RC Sproul and Eschatology........
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Mar 20, 2009.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
Grasshopper, is it the Preterist view that Jesus has already returned? I'm a little confused. (What else is new? :laugh:)
-
Amy.G said: ↑Grasshopper, is it the Preterist view that Jesus has already returned? I'm a little confused. (What else is new? :laugh:)Click to expand...
Full-preterist believe that the events of AD70 was the "second coming" and the focus of all eschatology.
Check out Sproul's "end of the age" study on the series I posted. -
Thanks Grasshopper. What does the Full Preterist believe is yet to happen?
-
Amy.G said: ↑Thanks Grasshopper. What does the Full Preterist believe is yet to happen?Click to expand...
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Beyond this, I don't know. -
Grasshopper said: ↑The continuing growth of the Kingdom and a non-ending Church Age:
Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Beyond this, I don't know.Click to expand... -
Amy.G said: ↑Strange. I've never heard of anything like this.Click to expand...
If you like to listen to sermons here is a guy I found several years ago while studying this topic:
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/
When I first found him he was a partial preterist, if you go to the bottom of his sermon page you will find some great sermons on eschatology. I would check back ever so often to listen to any new sermons he had becuse I enjoyed his teaching. About 2 years later he had posted a new series on eschatology where he seemed to had moved to the full-preterist view. That series is called 'What are the Last Days". It is very interesting how and why he came to that view. I found similarities to my own study. -
Grasshopper said: ↑That is a laughable interpretation of Matt. 10:23.Click to expand...
So the Church will see this? Must be before the rapture and not His parousia?
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
So what is it that Paul is speaking to the Thessalonians about in verse 7?Click to expand...
Why is the Man of sin and the "Anti-Christ" mentioned to the Church???Click to expand...
You need to think things through before posting.Click to expand...
Secondly the Ezekiel Temple was for sin atonement. Is this what you believe?Click to expand...
You are wrong not God.Click to expand...
We are now the Temple of God and the "end times" were in the 1st century ending the Mosaic Economy.Click to expand...
Is this what Peter had in mind?Click to expand...
I quote scripture and you call it proof-texting.Click to expand...
I think you are bankrupt of ideas and pretend to have dealt with it by saying you "interacted with the actual theology of Scripture".Click to expand...
Therefore you say all these words and phrases must be twisted to fit your conclusions.Click to expand...
I, on the other, hand have shown how these words are used consistently in other non-eschatological verses. You have not.Click to expand...
As I suspected, I don't think you are really paying attention here. This is proof of that and just more arrogance from you.Click to expand...
I haven't studied enough because I haven't learned to twist the scriptures as you have learned to do. May I never study that much.Click to expand...
It was about 6 years ago I was introduced to a different view, it was during that time that the dispie view began to collapse upon itself because of it's careless dealings with many passages throughout the OT and NT and its inability to allow for figurative and metaphoric language to be used.Click to expand...
So continue your condescending comments if you wish but I have spent 1000's of hours on this topic and years being indoctrinated with your Left Behind brand of theology.Click to expand...
Quite frankly, for you to call me arrogant is beyond the pale. It is completely unacceptable. Being informed and studied on a topic is not arrogant. Knowing what you are talking about, and being able to explain it is not arrogant.
Your personal attacks against me are wrong. Feel free to disagree with me. I have no problem with that. But don't make personal attacks, particularly when you are attacking someoen who holds to the predominant historic position of the Christian church. You may be right, but I don't think there are many in church history who agree with you. -
Strange. I've never heard of anything like this.Click to expand...
-
Pastor Larry said: ↑It is actually probably the predominant interpretation among evangelicals, though I haven't counted heads. John Calvin, who was no friend of dispensationalists, said that the idea that this was referring to AD70 was "too far-fetched."Click to expand...
Mat 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
I guess that asking too much. Apprently Jesus was speaking to some future Disciples he would again send to the cities of Isreal.
Philip Schaff
"This being so, then the words relating to a personal return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat. x.23; xvi.28)."
