Preterism and "This Generation"

[Warren]

eric,

You have to reflect on the fact that futurism has a bad track record. NOTHING dispensationalists has said has come true. In fact, it's actually been proven wrong. Why all the embarrassment you must ask. The answer is that futurism is a faulty perspective on Bible prophecy. The New Testament DEMANDS a preteristic understanding. People try to get around it by claiming "double fulfillment". Yet, double fulfillment was not stated by Jesus or the Apostles. Double fulfillment is like saying they were wrong, so let me tell you the truth. No thanks. I take what they said very seriously, and do not teach that they were mistaken. The understanding of "this generation" is OBVIOUS. We have no choice but to BELIEVE JESUS!!! - then begin adjust your understading of everything else accordingly. The New Testament actually makes great sense when we do that!

Warren

 

[Ed Edwards]

IMHO Preterism and Evangelism are
mutually exclusive. What evangelic
message do you preterists have?
Try one one me. Here is my
futuristic, dispensational,
premillinnial, pretribulation
AND evangelic message:

-------------------------------
Five Judgements

The Lord God is a judging God

"To judge" can mean three things in the Holy Bible:

A. to discern between good and evil (human function)
B. to condemn, usually falsely (human function)
C. to reward the just & punish the evil (Godly function)

The Five Judgements:

1. Believers for SIN on the Cross
WHO: All who will Believe
WHEN: 33AD
WHERE: Jerusalem
WHY: The Lord God is a merciful God.
HOW: The Grace of God through Messiah Jesus
WHAT: found innocent by the Bood of Jesus

How to get from judgement 1 to judgement 2
(and avoid judgements 3, 4, or 5):

Romans 10:9 (KJV): "That if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved."

2. Judgement Seat of Christ
WHO: Believers for works
WHEN: during the Great Tribulation on earth;
Right after the Rapture/Resurrection that starts
the Tribulation
WHERE: Heaven
WHY: to assign rewards (including
the Millinnial Kingdom rest)
to the redeemed for their good works
HOW: The Grace of God through Messiah Jesus
WHAT: found innocent by the Bood of Jesus

3. Judgement of Yisrael under Antichrist
(Ezekiel 22:17-22 Time of Jacob's Trouble; Ezekiel 20:34-38;
Jeremiah 30:1-24; Revelation 6-19)
WHO: Yisrael
WHEN: during the Tribulation
WHERE: earth
WHY: The Lord God fulfills His promises
HOW: The wrath of God by Messiah Jesus
WHAT: Great Tribulation

4. Throne of His Glory judgement
WHO: the nations: the living survivers of the Great Tribulation
(these people are NOT saved, they are human in human bodies)
WHEN: after the Great Tribulation, before the Millennial Age
WHERE: Jerusalem
WHY: The Lord God fulfills His promises: God will bless those
who bless Yisrael and curse those who curse Yisrael
HOW: Judged by their treatment of Yisrael
WHAT: the cursed to Hell; the blessed to the Millennial Age

5. Great White Throne judgement
WHO: the wicked dead
WHEN: after the Millennial Age; before endless ages
WHERE: between Hell and the Lake of Fire
WHY: The Lord God is not mocked
HOW: The wrath of God by Messiah Jesus
WHAT: the Messiah rejectors consigned to endless punishment

NOTE: The delineation of the five revealed
judgements above does not preclude other specific
or general judgements. One place on the net i found
a chart where TWENTY-FOUR judgements were delineated.
The Lord God is a judging God and His hand is not shortened
by His revelation to us nor
by our understaning of His revelation to us.

May Jesus our Savior and our Lord be Praised!

--compilation by ed,
incurable Jesus Phreaque

 

[Warren]

Ed,

Stop avoiding "this generation". You can say you believe this or that, and give the list some chart you pulled up somewhere, but, the FACT IS, you are wrong in your definition of "this generation". This, of course, means you are wrong in your overall eschatology, which sees a future return of Christ to the earth.

The "judgment" was imminent (Gr.-mello-about to be) at the time the New Testament was being penned.

