PreTrib Rapture Affeccianados -- Good Sermon

[Grasshopper]

Lemme see if I can succinctly answer some of these questions:

Was Gill wrong about AD70 being "a coming of the son of man"? YES.
Was Owen wrong about 2 Peter? YES
Was Spurgeon right about the events of 70AD being the Tribulation? NO.
Do Dispies agree these events are tied to Jesus' 2nd Coming? YES -- IN THE FUTURE.
Know of anyone whose faith was destroyed? YES -- at least Paul did. Many in Thessalonica.
Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? YES -- which is why I reject a spurious doctrine teaching Jesus has already come.
Was Gill wrong in placing the 2nd Coming in the events of 70AD (Reprise)? YES


John wrote Revelation around 95AD, some 25 years after Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed. His cry was, "Even so, Lord Come!" To [mis]understand Matthew as Preterists do is to ignore the evidence of the later dated Johannine writings, and so to fall into the error many Thessalonicans did.

Very good! A man that will actually answer questions. Now this is not a trick question but an honest one aimed at your understanding. What would your eschatology be had you answered the exact opposite of what you did and with the understanding that Revelation was written pre-AD70 as many do?

Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)

"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)


http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/ApocalypseCommentaries/Dating/Early/index.html

 

[JDale]

Very good! A man that will actually answer questions. Now this is not a trick question but an honest one aimed at your understanding. What would your eschatology be had you answered the exact opposite of what you did and with the understanding that Revelation was written pre-AD70 as many do?

Philip Schaff(1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)

"Tertullian’s legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428.)

"The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring of all ancient history." But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months." (p. 397-398)


http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/ApocalypseCommentaries/Dating/Early/index.html

I would say that to Schaff (whose work in Church History is unquestionably superb) the "modern scholarship" he describes in terms of 1877 MAY have affirmed an early date for Revelation. That same "modern scholarship," however, was by that time being influenced by German Higher Criticism, and furthermore they had far fewer reliable sources regarding the timing of events of the Scripture, as well as manuscripts or copies of the Scriptures themselves.

In other words, Schaff (and other sources you cite) are dated, and/or are selected to butress your [errant] point, rather than to reveal the actual truth of the matter.

JDale

 

[Grasshopper]

I would say that to Schaff (whose work in Church History is unquestionably superb) the "modern scholarship" he describes in terms of 1877 MAY have affirmed an early date for Revelation. That same "modern scholarship," however, was by that time being influenced by German Higher Criticism, and furthermore they had far fewer reliable sources regarding the timing of events of the Scripture, as well as manuscripts or copies of the Scriptures themselves.

In other words, Schaff (and other sources you cite) are dated, and/or are selected to butress your [errant] point, rather than to reveal the actual truth of the matter.

JDale

1. I'm disappointed you chose not to answer my question.
2. What modern discoverys of reliable resources are you referring to that makes a convincing argument for a late date.
3. Pick up a copy of "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry for an indepth study on this subject.
4.Why are you reposting things on 2 threads?

 

[skypair]

I'm dodging nothing. I actually answer questions presented to me unlike others.

1.Paul was correct in saying the resurrection had not yet come.

So you deny that Mt 27:52 was the resurrection?

I ask you, are the resurrection, tribulation, coming of the son of man and the dissolution of the heavens all events that occur within the same time frame not sepatated by 1000's of years?

They are within a 1000 year period, yes.

skypair

 

[skypair]

What would your eschatology be had you answered the exact opposite of what you did and with the understanding that Revelation was written pre-AD70 as many do?

The dating of the Revelation is significant but not critical. There are too many other prophecies that demand literal fulfillment and that we have not seen yet showing us incontrovertibly that preterism is false. You have just followed a "cunningly devised fable" when it comes to "the coming of our Lord Jesus," 1Pet 1:16

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

So you deny that Mt 27:52 was the resurrection?

Dude, stay up with the conversation.

They are within a 1000 year period, yes.

skypair

Therefore if someone( Gill, Owen, Spurgeon etc..) taught than one or two of these events had occured 2000 years ago, yet insist some are still future then you would find them inconsistent in their eschatology?

 

[skypair]

Therefore if someone( Gill, Owen, Spurgeon etc..) taught than one or two of these events had occured 2000 years ago, yet insist some are still future then you would find them inconsistent in their eschatology?

Right. None occurred 2000 years ago.

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

Right. None occurred 2000 years ago.

skypair

Therefore if they did believe at least some of those events did occur in the events of AD70 the only consistant eschatological view they could hold is a full-preterist view. Agree?

 

[skypair]

Therefore if they did believe at least some of those events did occur in the events of AD70 the only consistant eschatological view they could hold is a full-preterist view. Agree?

