Dee Dee, convert me to preterism! (HOF thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Hey AV! Welcome to the discussion. This will be a break for you for a while. I do not know how you do it, but bless you for your tireless defense of the deity of Christ. You will see that Gavin raised some excellent points. Have you read through the thread yet?
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Dear Gavin (and AV):

I have been doing most of the talking... but where are you guys coming from? Specifically what position do you currently hold if any, and why the interest in this point of view?
 

rustyb

New member
Where's all the historicist folks at? Historicism seems to be the safest medium, in that it states that prophecies are BEING fulfilled and have been fulfilled. I myself am about 90% preterist and 10% historicist. I believe not all of Revelation has been fulfilled (while matt 24 has been). Careful exgesis can lead someone to the correct interpretation that John conveyed the fact that the then churches were "brothers" in tribulation, and the revelation would soon(1st century soon) be fulfilled. Also, another thing that must be examined is the symbolism in revelation itself (no offense to Jack van Impe and other dispensationlist who try to create fictional scenarios of End Times). I would love to share my research in this manner if someone would like me to!

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to
His bond-servants, the things which <i>must soon take place</i>; and He
sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for <i>the time is near.</i>

I just thought I'd chime in and break up the argument and animosity ;)
Providential blessings! (I am also of the Reformed Faith and an amillenialist)

Under His Grace,

Rusty B.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Dear Rusty:

I think you may have misunderstood some of the tone (I see you have not posted much on TOL) , but all in all the discussion is pretty much devoid of any animonisty. Passion yes, but true animosity no.

And I too do not believe that ALL of Revelation has been fulfilled. No orthodox preterist does.

And what is "safe" and what is "medium" is not a good litmus test for what is "right." All in all though judging from you post, except for your amill error (smile), we are in a lot of agreement.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
And oh, if you have not met Calvinist, he is another amill preterist, and obviously, a Calvinist, thus the name.
 

Gavin

New member
DD, sorry for the delay, my life has been swamped with business.

On Revelation's date, I will have to do some independent research I think.

On Matthew 24 being fulfilled:

I can accept that all the language in this passage is not "literal".

The reference to Agabus in Acts 11 establishes the famines from the bible, not some other source like Josephus, which is pretty impressive.

Acts 2:5 and the other passages in Colossians 1 and Romans, combined with the definition of oikoumenos mitigate 24:14.
(If you have any further support for your view of the word oikoumenos, I would appreciate it.)

I am still unsure about this verse though. My dictionary does list "roman empire" as one possible translation of oikoumenos, but it also lists "inhabitated earth" as more frequent. Also, what do you do with "pasin tois ethnesin"? I don't know how this could not apply to all nations, and I don't remember that you discussed it. If you did, sorry I must have missed.

Most of this about the wars going on and so forth will simply be a matter of historical research for me. I will keep you posted on how my research is going.

I still have some questions if you do not mind:

1) What practical relevance does belief in preterism have? Does it effect my life? (Obviously this does not affect its truth or falsehood, I am just curious.)

2) "30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

I thought this was the rapture. Has the rapture already happened then? I would appreciate further discussion of these verses.

thanks again DD

:)
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Dear Gavin:

Just posting to acknowledge yours!! I will get back to you as soon as possible... probably taking one issue at a time.

On Revelation's date, I will have to do some independent research I think.

I cannot remember if I told you this already but the seminal work on this issue is Dr. Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation." If you do read that book, be absolutely sure it is the latest edition because the newest edition contains a very lengthy preface dealing with rebuttals of his work that have come out since it was published.

On Matthew 24 being fulfilled:

I can accept that all the language in this passage is not "literal".

I am writing something right now to DrB on the issue of "literal," which we demonstrate that using Biblical hermeneutics, that my interpretation is indeed "literal" i.e. taking passages in the sense in which they were intended. But I know what you mean, you can accept that Matthew 24 is not woodenly literal, and I am so glad you can see that because then a major obstacle has been overcome.

And I wanted to say this right away, though the further explanation will take some time. The Rapture has not happened yet! There is a heretical flavor of preterism which teaches that it has, but such a belief places them way, way outside the pale of orthodoxy, and IMHO into the realm of potentially damnable heresy. Please see the link in my signature line for the reasons why.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Dear Gavin:

To continue:

1) What practical relevance does belief in preterism have? Does it effect my life? (Obviously this does not affect its truth or falsehood, I am just curious.)

