Futurism an invention of the Jesuits?

Paul said something about those who will not taste death (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Who are those people according to preterism? Paul, by the wording of this passage implies that there are some "true believers" who will tast death (and will be changed to immortal in a twinkling of an eye). Who are those people and when did the age and or dispensation change, those who do see death and those who do not see death?

Have you stopped sinning?

 

This is a great example of how dishonestly the preterists deal with scripture.

It's funny that you say they didn't see Him ascend into heaven because He was obscured by clouds, but the witnesses clearly said, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." They said that the apostles saw Him go into heaven. You are contradicting the two men here.

A cloud received Him out of their sight. You say He wasn't in heaven yet. Nonsense. Consider Daniel's vision of the ascension of Christ in Daniel 7. One like the Son of man (Jesus Christ) came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of Days (God the Father). At this point He is given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. His ascension into heaven, when He came to the Father to be glorified and crowned, was accompanied by clouds. When a cloud received Him out of their sight, He entired heaven. By the way, this scene of the crowning of Christ is the same scene which is described for us in Revelation 4 and 5.

Consider the likenesses the entire bible draws between the ascension and return of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 47 says God went up with a shout.
1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 says He will descend with a shout.

Acts 1 says a cloud received Him out of their sight.
The Olivet Discourse and Revelation 1 say He will be accompanied by clouds as His return.

He arose bodily and physically into heaven.
He will return bodily and physically.

Men saw Him ascend says Acts 1.
Revelation 1 says men will see Him return.

Basically, one has to totally twist scripture to get around this and apply the second coming to 70 AD. Some of the bible was fulfilled in 70 AD. The futurists are wrong in applying all of the Olivet Discourse and things of this nature to the future. But the preterists are wrong for applying all those things to the past.

By the way, Psalm 24 says there are two times the Lord will enter heaven. At one entry the King of glory is called "the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." This was His ascension after His resurrection as record in Acts 1 historically and through vision in Daniel 7 and Revelation 5. At the second entry the King of glory is called "the Lord of hosts." Why? Because now the Lord is returning at the head of a huge number of people, the entire elect family of God risen from the dead and glorified. The first entry has already happened, the second one is yet future.

 

Thank you for that excellent exegesis RAdam.

I don't think Tom is being dishonest, he is sincere in his belief.

Just sincerely wrong.


HankD

 

Thank you, Adam, for making this important distinction between disagreeing with someone's teaching and, well, insulting one's character. This is why RAdam gets no comment from me. We can still disagree - perhaps even strenuously - but do so with respect and with that same graciousness we would want from others.

When I get time - it's been a rough day at work day - I will get back to this thread. Hopefully this weekend.

 

How did I attack your character? I didn't say you were dishonest, I said that preterists deal dishonestly with scripture. What I mean is this: preterist play around with the language of scripture to deny prophecy of the physical, bodily second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to fulfill those texts in AD 70. That's not being honest, faithful, consistent, whatever you want to call it with scripture. That's not an attack on your character. I'm not calling you personally dishonest. I'm saying you are being reckless with scripture. We can't just do whatever we want with scripture.

An example of being dishonest with scripture is saying that the clouds obscured the vision of the disciples so that they couldn't see Jesus ascend into heaven when the two men that stood by clearly said they saw Jesus ascend into heaven. You are blatantly going against scripture which clearly says the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven. The reason you do this is because the two men also said they would see Jesus return in like manner, and in many places the bible describes the return of Jesus as being accompanied by clouds. This would go against your view of scripture, thus you monkey around with the language of scripture, which couldn't be clearer.

 

If you really don't understand what your own words mean then I guess I can't help you. Even the response of Hank, someone who agrees with you, understood your comments as referring to character.

The thing you say about Preterists I would likewise say about futurists - with this one replacement of terms: I would say that futurists are inconsistent with Scripture, not dishonest.

But for me to call futurists dishonest would be a trashing of motives, not mere evaluation of hermeneutics. One is allowable for us, the other not.

Do you really not see the difference?

 

If I said, "preterist are dishonest," then that is a general statement which one could take as meaning they personally are dishonest in all of their dealings. But, if I said, "preterists are dishonest with scripture," then I have narrowed down the charge to one thing, dealings with scripture. I said the latter.

Now, what is the difference between inconsistency and dishonesty when it comes to scriptural interpretation? All the difference in the world. I could try to take a text as honestly as I could and still be inconsistent, because I failed to consider one text over here or one over there. That happens a lot, and it happens to everyone at some point. There is a grave difference between someone who takes a certain position that, unknown to them, goes against some other scripture and denying and monkeying around with clear language. When a text says that the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven, and then one says they didn't see this because the clouds obscured their view, then one is not merely inconsistent. Rather, he has handled scripture in a dishonest or reckless manner.

You can get mad if you want to, but I didn't personally attack you or your character. I attacked the way you handled that scripture.

 

Permit me to make a blanket apology.

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings concerning motives, myself included.
I added to the misunderstanding.

However, since RAdam has enterered into the discussion, I thought he made good as well as valid points. But of course I would seeing that in this particular situation we agree.

I had said that Acts 1:8-11 is the Achilles heel of preterism because by its very nature it lends itself to a futurist bodily and visible return of Christ (yet unfulfilled).

