Any full preterists?

Grasshopper,

We have more great scholars today and more information moving toward the laity of the church. God uses men and women not because their eschatology is correct but because they preached and taught the Gospel.

The Preterist view is so far out there, it is foolish to even talk about to enlightened souls. If this is the New Earth then God did more than a poor job in making this world holy. To me, this evil world is about to understand that Jesus is coming again in the Rapture. [I Thess. 4:17]

 

Eschatologist,

Why do get the sense that you are constantly engaged in mind games?

If I was insecure in any way, I'd be cowered by this incessant banter of direct and indirect criticisms. But fortunately I'm not.

Is it possible for you to discuss Scripture without the rhetoric?

Now, how about answering one very simple question without trying to redirect attention away from it.

What was the mark of the beast?


Ed

 

What do you consider the blessed hope. What scripture is your reference.

Those I quoted are probably all Partial-Prets. They like you still see a future Coming, Resurrection, and Judgement. When I first started studying this, I though that was where I would end up. However I find Partial Preterism to be inconsistant.

Good, then answer me these questions based on these very clear verses.

Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

So did some standing there see Coming with Angels and Judgement in verse 27 and His Coming in His Kingdom in verse 28?

How about this one:

Matt26:64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy:

Did Caiaphus and the elders see Him sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds? Seems a very clear statement to me.

I have no problem with that statement. Thats why Preterism is spreading. You are also correct, just because John MacArthur is a Pre-Mill Dispy does not mean he can't teach and preach the Gospel. He does a fine job I might add.

Perhaps you are on the wrong thread then. You should be with the intellectuals and leave us Huns alone.

Is the New Covenant superior to the Old Covenant? Are new covenate people not Holy? Is God abiding with men not an improvement over the Law and its elements? It all boils down to what the New Heavens and New Earth is doesn't it?

Review the thread for my comments on the Mark of the Beast.

 

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Grasshopper,

Here is the very real danger of the preterist teaching. Failure to identify the mark of the beast. This isn't something that you agree to disagree. It has eternal consequences. Accepting the mark puts you into eternal torment. Rejecting the mark cost people their lives, yet it is worthy of honor in the Kingdom of Heaven (Rev 20:4). It's not just any other symbol or mark.

The preterist position opens up a variety of questions. Let's just look at a single passage of Scripture ...

2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Who was this wicked person that Paul was referring to? How did demonstrate supernatural "power and signs and lying wonders"? Where was this recorded in history? According to the preterist, Jesus came in 70 AD. But Nero was already dead. So the wicked one could not have been Nero. What was the lie that everone accepted that caused damnation? Could it be the mark?

Before you answer, also consider this verse:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Again more deception. Who were the false Christs and prophets of the first century? What great signs and wonders did they show to potentially deceive the very elect? How can a Roman emperor be a false Jewish Messiah? You said in a previous post that you believe in "audience relevance" (the Scriptures must make sense to the intended recipients). If Jesus said false Christs were coming with a great ability to deceive, there is only one way for a Jew to take that statement. The person would have to be Jewish or part Jewish.

These a just a few questions off the top of my head. Throughout the Bible there are numerous difficulties for the preterist...

Have you truly looked at the preterist position? Have you walked through Revelation point by point and looked at the clear inconsistencies? Just because you had difficulty answering pre-mill questions doesn't necessarily justify a change to a position that is so obviously flawed.


Ed

BTW... I answered both of your verses (Matt 16:27 & Matt 26:64) on pages 7 & 8 of this thread. Was there something that wasn't clear?

 

That is a big "IF." IF you have quoted them all in context. Spurgeon was perpetually looking for the Second Coming of Christ. He did believe literally in a new heavens and in a new earth--future, not present. Often he speaks figuratively, as did many of the early writers, and those of his age. So it is easy to take one's words out of context.

This is one of Spurgeon's sermons from the Song of Solomon--the conclusion:

Spurgeons looks and awaits eagerly the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

http://www.fbinstitute.com/spurgeon/till_he_come.html

http://www.fbinstitute.com/spurgeon/Entire_Year_Text_Only.html

There will indeed be a new heaven and a new earth, where there will be no more tears.
DHK

 

The preterist view clearly minimalizes the global and catestrophic scenes predicted by NT authors.

Indeed!??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Someone said, 'Bur right off the bat, I see one of them speaking of the putting
away of Satan as future. But isn't this apart of present reality in
your view?)

Ray is saying, 'The work of God today is to save all who come to Jesus in genuine faith. In one sense, through this spiritual warefare, God is putting away Satan.

