Preterist heretical?

You delivered the punch line.

I know of no other millinnielist who holds to that theory. However why, since Revelation describes the Millinnium in your view,is there only one New heavens and New Earth mentioned? Shouldn't there be two?

 

James, let me help you out. Here is what your boy Scofield says concerning Is 59:17:

See the little trick he uses to get around the obvious?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were actually waiting on a response. I don't know why the bible doesnt go ahead and say it twice in revelation, probably to confuse people like Scofield. It is obvious that there must be a new creation at the beginning of the millennium, being as how the old creation gets the dissolving treatment. Couldnt have a bunch of kings reigning over a dissolved creation.

 

Perhaps because its not to be taken literal. And yes, Scofield is confused.

 

James_Newman,

Please do not give in to the rantings of Grasshopper on the contrived issue he wishes to make of Isaiah 65, and 66, and their association with Revelation 21.


Grasshopper,
It seems you’ve gained quite a bit of confidence from the apparent lack of response that Dispensationalists have towards your query. Of course the real problem with your query, is not the query itself, but the greater principle you wish to renounce, which is the literal hermeneutic employed by Dispensationalism, and from which it draws its strength. Your query disguises the obvious weakness that people find in Preterism, namely its reliance on spiritualized, allegorical interpretation of scripture. You use Isaiah 65 and 66 not so much to disprove Dispensationalism, but rather the literal hermeneutic. However, Isaiah 65, and 66 just as easily can be used to renounce the spiritualized, allegorical method of interpretation of Preterism. In fact, they speak more against Preterist Eschatology, than they ever could against Dispensational Eschatology. You take great stock in demanding that Dispensationalists reconcile these scriptures with Revelation 21, but if I were to ask you to interpret these scriptures in light of Preterism, the statements that you would make could not help but be filled with all sort of absurdities. This is precisely why Preterism as a whole does not even figure on the eschatological landscape, and is treated more like a fringe school of thought. Having said all that, it’s no hard job in reconciling these passages with Revelation 21. In fact there’s no need of reconciliation at all. They clearly point to the same thing. There shall not be two new heavens and two new earths. The issue you’re trying to make of it is contrived, and is due, in my opinion, to several mistakes you made. First, you try to treat these passages in Isaiah as if they’re in chronological order, when anyone doing just a cursory reading of the texts, can see how the author jumps back and forth from the future blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom, to God’s judgments upon Israel, to God’s judgment on Israel’s enemies, and so on. It’s as if you got to Isaiah 65:17, and just all of a sudden decided that everything from verse 18 and on refers to what was written in verse 17. It’s a simple but egregious error, that ignores the fact that scripture was not written in chapters and verses, it ignores the fact no one particular eschatological verse contains all the details, and nor was it meant to be so, and it ignores the fact that none of the prophetical writings, are written in a chronological sense, such that if you read something prophetic say in chapter 12, then it is fulfilled before something prophetic that you read say in chapter 15. If I were to follow your principle logically, then I should understand verse 18 as indicating that God will create Jerusalem and a people for her, after He creates the New Heaven and New Earth of verse 17. But it doesn’t stop there, since Isaiah 65:17 comes before 66:4, then things go bad once again, because we see God choosing delusions for the people who do evil in His sight, and didn’t answer when He called them, and then He creates another New Heaven and New Earth in 66:22. Do you see how preposterous one can get if you force some type of chronological order on the Book of Isaiah, and not rather compare scripture with scripture to determine it. Again, for clarity’s sake let me reiterate that mention of a New Heaven and New Earth, in Isaiah 65, 66, and Revelation 21 are speaking of the same thing, but it does not follow that in the particular verses that these mentions are made, that all verses that follow relate to them in a chronological way, thus making everything written from Isaiah 65:18 on to the end of the book of Isaiah happens or comes to pass after 65:17 is fulfilled.

 

But it is growing, and fortunately, the false teaching of premillennialism, especially the dispensational brand, is steadily losing influence.