I would also like to say that the questions I asked :

When will sin and death end?
When will the material universe end?
Where does scripture speak of these things since all has been fulfilled and we are now living in the new heaven and new earth?

Indicate a major weakness in the full preterists view.

Futurists can answer these questions and point to Scipture as I have in other posts.

Because I have so much difficulty getting an answer I am going to give a few guesses and preterists or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

Logically from the preterist point of view sin and death and the material universe must go on forever since all has been fulfilled, people are born and then die, some are saved and those who are saved, something of their essence goes somewhere (don't forget, we are in the new heavens and the new earth)
if they are saved although logically it would seem that their carcass remains forever in the earthly grave.

But nonetheless, where are the Scriptures from the preterist point of view which speak of these things?

What is confusing is In 2 Peter 3 we are told that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire (howbeit according to preterism it has already happened and went mostly unnoticed). then in Revelation 21 we have:

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.​

So, since the first heaven and the first earth have already passed away and we are now living in the new heavens and the new earth, why are people still dying, sorrowing, crying and experiencing pain including Christians?​

May I offer the suggestion not that futurism is the "invention" of the Jesuits but that perhaps it is preterism (although of which order of priesthood of the Catholic Church I know not).​

HankD​

 

Sir, there was no such designation of the eschatology of Pre-mil in the early church regarding Historic, Dipy, or otherwise...
all prophesy was considered future .. to come... ergo - futurism.

What I am showing is that the Pre-Mil of the Church was/can be understood as Futurism for the first 400 years of the early Church... LONG before the Jesuits.

Remember the term 'historic' preceding the eschatological view Pre-mil, is also simply a hermeneutic qualifier tagged on as well. It WAS NOT the Historic understanding of what the view of Pre-mil entailed.

The fact is ... Futurism was what one would have called Pre-mil in the early church since they were 'looking for things not to have happened'. It is of note that for nearly 330 years AFTER 70 AD, the main orthodox view of the Church, was still looking forward to those main points of Pre-mil that the various diverging groups of Pre-Mil are still waiting on. It was only near 400+ AD that the eschatology changed and took on a preteristic style of eschatology.

Let keep the qualifiers out and speak to the questions you asked.. and I answered.

No.. the Jesuits DID NOT create the futurism view in the early church in which the Church was looking forward to the things 'yet to come'.

And the majority of those who hold to Futurism (what you call Dispinsationalism) sees the dual prophesies of scripture being just that - 2 fulfillments - (both physically done) one close but not quite exactly what was prophesied and another that will be done exactly as God described it.
Again.. much like the prophesies concerning the Messiah

Besides that and regardless - all are various hermeneutic styles.

See.. that is just silly at BEST, misinformation at worst.

The Majority don't deny DUAL prophesy... and the destruction of the temple is one such occurrence. In fact, I personally don't know of one I have ever met who didn't hold to the dual prophesies aspect and seeing in scripture different things that correlate to Church history.. back in 70 ad..

Thus I think you have a faulty understanding of futurism and pre-mil in the early church. Pre-Mil WAS futurism in the early church.

 

Lastday

Allan and HankD,

Allan, you write the following:

Do you have an understanding of "Progressive Dispensationalism" and how it differs from that of Scofield Dispensationalism and/or Covenantal Futurism?

Hank, I believe you wrote you haven't given much study to how the prophecies of Daniel are related to those of Revelation. I'm sure you wish to
make an intensive study of Dan.2, 7, 9 and 12 as they relate to Endtime events of Rev.12:1-5; Rev.13:1-5; Rev.11:1-11; Rev.17:1 to Rev.18:19 and also to
Lastday events of Rev.15:1-5; 8:1-5; 11:15-19 and Rev.19-20.

Has either of you encountered the "Progressive Dispy" changes relative to the 1335 days of Daniel 12:13 which follow the defeat of the Beast as indicated by the
Court Scene of the 7th Seal and of Christ's destruction of the Beast in Dan.7:13-27? There seems to be an earthly Covenantal Davidic Kingdom that will extend
beyond the Millennial Reign of Christ. I wonder if this is part of "Progressivism" or if "Progressivism" relates just to the Millennial Kingdom on earth.

The eternal nature of an earthly Davidic Kingdom seems certain from passages such as Ezek.37:24-28; Rev.21:24-26 and Rev.22:2,14...with
respect to the Kings of earth who must continue being healed by the leaves
of the Tree of Life...see Ezek.47:12 for the Millennial requirement. I don't know if "Progressivism" touches on this aspect of God's "Davidic Covenantal Promises" or not.
Mel

 

Hi mel,

I plan to take a look onto "progressive dispensationalism" and also the passages which you have suggested.

In Revelation 21 I see that even in the eternal state there is a distinction between the Church and Israel (12 gates - tribes, 12 foundations - apostles) and yes, I have taken note of some prophecies in the OT concerning Israel/Judah which appear to reach beyond time into eternity.

HankD

 

I don't think that is a distinction, since they are both part of the city. I think the idea is that all of God's people, the OT being represented by the tribes of Israel, the NT by the apostles, are there.

 

OK, Yes, they are all God's people, but the city wall has 2 distinct components, each speaks of a different function. Foundations and gates.

I'm suggesting that each imagery has a distinct underlying reality related to redeemed Israel and the Church.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

??

HankD