It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.Watching this mans debates with preterists, is a majority of the reason what drove me to where I stand now.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.Watching this mans debates with preterists, is a majority of the reason what drove me to where I stand now.
I don't know if any preterists can make that claim though!It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.
It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.
I don't know if any preterists can make that claim though!
My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism, and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace. That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation, and therefore dispensationalism. And watching a debate certainly doesn't give that knowledge.I didn't explain well enough, It wasn't a flip of the switch. It was almost a two year journey of talking to people, reading, ect. But watching the debates is what eased my confusion on the matter.
I'd be a miserable teacher if I didn't present other views. Out of 23 lectures, I have lectures on ultra-dispensationalism, Scofield and his mistakes, covenant theology (2 lectures), new covenant theology, and the views of many dispensationalists about the final apostasy and about the 7 churches of Asia. In one lecture I even disagree with the "me" of 1975, as revealed in a Bible study I did at the time about when the church began.
My students are allowed to write research papers that disagree with my positions, but they must have sufficient sources, good reasoning, and a good summation.
My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism, and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace. That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation, and therefore dispensationalism.
It is not even just Dispy, as there are those holding to Covenant Theology here who also totally reject Preterism!My impression of you and the other preterists here on the BB is that you don't really understand dispensationalism, and you certainly don't understand the allegorical hermeneutic that you embrace. That being the case, I don't see how you guys can intelligently reject literal interpretation, and therefore dispensationalism. And watching a debate certainly doesn't give that knowledge.
Partial yes, no way full blown views, as that is heresy!Now what if someone wrote a paper on preterism? How could it ever be well written and credible to you?
I am still waiting to when in history the Second Coming and the bodily resurrection event was recorded as happening!Your random one liners have not convinced me that you can make the claim that you did.
It would be much more impressive if you said you came to your position through solid, hours long Bible study.
I don't know if any preterists can make that claim though!
Yes, he is historic premil. But he rejects dispensationalism with an educated, thoughtful understanding of it, not willynilly without knowing what it is. I'm okay with that. Dispensationalism is not a fundamental of the faith.Doesn't Tcass reject dispensationalism as well, or am I wrong?
Well you'll have to take it from me then. The glory of God is foundational in all theology, therefore it is foundational in Amillennialism and your point is moot.Well of course it is. But it is foundational in dispensationalism in a way that it is not in other eschatologies.
Sorry, that does not answer my request for a quote from an amil to the effect that the glory of God is essential to the eschatology.
I'm talking about the Dispensationalism I come across in Britain and it's all about. One of the reasons I left the church where I was saved was because the leaders invited some guys in to celebrate the Passover. But they all claim to be Dispys. You should set your own house in order before you come and lecture us Amils.You're talking about the popular version of premillennialism, not the theological version. There is a big difference. A lot of those popular sites are jokes. Try this website with tons of articles by genuine dispensational scholars, none of them (that I can tell) looking at the newspaper for theology or even prophetic fulfillment: Pre-Trib Research Center -
There's been a lot of that over the years. A lot of folk thought Napoleon might have been the AC. But do you agree with Henry Gratton Guinness who saw the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) ending when General Allenby took Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks in 1917?Of course they do! My grandfather preached in WW2 that Mussolini might be the Antichrist, as many others did. He got over it, though, and quit that nonsense in his later writings.
Sorry; I don't play that game. You set out your thoughts on your eschatology and I'll set out mine.Let me repeat my question from Post #24: "What do you think a dispensation is, anyway?"
You see, you don't even know that you are doing allegorical interpretation. But you reject the literal meaning of 1000 years in Rev. 20--that is allegorical interpretation.Hours??? YEARS!!!
PPreterism is an understanding developed from amil through continued study of the way OC prophecy is fulfilled in the NC Scriptures. Nothing to do with allegorical interpretation.
It's not; it's comparing Scripture with Scripture.You see, you don't even know that you are doing allegorical interpretation. But you reject the literal meaning of 1000 years in Rev. 20--that is allegorical interpretation.
So, then, I'll assume you don't know any authors who make it foundational in amillennialism. You're in the eschatalogical dark about it.Well you'll have to take it from me then. The glory of God is foundational in all theology, therefore it is foundational in Amillennialism and your point is moot.
This paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with me or anything I've ever posted here on the BB.I'm talking about the Dispensationalism I come across in Britain and it's all about. One of the reasons I left the church where I was saved was because the leaders invited some guys in to celebrate the Passover. But they all claim to be Dispys. You should set your own house in order before you come and lecture us Amils.
Nope. Strongly disagree.There's been a lot of that over the years. A lot of folk thought Napoleon might have been the AC. But do you agree with Henry Gratton Guinness who saw the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) ending when General Allenby took Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks in 1917?
The question of the definition of "dispensation" is not basically eschatology, but of Greek semantics. The word is oikonomia, and it occurs in Scripture in a non-eschatalogical meaning. The word as it is used in Eph. 3:2 is precisely as we use it in the theology, but other usages are not eschatalogical at all.Sorry; I don't play that game. You set out your thoughts on your eschatology and I'll set out mine.
Prove it.It's not; it's comparing Scripture with Scripture.
I've done it several times on the B.B. It's looking at places where 'one thousand' comes up and looking to see if it is usually interpreted literally; it isn't. I can quote the texts again if you really want.Prove it.
If you think that not interpreting a word with wooden literalism is allegory, then you yourself have not the faintest idea what the word means.And again, you yourself do not know what allegorical interpretation is if you think that. I really must do a thread on hermeneutics, because there is so much ignorance on the BB about it.
If interpreting in a non-literal way is allegory, then the Lord Jesus was guilty of it several times, and the Pharisees and others were not to blame for misunderstanding Him (John 2:19-21; John 3:3-4) and the Roman Catholics are right about Transubstantiation because they interpret John 6:53ff and Matthew 26:26 etc. literally.Allegorical interpretation does not simply mean looking at Scripture and making up an allegory. It means interpreting in a non-literal way, and it goes back to Origen (3rd century), who copied Philo, and Augustine later on, right through the Catholic Church (skipping the original reformers) up until the present day.