Ed, please tell me how you can say that the Lord's coming was imminent in the first century (and clearly it was) and then say it's still imminent 2000 years later. 2000 years is not imminent! The words of scripture had to be true to the original audience. Ed, you and your favorite prophecy teachers are NOT the original audience. Original audience relevance is the most critical of all interpretive rules - disregrad it and it's anything goes. Futurism has showed it's ugly head in the fact that it's been "anything goes" for the last 1900 years. Every sort of twisted prediction and "belief" imaginable has been birthed by the futurist perspective of Bibvle prophecy. You know that to be true.

Please deal with the fact that the Lord's coming was IMMINENT in the first century, according to I Cor.7:29, James 5:8, Rev.1:1,3; 22:6,7,10,12,20, Heb.10:37, etc... 2000 years is not imminent. Either the imminency statements were true to the original audience or they were a lie. 20000 years and running make them to be a lie because 2000 years is not imminent to the original audience. What a cruel deception those first century saints would have experienced IF the imminency statements didn't prove to be true.

Warren

 

[Warren]

It seems the preterist view is making some inroads on this list, since Ed and Eric are the only ones who refute it. I have to believe there are many former futurists that are following this debate, but have been silenced by the accurate exegesis of the preterist view. Dr. Bob got out of the discussion real quick, with nmecalling on the way out - as if saying "heresy" and "absurd" prove anything. Indeed, the preterist exegesis silences all comers (except Ed and Eric so far...but they are only posting silly remarks with no exegesis based on interpreting scripture WITH scripture).

Folks, please step up and be counted here.

Warren

 

[Warren]

Ed's pretrib dispensationalism literally hinges on a "rebuilt temple". But such an idea is not in the wind at all. The Moslem Dome of the Rock sits today where the TEmple stood. Does anyone out there dare to think that the Arab world is going to one day allow that to be torn down? God commanded the Temple to be built in a precise pattern and location. Any deviation would not be a "rebuilt temple" in Jewisish thinking, or Old Testament teaching.

Furthernmore, part of the Divinely commanded pattern for the Temple was the pure Levitical priesthood. All the geneological records were destroyed in 70 A.D., making any idea of a "rebuilt temple" an impossibility, since there would be no way to PROVE ancestral linkage to the Levites. And there surely would NOT be any PURE Levites in existence today if there were any geneological records! Tghus, the destruction in 70 A.D. was a COMPLETE ONE. As God said in Malachi 4, the day of the Lord would leave them (the Jews) "neither root nor branch".

Warren

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: "It seems the preterist view is making some inroads on this list, since Ed and Eric are the only ones who refute it."

Tee hee. They are the only two willing
to waist their time on this fool's errand.

Warren: "The Moslem Dome of the Rock sits today where the TEmple stood. Does anyone out there dare to think that the Arab world is going to one day allow that to be torn down?"

I already answered this in the pages above.
BTW, the proper place for the Temple to be
built (if you ignore the outer court
as noted in Revelation 11:2) is north
of the Dome of the Rock. That place is
currently empty except for a 12 ft wide
cupola. The Temple can be built alongside
the Dome of the Rock. BTW, you may recall
that if the Dome of the Rock was dedicated
in 688AD (they were certainly working on
it the) that 1948AD - 688AD = 1260 year/days.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: " 2000 years is not imminent!"

There is a witness against your statement:

The Holman Christian Standard Bible

2 Peter 3:8

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day.

Two days is imminent.

2 Peter 3:3-4a (HCSB):

First, be aware of this: scoffers will come
in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts,
4 saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? ...

Hiding one's doubt in the term "Preterism" or hiding the
reality of Christ's return in the term "Mystic Christian"
is *** (*** I'm not allowed to say anything meaningful here.
I can't say sinful, indicative of being lost, etc. because
i have to acknowledge your variant eschatology as not
a salvation issue.

Still waiting for a mystic preterist evangelic message.

 

[Warren]

Your info about the temple is pathetic. Do you really think the Arab world is going to allow a Jewish temple to be "rebuilt" alongside, as you put it, the Dome of the Rock?? Come on, Ed, that will never be allowed. Oh, I know you think a worldwide dictator is going to sign a seven-year peace treaty that will allow the Jews to rebuild their temple, but the Bible doesn't teach that funny idea either. It was CHRIST who "confirmed the covenant".

