1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RC Sproul and Eschatology........

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #101 Grasshopper, Apr 14, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 14, 2009
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Actually it does, metaphors and hyperbolic statements are not anthropomophims. Your argument and objection to my position was based on a anthropomorphism. Had you based it on hyperbole or even figures of speech my arguments would have been different. You using anthropomorphism was an easy argument to defeat".


    Again, IMO, you are mistaken. It does not matter because the basic principle is the same for all these categories When one says that the Scripture does not say what the printed words plainly teach then a credible explanation must be forthcoming.

    It is not moot because the Spirit of God who inspired the Book of Genesis inspired all the others as well.

    Yes, Dr C. John Collins (although I don’t agree with his premise).






    Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
    Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

    I agree that it is evident in this passage.

    It is not of God's doing but the fact that one does not know a particular truth is that he/she does know that they do not know that truth.

    Another fact is that God could at any time open the mind of believer or unbeliever to know the truth.

    So, while God inspired the Scripture He does not immediately give the same depth of illumination to every believer. Therefore there is not always the same degree of understanding in each of His children.

    Nevertheless, the breech is there often through no fault of their own being "babes" in Christ, else why the need of the "teachers".


    Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;


    That is your opinion.

    Dispensationalists often times insist upon a literal interpretation depending upon the syntax, grammar and context of a passage (True they are predisposed to see their view there as we all are).

    Well I'm not ready to change my views so there is not a lot I can do but sympathize with these "others" because I too have seen these red flags here at the BB.



    OK, see my quotes by Dr Collins.


    Again, see Dr Collins premise above.


    If it has all happened in the past your question is "moot".

    If not, I believe it will but it may not happen the way I believe it will because some of what it says (as your writers suggest) may be "anthropomorphisms" or have meanings that do not agree with the surface readings such as God being "grieved". If He cannot be "grieved" then that would mean that "the wrath of God" may be an anthropomorphism and we can't really know exactly what it means when applied to God.

    Anything is understandable if God gives enlightenment.




    Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
    44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
    45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

    This happened sometime before Acts 1:6
    Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


    Luk 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
    Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

    The "ye" were the believing Jews to whom Jesus was speaking.

    Those after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled to whom Jesus is also refering IMO, will be also be believing Jews.

    Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

    After the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.




    Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


    HankD


     
    #102 HankD, Apr 15, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2009
  3. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #103 Grasshopper, Apr 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2009
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is your opinion. You also asked why I cited Dr Collins if I didn’t agree with his illustration. You asked for a name, I gave one.


    Dare I to ask if you agree with him that the “days” of Genesis are anthropomorphic?

    So here is someone who agrees with two of your approved authors that the literal meaning of a word may not have the meaning that it normally has in the context of human understanding. And indeed this author relates the passage of time to an anthropomorphism.

    I fulfilled the request as well as several others, but everytime I do the deck gets reshuffled with a new deal but the same game is played but with new and different rules (oops I forgot Baptists don’t play cards). This game is rigged.

    Cute Grasshopper. However I must admit that I have learned from you.
    I don’t see eye to eye with most of the preterist view, but I have a better understanding of my preterist brethren and their view and for that I am grateful.

    The question (interrogation) concerned whether the Book of Revelation may or may no happen.

    I said if preterism is the truth then it is “moot” (to use one of your own words).
    Then I said I believe it will happen, followed by a sarcasm: It may not happen the way I believe it will because if God cannot be “grieved” (an anthropomorphism) then “the wrath of God” (a major theme of the Book) may also be an anthropomorphism and we can’t really know what it means.

    God knows.

    You asked about the following scripture and my statements concerning them which were in response to "Who will the Kingdom be taken from, who will it be given to and when will this occur?”

    Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
    44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
    45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

    This happened sometime before Acts 1:6

    Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    Here is a more detailed explanation. When Jesus was here, Israel was already in possession of the earthly manifestation of the “kingdom”

    Because the leaders of the nation of Israel rejected Christ (their Messiah), He says “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”.

    So, by the time Acts 1:6 happens the kingdom had already been taken away from Israel because the disciples ask When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    The answer was it was not time for them to know that.

    However in Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

    And Romans 11:25
    For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

    So, until Jerusalem come under complete control of Israel, which it has never been since Christ’ ascension, then the Times of the Gentiles are still in affect.

