Futurism an invention of the Jesuits?

[asterisktom]

Yes, it is remarkable how rapidly those personages, documents and doctrines which once received our stamp of approval suddenly become heretics, scoundrels and spurious when it enhances our own position.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure why you put it that way. But if you were referring to my disavowing the creeds, I would have to correct your impression: I do appreciate them. I just don't see them as binding, as you apparently do. They are not scripture; they were, in many cases ad hoc over-reactions to real doctrinal problems that arose, made by fallible men.

But that doesn't surprise me. Been there, done that.

BTW, the Reformation was in the eyes of many Baptists, a failure, too little too late.

Hmm, I keep spouting cliches.

HankD

The Baptists sort of pick and choose just what parts of the Reformation they enhalo and what parts they ignore. I don't blame them. I do the same, I suppose.

 

[asterisktom]

Well, of course, if one pushes the author dates pre-AD70 then these "futurists" can be removed from the evidences list of futurism but if it is undoubedtly post AD70 then these futurist authors integrity, credibilty and motivation can be called into question and they therefore can be blotted out of the book of historical futurism evidences.

That is IMO a contrived no-win situation for "futurists".

To repeat, obviously these do not hold the weight of Scripture (apart from when scripture is quoted) however they are docuemnts in the archives of church history and in that light have a bearing upon the views of eschatology.

As Baptists one need look only look a few sentences into any of these historical works to find what we would consider an unusual statement concerning the Faith.

The question is concerning the undeniable historical fact of futurism teachings back to the apostolic fathers and including every subsequent age of the church.

Clement of Rome: (died AD101)

"Ye perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, "Speedily will He come, and will not tarry; " and, "The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look."Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. "

... [My (Tom's) note: Other quotes you had here, but it is too time-consuming to manually insert them]


...

As of yet, I have found no early church father around the time of AD70 and a little later who definitively states that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was a fulfillment of the return of Christ.
...

HankD

My purpose is not to contrive a "no-win" situation for futurism, just to take the "no-win" situation already foisted upon the Preterist. The fact that you quoted Clement above has no weight against my position since, as I have written, I see him as having written pre-AD 70. All I see in that excellent is Clement looking ahead to what all Christians were still looking ahead to, the fulfillment of "all these things" coming upon "this generation" per Christ's promise.

The real "smoking gun" (for want of a better metaphor) would be to find a Christian writer who wrote shortly after AD 70, say within the following decade. But we have no such person.

As far as your saying that futurism was a part of the theology of every Church Father, I might even agree with you - but for a different reason than you perhaps appreciate:

1. The ones writing before AD 70 (Here I would put Clement, Didache, and Heg. maybe) are legitimate "futurists" (Seeming to be futurists to modern futurists, but actually pre-Preterists)

2. The ones who adopted futurism (in varying degrees) because of having misunderstood the spiritual nature of Christ's Parousia. If this seems a convenient stretch for me to make, consider that these same Church Fathers, with astonishing celerity, lapsed into many of the faults of what would soon become the Roman Catholic church system. So, can we so neatly excise their (the ECF's) authority as far as eschatology is concerned while glossing over their other areas of demonstrated discreditability? I can't.

The Church Fathers are, together with the creeds that rose out of their church structure, a demonstration of spiritual mission-creep, and a gradual moving away from the general spiritual tenor of God's Word.

 

[Winman]

The real "smoking gun" (for want of a better metaphor) would be to find a Christian writer who wrote shortly after AD 70, say within the following decade. But we have no such person.

Baloney. It is the one who makes a claim that is always required to show proof.

You can make any claim whatsoever and then say it is proved because there is no one to refute it.

That is pure nonsense, but that is your argument.

 

[asterisktom]

Baloney. It is the one who makes a claim that is always required to show proof.

You can make any claim whatsoever and then say it is proved because there is no one to refute it.

That is pure nonsense, but that is your argument.

Your middle sentence shows that you missed my point entirely. I made no such claim. If you must read my posts read for content, not ammunition.

