Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: bruinbirdman

The writer’s position seems to come from the Preterist school. R.C. Sproul follows this line of reasoning.

I do not understand why simply reading the New Testament would lead one to the conclusion that John’s Revelation was written so early. The early Church fathers put this book at the end of the collection and it has a distinct feel of “finality” as one of the last books written, not one of the first.

However, I think I will stick with the more common position that John wrote Revelation toward the end of his life after the Asian churches had had a chance to fall into complacency. The “Talk Through the Bible” overview by Bruce Wilkerson of Dallas Theological Seminary, suggests that Domitian would be a better candidate than Nero as the Anti-Christ alluded to by John.

Furthermore, there are several cases of “near” fulfillment and “far” fulfillment for the same prophetic utterance.

I do like the author’s suggestion that the letters should be read as if they were hand delivered to YOUR mailbox. The epistles are full of teaching which we would do well to personalize.


2 posted on 05/21/2007 1:55:02 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: the_Watchman

Too many are so wrapped up in “end times” speculation that they forget that the world doesn’t have to come to an end for their world, and the world of their lost neighbors and relatives, to come to an end (Ps 90:12). Laden down with the complacent view that “Jesus is surely coming soon to catch me away from all of this”, they turn Mat 16:18 around and cower in their little churches on the hill, waiting for Jesus to arrive with the heavenly calvary and save them from being overrun by Satan’s beseigning forces. I sometimes wonder if the even know Him (Matt 7:21-27).


4 posted on 05/21/2007 2:44:06 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: the_Watchman
“The writer’s position seems to come from the Preterist school. R.C. Sproul follows this line of reasoning.”

Not as I understand what R.C. Sproul is saying; I think you have read something about him being a hyper-preterist, which he denies vigorously.

Neal

33 posted on 05/21/2007 5:16:19 AM PDT by HossB86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: All

Outside of dispensation theology (which btw teaches salvation by grace thru faith in all ages/dispensations), most if not all other Christian theologies consider the church to be “spiritual Isreal”.

All very well and good, but if God is willing to change his mind regarding the promises he made to the nation of Isreal (because of their sin), then what is to stop God from changing his mind regarding the promises made to the church (because of the church’s sin?).

No one, not Isreal, the not the Church, no one, no man deserves God’s grace. It is a gift. If God cannot be trusted to give us His word and to keep His Word then there is no hope.

R.C. Sproul et el has too much invested in referring to the church as “spititual Isreal” so he has to reject the pre-mil view, which is a real shame.

Tom


133 posted on 05/21/2007 12:17:58 PM PDT by fatboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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