Philip Shaff must also be an idiot.
I think you are trying to force Paul into saying something he wasn't saying. Paul's intent there was not to draw a timeline, but to talk about the justice of God. He was promising the church that those who persecute them would not get off. God would take vengeance on them.Click to expand...
2Th 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
Personal pronouns like time statements are to be twisted at your whim.
They were being persecuted by their fellow countrymen:
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
That ended in AD70.
Because Paul was telling them about things to comeClick to expand...
Then why did he not tell them of the Temple?
No. There will be memorial sacrifices as Ezekiel describes.Click to expand...
But they won't atone for sins.Click to expand...
Lots of sin offerings but I don't see any memorials. Do you?
Eze 40:39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.
Eze 42:13 Then said he unto me, The north chambers and the south chambers, which are before the separate place, they be holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; for the place is holy.
Eze 43:19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.
Peter had in mind the culmination of the age and the end of the world.Click to expand...
Yes, quoting Scripture without dealing with the context is proof-texting.Click to expand...
I hope you will excuse me for laughing at this.Click to expand...
Quite frankly, it is absurd. If you think what I have said isn't legitimate, it shows how much you don't know. the problem is that you don't know it. Feel free to disagree. But realize that what I have said about the end being near is the predominant position of all church history.Click to expand...
Non eschatological verses are in a different context. You are missing the rule of interpreting Scripture in context.Click to expand...
If you can show any Scripture I have twisted I will be glad to change.Click to expand...
So far as I can tell, you have not shown that. I don't put a lot of stock in your opinions,Click to expand...
particularly when you give little evidence of having a background in studying the issue.Click to expand...
You are asking me questions about stuff you should already know if you are this dogmatic about it. The fact that you have to ask me these things shows me that you haven't studied.Click to expand...
You haven't spent thousands of hours on this.Click to expand...
If you had, you would not be as uninformed as you are. It may sound good, particularly since no one can verify it. But I am not fooled.Click to expand...
I know good and well that people who talk like you do, and ask the questions you ask, don't know because they haven't spent enough time.Click to expand...
Quite frankly, for you to call me arrogant is beyond the pale. It is completely unacceptable. Being informed and studied on a topic is not arrogant. Knowing what you are talking about, and being able to explain it is not arrogant.Click to expand...
Your personal attacks against me are wrong. Feel free to disagree with me. I have no problem with that. But don't make personal attacks, particularly when you are attacking someoen who holds to the predominant historic position of the Christian church. You may be right, but I don't think there are many in church history who agree with youClick to expand...Click to expand... -
Pastor Larry said: ↑It's not that common and been pretty soundly refuted. There is a reason not many people believe it. It has way too many exegetical problems. It can't stand the test of the text. And this discussion (in spite of Grasshopper's comments about it) really isn't a dispensational/covenant issue. Historically, no matter which camp you fall in, most have agreed with my position about the words in question.Click to expand...
One can easily find the writings of scholars throught Church History. Here are some:
From the 1600's:
John Owen
"So upon or in the destruction of Jerusalem, Luke 21:27, the Son of man is said to 'come in a cloud, with power and great glory' - and they that escape in that desolation are said to 'stand before the Son of man, ver. 36
To all the way back to the earliest church Fathers:
Eusebius"--all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." (Book III, Ch. 5)
Clement of Alexandria
"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken.
Athanasius
"And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:231; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly." (Defence of His Flight [11])
Justin Martyr
CHAP. XLVII.--DESOLATION OF JUDAEA FORETOLD.
That the land of the Jews, then, was to be laid waste, hear what was said by the Spirit of prophecy. And the words were spoken as if from the person of the people wondering at what had happened. They are these: "Sion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. The house of our sanctuary has become a curse, and the glory which our fathers blessed is burned up with fire, and all its glorious things are laid waste: and Thou refrainest Thyself at these things, and hast held Thy peace, and hast humbled us very sore."(6) And ye are convinced that Jerusalem has been laid waste, as was predicted. And concerning its desolation, and that no one should be permitted to inhabit it, there was the following prophecy by Isaiah: "Their land is desolate, their enemies consume it before them, and none of them shall dwell therein."(7) And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you know very well."
