Is Full "consistant" Preterism

Me, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Timothy, and Barnabus want to know what you are talking about? We would like to learn about the "deeper" things of Christianity since all we know is the lighter things mentioned in the Bible. Just my humorous way of saying, "Huh"

 

A preterist better not take the Lord's table now...to show the Lord's death until He comes.
Thanks -----Bart

 

Jesus didn't tell them what they were supposed to do once He came back, so they aren't sure if they are supposed to keep acting like nothing has happened or what?

Seriously, the bible warns us to be watching that the day of the Lord doesn't come upon us unawares. I believe the Lord when He said there would be a falling away first, then the anti-Christ would be revealed. It seems the best way to deceive Christians is to convince them that the scriptures were already fulfilled. Already this teaching is spreading like wildfire through the church, a few years ago most pastors didn't know what preterism was.

 

I think of the full preterist view as one of Satan's many deceptions.

If you can convince Christians that everything the Lord told them they were working until has been done, maybe you can convince them to stop working.

If you can convince Christians that God's word is "full of errors," maybe they'll stop teaching it to anyone.

If you can convince Christians that this is it - this is the "promised new heaven and new earth," maybe you can get them to lose hope.

Satan has all kinds of tricks.
Its a shame so many people fall for so many of them.

 

Jesus plainly said EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIS RETURN.

Those who say all prophecy has been accomplished don't know squat about history or current events. Modern Israel didn't just happen, nor become so militarily powerful, so that Egypt trembles every time a Jewish official rattles his saber...nor did they just happen to move their capitol to Jerusalem.

Preterism is false.

 

Was there no falling away recorded in Acts? Where did Christ ever use the word "anti-christ"?

You mean the best way to decieve Christians is to convince them that Jesus kept His promises?

I'm doing my part. The fact that pastors today know nothing of preterism proves they really don't know much. Pastors 100 years ago sure knew of it and preached it.

Or you could teach them that very soon they will be raptured out of here so there is no use in investing in the future and growing the Kingdom. Wasn't it J Vernon Magee who said, "why polish the brass on a sinking ship".

Full of errors? You mean like Rev 1:1,3? Matt 16:27-28. James 5:8, Matt 24?

Care to know what Spurgeon said of the New Heaven and New Earth?

Yes, it's called "Left Behind." You don't have a "Tribulation Force" lunch box do you?

Where did Jesus say this?

Really? What prophecy does this fulfill?

You mean because of words like, "soon", " at hand", " near", "this generation", "some standing here"?
Am I to assume you don't take these words literally?

Does it have to be physical to be literal?

 

Was there no falling away recorded in Acts? Where did Christ ever use the word "anti-christ"?
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, that man of sin, the son of perdition.

You mean the best way to decieve Christians is to convince them that Jesus kept His promises?
</font>[/QUOTE]Not very well, according to your theology.

I'm doing my part. The fact that pastors today know nothing of preterism proves they really don't know much. Pastors 100 years ago sure knew of it and preached it.
</font>[/QUOTE]That was before 2 world wars shattered that illusion. You really honestly believe we are in the kingdom now?

Isa 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Where is the keeping of the promises?

Or you could teach them that very soon they will be raptured out of here so there is no use in investing in the future and growing the Kingdom. Wasn't it J Vernon Magee who said, "why polish the brass on a sinking ship".
</font>[/QUOTE]If you understand that the Lord is going to judge you for your works, you might get busy. I don't teach that everyone is going to be raptured out of here, I believe in a partial rapture for those that are watching and praying. Many Christians who are living for the world and hoping in an absolute promise of escape that is not in the bible are going to find themselves in the tribulation. Jesus told you how to escape that hour of temptation, keep the word of His patience. No preterist will be watching and praying to escape a tribulation they believe has already passed, even though they cannot explain why this kingdom looks so much like the kingdom of Satan that the Bible says it is.

 

Ok, where does Jesus mention the son of perdition/man of sin?

You must believe Daniel's prophecy concerning the establishment of the Kingdom was wrong. See Dan. 3.

Context is found in verse 1 and 2. When do you suppose the "latter days" were? See Hebrews 1:1-2.
Read Is. 2:7-8 and see if you think this is future.

Where does the Bible say what the Kingdom of Satan looks like?

You finally smoked me out.

Not with time-statements, how about you? You didn't answer my question as to whether you take those time-statements as literal.

Do you believe this passage speaks of the same comings found in Matt 26:64, Matt 24:30,and Rev. 19:11-16?

Ah yes, the resurrection. Definitely the biggest hurdle for me. When Paul speaks of "Adams death" to what does he refer? According to I Cor. 15:50 what does the Law have to do with physical death?

Again I ask, does something have to be fulfilled physically to be literal?

 

Grasshopper.
You wrote:

The folks at The Reformed Church have a rather nasty reply to that question:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/anathema_reformed-usa_01.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/anathema_harvestcc.html

You commented:
"I'm doing my part. The fact that pastors today know nothing of preterism proves they really don't know much. Pastors 100 years ago sure knew of it and preached it."