But in the sense in which the Apostle John is speaking in Revelation 20:3 there is a totally different view. The archangel actually comes down from Heaven and shoves the Devil into 'the bottomless pit.' This is a place. The length of time he will be there in the future is 1,000 years. As the Bible says, he later will be released but only for a short time until Almighty God casts him into the lake of fire. [vs.3, 10]

Then he will be no longer the testing demon who troubles all human beings.

 

Titus 2:13 "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ". This sounds like more than just a symbolic "coming" in the leadership of the Church. Once again, if that is all we have to hope for, then what is this all about? (I also notice, then, that most of the NT really is irrevalent to us. The events it is talking about are all past, so all those exhortations about the future and judgment mean nothing anymore).
Also, while the statements about Heaven and Earth being Jerusalem or the Mosaic system are true to certain extents, still, the passing of that old system was past already when the NT was written; it ended with Christ and His death and resurrection, and the tearing of the veil in the Temple. Not with the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The Temple still existed until then, but it was no longer recognized by God as His legitimate institution. So it's physical destruction would not be seen as the "passing of the old". It had passed already. The dispensations changed in 33AD, not 70AD.

Why not? If it is dual, then everything you have said is correct, with the addition of future antitypical fulfillments, (and also historical fullfilments as well). And if it is both, then since the final fulfillments have not occurred, then people will speculate with "could", might". etc. You have not proven it is not both, so why knock that? And the reason it must be both once again, is because there must be more than this to God's plan.

Superior, yes, but this is still a world of suffering and death. The New Covenant is new life in Christ, but "eternal life" must be more than Christians living a few decades in this world with "new life in Christ", and then still dying. Yes, there can be peace in our hearts in the midst of suffering, but still God did not say that this was the end for us. We will have real peace. The ultimate proof that the spiritual life we have now is but a type of something else is 2 Cor.1:22 — the Spirit in our hears [now] is a deposit on the [future] "promises" (v.20). That means, that this Christian life in the Spirit is not "it", but is itself a shadow of something much better.

Also, that next-to-last is outright "dual", not just "partial pret" (unless partial pret. means dual). The last one, from Origen, is not preterist at all, but can be agreed on by futurists or anyone else. The New Heavens and Earth we belive in IS a "change of quality and transformation of appearance" rather than an "annihilation".

 

Present world means Jewish Age. I believe John says" the form of this world is passing away". The NT was written in the transition period between the complete ending of the Old and the full maturity of the New.

Just as when Moses was given the Law, there was a 40 year preparation for entering the Promised Land. Now Jesus begins a New Covenant but there is also a 40 year preparation time before they enter the New Covenate life. Poorly explained I know, but I think you understand the typology I'm expressing.

Looking for the "Parousia" I think we agree on this.

Now if Christ has not returned then we are not redeemed, nor purified nor His possesion, nor have good works.
Other verses show those 1st century jews were also waiting to be santified and for the hope of salvation.

All those things are true of us today upon our salvation. However they were not true of them before His "coming".

Is the OT irrelevant?

Yes, that is what I was taught, However notice what the writer of Hebrews says:

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

It was not gone yet, but was very close. Hebrews was written around 64-67 AD.

Not my work, take that up with eschatologist. I do not however believe that the prophecies had dual meanings in the NT. If you go down that road could they not have 3 or more "fulfillments?

 

Yes Spurgeon was looking for a future coming as well. As I said he was a Partial Pret. Now if he did believe in a literal New Heavens and Earth, what passages did he use to prove it? You see, that is the problem I have with the partial-pret position. You have to make the prophcies tpyes of future events. He recognizes the Hebrew metaphoric language of "New heaven and earth" yet still forces it to have another meaning that i do not believe the writer intended.

Do the Olivet Discourse warnings by Jesus point to the type or reality? Partial Prets admit the O.D. was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem. Yet when predicting a future coming and judgement they go back to the very same verses and "re-use" them to point to the future events. I personally can't do that. It seems intellectually dishonest to me. But I may be wrong.

 

Someone said, '(I also notice, then, that most of the NT really is irrevalent to us. The
events it is talking about are all past, so all those exhortations about the
future and judgment mean nothing anymore).'

