Futurists

[Primitive Baptist]

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." [Luke 16:16]

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" [Colossians 1:13]

"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:" [Hebrews 12:28]

"I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." [Revelation 1:9]

Either these New Testament writers didn't know what they were writing about or they were in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Where does the Bible give the authority to insert a 2,000+ year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:

The evidence for a late date is not exactly solid. It is probably based more on tradition than evidence. And, of course, futurists must cling with all their might to the late date as without it their position collapses into dust. Both postmills and amills can maintain their eschatological positions regardless of the date of the book of Revelation. Futurists cannot do so. Perhaps another strike against the futurist position to have to depend totally upon the dating of Revelation.

Regards,
Ken

Actually Ken, this is either sloppy scholarship, willful rejection of truth, or purposeful slander of the opposing side.

For the preterist, Revelation HAD to be written before AD 70. If it wasn't then the prophesies could in no way be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem.

For the futurist, it matters not when Revelation was written. If it was written before AD 70, we still see it as an unfulfilled prophesy. If it was written in AD 95, we still see it as an unfulfilled prophesy.

The question is Ken, will you retract your statement or go on posting such nonsense?

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Either these New Testament writers didn't know what they were writing about or they were in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Where does the Bible give the authority to insert a 2,000+ year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel's prophecy?

Primitive, I am a futurist and recognize that the kingdom is here. However, it is in a mysterious form right now (read Matt.13). It will have a future earthly aspect that aligns with the O.T. and the N.T. teachings. So yes, the kingdom was initiated by Christ.

The question is, will you continue to post stuff about futurists that isn't true?

I will start a post on Daniel's 70th week later. It is there for the one who submits to Scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Several quick comments as I don’t really want to get bogged down in this:

1. As for the dating, the late is historical and traditional, back to the earliest notes of the church. If we are wrong, then all of history is wrong. If we are right, then you are wrong. I have not read Gentry’s book but I understand that there are what many consider to be huge gaps in it. Perhaps one day I will get a chance to read it. I think Thomas dealt with that issue pretty well in his commentary. Ken says, And, of course, futurists must cling with all their might to the late date as without it their position collapses into dust. Both postmills and amills can maintain their eschatological positions regardless of the date of the book of Revelation. This is not entirely true however. With the late date, you must deny the prophetic nature of revelation for a posttrib rapture. That is thin ice to be on. I think the positions are very similar in that regard.

As for the kingdom, we must look at several things. 1) When we see the kingdom in Scripture, considering all the references, what do we see and what should we be looking for? 2) How did the first centuries of the church treat the idea of the kingdom. As to (1), there can be no doubt that the OT kingdom was not spiritual but literal and earthly. Alva McClain The Greatness of the Kingdom lays this out very well in Israel’s history. One problem seen here often is that people fail to distinguish between the universal kingdom of God and the mediatorial kingdom of God. The vast majority of kingdom references are to the mediatorial kingdom, instituted at Sinai, mediated through the Davidic lines, and promise to be restored. There are simply too many OT passages that must be made into ground chuck in order to get anything else. I am uncomfortable doing that to the words of Scripture. As for (2), the early church, almost without exception, was premillennarian. It was not until the 4th or 5th century that other views crept in. When they did, it was because the traditional understanding did not seem to be taking place. In other words, people getting their theology from current events, i.e., “We expected an earthly kingdom; it hasn’t come yet; therefore we must have misunderstood.” And it is always the dispensationalists accused of reading theology in light of current events. In any events, the post and amill views were later views that arose from confusion about the current state of affairs. Again, we must drive our stake in the text of Scripture, not the disillusionment of those who did not see the promises they thought they would. After all, if the OT saints didn’t do, why should we???

Do we have the authority to insert 2,000 years? I would answer that it is not a matter of authority since we haven’t inserted anything. However, there is no problem with 2000 years since the telescoping nature of prophecy is well known. Consider the OT prophecies of the coming of Christ. Putting them all together without benefit of the NT, we see only one coming. We do not see two. Therefore, we are entirely consistent with Scriptural precedent to admit that there are some things we simply do not know. We must simply believe what God has said, the promises he has made, and live accordingly.

I don’t think Pentecost figures as much as you think it does Ken. Remember even after Pentecost in Acts 3:19-21, Peter preached for the Jews to repent so that the Kingdom could be restored to Israel. He specifically says that Christ must be received to heaven until the period of the restoration of all things. In the context, it is hard to avoid seeing that as the Kingdom of the OT. Yet it is clear that Christ would go to heaven, until the Jews repent such as prophesied in Zech 12:10ff. as well as other OT passages such as the New covenant passages. When that happens, then will be the time of the “restoration of all things.”

