Preterism and "This Generation"

Eric B: "And don't be so quick to claim victory ("preterism has won out here. People are listening and seeing the light"). Most people out there do feel this stuff is too hard to understand; or who can figure it out, or you can't now all of it, so stop arguing and just wait on God to work it out; etc. There is a serious deficiency of doctrine in large sections of the church, so the "deep things" such as this definitely aren't going to be pondered but so much by many."

Amen, Brother Eric B -- Preach it!

Grasshopper: "I'm not debating your pastor."

Duh Maybe i listen to him?

[ November 14, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Warren: "Yeah, Ed, I really think preterism ... "

Thank you for talking about the subject "Preterism"
instead of the discussers:

Warren: "Ed's definition ... "
"Eric, claiming ... "
"Dispensationalists literally teach... "

BTW, Warren can come closer to winning if Warren NEVER
mention Ed or Eric by name or by pronoun.
We are discussing //Preterism and "This Generation"//
not Ed or Eric (though my humility can't keep me from noteing
that Ed is an interseting subject )
Do it as a spiritual exercise - make a whole post without
referring to the discussers. Thank you for your effort.

In the MOD (Mount Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24-25, Mark 13,
Luke 17) when Jesus uses "this generation" He referrs to
the Gentile Age (AKA: Chruch age). I note the church age has
run almost 2000 years so far (2 days).

Soon and very soon
We are going to see the King!

Ed still awaits an evangelistic and
Preteristic message
How do preterists get saved?

 

My guess is you probably do.

 

It only doesn't make sense if you try to make everything have a literal/physical meaning. The Kingdom of God is spiritual.

What Church? The "church" is the Lamb's Bride. The church is made up of believers. Did God institute a Church that fails in your view?

True to some degree. But your view is "doubley" bad because you don't know the type or the reality of those details. That makes the prophecy completely meaningless in your view.You don't know what it meant or what it will mean.

How do you come up with that?

So YOU determine which have dual fulfillment? If they weren't 1st century fufillments then they can't be dual. Did those events you listed occur in the 1st century?

How about impossible. Any books on this subject?You seem to be saying you have no idea which prophecies have dual meaning and what their future fulfillment would be.

The Kingdom is spiritual and now.

Luke 17:20 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:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

How can your physical Kingdom be unobservable and within me?

The whole context of I Cor 15 is "Adams death" (vs 21). Adam died spiritually that day in the garden not physically. If Adam's death was spiritual then resurrection must also be spiritual. Jesus referred to living men as "dead". John 5:25

Did physical death have anything to do with the Law?

I agree with you on this. However I do believe Warren is correct of those Dispys who do study these things. I was one of those Baptist who "saw the light" and do believe the intellectual agruments on eschatology will be on the differing preterist interpretations. Perhaps not this generation but the next. (generation meaning lifetime).

I don't pretend to understand it all and have come to the conclusion I never will, but I do enjoy studying this subject and enjoy your thoughts as well. I am willing to change if I find I'm in error, but so far I have found no reason to leave the full-preterist position.

 

Eric,

In your claims about "double fulfillment" and "ongoing study to determine which verses need to be double-fulfilled, you, as all futurists do, completely disregard the critical ORIGINAL AUDIENCE RELEVANCE factor. Do you really think Jesus left the disciples in ignorance, giving clear cut prophecies with time statements attached only to have some verses be double fulfilled without the disciples having a clue that some verses were to be double fulfilled? Do you really think that the disciples said among themselves, "Well, guys, only through ongoing study of what Jesus said will we know which verses will be double fulfilled one day." Eric, the very purpose of the Lord's Olivet Discourse was to make it VERY PLAIN to the disciples as to "when" (v.3) his coming and the end of the age would be and "what" (v.3) would precede it so that THEY could know that the kingdom was nigh at hand. Your reasoning says that the disciples wouldn't have had a chance at understanding the Lord's Discourse. After all, Eric says that we STILL don't know which verses will (supposedly) be double fulfilled, and here we are 2000 years later. Eric, surely you can see the problems with your theory of "ongoing study to determine which verses will be double-fuklfilled". Jesus delivered the Olivet Discourse to THE DISCIPLES, not you. He used language that they could easily undwerstand. He made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to them when he said, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." It could not have been any plainer TO THEM. You make the Olivet Discourse to be a confusing MYSTERY, when it was never intended to be that to the disciples.