When Jesus first sent out his disciples he sent them first to the Israelites. Someone wrongly said that while He was one earth that it was the age of the Jewish people. Matthew 10:6 & 15:24 speaks of going 'rather to the lost sheep of the House of Israel,' but in 18:11 reminds us that ' . . . the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.' How many people are lost? The Bible says that Jews and Gentile are lost and worthy of salvation. Even while Jesus was on earth He opened the gate to salvation to Gentiles as emphasized in John 1:11-12. So it is an enormous error to believe that Gentile sinners were not included in His plan for humanity. Cornelius meaning 'of a horn' was a Roman centurion who was converted to Christianity [Acts 10:1-31] I do not think I need to remind anyone that Cornelius was not a Jewish man. The thief on the Cross was not a member of the Jewish faith either.

The whole purpose of the Day of Pentecost was to freely fill the Parthians, and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotania, and Judaeans, and Cappadocians-in Pontus and Asia, Phygiaians, and Pamphylians in Egypt, and in parts of Libya and strangers from Rome, Jews, and proselytes,' [Acts 2:9-10] with the Holy Spirit. [Acts 2:4] All who were in Jerusalem were to listen to the message of eternal salvation. [Acts 2:14]

The N.T. is totally relevant to all inhabitants in this world, [John 3:16] through the church age and throughout the Great Tribulation. Many will be saved even after Christ takes His church to Heaven, as clearly stated in Revelation 7:9-14.

The Judgment Seat of Christ, for Christian's evaluation is yet future. [II Cor. 5:10 & Revelation 22:12]

The Great White Throne Judgment is a future event and will be where Jesus will judge all lost sinners, [Revelation 20:11-15] all of which will be worthy of Hell. [Matt. 5:22, 29, 30]

You said, ' . . . and judgment means nothing anymore.'

I am repeating the thoughts and words of Jesus by way of Luke when he said, ' . . . He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained.' [Acts 17:31 & John 5:22] Even if you believe that nearly all of the N.T. has been completed, you and I will be judged and will have to stand before the Lord. If this is not true then we have no reason to be responsible to the Lord God Almighty.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Once again, with a dualist or "partial pret" position, both can be true.

But like the passing of the dispensations, redemption and purification (sanctification) come in stages. When we are first converted, and pass from spiritual death to eternal life, and then grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord, etc. But remember, this is just a "deposit" (down-payment) for something greater. For we still sin, still suffer, and still die the first death. Once again, how can total "redemption" be just living in this world, and then dying? As it is often put, we are to be saved from the penalty of sin (past), the power of sin (present), and the presence of sin (future). Your system has us saved from the penalty, and supposedly the power, but not the presence.

You mean a coming after when that was written, like AD70? So does that mean no one was redeemed before the destruction of the temple or whatever other event marked his future [symbolic] "coming?" No one who read the letter for instance, was redeemed until later?

No, as it contains the history of God's dealings with man, sets the foundation of Christ and his ministry, and also points to the future. All of its commands in the Law are not for us (but are apart of the history), but still are the foundation of the Gospel. But then if the OT's future propecies also were all fulfilled by AD70, then you have to answer is it irrelevant.

Yes! Why not? Just like I have said that the preterist, historicist and futurist fullfillments could be true. The plural nature of the fulfillment of prophecy is illustrated by Jesus' reiteration of the first seal in Matthew 24, v.23-24, for example. Deceptions were starting right as the apostles were writing, and later wars, etc. and they'll all continue up until the ultimate fulfilment to come. Even then, it all occurs in graduating stages of deceptions, wars, famine & pestilences, then greater deception, bigger wars, more massive famines ad pestilences, etc.

Yeah, why can't they be "reused"? (i.e. you don't need "another" scripture to prove the literal New Heavens and new earth). Once again, unless this life is "it", there must be a greater future fulfillment of the passing away of this world of sin. God did not create it like this, so why would He let it stay like this forever? With the imagery of the tree of life, the new earth is described as a restoration of the conditions of Eden. Can we really say that about the Christian life? Why would he have us live a short life span and die, and then that's it? And can you say honestly that God has already wiped every tear from our eyes? and that there is absolutely no "pain"? Describing redemption in this life that way seems to be stretching things quite a bit.
All of this is what forces at least a dualist (or more properly, pluralist) interpretation.

 

I think I'm as redeemed spiritually as I can be. I do not believe salvation come in stages. "Your either pregnant or you not."

There is no presence of sin for the believer in heaven.

There is a concept called "the already but not yet". More typology but I don't believe until the High Priest(Jesus) came out of the Holiest of Holies(Heaven) was the sacrifice complete. His "parousia" was the proof that God accepted the sacrifice. I still struggle with the transition period, its a little tricky, so allow me room to change.

The NT does the same. Instructions on how to live in the New Covenant.

Are the OT prophecies of the birth of the messiah irrelevant?

Then perhaps Jesus is a mere type of a still greater Messiah.

