Is Full "consistant" Preterism

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Bro Tony, May 11, 2005.

?

Is Full "consistant" Preterism

  1. Heretical

    69.0%
  2. Merely Extra-biblical

    17.2%
  3. Merely-unorthodox

    10.3%
  4. An acceptable view within the pale of orthodoxy

    3.4%
  5. The correct view of eschotology

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    A discussion on the views of full preterism
     
  2. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :D Just my humorous way of saying, "Huh"
     
  4. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Art for the chuckle,

    A full preterist basically believes that all prophecy has already been accomplished, most believe in 70AD. Including, the second coming of Jesus, the resurrection of the saints (spiritual), final judgment, we are now living in the new heaven & earth, Satan is already eternally bound.

    That is the basic belief system there are alot of implications in this theology as you might suppose.

    Bro Tony
     
  5. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    A preterist better not take the Lord's table now...to show the Lord's death until He comes.
    Thanks -----Bart
     
  6. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you Bart. Isnt it interesting that many still do.

    Bro Tony
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    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.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  10. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    yet every preterist that I have had a discussion with tries to state that they are the ones taking the Scriptures literal. Even though they state that Jesus second coming (which has already occurred) is not meant to be understood as a literal return. Curious.

    Bro Tony
     
  11. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    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? [​IMG]

    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?
     
  12. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welcome Grasshopper I expected you to be here at some time. Did not remember if you were a full or partial preterist. Full preterism has some serious problems with being literal.

    Does it have to be physical to be literal?

    Does it have to be a physical return? Yes if you believe the Scripture.

    Secondly the full preterist has a real problem with our resurrection as they want to teach it also happened in AD 70 and was not like Jesus' at all but a "spiritual" one, denying a future resurrection of the saints. In direct conflict with Paul's teachings in 1Corinthians 15. Again, a problem with receiving Scripture literally in teaching such as this.

    Bro Tony
     
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    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. [​IMG]

    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?
     
  15. JackRUS

    JackRUS
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    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?
     
  17. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah yes, lets change the whole chapter of 1 Cor 15 and make the emphasis and primary meaning to do with the law. The message of 1 Cor 15 is not the law, nor the removal of the law, but Paul is defending the reality of Christ literal resurrection and how are will be like His.

    I do take the time passages literally. There is no problem with them if again one is consistant with what he is talking about. This has been answered many times on this board and you have been given the answers from those who hold a different view you simply dont agree.

    Finally, I wish that the preterist I deal with including you, brother Grasshopper would stop stating an untruth, that being that those who disagree with you dont know what you believe. You stated this in your first response in this thread. I believe you understand what I believe as a pre-mil proponent, and I know what the preterist teach and believe. I simply dont agree with it. I give you the respect for your view and your understanding of opposing views, but as long as you come off as condesending toward others there is no possibility of a fruitful discussion.

    As you have I have studied the different views on eschotology and I don't agree with your conclusions. That does not make me ignorant or a follower of the Left Behind series. I simply cannot believe what the full preterist teach concerning that everything has been accomplished and there is no future coming of Jesus and no future resurrection.

    Thanks for your time
    Bro Tony

    [ May 24, 2005, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Bro Tony ]
     
  18. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now in dealing with the full preterist and the resurrection and the supposed 2nd coming of Jesus in AD 70.

    Whether one holds to the early dating of Revelation or not, it is clear that John was alive in AD 70, would have to be if the time passages view of the preterist are correctly interpreted. So just think of this the greatest event in the history of the church, that being the 2nd coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints and John never wrote about it, not only that no early church fathers or first century church taught that Jesus had returned. Jesus and the angels promised He would return, the promise was that all would see Him, and yet when all these people "saw" Him they said nothing. This is very curious.

    Some may say that maybe John was not inspired or instructed to write any of this down, so he did not. Again, what the early church was waiting for, what they longed for, what Paul in 2 Tim 2:14-19, called a cancer in the church because Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the resurrection had already occurred, it supposedly finally happened in AD 70 and no one knew it, or if they did they did not tell anyone or teach it in the church. Ridiculous.

    Paul tells us in 2 Tim 2 to shun this profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. I will listen to the Apostle Paul rather than modern day "theologians" who are not inspired.

    Bro Tony
     
  19. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  20. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...