Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

It would help if you gave your references. Are you referring to Luke 21:20? If so, I believe that refers to AD 70. But the word "soon" occurs nowhere in that passage. So I don't think you've made your point at all here, whatever it was.

You've changed the subject. So you won't answer my point that preterists have just a big of a problem with the time statements as futurists?

But anyway, I have no problem with making the future tribulation the 70th week of Daniel and don't think this to be an illogical position. It's based squarely on a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Much that God does is illogical to us anyway.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with you here, and actually have a lecture against this view in my class on "Dipensational Theology." It is not an important issue in revised dispensationalism, but peripheral.

 

Take care of yourself.

 

You lost me. Are you saying that you accept a system of 4 dispensations, but not the Scofield/Ryrie model of 7?

 

I'm sure Roby will answer this, but yes, there is progressive dispensationalism with only 3 dispensations (depending on what you read. Ultra dispensationalism has more than 7, I believe. (I'd have to look that up.) Even covenant theology recognizes that there are dispensations.

 

I am not a Preterist and I am not a dispensationalist but I do believe in the future salvation of Israel as an Ethnic Nation at the Post-trib coming of Christ. And no, I am not a Pretribber.

 

Last night one of the preachers in our conference (an old friend) who is a dispensationalist preached in part of his sermon against the 7 churches=7 ages view. His point was that those who say we are in the Laodicean Age, usually say that it is an age of apostasy, and revivals are impossible. He (and I) and many other dispensationalists object strongly to that view.

 

The definitions of covenant and dispensation are so different that I fail to see how you arrived at this view.

By any definition of the of the eternal state, it cannot be a dispensation.

There are enough differences between Scofield and Ryrie that Scofield's view is called classic dispensationalism and Ryrie's is revised dispensationalism.

But again, covenant and dispensation have completely different meanings.

 

Me too!

 

Actually, there are no scriptures that prove a gap.

 

I lost track, but you're talking about the 70th week of Daniel, right? The gap is inherent in the fact that Daniel divides between the 69th and 70th week: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times" (9:25).

 

I'm finally back after a bout with bronchitis and the flu, and I'm trying to catch up on some responses. In the Olivet Discourse, the "time references" are more along the line of "when you see these things happening". Anyway, I don't see where preterists have any problems with the time statements.

 

My apologies for the delayed response - I thought I was over this bronchitis, but not quite yet. Also, I apologize for going off on rabbit trails. I'm not sure how I wound up with the "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks. Guess it's easy for a discussion regarding the "End Times" to go all over the place, and I am no exception.
I am familiar with the why / how "futurists" believe there is a gap between weeks 69 & 70, but I don't believe it is inherent. The 70 weeks are "modeled" after the 70 years of captivity, right? There was no gap in the Judean captivity. Daniel's prophecy doesn't even hint at a gap of time. As I'm sure you agree, the time starts with the decree to restore Jerusalem in 458 B.C. (Ezra 9:9). It ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in 33 A.D., which is 490 years. The Crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week.

 

Glad to hear you're better.

At this point your perspective on the "time statements" is quite different from that of the typical preterist, so I'll have to know more of what you mean before answering you. Can you give me an example of a "you" passage?

I'm actually kind of bemused here. No one objects to the "you" statements (14 verses) of the Sermon on the Mount as not applying to anyone but the disciples (except maybe some hyper-dispensationalists), and there are only 6 you/ye verses in the Olivet Discourse.

As for preterists not having any problem with the time statements, they usually deny it--and often do not answer me when I point out the problem.

P.S. Okay, I just through the six you/ye statements of the Olivet Discourse, and have no clue what you mean. Matt. 24 has two generic statements that are no problem to my position. Matt. 25 has one statement that is in a parable, and three statements in the passage about the judgement of nations that are not aimed at the disciples.

 

Thank you, Brother John. I appreciate that.

I was surprised that my perspective on the "time statements" is not a typical preterist view. In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces 7 "woes" upon the Scribes and Pharisees - "woe to you". He tells them "your house is being left desolate" (v. 38). Continuing on into chapter 24, Jesus is leaving the temple. When His disciples pointed out the temple buildings, Jesus predicted their destruction. Explaining further, Jesus tells them "you will hear of wars and rumors of wars", "they will deliver you to tribulation", "when you see the Abomination of Desolation". After describing more details, He says "Behold, I have told you in advance". My main point is that every time "you" is used, it refers to the immediate audience.

 

Never heard that one. In my view, the two 70s are not connected (except for being 70).

No, the crucifixion is not in the middle of the 70th week. Don't know how you arrived at that, but it certainly was not the "abomination of desolations" that is definitely in the middle of the 70th week.