Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

I understand the views that I formerly held, and have disregarded them. Still, when it comes down to it, how one views the "end times" is not a "salvation" issue. Whether one believes in the Rapture, a future Great Tribulation, etc., or not shouldn't make any change in their daily walk with Christ, right? I mean, we still have follow the Great Commission, we still are Christ's witnesses, and we do our best to make the world a better place. Don't you think so?

 

We'll agree to disagree.

 

I'll go with that. Despite our different views, I do hope to be friends on this forum. I'm sure we share much more in common than what divides us.

 

What is your interpretation?

 

Of Christ's return? I take it literally.

 

The Romans rased the temple under the orders of Tiitus, and Josephus said Zion was ploughed like a field. Jesus said one stone would not be left on another. That was after they saw the Abomination of Desolation. The abomination, the Roman armies desolated Jerusalem and the temple.

 

I believe in a literal return as in Acts 1

Has it not occured to you that after 69 weeks comes 70 weeks? Jesus was crucified in the 70th week, that is after the 69th week.

The gap after the tribulation of AD 70 was when

• 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

That happened when the Jewish leadership was overthrown by the Romans.

 

They say that he came spiritually, that His presence (parousia) was here but not physically. That goes against James: "The body without the Spirit is dead." If Christ is anywhere, it must be physically.

I have just a few minutes right now, not enough time to exegete this. Maybe later.

You miss my point, which was that preterism is almost non-existent in modern eschatology until Sproul. I dd not say that it did not exist.

As for James Russell, he is almost unknown in modern eschatology. Sure, he wrote a book, that's all. He is not even listed in my Who Was Who in Church History, by Moyer. The major tomes I have in my library on eschatology do not even mention him, much less his book. Can you even point me to somewhere on the Internet that gives his biography? Wikipedia (not a great source, granted) doesn't even mention him, not even under the "Preterism" article.

But dispensationalism caught on and spread quickly because it is a theology (a) to God's glory, (b) from grammatical-historical interpretation, (c) which aim at answering the hard questions of history and theology.

You certainly may!

 

I do not believe Christ actually came spiritually. Rather, His "presence" was in the judgment - the driving force, if you will.

You may be right. I can only speak from personal experience. Certainly, I have the highest regard for Sproul as well as others who have brought this view back.

Dispensationalism certainly did catch on, but not because it's to God's glory. To the contrary, I believe the Partial Preterist view better fits "a, b, and c" above.

 

Jesus "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70.

In that sense, yes. What was your point in bringing that up in the first place? I mean, it is obvious that we are under grace.

Except you have it backwards.

 

Because the Scriptures prove that the Beast was Rome / Nero.

I am pretty familiar with the futurist view of how Daniel's 70 Weeks and NT prophecies tie together. By now, you should be pretty familiar with the Partial Preterist view of these prophecies, and that we simply will not agree. I don't want to "re-hash" all the differences, because we've been doing that for a couple of weeks over a couple of different topics.

Obviously the destruction of the Temple was a lot bigger deal to the Jews (and 1st Century Christians) than you seem to realize.

God's Word is always correct. The question is our understanding of what it means. I believe you are referring to Rev 19:17-18. To put it in context, back up to vs 11-16, which describes the coming of Christ. The sharp sword which comes from His mouth (vs. 15) is symbolic. The rest of the passage is also symbolic.

 

The problem with this view is that "presence" (parousia) is always literal and physical in the Greek NT. To argue that parousia used for the 2nd Coming in the Olivet Discourse (24:27, 37, 44) is not physical is to ignore the linguistic evidence.

Well, sure, Sproul is a good man. But how do you explain the fact that preterism is popular among liberals? No theological liberal--not one single person--has ever become a dispensationalist. The reason is that you must interpret all of Scripture with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, and that is anathema to the liberal.

You missed the point, and are showing a lack of understanding of dispensationalism (typical here on the BB ). It's theological basis is doxological, so therefore it is literally about the glory of God. You cannot be a dispensationalist and not put God's glory first in theology, salvation history, and hopefully, your own life. Preterism does not display God's glory as a theology, IMO, making it easy for liberals to accept.

 

Not necessarily. Jesus used the same kind of symbolic language that the OT prophets often used. Also, "earth" and "land" are often used to refer to the land of Israel.

Just as you suggest your view is the correct one, but really can't prove it. The proof is in the pudding, but you don't like the taste of mine.

It's always been Rome / Nero. I never said Titus was the Beast.

When are we going to just agree to disagree and stop going back and forth over the same topics? We are obviously never going to agree, and it's not an issue that affects our Christian walk or witness.

 

Since I am not well-versed in linguistics, I'll take your word for that. With that in mind, I still believe that Christ "came" in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. To clarify, this was not the 2nd Advent that is still in our future.

To ask a silly question, how do you know whether preterism is popular among liberals? If this view is correct, as I believe it is, all Christians should accept it. Certainly, this view was widely accepted among early Christians. The late Dr. Sproul was not liberal. Neither are Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry, or a host of others I could name.

Dispensationalism may claim to be about the glory of God, but can any view which is not true bring Him glory? I do put God's glory first and foremost in my theology, salvation, etc. The only difference is that I take a different view of eschatology, and that certainly doesn't take away from His glory.

 

Don't worry, I can do the linguistics for you.

Here are places where parousia is clearly physical presence: 1 Cor. 16:17, 2 Cor. 7:6-7, 10:10, Phil. 1:26, and many other places. So tell me, why is Christ's parousia in Matt. 24 not the literal, physical 2nd Coming of Christ?

That many liberals are preterist is common knowledge among scholars of eschatology. Here is a quote from a non-dispensational scholar: "Preterists, including many liberal interpreters, would limit the range of the book's [Rev.] applicability to the 1st Christian century. But this is a position which, when held with consistency, denies all modern relevance to John's predictions" (J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, 593). I could give other quotes.

Note that I am not saying preterist=liberal. I am simply saying that preterism fits in nicely in liberal theology, just like the posmill position does. Liberalism used to embrace the postmil position until WW2, which proved to all that Mankind is not getting better but worse. The recent resurrection of the postmil position by those in the Reconstructionist movement is an unfortunate development. I'm surprised that a Baptist would buy into those guys. (Remember "the separation of church and state"?)

You misunderstand. It is not that dispensationalism "may claim to be about th glory of God," it simply is.

You cannot--repeat, cannot--be a dispensationalist without putting the glory of God first in your theology. The whole system is based on the doctrine of the glory of God. "In dispensationalism the principle is theological or eschatological or doxological, for the differening dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests his character in the different stewardships, which culminate in history with the millennial glory" (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 22).