Amy here is a great site where you can read what scholars of everyview throughout Church History have believed. See if "Pastor" Larry is telling you the truth.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/index.html -
Grasshopper said: ↑Amy here is a great site where you can read what scholars of everyview throughout Church History have believed. See if "Pastor" Larry is telling you the truth.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/index.htmlClick to expand...
the quote I attributed to Phillip Schaff was wrong. The source had it wrong . . . . Sorry for the misquote, I contacted themClick to expand... -
Jerome said: ↑Yes, I remember that site. A Baptist Board member relied on it for what turned out to be a bogus Phillip Schaff quote:
Despite being notified of the error nearly a year ago, the site still contains the "Schaff’s History pg. 299" "quote".Click to expand... -
I am going to make a few last comments and then wind down m participation which was probably ill-advised from the beginning. I will make some general comments first, and then respond to a few specific comments.
There are several distinct issues here as I see it. First, the issue of the meaning of words; second, the issue of historical theology; third, the issue of study.
With respect to words, the words used in these second coming/parousia passages have long been acknowledged not to be precise time frames, but rather dealing with imminency. Thus “soon” “near” and the like can have the meaning that I have ascribed to them here. This position has been argued for centuries in eschatological discussions. It is not new.
With respect to historical theology, as I stated, the position espoused by Grasshopper is a minority position. Sproul himself, one minute and forty-two seconds into his first presentation agrees with me on that. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It simply means that the position I hold is the predominant position of church history, which is what I said in response to Amy. The fact that Grasshopper can quote people who agree with him was never at issue. Sproul wisely said that he does not come with a “fierce dogmatism” on this subject. Grasshopper would do well to follow suit.
With respect to study, my contention is that someone who has studied thousands of hours on this would not be asking me what a verse means. He would already know what the other position believes. Asking to “expose weak argumentation” is as silly as it is disingenuous. The type of arguments given here in support of preterism/partial preterism are not the type of arguments that typically come from someone who is well versed in the subject.
I am disappointed that Grasshopper decided to take the low road here and turn what could have been a good exchange of ideas into a personal vendetta. Hopefully it won't happen again.
Now for some specific issues:
"Pastor" is either intentionally decieving you or ignorant of what he says. … One can easily find the writings of scholars throught Church History.Click to expand...
Apprently Jesus was speaking to some future Disciples he would again send to the cities of Isreal.Click to expand...
They were being persecuted by their fellow countrymen:
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
That ended in AD70.Click to expand...
Then why did he not tell them of the Temple?Click to expand...
You can show NOWHERE in Ezekiel where memorial sacrifices are given. … Lots of sin offerings but I don't see any memorials. Do you?Click to expand...
But of course what is absurd is your belief that no one saw these passages as pretaining to the end of the Jewish Age.Click to expand...
So I give you scriptures that support my view of how words are to be used then you dismiss them because they are not used in an eschatological context. You have rigged it so there is now way I can be proved correct. Congratulations.Click to expand...
In sum, I think it is exegetically unsustainable to try to shoehorn “a” coming of Christ into the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. It is also unnecessary. We can allow the biblical text to stand as it does and maintain the integrity of the text and the truthfulness of the promises. -
Pastor Larry said: ↑With respect to words, the words used in these second coming/parousia passages have long been acknowledged not to be precise time frames, but rather dealing with imminency. Thus “soon” “near” and the like can have the meaning that I have ascribed to them here. This position has been argued for centuries in eschatological discussions. It is not new.Click to expand...
With respect to historical theology, as I stated, the position espoused by Grasshopper is a minority position.
Sproul himself, one minute and forty-two seconds into his first presentation agrees with me on that. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.Click to expand...