That may be true, but they didn't 1900 years ago.

"First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A. D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A. D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?"

http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/gentry_preterism.html

Can you address Kenneth L. Gentry's questions in this article?

 

Neither one of the links answer the question I posed. They are just antifull-preterist articles. taken from a full-preterist web-site by the way. Interesting Preterist Archive is not afraid of dealing with all views.

Do we study the Creeds or the Bible? Or should I say do you study the Creeds or the Bible?

Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance? Clement of Rome lived through A. D. 70 and had no idea he was resurrected! He continued to look for a physical resurrection (Clement 50:3). Jude's (supposed) grandsons still sought a physical resurrection (cf. Eusebius, EH 3:24:4). Whoever these men were, they came right out of the first generation and in the land of Israel -- with absolutely no inkling of an A. D. 70 resurrection or a past second Advent.

I actually agree with Gentry on this. The historical record still concerns me. Of course even in the 1st century there were differing views.

I hold that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as "this generation," "shortly," "at hand," "near," and similar wording) are to be applied to A. D. 70, but similar-sounding passages may or may not be so applied.

This is the inconsistency of Gentry's and the partial-preterist view. Gentry has an excellent book on the dating of Revelation, "Before Jerusalem Fell". It was one of the first books I read when considering the preterist view. Gentry along with other partial-preterist biliev much of the book of Revelation speaks to the events of AD70. In proving their contention, they point to Revelation 1:1,3. Here you find the words "shortly" and "near" are used to describe when these events would occur. Nowfor their inconsistency.

At what point to these events stop being near? Chapter 18?19?20? On what basis does Gentry decide that it has all been fulfilled exect the resurrection, judgement, and second coming? Where do you say the events stop being past and are now future? And on what basis do you do so?

After laying out the entire eschatological events, the angel tells John in Rev. 22:10 the time is near. Time for what? It seems to me the time is near for all the angel just showed John. So Gentry says near and shortly mean just that in Rev 1:1 and 3 but ignore the same statement in Rev 22:10. Why.

Hank Hanegraaff has written a book, "The Last Disciple" which describes the events of Revelation from the same preterist view as Gentry. But look what Norman L. Geisler says about the book. LD=Last Disciple

F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).

Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ. And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming , as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).

G. LD asserts that "John's repeated use of such words and phrases as soon and the time is near demonstrate conclusively that John could not have had the twenty-first century in mind" (LD, 395; I, #3).

Comments: If so, then on this premise the whole book of Revelation (including the Second Coming and Resurrection - Chapters 19-20) must refer to the first century since the word "soon" applies to the whole book of Revelation (1:1; 22:10). In this case, full preterism follows which is heretical. So, while the conclusions of LD are not unorthodox, if this understanding is applied consistently to other texts, then the logical implications will lead to unorthodox conclusions. Hence, while doctrinally this is an intramural orthodox discussion, nevertheless, methodologically this is a very important issue.

I agree with Geisler. If you are going to be consistent, you can't remain at the comfortable partial-preterist position. Partial-preterist are closer to the truth than Dispies, but Dispies are more consistent in their interpretation.
Perhaps you can answer this for Gentry.

Do you let Gentry do your debating for you, or can you defend your position without him?

 

Grasshopper said

I'm not sure what your referring to in Daniel 3, brother. As for the 'latter days', my pastor recently preached a good sermon discussing some of these issues.

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/051105_2Thes2_The_Last_Days_And_The_Falling_Away.asx

 

I just ask simple questions regarding why Paul mentions the Law in verse 50 and what Paul is referring to when he mentions "Adam's Death". Do I get a hint of an answer? NO.
It seems to fall in line with Paul's other teachings on death and the law:

Romans 7:9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

You can pretend the reference to the Law is not there, but it doesn't change the fact that it is. My question to you was and is why does Paul bring up the Law if he is speaking of physical death?

If you don't see the significance of these questions then you'll never understand how I arrived at the preterist view.
Notice all the questions I asked on this thread, now notice how many actually got answered.

Please, tell me how you can take those statements as literal. All I ask is you answer my questions as I answer yours.Do you get around them as ed does by appealing to 2 Peter 3:8?

I was just responding to someone else who said that:

Your argument is with James, he is the one who questioned the knowledge of modern pastors. Nice try though.

Well considering all scripture closed before AD70 it is not so curious.
However, I am told that Revelation and many other NT books were written after AD70 yet niether John or any other NT writer ever mentions the destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, the killing of over a million Jews and the enslavement of a million more. Not one word in the NT. Do you find this just as curious?

Ever wonder how anyone could have thought the resurrection had occured already if it was physical? Couldn't Paul just point them to the graveyard?

You mean like Waalvord, Pentecost etc...?

Do you think the Thessalonians believed the inspired Paul when he promised relief for them at Christ's return? (2 Thess 1:7) I guess the relief never made it. right? But I guess it kept those Thessalonians on their toes.

Sorry James, wrong chapter. Dan 2:40,45. The kingdom was to be established in during this fourth kingdom.

I'll give it a listen. But Hebrews 1:1-2 is still there.