Not really. It could be a "consistent eschatological view" but just not a scriptural one. Of course, that would be my view of full or partial preterists.

But correct me if I'm wrong -- you and Bro Bob "declare" the trib events to have already happened so that you can claim the kingdom of Christ is on earth now, right? See, that's problematic for the same reason preterism is -- we don't see any of the literal aspects of it.

What you could do that many of us have is say that the 70th week came spiritually in many ways and that the kingdom has also come spiritually to the church. I think some of the events seen by preterists as already accomplished may be consistent with partially fulfilled prophecy. Certainly, Jer 31:31 would be one that occurred unto the Gentiles and some Jews but by no means of every tribe of Israel.

skypair

 

[Marcia]

Therefore if they did believe at least some of those events did occur in the events of AD70 the only consistant eschatological view they could hold is a full-preterist view. Agree?

If the full preterist view is true, doesn't that mean that Satan is bound?

 

[Grasshopper]

If the full preterist view is true, doesn't that mean that Satan is bound?

They would say much more than just bound:

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Colossians 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

What did Paul mean in Romans 16:20? Without your bringing your pre-suppositions to the text, what would a 1st century Roman think Paul was saying?

 

[Marcia]

They would say much more than just bound:

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Colossians 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

What did Paul mean in Romans 16:20? Without your bringing your pre-suppositions to the text, what would a 1st century Roman think Paul was saying?

I think crushing Satan and destroying his works means that man no longer had to be in bondage to sin. A man, Jesus Christ, had come and lived perfectly, resisting all tempations, including from Satan.

I think Satan being bound is different - it means he is unable to act at all in the world. Do you really believe Satan is bound? I see evidence of Satan all over the place!

 

[Grasshopper]

I think crushing Satan and destroying his works means that man no longer had to be in bondage to sin. A man, Jesus Christ, had come and lived perfectly, resisting all tempations, including from Satan.

So to "crush satan" and "destroy him" simply means to end the bondage sin has on man?

Does that mean you believe the work of Christ will someday be undone according to Revelation:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Is the verse saying the bondage sin has over man will be loosed someday thus reversing Christ's work?

I think Satan being bound is different - it means he is unable to act at all in the world. Do you really believe Satan is bound? I see evidence of Satan all over the place!

Where is Satan in this equation:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[Marcia]

So to "crush satan" and "destroy him" simply means to end the bondage sin has on man?

I think that crushing Satan may come in stages, just as our sanctification is. We are saved now but still live in mortal bodies. One day that will change.

Does that mean you believe the work of Christ will someday be undone according to Revelation:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Is the verse saying the bondage sin has over man will be loosed someday thus reversing Christ's work?

No, it will not reverse Christ's work. God is allowing Satan out for His own purposes, just as He allows Satan to work in the world now.

Where is Satan in this equation:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

I did not say that Satan is behind every temptation. But I think it's crystal clear that Satan is still around. I had contact with and guidance from spirit guides (demons) when I was in the New Age, but that is not my only reason for thinking this.

You didn't answer my question: Do you think Satan is bound and unable to work in the world today?

 

[Grasshopper]

I think that crushing Satan may come in stages, just as our sanctification is. We are saved now but still live in mortal bodies. One day that will change.

Just an observation, not a criticism, but do you notice how many times you've stated "I think"? Now, "I think" your thoughts come from years of teachings/indoctrination and not necessarily from good exegesis of the texts.

You say the crushing comes in stages, where is this concept found in scripture? If it is true then wouldn't satan become weaker and weaker through the centuries? I don't think that is what dispies teach. In fact he is loosed and has more power than ever according to dispies.

Secondly, when did this crushing begin? Remember Paul wrote long after the death of Christ.

No, it will not reverse Christ's work. God is allowing Satan out for His own purposes, just as He allows Satan to work in the world now.

Then the "crushing" has had no effect.

I did not say that Satan is behind every temptation.

How do you know he is behind any? Is he omnipresent?

Again, James seems to be quite clear where sin is concieved:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?

Do you believe if there was no satan there would be no sin?

But I think it's crystal clear that Satan is still around. I had contact with and guidance from spirit guides (demons) when I was in the New Age, but that is not my only reason for thinking this.

Again, "I think", but I think we would agree only scripture matters. Not our pre-suppositions or even experiences. Mine included.

You didn't answer my question: Do you think Satan is bound and unable to work in the world today?

No, I don't think I believe he is bound. I'm not real sure yet what I believe about it. I have more questions than answers. But I do know this, I don't need any external force to convince me to sin it all comes from my own sinful desires. I have seen the enemy and he is me.

 

[JDale]

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:(I Peter 5:8).

