Justification by faith, like Preterism, not in the creeds. But Biblical

[asterisktom]

Those who say that Preterism is not a historical position (as my ex-pastor admonished me) need to understand that justification by faith is not "historical" either - that is, neither beliefs are found in creeds. In the Bible, yes, but not in the creeds.

 

[robycop3]

Preterism is NOT found in Scripture, while justification by faith IS. Both Noah and Abraham believed & obeyed God, & He counted that as righteousness. The rest is history.

But preterism is simply a MAN-MADE false doctrine. The events prets CLAIM have already happened, have simply NOT yet happened. No getting around that!

 

[asterisktom]

Preterism is NOT found in Scripture, while justification by faith IS. Both Noah and Abraham believed & obeyed God, & He counted that as righteousness. The rest is history.

But preterism is simply a MAN-MADE false doctrine. The events prets CLAIM have already happened, have simply NOT yet happened. No getting around that!

Jesus told us that his Second Coming would be fulfilled while those living in the first century were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:6, 12, 20).

No getting around that.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jesus told us that his Second Coming would be fulfilled while those living in the first century were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:6, 12, 20).

No getting around that.

Remind me exactly when this prophecy was fulfilled:

Acts 1:9-11 KJV
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; [11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.

This passage should make you rethink all your verses you mentioned that only prove preterism by taking things out of context and forcing certain definitions onto words.

 

[asterisktom]

Remind me exactly when this prophecy was fulfilled:

Acts 1:9-11 KJV
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. [10] And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; [11] Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.

This passage should make you rethink all your verses you mentioned that only prove preterism by taking things out of context and forcing certain definitions onto words.

Ah yes, Acts 1:9 - 11 the supposed silver bullet that slays preterism. I started thread on this very topic. Feel free to look it up. I would look for it myself and bump it but I am afraid of getting my wrists slapped again for bringing up a zombie thread.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those who say that Preterism is not a historical position (as my ex-pastor admonished me) need to understand that justification by faith is not "historical" either - that is, neither beliefs are found in creeds. In the Bible, yes, but not in the creeds.

The full blown version of it denies the physical future resurrection and Second Coming of the Lord jesus, so indeed is heresy!

 

[Dave G]

Jesus told us that his Second Coming would be fulfilled while those living in the first century were still alive (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:27-28; Mathew 26:64; Luke 21:22, 28, 32; Revelation 1:1-3; Revelation 22:6, 12, 20).

No getting around that.

With respect, I haven't seen Him yet.
I've "seen" Him, but not coming in the clouds.

I don't see this as having happened yet, and I also do not see many of the events that are supposed to happen, like the beast, the false prophet and the 3.5 years of tribulation, as having happened yet, either.
Finally, I don't see the thousand year reign of Christ on His father David's throne from Jerusalem as having come to pass.

When you can show me, from history, that all of the events of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 have come to pass, literally, then I will believe that the first resurrection is also passed and that we are are now in the 1,000 year reign.
But, since He is not ruling from Jerusalem and the saints are not ruling with Him ( 1 Timothy 2:12 ), then it's still to come.


May God bless you sir.

 

[Yeshua1]

With respect, I haven't seen Him yet.
I've "seen" Him, but not coming in the clouds.

I don't see this as having happened yet, and I also do not see many of the events that are supposed to happen, like the beast, the false prophet and the 3.5 years of tribulation, as having happened yet, either.
Finally, I don't see the thousand year reign of Christ on His father David's throne from Jerusalem as having come to pass.

When you can show me, from history, that all of the events of Matthew 24 have come to pass, literally, then I will believe that the first resurrection is also passed and that we are are now in the 1,000 year reign.
But, since He is not ruling from Jerusalem and the saints are not ruling with Him ( 1 Timothy 2:12 ), then it's still to come.


May God bless you sir.

When the Second Coming happens, history as we now know it will come to a crashing halt, and don't see anytime that happened in the past!

