I think Scripture has finally won me over to Preterism

[Sheepdog]

Last night i was following up on the context of a verse that was misused elsewhere on TWeb. But when i read through it, i realized that i pretty much had to rethink my current eschatological paradigm. This is what i read:


2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

If the antichrist had yet to emerge 2000+ years in the future, how come Paul seems to describe him in present tense? it is as though Paul understood that at the time of his writing this letter (c. A.D. 51), the antichrist was alive and well, and was merely waiting to become unrestrained. the language also implies that this individual was in fact a mortal human being, so this passage had to be fulfilled within a generation or few.

i dunno. i can't see any interpretation that merits serious consideration outside of that which we commonly call Partial Preterism.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

[preteris whisper]Hey Dee Dee, do you think sheepdog is ready for the secret handshake yet?[/preterist whisper]

It amazes me the scripture passage that turns people on to preterism. For some (like me) it is Matt. 24, for other (Dee Dee I think) it was I Cor. 15. It just goes to show, IMNSHO, that so many passages in the NT support preterism. To me that was the final nail in the coffin (that got started on my questions over Mt. 24), the overwhelming number of passages that support the preterist postion.

Study other passages, and I think you find that they fit preterism as well. (Now all passages can be "made to fit" any eschatological view, but I find that preterism involves by far the least scripture twisting. Especially if you read the texts in light of the literary and historical context.)

Just my :2cents:

[dizzle]

Of course you are right :wink:

Consider this very interesting historical sidenote - preterists believe on one hand that the Beast of Revelation is Nero. At the time of this letter Nero was alive but he was not Emporor, Claudius was. Claudius was not that bad. But here is what is interesting... Claudius' name means "restrainer" or a variation thereof. Claudius was murdered by Nero's mother so that Nero could take the throne for as long as Claudius was alived, Nero was restrained. This is not the only preterist interpretaton of this, but one I find compelling and one that explains Paul's obligue language due to political intrique.

but Matthew 24:34 should have been the verse that gotcha

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Faramir, your comments are always worth more than 2 cents! :smile:

[Sheepdog]

Of course you are right :wink:

Consider this very interesting historical sidenote - preterists believe on one hand that the Beast of Revelation is Nero. At the time of this letter Nero was alive but he was not Emporor, Claudius was. Claudius was not that bad. But here is what is interesting... Claudius' name means "restrainer" or a variation thereof. Claudius was murdered by Nero's mother so that Nero could take the throne for as long as Claudius was alived, Nero was restrained. This is not the only preterist interpretaton of this, but one I find compelling and one that explains Paul's obligue language due to political intrique.

ahh heck that's crazy! you learn something new every day :smile:

but Matthew 24:34 should have been the verse that gotcha

perhaps, but initially i was more devoted to the idea that the Olivet Discourse was double-prophecy (you do see double prophecy occur where Jesus takes up the typology of OT prophecies fulfilling in OT times, but now i'm seeing that it may not be applicable in this case).

[calvin]

It is good to see a believer willing to alter his position through study and/or as prophetic events unfold. I for one have made several "alterations" over many years. But I would ask you regarding 2 Thess 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed when the Lord will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming.

Do you really believe this applied to Nero? Was he slayed with the breath of His mouth or by some other method, and was he (Nero) actually revealed in his time or was it only preterists many years later that understood such a revealing?

[Starkman]

Last night i was following up on the context of a verse that was misused elsewhere on TWeb. But when i read through it, i realized that i pretty much had to rethink my current eschatological paradigm. This is what i read:


2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

If the antichrist had yet to emerge 2000+ years in the future, how come Paul seems to describe him in present tense? it is as though Paul understood that at the time of his writing this letter (c. A.D. 51), the antichrist was alive and well, and was merely waiting to become unrestrained. the language also implies that this individual was in fact a mortal human being, so this passage had to be fulfilled within a generation or few.

i dunno. i can't see any interpretation that merits serious consideration outside of that which we commonly call Partial Preterism.
Yeah, I'm giving it serious thought now, too...serious. You know, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we are perhaps seeing the virge of a major shakeup in the eschatological department! Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see a major move toward Preterism here in the not-so-distant future...that is, of course, if the 200,000,000 man army from China doesn't cross the Eurphrates first, or if the Man of Sin doesn't step up to the plate and kick of the last seven years by signing the...wait, I'm slipping, I'M SLIPPING...darned Futurist demon!

Anyway, I'm not sold complete with the interpretation of a few things, but I'm really sold on a review of the hyperbolic and symbolic language seemingly very clearly applicable to the first century, viz., AD 70.

Right there with ya, Sheep-Doggy-Dog!

Starkman (how about Stark-Doggy-Dog?)

[dizzle]

:woohoo:

There already is a large contingent of orthodox preterists here following their ravishingly beautiful Preterist Princess leader. Well okay, that is Modern American Hyperbole, but anyways....