This is longer than I intended, please forgive me.

 

[HankD]

Dear Brothers Ken and Glen,

Thank you for that affirmation.

My own view would/will probably include something concerning a world wide cataclysm just before His Bodily Return, the Scripture seems both in the Old and New Testaments to indicate this. Call it tribulation, Jacob's trouble, the Wrath of God, whatever.
The sack of Jerusalem seems very tame compared to some of the Scriptural accounts of this time often called "the Day of The Lord" and I just can't spiritualize it since there are so many of them and so graphic.
I believe there will be a "place" of protection for the saints from this cataclysm.
Kind of like a Christian Passover, we will be protected from the angel(s) of death.
I see this upheavel as the Lord's means (via angelic beings) to divide the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares,sever the just from the unjust,etc.
Also, my own view would/will probably include a millenium (never dogmatic though).
But, I would prefer to be called a Chiliast just to distance myself from what I consider the excesses and sensationalism of the dogmatic dispensationlists.

Bottom line: For me, the bond of fellowship is unbroken by the common belief of the Bodily return from heaven of Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Glory. Like I said before, IMO, the rest is details.

Beloved, when we see Jesus coming in Glory, all our differences will melt away, for we shall see Him as He is. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

...But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...

HankD

[ August 02, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[tyndale1946]

To all the pre/postmills and those of like precious belief. I'm Partial Preterist and will die that way but I did no come here not knowing your belief also. Each of us are entitled to the way we understand scripture and I will not accuse the other brother for the way he understands scripture. I see it my way which I believe is scriptural and you see it your way which you believe is scriptural. I reminded of the time Peter went to the Gentiles and Paul has to withstand him to the face but Peter felt he was doing the right thing at that time until Paul showed up. We are not without our faults no matter what group we claim as our doctrinal brethren and denomination. I also reminded of the time Paul showed up in a city and the people wanted to venerate and elevate him to the position of a god... We are but MEN!... He cried and thats what we are BUT MEN!... None on here better than the other brother no matter how many years of seminary... or degrees you hold... or how many churches you serve or how long you have been a preacher... "WE ARE BUT MEN"... When all the isim and schisms are gone that's what we are before our God and he knows all about us... I will go on studying Eschatology as that is what I like to do and have been doing it for nigh on thirty five years and it seems to be something that has always driven me. I know all the positions of Eschatology but that is me and you are you. Its not a matter of I won't change my view over thirty five years that is all I've done... When something more glorious to me I have discovered from burning the candle at both ends and I dig in the field of Eschatology like no one here. Its a fire in my bones that I'm sure every preacher on here is aquainted with and you can't help but dig out those gospel treasures. So I commend all you brethren on here no matter what your stand is on Eschatology because to me it is a worthwhile endeavor to drive you to even greater gospel truths and a better understanding of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the operations of the three and one Godhead!... Even so come Lord Jesus!... Brother Glen

 

[Primitive Baptist]

The kingdom of heaven was at hand but it was taken away to be given to people who produce the fruit of it. (It's right there in your KJV). What do you do with that verse??

The verse means exactly what it says. The kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. I don't see your point.

As to (1), there can be no doubt that the OT kingdom was not spiritual but literal and earthly.

Obviously it wasn't.

"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20, 21)

The Pharisees, like Premillennialists, miunderstand the nature of the kingdom of God. "It's literal," they say. Jesus, however, said differently. No doubt, those Pharisees were asking about a LITERAL kingdom, the one they thought was prophesied in the Old Testament, but Jesus set them straight on the matter. That's one of the main reasons why they delivered Him up to be crucified was because Jesus didn't fit their mold of what a Messiah should be. Likewise, they wanted a literal kingdom but, "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36) They wanted a LITERAL kingdom and Jesus didn't give them that. He gave them a spiritual kingdom that cometh NOT WITH OBSERVATION. Anyway, I want you to explain those verses which clearly state we're NOW in the kingdom, esp. Rev. 1:9

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
The verse means exactly what it says. The kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. I don't see your point.

The defining mark of the church in this regard is its lack of nationality. The "nation producing the fruits of it" seems better understood as the nation of endtime Israel, those who repent and accept the Messiah as the prophets said they would (Zech 12). It happens afterthe fulness of the Gentiles (the church) comes in, and then Israel will be saved because the gifts and calling of God is without repentance (Rom 11:25ff).

