• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Futurism an invention of the Jesuits?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
But, in addition, futurists want to know:

What of sin and death, when will it end?

I'll use non-preterist to answer

John Gill

1. end of sin

From Daniel 9

and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, "to seal up sins"
(w); which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Psa_32:1,

2. death

From John Owen

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html

What of this material universe, how will it end?

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Are these entities eternal?

Some say yes, others aren't so sure:

http://thereignofchrist.com/full-preterism-and-the-problem-of-infinity/

Do you have Scripture for these events?

2Ti 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:

Futurism has scriptural answers to these questions does full preterism?

Will you answer these qestions?

1. When do futurist believe death ends?

2. When do futurists believe sin ends?
 

thomas15

Well-Known Member
Will you answer these qestions?

1. When do futurist believe death ends?

2. When do futurists believe sin ends?

Paul said something about those who will not taste death (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Who are those people according to preterism? Paul, by the wording of this passage implies that there are some "true believers" who will tast death (and will be changed to immortal in a twinkling of an eye). Who are those people and when did the age and or dispensation change, those who do see death and those who do not see death?

Have you stopped sinning?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'll use non-preterist to answer

John Gill

1. end of sin

From Daniel 9

and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, "to seal up sins" (w); which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Psa_32:1,

2. death

From John Owen

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html



Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.



Some say yes, others aren't so sure:

http://thereignofchrist.com/full-preterism-and-the-problem-of-infinity/



2Ti 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:



Will you answer these qestions?

1. When do futurist believe death ends?

2. When do futurists believe sin ends?

Hmm. Grasshopper, these passages you give don't quite hit the mark as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about all "futurist" in these 2 questions and perhaps I should have qualified it but I'll give you the answer from my "futurist" point of view which I bellieve is the majority POV. Other futurists can give you their answer if it differs.

2 Peter 1
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 20
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

HankD​
 

RAdam

New Member
What you have given me here, Hank, is the "elsewhere exegesis" that futurists are famous for; you cannot deal with the point I brought up from this very passage - the passage that you announced was the "Achilles' Heel of Preterism" - and now you want to turn elsewhere to flesh out the meaning of this passage.

Yes, I agree that "some, including [your]self, would not agree", opting instead for a visible coming. But these things are not decided on by consensus; we are bound to what the text says.

I am not leaving this Achilles' heel until we have dealt properly with what I brought up. I even went to the trouble of color-coding this to underline the point I presented. You cannot just "other-people" it away.

Notice also the last part of the verse:

"This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.

How did they see Him go into Heaven? He was already hidden in the cloud.

He left hidden.
He will return - from our perspective, he did return - hidden.
In like manner.

I still want to deal with "this same Jesus, what it means and doesn't mean, but first we must do up the first part properly.

This is a great example of how dishonestly the preterists deal with scripture.

It's funny that you say they didn't see Him ascend into heaven because He was obscured by clouds, but the witnesses clearly said, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." They said that the apostles saw Him go into heaven. You are contradicting the two men here.

A cloud received Him out of their sight. You say He wasn't in heaven yet. Nonsense. Consider Daniel's vision of the ascension of Christ in Daniel 7. One like the Son of man (Jesus Christ) came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of Days (God the Father). At this point He is given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. His ascension into heaven, when He came to the Father to be glorified and crowned, was accompanied by clouds. When a cloud received Him out of their sight, He entired heaven. By the way, this scene of the crowning of Christ is the same scene which is described for us in Revelation 4 and 5.

Consider the likenesses the entire bible draws between the ascension and return of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 47 says God went up with a shout.
1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 says He will descend with a shout.

Acts 1 says a cloud received Him out of their sight.
The Olivet Discourse and Revelation 1 say He will be accompanied by clouds as His return.

He arose bodily and physically into heaven.
He will return bodily and physically.

Men saw Him ascend says Acts 1.
Revelation 1 says men will see Him return.

Basically, one has to totally twist scripture to get around this and apply the second coming to 70 AD. Some of the bible was fulfilled in 70 AD. The futurists are wrong in applying all of the Olivet Discourse and things of this nature to the future. But the preterists are wrong for applying all those things to the past.