You asked what difference it makes on one’s worldview or life to embrace preterism. Well that is a very good question, and recognizes that all doctrines have effects upon us, whether realized or not. It is difficult for me to isolate the answer to just preterism for with me, preterism led to posmillennialism and an abandonment of dispensationalism. But in short, preterism has caused me to view the Bible with much more confidence as I find I no longer have to explain away nagging and clear timing verses that bothered me from the first moment I read them. And I have great optimism and hope for the future and for the long range. The passages predicting fearful judgments and wrath are in our past. We are moving towards consummation. Christ is reigning now and will certainly put all of His enemies under His feet. We are seated together in the heavenly places now and ruling with Him. The Gospel will be victorious. I do not view the future as a time where it is inevitable that the world will wax worse and worse. I do not believe that social activism and change is merely polishing the brass on the Titanic. I take the dominion mandate seriously. The Bible has come alive for me in a way that it did not before. I am not awaiting the antichrist or the mark or the inevitable apostasy. When I hear a sermon motivating us to go out and change the world for Christ I believe that it is not Mission Impossible, and that it can be done….. Just as surely as Christ put the first century apostates under His feet and vindicated Himself and His Church, He will put the twenty-first century enemies under His feet and beyond…..
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
And Gavin... here is an article on the subject that also states it very well....

SOURCE: http://www.credenda.org/issues/9-2eschaton.php

Volume 9, Issue 2: Eschaton

Does Eschatology Matter?

Jack Van Deventer

Have you ever heard someone say that studying eschatology is a waste of time? It is not uncommon for evangelicals to dismiss the biblical teachings of prophecy as irrelevant or unimportant. "It doesn't affect one's Christian life one way or another, so why should I bother with it?" Often the unspoken implication of such a statement is "Why should you bother with it either?"

Why is the study of eschatology important? First, the Bible is given to us that we might know God and His will. Anything God has chosen to reveal to us is certainly worth studying. It seems odd, therefore, that Christians would opt to downplay certain parts of God's revelation as irrelevant. Second, while eschatology may not be among the essential doctrines of the faith, neither is it unimportant. Barton Payne estimated that 38% of the Bible deals with prophecy, which is not an insignificant amount. Third, eschatology deals with God's plan in human history. How can anyone say that God's plan for the human race has no effect on one's life?

Sometimes one hears a conversation that goes something like this:
Person A: "Oh, I see that you are convinced of (fill in the blank: Pre-,Post-, or A-) millennialism. That's all well and good, but why do you waste your time?"

Person B: "Oh . . . what is your eschatological persuasion?"

Person A: "I'm a panmillennialist."

Person B: "Huh?"

Person A: "I believe God will make it all `pan out' in the end."

There are those who use the "panmillennial" line innocently enough. They are eschatological agnostics who have not adopted an eschatological position. There are others who use the phrase in a scoffing sense. They are the ones who have concluded that God's course for human history is unknowable and, as such, they believe that those who hold to a particular millennial view are naive and lacking perspective. Or perhaps the panmillennialist believes the subject matter is too unimportant for his attention. In either case there can be an air of superiority on the part of the panmillennialist. I tend to have greater respect for a brother who can articulate a particular millennial viewpoint from the Scriptures (even if I disagree with his use of the Bible) than I do for those who presume that God has left us in the dark on such issues.

In general, I find those who claim that eschatology has no effect on one's lifestyle to be those with a pessimistic view of the future. This claim seems to me a form of denial, like an investor who denies the possibility of loss in the stock market or a Californian who disregards the possibility of a major earthquake. In contrast to the denial that eschatology has no effect on lifestyle, other pessimists believe the increasing evil will result in unprecedented temptations away from godliness and they have resolved to remain obedient despite the cost. One pastor told me, "We're going down, but we'll go down fighting!" Even here the presumption of inevitable doom, despite the well-intended obedience, has deep implications.

Knowing that prophecy affected the way people behaved, the leaders of the fledgling dispensational movement in the 1800's intended to use premillennial eschatology as a club to wake up the backslidden church and to call sinners to repentance. Despite believing in an irreversible decline in society, they had hoped that preaching an "any moment" return of Christ would awake a moribund Church. The result, as described by a premillennialist, is more of the same: "twentieth-century premillennialists tend to be pessimistic, fatalistic, nonpolitical, and nonactivist."

