A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[John of Japan]

Clarke was not a Calvinist. If those who wrote in the 17th and 18th century are unreliable then why would you point to Church Fathers who preceded them by 1500 years:

All the early Christian writers who touched on the subject without fail wrote of a literal 2nd coming of Christ.

So we can't trust John Gill because he didn't have the books you do but we can trust those who preceded him by hundreds of years?

This is a no brainer. The early church fathers are essential to understanding the attitudes and methods of the apostolic church. Some of them actually learned the Word of God from the original apostles! This is universally agreed among scholars. I'm surprised you don't agree! Other preterists on the BB have tried to make a case from the apostolic fathers. :smilewinkgrin:

As for John Gill and the others, I'd love to interact there with their original statements, but you didn't give them. You just said, "All of these guys agree with me," as if that were a fact I was supposed to immediately recognize. How about if you give me where each of them opposed a literal, physical 2nd coming of Christ (what the OP is about), then we'll go from there. I'd be happy to interact with you on that, delighted.

Since you don't like old, or white or Calvinists, Then here you go: http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/

I looked around on this site some, but saw nothing relating to my OP. Help me out here. Where does the website talk about preterist hermeneutics? I'd honestly like to know your hermeneutics, and may even start a thread on it later in the week (I go to Sapporo tomorrow to interpret.)

To hopefully wrap up my thoughts, my disagreement is not necessarily that Christ will return physically it is that I must believe that based on your opening post. If I was to be convinced of a physical second coming it would come from scriptures such as Acts 1, not because He came physically the first time. I find no strength in that argument.

Secondly scholars from all stripes and from every age acknowledge that the coming in the Olivet Discourse and other passages point not to a physical bodily return but to a coming in judgment.

Look, friend, in answer to my opening post, you said,

"If that is the best evidence against full preterism then I predict full preterism will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming generations."

Ever since then I've been asking for your principles, or one single principle of interpretation, that allows you to say the first coming was literal but the second wasn't. You haven't shared anything with me on this, which was the whole point of my OP.

Never mind the Olivet Discourse. I haven't even discussed it. There are so many other passages that prophesy the 2nd coming. Acts 1:11 is fine. Tell me by what principle of interpretation you choose not to interpret that passage literally?

Thirdly I am curious as to your belief that Christ threatened to return physically to the church of Sardis. Was that an idle threat? Would that have been the second coming? How would that have affected the other Churches throughout Asia?

I'll answer this just as soon as you give me your principle of hermeneutics that allows you not to interpret it literally. (How many times do I have to ask this?)

 

[John of Japan]

Let's say I were to agree that parousia might mean "abiding presence" and could refer to a spiritual 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. (I emphatically do not admit this, and hope to start a thread on it sometimes.) Consider another word that is used to refer to the 2nd coming of Christ: epifaneia (epiphaneia).

This word appears six times in the NT, all in the writings of Paul. Here's the interesting part. It occurs three times in 2 Timothy alone! Here they are:

2 Tim. 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
2 Tim. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Tim. 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

The first time, 1:10, is referring to the first coming of Christ. The second two, 4:1 and 4:8, are both referring to the second coming of Christ! The very obvious conclusion is that in Paul's mind the second coming was just like the first coming: literal and physical.

Once more I issue the challenge to full preterists. Grasshopper has made a valiant discussion here, but has not yet given me a principle of interpretation that allows him to say the first coming was physical, literally fulfilling prophecies in the OT, but the 2nd coming will only be spiritual, and the prophecies about it will be fulfilled spiritually instead of literally. Anyone else want to try?

 

[Grasshopper]

Sorry for the delay, got busy.

As for John Gill and the others, I'd love to interact there with their original statements, but you didn't give them. You just said, "All of these guys agree with me," as if that were a fact I was supposed to immediately recognize.

Matthew 24:27
"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

John Gill

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

Adam Clarke

It is worthy of remark that our Lord, in the most particular manner, points out the very march of the Roman army: they entered into Judea on the EAST, and carried on their conquest WESTWARD, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, were intended in the comparison of the lightning issuing from the east, and shining to the west

John Lightfoot

1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28.



These men, and many others, saw the events of AD70 as a coming of Christ on the clouds. They obvious saw that "parousia" did not mean a physical coming in this passage. However they all did believe in a future physical coming. It seems they did not share your hermeneutic.

I looked around on this site some, but saw nothing relating to my OP. Help me out here. Where does the website talk about preterist hermeneutics? I'd honestly like to know your hermeneutics, and may evn start a thread on it later in the week (I go to Sapporo tomorrow to interpret.)

