Christology and Preterism

I am not entirely sure what you believe John, could you enlighten me, please?

 

To which do you object?

HankD

 

Futurist? oh I see another [Name calling edited] interpretation.

 

My first question would be:

In Matthew 23:32 Jesus said Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Did they?

 

Clarence Larkin is beloved by many dispies, The charts in his book Dispesational Truth are often quoted and printed.

I found the book on the Blue Letter Bible

Here is an extract from it which I have emphasised.

The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally," except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist," and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

 

Is that a YES?

 

Sorry this is off topic - it may need a new thread to develop it further.

The fundamental 5 are stated in Scripture & provable by Scripture. As statements of doctrine, the others are not taught in Scripture & cannot be proved by Scripture.

I have no problem with the KJV, but its language is becoming increasing difficult to the rising generation. Modern translations are easier to read & more likely to be read & understood. We all need help with understanding & interpretation, so finding fault with translation & omissions is unlikely to lead to error.

"Israel and the church are completely separate entities" is a loaded statement that has its raison d'etre in the heretical teaching that God has two separate people, earthly & heavenly, with 2 covenants & 2 futures. It can be argued from Scripture, making the OC prophecy stand apart from NC rather than fulfilled by Christ & the Church, the Church comprise Jew & Gentile as one redeemed people of God.

"The evils of the Pope and Romanism" we would all agree on, but not because it is taught in Scripture, nor because Rome disagrees with the 5 fundamentals - it holds them. The whole RC setup & salvation teaching is contrary to Scripture.

"The dangers of the Charismatic/Latter Rain movements" again are not taught in Scripture. They may hold the 5 fundamental, & may hold 3 of the others. There may be dangers, but what makes them heretical. Many of us have cautious fellowship with such, as long as they do hold the first five.

Many more dangerous heretical sects exist that reject the 5 fundamentals.

 

OK generally speaking i would agree that the 5 at the end of the piece are not in the same line of thought as the traditional.
The KJV IMO is the preserved word of God the same as other English translations e.g. ASV, NIV, RSV...

"Israel and the church are completely separate entities" The most obvious proof is the one you acknowledge - the two covenants. one was for Israel as a nation, the other for ALL the church. the place of worship for Israel was the temple and the synagogue, one no longer exists but the other does. We don't go to a synagogue to worship.

Wrong - the RCC does not hold to the full 5 fundamentals:

The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross - The RCC adds many personages and elements to the gospel, Mary (co-redemptrix with Christ), the Pope (Vicar of Christ on earth) - deny either (and many other RCC dogma) and you are excommunicated.

The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth - as a cradle Catholic - I was NEVER taught this complete doctrine which includes His bodily return, not in Catholic school or catechism. admittedly this was prior to Vatican II.

"The dangers of the Charismatic/Latter Rain movements" - The revelation is complete we need no added scripture (word of Knowledge).

I do agree that these should be distinct from the Traditional 5 Fundamentals.


HankD

 

I would add the 5 Solas

• 
  'The Three Solas
  • 2.1Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
  • 2.2Sola fide ("by faith alone")
  • 2.3Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
• 3The Five Solas
  • 3.1Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
  • 3.2Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone

 

But there will never be a future for Israel apart from believing Israel.

 

That is why I would rather say they are distinct from one another but not separate.

I had an apple tree in Maine of which someone had grafted a second kind of apple into.

They were distinct bearing their own fruit but not separate.

HankD

 

I think you have just proved my point, They are grafted onto one stock, but the rootstock is different still.

I have a mirabelle that has two varieties One is yellow and the other is red.

You can get a tree with a peach, a nectarine and an apricot all grafted on to one stock.

You can get a "Traffic light" apple tree which is an upright cordon with red at the top, yellow in the centre and green apples at the bottom.

You can also get family apple trees with several varieties on one tree.

But they are all one tree.

 

Agreed.

But the grafts are distinctly different.

HankD