Somewhat dissapointed...

[efta777]

I've noticed that there is definately a disproportionate number of us Preterists to futurists on this board (As I'm sure many others have also noticed). At first I thought this would be cool, and it is in many ways, but now I'm wishing that there were more standard dispensational futurists to discuss the issues with. It seems that most here are either preterist or in the process of becoming preterist, and I miss the good old days when I would state my preterist views and be swarmed by ten dispensationalists who were defending their views.

Anyone else (Mainly preterists) feeling this way?

[Solly]

Just to let you know Efta, I am a deconverting preterist. :eek: After toying with the idea for a while, there are some niggling aspects that don't "feel right in my spirit, Brother".

I am currently building my eschatology from the ground up, since, like my siggy says, I saw it as an appendix before, but now see its centrality to a Biblical overview. Trouble is, there is so much to study about it all, I don't have anything to post yet, but I am working on a rebuttal of the position. That should cause some fun.

DD---> :argh:

[John Reece]

Solly,

Re:
After toying with the idea for a while, there are some niggling aspects that don't "feel right in my spirit, Brother".
Would you be willing to say more?

[Solly]

John, I can and I can't.

I can in that I am not convinced by the "timing" argument. I don't think all of matt 24 up to v 34 is 70 ad, and I do think it refers to the end of the age. I don't think an age ended at 70ad, or that there are three ages too be taken into account. I do think that the apostles were mistaken, and that preterism is as much mistaken as Dispensationalism in taking the apostles seriously about the idea that the End of the Age requires the end of the Temple, or vice versa. I believe these "Jewish Dreams" were what Jesus was seeking to correct.
I don't think the alignment of the verses at the start of the End of the Ages thread has been done properly, so that what looks like a convincing argument is not actually so. Again, errors regarding the coming of Christ into his Kingdom, his current session at the right hand, and the nature of the Eternal Kingdom here.
Although there is a nod to the now/not yet schema, yet it is only in the details, not the whole shabang in which the future age encroaches on this one, rather than chronological succession. (see the chart on End of the Ages thread).
Also, the conincident nature of the doctrines of partial preterism, Neo Post Millennialism and Reconstruction/Theonomy also distubs me, a New Covenant Amillennial Baptist.

However, taking the time to prove this is a long job, because of ministerial constraints (Exposition of Romans and Lectures on Doctrine talking up a deal of my time, which is why I have degenerated into a spammer on TWeb), as well as the fact of starting almost from scratch on eschatology: I have Ridderbos, Vos, Engelsma, Riddlebarger, Hoekema, Venema, Horton, etc to read through, as well as the scriptures to study. At the moment I am working on the OT.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Efta.. I have been working pretty hard on getting some good futurist defenders, such as Athanasis, to the site. I would like the site to demographically be more reflective of what is actually out in the evangelical world for sure, so in that sense I know exactly what you are talking about.

Now Solly, I am so looking forward to reconverting you. :)

[Solly]

DD, I know where you can find some Acts 9 Dispie/OVT/Theonomy types...

Now Solly, I am so looking forward to reconverting you. :)

:shy:

[Darth Xena]

And you are right in that eschatology IS foundational to a Biblical worldview, no argument there at all. One thing though I have been noticing... and that is the idea that not all of Matthew 24 up to verse 34 is referring to AD70. I do not think you can support that at all, and without even getting into the chronology of the ages thing (that has always been my "second" weapon) I do not think you can defeat the issues I put forth in my standard challenge to futurists which is always the opening round in my Great Trib debates. I guess we shall see... I am bemoaning that I am in the same boat as you as far as lack of time, though for much different reasons.

[John Reece]

Thanks for the reply, Solly.

No need to prove anything as far as I'm concerned. 'Just interested to know what you think.

[Solly]

DD, not to kick off the debate...

But basically, I am following Carson in his matthew commentary.

The disciples ask their questions, linking together the end of the age and the just predicted fall of the temple. that is why they brought in the end of the age, because he mentioned the temple.