Analogy of Faith when possible, and I let the NT writers interpret the OT for me. Never been to Seminary or Bible College so I don't know if there is aname for various methods other than the grammatical-historical

Ever since then I've been asking for your principles, or one single principle of interpretation, that allows you to say the first coming was literal but the second wasn't. You haven't shared anything with me on this, which was the whole point of my OP.*

I've think I've said I see no reason to interpret this way. What method forces you into this type of interpretation?*

Never mind the Olivet Discourse. I haven't even discussed it. There are so many other passages that prophesy the 2nd coming. Acts 1:11 is fine. Tell me by what principle of interpretation you choose not to interpret that passage literally?

Acts 11 is the best case for a physical Second Coming. If one believes it is speaking of a Physical return of Jesus I will not argue. I am preterist but I have not determined which specific view within preterism is correct. I would come to the conclusion that Acts 11 refers to a physical coming by the text, not by the hermeneutic rule you laid out in the OP.

My personal struggles are how to separate the coming in Acts from the other coming in scripture that I believe clearly refer to AD70.*

Let's say I were to agree that parousia might mean "abiding presence" and could refer to a spiritual 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. (I emphatically do not admit this, and hope to start a thread on it sometimes.) Consider another word that is used to refer to the 2nd coming of Christ: epifaneia (epiphaneia).

This word appears six times in the NT, all in the writings of Paul. Here's the interesting part. It occurs three times in 2 Timothy alone! Here they are:

Quote:
2 Tim. 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
2 Tim. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Tim. 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

The first time, 1:10, is referring to the first coming of Christ. The second two, 4:1 and 4:8, are both referring to the second coming of Christ! The very obvious conclusion is that in Paul's mind the second coming was just like the first coming: literal and physical.

Again, my problem is how to separate this coming from the Olivet Discourse coming. You probably don't have this problem but if you believe the Olivet Discourse speaks of AD70 then how does one justify yet another coming. Not that it can't be justified by Gill, Lightfoot, Sproul etc.....I would just love to ask them how. Thus my conundrum.

Once more I issue the challenge to full preterists. Grasshopper has made a valiant discussion here, but has not yet given me a principle of interpretation that allows him to say the first coming was physical, literally fulfilling prophecies in the OT, but the 2nd coming will only be spiritual, and the prophecies about it will be fulfilled spiritually instead of literally. Anyone else want to try?

Perhaps no one buys your premise that one must always assume literal/physical interpretations. My favorite Full Preterist author wrote a book on this topic. Here is a link to a you tube presentation:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXi0Wv9dGVI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Is he right? Who knows, but he does use a hermeneutic to make the case that is was to be a spiritual coming.

 

[DHK]

Sorry for the delay, got busy.



Matthew 24:27
"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

John Gill

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

John Gill, though well respected in Baptist circles, had views that would be considered heretical in our day. You quoted one of them above. I posted this a couple of pages ago. It comes from Vedder's, Baptist History.

Doctor Gill’s “Body of Divinity,” published in 1769, was a great treatise of the rigid supralapsarian type of Calvinism, and long held its place as a theological textbook. This type of Calvinism can with difficulty be distinguished from fatalism and antinomianism. If Gill did not hold, as his opponents charged, that the elect live in a constant state of sanctification (because of the imputed righteousness of Christ), even while they commit much sin, he did hold that because of God’s election Christians must not presume to interfere with his purposes by inviting sinners to the Saviour, for he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and on no others. This is practically to nullify the Great Commission; and, in consequence of this belief, Calvinistic Baptist preachers largely ceased to warn, exhort, and invite sinners; holding that, as God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, when he willed he would effectually call an elect person, and that for anybody else to invite people to believe was useless, if not an impertinent interference with the prerogatives of God.

His views were outside the realm of orthodoxy to say the least, and that is being kind, maybe too kind.
My entire post is here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1675282&postcount=44

 

[Logos1]

This thread should have been titled biblical proof of full preterism…

…or maybe Christ inspired proof


It is certainly essential that we look to the Old Testament to know how to understand the New Testament. Since the N.T. writers and readers only had the O.T. to draw on for examples we have to look at the O.T. to comprehend their view point and mindset. And, unless Christ or the Apostles tell us that something has changed then we can apply O.T. principles to the N.T. in similar situations.

Case in point. Isaiah 19:1
An oracle against Egypt:
Look, the LORD rides on a swift cloud
and is coming to Egypt.
Egypt's idols will tremble before Him,
and Egypt's heart will melt within it.

There was no physical incarnation of God riding a cloud against Egypt. Cloud language is commonly employed to denote the presence of God and everyone knows this verse represents the Assyrian Army conquering Egypt.