It simply means that the position I hold is the predominant position of church history, which is what I said in response to Amy. The fact that Grasshopper can quote people who agree with him was never at issue.Click to expand...
Sproul wisely said that he does not come with a “fierce dogmatism” on this subject. Grasshopper would do well to follow suit.Click to expand...
With respect to study, my contention is that someone who has studied thousands of hours on this would not be asking me what a verse means. He would already know what the other position believes. Asking to “expose weak argumentation” is as silly as it is disingenuous.Click to expand...
The type of arguments given here in support of preterism/partial preterism are not the type of arguments that typically come from someone who is well versed in the subject.Click to expand...
I am disappointed that Grasshopper decided to take the low road here and turn what could have been a good exchange of ideas into a personal vendetta. Hopefully it won't happen again.Click to expand...
The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking"
and again later.......
But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers.
Then the arrogant condescending remarks began:
Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.
and finally you just decided to call me a liar:
You haven't spent thousands of hours on this.
It may sound good, particularly since no one can verify it.
But I am not fooled.
So please spare us all the self righteous lectures.
This is yet another unconscionable personal attack. I am neither deceiving you nor am I ignorant. I said exactly what Sproul said … that the position Grasshopper espouses is a minority position. To quote myself, “… not many people believe it … most have agreed with my position about the words in question.” I don’t think there is any serious doubt about that. So I am neither ignorant nor deceitful. What I said was true, and Sproul agrees.Click to expand...
It is well established that some of Jesus commands were given to the disciples in view of their status as the coming church. To see that here is not unthinkable.Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say Schaff, or Sproul, or Grasshopper is an idiot. I would simply say what I have said … That their position is a minority position and it can’t really deal with the textual issues, IMO. BTW, Don Carson agrees with you so you can quote him if you want recognizable and respected support.Click to expand...
Um, no. After AD 70, the persecution of Gentile Christians by Gentile unbelievers continued, as it has til this day. 1 Thess 2:14 talks of Thessalonian (Gentile) believers who suffered at the hands of their countrymen, (fellow Gentiles), even as they have of the Jews.Click to expand...
Paul was writing to a specific group of Christians, but the things he said certainly are transferrable to other situations.Click to expand...
First, we don’t know that he didn’t tell them. All we know is that it wasn’t inscripturated. And that is because it wasn’t his topic. There are a great many things Paul could have written about but he didn’t.Click to expand...
What else would they be? They don’t atone for sin because 1) they can’t and 2) Jesus did. Just as the OT sacrifices looked forward to and prefigured the death of Christ, so the Millennial sacrifices will look backwards in memorial to the death of Christ.Click to expand...
Why do you think that is my belief? I think some have seen that as pertaining to the end of the Jewish age. I think they are wrong.
Don’t you agree that context means something?Click to expand...
If I talk of “coming,” you don’t know what I am talking about until you have a context to place it in. The same word in one context can mean something different in another. It is well known that there are certain “technical uses” of words in particular topics.Click to expand...
Lets see:
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
Albert Barnes:
Rideth upon a swift cloud - Yahweh is often thus represented as riding on a cloud, especially when he comes for purposes of vengeance or punishment:
And he rode upon a cherub and did fly,
Yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.
Psa_18:10
Who maketh the clouds his chariot,
Who walketh upon the wings of the wind.
Psa_104:3
In sum, I think it is exegetically unsustainable to try to shoehorn “a” coming of Christ into the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Click to expand...
We can allow the biblical text to stand as it does and maintain the integrity of the text and the truthfulness of the promises.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Now as to why I asked questions:
I asked if you believed the reason James said the coming was near was because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled. You said:
I wouldn't argue.
Jesus said:
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
The "all" encompasses everthing previous to verse 34.
Included in that was the parousia.
Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
And the coming on the clouds:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Most dispies get around this by saying what the text really means is "the generation that sees these signs will see His coming". But you admit that the signs were already fulfilled by the time James wrote his words. In fact, your insistence that all the "at hand", "near" and "shortly" words mean immenency.