By the way, Psalm 24 says there are two times the Lord will enter heaven. At one entry the King of glory is called "the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." This was His ascension after His resurrection as record in Acts 1 historically and through vision in Daniel 7 and Revelation 5. At the second entry the King of glory is called "the Lord of hosts." Why? Because now the Lord is returning at the head of a huge number of people, the entire elect family of God risen from the dead and glorified. The first entry has already happened, the second one is yet future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is a great example of how dishonestly the preterists deal with scripture.

It's funny that you say they didn't see Him ascend into heaven because He was obscured by clouds, but the witnesses clearly said, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." They said that the apostles saw Him go into heaven. You are contradicting the two men here.

A cloud received Him out of their sight. You say He wasn't in heaven yet. Nonsense. Consider Daniel's vision of the ascension of Christ in Daniel 7. One like the Son of man (Jesus Christ) came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of Days (God the Father). At this point He is given dominion, and glory, and a kingdom. His ascension into heaven, when He came to the Father to be glorified and crowned, was accompanied by clouds. When a cloud received Him out of their sight, He entired heaven. By the way, this scene of the crowning of Christ is the same scene which is described for us in Revelation 4 and 5.

Consider the likenesses the entire bible draws between the ascension and return of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 47 says God went up with a shout.
1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 says He will descend with a shout.

Acts 1 says a cloud received Him out of their sight.
The Olivet Discourse and Revelation 1 say He will be accompanied by clouds as His return.

He arose bodily and physically into heaven.
He will return bodily and physically.

Men saw Him ascend says Acts 1.
Revelation 1 says men will see Him return.

Basically, one has to totally twist scripture to get around this and apply the second coming to 70 AD. Some of the bible was fulfilled in 70 AD. The futurists are wrong in applying all of the Olivet Discourse and things of this nature to the future. But the preterists are wrong for applying all those things to the past.

By the way, Psalm 24 says there are two times the Lord will enter heaven. At one entry the King of glory is called "the Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." This was His ascension after His resurrection as record in Acts 1 historically and through vision in Daniel 7 and Revelation 5. At the second entry the King of glory is called "the Lord of hosts." Why? Because now the Lord is returning at the head of a huge number of people, the entire elect family of God risen from the dead and glorified. The first entry has already happened, the second one is yet future.

Thank you for that excellent exegesis RAdam.

I don't think Tom is being dishonest, he is sincere in his belief.

Just sincerely wrong.


HankD
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thank you for that excellent exegesis RAdam.

I don't think Tom is being dishonest, he is sincere in his belief.

Just sincerely wrong.


HankD

Thank you, Adam, for making this important distinction between disagreeing with someone's teaching and, well, insulting one's character. This is why RAdam gets no comment from me. We can still disagree - perhaps even strenuously - but do so with respect and with that same graciousness we would want from others.

When I get time - it's been a rough day at work day - I will get back to this thread. Hopefully this weekend.
 

RAdam

New Member
Thank you, Adam, for making this important distinction between disagreeing with someone's teaching and, well, insulting one's character. This is why RAdam gets no comment from me. We can still disagree - perhaps even strenuously - but do so with respect and with that same graciousness we would want from others.

When I get time - it's been a rough day at work day - I will get back to this thread. Hopefully this weekend.

How did I attack your character? I didn't say you were dishonest, I said that preterists deal dishonestly with scripture. What I mean is this: preterist play around with the language of scripture to deny prophecy of the physical, bodily second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to fulfill those texts in AD 70. That's not being honest, faithful, consistent, whatever you want to call it with scripture. That's not an attack on your character. I'm not calling you personally dishonest. I'm saying you are being reckless with scripture. We can't just do whatever we want with scripture.

An example of being dishonest with scripture is saying that the clouds obscured the vision of the disciples so that they couldn't see Jesus ascend into heaven when the two men that stood by clearly said they saw Jesus ascend into heaven. You are blatantly going against scripture which clearly says the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven. The reason you do this is because the two men also said they would see Jesus return in like manner, and in many places the bible describes the return of Jesus as being accompanied by clouds. This would go against your view of scripture, thus you monkey around with the language of scripture, which couldn't be clearer.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How did I attack your character? I didn't say you were dishonest, I said that preterists deal dishonestly with scripture.

If you really don't understand what your own words mean then I guess I can't help you. Even the response of Hank, someone who agrees with you, understood your comments as referring to character.

