Futurists

Primitive, it is not. The temple, according to pretribbers, will be built during the tribulation. In our eschatology, the Jews are promised peace for 7 years. For the first 3 1/2, it is relatively peaceful (if you can imagine peace during this time). Anyhow, with today's building machinery and our factors, it would take no time to build it again. It sure won't take 46 years.

 

Seventy years ago the Empire State Building and Chrysler Building in NYC were built in just over a year. Stadiums that seat 60,000+ are built in less than 2 years. The World Trade Center was ready for tenants in four years. The temple is neither as big nor as involved as those are. So your objections do not seem to be founded in fact. As you say, perhaps you should, step back and take a good look at your eschatological view with an open mind, and God-willing, an open heart.

 

Primitive, you have been answered. I am grow weary that people continually present the same mundane, worthless arguments as though they were profound and mindboggling. It is just like arminians and their continuous "all" and "world" arguments.

You interpret the passage like this:

Truly, I say to you, this [current, wicked, Jewish] generation will not pass away until all these things are fulfilled.

Pretribbers (not all futurists are pretribbers) interpret it like this:

Truly, I say to you, this generation [that witnesses these events] will not pass away until all these things [the 7 year tribulation] are fulfilled.

Read it and learn and burn your strawman.

 

Based on the fact that you don't think it exists. You can't find it because of your presuppositions, not because of the text. We have no problem finding it, but our system doesn't prevent it. That's the difference.

The "generation" issue has been addressed many times and answered. You seem to think we have no concern for Scripture. Yet I tell you that all these issues have been answered. You may not like the answer but is it solidly exegetical and theological. It is your presuppositions that prevent your acceptance of it.

 

Preach the word said:

Which you have not done yet!... I see also there are many brethren on here that are of the Preterist belief. There are others also that are questioning their belief that are not Preterist. There are others on other forums checking their profiles that are also Preterist.
The premise is the natural temple which was a type and shadow of Jesus Christ was destroyed in 70AD. The law dispensation was on its way out and being replaced by the grace dispensation. There is no need for it anymore!... It filled its purpose. Not only that we are now priests and kings made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus and being living temples present our own bodies as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is our reasonable service. We say there is no need for another temple and if I'm not mistaken the holy city that included the temple was four square miles. We also believe the return of Jesus Christ is imminent but not for a tribulation for that has been the lot of all Gods children thoughout the ages. He is coming to take his children home and to judge those not his and it won't take seven years either. The Bible and History complement each other and that is the way I and my fellow yokefellows understand it. We are in the millennium right now and you other brethren can believe in a future one but in my book that doesn't change THE BOOK. I will hear what the other brother has to say but I will also measure it with scripture... and if the trumpet make an uncertain sound... I will be sure to sound mine... Brother Glen

[ August 01, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

I agree but the question is, Have you correctly identified things? The correspondences that you are trying to make with first century events are tenuous at best and when we compare the explicit and exact nature of OT prophecy with the fluid and inexact nature of your view of NT prophecy, we must call it into question. I believe Scripture to be more exact than you do. I think there are too many unfulfilled promises for us to be living in the millennium.

And we respond that we are not in the millennium and if you think we are, that doesn't change the BOOK. In other words, we are both appealing to teh BOOK for our views. How do we determine which view is right? I suggest by taking the plain meaning of the words of the book. I cannot see the need for the drastic recharacterization of scriptural prophecy that your view must have.

However, as I said previously, I don't think we need to start question other people's loyalty to God or the Book over this issue. That is why I no longer debate it much.

 

I agree with what my fellow Primitive Baptist had to say in relation to the Millennial Kingdom which we are now living in where Jesus Christ reigns. If anyone doesn't believe Jesus Christ is reigning now... Check your Heart and Mind!... I checked mine and he is still there!... Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Now lets get the fulfillment of that from the New Testament Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away... I'm reigning with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ now in the kingdom he set up... Later on when I lay down this mortal coil I shall reign with him in perfection!... Brother Glen

 

Glen,

How much have you read about the position you detest so much? I am curious becuase you keep saying these things haven't been answered and yet I know for a fact that there are published answers available and have been for years.

Second, you say we are in the millennium and quote Jer 31:31-34. Aside from the fact that those four verses refute your position, why did you stop there? Vv. 35-40 are even more explicit. The question is not "Is Jesus reigning now?" as you seem to suggest. The question is, Are we living in teh kingdom promised by God in teh OT? The answer to the second is "In no way." You cannot read the OT description of the kingdom and find its fulfillment in anything today ... unless you can find the fulfilmment of Revelation in teh first century ... Oh wait, guess you can

Seriously, the OT promises are explicit as to whom they are given to and what the consist of. Plainly put, those things are not here today. So either the OT was drastically off base, or the kingdom is still to come. What happens far too often is that we ignore Scripture that doesn't support our position (such as you did with Jer 31). And that is what is dangerous.

 

I think where the differences come in are concerning the nature of the kingdom - whether it is a materialistic, physical kingdom or whether it is a spiritual kingdom where Christ reigns in the hearts of His people. Colossians 1:13 is very clear that the kingdom now exists which means the kingdom must be spiritual as I don't see a materialistic, physical kingdom existing today that premillennialists are expecting.

