ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Have you guys noticed how it is that those with the worst, and most deceptive, theology are so quick to speak condemning evil against others? Like in the other forum the charismatics threatening people with God's judgment or subscribing to Satan, if you don't subscribe to their exclusive behaviors and religion? I was just recently studying James 4:11, and, when you think about it, no other person can bestow or take away any Christian's reward, or judge any other person in an eternal sense, so what is this vanity of threatening people with evil, when the Lord Jesus, and solely the Lord Jesus, is empowered to judge, John 5:22? It's always a tell to me, many charismatics showing how, like that emotional mire they base their worship on, there are these anger management issues, reflective of emotional immaturity, to where they feel the need to throw lightening bolts at others or the like. And likewise those with false theology, generally, vain and very quick to say another person has a devil, or is a fool, boast how they have a lease on knowledge, my way or the highway: there are all these little tells of a spirit, other than the Holy Spirit, at work. Bad doctrine and bad behavior, as if Siamese twins of the tare. Interesting how you'd even expect these go hand in hand, isn't it? I believe these are important things to note, when considering whether a person should be taken seriously.

Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

As to Preterism, around 500 of 1,000 Bible prophecies have already been, literally, fulfilled. In that same scripture, with prophecy not yet fulfilled, you'd have to believe a swap is made from literal to figurative, often between verses, that the Bible meant what it says, consistently, for a few thousand years, but turned to Nostradamus, with regard to everything of the future. You'd have to believe that God didn't know He should have stopped saying Israel, should have said church, as if the Almighty went senile (between verses and chapters!) and needs a dictionary or something. Hundreds of very literal references, down to specific, huge portions of the population dead in the apocalypse, a rise in homosexuality, grass burned up, every creature dying in the sea, huge earthquakes, antichrist controlling all peoples, antichrist setting up shop in a temple at Jerusalem, armies of the nations of the world coming against Jerusalem, with the Lord, Himself, coming from heaven to battle them: all these most literal references that never happened, well, that's because the Bible ceased to mean what it says. God writes scripture that selectively turned unfathomable, into gobbledygook, we simply must assign our own values to, just like Nostradamus, when my Bible says, 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Preterism is lala land, silliness. The next 500 unfulfilled prophecies are also going to be literally fulfilled, like the previous 500, simple common sense proving this true, as sure as you can, with all confidence, postulate the sun coming up in the morning. One must suppose the Preterist would have to stand on the likes of, like they do Israel, that, no, the sun will not come up in the morning: the sun ceased in 70 AD, and we must not believe our lying eyes. (And you can pretty much forget the notion of ever having a profitable, reality-based eschatological conversation with a Preterist.)

I'm not a Preterist or a Charismatic/Pentecostal. So, what are you trying to say?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

By the way, WLJ James was written to/pertaining to, the scattered tribes of Israel.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

I'm not a Preterist or a Charismatic/Pentecostal. So, what are you trying to say?

That wasn't addressed to you, personally, was commenting on being called fools, threatened or condemned, generally, by some people, as well as general statement about the fallacy of Preterism. You were also in the forum with the charismatics going at it, was using that as an example, also, of what you noted here. That's all.

 

[Clete]

Is Preterism Christianity?

Of course all Preterists would defend their doctrine as being fully consistent with the bible and therefore the Christian faith but since there seems to be more preterists around lately I thought I'd ask the question in a more detailed way and see what sort of responses I get. I honestly don't know what to expect...

If you are a preterist, please affirm (or deny) the following five points which are pretty much universally understood as fundamental to the Christian faith...

1. The divine inspiration and inerrancy of the bible.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.​

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.


For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I personally believe that all five of these points are absolutely true but I do not believe that these are the only five things one must believe in order to be saved or even a genuine Christian. Nearly all Calvinists, for example, would affirm all five of these points but their distinctive doctrines (i.e. the doctrines that make them Calvinists) are incompatible with faith in the loving Creator depicted in the bible and worshiped by those who are saved by that same Love. So while all true Christians affirm all five points list above, those five points do not define what it means to be a Christian.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That wasn't addressed to you, personally, was commenting on being called fools, threatened or condemned, generally, by some people, as well as general statement about the fallacy of Preterism. You were also in the forum with the charismatics going at it, was using that as an example, also, of what you noted here. That's all.

Oh, I must have misunderstood? I apologize to you.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Is Preterism Christianity?

