Futurism an invention of the Jesuits?

[HankD]

I really hope I haven't offended any of the preterist brethren.

This is a debate forum and things can get a little rough.

My reason for engaging in debate with preterists is to air the futurist vs. preterist differences and understand one another's points of view

I honestly do not want "the upper hand" and wish that somehow we can get out of that mode and into an informational exchange mode.

Grasshopper, asterisktom and logos1 have evidently invested a great deal of time and effort in their views and I repect that.
Many Christians are "sleepy eyed" :sleep: when it comes to "things to come" (or "things gone by" for preterists).

I have learned from their badgering and nit picking. :smilewinkgrin:

So, thanks grasshopper, tom and logos1.


HankD

 

[J.D.]

I would like to thank the participants in this thread for an excellent exchange and giving me a lot to think about. The full preterists continue to impress me with the consistency of their arguments and their thorough use of biblical support. But in spite of that I still believe there is a second coming in the future, a consumation of time accompanied by a literal bodily resurrection.

And just as I have Covenant Theology to thank for giving me back my Old Testament, I have Preterism to thank for giving me back my New Testament. My wife and I just got through reading through the first 9 chapters of Matthew and with a new found focus on the Jewish consumation of 70 a.d. we find ourselves reading with a level of understanding we never had before.

At this point I would judge my position as having moved from partial preterist to nearly full preterist.

But again, thank you all for a great discussion and please continue as you see fit!

 

[asterisktom]

I really hope I haven't offended any of the preterist brethren.

This is a debate forum and things can get a little rough.

My reason for engaging in debate with preterists is to air the futurist vs. preterist differences and understand one another's points of view

I honestly do not want "the upper hand" and wish that somehow we can get out of that mode and into an informational exchange mode.

Grasshopper, asterisktom and logos1 have evidently invested a great deal of time and effort in their views and I repect that.
Many Christians are "sleepy eyed" :sleep: when it comes to "things to come" (or "things gone by" for preterists).

I have learned from their badgering and nit picking. :smilewinkgrin:

So, thanks grasshopper, tom and logos1.


HankD

Hi Hank and J.D,

You haven't offended me at all, Hank. I just am super-busy right now. What little online time I have, it seems, has been used for FB and Xanga. I go in cycles I guess. I will get back to this when I can.

Take care,
Tom

 

[Logos1]

No offense taken Hank

Hank,

You have never questioned my Christianity (what happened to Truthfiles did he just go copy and past somewhere else or get banned) or sincerity, you haven’t been disrespectful (I been called every thing under the sun and kicked off other sites for my views—thanks for your tolerance moderators), and you have stood up to other futurists for calling Preterist’s faith into question.

None of that is lost on me.

I think of you as a fellow Baptist brother.

Our views on eschatology are not something that should divide us. That doesn’t get anybody to heaven. As long as we recognize Christ in the pardon and forgiveness of sin and the only way to heaven we are on the same page with the important stuff.

It would be boring if we all had the same opinion on everything.

I appreciate your respect, tolerance, and good natured debate.

Logos1

 

[lastday]

Lastday

HankD,
In Post #100 you write:

Some of the Olivet discourse is concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, some is directed toward the Second Coming. Some people see it both ways, some confound the two, some apply all of it to the destruction of Jerusalem, some to the visible and bodily Return of the Lord. So this is not a proof that preterism is the complete answer.

I find the events of the Mt.Olive Discourse that follow the signs of the Day
of the Lord are ALL directed to the Second Coming. None of those events
apply to the destruction of Jerusalem. I suggest that you confuse events
of the Great Tribulation with events of a so-called "7-Year Day of the Lord". Events that occur "in the days after the Great Tribulation" must not be confused with events of the Day of Wrath which you admit are to be fulfilled in a single 12 Hour Day.

Take Rev.14 for instance. It occurs after the description of the 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation under the Beast in Rev.13. It must refer to events of the Day of Wrath because Jesus must raise up "all believers (including the 144,000 Firstfruit unto God and the Lamb) from earth to meet Him on the same Last Day". Else Jesus did not say what He meant about that DAY.