1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.
Well an event can't be immenent if there are still things to occur before the immenent event. Therefore if all the signs had been fulfilled and the generation that sees those signs would see the parousia then by your own words you defeat your own argument.
Now do you understand why I asked questions?.
I am prepared to show more of your inconsistancies from the questions I posed to you. From whether the NT writers knew what the time statments meant to the warnings of Jesus about false prophets and the statements of James and Peter. But I will not, I'm too tired. If you wish to continue just give the word, otherwise :wavey:
I will leave you with one of your statements I do agree with you on:
I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn. -
If it doesn't mean its wrong, then why bring it up?Click to expand...
I would like to see the evidence that most scholars throughout Church History believed the Olivet Discourse did not refer to AD70.Click to expand...
So since you are not dogmatic about your position then I assume you think there is a decent chance you are wrong.Click to expand...
As I explained earlier and you choose to ignore is the reason I ask questions is to prove the contradictions within your system.Click to expand...
Yet you just said they have been debated for centuries.Click to expand...
Well lets see here is your first post, this is what you said aout those who believe the time statements of the NT refer to a specific time frame:
The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking"
and again later.......
But some thought that that meant within a short span of time. God calls people who think that "near" means a short span of time mockers.Click to expand...
Then the arrogant condescending remarks began: Perhaps you don't know what the words mean.Click to expand...
"Not many believe it", that is what you said. Anyone can read the commentaries pre-1900 and see many did in fact read the Olivet Discourse just as I do.Click to expand...
Everyone just go read Matthew 10 and see for youself. To read it outside the 1st century is to completely rip it out of its context. Context, something you claim to care about.Click to expand...
Yet another unlearned man who had not studied the subject otherwise he would agree with you.Click to expand...
The persecution was coming from the Jews.Click to expand...
Apparently from your viewpoint the relief Paul promised never made it to the Thessolonians but was "transferred" to some future Church.Click to expand...
Yet he wrote about the man of sin but not this important Temple he would use.Click to expand...
What else could they be? Is that how you determine what they are?Click to expand...
Oh, they are for sin offerings. You could not find one passage in that book to even hint they for for a memorial.Click to expand...
Yea, I think "this generation" means something.Click to expand...
It matters not what we in the 21st century America thinks it means, what did the 1st century Hebrew think it meant. Hebrews who knew their OT like the back of their hand.Click to expand...
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.Click to expand...
Jesus said:
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.Click to expand...
Included in that was the parousia.Click to expand...
But you admit that the signs were already fulfilled by the time James wrote his words.Click to expand...
Well an event can't be immenent if there are still things to occur before the immenent event. Therefore if all the signs had been fulfilled and the generation that sees those signs would see the parousia then by your own words you defeat your own argument.Click to expand...
Now do you understand why I asked questions?.Click to expand...
I am prepared to show more of your inconsistancies from the questions I posed to you.Click to expand...
I will leave you with one of your statements I do agree with you on:
I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn.Click to expand... -
Before I respond I need to clear up an assumption I have about your position that was based on something you wrote. So just to be clear, do you believe the rapture occurs then a 7 year tribulation followed by the Second Coming or do you believe the rapture and the Second Coming are simultaneous events?
-
PART 1
Quote:
If it doesn't mean its wrong, then why bring it up?Click to expand...Because it shows that Sproul, who is vastly more intelligent and well argued than you and I put together are, is vastly more humble. He acknowledges that there is debate and the view he holds is not the one that most Christians hold.Click to expand...
Quote:
I would like to see the evidence that most scholars throughout Church History believed the Olivet Discourse did not refer to AD70.Click to expand...Start reading.Click to expand...
Eusebius (You are aware of who Eusebius is?)
"If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian (Josephus) concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange." - Book III, Chapter VII.
"And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men."
Clement of Alexandria 150-215
"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken
Tertullian
"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen
Ignatius
Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time."
Philip Schaff
"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months."