But anything I would say to you would be further "baloney" and "nonsense", so I will keep my marbles for another game elsewhere.

 

[Winman]

Your middle sentence shows that you missed my point entirely. I made no such claim. If you must read my posts read for content, not ammunition.

But anything I would say to you would be further "baloney" and "nonsense", so I will keep my marbles for another game elsewhere.

Typical, whenever I point out the error in your arguments you run away.

I could claim the Martians landed on earth in 70 A.D. and built a pyramid, but the Venusians landed and destroyed it, and this must be fact because there is no writers from 70 A.D. to refute it.

That is exactly the kind of argument you are making. It's ridiculous, and anyone with half a brain can see that.

 

[asterisktom]

Typical, whenever I point out the error in your arguments you run away.

I could claim the Martians landed on earth in 70 A.D. and built a pyramid, but the Venusians landed and destroyed it, and this must be fact because there is no writers from 70 A.D. to refute it.

That is exactly the kind of argument you are making. It's ridiculous, and anyone with half a brain can see that.

Oh good grief, Winman. Grow up. No one is running away.

Give me something mature and substantial and we will discuss. Act juvenile and I will give you the respond such juvenility deserves.

Your call.

And you still miss my point about the smoking gun. But, then again, you are not really interested in understanding my point of view, are you.

 

[Winman]

Oh good grief, Winman. Grow up. No one is running away.

Give me something mature and substantial and we will discuss. Act juvenile and I will give you the respond such juvenility deserves.

Your call.

And you still miss my point about the smoking gun. But, then again, you are not really interested in understanding my point of view, are you.

Your argument is that there is no writer from 70 A.D. to refute your view, therefore your view is correct.

It is you that should present mature and substantial evidence to support your view, not misleading and false arguments of this kind.

Preterists simply cannot prove their view. There is no historical evidence whatsoever to support that Jesus returned in 70 A.D., no evidence of the Millennium whatsoever. If Jesus had returned in 70 A.D., there would be tens of thousands of accounts of this, it will be the greatest event in all of human history or ever will be.

 

[asterisktom]

Your argument is that there is no writer from 70 A.D. to refute your view, therefore your view is correct.

I am going to act like a program in C++.

I am staring at your first error in the first line.

Cannot proceed.

Alright, Winman. This is what I am saying: A "smoking gun" would have been helpful for either of our positions. Either futurism or Preterism. But there is none. In the very nature of the case - history being what it is - there will never be definitive proof on either side. We must look elsewhere.

My only purpose for even going into this topic (and I regretting it now) is to take away from such people like Tommy Ice the outrageous claims that they do concerning the historical evidence being against Preterism.

 

[asterisktom]

It is you that should present mature and substantial evidence to support your view, not misleading and false arguments of this kind.

I wasn't talking about "mature" as equating to content. I was referring to maturity in how you communicate to fellow Christians, manners.

Maybe you routinely call your friends comments "pure nonsense", "baloney", and silly Martian comments, but thats not how I treat my friends. And I am not so hard up for for convo that I am going to waste my time with ill-mannered people who mistake invectives and insults for logical reasoning.

 

[Winman]

I wasn't talking about "mature" as equating to content. I was referring to maturity in how you communicate to fellow Christians, manners.

Maybe you routinely call your friends comments "pure nonsense", "baloney", and silly Martian comments, but thats not how I treat my friends. And I am not so hard up for for convo that I am going to waste my time with ill-mannered people who mistake invectives and insults for logical reasoning.

Well, there is such a thing as insulting people's intelligence. And that is what your arguments do, they insult a person. You must believe people to be very gullible and naive to believe many of these arguments you present.

The only alternative is that you are very gullible and naive to believe such absurdities.

 

[HankD]

I am going to act like a program in C++.

I am staring at your first error in the first line.

Cannot proceed.

Alright, Winman. This is what I am saying: A "smoking gun" would have been helpful for either of our positions. Either futurism or Preterism. But there is none. In the very nature of the case - history being what it is - there will never be definitive proof on either side. We must look elsewhere.