So, was Satan bound at the crucifixion and resurrection, or was he bound secretly, mystically, spiritually somehow in 70 AD? And, if he is bound, does that mean all the Demons are bound with him? Does that mean demons cannot possess men today? How "bound" is Satan or his minions?

Biblically, historically, theologically, spiritually and experientially -- in each of these ways, the idea you are proposing is simply wrong. That Jesus "returned" in 70AD, that Satan was somehow bound then, that the "resurrection" is "past," and that we are somehow living in a figurative millennium or an eternal future of some sort...? It not only defies scripture, but reason.

JDale

Just an observation, not a criticism, but do you notice how many times you've stated "I think"? Now, "I think" your thoughts come from years of teachings/indoctrination and not necessarily from good exegesis of the texts.

You say the crushing comes in stages, where is this concept found in scripture? If it is true then wouldn't satan become weaker and weaker through the centuries? I don't think that is what dispies teach. In fact he is loosed and has more power than ever according to dispies.

Secondly, when did this crushing begin? Remember Paul wrote long after the death of Christ.




Then the "crushing" has had no effect.



How do you know he is behind any? Is he omnipresent?

Again, James seems to be quite clear where sin is concieved:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly corrupt: who can know it?

Do you believe if there was no satan there would be no sin?




Again, "I think", but I think we would agree only scripture matters. Not our pre-suppositions or even experiences. Mine included.



No, I don't think I believe he is bound. I'm not real sure yet what I believe about it. I have more questions than answers. But I do know this, I don't need any external force to convince me to sin it all comes from my own sinful desires. I have seen the enemy and he is me.

 

[Marcia]

Just an observation, not a criticism, but do you notice how many times you've stated "I think"? Now, "I think" your thoughts come from years of teachings/indoctrination and not necessarily from good exegesis of the texts.

You say the crushing comes in stages, where is this concept found in scripture? If it is true then wouldn't satan become weaker and weaker through the centuries? I don't think that is what dispies teach. In fact he is loosed and has more power than ever according to dispies.

Satan is weaker for believers -- because of the Holy Spirit, we are no longer in bondage to sin and are able to resist temptation (not that we do it all the time, but the power to resist is there). If our salvation is in stages - saved, sanctified, and finally glorified, then Satan's effect on us would naturally decrease the same way.

Then the "crushing" has had no effect.

Yes, on believers, it does, as explained above. The statements about the defeat of Satan was to believers, not unbelievers.

How do you know he is behind any? Is he omnipresent?

Satan is definitely not omnipresent. But when I say Satan, I also include his demons. I say that Satan is behind some temptations due to the examples in scripture: Jesus being tempted in the wilderness, and Jesus telling Peter that Satan was wanting to "sift" him. Of course, we have the more blatant example of Judas (an unbeliever) with Satan actually entering into him.

Do you believe if there was no satan there would be no sin?

No. As I said, I do not believe Satan is behind all temptations and I never said he makes someone sin. We sin of our own volition.

No, I don't think I believe he is bound. I'm not real sure yet what I believe about it.

But if you are a preterist, then does it not follow he is bound?

I have more questions than answers. But I do know this, I don't need any external force to convince me to sin it all comes from my own sinful desires. I have seen the enemy and he is me

Don't know why you say this since I never implied that Satan makes anyone sin.

 

[Grasshopper]

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:(I Peter 5:8).

Young's Literal:

1Pe 5:8 Be sensible and vigilant, because your adversary the Devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking someone he may devour;

devil:

G1228
διάβολος
diabolos
Thayer Definition:
1) prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely
1a) a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer
2) metaphorically applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him

Interestingly "roaring lions" has been used before speaking of men:

Zep 3:1 Woe to her rebelling and becoming defiled, to the oppressing city! Zep 3:2 She did not obey the voice; she did not receive correction. She trusted not in Jehovah; she did not draw near to her God. Zep 3:3 Her rulers within her are roaring lions; her judges evening wolves. They do not gnaw bones for the morning.

So, was Satan bound at the crucifixion and resurrection, or was he bound secretly, mystically, spiritually somehow in 70 AD? And, if he is bound, does that mean all the Demons are bound with him? Does that mean demons cannot possess men today? How "bound" is Satan or his minions?

All good questions I have no answers for. I do know Paul said God was going to crush his head shortly. Did He fail to do so?

I also know the writer of Hebrews said through Christ's death he would destroy the devil. Did He also fail to do so? John said that through the manifestation of the Son of Man He would destroy the works of the devil. Did He fail again? Paul said the Jesus "disarmed principalities and powers" did He then rearm them after His death?

Perhaps you can easily dismiss these verses I cannot.

Biblically, historically, theologically, spiritually and experientially -- in each of these ways, the idea you are proposing is simply wrong.

Yet those are the words of Paul, John and the writer of Hebrews.