Alfred Edersheim
"From the fig tree, under which on that spring afternoon they may have rested, they were to learn a parable. We can picture Christ taking one of its twigs, just as its softening tips were bursting into young leaf. Surely this meant that summer was nigh--not that it had actually come. The distinction is important; for it seems to prove that 'all these things' which were to indicate to them that 'it' was 'near, even at the doors,' and which were to be fulfilled ere 'this generation' had passed away, could not have referred to the last signs connected with the advent of Christ, but must apply to the previous prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish commonwealth. This too is a very simple and satisfactory explanation of the words, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. If those words be taken as His answer to the question, When shall these things be? (v. 3), they are easy of interpretation; but if their application be postponed to the far off future they present much difficulty.
those who are not preterist see it as well:
John Wesley
"Josephus' History of the Jewsh War is the best commentary on this chapter (Matt. 24). It is a wonderful instance of God's providence, that he, an eyewitness, and one who lived and died a Jew, should, especially in so extraordinary a manner, be preserved, to transmit to us a collection of important facts, which so exactly illustrate this glorious prophecy, in almost every circumstance." (Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament)
"This generation of men now living shall not pass till all these things be done - The expression implies that great part of that generation would be passed away, but not the whole. Just so it was; for the city and temple were destroyed thirty-nine or forty years after."
Quote:
Yet you just said they have been debated for centuries.Click to expand...The issues have been. The type of arguments you are making are not the typical type of arguments used to debate. Usually the debate is carried on which much more grace and civility, tighter logic, and less "gotcha."Click to expand...
What’s "many"? I was using "many" in a comparative sense, not an absolute sense. I don’t think most Christians believe what you have stated here. Prove me wrong if you want, but you will have to disagree with Sproul.Click to expand...
So in an absolute sense many did believe as Sproul.I would say fewer still believed what "most" believe today. Perhaps you can point out the numerous church Fathers who believed in a pre-trib rapture.
My argument about study was about having to ask questions (inane questions). I guarantee you that Carson and Sproul don’t need to ask me what I believe about verses. If you read them, and debated like they debate, you would win some people to your spirit.Click to expand...
Quite frankly, I am disgusted with the way you have acted in this debate. Carson is a gentleman, as is Sproul. They do not talk like you do.Click to expand... -
Part 2
Quote:
The persecution was coming from the Jews.Click to expand...
In 1 Thess 2:14, there are two persecutions: Thessalonians persecuted by their compatriots, and Jews persecuted by Jews. Paul makes a comparison that the Thessalonians were being persecuted by their compatriots, just as the Jews were persecuted by the Jews. In Acts 17, the persecution of the Thessalonians was probably not from Jews, but from fellow Thessalonians.
Click to expand...
The particular reference here seems not to be to the pagan who were the agents or actors in the scenes of tumult and persecutions, but to the Jews by whom they were led on, or who were the prime movers in the persecutions which they had endured. It is necessary to suppose that they were principally Jews who were the cause of the persecution which had been excited against them, in order to make the parallelism between the church there and the churches in Palestine exact.
In Palestine. the Jews persecuted the churches directly; out of Palestine, they did it by means of others. They were the real authors of it, as they were in Judea, but they usually accomplished it by producing an excitement among the pagan, and by the plea that the apostles were making war on civil institutions. This was the case in Thessalonica. "The Jews which believed not, moved with envy, set all the city on an uproar." "They drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, ‘Those that have turned the world up side down have come hither also;’" Act_17:5-6. The same thing occurred a short time after at Berea. "When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also and stirred up the people;" Act_17:13; compare Act_14:2. "The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil-affected against the brethren." "The Epistle, therefore, represents the case accurately as the history states it. It was the Jews always who set on foot the persecutions against the apostles and their followers;"
If you look historically, many of the Thessalonians did not receive earthly relief.Click to expand...
Relief from what? Relief from their persecution at the hands of the Jews, whether directly or indirectly. That was accomplished in the Jewish War.