As to (1), there can be no doubt that the OT kingdom was not spiritual but literal and earthly.

Obviously it wasn't. [/quote][/qb]is this obvious? Why did the disciples miss it? Have you properly interpreted your proof text? I don't think so. The kingdom of God is "in your midst." That is, they were living in times like the kingdom. They were experiencing kingdom life as described in the OT with healing, restoration, physical presence of the Messiah, etc. They were unwilling to accept it. They would not bring it in by observation but rather by repentance. Their observations had failed because they were looking for a different kind of Messiah, as you said. But their failure to repent does not annul the promises of God in the OT and that is what you must wrestle with. Since God said what he did in the OT, why will he not now fulfill it? Are the promises of God to be changed? I cannot see how.

Anyway, I want you to explain those verses which clearly state we're NOW in the kingdom, esp. Rev. 1:9

What verses are these? Rev 1:9 refers to the future kingdom described all through the book as still coming. "Anticipation of this kingdom is an integral part of hte Christian experience (Swete). This conclusion is confirmed by the virutue 'endurance,' which is next in the series of three. This is a quality that has as its motivation an expectation of coming deliverance (cf 1 Thess 1:3)" (Thomas, 1:87).

This verse actually works against you since it also speaks of tribulation. The kingdom is a time of victory, not of tribulation. How victorious is a kingdom that cannot protect its inhabitants from persecution? You do not see that description of the kingdom in Scritpure. The kingdom is described as one where the King rules with a rod of iron. To be an inhabitant of a coming kingdom (and to experience the spiritual reign of Christ in our lives) does not necessitate the Kingdom existing now, nor does it annul the promises of God that were made to teh people of Israel and Judah. The new edition of Veritas (publication of DTS) has an article by Mark Bailey about this topic. It says that there are over 1400 OT references to Israel and Land. That is a bunch ... too many for this student to ignore.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
That is a bunch ... too many for this student to ignore.

But apparently not too many for others to twist.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

The defining mark of the church in this regard is its lack of nationality. The "nation producing the fruits of it" seems better understood as the nation of endtime Israel, those who repent and accept the Messiah as the prophets said they would (Zech 12).

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" [1 Pet. 2:9]

Furthermore, there is no nationality within the church.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." [Gal. 3:28]

[ August 02, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Furthermore, there is no nationality within the church.

My point exactly, which is why I don't see how you argue that the "nation" of Matt 21:43 is the church, which is no nation at all. There is a nation that had been the recipient of 2000 years of promises that fits the bill in every category. The generation of leaders of that time failed by refusing to repent and accept the Messiah. There will come a generation of that nation who will no longer fail (if we put any stock in the OT promises). Why avoid the clear context and implication of the promise in search of a less compatible solution?

 

[Primitive Baptist]

My point exactly, which is why I don't see how you argue that the "nation" of Matt 21:43 is the church, which is no nation at all.

The only thing "clear" is that the church is described as "an holy nation" (1 Pet. 2:9).

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
The question is Ken, will you retract your statement or go on posting such nonsense?

If those are my only two choices, then I choose to go on posting such nonsense.

Ken

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
The only thing "clear" is that the church is described as "an holy nation" (1 Pet. 2:9).

So why do you read the multitude of texts that describe the church as "not a nation" in light of the one text that describes them as a nation? Why is that your priority? You redefine the vast majority of texts dealing with this issue in light of the one. I would suggest that your presupposition has driven your hermeneutic at that point. It is much more in line with sound hermeneutic to let the many clear and explicit texts govern the few. 1 Peter 2:9 is not insurmountable. It is my belief that Peter uses an OT phrase because it is commonly known, as an illustration or an example to make a bigger point about who we are as God's people, rather than using it to make an identity.

I just don't think you can (or should) interpret the many in light of the one. It is a weaker way to do exegesis.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Peter describes the church as a nation, and I never said otherwise. The Bible also states there is neither Jew nor Gentile, for we are all one. There is no contradiction here. I still don't see your point. Now it just sounds like you're talking around stuff.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Peter describes the church as a nation, and I never said otherwise. The Bible also states there is neither Jew nor Gentile, for we are all one. There is no contradiction here. I still don't see your point. Now it just sounds like you're talking around stuff.

Not sure how you can miss the point. Jew is a nation; Greek is a nation; Scythian is a nation, etc. In the church all are one. There are no more national distinctions. That is why calling the church "one nation" does not make a lot of sense. It is "all nations on equal standing." Furthermore, you still have the problem of interpreting the many in light of the one, which is still a weak hermeneutical principle.