In the same way Christ came against Jerusalem in 70 AD. He described as much in Mark 13:26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Here we have the clouds again, another example coming, and we know the Roman Army sacked Jerusalem.

Similar verses, similar events, similar interpretation and fulfillment.

We also have more of the same in Matthew 26:64-65
64 "You have said it," Jesus told him. "But I tell you, in the future you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Look, now you've heard the blasphemy!

Caiaphas knew this was calling himself God since he applied the actions of God to himself and accused him of blasphemy.

Further, we have Christ himself telling us his Kingdom is not literal. In Luke 17:20-21

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God will come, He answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; 21 no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

When I read these simple and straightforward verses I have to remember back to when I was a futurist to try and comprehend how anyone could think there is a future literal coming of Christ.

Neither Christ nor the Apostle ever give us a new way to interpret these verses so we are safe to view them the way their audience would have understood them.

How some people strive to make something so simple so complicated. God must be amused at us and disappointed in us.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry for the delay, got busy.

No problem. I was in Sapporo interpreting all day yesterday myself.

Matthew 24:27
"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

John Gill

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

I'm like DHK. I have no respect for John Gill. He was a radical Hyper Calvinist.

Adam Clarke

It is worthy of remark that our Lord, in the most particular manner, points out the very march of the Roman army: they entered into Judea on the EAST, and carried on their conquest WESTWARD, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, were intended in the comparison of the lightning issuing from the east, and shining to the west

Clarke admitted that the preterist view is the minority view in Acts 1:11 comments: "This same Jesus Clothed in human nature. shall so come in like manner-with the same body, descending from heaven by his sovereign and all-controlling power, as ye have seen him go into heaven. Thus shall he come again to judge the quick and the dead. It was a very ancient opinion among Christians, that when Christ should come again to judge the world he would make his appearance on Mount Olivet. Some (my emphasis--JOJ) think that his coming again to destroy the Jewish nation is what the angels refer to."

Adam Clarke lived 1762-1832. No one in the scholarly world today considers him a goto man. You will not see him quoted in any scholarly commentary nowadays.

John Lightfoot

1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

2. That Christ's taking vengeance of that exceeding wicked nation is called Christ's "coming in glory," and his "coming in the clouds," Daniel 7. It is also called, "the day of the Lord." See Psalm 1:4; Malachi 3:1,2, &c.; Joel 2:31; Matthew 16:28; Revelation 1:7, &c. See what we have said on chapter 12:20; 19:28.

I've never even heard of this guy, and he doesn't appear in my Who Was Who in Church History. But Wikipedia reveals that he was an Anglican who lived 1602-1675. Why would a modern Baptist care about a 17th century Anglican Rabbinican scholar on the subject of prophecy? You're grasping at straws here.

These men, and many others, saw the events of AD70 as a coming of Christ on the clouds. They obvious saw that "parousia" did not mean a physical coming in this passage. However they all did believe in a future physical coming. It seems they did not share your hermeneutic.

Not odd at all. They are always some who are mistaken.

Analogy of Faith when possible, and I let the NT writers interpret the OT for me. Never been to Seminary or Bible College so I don't know if there is aname for various methods other than the grammatical-historical

But this doesn't wash. I don't believe you do this consistently. You see, as I've pointed out over and over, when the NT writers interpreted the prophecies of the OT about Christ, they interpreted them as literally fulfilled. But you pick and choose what prophecies you want to interpret literally.

I've think I've said I see no reason to interpret this way. What method forces you into this type of interpretation?*

Because it is normal!! Among average believers, no one interprets allegorically until they are taught to do so.

Ask a South American tribesman who just got his own translation, a Chinese with no theological education or access to the Internet, a Japanese who just became a Christian. They will all interpret with a literal method until someone like you tells them no, the Bible prophecies are not to be interpreted that way. They don't interpret the newspaper, Buddhist writings, Confucian writings or anything else allegorically. So why in the world would they interpret the Bible allegorically?

Acts 11 is the best case for a physical Second Coming. If one believes it is speaking of a Physical return of Jesus I will not argue. I am preterist but I have not determined which specific view within preterism is correct. I would come to the conclusion that Acts 11 refers to a physical coming by the text, not by the hermeneutic rule you laid out in the OP.

There are so many, many more verses promising the second coming. And the normal way to read them is that Christ is literally coming back. Think of John 14:1-3 for example. How could the disciples interpret that any way but literally? There is nothing in the text that even hints of an allegorical interpretation by the disciples.