 

KenH,

Yes, Preterism is one among many false doctrines that shall gain greater prominence and these last days. However, it will never be predominant because of the obvious weakness of it that people readily see. If I had to take a guess, I would wager that Post Millenialism would overtake Dispensationalism as the predominant eschatological view, because at least it tries to hold to a literal hermeneutic.

 

Could be, could be. It is growing in adherents as well. I haven't made a final decision yet as to how I think about postmillennialism as I have premillennialism, but it would definitely be an improvement at least if it did overtake dispensationalism.

 

You mean literal when it fits your view correct? Rev 1:1,3 literal?

Yes they do.

Better let James know that.

Gee, context, what a novel idea. Are you telling me verse 18 has nothing to do with verse 17? Laughable!

17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

Is this how you interpret all scriptures that don't fit your view? Lets try Is. 13.

Isaiah 13
1The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Do we agree past?

10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Ooops. What do we do with this? Since you hold to a literal view, it must be future correct? Surely this hasn't happened.

17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

Are we back in the past again?

I've seen dispies like you butcher Matt 24 using this same technique. Its like watching a tennis match, back and forth. From AD70 to the future then back to AD70. etc...

Past theologians understood the metaphoric use of New heavens and New Earth.

John Owen
Where had God promised to bring "new heavens and a new earth" The answer, as Owen correctly states, is only in Isaiah 65 and 66 - passages which clearly prophesy the period of the Gospel, brought in by the work of Christ." (ibid., p. 495)

CH Spurgeon
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

Last Days? You mean the same last days found in Hebrews 1:1-2? Remember literal.

KenH

KenH, they just don't see the tidal wave called preterism that will soon come upon the Church. But we did warn them.

 

No GH, we absolutely do see the tidal wave of preterism (those of us who are watching, that is.)

2Ti 4:1-4
(1) I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
(2) Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
(3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
(4) And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Preterism is just one fable among many that the church is being sung to sleep with. As long as you can take all the warnings in the bible and apply them to someone else, it doesn't matter what you believe. Nothing could ever happen to us, because we are the temple of the Lord! Hyper-dispensationalist Pre-tribs say the preterists will be nicely surprised when Jesus comes back to fly us all to heaven. Preterists say pre-tribs will be red-faced when they get to heaven and find out that Jesus really came back 2000 years ago. The bible says were all going to appear before the Lord and be rewarded for our works, whether they are good OR bad. And we don't know when He will come back to do it.

I have no doubt that preterism will sweep the church like a bad case of athletes foot. I'm sure it will do wonders for your walk.

 

That was a wonderful speech, but not much substance.

Still hold to the 2 New Heavens and Earth theory?

 

I realize you do not consider the word of God to contain any substance. That is preterism. All the substance already happened, and we just bask in the afterglow??

I absolutely hold to the two new heavens and two new earths, and perhaps more. The fact that the world we live in now has already been destroyed AT LEAST once in scripture should make it readily apparent to you that the Lord does not have trouble recreating the world at any time, or as many times as He likes. He is certainly not required to get a dispensational permit before doing so.

There are obvious differences between the two descriptives, one being that the Isaiah new heaven and new earth has natural people dying, while the Revelation NHNE says there will be no more death. The Jews were looking for a kingdom, revelation reveals some more details about that kingdom, and beyond the millenium gives us a glimpse of eternity, but not much.

 

Grasshopper,


You wrote:
Gee, context, what a novel idea. Are you telling me verse 18 has nothing to do with verse 17? Laughable!


TakeChrist4Life:
Stop throwing up straw men Grasshopper. I was very clear in what I said. The real question is not whether verse 18 has anything to do with 17, but rather is verse 18 associated with verse 17 in a chronological way. I extend this question not only to Isaiah 65 and 66 but over the whole book. This is a legitimate question, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you. To keep it simple, just answer this: Does it follow that a prophecy you read of in a previous chapter is fulfilled before a prophecy you read of in later chapters, whether you’re talking about the book of Isaiah, or any other book of the Bible? In other words are they associated chronologically? Please explain.