Yes, but the point is those were the only ones prophecied about. Peter and the writer of Hebrews said they lived in the "last days". These things were to happen in the "last days". Don't tell me you believe the "last days" is the church age.

But what if a literal interpretation was never meant? I just can't imagine reusing prophecy statements over and over again. Where does it end? I could see where this type of interpretation could lead to a myriad of trouble.

Perhaps God did create it this way. What we lost in Adam we regain in Christ. In a spiritual sense paradise is restored. Man once again walks and talks with God.

Absolutely. The river of life in Rev. 22 is the same water Jesus offered the woman at the well. The Tree of Life is for the healing of Nations. Why would there be a need for healing in heaven?

Thats it? What exactly do you think Preterism teaches about eternity?

Figurative language describing the New Covenat. Lamentations in the Old Testament reveals why there was mourning and weeping. Those conditions no longer exist to New Covenant believers.

To me this is what it all boils down to. In order for it to fit into a futuristic literal/physical interpretation it must be forced into those terms.
A perfect example is the prophecy of the coming of Elijah in Malachi. Jesus says John the baptist is that Elijah, but futurist insist on a physical Elijah therefore they must push a still futuristic fulfillment of Malachi's prophecy. Despite the fact that Jesus said it's John. This is where your dualism/double fulfillment comes in.

 

Who are the two ' . . . dead bodies who will not be put into graves?' It cannot become more physical than in this statement. [Revelation 11:9]

The two men will be the chief prophets during the Great Tribulation, namely, Elijah and Enoch, the only two men that did not die yet.

We all know how Jesus ascended into Heaven. These two will ascend also at the command of Almighty God. [vs. 12] ' . . . and their enemies saw them.' The unsaved during the Great Tribulation in the future will see the hated messengers leaving the earth into the clouds. The message of these two prophets will be repent and be saved and do not take the 'mark of the beast.' [Rev. 13:16]

The words, 'earth, rejoicing, gifts, two prophets, torment {conviction of sin and disdain for the Lord} all sound like literal earthy kinds of remarks, to me and most other people. [11:10]

 

Read Rev 1:1, it says these things are "signified". To try to make everything literal in Revelation is to go against how it God intended it to be interpreted. Is the whore of Revelation a physcical woman?
The two bodies in my opinion represent the Prophets and the Law.

Assumption. By the way, according to your view there will be millions of people living at that time that had not died yet.

Tell me, how would you describe spiritual truths to a physical people? They only way is to use physical terms. Does God literally do a circumscision of the heart or is that a description using physical terms to describe a spiritual event?

 

Did I miss it, or did anyone in the Futurist camp ever deal with this with their supposedly literalist interpretation method -

Isn't apocalyptic literature inherently symbolic? Do you believe that Satan is literally a great red dragon and that he literally sweeps a third of the the physical stars onto the physical earth? Plus, do you believe that Jesus is literally a lamb?

 

I said, 'The two men will be the chief prophets during the Great Tribulation, namely, Elijah and Enoch, the only two men that did not die yet.'

You said, 'Assumption.'

I use the KJV but the New Century Bible speaks of Elijah in this way in II Kings 2:11. 'As they were walking and talking {meaning Elijah and Elisha} a chariot and horses of fire appeared and separated Elijah and Elisha. Then Elijah went up to Heaven in a whirlwind.' Everyone that I have ever known believes that, the greatest O.T. prophet did not die.

As to Enoch we read this in Genesis 5:23-24 in the New Century Bible. 'So Enoch lived a total 365 years. Enoch walked with God; one day Enoch could not be found, because God took him.'

Enoch was the seventh from Adam and preached being a prophet. He prophecied about the Second Coming of Christ very near to the beginning of time on earth. [Jude verse14]

These are the two men who will be the prophets that God will return to earth to preach during the Great Tribulation. As God promised all humans must die and stand before His judgment. [Acts 17:31]

John the Apostle calls these men 'two olive trees' or 'two candlesticks' [Revelation 11:4], and the 'two Prophets.' in verse 10.

After their Great Tribulation message from God and their multiple messages are completed they will be killed at the hands of sinful men and women. [vs. 7 c, d] And as the Scripture says they will ascend into Heaven.

 

Yes, but symbolic of what? Symbols must have meaning. My questions with non-futurist positions have little to do with interpretive methods as much as internal consistency. Or put simply, does the position truly line up with Scripture?

Also since the non-futurist believes that everything in end-time prophetic scripture supposedly has happened, it is relatively easy to check if the position is true. From what I have seen it is not. There are too many unexplained pieces left over.