    The very first argument Sproul makes concerns this very prophetic proposition but he does a much better job of explanation than I do. You should take a look-see.

    OK now I see what you want. I agree with Sproul and many others that the Scripture gives the impression that Jesus would return presumably within the apostolic age.

    He did not. I simply can’t accept the preterist view and say that somehow Christ returned in AD70

    I believe there is a different and better method of the interpretation of the second coming of Christ. I do readily admit that every view I have studied has its “problems”.

    Here is an example of the supposed “we” “they” which will also illustrate another difficulty in interpretation.

    Acts 1
    9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
    10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
    11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

    Preterism (IMO) has a problem with this “this same Jesus” “taken up” “as He went up” and “in like manner”.

    Did He come back in His resurrected body?
    Did He come down in like manner as He went up? Since He started from the ground and went up did His feet touch the ground in AD70?

    For dispensationalism the problematic part is the “ye” as you pointed out.
    Our answer is that the “ye” refer to those believing Jews of the millennium, then as in this passage.

    Zechariah 14
    3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
    4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

    Personally IMO this proposition is less problematic.


    HankD
     
    #104 HankD, Apr 16, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2009
  5. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #105 Grasshopper, Apr 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2009
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear Grasshopper,

    I need to take a breather and repeat that we are progressing very slowly because of this rehash, repeat denial, rehash, repeat, denial method.

    Also this mincing and parsing, reparsing, of words and the “is”, isn’t”; “is”, “isn’t”; “is”, isn’t” technique are counter productive and confusing to others and I doubt if anyone else is reading these post because of this. Personally and IMO, the goal of this thread should be understanding of the different eschatological points of view of the brethren and not what appears to me to a contest of one-ups-man-ship and getting bogged down in mire of details though related are of little profit.

    Also you ask for something, I give exactly what you ask for then you find a reason to dismiss it and/or re-qualify the request several times until the request cannot be forthcoming.

    So, having said that I’ll attempt to move forward.

    I will separate my answer(s) up into separate segments in the hope that the current viewers will read them. People are more apt to read short posts rather than the ramblings in which we have both become engaged.

    RE: Concerning Dr. Collins Anthropomorphic days

    Yes, I think you are correct, however, it is an example you asked for without qualification.


    I say “I think so” because I don’t know exactly how you view the “days” (Hebrew YOM) of Genesis 1. I believe they are literal days because of the Hebrew syntax, grammar and context: i.e. The use of cardinal numbers; the “evening and morning” clause and the use of the Hebrew waw consecutive:

    These combined grammatical elements have led me to adopt a literal view of the “days” of Genesis 1.

    However the Bible is replete with more generalized uses of b’YOM or b’HaYOM (“In the day” or when anarthrous “in day”).

    Even as soon as Genesis 5 and even related to the creation is the more generalized use of YOM (Without a cardinal number and without the definite article which the KJV translators added in the English for clarity to overcome this Hebrew idiomatic usage ).

    Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

    Now you may say that this is inconsistent with a view of a less than literal or modified view of “soon” or “quickly” in the Scripture inspired by Holy Spirit from cover to cover.

    However we all do this. I have given my reasons and explanations for this and if you reject them then so be it, at least there is an exchange of views.

    In addition this has gone on for these nearly 2000 years in the realm of eschatology (and every other article of Systematic Theology).
    We pick and choose those definitions and label at will certain words with “Anthropomorphism”, "figure of speech", "metaphor", "simile", etc, etc… to “make sense” of the total overview of “things to come”.

    As far as I am concerned we all (preterist, partial-preterist, dispensationalist) try to put together an eschatological schema that harmonizes with the whole counsel of God. Currently eschatology is still developing howbeit more rapidly than in the previous centuries. This modern development in some ways seems related to the story of the 5 blind men elephant trying to figure out what an elephant looks like.

    I will end this part of the response to your latest post and prepare the next one "soon" :)

    HankD
     
  7. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper,

    *Yawn* :sleeping_2: your arguement is pointless.

    My first question to ask you.

    Was the flood over the world of Genesis chapter 9 - literal and physical?

    So, my second question, 2 Peter 3:10-13 predicts that the earth shall be burned with fire. Is flame or fire over the earth - literal and phsyical?