I suggest you have fallen into the same method of hermeneutics as that of the Preterists who "see" the Second Coming already past. You separate the S.C. FOR and WITH the Elect by lumping the Great Tribulation with a "7-Year DAY plus 993 years" for the Day of the Lord and at the same time you must admit the events of the single Day of Wrath occur on the last day.
Mel

 

[HankD]

HankD,
In Post #100 you write:


I find the events of the Mt.Olive Discourse that follow the signs of the Day
of the Lord are ALL directed to the Second Coming. None of those events
apply to the destruction of Jerusalem. I suggest that you confuse events
of the Great Tribulation with events of a so-called "7-Year Day of the Lord". Events that occur "in the days after the Great Tribulation" must not be confused with events of the Day of Wrath which you admit are to be fulfilled in a single 12 Hour Day.

Take Rev.14 for instance. It occurs after the description of the 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation under the Beast in Rev.13. It must refer to events of the Day of Wrath because Jesus must raise up "all believers (including the 144,000 Firstfruit unto God and the Lamb) from earth to meet Him on the same Last Day". Else Jesus did not say what He meant about that DAY.

I suggest you have fallen into the same method of hermeneutics as that of the Preterists who "see" the Second Coming already past. You separate the S.C. FOR and WITH the Elect by lumping the Great Tribulation with a "7-Year DAY plus 993 years" for the Day of the Lord and at the same time you must admit the events of the single Day of Wrath occur on the last day.
Mel

After reading this post Mel, I must admit that I am confused.

I am not understanding why you are including me in the preterist camp.

All I can say with conviction is that the "rapture" happens before the Millenium.

I can't say with conviction that I am what you call a "pre-trib" (presumably those who believe the "harpazo" is an event before the Tribulation) rapturist.

It is my present preference. But I'm open to other views.

There is somewhat of a credibility gap on my part with your interpretation(s) Mel because you claim to know the year in which the Lord will return. which is not a big deal if you can prove it from Scripture.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

I would like to thank the participants in this thread for an excellent exchange and giving me a lot to think about. The full preterists continue to impress me with the consistency of their arguments and their thorough use of biblical support. But in spite of that I still believe there is a second coming in the future, a consumation of time accompanied by a literal bodily resurrection.

And just as I have Covenant Theology to thank for giving me back my Old Testament, I have Preterism to thank for giving me back my New Testament. My wife and I just got through reading through the first 9 chapters of Matthew and with a new found focus on the Jewish consumation of 70 a.d. we find ourselves reading with a level of understanding we never had before.

At this point I would judge my position as having moved from partial preterist to nearly full preterist.

But again, thank you all for a great discussion and please continue as you see fit!

You would enjoy RC Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". You sound like you have come to the same view that he holds.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Grasshopper]

Hank it is always a pleasure slugging it out with you. I think what we do is give those reading things to think about on both sides. Hopefully encouraging others to get into the Word and find out for themselves. Football season is in full swing so I think I'll say goodbye for awhile.:wavey:

HankD=Class

 

[Grasshopper]

I love it when people run to Isaiah 65 to quote the part about houses and all of that to try to disprove he is talking about the eternal state. You do realize that the book was written 700 years before Jesus Christ. At that time God hadn't revealed much about the eternal state. He wrote that in language the people then living could understand.

So let me get this straight so everyone reading unerstands, these verses written to people 700 years before Jesus describe the "eternal state" because this is the only way they would understand:


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.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Wow, what a glorious picture of the eternal state.

Doesn't quite your definition:

The new heavens and earth will be different. This will be a place of perfection, holiness, righteousness. Nothing wicked or sinful will exist in that state. It will be a place devoid of suffering, toil, pain, crying, death, etc. It will be a place of glory and perfection, a place of rest and comfort for all of God's people, and that for eternity.

I think even the dumbest Hebrew could have understood your words 700 years before Christ, yet God didn't use them.