 

[Primitive Baptist]

Where am I interpreting one in the light of the many? I do not understand what you are talking about. Peter clearly describes the church as "an holy nation." Obviously, your problem is not with me, but Peter. It is because there is no nationality within the church, and we are all one, that the term "nation" (singular) can apply to the church. We are the holy nation, royal priesthood, chosen generation, etc. of God! Believe it or not!

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by HankD:
Dear brother Glen,

Thank You. I have asked my questions and will ask in a spirit of love.
I have no desire to lock horns with a brother but have a keen desire to know the thinking of others in the church.

Having said that you responded to my question "Do you believe Christ will return bodily to the earth?"

To which you answered

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes... I said I am Partial Preterist and definately believe in a bodily return of Jesus Christ to raise the bodily saints of God!... The scriptures teach nothing less... We will meet the Lord in the air and he will not touch foot on the earth!... Brother Glen

Brother Glen, though I have been with the Lord many years now, I have not formulated a conviction concerning the details of His Second Coming apart from the basic "bodily return". By preference, I lean towards a futurist view.

I would be very interested in your point of view (or any gifted brother/sister) of Zechariah Chapter 14 and whether you believe it has been fulfilled completely or it applies to the sack of Jerusalem by Titus (70AD) or His bodily return or is it an allegory or whatever.
So many elements of this passage seem desperately unfulfilled to this date.

In this passage in verse 4, The Lord's feet are said to touch the Mount of Olives with what appears to be a world wide cataclysm ending with the Nation of Egypt turning to the Lord and the Canaanite no more in the house of the Lord.

Please believe me that this is not a challenge but a request to help me in deciding a point of view of the details of the Second Coming which I can hold "by faith".

I'll abbreviate the passage...

KJV Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
…
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
…
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

Thank you in advance
HankD</font>[/QUOTE]The day of the Lord did indeed already come, when Jesus was nailed to the cross… The saving blood went to the hinder seas (to those that followed God by faith, before Jesus) and to the forward seas…. That’s us folks… Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins…

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

 

[Graceforever]

The generation that is begotten of Christ shall not pass away until all is fulfilled…. Christ’s offspring…. The church…

Primitive Baptist says,

Not even one of these references use "generation" to mean the entire Jewish people over thousands of years. You may, however, fool someone by using "generation" to mean the Jewish people over thousands of years, but I do not think you will be so successful with Luke 9:27 – "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Preach the word said: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I could offer many that you can't get around since your position is faulty at best.

Which you have not done yet!... I see also there are many brethren on here that are of the Preterist belief. There are others also that are questioning their belief that are not Preterist. There are others on other forums checking their profiles that are also Preterist.
The premise is the natural temple which was a type and shadow of Jesus Christ was destroyed in 70AD. The law dispensation was on its way out and being replaced by the grace dispensation. There is no need for it anymore!... It filled its purpose. Not only that we are now priests and kings made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus and being living temples present our own bodies as a living sacrifice holy and acceptable unto God which is our reasonable service. We say there is no need for another temple and if I'm not mistaken the holy city that included the temple was four square miles. We also believe the return of Jesus Christ is imminent but not for a tribulation for that has been the lot of all Gods children thoughout the ages. He is coming to take his children home and to judge those not his and it won't take seven years either. The Bible and History complement each other and that is the way I and my fellow yokefellows understand it. We are in the millennium right now and you other brethren can believe in a future one but in my book that doesn't change THE BOOK. I will hear what the other brother has to say but I will also measure it with scripture... and if the trumpet make an uncertain sound... I will be sure to sound mine... Brother Glen

</font>[/QUOTE]Brother Glen, I’m in complete agreement with you, Ken, and others….

With all due respect to those that oppose Brother Glen and Ken, they have yet to field a view that is original…. Anyone can point to another’s view as his or her own, but they can’t explain it because it’s not their theory…. I would still like to have them give a thesis using Bible scriptures as their only means…

I also would like to be in agreement that one could have a different view, of certain scriptures, and still serve the Lord in truth and spirit… Brothers, we none have the whole Bible opened before our eyes alone… The foot can’t say to the hand, because you’re not a foot, that we have no need of you… We can all learn something from each other…. When all is said and done, let’s do as Abraham and Lot done, lets part as brethren….. Amen!

[ August 04, 2002, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Graceforever ]