So if there is no hell*, from what are we being saved?

How do you know that? Show me. Show me where Sproul doesn't agree with me. Surely you're not telling fibs again.

 

He doesn't support your theory.

Now answer the question. Why be shameful of it and rebuke me for an honest question?

Answer it. :wavey:

 

Show me. I say you've made yet ANOTHER false statement regarding R.C. Sproul. Now, if this is not the case, show me.

 

Last night I got a chance to spend some time with Dr. Sproul and talk about eschatology. I mentioned to him that I felt like in his book “The Last Days According to Jesus” that he really didn’t let his readers know which eschatological camp he was in: Premil, Postmil, or Amil. He laughed heartily and replied, “That’s right, because I don’t actually know. I see valid points in all of them and weaknesses, too.”

R.C. made sure that I knew that he was a partial preterist who viewed this age in a very positive way. He talked about how the church in the West is filled with apostasy and liberalism but in other parts of the world the church is doing great. When he spoke of these matters he sounded like an Amillennialist. But he said that when it came to Romans chapter 11 that he agreed with Charles Hodge and believed that there was something in the future specially for the ethnic Jews of Israel. His view of Romans 11 was similar to Historical Premil. He then apologized to me for being confused. Now that was humbling. If it were not for Dr. Sproul quite possibly I could still be an Arminian – so don’t apologize to me, Dr. Sproul. In fact, to confess that some theology confuses you encourages me and reminds me that we all approach the Bible from the same place – a place of desperate need for God’s wisdom!


http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/09/questions_for_r_c_sproul.php

 

I'm amazed kyredneck that you won't answer the questions. Most believer sould be glad to do it.

Preterism is a hopeless teaching, akin to what Hymenaeus taught that it, the resurrection is past.

The resurrection is future. It didn't happen in 70 a.d.

Symbolism is weaker than its fulfillment. AD 70 wasn't the fulfillment of the Second Coming or parousia whichever you prefer.

When was Revelation written? 69 AD? or 95-96 AD?

Answer the questions and quit acting shameful about it.

 

The end of the age the spirit the life reconciles back to God purified by the fire destruction of the soul, nothing of us remains. This is what hearing from I think he said he was a clergyman of the church. That was like in 93.

Most rather believe that punishment is an age, and heaven is eternity. That the spirit is us not the soul.

 

Yes, I've been listening to preterist teaching and readings.

One huge error is that they teach (not all, but a huge portion) is that the resurrection is past, and we will not be resurrected, that the resurrection was only spiritual (being completely fulfilled in 70 a.d.), even in the case of Jesus it was not a physical glorified body but again, "spiritual."

I believe the word "spiritual" to be an all covering phrase leaving many Scriptures up to personal interpretation, and denying the literalness of the return of Christ, resurrection &c.

Beware when others have this "inside scoop" on truth, and show condescension toward others who don't accept their teachings. Part of their line of reasoning and advancement of their leaven is that if you accept one part of preterist thought you must accept their next line of reasoning, then the next, and the next and so on, until one is left of all hope of anything future, and particularly the resurrection. If you refuse to accept, you are typically mocked and ridiculed as not being intellectual, of being futurist, lacking spiritual discernment &c. The same things take place from Calvinists toward others, which is one reason I reject the label of "Calvinist."

Consider the elitist attitude of Gnosticism as an example. (I believe some of the above thoughts to be a sort of neo-gnosticism, there is nothing new under the sun, just different packaging.) It is a hopeless teaching as there is no future resurrection.

Hymenaeus and Philetus (1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17) seeming held to a gnostic type of resurrection, believing it was only "spiritual." I reject all of the above notions as erroneous teaching.

James White holds a solid view against what he calls hyper-preterism and he has a no holds barred attitude in condemning this teaching.

- Blessings to all His

 

1 Peter 1:
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

I believe that our soul is given or granted a life to himself and we are separated from the Spirit of God because of sin.

I for one would not ask any one to take a chance of their eternal security apart from trusting only Jesus for salvation of our soul.

 

Think that partial pretierism is viable, but wrong , but that Hyper/full pretierism just NOT acceptable per the bible, period!

 

Sproal is a partial. I posted it in response to the back and forth between a couple.