The thing you say about Preterists I would likewise say about futurists - with this one replacement of terms: I would say that futurists are inconsistent with Scripture, not dishonest.

But for me to call futurists dishonest would be a trashing of motives, not mere evaluation of hermeneutics. One is allowable for us, the other not.

Do you really not see the difference?
 

RAdam

New Member
If you really don't understand what your own words mean then I guess I can't help you. Even the response of Hank, someone who agrees with you, understood your comments as referring to character.

The thing you say about Preterists I would likewise say about futurists - with this one replacement of terms: I would say that futurists are inconsistent with Scripture, not dishonest.

But for me to call futurists dishonest would be a trashing of motives, not mere evaluation of hermeneutics. One is allowable for us, the other not.

Do you really not see the difference?

If I said, "preterist are dishonest," then that is a general statement which one could take as meaning they personally are dishonest in all of their dealings. But, if I said, "preterists are dishonest with scripture," then I have narrowed down the charge to one thing, dealings with scripture. I said the latter.

Now, what is the difference between inconsistency and dishonesty when it comes to scriptural interpretation? All the difference in the world. I could try to take a text as honestly as I could and still be inconsistent, because I failed to consider one text over here or one over there. That happens a lot, and it happens to everyone at some point. There is a grave difference between someone who takes a certain position that, unknown to them, goes against some other scripture and denying and monkeying around with clear language. When a text says that the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven, and then one says they didn't see this because the clouds obscured their view, then one is not merely inconsistent. Rather, he has handled scripture in a dishonest or reckless manner.

You can get mad if you want to, but I didn't personally attack you or your character. I attacked the way you handled that scripture.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Permit me to make a blanket apology.

I'm sorry for any misunderstandings concerning motives, myself included.
I added to the misunderstanding.

However, since RAdam has enterered into the discussion, I thought he made good as well as valid points. But of course I would seeing that in this particular situation we agree.

I had said that Acts 1:8-11 is the Achilles heel of preterism because by its very nature it lends itself to a futurist bodily and visible return of Christ (yet unfulfilled).

I would also like to say that the questions I asked :

When will sin and death end?
When will the material universe end?
Where does scripture speak of these things since all has been fulfilled and we are now living in the new heaven and new earth?

Indicate a major weakness in the full preterists view.

Futurists can answer these questions and point to Scipture as I have in other posts.

Because I have so much difficulty getting an answer I am going to give a few guesses and preterists or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong.

Logically from the preterist point of view sin and death and the material universe must go on forever since all has been fulfilled, people are born and then die, some are saved and those who are saved, something of their essence goes somewhere (don't forget, we are in the new heavens and the new earth)
if they are saved although logically it would seem that their carcass remains forever in the earthly grave.

But nonetheless, where are the Scriptures from the preterist point of view which speak of these things?

What is confusing is In 2 Peter 3 we are told that the heavens and the earth will be consumed by fire (howbeit according to preterism it has already happened and went mostly unnoticed). then in Revelation 21 we have:

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

So, since the first heaven and the first earth have already passed away and we are now living in the new heavens and the new earth, why are people still dying, sorrowing, crying and experiencing pain including Christians?​

May I offer the suggestion not that futurism is the "invention" of the Jesuits but that perhaps it is preterism (although of which order of priesthood of the Catholic Church I know not).​

HankD​
 
Last edited:

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Hmm. Grasshopper, these passages you give don't quite hit the mark as far as I'm concerned.

Care to clarify? Are you saying Jesus didn't abolish death as scripture clearly states?

2Ti 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

I guess it should read "who will abolish death"? Did He or did He not abolish death?

I don't know about all "futurist" in these 2 questions and perhaps I should have qualified it but I'll give you the answer from my "futurist" point of view which I bellieve is the majority POV. Other futurists can give you their answer if it differs.

2 Peter 1
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.snip
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

In an earlier post you put this event at the end of the 1000 year MK. So the "last days" is an end of MK event not an end of Church Age event. Secondly if this is where death and sin end, then you must also put the 70th week of Daniel at the end of the MK not at the end of the Church Age, because Daniel puts the "end of sin" and "everlasting righteousness" in the 70 weeks. Is this what the majority of futurists believe?


