Eschatology Agnostics

Good post!

A video just went up on YouTube by Dr. Andy Woods of Sugar Land, Texas, wherein he states that pre-tribbers are being castigated for their views. I think that is wrong because I myself do not consider this an essential doctrine as far as pre, mid, and post are concerned. Preterism stands outside if you ask me.

The subject is emotional and tedious. Pre-tribbers dominate in my opinion and they spend so much time on their doctrine in their sermons about how they will never have to run for their lives from the Anti-Christ. Meanwhile there is a famine in the land of hearing the words of the Lord. Amos 8:11

I don't want to castigate anyone for a belief. Luther thought Leo X was the Anti-Christ. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Papa Che, the commie Francis, a Jesuit intellectual.

 

As @church mouse guy said, "good post". I never thought much about the "End Times" from the time I was saved (1978) until about 2007. I'd never even heard the term "eschatology". Instead, I just blindly believed what the "prophecy pundits" fed me. After all, these guys had really studied. During the early 90s, I did start to question "the Rapture". After all, Hal Lindsey predicted that the Lord would come by 1988, based on 40 years after Israel became a nation.

One day I stumbled upon some teachings about Preterism, which was another new term. As I studied, I had to "unlearn" everything I thought I knew about the "End Times". I realized that a lot of popular "End Times" views simply don't make sense when you truly study the Bible. I had to learn to ask questions. "What did the author mean?" "How did the original audience understand the message?" "What is the background of the passage?" "What other passages support a particular view?" One's views of eschatology should be based strictly on Scripture, and not on what the latest trend is.

I'm so glad you pointed out that such a large part of the Bible is prophecy. That is a lot to remain in the dark about.

 

Was based in a missinterpretation of Matthew 24:32-34, that a generation meant 40 years from when Isreal became a nation in the land in 1948. Israel being interpreted to be the olive tree. Where as it really referred to the signs as mentionoed in v.29, which I have long held.

 

While I don't agree with that view, it's clear that you have actually studied the scripture to draw your own conclusion instead of just going along with what someone else was saying - like the Bereans.

 

Any view is permitted by the scriptures EXCEPT for full blow preterism!

 

Why not "full" preterism? Is it so important to believe in a physical return of Christ? I thought the main thing is that we place our faith in Christ Jesus. It's not like they are from a cult. Just a different eschatological view.

 

Actually, ancient Christians believed as modern Christians do. The real problem with Preterism is that it is illogical and the dots cannot be connected because they don't make sense. Like the notion that there are no more Jews because there is neither Jew nor Greek--do you say there is only one sex because there is no more male nor female--that sounds like same-sex then by the same logic.

 

Unfortunately, I do understand Preterism, which is clearly outside the pale of logic as the problem with saying that there is no Jew nor Greek and no male nor female.

 

Yes, 2 John 1:9; Acts of the Apostles 1:11; 1John 3:2; Titus 2:13; Revelation 1:7,

 

From Revelation 20:5, we know when the first resurrection is in the sequence of events. It is when Satan is locked up for 1,000 years. So when will Satan be locked up?

 

2 John 1:9 is about following the teachings of Christ, and walking according to His commandments. This has nothing to do with one's eschatological views. That could become a slippery slope regarding anyone who has a different view of any doctrine.
Acts 1:11, 1 John 3:2 and Titus 2:13 are just a matter of interpretation as to how Christ will return. Again, not a "Salvation" of "Faith" issue.
Revelation 1:7 is also a matter of interpretation, but in this case I actually agree with Full Preterism. The language makes it clear that this refers to His coming in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. I don't believe this refers to the 2nd Coming, because Jesus didn't literally come, but executed judgment. The phrase "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him" is a clear reference to Israel, who cried out for His crucifixion. "The earth" is better translated as "the land", meaning "land of Israel". The same Greek word was used in Luke 2 when Augustus had a census taken of the land.

With so many different views of the End Times, why single Full Preterists out as heretics? Why not also include Partial Preterists in the same camp as Full Preterists? I apologize for coming on rather strongly, but I really believe the only thing that determines whether one is a True Believer is whether he follows Christ.

 

For those who do believe in Preterism ( whether full or partial), the modern "futurist" views are beyond logic. Either @asterisktom or I could recommend several sources to help you understand why it does make perfect sense. At the very least, we could explain it in layman's terms. Just a footnote - the Preterist eschatological view has always been a teaching of the Church. The "futurist" views are actually the "new kids on the block".

 

Jesus taught He would return and everyone would see Him, Revelation 1:7. And this would be sudden, Matthew 24:27.

 

Biblical error either denies what the text actually says or reads into the text what it does not say.

 

Revelation 1:7 refers specifically to those who had Him killed.

 

Exactly. Biblical error - such as reading a specific doctrine into a passage - will keep you from understanding what the text actually does say.

 

And what church fathers do you reference?