Of course all Preterists would defend their doctrine as being fully consistent with the bible and therefore the Christian faith but since there seems to be more preterists around lately I thought I'd ask the question in a more detailed way and see what sort of responses I get. I honestly don't know what to expect...

If you are a preterist, please affirm (or deny) the following five points which are pretty much universally understood as fundamental to the Christian faith...

1. The divine inspiration and inerrancy of the bible.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.​

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.


For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I personally believe that all five of these points are absolutely true but I do not believe that these are the only five things one must believe in order to be saved or even a genuine Christian. Nearly all Calvinists, for example, would affirm all five of these points but their distinctive doctrines (i.e. the doctrines that make them Calvinists) are incompatible with faith in the loving Creator depicted in the bible and worshiped by those who are saved by that same Love. So while all true Christians affirm all five points list above, those five points do not define what it means to be a Christian.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Good post.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

By the way, WLJ James was written to/pertaining to, the scattered tribes of Israel.

I don't agree with what is a hyper-dispensational view that much scripture is not addressed to all Christians, whole cults of this sort of misuse of dispensational thinking. It's error to put whole books and chapters into some box of being not applicable, big mistake, scripture filled, cover to cover, with prophecies and admonitions to all inserted into text largely even dealing with a different subject, but prophecy to be mined and picked up on, by everybody. It's not rightly dividing the word of God, as some claim, to place chunks of the word of God into an isolated box and ignore a mountain of prophecy that is speaking to all of us. James contains much important and profound teaching, to all Christians.

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Is Preterism Christianity?

Of course all Preterists would defend their doctrine as being fully consistent with the bible and therefore the Christian faith but since there seems to be more preterists around lately I thought I'd ask the question in a more detailed way and see what sort of responses I get. I honestly don't know what to expect...

If you are a preterist, please affirm (or deny) the following five points which are pretty much universally understood as fundamental to the Christian faith...

1. The divine inspiration and inerrancy of the bible.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.​

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.


For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I personally believe that all five of these points are absolutely true but I do not believe that these are the only five things one must believe in order to be saved or even a genuine Christian. Nearly all Calvinists, for example, would affirm all five of these points but their distinctive doctrines (i.e. the doctrines that make them Calvinists) are incompatible with faith in the loving Creator depicted in the bible and worshiped by those who are saved by that same Love. So while all true Christians affirm all five points list above, those five points do not define what it means to be a Christian.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You mention something I have great difficulty with understanding, this how a person can be a fundamentalist, yet, at the same time, believe some grotesque, unscriptural doctrines of some men. Only God knows and can judge, but there's this lingering question of where the Holy Spirit is, leading into all truth, in those who adhere to some major, evil doctrines and deceptions? I've never been able to make sense of this, having no reservations as to the power of the Holy Spirit or the promises of God. It does beg the question as to whether some have saving faith, the Spirit, where major truth is lacking.

 

[Clete]

I don't agree with what is a hyper-dispensational view that much scripture is not addressed to all Christians, whole cults of this sort of misuse of dispensational thinking. It's error to put whole books and chapters into some box of being not applicable, big mistake, scripture filled, cover to cover, with prophecies and admonitions to all inserted into text largely even dealing with a different subject, but prophecy to be mined and picked up on, by everybody. It's not rightly dividing the word of God, as some claim, to place chunks of the word of God into an isolated box and ignore a mountain of prophecy that is speaking to all of us. James contains much important and profound teaching, to all Christians.

I'm as hard-core a "hyper-dispensationalist" as you'll find and I completely agree that James contains a lot of really "important and profound teaching" as you put it. It's an incredibly valuable book of the bible that I do not place in an isolated box any more than you put Deuteronomy in an isolated box. Deuteronomy, as well the rest of whole Old Testament is filled to the brim with "important and profound teaching" that every Christian can learn from and indeed needs in order to have a right understanding of not only the New Testament but of God Himself and our relationship to/with Him. Indeed, Genesis and Jeremiah might well be the two most important books in the entire bible!