Warren

 

Too bad Dr. Bob went bye-bye when I cornered him with preterist exegesis.

 

How does anyone get saved Ed? Foolish question. As for the evangelistic message:

Acts 28:30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city .
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
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.
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

 

Eric,

Please read this post carefully. The Olivet Discourse contains 2 "all" statements:


"For these be the days of vengeance, that ALL things which are written may be fulfilled." (Lk.21:22)

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till ALL be fulfilled." (Lk.21:32)


TWICE in the space of ten verses Jesus stated that ALL would be fulfilled in the days of Jerusalem's desolation, which was in 70 A.D. and before that generation had passed. The problem with your view, Eric, is that you dissect the discourse, claiming that "some" was fulfilled before that generation passed, and "some" will be fulfilled thousands of years from that time. In other words, you are directly contradicting the explicit statements by Jesus that ALL would be fulfilled before that generation had passed.

"The days of vengeance" (Lk.21:22) - Historian and theologian alike know that this was a direct reference to the vengeance inflicted upon the Jews in 70 A.D. Jesus also referred to that time as "the tribulation of those days" (Matt.24:29) He said that ALL, ALL, ALL would be fulfilled in THOSE days. All, not some, Eric.

You've got some glaring problems with your view. It was all or nothing in the first century. You can't dissect by thousands of years the Temple's destruction from the Lord's conming and the end of the age. It ALL, ALL, ALL went hand-in-hand.

We KNOW that Jerusalem and the Temple were desolated in 70 A.D. We KNOW that 70 A.D. was the worst tribulation in Judaea's history. We KNOW that that tribulation happened within the scope of "this generation". We KNOW that Jesus said he would come "immediately after the tribulation of THOSE days". Therefore, we have no choice than to interpret the Lord's coming and the end of the age as being synchronous with the desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D.

The Lord's coming involved events in both the natural, physical realm AND ALSO the unseen spiritual realm. This is perfectly consistent with many O.T. portrayals of Divine wrath. God and the angels were involved in those past instances, yet the destruction was inflicted through human armies, such as the Babylonians and the Assyrians. God and the angels were there, yet few if any actually saw them. It was only by supernatural enablement that one was allowed to see into the unseen spiritual realm.

The preterist exegesis makes great sense, and is CONSISTENT with the the scriptures. Futurism is based on theories and things that literally are not taught anywhere in scripture. Take, for instance, the "rebuilt Temple" notion. That isn't taught anywhere in scripture! And how about the dreaded "7-year peace treaty"? Again, that teaching is not found anywhere in scripture!

Preterism is on scriptural grounds for sure. Futurism is not.

Warren

 

Warren: //The problem with your view, Eric, is that you dissect
the discourse, claiming that "some" was fulfilled before
that generation passed, and "some" will be fulfilled
thousands of years from that time.//

Alright, that is his correct spiritual answer.
Here is the physical answer: "this generation" means
the chruch age; "soon" is in God's timing not man's timing.
Recall in God's timing we are along toward the end of the
second day. What if God want's to wait one of his weeks
before sending Jesus back?

Warren: "Too bad Dr. Bob went bye-bye when I cornered
him with preterist exegesis."

Recommend you pray for dignities insead of dissing them.
Pray that the pain in his body (which is dying from the feet
up) might be tollerable. Certainly the physical pain that
is in his body superceeds the spiritual pain you add.
BTW, he used to chew up & spit out preterist miss-exegesist
before breakfast, while his coffee was brewing.

 

Ed,

I proved that "this generation" does NOT mean the last 2000 year "church age", as you claim. How can you teach that when you know it is inconsistent wity how the same term is used elsewhere? For instance, Jesus said he would be "rejected of this generation" (Lk.17:25). Was he rejected of the last 2000 year church age? Is that what he meant? Come on, Ed, it's time to face the music here. Oh, I know you will say something to the effect that sinners have always rejected Jesus. But, again, is that what Jesus meant?? Surely not. A Biblical generation was equal to a lifetime, not 2000 years. The word "this" mean "pertaining to the present". So, OBVIOUSLY, Jesus was referring to the contemporary generation of his day, not 2000 plus years of a church age.