    Does the WHOLE earth already destroyed with fire yet in the past?

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  8. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23


    To be fair to myself, we were discussing NT prophecy statements not Genesis 1. Yes you did provide a source who believes anthropomorphisms apply to “days” in Genesis 1, but as I stated, we weren’t discussing Genesis 1, but rather James 5:8, Rev. 1:1,3 etc….



    Actually I don’t have a problem with your view of the “days” of Genesis. I’m about 55/45 on the subject. 55% representing ages instead of 24 hour days.
     
  9. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
     
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Granted, but also to be fair to myself, I repeat that the same God which inspired the New Testament also inspired the Old. In additon, we were/are discussing Eschatology of which much in the NT is quotations and allusions to the OT passages including the above mentioned Books of James and Revelation.

    I am still going to respond to several inquiries of your post previous to this one.

    Circumstances have delayed the response.

    HankD
     
    #110 HankD, Apr 17, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    First Grasshopper, though retired, I do contract work as a software engineer and I have been called in by the State of WA to do some work for them, so my responses may be less that “quick” as I often work long days at the site and simply crash when I get home. I will try to be as responsive as circumstance allows.


    Your response:



    There are many, here is one:

    1 Chronicles 28
    4 Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:
    5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

    And another

    Matthew 21
    43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
    44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
    45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

    Yes. They mean that He would remove those local churches and/or their gospel witness from their sites because of their compromise. These churches are in the historical part of the Book of Revelation, we don’t know if they repented or not as there is no record except perhaps for the church at Ephesus depending upon the date of both these books and the order in which they were written.

    Incidently the verb "to come" when applied to Jesus does not necessarily imply the second coming:

    John 6:17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.​

    In my view (and I realize that I break from many dispensationalists views with my own view) this does not represent the second coming but His preparatory ride to the war called the Battle of Armageddon, the involved nations of which are gathered together in Revelation 16.

    Those who do see this as the second coming call this a metaphorical statement of the final victory.

    However in Revelation 14:

    Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

    Jesus has already returned by Revelation 14 and we see Him “standing” on Mount Zion with the redeemed and elected nation of Israel (the nation which Jesus said in Matthew 21 would receive the kingdom and bring forth the proper fruit). In Revelation 7 they are said to be "sealed" (redeemed), and here they have the Fathers name written in their foreheads (signifying special election) IMO of course.

    your response:



    So then the following passage is problematic for everyone:

    Acts 1
    9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
    10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
    11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

    In my view the “ye” (2nd person plural) is not specific but general to a class of people: believing messianic Jews.

    Generalizations as such are common in the Scripture:

    John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

    John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

    Acts 18:14 And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

    These:the “ye” of Acts 1:9-11, IMO are the redeemed and elected messianic Jews who are first described in Revelation 7, before and awaiting His bodily return.

    Revelation 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

    May God bless you and yours Grasshopper.

    HankD
     
  12. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
     
    #112 Grasshopper, Apr 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 18, 2009
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don’t I’m harmless. I also have been a farmer (I had an 88 acre farm with critters in Maine where my wife and I raised 11 children – now that’s intimidation) and I think we need farmers more than we need engineers.


    Jesus comes to our church every Sunday because He said


    Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    The events of AD70 were a violent destructive judgment upon Israel while the warnings in Revelation 1-3 were threatened judgments upon compromised local churches which has probably happened to many such churches over the centuries.

    At one time Harvard Theological Seminary was supported by many gospel preaching churches and now both the school and those churches have become liberal and their candlestick has been removed.



    Matthew 13
    40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
    41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
    42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    RE: This generation of Matthew 23:

    Matthew 23
    35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
    36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    “this generation” reaches back in time to Abel and IMO is a general statement of God’s thoughts as in Proverbs 13 and not simply and only specific to the Nation of Israel in the days of His flesh. They were however of the same spirit.

    Proverbs 13
    11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
    12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
    13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
    14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

    I Explained that above, also He is almighty God and can come in judgment or for any purpose in any way He wishes, bodily or in Spirit, (you know that) whether for judgment or comforting.


    In his prayer as our high Priest He says:

    John 14
    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    I then asked:

    The ones you yourself have quoted:

    James 5
    8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
    9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

    But this is a subjective passage. It does not say Behold the coming of the Lord is in AD70.

