Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

BTW, partial preterism, the view that the tribulation has passed and is not immediately followed by the return of Christ, is refuted by Jesus, himself.

Matt. 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.​

 

I started this response with the intention of explaining my view of the "70 Weeks" timeline. However, the best laid plans of mice and men... Some things have come up, and I won't be able to address this for a few hours. My apologies.

 

The only thing that would really make sense is if He is referring to a time far enough off - say, about 40 years - where many of His audience would probably have died. That brings us back to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.

No such thing as an "Age of Grace".

Of course. However, Peter was referring to their specific suffering.

History, when viewed in light of Scripture, has proven these events have come to pass.

To be sure, Scripture is its own interpreter. Yet, there are so many different views on what Scripture tells us. We don't just disagree on eschatology, but other Christians disagree regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit, baptism, age of the earth, and a plethora of different things. As I'm sure you would agree, the best we can do is let the Holy Spirit guide us in proper understanding of what the Scriptures tell us.

 

You can't put "another nail in the preterist coffin" unless you find a "first" nail - which you have not done (and never will).
The Beast and False Prophet being cast into the Lake of Fire is probably yet to be fulfilled. Having said that, the language also fits what literally happened in AD 70. I'd be lying if I said that I understood more of Revelation than I really do.

Of course the temple was destroyed. Even if it was carried back to Rome, it was in pieces. It was definitely destroyed where the Jews could no longer use it.

 

I think what you're confused about is there are so many nails, you can't keep track of them. It's a matter of not being able to see the forest through the trees.

 

I will be the first to admit that I don't understand all of the prophecies that we have been discussing. However, I will not let the parts that I do not know cause me to believe in an eschatological position that does not fit unless you force it. BTW, I still plan to provide the way I believe the 70 Weeks timeline plays out, but it will be an hour or so.

 

Of course Jesus didn't mince or waste His words. He spoke very clearly (except parables, but that's another subject). That's why it simply doesn't follow that the Transfiguration was not what He was talking about there.

I never said there was no such thing as grace. That would be blasphemy, wouldn't it? If it wasn't for His grace, we would all face the condemnation that we deserve. I am saying there is no such thing as an "age of grace". From the Crucifixion onward, we are under His grace, and not the Law. Having said that, is this what you were referring to? If so, I do apologize, as I took your phrase as a type of "dispensation". Since you are not a "Dispensationalist", I did think that was a bit odd.

Fine. Each of us have let the Scriptures interpret themselves, but we have completely different views on this subject.

 

Well I am not preterist and certainly not a futurist. So that answers your question in the OP.

As to your quote from Revelation. It is plainly symbolic. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. The sword that proceeded from the mouth can only refer to the gospel.

 

The Scriptures are the basis for my views. If DeMar and company deviate from the Scriptures, I'll drop them like a bad habit. Until then, they do a pretty good job of exposition.

To make all of that fit, I would have to incorporate the false teachings of the futurist view. I will not let the parts that I'm not sure of drive me back into a belief that I know is based on incorrect interpretations of Scripture.

Without the animal sacrifices, they do not worship as before. The Roman army did not need to be destroyed to fulfill the prophecies.

 

This "sun, moon, and stars" language is symbolic. We find similar phrases throughout the OT. Notice in verse 30 that "the tribes of the earth will mourn". The tribes refers to Israel, and the earth to the land of Israel (specifically around Jerusalem). Daniel 7:13, which Jesus references, has the Son of Man ascending UP to the Ancient of Days - not coming DOWN to set up a kingdom.

As promised earlier, here is how I view the "70 Weeks" prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. Verse 24 shows us the purpose of the 70 weeks is to "make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place". Verse 25 tells us that there will be 69 weeks from "the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince". This decree was proclaimed at the end of the Judean Exile in 458 BC.
Contrary to the "Futurist" viewpoint, there is no basis in Scripture for a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. In the midst of the 70th week, Jesus was cut off in the Crucifixion.
According to the "Futurist" view, the 70th week refers to "the Antichrist" who will make a covenant with the Jews. As the theory goes, this covenant will allow them to offer sacrifices in a 3rd "rebuilt" temple for 7 years. Unfortunately, after 3 1/2 years, he will break the covenant, sacrifices cease, etc. While that is a popular view, I suggest it is incorrect.

Christ is the One Who made a "firm covenant with the many for one week" with the Last Supper. This was the beginning of the New Covenant. Christ put a stop to the offerings by becoming the Final Sacrifice. The "sanctuary whose end will come with a flood" was the 2nd Temple - not an imaginary 3rd one. The "prince who is to come" (vs. 26) was Titus, who destroyed the city and the sanctuary.

 

All I can say is it's amazing how preterists rationalize. They'll do mental gymnastics to avoid the plain simple reading of the text, and jump hoops to find an imaginary gap between Rev. 18 and 19. Regarding a post tribulation gap, let God be true and every man a liar.

Matt. 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.​

 

Translation: Symbols are used therefore I can pick any meaning I like, and don't need to find any context from the Bible.

Are preterists and the like really this ignorant about how to approach symbols?

 

You realize, of course, that we preterists take the same view of those in the "futurist" camp. You accuse us of reading things into the plain meaning of Scripture. Yet, you have to make things up and twist the plain meanings of the texts in order to fit it to your view. Futurists tend to interpret Scripture by eisegesis, where you read a doctrine into the passage, instead of exegesis, where you draw out what the text actually means.

"Let God be true and every man a liar" is indeed a great passage to remember. Scripture is always right, even when we don't understand it, and especially if we disagree with it.

I would like to compliment you and the others for keeping to the subject, and never resorting to attacks. I dropped "Disqus" (a similar website) because of personal attacks that I often saw and sometimes experienced. Whether or not we agree, it's nice to have such a civil discussion.

 

And with some I have no idea how to respond. They'll literally say anything.

 

I can identify. (Present company is an exception, of course.) Sometimes you just have no idea where they are coming from. Maybe I have a slight advantage over the "futurists" in that I held that view myself for over 30 years.

 

I seriously doubt that. You don't seem to understand any of the views have lost all credibility.