Dispensationalism is really nothing more than understanding the context of scripture. We do not ignore books of the bible. On the contrary, we take them to mean precisely what they say. We simply acknowledge who is being spoken too, which of course is an enormous part of the context and which nearly all Christianity ignores completely. You ASSUME that James is written with you in mind rather than Israel (or that there is no difference) but when pressed cannot demonstrate that this is so. In other words, you bring this assumption to the interpretation of the New Testament in an a-priori fashion and reject anything that contradicts that premise while at the same time refusing to establish or to even question that premise. Well, I have news for you, simply saying something is a big-mistake and associating it with cults won't convince me of anything but I'd wager that it took very little if anything more than that to convince you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

You mention something I have great difficulty with understanding, this how a person can be a fundamentalist, yet, at the same time, believe some grotesque, unscriptural doctrines of some men. Only God knows and can judge, but there's this lingering question of where the Holy Spirit is, leading into all truth, in those who adhere to some major, evil doctrines and deceptions? I've never been able to make sense of this, having no reservations as to the power of the Holy Spirit or the promises of God. It does beg the question as to whether some have saving faith, the Spirit, where major truth is lacking.

Make sense of it?

What percentage of what you believe has to "make sense"?

What does it mean to "make sense"?

I'm seriously asking you, by the way, I'm not at all attempting to insult you.

What efforts have you actually made to make sense of it?

The starting point of what I believe is that God is living, personal, relational, loving, and just. EVERYTHING I believe proceeds rationally from that single premise.

Can you identify your starting premise?

If so, what it is?

If not, on what basis do you declare that anything doesn't make sense?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[WonderfulLordJesus]

Make sense of it?

What percentage of what you believe has to "make sense"?

What does it mean to "make sense"?

I'm seriously asking you, by the way, I'm not at all attempting to insult you.

What efforts have you actually made to make sense of it?

The starting point of what I believe is that God is living, personal, relational, loving, and just. EVERYTHING I believe proceeds rationally from that single premise.

Can you identify your starting premise?

If so, what it is?

If not, on what basis do you declare that anything doesn't make sense?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perhaps you should seek somebody else interested in playing word games and being combative? I'm not into sophomoric, trollish disputings. Let's just agree to disagree, and just take it for a fact that you're not making sense to me, either.

 

[john w]

Have you guys noticed how it is that those with the worst, and most deceptive, theology are so quick to speak condemning evil against others? Like in the other forum the charismatics threatening people with God's judgment or subscribing to Satan, if you don't subscribe to their exclusive behaviors and religion? I was just recently studying James 4:11, and, when you think about it, no other person can bestow or take away any Christian's reward, or judge any other person in an eternal sense, so what is this vanity of threatening people with evil, when the Lord Jesus, and solely the Lord Jesus, is empowered to judge, John 5:22? It's always a tell to me, many charismatics showing how, like that emotional mire they base their worship on, there are these anger management issues, reflective of emotional immaturity, to where they feel the need to throw lightening bolts at others or the like. And likewise those with false theology, generally, vain and very quick to say another person has a devil, or is a fool, boast how they have a lease on knowledge, my way or the highway: there are all these little tells of a spirit, other than the Holy Spirit, at work. Bad doctrine and bad behavior, as if Siamese twins of the tare. Interesting how you'd even expect these go hand in hand, isn't it? I believe these are important things to note, when considering whether a person should be taken seriously.

Luke 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

As to Preterism, around 500 of 1,000 Bible prophecies have already been, literally, fulfilled. In that same scripture, with prophecy not yet fulfilled, you'd have to believe a swap is made from literal to figurative, often between verses, that the Bible meant what it says, consistently, for a few thousand years, but turned to Nostradamus, with regard to everything of the future. You'd have to believe that God didn't know He should have stopped saying Israel, should have said church, as if the Almighty went senile (between verses and chapters!) and needs a dictionary or something. Hundreds of very literal references, down to specific, huge portions of the population dead in the apocalypse, a rise in homosexuality, grass burned up, every creature dying in the sea, huge earthquakes, antichrist controlling all peoples, antichrist setting up shop in a temple at Jerusalem, armies of the nations of the world coming against Jerusalem, with the Lord, Himself, coming from heaven to battle them: those most literal references that never happened, well, that's because the Bible ceased to mean what it says. God writes scripture that selectively turned unfathomable, into gobbledygook, we simply must assign our own values to, just like Nostradamus, when my Bible says, 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Preterism is lala land, silliness. The next 500 unfulfilled prophecies are also going to be literally fulfilled, like the previous 500, simple common sense proving this true, as sure as you can, with all confidence, postulate the sun coming up in the morning. One must suppose the Preterist would have to stand on the likes of, like they do Israel, that, no, the sun will not come up in the morning: the sun ceased in 70 AD, and we must not believe our lying eyes. (And you can pretty much forget the notion of ever having a profitable, reality-based eschatological conversation with a Preterist.)