Ed

 

This is what I was talking about. You say it was all complete in the Christian life, but the NT still speaks of some future completion. Then you're the one who begins speaking of a "transition period". As I said, were those Christians who read the NT completely redeemed? Or was there another stage. You seem to be suggesting now something that amounts to them having redemtion, but it was made official later. Even if you apply the "deposit" I spoke of to this, that is still a sort of "stage".
You still have not shown how the destruction of the temple could be the parousia. You seem to be assuming it, and then fitting everything around it.

Still, so many of them are tied in with or seen in light of waiting for the return of Christ.

That's historical. So I guess the OT has no other use for us than history. While we're at it, I guess the same with Revelation.

Then what was it? Just a "transition period" to an invisible coming of Christ that didn't visibly change anything, but only made things official? Instead, the whole context we see was that these "last days" were to come before great visible changes, such as the destruction/judgment of the wicked. The Jews having their temple destroyed may be an example of that, and only loosely. It is a people as a nation that were being judged. But it does not match what we see described in 2Pet and all the rest of those prophecies. "the wicked" and other descriptions of sinners in those passages speaks of individuals being judged and punished, not a nation, especially since "the wicked" are in all nations. Some may have been killed around AD70, but I still see no judgment of the earth occurring then.

So God created a world of sin, stuck Adam in it, and Adam couldn't see God, but prayed to Him, thus "walking with Him" as we do, and there was pain and suffering, but it didn't matter, because Adam had God. But then Adam fell, and fellowship was broken, and that's really all that changed. Now Adam felt the pain and loneliness around him that He had been sheltered from before.

I always took that as a first time thing. Just by being in the New Earth, the nations (meaning people of the earth) are "healed". The Church may be bringing spiritual healing to the people it brings Christ to, but still, I don't see how anyone could say the nations were "healed".

The Lamentations were because of Israel's punishments because of its sins. Of course, Christians should not have that problem today, though individuals can disobey and be chastened as various passages tell us. Right there, that raises questions. As I said, we still do sin, and while we may not have condemnation, still this does not seem to be what all of the prophecies are ultimately describing.
Still, does the verse say that it refers only to the "pain" and "tears" of separation from God? Why would all of the other types of pain and suffering be ignored? Scripture interprets scripture, and when someone reads "no more tears", they are not going to think "spiritual pain from separation from God" ONLY, but rather ALL pain and suffering. Once again, it looks like you are only force fitting it to preterism.

Look at Matt.17:11 Christ still says "Elijah truly IS COMING first and WILL restore all things". John's ministry was only until Christ came. And since it is Christ speaking this to us already, John's ministry was already past. Then also, as John was telling people of the coming Christ who would soon take over, he denied being Elijah (John 1:21). So Christ continued, that John was "Elijah". but "they did not know him and did to him whatever they wished". The prohpecy of Elijah was that he would "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children" (i.e. bring repentance). So what Jesus was showing us was that John was a type, and there was yet a future Elijah coming who would completely fulfil the propecy. This is what forces a dualistic typology, not us forcing it in. People did not just make it up off the top of their heads. Your view is much like that of those Jews who only understood a single coming of the Messiah. Therefore, there would only be one Elijah, etc. But if that was true, then why did they reject the "Elijah" that was sent to them? Why did they reject the Messiah?There must be another coming.

No, but his first coming was the type of a greater second coming.

Once again, scripture interprets scripture. Often, the passage tells us it is figurative. You can also look up the symbolism in OT prophecies, or even historical Jewish meanings, and common sense. This is done with the harlot, the beasts, etc. (How could those things be literal from the way they are described?). As for Satan's description, maybe that is what he looks like. Where did we ever get the picture of a two horned manlike guy with a goatee and pitchfork from? The text tells us that the heads and horns of the beasts are "kings", for instance, but this first 7-headed/10-horned creature we see is said only to be Satan, so there is a chance that that may be literal (and the other beasts then which are clearly said to be symbolic are simply patterned after him.
But you're going way beyond all of this and making everything it says figurative only, even if it is something that is not interpeted that way anywhere else, and a common sense reading of it would suggest something literal.

 

That's a very good question! I was waiting to get to this point. It certainly seemed to be ignored, and even now only mentioned twice briefly. But basically, what about this "heaven" or "Eternity"? You've been telling us that "The New Heaven" is now! Every single prophecy that we see as picturing eternity, you have taken and applied to life in the Church age! What does that leave? Basically, eternity is undefined in your system! This is precisely what I have been trying to point out all along.