend a statement by the author that has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural and doctrinal issues at stake. Rather than focusing on the issue of preterism in light of Scripture, you're bent on defending this guy's unquestionable "experience" regarding the behavior of preterists (even though his experience is easily demonstrable as not being indicative of how many preterists actually behave).

Is this guilt-by-association argument really that important to you?

46 posted on 04/12/2007 8:21:12 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; xzins; topcat54
I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to how the original audience of His comments would have understood this as meaning anything but what it clearly states: that those within that generation (roughly 40-year timeframe) would see those things He referenced fulfilled.

I've never heard one either - other than the utterly unsatisfactory "Matthew is for the Jews" argument. I remember asking some Plymouth Brethren dispensationalists (I grew up among them) why the ingathering of the elect was clearly after the tribulation, and I got that answer. I became amillennial after that answer.

47 posted on 04/12/2007 8:21:49 PM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; ladyinred; fortheDeclaration; P-Marlowe

How are you coming on giving a summary of what you believe about the 70AD “return” of Christ, as I’ve asked so many times now....and a list of those prophecies yet unfulfilled according to preterism?


48 posted on 04/12/2007 8:22:08 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred; xzins
ladyinred: I believe there are things left to happen and that when He does return in the clouds, every eye will see him.

So do partial preterists! :)

x:I agree. The bible demands it.

Partial preterists agree as well.

49 posted on 04/12/2007 8:23:09 PM PDT by Frumanchu (Historical Revisionism: When you're tired of being on the losing side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The speaker has an extensive reformed, PCA background if you read his bio.

1. You're assuming that the guy posting that website isn't puffing his resume. That never happens.....

2. Frankly, eschatology in the Reformed denominations isn't that big an issue. One could go years at a time in a Reformed church and never hear a thing about eschatology. I know I haven't heard an eschatological sermon or Sunday School class in the 3 years I've been a Presbyterian.

50 posted on 04/12/2007 8:24:45 PM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-199 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson