Partial Preterism: A doctrinal smokescreen for the future harlot system?

Although the subject has drifted off to Primitive Baptist "conditionalism", I'd like to get back to hermenuetic principles for partial preterism and the amillenial position.

Jim, I do not approach Rev. 20 as the single definitive statement upon millenialism. The subject is much broader, i.e. the kingdom, the timing of its coming and the nature of Christ's rule. My millenial position grew from my study of these broader issues, with Rev. 20 as just one among dozens of passages which were relevant to the subject. My first step:

1. Study all relevant Scriptures before forming a dogmatic opinion.

This takes a lot of time, because the kingdom and reign of Christ and His saints is mentioned many times in Scripture. If we summarize the O.T. Scriptures on the subject we get the impression that the kingdom is based in Jerusalem. We also get the impression that the kingdom comes right after Christ's first advent. So the O.T. alone leaves us with a dilemna--history does not seem to bear out this scenario. It can be reconciled in one of two ways--either the language about Jerusalem is typological--pointing to a spiritual Jerusalem, or the prophetic timetables contain vast unmentioned gaps.
The N.T. emphasizes the SOON coming of a spiritual kingdom. The weight of evidence favors the timing of the eternal kingdom coming, as the O.T. had indicated, immediately after Christ's first advent. The N.T. also reveals much of the typology about the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. The typological use of Israel in the N.T. reconciles the O.T. dilemna. So the "big picture" favors us viewing the kingdom as ultimately spiritual in nature. This does not rule out a physical kingdom, but the N.T. seems to make it a less significant possibility.

My second step:
2. Remember that Scripture is written for us but not to us.
Basically what we've discussed in the posts above emphasize this point. Consider the historical context. The text must have some relevance to the original audience. A spiritual kingdom in their time is more relevant than a way-distant physical kingdom. Both the beginning and end of Revelation indicate that the prophecies within it would begin to unfold within a short period of time from when John received the vision.

Jim, Four more principles to go, but I'll stop there for tonight and await your feedback.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Sorry--my bad.

I placed the above post in the wrong thread. That's what I get for doing this late at night!

Tim

 

Preach the Word -

Is this the Gospel?

Jesus Christ died for the sins of every man, woman, and child without exception. God loves you so much that He sent His Son into the world to die for you. All you have to do is accept the offer.

 

No.

 

Do you believe all Arminians are lost? Well, do you know what you just admitted was not the Gospel, is taught by 99% of the religious world and the majority of the folks on this board? Do you believe they are all damned? Most of them were "converted" under such preaching. Now, if you believe ALL the elect will hear the Gospel, that means you would have to say these folks are not saved by the grace of God. Brother, you obviously do not unionize with Arminians for a reason, and it's the same reason I don't - they preach a false Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for OUR sins (the elect). If you don't preach the Jesus whose purpose was the same as mine, to save His people from their sins, you don't preach the same Jesus I do (2 Cor. 11:4). Arminians, therefore, do not preach the Gospel of the Son of God as described in the Bible. But no, I do not believe they are all damned. They have been bewitched and deceived by the religious world like the Galatians were. But no, they do not preach the biblical Gospel. It is a satanic deception.