It is hard to imagine an area of life that is not touched by eschatology. A pessimist will plan for the short term, an optimist for the long term. Do you disciple your children in such a way that they will know how to disciple their children? Or do you believe as many do that we are in the "terminal generation"? Do you educate your children the same way? Do you save your money with your children's children in mind (Prov. 13:22)? If you believe the end is near, why should you save? (How many churches and individuals, convinced of an imminent rapture, have accumulated indebtedness believing they will never have to pay back their debt in full?) Do you work toward progressive sanctification in your life, in your family, in your work, in your neighborhood, in your community, in your church? Or have you abandoned any hope of God-ordained revival, believing instead that irreversible decline is inevitable?

Eschatology affects one's perseverance. Not long ago a premillennialist confronted a postmillennialist undergoing a series of trials. "I would think these injustices would cause you to become a premillennialist."

"On the contrary," said the other, "If I were a premillennialist I would
have given up in despair long ago."

The eschatological presuppositions of pessimism or optimism affect virtually every decision a Christian makes. The more a decision is affected by time, the more one's eschatological persuasion will influence his decision. Eschatology has a very profound effect on one's life. As a man thinks, so is he (Prov. 23:7).
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
And lastly....

you said

2) "30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

I thought this was the rapture. Has the rapture already happened then? I would appreciate further discussion of these verses.

Okay, I had already posted a great deal on the 'coming' of the Son of Man so I am not sure what issues or questions you had with that. I am guessing then you would like to begin to discuss the "gathering" verse, so here it goes....

Matthew 24:31And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

I want you to take a look at how Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse:

and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

Okay first things first. This passage appears in verse 31 which is before verse 34 in which Jesus unequivocally says that ALL the preceding events will take place prior to the death of that then-living generation. This it happened or Christ was wrong.

First, I think one problem with approaching this passage is that we automatically assume that the word translated as “angels” MUST mean heavenly beings. The fact is that the Greek word “angelos” simply means messenger and is used throughout the NT to refer to mere men such as John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10) and others (Luke 9:52, James 2:25). Now it is possible that angelic beings are being referred to here, but I have another view. I believe that our focus needs to be on the idea of “gathering” and see how the Bible instructs us to view that concept…..

Consider this passage:

John 11:49-52: And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.

Both of these passages are allusions to:

Isaiah 27:12-13: In that day the Lord will start his threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. And it will come about in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the Lord in the holy mountain at Jerusalem.

See also

Ephesians 1:7-10: In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

The “gathering” is a gathering into the community of faith of all true believers. The word used in some of these passages are variants of “sunago” which is where we get the word “synagogue.” You can see this idea in ….

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The word here for “assembling” is the same word found in our passage under discussion.

While Jerusalem was still intact, it was still the center of the Christian faith as the daughter was still tied to her mother – apostate Judaism. But when Jerusalem was destroyed the Christians were thoroughly scattered throughout the world and began the gathering of God’s elect into His Kingdom. That process continues through our day.

All of these are a reference to the gathering of the true Israel of God from all nations in fulfillment of the Great Commission. This is made especially clear in that the New Testament nowhere even hints at the restoration of a “fleshly” Jerusalem or earthly centralized place of worship to be restored, in fact, it teaches the opposite (John 4:21, Galatians 4:25, Revelation 3:12).

The mention of the great trumpet is simply the call of the gospel. It is an allusion to the Isaiah passage already mentioned above and to Numbers 10:1-10 where trumpets are used to summon the people for worship and battle. Notice the symbolic use of trumpets in describing the call of God’s messengers for repentance (Isaiah 58:1, also Jeremiah 6:17).
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Now related to this is the proofs that the resurrection was not at all expected to be soon to the first century disciples. I would recommend that you take a quick look at my article on that subject located here: www.tektonics.org/soon.html


I will stop here and see where you want to go next in our discussion.....
 

Gavin

New member
I don't buy that stuff on 31, I don't think it gives enough credit to the strong language. But then I don't know what to do with 34 still.

I am really busy, but I will try to keep in touch and throw you some more questions.

Thanks again for taking the time educate me.
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Dear Gavin:

That is fair. When you get a chance articulate for me if you can exactly what you think is so strong about that verse. That is not usually the one that people have problems with, and you have correctly identified the conundrum of verse 34. That is the kicker ain't it? :) I think if you take a look at my article and see that the "rapture" was not expected for at least another age, that will remove some of your obstacles to seeing that verse as referring to the first century. I will also post here for your benefit a more complete defense on proving that the rapture was at least an age away for the first century believers and if their age has not yet ended, it would still be an age away for us which NOBODY believes. Is that cool??
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Hey Gavin, first I just read this today, and I wanted it to add it to my prior answer on what difference does it make to believe this particular pov....