Furthermore, I Cor.10:11 and Heb.9:26 say that the END of the age had arrived in the first century. In fact, the latter reference said that Christ aoppeared the first time "at the end of the age". So the term "the end of the age" could not possibly have referred to the end of the Church age, since the Church age was just starting at that time! I Jn.2:18 said, ":Little children, it IS the last time."

So what age WAS coming to an end IN THE FIRST CENTURY? It was none other than the Old Covenant age - the ministration of death. Heb.8:13 said that the Old Covenant was "waxing old and ready to vanish away completely". When did it vanish completely? A no brainer - the Temple's destruction plainly marked the end of the Old Covenant age. It fits so well.

The New Testament teaches no such thing as "the end of the Church age". That is another THEORY which dispensational theologians have sold the Body of Christ.

Ed, you are clearly wrong on "this generation". No one on the list agrees with you...not even Eric. Yep, the preterist view is definitely making inroads. I think dispensationalism will be a minority view in the church in a few years.

Warren

 

But certain details are mentioned in the physical realm, and don't make sense if yoy spiritualize it. Like Christ destroying the gentile armies and putting down all human rule. To say this was in heaven makes no sense. So then before AD70, did godless rulers rule in heaven or something? Before AD70, did they live forever and their kingdoms last forever, and only now after AD70 they die and their kingdoms fall (centuries later)? This is why you can't spiritualize everything but so far. You obliterate clear sense and scope statments into total meaninglessness. These have to be considered as well as the time statements.

No, there was a counterfeit Church; just like Israel was God's bride in the OC, but there was a counterfeit aspect of it that was later judged.

No, some minor details may have been skipped in the typical fulfillment. It is the antitype that counts the most, so the details will be fulfilled then. No, we don't know exactly what everything will be, but then neither did the original readers until it all happened. Rrmember, we are looking at all of this in retrospect.

But then it is your side that keeps throwing out "not of this world", and sometimes even "flesh and blood shall not enter it". If you take those statements that way, then it can't be now. But if it is something that is in the hearts of believers now, and one day expands to fill the earth, that does not change it's spiritual nature. Once again the difference between us is whether that final realization of it is when we die or some far off age of righteousness brought in by the Church as some propose, or whether Christ will bring in this kingdom to the world Himself.

And here's another one for the both of you: Since Warren mocks the idea of Christ "ruling from a big chair in dusty Jerusalem", but He rules in Heaven only, then what happened to the notion of "parousia" ("presence")? If Christ returned, then He is here; not in Heaven. If He only ruled in Heaven, then He didn't come back bere. This is the anomaly that results from overspiritualizing the action, sense and scope statements.

But still, it is physical death that came with it, although later (because if that was instantaneous too, there could have been no human race). "mortality" is what is discussed there, and that specifically refers to physical death. Spiritual death is not "mortality", because even those who are spiritually alive are still "mortal". "slept"(v.20) also referred to the inactive state of physical death in this context. Yes, I know that can by extension mean spieitual death (blindness, etc) sometime, but Christ never "slept" in that fashion!Christ is placed in the order of the "making alive"; but He was never spiritually dead to begin with; only physically dead! So the resurrection that is promised to us there correlates with the only resurrection that Christ experienced: the bodily one! This is what sets that whole passage to be about physical death. From the websites, preterist have to make up this idea that the people Paul were corecting only questioned a spiritual resurrection of dead saints, or of righteous gentiles, or something like that. But people already believed in spirits floating off somewhere. It was dead bones coming back to life that was always the question and hope in the OT.

 

Eric,

Parousia - presence. Right. But read the rest of the verse - we meet the Lord in the air (spiritual realm) and "so shall we ever be with the Lord".

Why do I say "spiritual realm?. Eric, you have mocked a "spiritual" resurrection. Yet, didn't Paul say in I Cor.15 that the body we receive is a spiritual body? Could he have been anymore direct? How can you gloss over that and mock a spiritual resurrection????????????

When dispensationalists mockingly say "spiritual" they usually mean "non-literal", as in some sort of non-real, non-tangible, "mystical", as you put it, thing. But that certainly isn't what a spiritual body means. You see, dispies look for fulfillment of that which is spiritual in nature - literal, but spiritual - in the natural, physical realm. That's why I said that a misundwerstanding of the nature of the kingdom is at the core of that false doctrine (dispensationalism).