He, however, takes the end of the age first, and speaks of the character of the age from now on. then, from vs15 he does the temple in terms you and I would accept. Then he moves onto the fact of his coming, and deals with the false comings of others that they be not worried in thiknking that the Fall WAS the end, when in fact it is only the beginning of the end. "The Beginning of Sorrows", the Birth pangs. People will certainly notice when the Real Christ does come 24.27!!
Then it moves on to the end of the age of which he has just given a portrait.
This is where I have a problem with the preterist interpretation, because the terms used match those in Thessalonians, trumps, comings, suddeness etc. So either Thess is 70ad, or Matt 24.34ff is future. I take it to be future. "Immediately" points to the suddenness of the end, as the days of Noah in its unexpectedness (which can't be said of Jerusalem, which was beseiged). The fig tree does not refer to Israel as such, as Luke points out, recording "and all the trees" but the age.
Ah, but all fulfilled, you might say. yes. All come to pass, but not necessarily ended. it is ongoing. judgment on Jerusalem 70ad, on the Romans in 5th century, and continuing: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against, etc. lest people think he has gone on a journey.

*I'll paste this into my thread btw.*

[Darth Xena]

Oh okay... I just saw that in the other thread, so I will respond to it there this weekend.

[Darth Xena]

Wow, you have more spam poins then me, you spammer you.

[Lizard]

:argh: I have to repost this as the error beast ate my first response.

To get this thread back on track (Dee Dee and Solly :tongue: )

I agree with efta.

At first it was the bomb being on a mostly preterist site. Now, I'm kinda jonesin' for the good ole' days.

Hopefully this will change in the near future.

(thats preterist near, not dispie near :yipee:)

[Solly]

Sorry Mod :frown:

[Darth Xena]

Baaaad Solly

[efta777]

So maybe we should start working on some grass-roots recruitment tactics and find us some futurists :)

I know that they're not hard to find (Just look at the Left Behind sales), so let's go get em. I suppose if we all just waited inside our local Christian Book Stores near the Left Behind display with TWeb flyers... no, too much work...

[Jaltus]

Part of your problem is that the futurists on this site are not as committed to eschatology as other issues.

Some of us do not see specific eschatology as important as the genre of eschatology, knowing that Christ is coming again, knowing that there will be a judgment, that is what drives us forward. Whether some things are future or not is quite irrelevent as to how I live now.

Besides, you guys never seem to deal at length with the concept of double fulfillment, which is part of the reason why we talk past each other so much.



Oh, DDW is a big fat wimp who is afraid she will get the spanking of her life if she ever returns to the thread we had going. You see, there are futurists out there, you guys are just too afraid to face us!

(hides behind GP)

[Lizard]

03-14-2003 @ 02:31 PM
Jaltus:

Part of your problem is that the futurists on this site are not as committed to eschatology as other issues.

Some of us do not see specific eschatology as important as the genre of eschatology, knowing that Christ is coming again, knowing that there will be a judgment, that is what drives us forward. Whether some things are future or not is quite irrelevant as to how I live now.

Besides, you guys never seem to deal at length with the concept of double fulfillment, which is part of the reason why we talk past each other so much.



Oh, DDW is a big fat wimp who is afraid she will get the spanking of her life if she ever returns to the thread we had going. You see, there are futurists out there, you guys are just too afraid to face us!

(hides behind GP)

Good point Jaltus. In fact it sounds a lot like me before I became a preterist. In fact for years, I had serious doubts about the validity of the traditional DF that I was raised in, but didn't really care enough to investigate.

However, two things happened. 1) I developed a passion for apologetics, and thereby a a passion for the study of Scripture and theology. and 2) I attended a Sunday School class that used Tim LaHaye’s Revelation Unveiled as its study guide.

It was in this class that my doubts about traditional DF were removed (I was now certain that it was wrong). Unfortunately with my new found passion for studying theology, I could not accept this state of Eschatological agnosticism.

I quickly began studying alternative eschatological theories. Looking to replace the traditional DF that I had "left behind". I fully expected to replace it with another futurist type eschatology.

In my search, I ran across an article comparing the major theories of eschatology. This was my first exposure to preterism. When I first read the part on preterism, my jaw dropped. I thought, "this has got to be the wackiest thing I have ever read." So I went on my marry way, still looking for and eschatology.

Well I obviously came across other articles on preterism. At first I thought well maybe some of it is right, but it is still very silly. Gradually (with me fighting it every step of the way), I accepted that preterism was in fact the eschatology for me.

I say all this to explain why I am so committed to eschatology, and possibly why many futurist are not.

