Featured Understanding Preterism

Keep watching for Him, He will come just as He promised!

Why?

Here are just a few reasons...

This world is still saturated with SIN.
The earth is filled with violence.
Undertakers are still in business.
The cemeteries are still being filled up.
There are wars and rumors of war.
Israel is a nation - in unbelief but a nation yet.
Christians are being slaughtered en masse.
There is no peace anywhere.


HankD

 

No, they apply to those who doubt the veracity of God's Word. That is the underlying application.

 

But consider the above was spoken by an evil servant. Yes, it is in Scripture - just like "Hath God said...".

 

Well I'm not surprised at this. You make a lovely couple. One who doesn't believe in Justification by Faith Alone and one (two?) who doesn't believe in the future Return of Christ. I hope you'll be very happy together.

OK, let's have a look at these.

Hebrews 10:37 is quoting Habakkuk 2:3-4 which I have already quoted in this thread. 'Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will surely come, it will not tarry.'

The 'Lord of the Vineyard' in the parable is God the Father. To be sure, He did let out the vineyard to others, but He didn't wait until AD 70 to start doing it (eg. Acts 13:46).

This is a fine illustration of the error of Hyper-preterism, The Greek of 'cities' is polis, meaning a larger town or city with a wall as apposed to Kome, a 'village' or smaller town. The two appear together in Matthew 9:35; Luke 8:1; 13:22. It wouldn't have taken 40 years until the Apostles had gone round the cities of Israel. Yet Matt 24:14 says that the Gospel has to be preached all over the world before 'the end comes.' That still hasn't been achieved today.

Immediately after these words were spoken they were fulfilled in Matthew 17:1-8 etc. The kingdom of God came with the coming of Christ (Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15), but it is not yet visible to all (Luke 17:21). Peter, James and John were given a preview of Christ in His glory.

The vast majority of the Jewish leaders present when our Lord said this would have been long dead by the time AD 70 came, 40 years later. Moreover, 'every eye will see Him' (Revelation 1:7) in the general resurrection when our Lord returns at the end of time. If anybody saw the Lord Jesus in AD 70, he didn't think it worth writing about.

Excellent! Bring them on!

 

Excuse me? 'Hath God said.....' was spoken by Satan. Luke 12:43-46 was spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I assume you are referring to Daniel 9. If that is the case please notice that there is no "soon" or "quickly" in the framework of this prophecy. Rather the long duration was foretold, albeit couched in prophetical terms ("weeks"). As I had written earlier - uncommented on - there is a marked contrast between this end-time prophecy and the one in Revelation. In the earlier one, as we read at the end of Daniel, he is told "Go your way" and the prophecy is to be "kept secret and sealed until the end times".
In Revelation, as I wrote, the words are to be opened, and the time short.

Not sure what you are saying here.

 

Are you willfully obtuse? Just because the words are printed red we should go out and do it? These are words to live by?

"Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." - Mark 12:9.

Just one of many verses I could have chosen, all of them in red, all spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Doesn't make sense Tom, really, honestly.

That his master has delayed his return (in reality) is what supports his statement as well as his "evil" status.
I believe this is exactly what has happened in "Christendom".

My opinion of course.

HankD

 

One of us is, but it isn't I

HankD quoted, quite correctly:
Luke 12
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

First of all, yes, these are words to live by. To say that our Lord's teaching need not be observed because it was put into the mouth of a wicked servant is in itself wicked. We are to live in the light of our Lord's return. How much worse is your teaching than the surmisings of this servant? You are telling the readers of this board that the Lord Jesus is not just delaying His coming, but never coming back! You will do well to keep verse 46 in mind for yourself.[/QUOTE]

 

Marriage is the death-blow to Preterism.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

No, I am not telling them that. I am saying He came. He is here. How is that wicked?

But I could tell you this a hundred times and it would still not register because you have your mind set as to what I believe.

 

Jesus was speaking to the context set up by the Sadducees, "Moses taught us ... ". They thought they had presented an insurmountable Mosaic problem for Jesus. It is not marriage per se that is spoken of but those Levitical laws given through that pertain to marriage and giving in marriage.
Too many read the New Testament without keeping the Old Testament in mind.

 

I see. You bolded that phrase to enlighten me that He is still coming. And for me to deny this is to deny what is clearly written.

Let us apply this same logic elsewhere.

"The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Here are two more future tenses for us to observe. If you do not believe that these are future - that this virgin is yet to conceive - then you are clearly, how did you put it? - telling the readers of this board, among other things, that there has been no virgin birth.

Why? Because this is also future tense.

 

Hank, I believe that the operative phrase here is "says in his heart". It was his own perception. We are told elsewhere that God will not tarry (did not tarry). All of His promises are fulfilled in the right time.

And they are certainly not the exact opposite of His explicit statements to the contrary, using assurances like "quickly", "soon", "many standing here", etc.

We had "last days", then "last hour" (in John). And then - very strangely - the hour was stretched, or put in stasis, for two thousand years.

"Let God be true and every man a liar". Myself included. I have no fun in being the odd man in my Preterism. I would much rather be in an amen corner - honestly. Who wouldn't? But I cannot in good conscience disregard what I see is the plain teaching of God's Word.

 

Stop trying to wriggle off the hook. We all know He's here. "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and the Father will love him, and We will come and make our home with him.' 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him and he with Me.' That didn't start in AD 70. It started on the day of Pentecost or before.

But to state that this poor fallen world is the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13), and that this is as good as it's going to get is wicked on three counts:

1. It robs believers of their blessed hope.
2. It encourages the behaviour described in Matthew 24:48-51.
3. It is insulting to God who promises us a new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.