Revelation 20
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Several things here. I hope you answer my questions.

1. Does sin end after the New H&E?

2. Who are these people who are invited to enter into the city found in the New H&E:

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.


3. Is the "death" that is abolished not the same death that is abolished in 2 Tim?

4. Why does the angel refer to the New Jerusalem as the bride/Lamb's wife? Rev. 21:10

5. If Rev. 21:3 is future why does Paul also use this reference from Eze. 37:26-27 when speaking to the Corithians:

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Are Rev 21:3 and 2 Cor. 6:16 speaking of two separate Temples? I eagerly await your response.​
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Paul said something about those who will not taste death (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Who are those people according to preterism?

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

They are those to whom he is speaking, some would still be alive.

Paul, by the wording of this passage implies that there are some "true believers" who will tast death (and will be changed to immortal in a twinkling of an eye). Who are those people and when did the age and or dispensation change, those who do see death and those who do not see death?

Well if they tasted death, then they would be believers who had or would die. The age changed at the destruction of Jerusalem, or at least it was the sign the age had passed.

Mat 24:3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'

Have you stopped sinning?

Nope. But as I posted earlier one does not have to hold to a full-preterist view to acknowledge and "end of sins": I quote John Gill:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

and to make an end of sins; so that they shall be no more, but put away and abolished by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ for them, as to guilt and punishment; so that those, for whose sins satisfaction is made, no charge can be brought against them, nor the curse of the law reach them, nor any sentence of it be executed, or any punishment inflicted on them; but are entirely and completely saved from all their sins, and the sad effects of them. Our version follows the marginal reading; but the textual writing is, "to seal up sins" (w); which is expressive of the pardon of them procured by Christ; for things sealed are hid and covered, and so are sins forgiven, Psa_32:1,

Adam Clarke
II. To make an end of sins; rather ולהתם חטאות ulehathem chataoth, "to make an end of sin-offerings," which our Lord did when he offered his spotless soul and body on the cross once for all.

Perhaps it's more of a soteriological question than eschatological.

Now some questions for you:

1. What is the nature of death in these OT passages that Paul quotes:

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

2. Why does Paul associate physical death with "sin" and the "Law"? What does physical death have to do with the Law?

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.


 

J.D.

Active Member
Site Supporter
No.
For one..
Unless something transpired at or near the 400 year mark of church history.. not sure how that is even plausible.

Another point is that, what you are calling 'futurism' was more commonly called Pre-millenniallism or Chiliastism (back then).

A few more interesting points in relation to Jesuits your OP asks of:
1. The early Montanists held to a futurist view and that was as early as 150-200 A.D. long before any Jesuits came on the scene.

2. As I stated previously there is futurists view among the so-called Ante-Nicene Church Father's as well long before any Jesuit priest came along.

3. It appears to me from secular church history that the historic pre-mill was one of the earliest recorded views (epistle of Barnabas, etc.) as revealed by Church Historians

Thus Futurism was around long before Darby though Darby is accredited for popularizing it much like Augustine did with Covenant. In fact it is the Reformers who should get the credit for bringing futurism back to the fore-front of theology. Not as an entire group mind you, that is not what I'm saying.

A segment from from Church Historian Philip Schaff

For those who will ask.. well were are the other Apostles, like Paul?
If one would read closer one would note that these apostles given are 'cited by another', namely Papias who was said to be a disciple of the apostle John (the Revelator)

Then we have:
Justin Martyr (100-150) is noted for stating "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised."

and can be seen here in another post of mine.. in fact you can find much of this stuff from many of my earlier posts on this subject.


There is no question on this my friend. If they looked forward to a literal 7 year Tribulation, abodily resurrection, a literal 1000 year reign with Christ physically here, and doing so from Jerusalem.. there is no other answer but that they were futurist.

Even my own views aside.. I can't find any good church historian (even those of the Covenant view) who doesn't say otherwise either.


Well, one can try.. but they will have a hard time with 7 main points of historic Pre-mil or futurism - which can be found here in another old post of mine.

Hope it helps somewhat..
Allan, I started this thread to learn (which I am thankful is happening), not to teach, so I'm not going to engage with you on this very much. I'll just say that you seem to be equating premil'ism with futurism, whereas I am distinguishing between them. Premil is an eschatology; futurism is a hermeneutic.