My only purpose for even going into this topic (and I regretting it now) is to take away from such people like Tommy Ice the outrageous claims that they do concerning the historical evidence being against Preterism.

But it is true and you are justified in regretting it because there is a multitude of historical ecclesiastical evidence which supports futurism
and I gave ante-nicene examples.

Remember, I didn't start this thread but I responded and you gave challenge.

I also remember either you or Logos1 or both of you citing secular historians to support your view of full preterism, however when we do the same with church fathers you dismiss it because it's not reliable information.

This seems to be your position:

Pre or Ante AD70 Clement - He's gets a star on his forehead. He's OK because looking for Christ's return is fine before the Romans come and destroy Jerusalem.

At the time or shortly thereafter AD70: Polycarp, Papias, Iranaeus (and just about everyone else) - they have to stand in the corner with the dunce cap on because they wern't smart enough to see the truth of preterism and continued to look for the same Jesus who left from the Mount of Olives into the clouds and were told by angels that He would return in like manner.

Until there is a better explanation (have you ever give one of your own?) concerning Acts 1:11 than a scriptureless allegory (or whatever its called) which somehow transforms Titus coming into the fulfillment of both Christ's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and The Parousia, in fulfillment of Acts 1:11 and a multitude of other passages, I'm going to continue to "watch" for His bodily return in great glory at which time I expect to receive my flesh and bone resurrected body.


HankD

 

[asterisktom]

But it is true and you are justified in regretting it because there is a multitude of historical ecclesiastical evidence which supports futurism
and I gave ante-nicene examples.

Remember, I didn't start this thread but I responded and you gave challenge.

I also remember either you or Logos1 or both of you citing secular historians to support your view of full preterism, however when we do the same with church fathers you dismiss it because it's not reliable information.

This seems to be your position:

Pre or Ante AD70 Clement - He's gets a star on his forehead. He's OK because looking for Christ's return is fine before the Romans come and destroy Jerusalem.

At the time or shortly thereafter AD70: Polycarp, Papias, Iranaeus (and just about everyone else) - they have to stand in the corner with the dunce cap on because they wern't smart enough to see the truth of preterism and continued to look for the same Jesus who left from the Mount of Olives into the clouds and were told by angels that He would return in like manner.

Until there is a better explanation (have you ever give one of your own?) concerning Acts 1:11 than a scriptureless allegory (or whatever its called) which somehow transforms Titus coming into the fulfillment of both Christ's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and The Parousia, in fulfillment of Acts 1:11 and a multitude of other passages, I'm going to continue to "watch" for His bodily return in great glory at which time I expect to receive my flesh and bone resurrected body.


HankD

HI Hank,

I do want to continue this, Unfortunately I shot my mouth off. Do you know what I said: I asked my wife if she wanted the computer.

Big mistake.:type:

I'll take this up later,.
Take care.

 

[asterisktom]

[Inadvertently duplicated my post - don't ask how : ). See below]

 

[asterisktom]

But it is true and you are justified in regretting it because there is a multitude of historical ecclesiastical evidence which supports futurism
and I gave ante-nicene examples.

The regret I had was in continuing this subject with Winman, not with the subject itself.

Remember, I didn't start this thread but I responded and you gave challenge.

I also remember either you or Logos1 or both of you citing secular historians to support your view of full preterism, however when we do the same with church fathers you dismiss it because it's not reliable information.

I don't remember what Logos1 wrote, but I would never cite any historian, secular or otherwise, or ECF as definitive proof for or against anything like this. These things just cannot be proven this way. My sole purpose for even bringing Clement up was to take him away from the definitive proof category for futurists.

History, ECF, and Creeds can be somewhat helpful for a general picture, but can never go beyond that. For firm and lasting conclusions we have only Scripture.

This seems to be your position:

Pre or Ante AD70 Clement - He's gets a star on his forehead. He's OK because looking for Christ's return is fine before the Romans come and destroy Jerusalem.