Isa. 65-66 causes problems for every futurist view, some make it the MK others the eternal state. Either way there are problems making it fit with the rest of scipture.:wavey:

 

[lastday]

Lastday

HankD,

I have to apologize for a mistake in my last post (#105) where I wrote:

Events that occur "in the days after the Great Tribulation" must not be confused with
events of the Day of Wrath which you admit are to be fulfilled in a single 12 Hour Day

Here is what I should have written:
Events that occur during the Great Tribulation prior to the Day of Wrath should not be confused with events of the Day of Wrath...since it alone is a single day.

You need to change your understanding of my view regarding the possible
"time-frame" for Christ's second coming. You write:

Mel, there is somewhat of a credibility gap on my part with your interpretation(s)...
because you claim to know the year in which the Lord will return. which is not a big deal if you can prove it from Scripture.

My view suggests 2033 as the likely year for Christ's return. It is in line with Hosea's "two days" standing for 2000 years since His death in AD 33...
and you believe Scripture supports the view that "2 days may equal 2000 years".

In further clarification, I do not include you in the Preterist Camp; but am
comparing your failure to make a clear reference to the word DAY of the Lord by increasing that DAY to 7 years prior to the Day of Wrath at His Second Coming...
and thus twisting the truth that Christ begins His reign at the End of the Age!
He begins to reign and comes at the 7th Trumpet on the DAY of wrath ...not 7 years earlier!!
Preterists "see" Christ coming before the End of the Age by limiting it to AD 70 just as you "see"
the DAY of the Lord beginning "7 Years" before Christ "comes FOR and WITH the Saints on the Last DAY"!!!
Mel

 

[Ed Edwards]

I read something somewhere (sorry, I lost the link) that alleged that Futurism was an invention of the Jesuits as a counter to the historicist and/or amil view of the reformers. It further alleged that dispensationalism is a continuation of this Jesuit deception. The Jesuit's primary motivation was to cast the "antichrist" into the future so that the Pope would not carry that label as the reformers had placed on him.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?

Yes, I heard it from a Comic Book Vendor. While Brother Chick is SPOT ON about salvation issues; he is a failure at Conspiracy Theory.

As for DISPENSATIONALISM, it comes straight out of the Bible. "Holy Trinity" is never used in the KJV (King James Version). But search for 'dispensation'

Ephesians 1:10 (Geneva Bible of 1599, e-sword.com edition):

That in the dispensation of the fulnesse of the times, he might gather together in one all things, both which are in heauen, and which are in earth, euen in Christ

This is the eternal (from eternity past) plan (goal, intent) of God from before the die were cast for the development of the Universe, including the earth, people, and Messiah Jesus.

Usage note: "Christ" is the transliteration of a Greek word meaing "the Chosen one of God". "Messiah" is the translateration into English of a Hebrew word meaning "the Anointed one of G-d". In the 20th Century (1901-2000) Adolf Hitler killed 1/3 of the Jews on earth in the name (actually it is a title) of "Christ". Needless to say, Jews feel offended at the term. Jews do not appear to be less offended the term "Messiah". I would offend nobody in hopes I might lead somebody to be safe in Messiah Jesus.
This paragraph constitutes a 'test' in this spirit of this verse:
1 John 4:1 (Geneva Bible)

Dearely beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits whether they are of God: for many false prophets are gone out into this worlde.

Be careful what you say about my paragraph.

 

[J.D.]

You would enjoy RC Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus". You sound like you have come to the same view that he holds.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

You are the THIRD person to make that recommendation. I'm ordering it tonight!

I'm currently reading "Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths" by Demar, "The Dominian Covenant" by Gary North, "The politicaly Incorrect Guide to Islam", and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Middle East".

 

[HankD]

Hank it is always a pleasure slugging it out with you. I think what we do is give those reading things to think about on both sides. Hopefully encouraging others to get into the Word and find out for themselves. Football season is in full swing so I think I'll say goodbye for awhile.:wavey:
HankD=Class

OK, hope yur favorite team wins...

And yes, it looks like you have almost persuaded one individual.

Later.