"Thou hast spoken well...Thou hast well said,..."(Exodus 10:29 KJV, John 4:17 KJV). re. the "figurative cartwheels/backflips" of Preterism. Well done.

 

[john w]

Is Preterism Christianity?

Of course all Preterists would defend their doctrine as being fully consistent with the bible and therefore the Christian faith but since there seems to be more preterists around lately I thought I'd ask the question in a more detailed way and see what sort of responses I get. I honestly don't know what to expect...

If you are a preterist, please affirm (or deny) the following five points which are pretty much universally understood as fundamental to the Christian faith...

1. The divine inspiration and inerrancy of the bible.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.​

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.


For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I personally believe that all five of these points are absolutely true but I do not believe that these are the only five things one must believe in order to be saved or even a genuine Christian. Nearly all Calvinists, for example, would affirm all five of these points but their distinctive doctrines (i.e. the doctrines that make them Calvinists) are incompatible with faith in the loving Creator depicted in the bible and worshiped by those who are saved by that same Love. So while all true Christians affirm all five points list above, those five points do not define what it means to be a Christian.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth."-Clete

Most Preterists, including this habitual liar Tellalie, redefine the doctrine of the resurrection, which by definition, is physical, and likewise redefine the redemption of the body, which, again, by definition, is physical, into some "mystical," "spiritual" "resurrection"/"redemption of the body," void of a glorified, "flesh and bone" body, which perverts the essence of the gospel of Christ, 1 Cor. 15 KJV ff., and thus deny that the believing remnant of the nation Israel, will inherit a literal, physical kingdom of heaven upon the earth, in resurrected bodies, not being able to sin(saved from the power of sin-their glorification) part of the physical and spiritual benefits of the New Covenant, promised to them, by the LORD God, "the promises made unto the fathers," and deny that respective members of the boc, will also receive "physically redeemed," "flesh and bone" bodies, "the adoption," "the redemption of the purchased possession/body," in heavenly places in Christ, again not being subject to the power of sin(glorification).

Romans 8 KJV

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Ephesians 1 KJV
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

And thus, many/most(?)Preterists, deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is currently a man, today, serving as the Mediator to the lost, per:


1 Timothy 2:5 KJV

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Acts 17:31 KJV

because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[john w]

Is Preterism Christianity?

Of course all Preterists would defend their doctrine as being fully consistent with the bible and therefore the Christian faith but since there seems to be more preterists around lately I thought I'd ask the question in a more detailed way and see what sort of responses I get. I honestly don't know what to expect...

If you are a preterist, please affirm (or deny) the following five points which are pretty much universally understood as fundamental to the Christian faith...

1. The divine inspiration and inerrancy of the bible.
2. The deity of Jesus Christ.
3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.​

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.


For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I personally believe that all five of these points are absolutely true but I do not believe that these are the only five things one must believe in order to be saved or even a genuine Christian. Nearly all Calvinists, for example, would affirm all five of these points but their distinctive doctrines (i.e. the doctrines that make them Calvinists) are incompatible with faith in the loving Creator depicted in the bible and worshiped by those who are saved by that same Love. So while all true Christians affirm all five points list above, those five points do not define what it means to be a Christian.

Resting in Him,
Clete

"3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ."-Clete

I would correct that to, "The virgin conception," as the Saviour was born "normally," as we were. I understand what most Christians are stressing; however, we must be accurate, scripturally, since the lost are assessing our doctrine.

 

[musterion]

Dispensationalism

Definition: Interpreting Scripture according to Scripture by majoring on context (what was and wasn't said to/about whom, and when).

Fundamental premise: God does not lie but He has dealt with different peoples in strikingly different ways throughout human history. Failure to see this invariably leads to error and confusion.

Driving motive: Rightly dividing the Word of truth so that Christ is correctly preached, the lost are saved, and believers are edified and found to be approved workmen, for wrath and judgment are coming.

Preterism

Definition: Interpreting Scripture according to uninspired historical accounts of the assumed/purported fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Fundamental premise: This is the Kingdom, so there is no more prophecy to be fulfilled. God's wrath is spent. Christ is reigning over all right now. The world can only get better.

