Posted on 01/15/2011 10:44:22 AM PST by topcat54
Some claim the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613) is the first to promote preterist ideas. If so, then Protestants who buy into it are part of the Roman Catholic system. I find no trace of it prior to Alcazar.
i read your posts, i’m sorry, i thought you were supporting the “pre-trib” rapture, two second comings by Christ theory.
Some claim the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) is the first to promote futurist ideas. If so, then Protestants who buy into it are part of the Roman Catholic system.
This from a so-called futurist premil who can find any statements of futurist premillennialism among the early church fathers in spite of his claims.
I actually have more respect for the “fulls” than the partial pregnant types like Sproul and topcat. Like I said, at least they are consistent.
I'd be more concerned about your false claims regarding the ECF.
I’m not in the business of “predicting” anything. I just tell people what the Bible says, that’s all. Don’t blame the messenger.
Correction: “who can’t find any statements”
You can’t discern the differences between the Church and the Nation Israel in Scripture? That’s not my problem. And, by the way, you don’t seem to be all that loving in your differences with a fellow Christian. I don’t really think I want to fellowship with you.
Of course, but you were suggesting that certain words were only written to Israel without any shred of support. I was just wondering whether you had some magic peep stones to show the distinction.
should be: “The Westminster Catechism minus the Bible “ equals preterism, tradition, straw man arguments, mischaracterizations and falsehoods.
P.S. I feel for your confused current location... You are very similar to my two pastors and many ofthe elders in my church...I’ll be praying for you and for them...
The WC represents the traditions of men, in other words.
I was writing earlier from the middle of a noisy swim meet auditorium and I got my sentence mixed up.
If you take a “who cares” attitude towards the Word of God, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Don't confuse creeds and confessions with the traditions of men. They are not the same. Everyone has a creed, even the “no creed but Christ” crowd. The question is, how close does your creed match the Word of God?
That’s an old falsehood that dies hard. For a good history of rapture teaching see:
http://www.midnightcall.com/articles/prophetic/A-Brief-History-of-the-Rapture.html
sorry, what is called the “pre-trib rapture” was unknown before the 19th century. the Catholic Church ( Latin and Greek ) has always taught Jesus will return once at the end of the world and then it will be Judgement Day. No seven year tribulation period, the article you linked to doesn’t cite any. the tribulation period will be the great falling away or apostasy hitting the Church, look around, evidence abounds!!
Then we must agree to disagree.
Todd Strandberg gives the following reference on http://www.raptureready.com/:
Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, “For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”
Whether you agree with the idea or not, it is still not a new one.
we must disagree on this non-essential doctrine. the historical and orthodox teaching has always been one coming of the Lord and then Judgement Day. the tribulation is a spiritual one, not physical.
I went to bed early last night, checked this thread this morning, I can see I should have stayed up, I see the old shark is on the prowl.
Topcat:
You know you’re talking to yourself? And not saying anything?
Me:
You ARE a partial preterist aren’t you? You ARE a postmillennialist aren’t you? What I said applied primarily to preterism, Sproul may not be postmill, I don’t know, but you are both.
Topcat:
Some claim the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) is the first to promote futurist ideas. If so, then Protestants who buy into it are part of the Roman Catholic system.
Me:
Apples and Oranges, Ribera did not begin futurism, evidence is abundant in the ECF for futurism. He merely reached back to the futurist beliefs of the ECF to bolster his case against the Protestants. The papacy, of which he was a part of, were Amillennialist, he had to go back to the ECF which predated RCC Amillennialism, to make his case. Alcazar, on the other hand, since we have no evidence for preterism before him in the ECF or otherwise, apparently is the first to advance preterist ideas.
Topcat:
This from a so-called futurist premil who can find any statements of futurist premillennialism among the early church fathers in spite of his claims. I’d be more concerned about your false claims regarding the ECF.
Me:
The ECF writings abound with statements about their belief in a future antichrist/beast/man of sin as the main feature of a future great tribulation, a future post-tribulational, and singular, second coming of Jesus Christ closing out this age (no pretrib rapture), and a future millennial.
As to what you said about Lacunza, I agree that he is the real origin of pretribism. I have read Lacunza’s “The Coming of the Messiah, in Glory and Majesty,” he made prewrath rapture like statements in it, which the Irvingites and Darby modified to pretrib rapture-ism. Yeah, Lacunza was a futurist, but so what? Like I said, neither he nor Ribera started it.
That's the claim, Waiting for the substance to back it up.
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.