"Historic" premils see the events of prophecy disbursed throughout history. Partial preterism does the same thing except that it sees prophetic history ending mainly in the first century. Full preterism sees ALL prophesies fulfilled in the first century.

"Futurists" tend to throw all prophetic events into the future - as many prophecies as is not undeniably in the past such as the destruction of the temple.

If my explanations of historism, preterism, and futurism is off the mark, I welcome corrections from the experts.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Care to clarify? Are you saying Jesus didn't abolish death as scripture clearly states?

2Ti 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

I guess it should read "who will abolish death"? Did He or did He not abolish death?
Yes. Jesus abolished death (took away it's penalty due to transgressions) in that He fulfilled the law and brought life and immortality through the gospel, to Jew and Gentile alike.

Ephesians 2
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;​
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

but that death has yet to be destroyed in finality is evident by the continued existence of funeral parlors and the following Scripture which "clearly states":

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.​

In an earlier post you put this event at the end of the 1000 year MK. So the "last days" is an end of MK event not an end of Church Age event. Secondly if this is where death and sin end, then you must also put the 70th week of Daniel at the end of the MK not at the end of the Church Age, because Daniel puts the "end of sin" and "everlasting righteousness" in the 70 weeks. Is this what the majority of futurists believe?

I have not tried try to harmonize Daniel's 70th week with everything in Revelation.
Perhaps later but not at the moment. Where I "must put" things has not been decided in every single scenario.

However, this I do know that I shall live through, see and participate in the Millenial Kingdom and glorify God by witnessing His fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. But nevertheless, I also, as Peter, look forward to the New heavens and New earth when all is delivered up to the Father, when death, the final enemy, shall be destroyed wherein dwells righteousness because sin and death shall not exist in the new heavens and new earth.
Several things here. I hope you answer my questions.
1. Does sin end after the New H&E?
Yes
2. Who are these people who are invited to enter into the city found in the New H&E:
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
It looks to me as if they are disinvited and therefore these are those who have been cast into the Lake of Fire.
3. Is the "death" that is abolished not the same death that is abolished in 2 Tim?
I don't know what "death" you are asking about. If you mean the "second death" then no, it never ends but it is exo (outside) The New Heaven and New earth.​
4. Why does the angel refer to the New Jerusalem as the bride/Lamb's wife? Rev. 21:10
Because that is what she is.
5. If Rev. 21:3 is future why does Paul also use this reference from Eze. 37:26-27 when speaking to the Corinthians:
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

Are Rev 21:3 and 2 Cor. 6:16 speaking of two separate Temples?​
No.

Here is a question for you phrased a little differently than the previous inquiry: When will people stop dying and funeral parlors cease to exist or will this world of mortals being born, living and then dying go on forever?

Could you point me to a Scripture that answers this question?

If all has been fulfilled why are there still funeral parlors?

HankD​
 
Last edited:

Allan

Active Member
Allan, I started this thread to learn (which I am thankful is happening), not to teach, so I'm not going to engage with you on this very much. I'll just say that you seem to be equating premil'ism with futurism, whereas I am distinguishing between them. Premil is an eschatology; futurism is a hermeneutic.
Sir, there was no such designation of the eschatology of Pre-mil in the early church regarding Historic, Dipy, or otherwise...
all prophesy was considered future .. to come... ergo - futurism.

What I am showing is that the Pre-Mil of the Church was/can be understood as Futurism for the first 400 years of the early Church... LONG before the Jesuits.

Remember the term 'historic' preceding the eschatological view Pre-mil, is also simply a hermeneutic qualifier tagged on as well. It WAS NOT the Historic understanding of what the view of Pre-mil entailed.

The fact is ... Futurism was what one would have called Pre-mil in the early church since they were 'looking for things not to have happened'. It is of note that for nearly 330 years AFTER 70 AD, the main orthodox view of the Church, was still looking forward to those main points of Pre-mil that the various diverging groups of Pre-Mil are still waiting on. It was only near 400+ AD that the eschatology changed and took on a preteristic style of eschatology.

Let keep the qualifiers out and speak to the questions you asked.. and I answered.

No.. the Jesuits DID NOT create the futurism view in the early church in which the Church was looking forward to the things 'yet to come'.