1) Preterism is something that I fought very hard against accepting, and since it was such a struggle for me to accept, it is more precious to me (please no Gollum jokeses)

2) Since traditional DF is the mainstream, I am in a minority. People with strong minority views tend become even more committed as a result of their minority status.

3) Looking at scripture through the eyes of preterism has really made me see the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament in a brand new light. Which has made my faith even stronger. So I see eschatology as much more important than I did during my DF days.




OR

It could be that y'all are just afraid to debate us preterist :argue: cause y'all are afraid you might become one yourself.

J/K. Sorry couldn't help myself.

[Darth Xena]

I say all this to explain why I am so committed to eschatology, and possibly why many futurist are not.

1) Preterism is something that I fought very hard against accepting, and since it was such a struggle for me to accept, it is more precious to me (please no Gollum jokeses)

2) Since traditional DF is the mainstream, I am in a minority. People with strong minority views tend become even more committed as a result of their minority status.

3) Looking at scripture through the eyes of preterism has really made me see the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament in a brand new light. Which has made my faith even stronger. So I see eschatology as much more important than I did during my DF days.






Very well said. Very well said.

[Pilgrim]

I subscribe to the concept of Inaugerated Eschatology which as I understand it is not in conflict with most Preterism.

So I am like Jaltus in that. The specifics don't concern me. I live my life now as Christ would have me live regardless of the time of his ultimate return and regardless of what prophecies have been fulfilled or not.

Pilgrim

[Darth Xena]

And Jaltus has not woke up yet from last night's sleep I see. He is dreaming up a storm.

[Darth Xena]

Inaugurated eschatology is part of preterist philosphy to be sure... and even more so I think of postmill preterism.

[Darth Xena]

We could put some TWEB flyers in the Left Behind books....

[Jaltus]

And Jaltus has not woke up yet from last night's sleep I see. He is dreaming up a storm. Yeah, I dreamed you actually had the guts to face me instead of leaving the debate behind for 3 weeks or however long it has been.

Wimp-a-roony!

[Pilgrim]

Wimp-a-roony? Is that the evil twin sister of the San Franscisco Treat? :yipee:

[Darth Xena]

That eager for a trouncing are you Jaltus?? :joy:

[Jaltus]

Good call!

[efta777]

Besides, you guys never seem to deal at length with the concept of double fulfillment, which is part of the reason why we talk past each other so much.

I'm honestly not very educated about double fulfillment, but as far as I know, there's no way to be sure when prophecy has double fulfillment potential or not. Therefore, I can only say double fulfillment is always a possibility (Unless someone can convince me otherwise), but it is not necessary. But then again, I know little enough about double fulfillment that I am content for now to continue to sidestep the issue.

[Lizard]

Today @ 06:16 PM
efta777:



I'm honestly not very educated about double fulfillment, but as far as I know, there's no way to be sure when prophecy has double fulfillment potential or not. Therefore, I can only say double fulfillment is always a possibility (Unless someone can convince me otherwise), but it is not necessary. But then again, I know little enough about double fulfillment that I am content for now to continue to sidestep the issue.


Thanks efta. Is double fulfillment possible? Yes. But how do you prove double fulfillment. It is not really a debateable point.

However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise Jaltus.

[Darth Xena]

I want to know why double fulfillment is necessary. It isn't. It is an unproveable hypothesis until after the fact. There is nothing n the Discourse that says it will happen again, so why do we feel this need to think it must?

[Hitch]

Leeks and onions anyone?

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:41 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

I want to know why double fulfillment is necessary. It isn't. It is an unproveable hypothesis until after the fact. There is nothing n the Discourse that says it will happen again, so why do we feel this need to think it must?

Looks like a good time to remind all that the only time Jesus says 'great trubulation' is when he declares it to be a unique event in history.

[Darth Xena]

Good point.

[Jaltus]

I want to know why double fulfillment is necessary. It isn't. It is an unproveable hypothesis until after the fact. There is nothing n the Discourse that says it will happen again, so why do we feel this need to think it must? Not must, but that it is possible. After all, double fulfillment can easily be shown about OT prophecies fuilfilled in the OT AND in the NT, or twice in one.

The most obvious example being Ezekiel's return of the glory of God.

[efta777]

Possible, yes, but how can we discuss it? You don't need to convince us that it's at least a possibility... but I suppose we probably DO have to convince you that it's not necessary, but to do that we simply need to argue FOR Preterism, therefore, we don't need to argue double fulfillment.