For just one more of many possibilities, consider this. Last week I translated Phil. 3:20 into Japanese with Uncle Miya. Note that word "look for" in the KJV. It is a word meaning "eagerly wait" in the Greek, and is translated that way in the NKJV. Now, if Paul thought that 70 AD would be the 2nd coming, why in the world would he "eagerly wait" the 2nd coming? He loved Israel and the Jews and the temple so much that he was willing to be cursed for their sake. And he loved the temple so much he took a Jewish vow there, even though he was a Christian.

My personal struggles are how to separate the coming in Acts from the other coming in scripture that I believe clearly refer to AD70.*

Again, my problem is how to separate this coming from the Olivet Discourse coming. You probably don't have this problem but if you believe the Olivet Discourse speaks of AD70 then how does one justify yet another coming. Not that it can't be justified by Gill, Lightfoot, Sproul etc.....I would just love to ask them how. Thus my conundrum.

There are so many passages other than the Olivet Discourse and Rev. that teach the 2nd coming, this is no problem to me. In fact, if someone wants to be a preterist, I don't care. (My seminary textbook on hermeneutics takes a partial preterist view of Rev.) What bothers me deeply here on the BB is that there are people who actually compaign against the blessed appearing of our Savior. This doctrine of a physical 2nd coming is a fundamental of the faith. All orthodox Christians believe it: premil, amil, postmil. It is normal hermeneutics whether you are reformed or dispensational.

The 2nd coming of Christ is exceedingly precious to me. The promises are dear. I pray often for Christ to come. If He doesn't come back to rule, this old world will just become wickeder and wickeder.

Perhaps no one buys your premise that one must always assume literal/physical interpretations.

Sorry, that is not my premise. Please don't put words in my mouth. I practice a standard grammatical-historical exegesis.

My favorite Full Preterist author wrote a book on this topic. Here is a link to a you tube presentation:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXi0Wv9dGVI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Is he right? Who knows, but he does use a hermeneutic to make the case that is was to be a spiritual coming.

What a humble guy. Man does he praise his own book. :tongue3:

I don't have time right now. Maybe I'll listen later.

 

[John of Japan]

…or maybe Christ inspired proof

It is certainly essential that we look to the Old Testament to know how to understand the New Testament. Since the N.T. writers and readers only had the O.T. to draw on for examples we have to look at the O.T. to comprehend their view point and mindset. And, unless Christ or the Apostles tell us that something has changed then we can apply O.T. principles to the N.T. in similar situations.

Case in point. Isaiah 19:1
An oracle against Egypt:
Look, the LORD rides on a swift cloud
and is coming to Egypt.
Egypt's idols will tremble before Him,
and Egypt's heart will melt within it.

There was no physical incarnation of God riding a cloud against Egypt. Cloud language is commonly employed to denote the presence of God and everyone knows this verse represents the Assyrian Army conquering Egypt.

In the same way Christ came against Jerusalem in 70 AD. He described as much in Mark 13:26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. Here we have the clouds again, another example coming, and we know the Roman Army sacked Jerusalem.

Similar verses, similar events, similar interpretation and fulfillment.

We also have more of the same in Matthew 26:64-65
64 "You have said it," Jesus told him. "But I tell you, in the future you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? Look, now you've heard the blasphemy!

Caiaphas knew this was calling himself God since he applied the actions of God to himself and accused him of blasphemy.

Further, we have Christ himself telling us his Kingdom is not literal. In Luke 17:20-21

20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God will come, He answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with something observable; 21 no one will say, 'Look here!' or 'There!' For you see, the kingdom of God is among you."

When I read these simple and straightforward verses I have to remember back to when I was a futurist to try and comprehend how anyone could think there is a future literal coming of Christ.

Neither Christ nor the Apostle ever give us a new way to interpret these verses so we are safe to view them the way their audience would have understood them.

How some people strive to make something so simple so complicated. God must be amused at us and disappointed in us.

Since none of this answers the OP in any way, shape or form, I'll simply ignore it. Please don't try to sidetrack the thread.

 

[Grasshopper]

*I'm like DHK. I have no respect for John Gill. He was a radical Hyper Calvinist.

Clarke admitted that the preterist view is the minority view in Acts 1:11 comments: "This same Jesus Clothed in human nature. shall so come in like manner-with the same body, descending from heaven by his sovereign and all-controlling power, as ye have seen him go into heaven. Thus shall he come again to judge the quick and the dead. It was a very ancient opinion among Christians, that when Christ should come again to judge the world he would make his appearance on Mount Olivet. Some (my emphasis--JOJ) think that his coming again to destroy the Jewish nation is what the angels refer to."*
*
Adam Clarke lived 1762-1832. No one in the scholarly world today considers him a goto man. You will not see him quoted in any scholarly commentary nowadays.*
I've never even heard of this guy, and he doesn't appear in my Who Was Who in Church History. But Wikipedia reveals that he was an Anglican who lived 1602-1675.*

Were just spinning our wheels here. No matter who I quote in support of my view you just dismiss them. They are either to Reformed, too old or too white. It seems no one earlier than Scofield is acceptable.