    In fact James is dated at AD45, which would have been a 25 year wait at the door if he came in AD70 according to the preterist view. However would you call someone and tell them you will be over “soon” and then wait 25 years to go over?
    Humanly speaking 25 minutes would be more like it. There is a human aspect and a divine aspect to “soon”.

    It works the other way as well.
    1000 or 2000 year wait is subjectively “nigh” to our eternal God.

    2 Peter 3
    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    And again I don’t know why He has delayed (humanly speaking) His coming but He has His own way of doing things.

    e.g.

    Matthew 14
    15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
    16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

    John 6
    5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
    6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
    7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

    Or

    John 2
    19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
    20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
    21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
    22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

    OK, so yes, I believe the Lord was often nebulous in the things He said, both to believer and non-believer alike, on that point I am sure we can both agree. Even after His departure, He sent the Spirit of God to earth and gave spiritual gifts to the church to help us along the way to understand those things which were to be clearly revealed.

    Now if Eschatology were exact, understandable, “cut and dry” that would be one thing however it is not and every system has difficulties, I believe most of His children (if not all) choose their view according to a sincere heart as I believe you have Grasshopper. It is IMO a credible view but just not one that I accept. For me the dispensational view (for the most part) is less problematic.

    So in the apparent “nigh” coming of the Lord (which has one subjectivity to us but another to God), concerning His “delay” he himself knew what he would do.

    And to rehash and repeat - one of the reasons (perhaps): Matthew 24 at the end of the Olivet Discourse:

    48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
    49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
    50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

    To "prove" us to warn us not to be abusive to one another, to motivate us to love one another and to add another dimension to the unknowability (not a real word but you get the idea) of His second coming (my opinion of course).

    Which proposition you dismiss (the motivational part not the “love one another” part) just as I dismiss some of your propositions concerning "allegorical" passages because they don’t fit the eschatological schematic with which I am comfortable.

    Talk with you "soon".
    HankD
     
    #113 HankD, Apr 18, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Actually, in context, that is speaking of Church discipline not whether God is there. Is God not with you in solitude?

    Is this your opinion or are there scriptures you believe teach this?

    And Jesus said they were "comings".

    Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

    Very similar to this verse:

    Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

    Not sure why you can’t allow that the "violent destructive judgment upon Israel" was a "coming", especially when the OT is full of such examples.

    So you take the Scofield approach that "generation" means race?

    Matthew 23 is very specific as to who Jesus was speaking. It was those Jews in Jesus’ day.

    Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

    This is a judgment on disbelieving Old Covenant Israel. They are the children of those who killed the prophets:

    Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

    1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

    Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

    It was those Jews who were filling up the measure of their fathers guilt:

    Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    1Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

    Jesus warned His Disciples what the Jews would do to them:

    Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

    Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

    There is no doubt Jesus is speaking to and about the generation of Jews living at the time of Jesus. The woe's were directed at that evil generation.

    Judgment would fall on them:


    Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
    Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

    It is no coincidence that the Olivet Discourse follows this passage.

    Do you believe Matthew 23 applies to Jews today?




    Does AD70 fit this description?



    Yet you agree this verse teaches a return in the apostolic generation.

    It says nigh, not soon. But again, you are arguing against yourself. You have already conceded that James 5:8 indicates a return in that generation.




    But not to whom he prophecy was given. Was God giving the prophecy to His creation or to Himself.



    And this is the pillar of dispensationalism, Jesus was unclear. I disagree, I think He was very clear on this subject.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Part 1

    You responded:

    So what, He is there. He said


    For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    You responded :

    You know that I do. From now on I am just not going to answer these questions to which you already know the answer because we have gone down the path so many many times. In addition, I am not going to accept this rehash, repeat, denial technique or the parse, reparse, mince and dice of the same words over and over again.

    RE:”Comings” as related to Revelation 3, I already answered this with scripture concerning the verb “to come”. Go back and read them, here are two.

    John 14
    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
    18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    Because your next step is to use it to promote the preterist view which I don’t accept.


    It is a fulfillment of prophecy. It is not the bodily return of Jesus Christ.




    your response


    Not exactly, I defined what I meant, go back and read it, also take note that this "generation" reaches back to Abel, the world's first murder victim, He was not a Jew.