You wrote:
Is this how you interpret all scriptures that don't fit your view? Lets try Is. 13. Isaiah 13
1The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

Do we agree past?


TakeChrist4Life:
Your question assumes that I take a dishonest approach to scripture, and simply carpet the scriptural texts with my presuppositions. This is hardly the case. If you’d stop a moment and calm down from all the vitriol you keep responding with, this discussion may actually be productive. As far as Isaiah 13 goes, no I don’t agree that this is exclusively referencing the past. This is due to verse 9, which I see you conveniently left out in your response by starting your quote at verse 10. Verse 9 clearly references the Day of the Lord, which almost all Christians agree hasn’t happened yet. I know as a Preterist, you feel that it has, so be it. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this point. When you compare scripture with scripture and see how Bablyon is referenced in the book of Revelation, and combine it with the reference to the Day of the Lord in verse 9, then it’s easy to see how this prophetic utterance is not exclusive to the present circumstances that Isaiah along with the rest of Israel were going through.

You wrote:
10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Ooops. What do we do with this? Since you hold to a literal view, it must be future correct? Surely this hasn't happened.


TakeChrist4Life:
As I stated previously you began your quote of scripture at verse 10, totally ignoring the reference to the Day of the Lord in verse 9.


You wrote:
17Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

Are we back in the past again?


TakeChrist4Life:
Yes, we are back in the past again. Why? Because verse 17 is clear reference to the Medo-Persian empire that ousted the Babylonian empire. Of course this brings us back to the primary issue at hand. Do these verses relate to each other in a chronological way? Yes or no, please explain.

You wrote:
I've seen dispies like you butcher Matt 24 using this same technique. Its like watching a tennis match, back and forth. From AD70 to the future then back to AD70. etc...

TakeChrist4Life:
And I’ve seen Preterists like you neglect whole sections of scripture to inform their eschatological views, and then take pet scriptures and treat them as if they exist in a vacuum and not part of a larger whole. It’s sort of like talking to Jehovah Witnesses, in which before you can nail them down on the details of one point, they’ve run off to make a whole other unconnected point.

You wrote:
Past theologians understood the metaphoric use of New heavens and New Earth. John Owen Where had God promised to bring "new heavens and a new earth" The answer, as Owen correctly states, is only in Isaiah 65 and 66 - passages which clearly prophesy the period of the Gospel, brought in by the work of Christ." (ibid., p. 495


TakeChrist4Life:
Now we’re getting down to some nuts and bolts. You’ve finally given a typical Preterist interpretation of an eschatological term. Anyone can see how it is the Preterists along with all those who spiritualize, and allegorize, who butcher scripture. You interpret New Heavens and a New Earth as a prophesy of the Gospel period. Why? What principle? What premise? Who determined that New Heaven and New Earth mean the Gospel
Period? What scripture proves this? Note, I said scripture not some reference to an historic figure. Spiritualizing and allegorizing scripture depend too much on man’s contrivances and concoctions.


You wrote:
Last Days? You mean the same last days found in Hebrews 1:1-2? Remember literal.

TakeChrist4Life:
Yep!!


You wrote:
But it is growing, and fortunately, the false teaching of premillennialism, especially the dispensational brand, is steadily losing influence.

KenH, they just don't see the tidal wave called preterism that will soon come upon the Church. But we did warn them.


TakeChrist4Life:
Preterism isn’t growing that much. It’s too weak in it’s interpretation methods to be anything other than a fringe element. If I were you I would start coming up with a Post or even A-Mil apologetic. They’ll gain a more significant foothold in the Church, than Preterism ever will. It’s just too weak for any significant amount of people to take seriously. For Preterism to gain the type of influence you hope, it would take some mainline denomination to take it up as it’s primary eschatological view. The problem with this is that it competes with other eschatological views that have a much larger following, greater influence, and much better scriptural support than Preterism, which is why it consistently comes in last as a view that people espouse.