Why would a modern Baptist care about a 17th century Anglican Rabbinican scholar on the subject of prophecy? You're grasping at straws here.

Because I don't see Baptist has having a monopoly on truth. in fact, when it comes to eschatology Baptist leave a lot to be desired in my view.
*
*

*

But this doesn't wash. I don't believe you do this consistently. You see, as I've pointed out over and over, when the NT writers interpreted the prophecies of the OT about Christ, they interpreted them as literally fulfilled. But you pick and choose what prophecies you want to interpret literally.

*
No, when dealing with the prophecies of Jesus' birth I take them all as literal.
*

Ask a South American tribesman who just got his own translation, a Chinese with no theological education or access to the Internet, a Japanese who just became a Christian. They will all interpret with a literal method until someone like you tells them no, the Bible prophecies are not to be interpreted that way. They don't interpret the newspaper, Buddhist writings, Confucian writings or anything else allegorically. So why in the world would they interpret the Bible allegorically?*

*
So let's take those same people and let them read Rev. 1:1,3 or Rev. 22:7,10. They would assume Jesus meant what the words normally mean. But then you come around and straighten them out and explain to them "well, those don't really mean what you think they do. Remember now God's time is not man's time" then you would go to Daniel and explain there's really a gap in there even though it not written there in the text. I could go on and on. I've only seen one Dispie on this board who was honest enough to admit that all sides take some things literally and some things not so much. That Dispie was HankD. He's a stand up guy.

*

For just one more of many possibilities, consider this. Last week I translated Phil. 3:20 into Japanese with Uncle Miya. Note that word "look for" in the KJV. It is a word meaning "eagerly wait" in the Greek, and is translated that way in the NKJV. Now, if Paul thought that 70 AD would be the 2nd coming, why in the world would he "eagerly wait" the 2nd coming? He loved Israel and the Jews and the temple so much that he was willing to be cursed for their sake. And he loved the temple so much he took a Jewish vow there, even though he was a Christian.

1. Are you saying Paul was unaware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem?
2. Paul would only tell people to eagerly wait if he thought they would see the event.
*
*

The 2nd coming of Christ is exceedingly precious to me. The promises are dear. I pray often for Christ to come. If He doesn't come back to rule, this old world will just become wickeder and wickeder.

Doesn't say much for your view of the Triumphant Church. Dipensationalism causes one to have a horrible world view.*
*
*

Sorry, that is not my premise. Please don't put words in my mouth. I practice a standard grammatical-historical exegesis.

*
It is your premise on the subject at hand.

What a humble guy. Man does he praise his own book

.

At least it is not based on the current newspaper headlines as Walvoord did.

 

[DHK]

Grasshopper,
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Revelation 22:20-21)

The Promise of Jesus--I come quickly.
The Prayer of John--For Jesus to come quickly.
The Benediction of John

This is how the Book of Revelation ends, a book written ca.98 A.D. Here Jesus promises that he is coming again, and John prays for him to come again soon. The destruction of the Temple took place almost 30 years previous to this date. Well after the destruction of the Temple John is still praying for the literal return of Christ. How do you account for this? Is John deluded?

 

[Rippon]

I'm like DHK. I have no respect for John Gill. He was a radical Hyper Calvinist.

That is so wrong on your part. You go against established Christian scholars like Timothy George and Tom Nettles who insist that he wasn't even a mere hyper-Calvinist much less than a "radical" hyper-Calvinist. On what basis do you make your bold assertion?

You have quoted John Gill favorably in the past on the BB. When did you make your change in course and doubt his Christianity it seems?

I fervently disagree with some strong Arminians of the past such as your grandad. But I never said I had no respect for him and try to paint him as being a heretic or apostate.

Because you object to some of John Gill's beliefs you should not say that you have no respect for him when his works have been such a tremendous boon to Christians through the centuries.

 

[percho]

Acts 15:16 After this, I will return

In Acts 15:14 James says that Peter declared that GoD had begun to take out from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

Verse 15 says that the word of the prophets agree that this would take place.

There is no reference in Amos 9:11 to this taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name therefore the, After this, is not a quote of Amos 9:11 but is saying after the taking out from among the Gentiles Amos 9:11 will take place.