    Reviewing the whole counsel if God it was only the Jews of Jesus day:

    Acts 4
    26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
    27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
    28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

    In addition both Jews and the gentiles attempted to kill Paul on several occasions as well.

    This is the generation of which Jesus spoke, God-haters, who knowing the truth intellectually reject Him and attempt to kill those who love Him. Some were Jews some were Gentiles.

    Also Paul speaking of these idolatrous Gentiles who reject both God and His revelation:
    Romans 1
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    HankD
     
  16. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Part 2

    "nigh" and "soon" are used by many preterists teachers to indicate that the Lord returned in AD70. It cannot be the Second Coming. Most full preterists teach that ALL the scriptures concerning the second coming were fulfilled in AD70 (I can supply quotes if you wish). This however does not fulfill the Scriptures regarding His bodily return:

    I am debating against that AD70 proposition, again go back and read the previous posts and the Scripture concerning his bodily ascension into heaven and His return in “like manner”.

    In addition, I used the words "give the impression" concerning the Second Coming within the apostolic age,
    I conceded nothing. I then defined what that meant. go back and read it.

    Here is a little

    .


    Ok so if you called someone and said "I'll be over in the near future" and then stood at their door for 25 years you certainly have some explaining to do.

    True, Because He was and I provided Scripture to prove it. Here is another example e.g. Matthew 13 where Jesus had to explain the meaning of the wheat and the tares.


    And the pillar of preterism, what is its foundation? The use of “anthropomorphisms”, metaphors, figures of speech, etc to redefine the words of those prophecies of Christ and His apostles to make them all happen in AD70 (except for partial preterists).


    In the same context of the literal flood of 2 Peter where you sidestepped the question concerning the literal flood by asking for a definition of Deafposttrib of “the earth”.

    The scripture teaches the whole earth was impacted by the literal “water” of the flood of Noah:

    Genesis 7
    7 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
    18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
    19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
    21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
    24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

    The important fact is that this was IMO a smokescreen sidestep to avoid his issue concerning the literalness of the final conflagration because it is redefined by preterists to be something other than literal.

    Deafposttrib’s observation was not pointless as you claim. The definition of literal water vs. literal fire is the issue. Again the issue is smokescreened by requiring a definition of “elements” so that the question of the literal “fire” does not have to be addressed.

    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    The meaning is evident, the earth was destroyed by water one day it will be destroyed by fire.

    Death still reigns in the material universe, its called entropy.
    God’s creation is still groaning in travail, and will until the final conflagration bringing in the new heavens and the new earth.

    Romans 8
    19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
    20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
    21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
    22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
    23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    It seems that preterists don’t seem to have a problem with redefining terms until the scripture fits their schematic of eschatology.

    While I admit that the view is within the realm of possibility, I can’t accept the redefinition of so many scriptures to achieve the credibility for it that you have.

    Dispensationalism has its problems but IMO preterism has more.


    HankD
     
  17. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Part 1

    Well it seems as if you have been possesed by the anger Demon so perhaps we should wrap it up. Too bad, I was having fun.


    I do not know the answer to this question, that’s why I asked. Perhaps you provided passages that you believe taught the AD70 “violent, destructive judgment on Israel". But I sure don’t remember. Would you care to refer me to the post #?


    Well words and concepts have meanings and answers have consequences that require follow-ups. Sorry that angers you.






    How would it manifest itself?? You did not answer that.

    Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

    How would the removing of the candlestick manifest itself?



    BINGO!!!!! So rather than answer the question you ignore it because it might lend credence to a preterist understanding. That would be like a preterist not commenting on the 1000 years in Revelation because it might promote a dispensational view. Or a Calvinist not commenting on John 3:16 because it might cause someone to reject Calvinism.


    Again, point me to your post# where you laid those prophecies out.
    I am not making the case that it was. You seem to take the attitude of full-preterism or nothing.




    And I asked if Matthew 23 still applies to Jews today. No response.


    So generation doesn't mean just Jews, it means all people. Matthew 23 is a warning to all people?

    Then what was the violent destructive judgment upon Israel for? Why were they being punished?
     