[Darth Xena]

Exactly... and I can prove though that a meaningful "double fulfillment" of the Discourse is in fact impossible. The key word is meaningful. And talking about double fulfilment to me is an exercise in mining the subjunctive. Why don't we deal with what we do know? More specifically, is the prophesy fulfilled? Does it have to be fulfilled again to have hte Bible be true? And with the Discourse it is fulfilled, there is no prophetic need to have Olivet Redux.

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, I am thinking typological fulfillment rather than literal. Does that make sense?

[Darth Xena]

Yes it does Jaltus, but then I think that objection to preterism vanishes because preterism would not have an issue with that. And I would say the typological value is "weak" rather than "stong."

[Jaltus]

I did not say it was an objection to preterism, just that preterists generally do not allow for it.

[efta777]

It's not that we don't allow it, we just prefer not to dwell on it, since it is merely a very remote, typological possibility based not on evidence but on personal expectations.

[Darth Xena]

Hey sorry Hitch.. but the forum rules (#4) do not allow the posting of links to other forums or sites unless it is directly relevant to further an ongoing discussion at this site (or answer a specific inquiry) or by prior Moderator approval. I have to enforce this across the board as we have edited out links that others posted. If there was a specific thread that you would like to draw attention to that would further discussion here, that would be perfectly acceptable. Thank you!!

[Darth Xena]

Today @ 06:38 PM
Jaltus:

I did not say it was an objection to preterism, just that preterists generally do not allow for it.

Hmm, Jaltus, I would say that is not correct. As you and I just hashed out what you mean by "double fulfillement", I do not know of one preterist that would disallow it on the basis of preterism.

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:36 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey sorry Hitch.. but the forum rules (#4) do not allow the posting of links to other forums or sites unless it is directly relevant to further an ongoing discussion at this site (or answer a specific inquiry) or by prior Moderator approval. I have to enforce this across the board as we have edited out links that others posted. If there was a specific thread that you would like to draw attention to that would further discussion here, that would be perfectly acceptable. Thank you!! LOL Well ya dont see too many links around here at that...

OK You guys who yearn for a board full of DF drivel... I got jus da place.


Hitch

[Freak]

Jaltus said: Some of us do not see specific eschatology as important as the genre of eschatology, knowing that Christ is coming again, knowing that there will be a judgment, that is what drives us forward. Whether some things are future or not is quite irrelevent as to how I live now.

I'm in total agreement. I would much rather debate or defend essential Christian doctrine (i.e. Deity of Christ, justification by faith, nature of the triune God, etc) then eschatology. I have no interest in debating end time issues. I know Christ is coming back personally and physically. This I know.

Besides, all this talk about preterism is tiresome. So what if your pre-trib, pre mil or orthodox preterism. Like people really care. In my travels around the world, largely third world nations, people could care less about you embracing preterism. They want to hear about the essentials--Jesus being able to provide forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I have yet in my travels to nearly 30 nations have I had a pastor ask me about my views on the end times.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Freak:

Well you and I have some different experiences. I deal heavily with apologetics and in trying to witness or counter to sceptics the accusation that Jesus was false prophet comes up, and it is kind of hard to get people to even listen to whether or not Jesus can give them eternal life if they believe He could not get the timing of certain future events right. Over 35% of the Bible is prophecy, so I would find it hard to beleive that God would dedicate so much time talking about something He did not intend for us to study. But......

I understand if eschatology is not your thing..... there are plenty of subjects which are not mine. But, I think they certainly matter. All that being said, you and I have always been in complete agreement about the necessity of the defense of the essentials.

[Freak]

Today @ 05:00 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Freak:

Well you and I have some different experiences. I deal heavily with apologetics and in trying to witness or counter to sceptics the accusation that Jesus was false prophet comes up, and it is kind of hard to get people to even listen to whether or not Jesus can give them eternal life if they believe He could not get the timing of certain future events right. Over 35% of the Bible is prophecy, so I would find it hard to beleive that God would dedicate so much time talking about something He did not intend for us to study. But......

I understand if eschatology is not your thing..... there are plenty of subjects which are not mine. But, I think they certainly matter. All that being said, you and I have always been in complete agreement about the necessity of the defense of the essentials.


DD, all the end time guys say the same thing.