That Jesus "returned" in 70AD,

Actually "return" is only used once in this regard and that is in Hebrews. The word is parousia.

Interesting what Strons and Thayer say regarding this word:

Strongs
G3952
παρουσία
parousia
par-oo-see'-ah
From the present participle of G3918; a being near, that is, advent (often, return; specifically of Christ to punish Jerusalem, or finally the wicked); (by implication) physical aspect: - coming, presence.

Strongs allows it to be used for the events of AD70.

Thayer Definition:
1) presence
2) the coming, arrival, advent
2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
Both Stongs and Thayers usage would allow a partial or full preterists interpretation. I'll debate either view.

that Satan was somehow bound then, that the "resurrection" is "past," and that we are somehow living in a figurative millennium or an eternal future of some sort...? It not only defies scripture, but reason.

JDale

Surley you would agree that scripture teaches at least a spiritual resurrection?

Joh 5:25 Truly, truly, I say to you, The hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live.

Two questions,

1. Will there be death in the New Heavens and New Earth?
2. Is the death Paul refers to in I Cor. 15:54-55 tied in nature to the resurrection found in verse 42?

 

[Grasshopper]

Satan is weaker for believers -- because of the Holy Spirit, we are no longer in bondage to sin and are able to resist temptation (not that we do it all the time, but the power to resist is there). If our salvation is in stages - saved, sanctified, and finally glorified, then Satan's effect on us would naturally decrease the same way.

That describes the time right after Christ's death even at Pentecost, but Paul wrote Romans long after that and he said it would happen shortly. So when did it begin?

Yes, on believers, it does, as explained above. The statements about the defeat of Satan was to believers, not unbelievers.

Interesting view. So the promise in Romans and Genesis for that matter was only a metaphoric type of crushing and only to believers. Not a literal/physical action taken upon a literal/physical Satan.

But doesn't "destroy" have a more permanent and thorough meaning than a mere gradual effect?

Satan is definitely not omnipresent.

Good, can't tell you how many times "ive heard one of my pastors or staff say when we have audio problems, "Satan must not want this message preached". That is usually followed by a "we bind you in the name of Jesus prayer".

But when I say Satan, I also include his demons. I say that Satan is behind some temptations due to the examples in scripture: Jesus being tempted in the wilderness,

Pre-Cross.

and Jesus telling Peter that Satan was wanting to "sift" him.

Didn't Jesus call Peter "satan"?

Of course, we have the more blatant example of Judas (an unbeliever) with Satan actually entering into him.

Pre-Cross,pre-resurrection,pre-AD70.

No. As I said, I do not believe Satan is behind all temptations and I never said he makes someone sin. We sin of our own volition.

Then what exactly does he do?

Again James:

Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Temptation comes from mans own lust, right? Isn't that what James says?

But if you are a preterist, then does it not follow he is bound?

Destroyed would be another option.

Just so you know, I am a preterist, I just don't know yet if I'm a partial or full. I'm riding the fence in the gray area between until I can sort through it. I defend and debate both views trying to see the strengths and weaknesses of both.

 

[Ed Edwards]

They would say much more than just bound:

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Colossians 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

What did Paul mean in Romans 16:20? Without your bringing your pre-suppositions to the text, what would a 1st century Roman think Paul was saying?

Interesting think to say from one who is not even aware of his pre-suppositions. To bad you seem to have no knowledge of what 'pre-supposition' means.

Feel free to tell us what you mean by 'pre-supposition'.

I believe that a system of Doctrine can be determined logically by starting with undefined terms and suppositions. Using discovered principles of logic (a branch of mathematics) other statements can 'prove a Doctrine'. Also clever folk can construe one's pre-suppositions given.

If the undefined terms are 'Government, human, and law the conclusions will a form of government. ('supposition' used to be called 'Axiom' or 'Self evident truth') "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights ... "

If the undefined terms are 'plane', 'line', 'point' then the conclusions will be a Plane Geometry, a practical mathematical application useful in spatial relationships.

//Without your bringing your pre-suppositions to the text, ... //

Sorry, I cannot (nor can anybody) separate their conclusions from their pre-suppositions. So this illogical statement sort of indicates that the rest will also be

// ... what would a 1st century Roman think Paul was saying? //

I really don't have time to play useless games. What is God saying to me through Paul or Peter today (4 September AD 2008)? What that is said in the Bible will help me serve the Lord better RIGHT NOW (4 September AD 2008).

Oh, I was going to give my PRE-WRITTEN post about the 'Economy of God'. The prophets often speak of something God intends to do in the past tense (has already been done). This really confuses some folk. But that writing will be next post. God's plan is to destroy (get rid of eternally) the lead Devil/Satan,it is as though it has already been done.