    #117 Grasshopper, Apr 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2009
  18. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Part 2




    Yea, those two words would lead one to that conclusion.


    Full preterist would disagree.



    No need, I have at least 20 books by full-preterist authors in view as I type. I am well aware of what they teach.


    And as I have pointed out many times, a bodily return does not rule out a preterist understanding. It must to you, but it does not to most.



    Then we are arguing two different things, because I am not arguing for a full-preterist view specifically as I also showed in my response to you when you quoted Acts 1.

    You obviously believe it gives more than just an impression because you continually demand a “delayed coming” and have made a case for it. I keep repeating this because you keep making the same argument. On the one hand you say those words don’t mean “at hand” and “near” as we humans understand it, then on the other hand you demand a “delayed return”. If He never indicated He would return at a specific time, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A “DELAYED RETURN” CONCEPT. If however He indicated He would return in the apostolic generation then a “delayed return” concept comes into play, a position you have tried to make.





    If it was in the context of “this generation” or “some standing here shall not taste of death” or “you shall not go through all the cities of Israel” , or “seal not the word of this book” or “the judge is standing at the door” then I might have a pretty good idea what the last 25 years of a 1500 year Age might mean.




    I don’t believe James 5 or the Olivet Discourse is a parable.
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Part 3




    No, not anthropomorphisms, that was your guy who used it to prove non 24 hour days in Genesis which you reject.


    Metaphors and figures of speech absolutely. When a preterist sees the historical destruction of Babylon described by OT Prophets as such:


    Isa 13:10 For 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.


    Then sees Jesus use the exact language:


    Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

    A preterist will assume a figure of speech/metaphor was employed.

    Or when the OT Prophets describe the judgment on Idumea described as such:

    Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

    Then see John in the very symbolic book of Revelation use the same terms:

    Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed like a scroll when it is rolled together. And every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

    Again the preterist assume metaphors are in play. In fact, the burden of proof is on the dispies to prove the NT Prophets used the exact language in a different manner than the OT Prophets used it.



    That’s a pretty big except and would include many futurist such as Gill, Spurgeon etc….

    Apparently you are unaware that Hebrew and Greek words have different meanings.

    H776
    ארץ
    'erets
    BDB Definition:
    1) land, earth
    1a) earth
    1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
    1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
    1a3) earth (inhabitants)
    1b) land
    1b1) country, territory
    1b2) district, region
    1b3) tribal territory
    1b4) piece of ground
    1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
    1b6) inhabitants of land
    1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world

    Apparently it is alright for you to hold your definition of “earth” but I am not allowed to hold mine.

    Secondly I am more than willing to debate Deafpost on this subject. I gave him answers based on what other scholars had said about 2 Peter 3. But I was not going to waste my time posting a lengthy discussion if he was just going to post and run. As it turned out I was right in doing so. He made one post and never returned. Had he wished to engage further I would have obliged. Since you seem to think I evaded the question perhaps you would like to take up the subject of the New Heavens and New Earth and try to reconcile your views based on Isaiah 65-66, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. I am more than willing, but I will ask you questions and look for consistencies in your answers. So go right ahead.



    Was planet earth destroyed in the flood? I was not aware God had to make another planet after the flood.

    Of course this brings up the question of the meaning of this verse:

    Gen 8:21 And Jehovah smelled a sweet odor. And Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. And I will not again smite every living thing as I have done.

    I guess to paraphrase you and Deafpost, God will no longer kill every one by water, next time He will burn them all to death. Fair?



    In spite of the chance I will once again bring your anger upon me, it comes down to what you mean by “death”.

    I guess this verse is still in the future:

    2Ti 1:10 But it is now having been manifested by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has made death of no effect, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel;



    Perhaps it’s because preterist don’t ignore the OT when trying to understand those Hebrew idioms.




    Re-defining assumes a different meaning than already introduced. I would argue much of what you call “re-defining” is nothing but understanding its intended meaning by looking at its previous usages.
     
    #119 Grasshopper, Apr 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2009
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have no demon Grasshopper. and the "anger" you sense is not mine.

    I am too tired to do this verbal thrashing right now.

    Maybe later.

    Bleesing, to you.
    I am not angry with you grasshopper.
    I did return your insult to dispensationalism in like kind, but no anger.

    HankD
     
Loading...