I do not believe the fulness of the Gentiles has come in yet has it?

Therefore the I will return has not neither.

 

[DHK]

That is so wrong on your part. You go against established Christian scholars like Timothy George and Tom Nettles who insist that he wasn't even a mere hyper-Calvinist much less than a "radical" hyper-Calvinist. On what basis do you make your bold assertion?

You have quoted John Gill favorably in the past on the BB. When did you make your change in course and doubt his Christianity it seems?

I fervently disagree with some strong Arminians of the past such as your grandad. But I never said I had no respect for him and try to paint him as being a heretic or apostate.

Because you object to some of John Gill's beliefs you should not say that you have no respect for him when his works have been such a tremendous boon to Christians through the centuries.

There are many fine scholars from whom we learn from and even look up to. I use Keil and Deilitzch (sp?) extensive commentary on the OT quite often, in spite of the fact that they were known liberals. They believe in the JEDP theory on the Pentateuch, the two Isaiah authorship, etc. But they were Hebrew scholars and give great insight into the meanings of Hebrew words.

I use Gill also, not because he is Calvinist or Baptist, even. One has to read analytically, separating the good from the bad. It is hard to find good commentaries. Do you ever find one that you can agree with 100%?
I haven't.

 

[John of Japan]

Were just spinning our wheels here. No matter who I quote in support of my view you just dismiss them. They are either to Reformed, too old or too white. It seems no one earlier than Scofield is acceptable.

Because I don't see Baptist has having a monopoly on truth. in fact, when it comes to eschatology Baptist leave a lot to be desired in my view.

What you need to know is that those who hold to full preterism are an extreme minority in the evangelical world. That is why you have such a hard time finding scholars that agree with it, never mind Baptist scholars. There are some scholarly Revelation commentaries out there with the preterist view, but full preterist? I doubt it.

No, when dealing with the prophecies of Jesus' birth I take them all as literal.

So once again, I believe my OP is very relevant.

So let's take those same people and let them read Rev. 1:1,3 or Rev. 22:7,10. They would assume Jesus meant what the words normally mean. But then you come around and straighten them out and explain to them "well, those don't really mean what you think they do. Remember now God's time is not man's time" then you would go to Daniel and explain there's really a gap in there even though it not written there in the text. I could go on and on.

Here's the difference in allegorical interpretation and my view. The allegorical interpretation often depends on human interpretation of the given text rather than original language (as I think I've proven on this thread), and is thus nothing more than opinion. On the other hand, the grammatical historical view believes in the supreme authority of the original text, literally interpreted. Therefore, as I did with you on this thread, I would take such people to the original language as authoritative when dealing with the time statements.

I've only seen one Dispie on this board who was honest enough to admit that all sides take some things literally and some things not so much. That Dispie was HankD. He's a stand up guy.

You appear to be attacking my honesty and integrity here. I hope that's not true. I've enjoyed this discussion until now and have nothing against you. Also I've never commented one way or the other on this particular issue. My focus in the OP was very narrow, even though you have consistently tried to widen it.

And yes, HankD is a good guy.

1. Are you saying Paul was unaware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem?

No, I'm saying that it was irrelevant to him in this passage since he was talking about a physical coming of Christ, not the destruction of Jerusalem.

Again, I'm saying that if he was talking about a spiritual coming of Christ to destroy his country and the holy city, he would not be eagerly awaiting it. Would you eagerly await the destruction of your favorite city and the complete dissolution of your country as a nation?? Not me!! I would await it with great sadness, even if I knew it was the will of God.

2. Paul would only tell people to eagerly wait if he thought they would see the event.

No, Paul would not tell people to eagerly await the destruction of their country and holy city. To me that is as obvious as the nose on my face (a rather large one). But he would tell them to eagerly await an imminent coming of their Savior.

Doesn't say much for your view of the Triumphant Church. Dipensationalism causes one to have a horrible world view.

No, it's the Bible that rules my world view. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13). Based on that verse (and many others), can you actually say the world is getting better? And I'm not depending on the church to right the world, I'm depending on the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's amazing that such a positive view of an increasingly evil world still exists in light of WW1, WW2, Hitler, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Pol Pot and other mass murderers of the 20th century (the most evil century in history). I thought that view went out with the near death experience of the postmil view in WW2.

It is your premise on the subject at hand.

In the narrow range of the OP, yes. Do you think that justifies your broad brush?

At least it is not based on the current newspaper headlines as Walvoord did.

