An observation

[Zguy28]

I have noticed since I've been a member that the partial preterists on this forum spend much time studying, debating, and asserting their eschatology.

The question I have is: if you hold a preterist view, meaning a belief that a majority of the Apocalypse is long since happened, what bearing does it have on your lives now? Why even devote so much time to it when it only really was meant for First Century Christians? Do you spend as much time and energy on Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles?

Obviously I can understand Partial Preterists devoting time to Rev 20 and beyond, since they believe that has not been fulfilled, but the rest? Why?

Is it merely so you can attempt to refute Futurists?

Now, don't get me wrong, I respect the Partial Preterist view. I believe it is a valid interpretation, even though I don't hold to it personally. I'm just curious. :smile:

[dizzle]

Do you spend time on the Old Testament? Why, since much of it is passed and only directly to do with the people of that time.

Plus - I think you misunderstand at least my preterist view which can be summed up by the philosophy that the coming of Christ is a present event, bookended by two physical advents.

Gary DeMar has a good article on this:

Today's preoccupation with eschatology has led some to advocate a wholesale abandonment of this age, stating that there is no relationship between the temporal kingdom and the eternal kingdom. There is no prescription for the transformation of this world based on the certainty of the next, so someone want us to believe. The transformation of the present social structure is built "upon the concept of commitment to the heavenly society as being primary and determinative for this worldly order." [1] There is continuity between the present age in the age to come. The preaching of Jesus regarding affairs in everyday society was based on an intimate continuity between the world to be and the world that was, even now, being summoned into likeness with it. What the Lord wills for this life cannot be severed from his ultimate plans to be realized fully in the eternal kingdom. Jesus' own parables makes clear that this kingdom which is future in its complete fulfillment is already present in its operation and influences. Far from proposing a rigid separation of the future and the present, Jesus is proposing, not another world in which to find refuge, but one whose character in being is even now modifying in reshaping the present organization of life. [2]

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarsocial.html

This article also is instructive

Why in the world would I ever want to become a Christian?" says the skeptic. "Christians are constantly making fools of themselves. Take prophecy for example. How many times have Christians predicted the return of Christ because the Bible 'obviously' affirms the end of the world 'any moment now'? Why, last year 500 Seventh Day Adventists sat atop Ascension Hill in Ohio waiting for the 'glorious return' that never happened. And what about Harold Camping, the Christian who predicted Christ's return last fall on national radio? No thank you, I don't want any part of such nonsense."

Such charges are painful because they are true. Prophetic charlatans abound. God is mocked, the Bible is discredited, and Christians are ridiculed. And Christians deserve to be ridiculed for failing to comprehend God's Word on such matters. Rather than openly challenge such nonsense, we tolerate them because we underestimate the seriousness of false predictions. The insatiable gullibility of Christians to fall for the same old trick has booksellers laughing all the way to the bank.

http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol8/esch8-1.htm

[Zguy28]

Thanks. Question answered. :smile:

And yes, I spend time on the Old Testament, but I don't spend a disproportionate amount of time on it or on any particular chapter or book of the Bible, at least not in the long-term.

[dizzle]

Z - I believe that the whole Bible is eschatological - it is a story about redemption... creation to consummation, so personally believe it is the most important theme in the Bible, and the one most commonly misunderstood.

Some personal information, I became very proficient in eschatology because I almost lost my faith over futurism, so it is personal for me. During that time, very few people except heretics were interested in answering my questions (there are a few notable exceptions) - I don't want that to happen to anyone else.

[Zguy28]

That's cool. I am a firm believer in viewing the Bible as a whole and not parts, as well as how eschatology influences theology and worldview. Eschatology also speaks to our santification. Heck, I've even used Revelation as a devotional at one time.

Again, it was just an observation on my part that I was seeking clarity on. I think you answered my question superbly.

PS, I am assuming you are ex-dispie? I left behind that a while ago as well.

[spauline]

Z - I believe that the whole Bible is eschatological - it is a story about redemption... creation to consummation, so personally believe it is the most important theme in the Bible, and the one most commonly misunderstood.

Some personal information, I became very proficient in eschatology because I almost lost my faith over futurism, so it is personal for me. During that time, very few people except heretics were interested in answering my questions (there are a few notable exceptions) - I don't want that to happen to anyone else.