Driving motive: Denying the plain reality of an ever worsening world, leading not only to a failure to warn anyone of the coming wrath but opposing all who do so by using a dead book (the Bible) to prove them wrong.

 

[steko]

Dispensationalism

Definition: Interpreting Scripture according to Scripture by majoring on context (what was and wasn't said to/about whom, and when).

Fundamental premise: God does not lie but He has dealt with different peoples in strikingly different ways throughout human history. Failure to see this invariably leads to error and confusion.

Driving motive: Rightly dividing the Word of truth so that Christ is correctly preached, the lost are saved, and believers are edified and found to be approved workmen, for wrath and judgment are coming.

Preterism

Definition: Interpreting Scripture according to uninspired historical accounts of the assumed/purported fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Fundamental premise: This is the Kingdom, so there is no more prophecy to be fulfilled. God's wrath is spent. Christ is reigning over all right now. The world can only get better.

Driving motive: Denying the plain reality of an ever worsening world, leading not only to a failure to warn anyone of the coming wrath but opposing all who do so by using a dead book (the Bible) to prove them wrong.

:thumb:

 

[Interplanner]

:thumb:

There are several problems with the propositions, some are enormous:
1, I don't know any way to support the phrase 'interpreting Scripture by Scripture' in D'ism. You interpret scripture by 2P2P. It is absolutely clear this is always going on with the NT. That hideous other program is never stated but always on the apostles minds, and Christs, according to 2P2P. If he summarily dismisses interest in the restored kingdom in Acts 1, it's because he's about to explain it, and it never shows up in Acts as such!

2, True, God does not lie, but someone out there has 'voided and switched' the promise, says Gal 3:17. The same folks keep going back to the shadow when the Reality has come, apparently wishing God would deal with them they way He used to, lol.

But actually, the answer to the 'failed' word of God (for ex. Rom 9) is never 2P2P or XPXP. It is that 'not all of Israel ever was Israel.' Which of course, is too direct of a hit for the simple summaries above.

3, I have the same motives, but D'ism is not very familiar with justification by faith which is eschatological. It basically says it is as though the final judgement of God has already happened in Christ. To say that you have to preach Christ, and not worry too much about what Judaism thought in the past.

4, the definition of P'ism is not one. That is a feature. (As we move in to the P'ist section, the quality of thought rapidly deteriorates). I know of no belief system like that anyway. Instead, I use the distinction found in Mt 24A vs B, in which the first is about 1st century Judea (read your history) and the 2nd is about the end of the world. THESE CANNOT BE MIXED OR THERE IS TOTAL CONFUSION WHICH THE SUMMARY SHOULD ADDRESS. There really is nothing but cornfusion out there in prophecy-land with its millions of experts and books you 'have to buy to understand' for 19.95. The greatest piece of confusion is trying to find some geo-political events to take place in order for the worldwide judgement of God to happen. lol, not needed.

If you have studied at the advanced level, you will know that quite a bit of handling Luke is dealing with historical things that happen or will happen shortly in the background. The scripture interprets them, not the reverse. On this, the summary is worthless.

re warning of the wrath to come.
I don't know if the world is getting better or not in a net tally. That would be very complicated, but I can tell you the writer knows as much about my teaching as Obama does about the climate. The Gospel is 'as though' the day of judgement has taken place; Christ has intercepted the wrath of God for us. How do you teach that unless the wrath of God is an absolutely fundamental piece in your presentation. The summary is nuts.

 

[musterion]

I've come to ignore you but your response deserves a response.

There are several problems with the propositions, some are enormous:

Telling you up front right now, your problems are mostly because, like Tet, you don't actually understand what we teach nearly as well as you think you do.

1, I don't know any way to support the phrase 'interpreting Scripture by Scripture' in D'ism.

Sola Scriptura. Preterism cannot claim it. Preterism MUST appeal to non-biblical sources to substantiate itself. Disp'ism need not do so.

You interpret scripture by 2P2P.

Ephesians 3:9 and 2 Cor 5:16 are two of the reasons why.

It is absolutely clear this is always going on with the NT.

Is it?