"Historic" premils see the events of prophecy disbursed throughout history. Partial preterism does the same thing except that it sees prophetic history ending mainly in the first century. Full preterism sees ALL prophesies fulfilled in the first century.
And the majority of those who hold to Futurism (what you call Dispinsationalism) sees the dual prophesies of scripture being just that - 2 fulfillments - (both physically done) one close but not quite exactly what was prophesied and another that will be done exactly as God described it.
Again.. much like the prophesies concerning the Messiah

Besides that and regardless - all are various hermeneutic styles.

"Futurists" tend to throw all prophetic events into the future - as many prophecies as is not undeniably in the past such as the destruction of the temple.
See.. that is just silly at BEST, misinformation at worst.

The Majority don't deny DUAL prophesy... and the destruction of the temple is one such occurrence. In fact, I personally don't know of one I have ever met who didn't hold to the dual prophesies aspect and seeing in scripture different things that correlate to Church history.. back in 70 ad..

Thus I think you have a faulty understanding of futurism and pre-mil in the early church. Pre-Mil WAS futurism in the early church.
 

lastday

New Member
Lastday

Allan and HankD,

Allan, you write the following:
Covenant Pre-mil is a rather new hybrid on the scene, slightly older than Dipsy. Historic pre-millennialism should not be considered as one on one the same thing as dispensationalism. You can be a Pre-mil and not be a dispensationalist but you cannot be a dispensationalist and not be Pre-mil.
Do you have an understanding of "Progressive Dispensationalism" and how it differs from that of Scofield Dispensationalism and/or Covenantal Futurism?

Hank, I believe you wrote you haven't given much study to how the prophecies of Daniel are related to those of Revelation. I'm sure you wish to
make an intensive study of Dan.2, 7, 9 and 12 as they relate to Endtime events of Rev.12:1-5; Rev.13:1-5; Rev.11:1-11; Rev.17:1 to Rev.18:19 and also to
Lastday events of Rev.15:1-5; 8:1-5; 11:15-19 and Rev.19-20.

Has either of you encountered the "Progressive Dispy" changes relative to the 1335 days of Daniel 12:13 which follow the defeat of the Beast as indicated by the
Court Scene of the 7th Seal and of Christ's destruction of the Beast in Dan.7:13-27? There seems to be an earthly Covenantal Davidic Kingdom that will extend
beyond the Millennial Reign of Christ. I wonder if this is part of "Progressivism" or if "Progressivism" relates just to the Millennial Kingdom on earth.

The eternal nature of an earthly Davidic Kingdom seems certain from passages such as Ezek.37:24-28; Rev.21:24-26 and Rev.22:2,14...with
respect to the Kings of earth who must continue being healed by the leaves
of the Tree of Life...see Ezek.47:12 for the Millennial requirement. I don't know if "Progressivism" touches on this aspect of God's "Davidic Covenantal Promises" or not.
Mel
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan and HankD,

Allan, you write the following:

Do you have an understanding of "Progressive Dispensationalism" and how it differs from that of Scofield Dispensationalism and/or Covenantal Futurism?

Hank, I believe you wrote you haven't given much study to how the prophecies of Daniel are related to those of Revelation. I'm sure you wish to
make an intensive study of Dan.2, 7, 9 and 12 as they relate to Endtime events of Rev.12:1-5; Rev.13:1-5; Rev.11:1-11; Rev.17:1 to Rev.18:19 and also to
Lastday events of Rev.15:1-5; 8:1-5; 11:15-19 and Rev.19-20.

Has either of you encountered the "Progressive Dispy" changes relative to the 1335 days of Daniel 12:13 which follow the defeat of the Beast as indicated by the
Court Scene of the 7th Seal and of Christ's destruction of the Beast in Dan.7:13-27? There seems to be an earthly Covenantal Davidic Kingdom that will extend
beyond the Millennial Reign of Christ. I wonder if this is part of "Progressivism" or if "Progressivism" relates just to the Millennial Kingdom on earth.

The eternal nature of an earthly Davidic Kingdom seems certain from passages such as Ezek.37:24-28; Rev.21:24-26 and Rev.22:2,14...with
respect to the Kings of earth who must continue being healed by the leaves
of the Tree of Life...see Ezek.47:12 for the Millennial requirement. I don't know if "Progressivism" touches on this aspect of God's "Davidic Covenantal Promises" or not.
Mel
Hi mel,

I plan to take a look onto "progressive dispensationalism" and also the passages which you have suggested.