Warren

 

Like I said; certain details might not have had a clear typical fulfillment. Preterism certainly hasn't been able to answer what the fulfillments of all of them were. It's the major clear themes, such as judgment, and perennial historical figues such as the Beast power that had fulfillments for them. These were special typical fulfillments for the generation who did the actual crucifying, and the faithful who witnessed it and were persecuted by those responsible; so that Christ would be vindicated at as the fledgling Church age went on. (So that was a symbolic "coming in judgment" for Israel; but not the rest of the non-symbolic aspects of the promised coming). A "day of vengeance" for the rest of the sinning world in the future takes nothing away from a "day of vengenace" for Israel in AD70. So "ALL, ALL, ALL" of those things DID come to pass for them! But none of us today, or for the last 19 centurues have been in the position of the first century saints; of coming out of the Old Covenant of death, and experiencing spiritual life (and assurance of salvation) for the first time. So while all of that was significant for them, we are far removed from it. In fact, it was apparently far removed from even the second century Christians, who did not recognize this "coming". So God has a future promise for us. Plus, the final judgment and especially reward has not occurred yet. The only way that could really square with full preterism is if you take Ed Stevens' AD70 rapture theory. Even if you point to going to heaven or hell at death as the "judgment" and "reward", then all is still not fulfilled for us in this present life, and the final friution is yet future for each of us.

But this will only go but so far. One again, like I said above: Christ destroying the gentile armies and putting down all human rule. To say this was in heaven makes no sense unless before AD70, godless rulers ruled in heaven; and Before AD70, they lived forever and their kingdoms lasted forever, and only after AD70 they die and their kingdoms fall. Plus, the clear sense statements: that the godless would see Christ return. They have no spiritual discernment, so they would not "see" any symbolic "spiritual" fulfillments. If Christ only "spiritually" returned in Heaven, then He didn't really come back here. If He did return, then He is here; not in Heaven. If you claim "He's both; [i.e. He's everywhere]", then the whole idea of Christ "going" and "coming" loses meaning. If you say "He was once here in the body", but then He left in the body, and returned in the Spirit", Jesus, in John says that He would be there in spirit through the Holy Spirit, and this "coming" was at Pentecost that year, not in AD70; and not some other type of manifestation.

Yes, it was the end of the age of death for those who were being saved, and the Old Covenant particularly for Jews being saved. But those who are not saved are not in the Kingdom; after all "the kingdom is not of this world"; and "flesh and blood [spiritually; not physical flesh] shall not enter" it. So the unsaved world is still in the age of death. And the godless are still dominant in the earth, rather than the Kingdom having filled the earth. So the old age is still "ending", because not all have come into the Kingdom yet!

No, it's a preterist theory that misconstrues several scriptures to mean the "church age" in this present world never ends. No, "the Church" as a body of believers never ends, and Christ's reign over us (i.e. the Kingdom) never ends, but it's this remnant of the "age" of sin and death that will not go on on this earth forever.

 

But that assumes ithour proving that "in the air" means "spiritual realm". Another of the big weak points of preterism is Acts 1:6ff "This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into Heaven". Preterists desperately try to say "he was unseen in the cloud, so that is how He will return--unseen". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. He visibly ascended, and this is what the retun is compared to (i.e. something they saw), not the brief period he was behind a cloud.

