Partial Preterism and Futurism Continued

Wow, Starbucks, you must be desperate.
If you read the history you will find that dispensationalism is a fairly recent introduction to America in about 1900 in NY. Some took it there during the civil war. In the UK it began in the early 18th century, but was mainly confined to the Irvingites who seem to be the main originators, and The Plymouth Brethren.and was widely considered to be a new heresy.
Philip Mauro a NY lawyer, writing about 1923 said he was one of the first believers in the "new system". He wrote books when he believed that from about 1908. He later studied the scriptures more thoroughly he left what he saw as error. He came, they say, a preterist but he believed the antichrist was still future.+

I was in the Brethren for years so I know the teaching. When I asked, "How do you know that the let and hindrance refers to the church and the Holy Spirit, they quoted Gen.6:3, which of course has nothing to do with that.

And seeing as you quote ECF as futurist, a slander, they taught that it referred to the emperor and the Empire, and the temple in Revelation referred to the church.

There were one or two in history, who had odd views, usually nothing like what is taught today, but the church never taught it.

 

You have managed on one page to hit almost all of my pet peeves on the BB.

1. You insult me as having an "ego trip." On the BB occasionally I list personal qualifications to up the game of my debate opponent. It didn't work here. Instead of upping your game, you insult me (against BB rules).
2. Long lists of verses with no explanation, as if that proved something.
3. Lack of sourcing: what Bible version was that from what website? Lack of sourcing is not only an ethical failure, it is contrary to BB rules.
4. You ignored my interaction with you in Post #108.

So, I really see no need to interact further with you. Toodleoo.

 

You completely missed my point. You named Jesuits and my point was that Baptists don't follow Jesuits. So until you can find a link between the Jesuits and us Baptists, your mention of the Jesuits is totally unconnected to this discussion.

Can you source these allegations, or is it just from Wikipedia?

Just FYI, all historians of eschatology agree that the early church fathers were premil (but not necessarily pretrib). I could give a few quotes from the literature and the fathers, but won't have time today. I think I'll listen to the experts instead of you on this one. ;) if you really want an unbiased, expert, non-dispensational view, I recommend that you abandon Wikipedia and read J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy.

 

What do you have against Starbucks? They make a perfectly good latte, and it's a great place to hang out with my son. In Japan we actually had one in our hospital. Smelled lovely. :)

What "church" do you mean? All churches were independent in the early centuries. There was no denominational structure, probably until Constantine.

 

By the way, proud papa here with a book recommendation relevant to the thread. My son's book on Rev. 1-3 has been published and may now be bought on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.com/Where-Your-A...&qid=1506692935&sr=8-1&keywords=Paul+A.+Himes

For the record, "Dr. Paul" as they call him here where we teach together, has his Ph.D. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary under noted Greek scholar David Alan Black. He is primarily a Petrine scholar, but has been published in various fields. His latest journal article is in The Bible Translator on how to translate the Greek word for "apt to teach" (didaktikos).

 

Glad to hear that.

 

Those opening chapters make it very clear that the Revelation is written to & for living believers, John's companions in tribulation.

Chapters 2 &3 are extremely practical & are addressed to all hearers for our attention & application.

I expect to get the Kindle edition.

TC can you repost this as I suspect I am on John's "ignore" list.
Thanks
Ian

 

"if" you are on his ignore list why would TC repost it? If he doesn't want to see your post then leave him alone. No point in harrassing him.

 

I travel on the ferry to France fairly regularly. It used to sell coffee under the brand of The Harbour Coffee Company which used to sell good coffee. I think that was their own brand. Then they changed to COSTA and the coffee and particular the hot chocolate deteriorate then they changed to Starbucks, and for me the coffee is undrinkable, although I sometimes have the tea, but that is not much good. In the cafeteria they have machines for tea and coffee and that is a bit better,

Don't jump to conclusions, I don't use Wikipedia, most of my research is from ebooks most of which I have possessed in the past or I have read in the library, or ebooks from the same authors.

My granddaughter is at university and they are not allowed to use the internet for any of their research.

 

Common courtesy.

 

Well, each to his own. :) Can't stand coffee out of a machine, myself--except in Japan, the 7/11 convenience stores have machines that would grind and make the coffee right there, and that was good.

Okay, glad to know that. Sorry for the mistaken innuendo. :Frown

We allow our students to use the Internet for research, but only if the article is by a recognized scholar, and there are some of those on the Internet if you know where to go.

 

Most of the books I study are pre 1900, or just after. I don't trust any modern writers
They mostly teach modern doctrines and we know what Paul said.

• 
  1 Timothy 4:1

.

 

Just was addressing those who see the Second Coming as already happened in AD 70!

 

Courtesy for what?

 

John, I wasn't accusing you of doing that. I was only saying DON'T take one because you teach it and I have no college knowledge in this. I have a terrible way of coming off sometimes, in which I don't mean, in a bad way. In other words, Im just asking, so please don't throw your knowledge against me, I want to learn not just debate. I wasn't trying to actually debate you. Im just trying to find answers. Refutes are the best way to learn.

 

I see several Qs you asked, and I believe I've answered them. Please give me a post number so I can respond to what you believe I didn't answer.

Meanwhile - remember, I said I believe Scripture, including its prophecy, literally AS POSSIBLE. I never said there were no non-literal scriptures or prophecies, but they all refer to literal events that either will, or have, occurred.

 

Jesus said he was.

 

Because none of the Revelators, neither Jesus nor any of His angels, said they were.

 

The writer didn't say that was literal or figurative either, so you must take that literally then?