They died, were killed for their faith. The promise of 2 Thessalonians I think is an eschatological promise that will come when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with flaming fire to bring judgment on unbelievers.Click to expand...
Dispies don't say the church is gone here.
So the Church will see this:
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
This happens before the rapture?
Whatever one believes about AD70 and prophecy, it was in Jerusalem, not in Thessalonica, and I think you would have a tremendously hard time saying how the Thessalonians who are being persecuted by fellow Thessalonians are relieved by a military campaign hundreds of miles away against a people that weren’t bothering them.Click to expand...
We are told that when Jesus gave this prophecy, the Roman Empire was experiencing a general peace within its borders. Jesus explained to his disciples that they would be hearing of wars, rumors of wars, and commotions. And did they? Yes! Within a short time the Empire was filled with strife, insurrection, and wars.
Before the fall of Jerusalem, four Emperors came to violent deaths within the space of 18 months. According to the historian Suetonius (who lived during the latter part of the first century and the beginning of the second), Nero "drove a dagger into his throat.'' Galba was run down by horsemen. A soldier cut off his head and "thrusting his thumb into the mouth," carried the horrid trophy about. Otho "stabbed himself" in the breast. Vitellius was killed by slow torture and then "dragged by a hook into the Tiber." We can understand that such fate falling on the Emperors would naturally spread distress and insecurity through the Empire.
In the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman who wrote a history which covers the period prior to 70 A. D., we find such expressions as these: "Disturbances in Germany," "commotions in Africa," "commotions in Thrace," "insurrections in Gaul," "intrigues among the Parthians," "the war in Britain," "war in Armenia."
Among the Jews, the times became turbulent. In Seleucia, 50,000 Jews were killed. There was an uprising against them in Alexandria. In a battle between the Jews and Syrians in Caesarea, 20,000 were killed. During these times, Caligula ordered his statue placed in the temple at Jerusalem. The Jews refused to do this and lived in constant fear that the Emperor's armies would be sent into Palestine. This fear became so real that some of them did not even bother to till their fields.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/matt24.htm
Quote:
Yet he wrote about the man of sin but not this important Temple he would use.Click to expand...
The temple is the millennial temple. The man of sin is gone before the millennium begins. (Again, I have to wonder if you have studied for thousands of hours, why you would say something like that. It makes no sense that you wouldn’t have understood that distinction.)
Click to expand...
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
I asked why Jesus or Paul never mentioned this Millennial Temple, you said:
It is the Ezekiel temple. But why would it be mentioned to the church? It is during the kingdom that the temple will exist again,
In giving your answer you indicate the reason for not mentioning the Temple is because it has no bearing on the Church.
I asked you again:
Quote:
So the answer is NO. The NT writers don't mention this Temple.
You answered again, (you seem to hedge your bets on whether Jesus or Paul ever teaches of this Temple, a simple yes or no would work)
I didn't say that, but why would they? The temple would have no relevance for the church.
The point is, the reason for not mentioning the Temple is because it as no relevance to the Church. Then I asked you this:
Quote:
Why is the Man of sin and the "Anti-Christ" mentioned to the Church???
You answered this:
Because Paul was telling them about things to come.
So I am left to wonder,since I can't get a straight answer:
Does this mean, by your logic, that the man of sin and anti-christ is relevant to the church since Paul taught of this? Secondly, if he taught of them because as you say "he was telling of things to come", why didn't he teach of this coming Temple as well?
Quote:
Oh, they are for sin offerings. You could not find one passage in that book to even hint they for for a memorial.Click to expand...
Why would you need offerings to take away sin in the millennium when the sin offerings never took away sin and Jesus did?
Click to expand...
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
Can you provide ANY reference in Eze. where the sin offerings are for a memorial? Let me answer, YOU CANNOT! Yet it is a pillar of your entire eschatological framework.
They are certainly related to sin, but they don’t take away sin. They memorialize the death of Jesus.Click to expand...
You get that from dispie books, not scripture. How are they related to sin?
Page 4 of 6