At the time or shortly thereafter AD70: Polycarp, Papias, Iranaeus (and just about everyone else) - they have to stand in the corner with the dunce cap on because they wern't smart enough to see the truth of preterism and continued to look for the same Jesus who left from the Mount of Olives into the clouds and were told by angels that He would return in like manner.

Well, see? Now you are trying to get cute with me and - I don't know- you lose me when you say stuff like that. How am I supposed to respond? When we get into this mode the thread is all about motives and meanness and defenses and defensiveness. You make it sound like I am calling everyone who does not believe in Preterism "dunces". Far be it from me! We are all dunces when it comes to the things of God, dunces and children.

I want to take you seriously, Hank, but help me. We have had good discussion before, so I know it is possible.

Until there is a better explanation (have you ever give one of your own?) concerning Acts 1:11 than a scriptureless allegory (or whatever its called) which somehow transforms Titus coming into the fulfillment of both Christ's prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction and The Parousia, in fulfillment of Acts 1:11 and a multitude of other passages, I'm going to continue to "watch" for His bodily return in great glory at which time I expect to receive my flesh and bone resurrected body.

HankD

I am not sure if it was here I wrote about Acts 11 or in one of the other boards. But that might be a good way to continue.

So much for now.

 

[Truth Files]

It really makes no difference what others of the past thought or presented .... many have led off coarse and the list is a long one [Matthew 24:4-4; 2Peter 2:1]

The "church" has been full of apostacy from the get go

Arguing over who said what about this or that over the centuries past is an exercise in futility .... and it can be a diversion from discovering the truth about many things

Study thyself approved ..... the Lord will withhold nothing that He has chosen to reveal in His Word from those who seek Him and who allow for His guidance

Proper motive is required [He knows what one is up to] and the task takes time, one must do diligence ..... there are no short cuts

 

[asterisktom]

It really makes no difference what others of the past thought or presented .... many have led off coarse and the list is a long one [Matthew 24:4-4; 2Peter 2:1]

The "church" has been full of apostacy from the get go

Arguing over who said what about this or that over the centuries past is an exercise in futility .... and it can be a diversion from discovering the truth about many things

Study thyself approved ..... the Lord will withhold nothing that He has chosen to reveal in His Word from those who seek Him and who allow for His guidance

Proper motive is required [He knows what one is up to] and the task takes time, one must do diligence ..... there are no short cuts

Don't you have some files to cut and paste somewhere?

 

[Truth Files]

"Don't you have some files to cut and paste somewhere?"

What a pathetic response

 

[Logos1]

"Don't you have some files to cut and paste somewhere?"

What a pathetic response

LOL :laugh:

Truth Files thanks everyone lives in apostacy but himself and he is on a mission from God to save the World.

I'm thinking about taking up a collection to get him a mirror for Christmas. If we can raise enough money I'd like to get him a nice pearl handled set with jewel insets. Do you think rubies or jasper are more his style?

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[Zenas]

It really makes no difference what others of the past thought or presented .... many have led off coarse and the list is a long one [Matthew 24:4-4; 2Peter 2:1]

The "church" has been full of apostacy from the get go

Arguing over who said what about this or that over the centuries past is an exercise in futility .... and it can be a diversion from discovering the truth about many things

Study thyself approved ..... the Lord will withhold nothing that He has chosen to reveal in His Word from those who seek Him and who allow for His guidance

Proper motive is required [He knows what one is up to] and the task takes time, one must do diligence ..... there are no short cuts

Maybe you could enlighten us with the truth about Revelation? We wouldn't want to be led off course.

 

[Logos1]

LOL :laugh:

Truth Files thanks everyone lives in apostacy but himself and he is on a mission from God to save the World.

I'm thinking about taking up a collection to get him a mirror for Christmas. If we can raise enough money I'd like to get him a nice pearl handled set with jewel insets. Do you think rubies or jasper are more his style?

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

Of course that should read Truth Files thinks everyone lives in apostasy but himself....