 

[asterisktom]

I've tried to find the thread or post where I really get into this passage. I found some, but not the one I especially wanted. But here are two links from earlier discussion, including Acts 1:

Zechariah - Christ centred prophecy

Acts 1:9-11 utterly refutes Hyper-preterism

Neither of these are threads I started. Being a "full-blown preterist" I would not have used that last title!

 

[Dave G]

I'd like to develop this in following posts.
For now, I am going out for fellowship with a brother...I will try to address this later tonight, Lord willing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I've tried to find the thread or post where I really get into this passage. I found some, but not the one I especially wanted. But here are two links from earlier discussion, including Acts 1:

Zechariah - Christ centred prophecy

Acts 1:9-11 utterly refutes Hyper-preterism

Neither of these are threads I started. Being a "full-blown preterist" I would not have used that last title!

So when will you be getting the physically resurrected body?

 

[asterisktom]

With respect, I haven't seen Him yet.
I've "seen" Him, but not coming in the clouds.

I don't see this as having happened yet, and I also do not see many of the events that are supposed to happen, like the beast, the false prophet and the 3.5 years of tribulation, as having happened yet, either.
Finally, I don't see the thousand year reign of Christ on His father David's throne from Jerusalem as having come to pass.

When you can show me, from history, that all of the events of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 have come to pass, literally, then I will believe that the first resurrection is also passed and that we are are now in the 1,000 year reign.
But, since He is not ruling from Jerusalem and the saints are not ruling with Him ( 1 Timothy 2:12 ), then it's still to come.


May God bless you sir.

Thank you for writing, Dave.

I took the liberty of underlining three parts of your post for convenience.

1 is an acknowledgment on your part that you "see" that there are different types pf seeing in the Bible. Good.

2. Which is more important to you, the evidence of history (always subject to the perspective of fallible historians or memory) or the evidence of God's faultless, perfect Word?

3. Please study when the Bible says the reign of Jesus started. Neither is it a two-phase, already/not yet reign.

I would be more than willing to delve further on any of these.

Thanks for the blessing.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for writing, Dave.

I took the liberty of underlining three parts of your post for convenience.

1 is an acknowledgment on your part that you "see" that there are different types pf seeing in the Bible. Good.

2. Which is more important to you, the evidence of history (always subject to the perspective of fallible historians or memory) or the evidence of God's faultless, perfect Word?

3. Please study when the Bible says the reign of Jesus started. Neither is it a two-phase, already/not yet reign.

I would be more than willing to delve further on any of these.

Thanks for the blessing.

When did the second coming event happened then, when the dead were raised up and the rest were then glorified?

 

[asterisktom]

This passage [Acts 1:9-11] should make you rethink all your verses you mentioned that only prove preterism by taking things out of context and forcing certain definitions onto words.

Jordan, I don't really know you but it may very well be that I have believed pretty much as you do now for over thirty years. So I pretty much know all about your position. I have taught it, preached it, rebuked preterists along with JWs and Mormons. In my mind they were pretty similar. But one book that got my attention was "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell, forward by RC Sproul. At my first reading I wrote angry notes in the margins. But the more I studied the verses he brought up, bearing in mind especially cross-references, the more I began to see that there were serious defects in my eschatology.

I write all this to suggest that maybe you need to look closer into what these verses actually teach. For starters you can look at the two links I brought up in the earlier post.

I have already done my rethinking on Acts 1:11. I suggest you do it too.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jordan, I don't really know you but it may very well be that I have believed pretty much as you do now for over thirty years. So I pretty much know all about your position. I have taught it, preached it, rebuked preterists along with JWs and Mormons. In my mind they were pretty similar. But one book that got my attention was "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell, forward by RC Sproul. At my first reading I wrote angry notes in the margins. But the more I studied the verses he brought up, bearing in mind especially cross-references, the more I began to see that there were serious defects in my eschatology.

I write all this to suggest that maybe you need to look closer into what these verses actually teach. For starters you can look at the two links I brought up in the earlier post.