Dispensationalists have been saying the temple will be rebuilt for many, many years. And it's always "soon". Yet nothing even hints that it is going to be rebuilt. Jesus never taught such an idea. And neither did his Apostles. It is only the dispensational theologians who teach that, and they made it up to justify their gap doctrine. Nowhere in the New Testament is the idea of a rebuilt temple thousands of years from the first century taught! Sad that people like you, Ed, believe in something the Bible doesn't teach. Are you a Schofieldite or what??

II Peter 3:8 does NOT teach that God's timetable is different than ours. The first century Jewish scoffers were pointing to delay - all things go on as they have since the beginning of the creation. Peter counters their scoffing by repeating an Old Testament metaphor from Psalms that - one day is as a thousands years with God.... The meaning of this metaphor is given in the very next verse, and it was simply that God is "longsuffering". The end, however, was imminent and certain at the time Peter wrote. Here is what he said:


"The end of all things is NEAR (not far, Ed)" (I Pet.4:7)

"Whose (the Jewish scoffers/false teachers at that time-II Pet.2:1, 3:3) judgment NOW of a long time LINGERETH NOT, and their damnation SLUMBERETH NOT." (II Pet.2:3)

The "judgment" mentioned in II Pet.2:3 is one and the same as "the day of the Lord" of chapter 3 and verse 10. Peter said that the day of the Lord/judgment would NOT linger, or delay any longer. It couldn't be any plainer.

The message of preterism is one of completed salvation. No more sleeping in the grave, waiting for a resurrection. All was fulfilled exactly WHEN Jesus said it would be. We MUST take Jesus at his word and stop adding theories, like a "rebuilt temple" into the scriptures.

The message of futurism, however, is that Jesus didn't mean what he said and the New Testament scriptures are not reliable. Atheists know all about the imminency statements seen throughout the N.T. They know all about Jesus saying all would be fulfilled before the then-present generation had passed. Simply put, they have a field day with futuruistic eschatology, especially of the dispensational slant.

Warren

 

[Ed Edwards]

Warren: "No more sleeping in the grave, waiting for a resurrection."

As far as i can tell, the majority of Christians beleive
the body waits in the grave, the spirit is in heaven.
So nobody believes what you said.

 

[Grasshopper]

Warren, you can't make progress with someone who believes "this generation" = "church age". That belief is a sign of one who does not take the Word of God seriously or simply has closed his mind. As I have shown most theologians understood the Olivet Discourse spoke of the events of AD70. He goes against his own Baptist forefathers.

Eric does understand the problems of futurism. He seems to understand the past fulfillment of these prophecies. However he does not want to accept the position of full-preterism therefore he assumes dual-fulfillment. I actually can sympathize with his view, and he does make some good points. However this position also has problems. So I ask you Eric, which prophecies have dual-fulfillment and who determines which ones have a dual-fulfillment? How do you know which past prophecies apply to which future events?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Revelation 6:14

At the breaking of the sixth seal
there is an earthquake:
every mountain is moved from it's place
every island is moved from it's place

A futurist says it will happen someday.
A preterist must say it has already happened.
A convincing preterist will give the date.

Note that is different from
the earthquake of Revelation 16:20
at the pouring of the 7th book
there is an earthquake:
every mountain disappears
every island disappears.

A futurist says it will happen someday.
A preterist must say it has already happened.
A convincing preterist will give the date.

BTW, there are physical mountains
and islands visable today.
When did they reappear?

 

[Grasshopper]

BTW, there are physical mountains
and islands visable today.
When did they reappear?

Ed, do I need to show the scriptures in the OT that use those same terms and are clearly not literal? Would it do any good? Do you not understand the prophets used figurative/metaphoric language?
Perhaps you should spend some time reading the OT prophets.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Ed, do I need to show the scriptures in the OT that use those same terms and are clearly not literal?

Yes.
Make sure that these are NOT prophecies of
things futuristic to our time
or of a double fullfillment.

Originally posted by Grasshopper:
Do you not understand the prophets
used figurative/metaphoric language?

Discount that you have the gift of
discernment of spirits. My pastor is
well versed in the prophetic use of
figurative/metaphoric language.
Grasshopper, Do you not understand the prophets
used figurative/metaphoric language?

You skipped the part where i show
the proper interpertation of Matthew 24
requires the use of the figurative/metaphoric
use of the polysyndeton Greek term
KAI.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yes.
Make sure that these are NOT prophecies of
things futuristic to our time
or of a double fullfillment .