I don't believe you would be saying this if you had actually read Walvoord. I think you are thinking of someone else with this statement (and I don't deny that some popular premil authors misuse current events in their teaching). In his commentary on Rev. Walvoord doesn't speak of world events. It's a straight scholarly commentary on the text, with close to 140 sources in the bibliography. He was the scholar who was president of the famous Dallas Seminary for many years. You would be pleased that he even gives the (weak) scholarly evidence for an early date for Rev.

 

[convicted1]

Sorry I missed seeing this earlier.

My view on this subject hasn’t change a single bit since what I was taught as a kid in a totally premil dispy church.

Yes of course the physical body just stays there and rots away into nothingness. Personally I’ve never been taught or believed any thing else.

I think we are in agreement here!! The body that is "sown" into the earth, is our physical body. It will molder back to the dust. The body that comes out will be a body likened unto Jesus' most glorious body, which I believe to be "Spiritual" in essence.

All this hubado over the physical body being resurrected was new and strange to me when I came on this board.

What I had always been taught and believed fit right in with being a total Preterist. I don’t see this as a view particular to Preterists.

Why would you care or even want a physical body with its aches and pains. The glorified spiritual body is a vast improvement.

It also fits right in with scripture. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:50.

Some people want to cling to a notion of a risen physical body in heaven because Christ has a risen physical body while he was on earth. It seems plain to me that he had a physical body while on earth and a spiritual body in heaven.

We are in complete agreement here!!

Christ had unfinished business to attend to while on earth and took physical form to attend to it. We are not gods and have no work left on earth so we won’t need a physical body.

I agree with this also!!

If I was taught this as a kid in a Southern Baptist church it makes me think all this hubado about getting back a physical body is a recent phenomenon that took hold in recent years.

Now, if Jesus has already "come again", circa AD70, then how will our physical bodies be resurrected in our "spiritual" form? Doesn't the change from physical to spiritual take place in the grave when Jesus comes in the clouds(1 Thes. 4:16)? If this has already taken place, then how will our spiritual bodies rise to meet Jesus in the cloud? This is what is puzzling me. I am not baiting you in any way, Brother, because I see a lot of harmony in our beliefs here. However, if He has already came, circa AD70, then how can these other things come to pass. Please explain to me how our bodies(spiritual bodies, I mean) will be resurrected, if He has already come. PWEEZE????


i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[John of Japan]

That is so wrong on your part. You go against established Christian scholars like Timothy George and Tom Nettles who insist that he wasn't even a mere hyper-Calvinist much less than a "radical" hyper-Calvinist. On what basis do you make your bold assertion?

You have quoted John Gill favorably in the past on the BB. When did you make your change in course and doubt his Christianity it seems?

I fervently disagree with some strong Arminians of the past such as your grandad. But I never said I had no respect for him and try to paint him as being a heretic or apostate.

Because you object to some of John Gill's beliefs you should not say that you have no respect for him when his works have been such a tremendous boon to Christians through the centuries.

Don't take it personally, Rip. :smilewinkgrin:

Funny, I have a different memory of some things you said about my grandad when you first came on the BB some years ago. :saint:

 

[John of Japan]

That is so wrong on your part. You go against established Christian scholars like Timothy George and Tom Nettles who insist that he wasn't even a mere hyper-Calvinist much less than a "radical" hyper-Calvinist. On what basis do you make your bold assertion?

You have quoted John Gill favorably in the past on the BB. When did you make your change in course and doubt his Christianity it seems?

I fervently disagree with some strong Arminians of the past such as your grandad. But I never said I had no respect for him and try to paint him as being a heretic or apostate.

Because you object to some of John Gill's beliefs you should not say that you have no respect for him when his works have been such a tremendous boon to Christians through the centuries.

Well, okay, I should back down some here.:saint: Coincidentally, I just got an email from my best friend the Calvinist, and he wrote: "Yesterday I did some more reading in John Gill's theology. Man!! I enjoyed that! I read about the covenants and their origins in the eternal counsel of God. Great stuff!!"

So I'll just say I don't trust him on prophecy and leave it there. :flower:

 

[John of Japan]

To illustrate that the allegorical method has no certain interpretation, and thus every one can interpret Scripture just how they want to, here is a quote from Charles Hodge about the book of Revelation:

"Some regard it as a description in oriental imagery of contemporaneous events; others as intended to set forth the different phases of the spiritual life of the Church; others as designed to unfold the leading events in the history of the Church and of the world in their chronological order; others again assume that it is a series, figuratively speaking, of circles; each vision or series of visions relating to the same events under different aspects" (Systematic Theology, III, 826, quoted in The Rapture Question, by John Walvoord, p. 12).

"No scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20).