HankD

 

[HankD]

HankD,

I have to apologize for a mistake in my last post (#105) where I wrote:

Here is what I should have written:
Events that occur during the Great Tribulation prior to the Day of Wrath should not be confused with events of the Day of Wrath...since it alone is a single day.

You need to change your understanding of my view regarding the possible
"time-frame" for Christ's second coming. You write:
My view suggests 2033 as the likely year for Christ's return. It is in line with Hosea's "two days" standing for 2000 years since His death in AD 33...
and you believe Scripture supports the view that "2 days may equal 2000 years".

In further clarification, I do not include you in the Preterist Camp; but am
comparing your failure to make a clear reference to the word DAY of the Lord by increasing that DAY to 7 years prior to the Day of Wrath at His Second Coming...
and thus twisting the truth that Christ begins His reign at the End of the Age!
He begins to reign and comes at the 7th Trumpet on the DAY of wrath ...not 7 years earlier!!
Preterists "see" Christ coming before the End of the Age by limiting it to AD 70 just as you "see"
the DAY of the Lord beginning "7 Years" before Christ "comes FOR and WITH the Saints on the Last DAY"!!!
Mel

OK Now I understand the 2033 years and that's interesting.

I see the 7 year tribulation as a heavenly military campaign, even the first 3.5 years where mankind seems to be running the show:

Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.​

Mel do you have some literature available with a complete panorama of your views?

What is difficult for me is that I get bits and pieces of your views in scattered posts where you jump in make statements (not that this is wrong, BB is a debate board) but I am at a loss to put them together into something with continuity.

There is also the problem of terminology where I say something and you have a different definition of the term and misunderstand what I am saying. It goes the other way too I am sure.

Also, you probably have many posts which have not crossed my path.

I really do appreciate your contributions when we are on the same wave length of understanding.

Any help would be appreciated.

If you want I can send you a private BB message with my email address.

Thanks
HankD

 

[Logos1]

I would like to thank the participants in this thread for an excellent exchange and giving me a lot to think about. The full preterists continue to impress me with the consistency of their arguments and their thorough use of biblical support. But in spite of that I still believe there is a second coming in the future, a consumation of time accompanied by a literal bodily resurrection.

And just as I have Covenant Theology to thank for giving me back my Old Testament, I have Preterism to thank for giving me back my New Testament. My wife and I just got through reading through the first 9 chapters of Matthew and with a new found focus on the Jewish consumation of 70 a.d. we find ourselves reading with a level of understanding we never had before.

At this point I would judge my position as having moved from partial preterist to nearly full preterist.

But again, thank you all for a great discussion and please continue as you see fit!

JD,

I know on my journey to full preterism it wasn't a sudden leap from being a premil dispy to full preterist. I too first camped in the partial preterist camp for a while before embracing full preterism. I can say that when I became a full preterist the bible just fell into harmony from one book to the next all the way through like it never before had.

Now it seems so obvious that full preterism is the correct eschatology that I have to remind myself that I was once a futurist to even understand how anyone could hold that view.

A couple of books you might enjoy are "The Elements Shall Melt with Fervent Heat" and "We Shall Meet Him in the Air" both by Don Preston.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[lastday]

Lastday

HankD,

You make a very astute observation of God's direct role in activating one of the "Five Catalysts of Endtime Events" by your quotation from Rev.17:17:

For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

I personally put all Five Catalysts at Midpoint of the 70th "7".
You asked:

Mel do you have some literature available with a complete panorama of your views?

Please go to my original post on Lastday Events, published on Shavuot in May of 1999 - BTW, no one has ever challenged my 100 verses or 22 major events:
Centerpiece of Lastday Events
My email address is lastday@lastday.net. Please send me yours privately.
I am looking forward to more in depth studies with you and feel encouraged since I was an unwavering Pre-Tribber from the age of 12 to that of 23 upon graduating from MBI and attending CBC to learn that Jesus never taught that
He might come "at any moment" for the Church. That was in 1943 after I sat
under the teaching of Harry Ironside at Moody Memorial from 1940-1943.
Mel

 

[RAdam]

The argument for dispensationalism because the word dispensation appears in the bible is a very bad one.