I have already done my rethinking on Acts 1:11. I suggest you do it too.

Sproul went from a post mil to partial pret, but he would see flown blown still as heresy!

 

[HankD]

According to preterism all apocalyptic occurrences that we futurist are awaiting have already happened:

e.g.

2 Peter 3
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?

Yet Not a word in history secular or ecclesiastic of the "great noise", the "fervent heat" and works in the earth being "burned up" neither can they tell us where to look in the scripture for death coming to an end which according to the scripture of the futurist death is the last enemy

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

If death has been destroyed why then are there still undertakers and their cemeteries?
Well we are told that there is more than one kind of death.

However the death in 1 Corinthians is the kind which one is resurrected from as was our Lord.

Why then do we still die the death of these bodies? Why do I still get sick, feel pain, etc...

Christ is only a partial savior?

Will the universe continue on into eternity forever with adamic reproduction with adamic sin and death? War, murder, famine, pestilence... ?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Those who say that Preterism is not a historical position (as my ex-pastor admonished me) need to understand that justification by faith is not "historical" either - that is, neither beliefs are found in creeds. In the Bible, yes, but not in the creeds.

You should listen to your ex-pastor. Justification by faith is found in the very earliest extra-biblical documents which pre-date the creeds. Try the Epistle of Clement xxxiii, usually dated around 90AD.

And whether you like it or not, Acts 1:11 blows hyper-preterism out of the water.

 

[asterisktom]

You should listen to your ex-pastor. Justification by faith is found in the very earliest extra-biblical documents which pre-date the creeds. Try the Epistle of Clement xxxiii, usually dated around 90AD.

And whether you like it or not, Acts 1:11 blows hyper-preterism out of the water.

You need to read more carefully. I don't deny that justification by faith is found in some of the earliest Christian writers. I was speaking of Creeds.

Although Clement (writing in the 60's BTW) wrote well on this doctrine in other writing he was not as clear. A good page to read is in Monergism.com.

The History of Justification by Faith Alone up to the Reformation | Monergism

Mr. Thompson has an interesting sentence at the beginning;

"A clear line of development of this doctrine [of justification by faith alone] from the Apostles to Martin Luther simply does not exist."

I'm not going to bother again getting into Acts 1 with you. I understand your background..

 

[asterisktom]

According to preterism all apocalyptic occurrences that we futurist are awaiting have already happened:

...

Hank, I hope to get to some of this tomorrow. Part of it, at least. You know as well as I that this is well-trodden ground. But you have always been courteous to me so I will do what I can to answer in kind. The part about death, though, I might just do in a new thread.

 

[asterisktom]

So when will you be getting the physically resurrected body?

Never. Neither will you. I will be one of the "spirits of just men made perfect".

Have you not read in I Corinthians 15 that we will be like the Lord from heaven.

"The first man is of the earth (ἐκ γῆς), earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) ."

This passage is a continuation of verse 40: somata epigeia and somata epourania now become "ek ges" and "ex ouranou". This preposition (ek, ex) shows origin. Adam came from the earth, from the dust. This brings to mind the very passage from Genesis.

The "Second Adam" came from heaven. Note: In both cases, the origins determine the essence of who these two are - and (v. 48) the essence of their "followers".

Verse 49 says that "we shall [or "let us"] bear the image of the heavenly man" (the Second Adam, from heaven).

We shall be like Christ. This is Christlikeness, a biblical term.
And what is Christ like - according to this passage? He is like He was when He came to Earth. He is spiritual.
Was Christ fleshly before he came here to Earth? No. He was pure Spirit.
We - according to this passage - will also be like Him.
Pure spirit.

That may seem like an insufficient reward to some, but only because they are unwilling to "think outside the box" (of flesh).

As I wrote earlier, If the perfect God, the everlasting Trinity, had existed forever in spiritual (not physical) form why should it seem a bad thing, likewise, not to have physical bodies?