The fact is there are scores of end time views out there. They all claim to be the true view. You even claim your specific view is true. You have discovered the truth!!! Well, people like John Walvord or Tim LaHaye (who have spent literally 40-50 years studying these issues) say your wrong! But who cares?

I have spent nearly 2 decades traveling the world speaking at churches, public meetings, colleges, on radio, television, etc and I have yet to deal with a unbeliever who's wondering about my view regarding end times. It's simply not important. Perhaps the existence of God, the reality of evil, the reality of the historic Christ, etc --yes but not preterism. It's a non-issue even in America. Most people are concerned about loving their kids, their spouses, how to provide for their families, walking w/ Jesus in love and faith, sharing the simply Gospel message, they are not concerned about preterism.

I was making an oberservation. Preterism is irrelevant. You might disagree. That is ok. But the reality speaks for itself.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Freak, you started another thread on this, perhaps this part of the conversation can stay on that new thread, and this one can continue as it was?? I am not discouraging you at all from discussing it, and I think it was a good idea that you started a new thread and greatly appreciated.

[Hitch]

The fact is there are scores of end time views out there. They all claim to be the true view. You even claim your specific view is true. You have discovered the truth!!! Well, people like John Walvord or Tim LaHaye (who have spent literally 40-50 years studying these issues) say your wrong! But who cares?

Hmmmmmmm,,
Is that the 'Gods' Prophetic Clock is not ticking' Walvoord or the 'God's Prophetic Clock is ticking Walvoord? I know well just petend it doesnt matter, problem solved.

That LaHaye is a little more trouble. Is this the LaHaye who wrote that the 'terminal generation' was alvie to see WWI or is this the LaHaye who says the 'terminal generation' is alive now?

Hitch

[Freak]

Today @ 03:41 PM
Hitch:

The fact is there are scores of end time views out there. They all claim to be the true view. You even claim your specific view is true. You have discovered the truth!!! Well, people like John Walvord or Tim LaHaye (who have spent literally 40-50 years studying these issues) say your wrong! But who cares?

Hmmmmmmm,,
Is that the 'Gods' Prophetic Clock is not ticking' Walvoord or the 'God's Propetic Clock is ticking Walvoord? I know well just petend it doesnt matter. problem solved.

Thoas LaHaye is a little more trouble. Is this the LaHaye who wrote that the 'terminal generation' was alvie to see WWI or is this the LaHaye who says the terminal generation is alive now?

Hitch


Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us to trust in the Lord in all our ways and He promises to direct our paths. Don't trust preterism or Lahaye, trust in the Lord for the end times.

[Hitch]

Today @ 03:53 PM
Freak:




Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us to trust in the Lord in all our ways and He promises to direct our paths. Don't trust preterism or Lahaye, trust in the Lord for the end times. Didnt take much to reduce you to platitudes.

H

[Freak]

Today @ 04:09 PM
Hitch:

Didnt take much to reduce you to platitudes.

H

God's Word a platitude?

[Hitch]

Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us to trust in the Lord in all our ways and He promises to direct our paths. Don't trust preterism or Lahaye, trust in the Lord for the end times.


LMAO Now your sniveling is 'God's Word?'

You are a dissappointment Freak. I thouhgt you would be above childish word play. I gave you way too much credit. I wont make that same error again.


But the manner in which you resort to 'God's word' ,,because I backed you up wrt Walvoord& LaHaye,,, that show you're not made of much. Failing to address the issue and running to hide.

Pathetic.

[Freak]

Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
Hitch:

Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us to trust in the Lord in all our ways and He promises to direct our paths. Don't trust preterism or Lahaye, trust in the Lord for the end times.


LMAO Now your sniveling is 'God's Word?'

You are a dissappointment Freak. I thouhgt you would be above childish word play. I gave you way too much credit. I wont make that same error again.


But the manner in which you resort to 'God's word' ,,because I backed you up wrt Walvoord& LaHaye,,, that show you're not made of much. Failing to address the issue and running to hide.

Pathetic.

Someone once told me to avoid people like. I think I'll heed their advice.

God bless you.

[Hitch]

Today @ 01:26 AM
Freak:



Someone once told me to avoid people like. I think I'll heed their advice.

God bless you. Promise?

As for my part I'll still be around pointing out your hypocracies from time to time.

Now dont forget,,,you promised.


HITCH