Here's what dispensation means: administration. Look at everywhere it is used in the NT and that is exactly what it means every time.

1 Cor. 9:17 - "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is commited unto me."

Ephesians 1:10 - "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth: even in him"

Ephesians 3:2 - "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward"

Colossians 1:25 - "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me for you, to fulfil the word of God"

The greek word here is also rendered as stewardship three times.

 

[HankD]

The argument for dispensationalism because the word dispensation appears in the bible is a very bad one.

Here's what dispensation means: administration. Look at everywhere it is used in the NT and that is exactly what it means every time.

1 Cor. 9:17 - "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is commited unto me."

Ephesians 1:10 - "That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth: even in him"

Ephesians 3:2 - "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward"

Colossians 1:25 - "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me for you, to fulfil the word of God"

The greek word here is also rendered as stewardship three times.

There are almost as many definitions of "dispensation" as there are dispensational authors and that is why I normally avoid the label.
Also because there are so many authors with so many points of view (some of them out in the proverbial "left field').

Generally the definitions are in a loose agreement:

A dispensation is a period which is identified by its relation to some particular purpose of God.

Systematic Theology, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Vol. 1, Pg. 40.

The 2 most well know being The Dispensation of the Law and The Dispensation of Grace.

Walvoord (and I don't have a reference) says that dispensationalism is not a theology but a method of interpretation of Scripture,

Which I must admit sounds a bit fuzzy.

HankD

 

[RAdam]

The bible defines the word. I don't care what theologians say, the bible defines its words. Can you put that definition into the bible and make it fit for that word where it appears in scripture? No. A dispensation is not a period of time. Dispensation means administration, and it is clear from how it is used in scripture, as well as the fact that the greek word is also rendered stewardship. It refers not to time, but to administration.

The problem is people will not refer to the word of God to determine word meanings, but instead place their own definition on a word. They then turn around and say, "dispensation is in the bible." It sure is, and where it appears it proves your definition and concept of it to be wrong.

Another example of this is the word justify. People apply the definition, to make righteous. That's not how scripture uses it. It means to declare righteous. If you start looking at the word in scripture you will see this is the only definition that will work.

 

[HankD]

The bible defines the word. I don't care what theologians say, the bible defines its words. Can you put that definition into the bible and make it fit for that word where it appears in scripture? No. A dispensation is not a period of time. Dispensation means administration, and it is clear from how it is used in scripture, as well as the fact that the greek word is also rendered stewardship. It refers not to time, but to administration.

The problem is people will not refer to the word of God to determine word meanings, but instead place their own definition on a word. They then turn around and say, "dispensation is in the bible." It sure is, and where it appears it proves your definition and concept of it to be wrong.

Another example of this is the word justify. People apply the definition, to make righteous. That's not how scripture uses it. It means to declare righteous. If you start looking at the word in scripture you will see this is the only definition that will work.

I am not challenging you RAdam but the definition above says nothing about time. it uses the word "period" which can imply time. Neither did I say it was a biblical definition or link it to the word oikonomia of Colossians 1:25

I don't like the word "dispensation" myself and use it only to help people know that I adhere to some of the precepts associated with dispensationalism ususally with an explanation when they ask.

I was giving everyone the standard theolgical definition which admitedly does not align with oikonomia. Notice I referenced the definition to Chafer and not the Bible.

Chafer and Scofield having the majority extra-biblical opinion.

Walvoord and others use the word "economy" the transliteration of the koine word oikonomia of Colossians 1:25 rather than "period" and have even seen the word "administration" in some authors definitions.

Although "economy" (IMO) as a transliteration of oikonomia in reference to dispensationism does not exactly hit the mark of the definition of oikonomia of Colossians 1:25.

A more biblical word which I use is aion usually translated "world" or "age".
I prefer to use the word "age".

NIV Matthew 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.​

NIV Matthew 13:49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous​

Jesus implying that the present age would end another would come.

HankD​