Excerpt from Eschatology and Gospel by Patch Blakey

Although varied in many aspects, each of the three major millennial views (other than postmillennialism) is alike in that they each see the world growing over time more morally corrupt, with the eventual triumph of sin over all cultures, until at the very end of history, Christ returns to conquer evil and save the world. Those who subscribe to one of the first three views find themselves in a contradictory situation – obligated on the one hand to proclaim the saving grace of God through preaching the Gospel, yet simultaneously firmly convinced that despite the best efforts of the Church, the world will still sink in moral decrepitude because of the triumph of evil in history…. Therefore in preaching the Gospel of hope and of a victorious Christ, do we simultaneously find ourselves guilty of contradicting that Gospel with an eschatology of pessimism? Are we deprecating the efficacious atoning work of Christ on the cross by teaching that Christ only managed to save just a few as the world speeds on its downward spiral toward the victory of sin over history? How does your eschatology stack up with the saving gospel of Christ?
 
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Okay the chronology of the ages

Okay the chronology of the ages

I can believe that I can prove that the “end of the age” mentioned by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse MUST have already come unless one is going to believe in a future “millennium” which is clearly unbiblical on other grounds but this is going to take some collation of passages. Ready? :up: :D

When Christ ascended to the Father He sat at His right hand and is in the process of having all enemies put under His feet. Many passages tell us this, but the most important for this discussion is Ephesians 1:15-22 since it has some very important timing verses which I am asking that you pay very close attention to.

Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, NOT ONLY IN THIS AGE BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

This passage is very important. It tells us that during the age in which Paul was writing, Christ was having all things put under His feet. Hebrews 1:13 equates this idea with sitting at the right hand of the Father. Paul also tells this that this special position will be occupied by Christ in the age in which he was writing but also in the age which is to come.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:20:28But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This passage tells us that all enemies will finally and completely be put under Christ’s feet at the resurrection with the destruction of the last enemy, death, and at that point, Christ’s special Messianic reign ends. Yet Paul tells us that this special reign lasts through the age in which he was writing and through the end of the age to come. Now unless we are in that age to come, meaning that the age in which Paul was writing has ended, then there is yet a whole age to come before Christ can return to resurrect the saved and the damned.


Ephesians 1:20 tells us that there are two ages in view when Paul was writing that passage. The age in which he was writing and the age to come. Paul knew that there was more than one age to come since in Ephesians 2:7 he mentions the ages to come. Now if the final age for us is the eternal state, and it is, it has to be the last of the ages to come, and thus, cannot be the “age to come” in Ephesians 1:20 since there is one more age after that one. Also remember that Christ is over all rule and authority and power and might in the age in which Paul was writing and the age to come. At the time of the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:24 (and surrounding verses) He will have DESTROYED all rule and authority and power and might. Then obviously, the resurrection has to take place at the end of the age to come described in Ephesians 1:20 which would then put in the last of the AGES to come mentioned in Ephesians 2:7. This ties in perfectly with Revelation 20 as well. We are in the millennium, the age to come from Paul’s perspective, we are spiritually reigning and ruling and sharing in the First Resurrection (Christ’s resurrection). When the thousand years are done (this age is finishing, which is the age to come from Paul’s perspective), Christ will put all rule and authority and power under His feet (described as Gog and Magog in Revelation 20), He will resurrect the just and the damned (the second resurrection), and THEN the eternal state begins. The chronology is tight and inescapable.

If the “end of the age” described in the Olivet Discourse has not come and gone, then there is still an entire age to go before the resurrection can happen.
 

Solly

BANNED
Banned
DD, I have come to have a gander as requested.

I have to admit here and now that this is THE sticking point for me, and until I have had time to look into it in depth, I am unable to progress further. There is a very good case made here, but cognitive dissonance hinders me from jumping straight in and saying THIS IS IT. You'll know that yourself. Unless I can answer this with a clear scriptural rejection or acceptance, then all the other matters are immaterial.

----

Re the previous post, this is the position I hold at the moment. All previous ages - the Ante-Diluvian, the Sodom-Gomorran (if one can call it an age), the Egyptian thralldom, the end of the kingdom of Israel, and the end of the Jewish order in 70ad ended in misery, wrath and judgment. It is my expectation that this world will end also in such a way. Does this lead to pessimism? Not for me; the Gospel is still to be preached - flee from the wrath to come, for the Lord knoweth them that are his, and will maintain his remnant.