 

[asterisktom]

To illustrate that the allegorical method has no certain interpretation, and thus every one can interpret Scripture just how they want to, here is a quote from Charles Hodge about the book of Revelation:

snip

This is why I am passing on this whole discussion. There is too much misunderstanding here. The spiritual interpretation of the Bible does not equate neatly to "allegorical". There is allegory in the Bible. But there is also metaphor and spiritual interpretation. Three different things. They overlap sometimes, but certainly not always.

But it is not a case of either literal or allegorical.

 

[JesusFan]

The body that Jesus was raised in though was the "same" body that he died in...
Physical flesh was transformed into a glorified nature/state, but was SAME body God had given unto Him at His incarnation, just in a different state ...

Bible teaches that while absent from our bodies, will be in Heaven, BUT long/waiting for the Time when God will reunite our sprits/souls once again in the physical body that will than be gloried...

God can resurrect back from dead/grave same bodies we we born with, and those will get the glorified plan once reunited with our spiritual side at Second Coming!




We are in complete agreement here!!




I agree with this also!!




Now, if Jesus has already "come again", circa AD70, then how will our physical bodies be resurrected in our "spiritual" form? Doesn't the change from physical to spiritual take place in the grave when Jesus comes in the clouds(1 Thes. 4:16)? If this has already taken place, then how will our spiritual bodies rise to meet Jesus in the cloud? This is what is puzzling me. I am not baiting you in any way, Brother, because I see a lot of harmony in our beliefs here. However, if He has already came, circa AD70, then how can these other things come to pass. Please explain to me how our bodies(spiritual bodies, I mean) will be resurrected, if He has already come. PWEEZE????

Jesus MUST sound trumpet call of God, and the DEAD bodies in grave, same ones that died, will be raised up reunited with spirit/soul and once complete again, will THAN be glorified...

Don't think THAT happened in AD 70, if it did, NNE heard/saw it!

have to remember that unril Second Coming the souls of those died are with the Lord in heaven, earnestly waiting for the time of His coming to finally bring to pass their full glorification !

Too much remains unfulfilled by bible prophect to be able to accept the AD 70 event as being THE Second Coming Of jesus to earth!
i am I AM's!!

Willis[/QUOTE]

 

[percho]

The body that Jesus was raised in though was the "same" body that he died in...
Physical flesh was transformed into a glorified nature/state, but was SAME body God had given unto Him at His incarnation, just in a different state ...

Bible teaches that while absent from our bodies, will be in Heaven, BUT long/waiting for the Time when God will reunite our sprits/souls once again in the physical body that will than be gloried...

God can resurrect back from dead/grave same bodies we we born with, and those will get the glorified plan once reunited with our spiritual side at Second Coming!




We are in complete agreement here!!




I agree with this also!!




Now, if Jesus has already "come again", circa AD70, then how will our physical bodies be resurrected in our "spiritual" form? Doesn't the change from physical to spiritual take place in the grave when Jesus comes in the clouds(1 Thes. 4:16)? If this has already taken place, then how will our spiritual bodies rise to meet Jesus in the cloud? This is what is puzzling me. I am not baiting you in any way, Brother, because I see a lot of harmony in our beliefs here. However, if He has already came, circa AD70, then how can these other things come to pass. Please explain to me how our bodies(spiritual bodies, I mean) will be resurrected, if He has already come. PWEEZE????

Jesus MUST sound trumpet call of God, and the DEAD bodies in grave, same ones that died, will be raised up reunited with spirit/soul and once complete again, will THAN be glorified...

Don't think THAT happened in AD 70, if it did, NNE heard/saw it!

have to remember that unril Second Coming the souls of those died are with the Lord in heaven, earnestly waiting for the time of His coming to finally bring to pass their full glorification !

Too much remains unfulfilled by bible prophect to be able to accept the AD 70 event as being THE Second Coming Of jesus to earth!
i am I AM's!!

Willis

[/QUOTE]

Just a short question. If we (Whatever this we is) are absent from the body and present with the Lord in heaven at death, yet we (Whatever this is) have a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens and we (Again?) groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

Just what is the purpose of the theses verses?

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

However if, they (Whatever this means) also which sleep in Jesus, really are the dead (What?) in Christ there would be a purpose for the above especially if we understood the, "God will being with him" and the, "shall not precede them" as being, into the kingdom of God and the same as, "and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" the preceding above would make perfect sense.

Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God. Paul said he preached the kingdom of God everywhere he went.

Born again into the kingdom of God takes place at the resurrection of the just. Hab. 2:4 the just shall live by his faith. That living begins at the resurrection. And he is the head, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all he might have the preeminence. WE are, the body, the church: and we will follow him at our resurrection. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;