Yep! Tell me, what happened in AD 70 to someone in, say, Philippi or Corinth who was living in the way described in Matthew 24:48-51. How did things change for him in AD 70 that differed from AD 69 or 71? What made him weep and gnash his teeth?

 

I have no doubt of that Tom. This is just a scholastic exercise in airing the doctrines of full preterism.
Perhaps it would be better to admit that the "evil" servant was expecting Christ to return not too long after His ascension (Maybe AD40's) then the 50's rolled around, then the mid 60's, and then he made his statement "My lord delayeth his coming" - that would have a bit more credulity to me.

HankD

 

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

....and you're one that's slave to a manmade, anti-Biblical, 'orthodox' Reformed doctrine. I've requested you 'reformed types' to produce even one final judgment passage that is not all about our works several times and apparently you're unable to come up with it. How do you ignore/explain away such a plain passage as this?:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2

Not me. My argument is simply that you 'orthodox types' have wrongly relegated the only 'second coming' passage, Heb 9:28 (from which the ever so precious holy grail sacred cow 'second coming' is derived), to the future when it has already occurred. This is the final, 'next coming':

23...Christ`s, at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15

Note that when He comes the kingdom has been already, He has reigned already, and the resurrection occurs.

So? What? The writer is giving those persecuted Christians encouragement by assuring them they will soon be delivered from their persecutors (the Jews) while admonishing them all through the book to HOLD FAST.

"….."For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry" (verse 37). The causal "For" denotes that the apostle was about to confirm what he had just said: he both adds a word to strengthen their "confidence" and "patience," and also points them to the near approach of the time when they should receive their "reward." The Greek is very expressive and emphatic. The apostle used a word which signifies "a little while," and then for further emphasis added a particle meaning "very," and this he still further intensified by repeating it; thus, literally rendered this clause reads, "For yet a very, very little while, and He that shall come will come."

"There is indeed nothing that avails more to sustain our minds, should they at any time become faint, than the hope of a speedy and near termination. As a general holds forth to his soldiers the prospect that the war will soon end, provided they hold out a little longer; so the apostle reminds us that the Lord will shortly come to deliver us from all evils, provided our minds faint not through want of firmness. And in order that this consolation might have more assurance and authority, he adduces the testimony of Habakkuk. But as he follows the Greek version, he departs somewhat from the words of the prophet" (John Calvin). Frequently does the Holy Spirit emphasize the exceeding (comparative) brevity of the saints’ sufferings in this world; "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning" (Ps. 30:5); "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20); "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment" (2 Cor. 4:17).

"For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." The reference here is to the person of the Lord Jesus, as is evident from Habakkuk 2:3, to which the apostle here alludes. Like so many prophecies, that word of Habakkuk’s was to receive a threefold fulfillment: a literal and initial one, a spiritual and continuous one, a final and complete one. The literal was the Divine incarnation, when the Son of God came here in flesh. The final will be His return in visible glory and power. The spiritual has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 when that which most obstructed the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom on earth was destroyed—with the overthrow of the Temple and its worship, official Judaism came to an end. The Christians in Palestine were being constantly persecuted by the Jews, but their conquest by Titus and their consequent dispersion put an end to this. That event was less than ten years distant when Paul wrote: compare our remarks on "see the day approaching" (Heb. 10:25).….." A.W. Pink
http://pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_055.htm

 

So many things wrong with the above, aside form the rudeness, I hardly know where to begin. I guess I will pass over most of it - just don't have time - but focus on "blessed hope". You seem to think it is some event - and that the event has to be future. You are quite mistaken. The blessed hope is eternal life in Christ. We have that now, though not fully realized. I suspect you are focusing too much on one phrase in Titus 2:13, but overlooking Paul's other "hope" passages in Titus, most notably his comment in the preceding chapter:

"in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago " Titus 1:2.

Is it not reasonable to think that Paul is still thinking of this “hope” when he wrote “blessed hope”? This interpretation is further strengthened by what he writes later, Titus 3:7:

"That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

So we have two exact phrases “hope of eternal life”. They refer to our being in Christ. We have now an indwelling foretaste of this, but it will be fully realized after this life is over.

Why do you have it in your head, then, that the middle passage refers to something different? You just want to use it as imagined ammunition against my preterism.

[/quote]

It is good that you quoted the passage under consideration. It shows me that you can focus on the topic when you put your mind to it.

Who is the passage speaking of? The servant. Those under the Old Covenant, the unbelieving Jews. Now these servants were spread throughout the “world” (“oikoumene” - here, the Roman Empire).

How did things change for the evil servants in Philippi or Corinth - or however far they might have reached in the Empire, for that matter? They were without their very means of worship. Their temple was gone. It was no longer possible for them to practice their religion.

Additionally, there was a widespread backlash against the Jews throughout many parts of the Empire. If you had read Josephus you would have known this. I assume you haven’t, since you asked that question.

Your numbers 2 and 3 are too silly to even answer.

 

Scholastic Exercise? I am disappointed here.

How many imminency words and phrases do we have to cite from the New Testament to move this beyond the realm of scholastic exercise which, I assume, is tangential to cherry-picking? A dozen? Thirty? There are actually around a hundred such word and/or phrase occurrences.

I would list them if I thought they would seriously be considered. But I believe that you would still focus on the one or two verses that can be slanted in the opposite direction.

And I am not saying this in a snarky way, Hank. It is just an observation. I can see you are a very smart man, courteous to boot. But we all have our blind spots.