Partial Preterism and Futurism Continued

He makes peace with israel for the 7 years, but breaks that in the middle, as that is when the real tribulation against the Jewish nation begins! NOT from the wrath of God, but from Satan and the Antichrist!

 

Okay,I understand. I trust you'll learn a lot here.

 

This verse is what is called hyperbole: exaggeration to make a point. My Mom used it regularly: "I'm never going to be able to clean up your mess."

Usually the Biblical author doesn't have to say if something is figurative. The figures of speech in the Bible are well known and easily understood: hyperbole, metaphor, personification, idiom (my favorite), etc. When the author is using a figure of speech, it does not mean the Scripture must be interpreted "spiritually" or "allegorically." It's only a figure of speech.

Prophetic literature is rich with figures of speech, which is why most people have trouble with it. However, just remember that all prophecies of Christ's first coming, His incarnation, were fulfilled literally. That is why we must interpret all 2nd coming prophecies literally. This the preterist does not do.

 

No need to take it down. There is room up there for a temple as well.

 

The information about the Jesuits who proposed futurism is accurate.

 

It may be accurate--I haven't researched it. But it is completely irrelevant to a discussion of Baptist eschatology.

Furthermore, simply because Jesuits believe it, so what? Do we reject the virgin birth and deity of Christ just because Jesuits also believe it?

 

To my knowledge, the early church fathers did not discuss the Antichrist, though they were generally premil. But no, the reformation was not because the papacy was thought to be the man of sin/antichrist. That was a very secondary issue. The reasons were much more complicated: the issue of salvation by faith (Luther), the issue of indulgences, etc.

First of all, Alford was not known much as a theologian, regardless of what Wikipedia says. He was a Greek scholar. (I have his commentary on the Greek, and it's good.) Secondly, he was in the Church of England, so his theology is going to quite far from that of the typical Baptist anyway. So, I simply disregard anything on theology by Alford. He certainly is not known for his eschatology.

 

I don't believe Jesuits first proposed the virgin birth and the deity of Christ.

I would think Baptists would be hesitant to embrace an eschatology that was invented by Roman Catholics during the counter-reformation with the sole intention of defending the papacy.

 

Except that we don't. We read scripture for ourselves and then make a determination led by the HG. Sorry to burst your little bubble there.

 

And I don't believe that Jesuits first proposed futurism, and I certainly know for a fact that they are not where we Baptists got futurism. We got it straight from Scripture.

Following my great grandpa, grandpa, and father, all Baptist preachers and futurists, I hold my futurist position after intense study of the Bible, including my own detailed and long outlines of Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation. I put together my eschatology decades before there was an Internet (and therefore virtually no one was preterist), by painstaking Bible study. This is following the Baptist distinctive of "the Bible as sole rule of faith and practice." The very suggestion that my futurism came from Jesuits is so ridiculous that I'm not even offended that you think that!

 

Usually if the result called for is impossible, it is hyperbole. Since nature (this earth) is cursed, I know it won't last forever, so to me it is hyperbole. Another possible interpretation of Eccl. 1:4 is to interpret the Hebrew word "forever" as "permanent," which is certainly possible. This earth is permanent, but not eternal.

Sorry, I don't do presumption. As a teacher I must deal in facts. So I reject your presumption that "the first Baptists were obviously historicists." My Baptist history books are at the office, so I can't check it out.

 

Actually, he is a source because of his son. My grandfather, John R. Rice, was a first generation fundamentalist with a paper that at the time had the largest readership of any Christian paper or magazine in the world. He mentored Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, among others. Recently I was down in Texas doing research in the "John R. Rice Papers," housed at Southwestern Seminary, one of the largest in the world. There are as many as 10,000 of his letters and letters to him in the archives.

So, when I say my grandfather and his father were futurists, I am referring to a genuine historical source from over 100 years ago, recognized as such by the scholars of church history.

 

He may not be a source for you but you do not decide that for anyone else. Now you can trust your little wiki source of some obscure Catholics if you want, but quite frankly your little story has no credibility with us. It is cheap and easy for you to sit behind your little computer and try to tell everyone who does not agree with you what is the foundation of our beliefs. What you do not realize in your young age is that there is more to the history of things than you can find in a google search. A great many people scholars included, have spent long hard hours scouring the scriptures over important doctrines like this and you need to respect that if your want equal consideration.

What you need to do is to walk back your puny little arrogant attitude and actually study the scriptures for yourself instead of talking points designed to win debates. These days discussions on these boards have deteriorated because of people like yourself who want to win debates rather than having honest and genuine discussions. What you need to do is get over yourself and try to actually pay attention to what being posted in response. What you are doing is reading to figure out how to one up the other in debate rather than have a real discussion.

That kind of behavior turns these discussions into petty arguments. By the way, on this board JOJ and his grandfather are well respected. What you need to do is get to know people before making glib comments like the one I quoted.