That hideous other program

Hideous? Odd you choose that word.

is never stated but always on the apostles minds,

It was? This is what I mean about you not understanding what we teach.

and Christs, according to 2P2P. If he summarily dismisses interest in the restored kingdom in Acts 1, it's because he's about to explain it, and it never shows up in Acts as such!

You're unclear.

2, True, God does not lie, but someone out there has 'voided and switched' the promise, says Gal 3:17. The same folks keep going back to the shadow when the Reality has come, apparently wishing God would deal with them they way He used to, lol.

You're the one claiming what never belonged to us, and insist we claim it as well, while denying what God does intend for us.

But actually, the answer to the 'failed' word of God (for ex. Rom 9)

Failed? Odd you choose that word.

is never 2P2P or XPXP. It is that 'not all of Israel ever was Israel.'

I believe you just added the word ever to the inspired record.

Which of course, is too direct of a hit for the simple summaries above.

You're unclear.

3, I have the same motives

I disagree.

but D'ism is not very familiar with justification by faith which is eschatological.

No.

It basically says it is as though the final judgement of God has already happened in Christ.

For believers, absolutely yes. Counted as dead to sin and dead to the Law, alive to God. Beyond condemnation (Rom 8:1). The New Covenant didn't do that for the believer; grace did. You don't understand that.

To say that you have to preach Christ, and not worry too much about what Judaism thought in the past.

Christ according to the flesh (Romans 1:3; 2 Cor 5:16) vs Christ according to the revelation of the mystery (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:8-9). Different aspects are different. They are not the same.

4, the definition of P'ism is not one. That is a feature. (As we move in to the P'ist section, the quality of thought rapidly deteriorates). I know of no belief system like that anyway. Instead, I use the distinction found in Mt 24A vs B, in which the first is about 1st century Judea (read your history) and the 2nd is about the end of the world. THESE CANNOT BE MIXED OR THERE IS TOTAL CONFUSION WHICH THE SUMMARY SHOULD ADDRESS. There really is nothing but cornfusion out there in prophecy-land with its millions of experts and books you 'have to buy to understand' for 19.95. The greatest piece of confusion is trying to find some geo-political events to take place in order for the worldwide judgement of God to happen. lol, not needed.

Despite his repeated grave error and petty childish evasiveness, one advantage Tet's posts always have over yours is, when he wants to make a point he can be very concise and right to it. There's no mistaking what he says, usually. But your disjointed word fogs can't manage that skill so you are usually very unclear.

If you have studied at the advanced level,

Advanced according to whom?

you will know that quite a bit of handling Luke is dealing with historical things that happen or will happen shortly in the background. The scripture interprets them, not the reverse. On this, the summary is worthless.

I disagree.

re warning of the wrath to come.
I don't know if the world is getting better or not in a net tally.

Then there's no reasoning with you.

That would be very complicated,

Of course.

but I can tell you the writer knows as much about my teaching as Obama does about the climate.

Okay.

The Gospel is 'as though' the day of judgement has taken place;

For the believer, yes.

Christ has intercepted the wrath of God for us.

Who is us?

How do you teach that unless the wrath of God is an absolutely fundamental piece in your presentation.

I mentioned wrath in my definition of disp'ism.

The summary is nuts.

Okee dokee.

 

[Interplanner]

Musterion wrote:
Sola Scriptura. Preterism cannot claim it. Preterism MUST appeal to non-biblical sources to substantiate itself. Disp'ism need not do so.

No, you don't understand. Btw, I grew up in D'ism was in it until about age 22.

I am the person here who easily has a record for the number of times I have pointed out that the NT uses the OT 2500 times. I'm saying here that you constantly find D'ism skew to what the NT says. I know PH.D. PROFESSORS of D'ism who are unaware of some of the quotes that are marked for us in the UBS Metzger Greek edition! PROFESSORS! Do I know D'ism as well as you think I do?

 

[Interplanner]

Sola Scriptura. Preterism cannot claim it. Preterism MUST appeal to non-biblical sources to substantiate itself. Disp'ism need not do so.


If a passage says that in that generation the city will be surrounded and ruined, and if that event happens, and if there is an admittedly slightly spun account which is nevertheless hundreds of pages, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? If Luke says a tower in Galilee fell on some zealots, and there are archeological records about it, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? etC etC etc. You don't know what you are saying and you don't know why.

D'ism MUST insist on 2P2P or it collapses; yet it is no where in the NT. SOLA Scriptura? Forget it.