 

No, I think we agree on this. But you are wrong if you think you can intepret verses 18 and following without the context of verse 17.

I left it out because I didn't want to post the entire chapter.
God tells us who the prophecy is against(Babylon) then tells us who He uses to bring about the prophecy(Medes) yet you say it is future because of verse 9?

It even tells us when these events were to occur:

22And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come , and her days shall not be prolonged.

Oh wait, you spiritualize time statements and don't take them literally right?

You believe that only 1 day of the Lord is taught in scripture?

Well in order for you to be consistent you must believe we will fight with swords again:

15Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.

And Bows:

18Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Babylon in Revelation is Old Covenant Jerusalem. Who killed the Prophets? Where was the Lord slain?

Here is your problem. You take passages that are meant to be figurative in nature and try to force them into a literal interpretation. I can show you many more OT passages just like this that speak to past events. How about this:

Davids flight from the Anger of Saul

Ps.18: 4 The cords of death compassed me, And the floods of ungodliness made me afraid.
5 The cords of Sheol were round about me; The snares of death came upon me.
6 In my distress I called upon Jehovah, And cried unto my God: He heard my voice out of his temple, And my cry before him came into his ears.
7 Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations also of the mountains quaked And were shaken, because he was wroth.
8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, And fire out of his mouth devoured: Coals were kindled by it.
9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his hiding-place, his pavilion round about him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

Do you take this literal? I guess you must to be consistent.

Of course they do. Its all in context. How in the world can you know the meaning of anything if you can re-organize scripture at any point for whatever reason? Perhaps Noah built the Ark after the flood?

Any examples?

Another problem you have, you seem to think scripture was written to you in 21st century America with a western mind set. Wrong. It was written to people with an asian culture and Jewish mind set. Did you ever stop to wonder why people like Gill, Owen, Matthew Henry, and CH Spurgeon interpreted it that way?

Here is how a 1st century Jew used it:

Josepus Book III Chapter 6:4

4. As for the inside, Moses parted its length into three partitions. At the distance of ten cubits from the most secret end, Moses placed four pillars, the workmanship of which was the very same with that of the rest; and they stood upon the like bases with them, each a small matter distant from his fellow. Now the room within those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the priests. However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a heaven peculiar to God.

Chapter 7:7

.......When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, (15) and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea , these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. ...........The veils, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements ; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth , because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea ,
........Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four elements; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened.
........And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it?


I John 2: 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

What world was passing away 2000 years ago?

Isaiah 1
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem , in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth ; for Jehovah hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

Is. 51: 16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth , and say unto Zion, Thou art my people .

Deuteronomy 31:26 Take this book of the LAW , and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that IT (the law) may be there for a WITNESS AGAINST thee .
Deuteronomy 31:27 For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?
Deuteronomy 31:28 Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call HEAVEN AND EARTH to RECORD AGAINST them

According to Matt 5:17-18 we are still under the Law, right?

So you believe everyone since Christ has lived in the "last days" and even the "last hour"?

Hebrews 9: 26 else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I Peter 1:20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake,

Acts 2: 16 but this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel:
17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:

I Cor. 10: 11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

The last days, last hour, end of the age were all at the writing of the NT. Yet you proclaim we are in the last days. Can you prove it?

Been there. Post and A-Mill are preteristic in their interpretations. I think they would all agree with me concerning the New Heavens and New Earth, Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation. The very things that led me out of dispie world to a partial-preterist position are the very same things that led me from partial-pret to full-pret. I think the more people turn to the Post and A-Mill view, they will start to see what I saw and take the next natural step. The future intellectual debate on eschatology will be in the preterist arena not the futurist.

By the way, Rev 1:1,3 Literal???