Are anti-preterists all Dispensationalists?

[Lodic]

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

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

 

[Calminian]

I understand the views that I formerly held...

We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Lodic]

We'll agree to disagree.

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

 

[David Kent]

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?

What is your interpretation?

 

[Calminian]

What is your interpretation?

Of Christ's return? I take it literally.

 

[David Kent]

The Romans believed there was gold secreted between the temple's stones, so they pulled it apart seeking it.

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

 

[David Kent]

Of Christ's return? I take it literally.

I believe in a literal return as in Acts 1

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 weeks eweeks eweeks e 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.​

Not sure what you're talking about. The 70th week is not the crucifixion. That happens after the 69 weeks after the time of the triumphant entry when Christ is presented as the Messiah and rejected. This is before the crucifixion and destruction of Jerusalem and before the covenant with Israel. There is a clearly expressed game between the 69th and 70th week, and no gap at all implied between the tribulation and second coming.

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

The gap after the tribulation of AD 70 was when

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not quite sure how the Full Preterists view it, but I think His "coming" was more along the line of His presence and power were behind the judgment.

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

Backing up to verse 13, we see that He came UP to the Ancient of Days, not DOWN to earth. While He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, Daniel doesn't specify its location.

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

Have to disagree with you here. I can tell you that Preterism was the theme of "The Parousia" by James Russell in 1878. I can also tell you that Eusebius did hold to some preterist views. Unfortunately, my sources are at home, and I don't have much shelf space to keep them at work. I don't use the internet, popular authors, evangelists, popular preachers, or besides Scripture itself drive my theology. That is not to say that I don't use other sources for research and/or clarification.

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

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

Ironically, the dispensationalist ideas of Darby and Scofield are the real "new kids on the block". I'm thinking that is where too many Christians get their theology, instead of following the Berean example and searching out whether the things they are being told are backed up by Scripture.

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

LOVE IT!!!! I will have to steal that one.

You certainly may!

 

[robycop3]

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.

Well, it must be, as all the apostles died & Jesus has not yet returned.

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.

Well, DUH-H-H ! Then, it's the age of grace, isn't it? Previously, God required animal sacrifices, etc.

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

Yes, we do. My views are based upon reality; yours are based upon imagination.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Well, actually, it'll refer to whatever Jesus will say at that time.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Then, how come you still believe Nero was the beast when Scripture proves he was not?

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.

Not at all. Daniel was told by Gabriel that a prince of the people that will destroy Jerusalem would come. This was obviously the coming Roman destruction, as J lay in ruins in Daniel's time. gabriel also told Dan this man would set up the AOD in the temple. Then, Paul said Jesus would not return til the man of sin entered the temple & exalted himself above every god that'd ever been worshipped before. and Rev. 13 says the beast would set up his image in the temple, which the false prophet would cause to speak, & demand that all people worship the beast from the sea & his image. Rev simply goes into a little more detail than the earlier prophecies, but it's easy to see they all fit together without a trace of contradiction.

Without the animal sacrifices, they do not worship as before.

They did, & still do, as best they can wothout a temple as a central worship place.

The Roman army did not need to be destroyed to fulfill the prophecies.

WHAT ? HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?
Scripture PLAINLY says the beast's army WILL be destroyed, and birds shall eat their flesh! Now, who's RIGHT? You, or God's word????????????

 

[robycop3]

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 coDOWN to set up a kingdom.

MMRRPP ! WRONG !

Those verses are as literal as the rest of the Olivet Discourse is. And if Jesus had meant only the tribes of Israel, He woulda said "Israel", not "earth".

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.

Yes, you SUGGEST it's incorrect because it doesn't fit your pret views. However, history and reality don't just "suggest" that futurist view is correct; they PROVE it.

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.

No, that man will break that covenant, while Jesus will NOT break any covenant He makes.
So now, it's Titus, not Nero who was your beast? Who will it be next week? Napoleon? Hitler?

Once again, history and reality **PROVE** preterism to be completely wrong.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Lodic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lodic]

Well, it must be, as all the apostles died & Jesus has not yet returned.

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

Well, DUH-H-H ! Then, it's the age of grace, isn't it? Previously, God required animal sacrifices, etc.

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

Yes, we do. My views are based upon reality; yours are based upon imagination

Except you have it backwards.

 

[Lodic]

Then, how come you still believe Nero was the beast when Scripture proves he was not?

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

Not at all. Daniel was told by Gabriel that a prince of the people that will destroy Jerusalem would come. This was obviously the coming Roman destruction, as J lay in ruins in Daniel's time. gabriel also told Dan this man would set up the AOD in the temple. Then, Paul said Jesus would not return til the man of sin entered the temple & exalted himself above every god that'd ever been worshipped before. and Rev. 13 says the beast would set up his image in the temple, which the false prophet would cause to speak, & demand that all people worship the beast from the sea & his image. Rev simply goes into a little more detail than the earlier prophecies, but it's easy to see they all fit together without a trace of contradiction.

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

They did, & still do, as best they can wothout a temple as a central worship place.

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

Scripture PLAINLY says the beast's army WILL be destroyed, and birds shall eat their flesh! Now, who's RIGHT? You, or God's word????????????

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

 

[John of Japan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lodic]

Those verses are as literal as the rest of the Olivet Discourse is. And if Jesus had meant only the tribes of Israel, He woulda said "Israel", not "earth".

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

Yes, you SUGGEST it's incorrect because it doesn't fit your pret views. However, history and reality don't just "suggest" that futurist view is correct; they PROVE it.

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

No, that man will break that covenant, while Jesus will NOT break any covenant He makes.
So now, it's Titus, not Nero who was your beast? Who will it be next week? Napoleon? Hitler?

Once again, history and reality **PROVE** preterism to be completely wrong.

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

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

 

[Lodic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[John of Japan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[robycop3]

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

No, He caused the Jews to rebel against Rome, causing them to invade Judea.

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

Sproul did very well til he started dabbling in the garbage of Alcazar, etc. and started believing it. He went downhill from there.

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

Actually, it DOESN'T. Those prophesied events have simply NOT YET OCCURRED! No amount of distorting history nor misinterpreting Scripture will make up for that FACT. You simply believe a false doctrine you can't start to prove.