In Revelation 21 I see that even in the eternal state there is a distinction between the Church and Israel (12 gates - tribes, 12 foundations - apostles) and yes, I have taken note of some prophecies in the OT concerning Israel/Judah which appear to reach beyond time into eternity.

HankD
 

RAdam

New Member
I don't think that is a distinction, since they are both part of the city. I think the idea is that all of God's people, the OT being represented by the tribes of Israel, the NT by the apostles, are there.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't think that is a distinction, since they are both part of the city. I think the idea is that all of God's people, the OT being represented by the tribes of Israel, the NT by the apostles, are there.

OK, Yes, they are all God's people, but the city wall has 2 distinct components, each speaks of a different function. Foundations and gates.

I'm suggesting that each imagery has a distinct underlying reality related to redeemed Israel and the Church.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

??

HankD
 

Grasshopper

Active Member
Site Supporter
Yes. Jesus abolished death (took away it's penalty due to transgressions) in that He fulfilled the law and brought life and immortality through the gospel, to Jew and Gentile alike.

Very good, you have answered your own question of when "death" ends.



but that death has yet to be destroyed in finality is evident by the continued existence of funeral parlors and the following Scripture which "clearly states":

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.​

You keep assuming physical death. Prove the death we receive from Adam is physical. Paul quotes from Ps. 8. Here is what Gill says regarding Ps. 8:6.


thou hast put all things under his feet; or put them in subjection to him, as the phrase signifies, and as it is interpreted, Heb_2:8. Good angels are subject to him, as appears by their ministration to him, their dependence on him, and adoration of him, 1Pe_3:22; devils are subject to him, whether they will or not; and so are wicked men, whose power and wrath he is able to restrain, and does; and the church is subject to Christ, as her head; and so all good men, willingly and heartily, and from a principle of love, obey his commands: yea, all creatures in the earth, air, and sea, are in subjection to him; an enumeration of which is given in the following verses.

It is because Christ has accomplished this and death is destroyed we never die:

Joh 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Joh 8:52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

I have not tried try to harmonize Daniel's 70th week with everything in Revelation.
Perhaps later but not at the moment. Where I "must put" things has not been decided in every single scenario.

I'm not asking you to harmonize the 70 weeks with Revelation, I'm asking you if you put the everlasting righteousness of 2Peter 3 at the end of the 1000 year MK you must also put the 70th week of Daniel at that same time. Is this not so?

However, this I do know that I shall live through, see and participate in the Millenial Kingdom and glorify God by witnessing His fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. But nevertheless, I also, as Peter, look forward to the New heavens and New earth when all is delivered up to the Father, when death, the final enemy, shall be destroyed wherein dwells righteousness because sin and death shall not exist in the new heavens and new earth.

Peter gets his teaching of the New H&E from Is. 65&66. Are you saying Isaiah 65-66 doesn't teach death after the creation of the New H&E?


You say there is no more sin after the New H&E. Is. 65:17 speaks of the creation of the New H&E then in verse 20 we read this:

Isa 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Please explain this.

It looks to me as if they are disinvited and therefore these are those who have been cast into the Lake of Fire.

Looks as if they are invited to drink of the water.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

That water comes from Rev 22:1.


Because that is what she is.

So you agree the New Jerusalem is the Lambs wife/Bride. Since the Lambs wife/Bride is the Church and the Church is a present reality then it is quite evident the New Jerusalem is also a present reality and since the New Jerusalem is found in the New H&E that makes the New H&E also a present reality.


You answered no to this question:

Are Rev 21:3 and 2 Cor. 6:16 speaking of two separate Temples?

Since the Corithians Temple is not physical and was in exsistence in Paul's day then so is the Temple of Rev 21:3.​

Here is a question for you phrased a little differently than the previous inquiry: When will people stop dying and funeral parlors cease to exist or will this world of mortals being born, living and then dying go on forever?

I don't know.


If all has been fulfilled why are there still funeral parlors?

Because physical death was not the topic of Paul, Jesus' or the Prophets concern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top