So no matter what example I give of this type of language reffering to a past event, you will just claim dual-fulfillment. I don't think I'll waste my time.

 

[Grasshopper]

My pastor is
well versed in the prophetic use of
figurative/metaphoric language.

I'm not debating your pastor.

 

[Eric B]

Jesus never taught that he and the angels would stage a massive takeover of planet earth. So why hold out for that scenaro! 70 A.D. was perfectly consistent with past precedents for the day of the Lord in which God sentb destroying armies to desolate a nation.

Several of the prophecies did say Christ would destroy the Beast Kingdom and subdue all others; not just Jerusalem. Preterism has to come up with this ridiculous idea that no, the godless nations do continue on forever, but because each individual nation eventually falls on its own, that fulfills those passages.

The kingdom of God is not of this world, according to Jesus himself. Therefore, you will not ever see your preconcieved views pan out. Jesus will not return to sit on a big chair in hot, dusty Jerusalem! He is on the throne now and forever in heaven!

So now, you're using "not of this world" to mean that it won't ever be established in this world, but only in Heaven. But then, you've been saying that this kingdom IS in this world now, but it's only spiritual. So "not of this world" means not of this "age", and thus has nothing to do with whether it can be established within the cosmos; in either theory. But once again, since everyone must die and go to heaven, then there is something after this, and this "age" we see where there is still sin and physical death is not complete.

The New Testament DEMANDS a preteristic understanding. People try to get around it by claiming "double fulfillment". Yet, double fulfillment was not stated by Jesus or the Apostles. Double fulfillment is like saying they were wrong, so let me tell you the truth. No thanks. I take what they said very seriously, and do not teach that they were mistaken.

It's not "they were wrong, let me tell you the truth". It's "they were right, but there is still a fulfillment left for us". Once again, all is not complete, if for no other reason that we must still die and go to heaven.

We have no choice but to BELIEVE JESUS!!! - then begin adjust your understading of everything else accordingly. The New Testament actually makes great sense when we do that!

And if we do that, we'll see that it is all dual. Not if we go to opposite extremes to react just because another system of interpretation often went overboard. That certainly isn't how we build good doctrine. But it is what many are doing in many areas.

Indeed, the preterist exegesis silences all comers (except Ed and Eric so far...but they are only posting silly remarks with no exegesis based on interpreting scripture WITH scripture).

Stilly remarks? It seems you are having a hard time addressing the points I have made about preterism's hope for an unbiblical spirit resurrection that ultimately becomes another form of the very dual fulfillment it eschews. Your view focuses only on time statements, and throws everything else away. My view can take the time statements along with the action, sense and scope statements, and they all harmonize withour any ridiculous spiritualizing.

Does anyone out there dare to think that the Arab world is going to one day allow that to be torn down? Do you really think the Arab world is going to allow a Jewish temple to be "rebuilt" alongside, as you put it, the Dome of the Rock??

God is in control of all of this. (That is not to say, once again, that He would be reinstituing the Old Covenant as legitimate by doing that; but to fulfill His plan, He does give people over to their sin and deception and actually help thm carry it out.) So it wouldn't matter what the Arabs would want to allow, if that is God's plan.

The message of preterism is one of completed salvation.

And nobody questions completed salvation. But it is still threefold (penalty, power and presence of sin), and it's the last one that is obviously not fulfilled. In either view, it is only after death and/or resurrection that it is realized. The debate is ultimately whether it is a spirit or bodily resurrection.

 

[Warren]

Ed's definition of "this generation" being the last 2000 years with no end in sight is absolutely sad. He has no grasp of context, theological dynamics, or original audience relevance. And he certainly isn't consistent with other references to the very same term. That's called making a verse mean whatever you want or need it to mean.

Eric, claiming double fulfillment everytime you get in a jam is not sound hermeneutics! I recommend taking the time statements seriously and conceding the fact that you have lack of understanding about the fulfillment of the details. Prophecy has a context! The context is given in the time statements. This generation ----- WHAT generation????? Anyone can understand that Jesus was speaking of the then-presentb generation. And we have no right to claim that the events that fulfilled the great tribulation in 70 A.D. will be double fulfilled just because we don't see Jesus sitting on a big chair in Jerusalem today. He never taught that scenario.

A misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom is at the core of funny futurism. Dispensationalists look for fulfillment of that which is spiritual, heavenly and eternal in the natural, physical realm. But Jesus said that the kingdom of God is "not of this world...neither here nor there", meaning it is NOT a geo-political kingdom.

Dispensationalists literally teach a reconstruction of the whole first century scenario all over again. From their "Revived Roman Empire", to their "rebuilt temple", to their "reinstituted animal sacrifices", it's all gonna happen again, baby! Sad.

Warren

 

[Warren]

Yeah, Ed, I really think preterism is making inroads on this list, else there would be others besides yourself and a half-hearted "double fulfillment" from Eric. They're listening out there, but they can't refute what us preterists are saying because we are consistent with the scriptures in our definitions. We don't add theories and wierd definitions that are inconsistent with other references.

I'm convinced that preterism has won out here. People are listening and seeing the light. Only Ed outright rejects it. He says it's because others are choosing not to reply. Hahahahah.

Dispensationalism is a tradition of man which Baptist hero C.I. Schofield helped make popular.

Warren

 

[Eric B]

However he does not want to accept the position of full-preterism therefore he assumes dual-fulfillment.

And I have explained why. It has to be dual for certain fulfillments to make sense. It is dual no matter what, because you too teach that there is a heaven where we see all of these promises completely realized (i.e. in a sense greater than what we experience here, where there is still sin and suffering).

So I ask you Eric, which prophecies have dual-fulfillment and who determines which ones have a dual-fulfillment? How do you know which past prophecies apply to which future events?

That's basically an ongoing study, to get the whole range of fulfillments. I'm still basically grasping the singular fulfillments. Obviously, in current theory, the Beast is still around, though in the inactive state called "the bottomless pit", and the institutional Church has followed right behind old Jerusalem in being corrupted into the new Babylon. One thing you must remember; preterism is not even completely sure on its past fulfillments, and many key details such as the deadly wound, the mark of the beast, the man of sin, etc. are glossed over, or Josephus didn't mention it, so it is speculated with various differing theories are plugged in —much like futurism! (e.g. after Nero died they thought this other person was a resurrection of him; etc). This shows that these were shadows of a more strict fulfillment in the future. These are just some examples of how to determine what is dual. So it would take a lot of study to try to break it all down as to which apply to which; which repeat, etc.

 

[Eric B]

And we have no right to claim that the events that fulfilled the great tribulation in 70 A.D. will be double fulfilled just because we don't see Jesus sitting on a big chair in Jerusalem today. He never taught that scenario.

A misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom is at the core of funny futurism. Dispensationalists look for fulfillment of that which is spiritual, heavenly and eternal in the natural, physical realm. But Jesus said that the kingdom of God is "not of this world...neither here nor there", meaning it is NOT a geo-political kingdom.

And you still misuse "not of this world" as to meaning it is "up there" only. If that's true, then there is no fulfillment of the prophecies of the Kingdom at all, and you make Jesus out to be a liar for not simply telling us that you only go to the kingdom when you die. Once again, "world" there was "age", not "cosmos" (adorning), and yes, "neiter here nor there" means not a "geo-political" kingdom, in the sense that the Jews were looking for one-- that this old age and cosmos would continue on, but they would be the kings of it "over there" in Jerusalem. that is what is wrong, but it is not the same as the Kingdom futurists look for, where all is changed, the spiritual comes down to redeem the physical, not just throw the physical away and take us up to some new realm when we die, and it literally fills the entire earth (i.e. "neither here nor there"), unlike what we see in the world (visibly or spiritually) today. (Some preterists claim "oh, but give it time; in the thousands of years to come, it will eventually fill the earth". But then not only do you have yet another type of future dual fulfillment; now thousands of years become the final fulfillment of all those time statements that were supposed to be fulfilled in their generation! --just like futurism! So you might as well just admit it is all dual).
You deny any redemption of the physical, and insist that "resurrection" is spiritual only. But while preterism is a very strong theory, this is its Achille's heel. For one thing the whole context od 1 Cor. 15 is physical death. Yet even this, the other preterists here insisted was spiritual only when we debated before. So it is not true that "We don't add theories and wierd definitions that are inconsistent with other references". Yours are far worse than the futurists'.

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.

http://members.aol.com/etb700/preterism.html