How many of The Church fathers held A partial/Full Pretierist Viewpoint of Theology?

I know, the passage in Matthew is still viable as it gives no names.

HankD

 

You are getting the second coming of Christ as described in the Holy Bible in detail and with all of it's implications out of your vague passage that you quote by Ignatious, which then went undetected for approx 1800 years and has no secular or church historical record to back it up?

Question: do you offer this information up with a straight face?

 

No, I was responding to the OP.

Thomas, do one of two things:
1. Read the OP and ask yourself: "Do I have something that is pertinent to contribute here?"
2. If not, go find a thread that is to your interest and respond on that thread.

The original post has to do with the ECF. I responded on that topic.

Don't be puerile and annoying.

 

Well said Tom....

 

Thank you. Aah, but you don't know what I erased. It gets aggravating.

 

Tom,

I was responding to your posts #15 and #17 so actually I'm on topic.

 

Oh come on, those posts of mine were also responding to the OP. You just can't admit that you overstepped, and were rude as well.

Not to worry. You have the honor of being only the second person on my blocked list. For all I know, come to think of it, you two are the same person, seeing that your monikers both end with numbers.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you also unclear on what OP means?

 

I know you posted it. Is it more my fault than yours that you forgot your own question? Or was it even a legitimate question to begin with?

 

Impressive response Tom.

...monikers both end with numbers...

No Tom, no. This debate with you over preterism is at best a hobby for me. I guess though if I went ahead and painted myself into a corner in such a style as you have I would be prickly so I do understand your dilemma.

But I ask the question, does thomas15 (no relation to any other poster on this or any other Christian forum) getting the above mentioned honor make up for the loss of you know, reliable theological information? But I guess your actions will get you off the hook with little old me.

PS: Somebody needs a nap.

 

This response of yours reminds me of Sgt. Schultz in the Old Hogan's Heroes (probably before your time) saying, "I see nothing!"

Proof is not proof against those who won't see it.

 

Actually Tom, I think the Sgt. Schultz quote was "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"

The question has to be asked Tom, why is it that you insinuate that readers of the Bible who take Jehovah God at his word and thus disagree with your liberal and highly subjective take on those words are blind, not able to see the truth of the matter because we (those you consider blind) are simply trusting in the Word of God?

 

[bumpity bump]

 

Noting in the above speaks to preterism, at all.
Nothing speaks to Christ already having come, nothing speaking to the complete of all future prophet events of scripture, nothing.

In fact these states go hand-in-hand with the pre-mil view, of which Ignasius held and in fact encouraged believers to keep 'watching' for Christ's return.

Doesn't sound close to your view but in fact supports Futerism.

Or this one:

He speaks as Paul did.. the last days (times).. the wrath of God which is TO COME.

Also. His use of PARWN in a spiritual application is the same use that Paul employs in 1 Cor. 5:3: .. Same usage but your understanding if VERY flawed.
This has NOTHING to do with your view.. this is speaking to what happened during His death and at His Physical Resurrection (remember when all the tombs opened up and the dead rose -PHYSICALLY from the graves). H

You conjure aspects to his statements that he not only does NOT say, but in fact is contrary to what you are ad-libbing for him about no 'future' aspects.
Again, Iggy states .. watch and weigh the time.. the wrath was still to come and that the last days were upon them.. not prior to them.

 

First of all, I bumped this post for a different purpose. I know that Ignatius's comment is not definitive proof of Preterism (and it definitely isn't proof of any sort for futurism). I bumped this post to show someone else that there were notices of the AD 70 event, your interpretation notwithstanding.

However, I am game to follow your comments as well.

Your merely saying "nothing speaks to Preterism" does not make the case at all. Lets look at the particulars. First of all his call for watching is neither futurist nor Preterist. The term he uses (GREGOREO) is just basic Christianity. It does not mean "watching for Christ", or "watching for signs". It means we are to watch ourselves. Big difference. And Preterists still say that we are to do this watching. My impression is that you saw that word "watching" and immediately gave it an eschatological slant.

Here is an in-depth study on this word "watching" as used in the New testament, as well as the other eight NT "watching" terms. I wrote this before I left futurism, so there are some sentences I would have written differently, but the word study should still prove helpful:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/730108752/watching-for-what/

The rest of this will have to wait.

 

But there are none.

While the word is fairly simple the context in which the passage was written is where we derive understanding for it's application and intended use. While it 'can' mean just being watchful of your walk.. his statement continue regarding having 'a restless spirit'.. one that does not get satisfied. Yet that is still not enough to get a proper definition or understanding of his usage as we must also go the context in which it was written in conjunction with the surrounding passages.. this is where the next lines come into play.. "weighing the times".. You state there is no 'times' as all are fullfilled.. Yet he states weigh or judge the times.. and then he adds.. "Looking for Him..." These three statements which are directly linked and form the context of His statement, establish the very fact that 'watching' is linked to next sentence of 'weighing the times' which is connected to the next sentence.. 'looking for Him'. Why.. cause in his estimation they were 'In the last day' and the 'Wrath of God' was STILL TO COME, not that it had ALREADY come.

Big difference. And Preterists still say that we are to do this watching. My impression is that you saw that word "watching" and immediately gave it an eschatological slant.

Here is an in-depth study on this word "watching" as used in the New testament, as well as the other eight NT "watching" terms. I wrote this before I left futurism, so there are some sentences I would have written differently, but the word study should still prove helpful:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/730108752/watching-for-what/


The rest of this will have to wait.[/QUOTE]

 

I looked all over in the Greek of my copy of Ignatius. I saw no "looking for Him". It is apparently a loose translation at this point.

I did not state "there are no times". See, this is why it gets tiresome debating this topic with some of you. You put words in our mouths.

And you wrote that GREGOREO "'can' mean just being watchful of your walk" and then went on to justify your futurist nuance.

Well, it is not a case of "can" mean "watching our walk".
It does mean it.
Every time.
In all twenty (20) New Testament verses.
That was the very point of my article. Did you even read it?

I wish that you would have examined the NT verses that I presented with half the care that you devoted to Ignatius. But, yes, they are all connected in Ignatius. But that is all moot because you are arguing against - I don't know what - some universalist or something? I certainly believe the wrath of God is a real thing. And that it is still to come - at the end of every unbeliever's life the wrath of God will come personally on them. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of God. And yet I also believe in God's judgment in the world. That has already happened.

No. Like I said, I wrote the above article while I was still a futurist. I just studied out the words as they occurred in the NT. I saw how they were used and wrote of what I saw. If you doubt that this is thew case show me from the article where I started doing this "eschatological slant" - 9 years before I was a Preterist, 5 years before I was a Calvinist.