It is called a "spiritual body", because it is now immortal and free of sin, but that is not the same as a "spirit body" raised from out of the physical body, neither the "joining" of any spirit to a totally new, different body, as is also assumed, but rather the physical body being raised itself. The resurrected dead body IS the "new" body!!! —being "RAISED" after having been "sown" natural (death of the physical body). "SOWN in corruption and then RAISED in incorruption". Same body, being transformed; and remember, this is patterned after Christ's resurrection! (1 Cor. 15, Rom.6:5) If His was bodily, so will ours be. If "resurrection" is spiritual only, then that would include Christ, and then, His "bodily resurrection" (one of the essentials of the faith) is denied! 2 Corinthians 5:1 speaks of "a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens", but this just means that its restored state is done by God, rather than naturally, and it will live in "heaven" (which includes the restored earth, and the body can live in both, like Christ's) for eternity. It is not something IN us that BECOMES a new body (totally distinct from the old one). The spirit within us is already made alive. It does not turn into a new body. The only "spiritual resurrection" Paul acknowledges is our new birth, after being "buried with Him" in baptism, and thus dead to sin. (Rom.6) But this was present reality (v.11, 13, and see v. 14 as not being "under the Law"). So the resurrection "in the likeness of His" (v.5) that was still future, was the physical one. All did not die like Him, but they were "baptized into His death" (v.3) In the meantime, we were to act out our state of being spiritually alive. The whole centerpiece of the first Christian witness was the empty tomb. The resurrection body may have been able to appear and disappear at will, and pass through the grave clothes, but still, it was the same body glorified; not a new "spirit" body that left the old one. Also, other people who had been resurrected (Lazarus), it was physical, bodily, though they had not been given immortality yet, and died again. The bodies of the saints who rose at the Crucifixion also came from their own tombs, and were visible, so these were changed bodies, rather then them becoming spirits. So if resurrection was spiritual, then Christ's old body would still be in the tomb to this day.

And a misunderstanding of the scope of the Kingdom is the core of preterism. You reduce it to some symbolic platitude, and we only see the real thing when we die. (And don't you all accuse futurists of "escapism"?) You look for fulfillment of the redemption of the physical by what is spiritual in nature —in a spiritual, symbolic realm; and assume the physical is thrown away. But that kingdom shall literally fill the earth in the future.

 

Is that true? Dr. Bob is that sick and dying? If so, I missed it; but then I have only really been in this discussion recently and watching the music forum, anyway. If this is true, then I would hope Warren didn't realize it either, because his statements would be very cold and heartless otherwise!

 

Warren: "I think dispensationalism will be a minority
view in the church in a few years."

Real minority. The main view of the "left behind church" will be
that we all left at the alleged "rapture".

Warren: //Furthermore, I Cor.10:11 and Heb.9:26 say that
the END of the age had arrived in the first century.//

1 Corinthians 10:11 (HCSB):

Now these things happened to them as examples,
and they were written as a warning to us,
on whom the ends of the ages have come.

Clearly means that the church age which started at the
day of pentacost 33AD is the last of the ages of men.
The next age will be the age of the Christ:
the literal/physcial Millinnial Kingdom
of Jesus.

 

Basicly.

The 62ed Coffee House topic is here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/24/2863.html?

The Coffe House topics 1 through 61 have disappeared. I read some of them.

This page hints at what i said:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/24/2836/3.html?
(read between the lines).

 

Warren: //Oh my! Ed, "on the housetop" is not a modern practice.//

On a Jerusalem summer, if there is a power outage,
"on the housetop" will become a modern practice.

 

This post was ignored before
(well, a person who knows the answer
won't tell. Can anybody here
spell GNOSTIC?)

 

I did not know that Dr. Bob was in ill health. I hope he gets better...and re-enters the discussion on "this generation"!

Eric, a spiritual body is a body! You act as if it is some mystical nothingness. Shame on you. You dispnesationalists like to use the word "bodily" all the time, as if preterists teach a non-bodily resurrection and a non-bodily return of Christ. That simply is not the case.

You argued that Christ rose bodily. But keep in mind that Paul said the last Adam, who is Christ, was "made a quickening spirit" (I Cor.15:45). So the Lord was eventually glorified, and could go through walls and disappear at will. Bodily but with a spiritual body. That is the same pattern for us.

Basically, Eric, you make the mistake of interpreting the time statements by your preconcieved notions about the action statements. The problem with that is that, as with all futurists, you disregard the crucial original audience factor. In doing so, you make the time statements irrelevant and meaningless to the very people they were written and spoken to. Poor dupes, they didn't have a chance at understanding the plain language that Jesus and the inspired Apostles used, right?/

Another problem is that your view of the time words is that of INCONSISTENCY, which is yet another violation of hermeneutics. In other words, stretching words like "shortly", "near", "quickly", and "this generation" to thousands of years is inconsistent with how those same time words are used elsewhere. That makes for one incoherent mess, Eric. NNE has a chance at rightly interpreting scripture using your law of inconsistency. We MUST remain consistent (hermenutics 101).

Warren