OK, but then, DX, why ARE you a preterist? If the entirety of the Bible is indeed eschatological, about Redemption (and I say AMEN!), do you not see that preterism is but the opposite extreme of futurism? So then, in both extremes, the near entirety of the period between the first and last centuries of Church history is basically in obscurity. This is PRECISELY why I get ticked at these extremes. What matters most in the Church age is not temporal BS of either its beginning or ending, but rather, the greater spiritual SUBages of the Church history, ALL of it. Like I said in my Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse thread, based on your very assertions, the most appropriate approach to the apocalypse, and of all Scripture, should be one of spiritual historicism. But alas, therein ecclesiology is inseparable. And since the middle of road Protestants don't agree with Rome but don't want to say she's the beast, will step aside and digress to preterism.

Hence, we are living in times in which, when we get to the nitty gritty, ecclesiology is at the forefront.

[dizzle]

I don't agree with your conclusions. I have a whole website dedicated to why I am a preterist, I cannot reproduce that in this thread, especially when that is not even the subject.

[Geek Eclectic]

I can possibly add a little. One area that I've come to see eschatology as important is in the extreme Zionism that Dispensationalism inspires, all while preaching that a huge portion of the Jews are going to be zapped once their homeland is restored. I can't help but find a view that essentially says "we need to help the Jews reclaim their homeland under the pretense of love and friendship, while in reality we are attempting to herd them to their slaughter" as abhorrent. I've had pastors and friends speak about how the Jews need to reclaim their homeland, and how we need to help them, and how they love the Jews, and how the Jews are going to be practically wiped out by the Tribulation once they have their homeland back -- and they just don't connect the dots! I've been guilty of this, too. I wanted to cry the day I found out just what I'd once supported -- what hideous, unloving, racist garbage I ignorantly spouted in the name of "love" -- and what people I know still support.

I also believe that, as difficult as Christian/Muslim relations have always been, they are exponentially moreso now due to the displacement of Muslims by Jews with the help and encouragement of Zionist Christians. As much as I think we have to support the modern nation of Israel now for certain reasons, I firmly believe it never should have been established -- at least not with the support of Christians -- in the first place. It's turned the Middle East into this horrible, nightmarish situation from which I see no escape. I can only thank God for His promises that He will ultimately overcome every obstacle, and His actions in the past that show Him to be trustworthy, because I just can't see from my limited perspective how things can ever work out there.

As I said, though, nothing can thwart God's sovereign will. He will eventually get the world where it's supposed to be in preparation for Christ's return. I can't help thinking, though, that things didn't have to go this way. :sigh:

[jesterbr549]

I have noticed since I've been a member that the partial preterists on this forum spend much time studying, debating, and asserting their eschatology.

The question I have is: if you hold a preterist view, meaning a belief that a majority of the Apocalypse is long since happened, what bearing does it have on your lives now? Why even devote so much time to it when it only really was meant for First Century Christians? Do you spend as much time and energy on Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles?

Obviously I can understand Partial Preterists devoting time to Rev 20 and beyond, since they believe that has not been fulfilled, but the rest? Why?

Is it merely so you can attempt to refute Futurists?

Now, don't get me wrong, I respect the Partial Preterist view. I believe it is a valid interpretation, even though I don't hold to it personally. I'm just curious. :smile:

That, my brother, was a very astute quesiton.

:smile:

[TyRockwell]

It depends on how much of the Apocalypse you believe has come to pass, and whether you see a straight line chronology, or a many-folded one where, like Daniel, some times are dealt with more than once.

[TyRockwell]

Z - I believe that the whole Bible is eschatological - it is a story about redemption... creation to consummation, so personally believe it is the most important theme in the Bible, and the one most commonly misunderstood.

Some personal information, I became very proficient in eschatology because I almost lost my faith over futurism, so it is personal for me. During that time, very few people except heretics were interested in answering my questions (there are a few notable exceptions) - I don't want that to happen to anyone else.
DX, I agree that there is the story of redemption. There is more that needs to be considered. Was God to just let the 'fall' of Lucifer remain as it was, without dealing with the "place" that he had fallen from and the place he had fallen to? Was God to ignore the question of why it was pride on Lucifer's part, that became sin, to want his throne to be above God's? What were the'stars of God,' that were mentioned? The passages referred to are Isaiah 14:12-17, and Ezekiel 28:13-17