The giveaway in the paragraph quoted is the implicit idea that "the world" will be saved by...
the best efforts of the Church, [without which] the world will still sink in moral decrepitude sic transit gloria mundi: it already is because of the triumph of evil in history…. Therefore in preaching the Gospel of hope and of a victorious Christ, do we simultaneously find ourselves guilty of contradicting that Gospel with an eschatology of pessimism? - God is very pessimistic about the world's future apart from his grace. We preach the pessimism of mankind's final goal in its present state, and the judgment to come - this is very real, despite any intervening Shangri-La of a Christianised world: sin will be judged. Are we deprecating the efficacious atoning work of Christ on the cross by teaching that Christ only managed to save just a few contradicting scripture, that a Great Multitude will be saved as the world speeds on its downward spiral toward the victory of sin over history? the victory of sin over history, whatever that may mean, is overcome by the victory of grace over sin. This is mankind's doom, and only hope. Whether this takes place in this world now, or the next is obviously the question in dispute.

As a Calvinist, I believe that the Gospel will be sent to those that need to hear it, that men will be sent to take it, that those that hear and are "ordained to salvation" shall be saved, in spite all, wherever they are. It was Calvinist Carey and friends that went to India, Calvinist Paton to the New Hebrides, Calvinist McCheyne to the Jews and Hungary - from whose work the church received Edersheim and Saphir, Calvinist Whitefield to America, etc, so we are obviously not that pessimistic about the power of the Gospel, though we are of a sinful world and its future.

There is too much of the "Oh, the world is heading to hell, and only the church can stop it, but we are all fiddling while Rome burns, come on Church get your act together, or millions will be lost" idea in this and similar articles I have seen elsewhere, reflecting more a man oriented gospel-means view derived from Finney and Moody rather than that which is current amongst the Reformed churches.

be blest in Him :cool:
 
Last edited:

Gavin

New member
Dear Dee Dee:

That is fair. When you get a chance articulate for me if you can exactly what you think is so strong about that verse. That is not usually the one that people have problems with, and you have correctly identified the conundrum of verse 34.

31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

It just sounds too rapturish (I love inventing words). Cf. with I Thessalonians 4:
16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Both have angels, trumpets, and the elect being gathered. I am assuming here, of course, that you agree that I Thessalonians 4 is speaking of the rapture.

I am not yet convinced that angels going down with the sound of the trumpet is just messengers with the gospel. If so, what messengers? What does the proclamation of the gospel have to do with the destruction of the temple? The gospel was being preached through God's messengers far before 70 AD. I guess it is possible, but it is not what I would have naturally come away from the text with.

Also contextually the "gathering" here seems to be different from the gathering of Jew and Gentile together into Christ with all believers. The gathering of the people of God together as the one church took place before 70 AD.

I hope I am not misrepresenting your position here, DD, but that is how I understood your comments on verse 31.

I go back and forth. Sometimes the force of the language in Matthew 24, like the talk about "all nations" and the severity of this occurence makes me skeptical, and sometimes other things in the passage like, say, verse 34, or the way it sounds like it is talking about the PRESENT disciples, and other things make me lean the other way. On the whole I think I am definitely leaning toward and open to preterism, but again I will need to do a lot of historical research.

I think one of the really strong aspects of your position is the OLD TESTAMENT passages of judgement which you frequently allude to which use similar hyperbolic and figurative language as Matthew 24, and which definitely are in the past.

Plus as I read through the New Testament with a preterist framework in mind, a lot of small things start to make more sense, like the whole idea of first century Christians WAITING fpr the second coming (I Corinthians 1:7, "so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ"). It is just weird to "eagerly wait" for something two thousand years in the future.

But I still need to do research so don't jump to conclusions.

Thanks again, Dee Dee. You are a refreshing and sincere poster, and a great debater too. God bless you!

:)
 
Last edited:
D

Dee Dee Warren

Guest
Hey Gavin.. I have added your comments to my pile (smile). You know I am faithful to get to them.

But I still need to do research so don't jump to conclusions.

Cool! And listen, I have no overriding need to convince or convert anyone to my view. If we ultimately disagree, that is fine. It was refreshing having such a nonconfrontional exchange of thoughts. And I will get back to you as soon as I can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top