Ken

[ August 01, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Pastor Larry said:

I find this answer most amusing as we have layed our interpretations on the table and you have yet to share yours!... Yet you say you can refute ours but we have yet to see yours. Lets see some of these published answers that are available as you don't seem to think we have a leg to stand on. You can say what you want but proof is proof and we have yet to see yours or Preach the word or anyone else of your camp. While you are at it take Matthew 24 in its full context and no fair spliting it up either because it is one continuous flow of one continuous event that happened within 40 years after Jesus Christ was crucified. What I would like to know is why you brethren take Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come... out of context and run with it 2,000 plus years in the future!... The accusing finger points both ways brethren... Was not the Gospel of the Kingdom in consideration at that time for all the world at that time and did not the Apostles preach it?... Well if they didn't I better throw my Bible in the trash because my KJV says they did. If the kingdom of heaven was not at hand why were the brethren asked to repent for something that didn't exist then?... And since they did repent then the kingdom of heaven is our benefit which we are now living in... Its not of this world and it is in every born again blood bought child of God and his amazing grace makes it so. You futurist brethren are trying to reinstitute a natural temple worship than vanished away and was replaced by a spiritual one that will last forever!... So where is your proof?... Brother Glen

[ August 01, 2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Well said Brother Ken!... Brother Glen

 

OK, I'm confused.

I know that the Primitive Baptist brethren believe in the bodily Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth and I'm trying to piece together what they believe about the details.
BTW, my view is that this is the essential belief, the BODILY return of the Lord jesus Christ. The rest is details.

I would really like to know what they believe and I have asked.

So, I'll give what I believe they believe after using some logic and the process of elimination They can correct me if I am wrong.
In fact Please do!

One of these days (no tribulation, just one of these days) we and the entire world will hear a trumpet (LOUD!) Jesus will appear in the clouds (HALLELUJAH!) with all the saints who have gone on before, everyone on earth will see Him, the saints which are alive on the earth will meet Him in the air, (this is where I'm confused as to what they believe) Everyone is resurrected, He will then judge the living and the dead. When everyone is dealt with, the heavens and the earth are burnt up in a fervent heat, a new heavens and a new earth are brought forth, so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Please correct/ammend whatever.

HankD

[ August 01, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

HankD,

You get an A. I think you have done well in summarizing both the amill and postmill position as to how we view the last day of history on this earth, which it sounds like the Primitive Baptists on this board also align themselves.

Ken

 

Do a search. You will find more posts than you can count. The published answers are found in Walvoord, Ryrie, Showers, McClain, Thomas, and multitudes of others. You can get them at virtually any bookstore or web bookseller.

As for Matt 24 and its context, a well known principle of biblical prophecy is called the telescoping principle where events that are written about as close together are indeed separated. Consider for example Zech 12:10 and John 20 where the piercing of the side "fulfils" the prophecy. Yet it is clear that only one part of it is fulfilled. A book that will reference this is Biblical Hermeneutics by Terry, and Virkler's book on Hermeneutics as well which title I can't presently recall and my copy is at my office. In other words, your contention has already shown to be unnecessary by biblical prophecy. You say it happened within 40 years but that would predate Revelation (whose early date has never been shown to be valid without objection). What's more, if it happened within 40 years, it removes the necessity of words having meaning since there is nothing in that time period that corresponds in any significant way with the text of Scripture. God used words for a reason -- to communicate what would happen. When those words are fulfilled, then we will know that it has taken place.

The kingdom of heaven was at hand but it was taken away to be given to people who produce the fruit of it. (It's right there in your KJV ). What do you do with that verse?? Some did repent but the nation as a whole did not. That is why the kingdom was taken away. Even the disciples understood this as evidenced in Acts 1:6 where they ask if that was the time Christ was going to restore it. You say it was already there; the disciples thought it wasn't. Christ didn't correct the disciples. Why? Apparently because the disciples were right -- the kingdom wasn't there.

We are not "trying to reinstitute temple worship." We are trying to be faithful to the text of Scripture and what the words communicate. I realize you don't agree. But I encourage you to do some reading. At least find out why we believe what we do. I do not have the time to repeat it all here. The information is readily available. Dig in.

 

Something being objected to does not make it invalid. I would direct you to a book by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. entitled Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation that is the best work to date for an early dating of the book of Revelation. Counting the index, it is over 400 pages long. No flimsy defense of the early date is this book.

The evidence for a late date is not exactly solid. It is probably based more on tradition than evidence. And, of course, futurists must cling with all their might to the late date as without it their position collapses into dust. Both postmills and amills can maintain their eschatological positions regardless of the date of the book of Revelation. Futurists cannot do so. Perhaps another strike against the futurist position to have to depend totally upon the dating of Revelation.

Regards,
Ken

[ August 01, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Ah, but you have not dealt with the situation post-Pentecost and the verse I mentioned earlier in Colossians that is in the past tense, not the future tense.

(Col 1:13 NKJV) He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,

Regards,

Ken

 

Hank D said:OK, I'm confused... Not anymore!... I agree with Ken and a hearty AMEN!... Brother Glen