Here are some past posts I have done on this issue of 2 Thess

A common mistake today, and in fact, one of the cornerstones of futurism is the unwarranted assumption that 1 Thess 4, 1 Thess 5, and 2 Thess 2 are all referring to the same event. They are not, which is obvious once one lays aside prior preconceptions and looks at the text afresh. 1 Thess 4 refers to the future resurrection and Final Advent of Christ. 1 Thess 5 and 2 Thess 2 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and the judgment upon the apostate Jews also known as the Day of the Lord.

I will cite some observations of noted postmillennial authors.

Once it is assumed that 2 Thess 2 is referring to our Lord’s Final Advent, the difficulties of interpretation become overwhelming. For example here are three:

Remember that Paul had to write 2 Thessalonians because they had the mistaken believe that the Day of the Lord had already come. No commentator who approaches 2 Thess 2 under the assumption that it refers to the events surrounding the Second Coming has ever been able to offer an even remotely plausible explanation for the belief of the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord had already come. If we grant the assumptions of the futurists, then Paul has already told them in his first epistle that this event would involve the resurrection of the dead and the rapture of believers. Unless one concludes that the Thessalonian Christians were profoundly oblivious to reality, there is no explanation for why they would have believed that this had already taken place.

Futurist interpreters have also failed to offer a plausible explanation for Paul’s argumentation in 2 Thess 2. If the “coming” of Christ, our “gathering” to Him, and the Day of the Lord in this chapter refer to the Final Advent, the rapture, and the bodily resurrection of the dead, then it is necessary to explain Paul’s method of proving that these things had not happened yet. Why would Paul have tried to convince a group of believers that the Rapture and the bodily resurrection of all believers had not yet occurred by arguing that the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness must come first? If this chapter is referring to the Final Advent, the rapture, and the bodily resurrection of the dead, the proof that these things had not yet happened would have been far more simple and obvious. The entire argument of 2 Thess 2 could have been reduced to the single question, “Are you still here?”

Also there is the large number of indicators within the chapter that show a first century fulfillment. Whoever the man of sin is, Paul says that he was then already being restrained. The man of sin was being restrained at the time when Paul wrote this letter. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work. The restrainer was already restraining.

ANOTHER POST (these are just direct copies and pastes from prior conversations)

You asked that I explain 1 Thessalonians 4 and then 2 Thessalonians 2. You’re not asking much are you!! (smile) I am not exactly sure where you want the attention placed, so let me start somewhat broad and then I can narrow it as you ask, because that is a pretty broad request. I don’t know how much of my posts you have read, but I want to make it clear again, I am an orthodox believer, meaning that I believe in the essentials of the faith that have been delineated through two thousand years of Church history. As such, I believe in a future physical return of Christ, future physical resurrection of the just and unjust, and a future final judgment. There are some who go by the title of “preterist” who are heretics through and through and deny these things, being modern Hymenaens.

So, 1 Thessalonians 4 is about the future physical return of Christ and the resurrection of believers. Taking 1 Thessalonians 4 with 1 Corinthians 15:20 et al, which is obviously about the same event, makes it really clear that this was NOT an event which was to happen soon. I detailed this out a few days ago in a lengthy post I think to Luther.

Now on the other hand, 2 Thessalonians 2 was a soon event and is speaking about the Jewish revolt of 67-70AD. There are many clues in the passage to tell us this. Though some translations obscure this fact, in verse 2, it is clear that the Thessalonians were concerned that the day of the Lord had already come and gone, and their persecutors, the apostate Jews, seemed none the worse for the wear. Remember that it was the Jews that were the first persecutors of the Church, not the Romans, even notably in Thessalonica:

Acts 17:13 “But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.”

Paul even equates their activity with that of satan:

2 Thess 2:18, “Therefore we wanted to come to you—even I, Paul, time and again—but Satan hindered us.”

And the context of his imprecations in these letters are very obviously against the apostate Jews:

1 Thess 2:14, “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.”

This is not speaking of some future people under the judgment of God, but the first century apostate Jews who murdered Christ. There is an allusion in this statement of Paul to Jesus’ imprecation against the first century Jews in Matthew 23:31-36:

“Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”

Again, the first century context is clear.

So back to 2 Thessalonians 2. The Thessalonians were concerned that the Jews didn’t seem too judged, believing that the “day of the Lord,” had come and gone. Now it is very obvious that they did not believe that the day of the Lord which included the events of 1 Thessalonians 4 had come and gone or Paul’s argument is rendered inane and could have been reduced to the simple question, “Are you still here?”

Verses 5 through 7 also testify to the very contemporary nature of the mystery of iniquity and the man of sin. He was a present reality then.

Now let me please explain again, that I am fairly new to this position. I certainly am not going to be able to explain every possible objection that can be thrown at me. However, I am confident that these explanations are much more faithful to Scripture and do not require the gerrymandering that contemporary futurism does.

Also there is the large number of indicators within the chapter that show a first century fulfillment. Whoever the man of sin is, Paul says that he was then already being restrained. The man of sin was being restrained at the time when Paul wrote this letter. The mystery of lawlessness was already at work. The restrainer was already restraining. It was a first century reality. And what Temple do you in a million years think that the Thessalonians would have been referring to when Paul wrote that epistle to them?? The Temple that then existed!!! Paul made no clarifications to believe either.

Now I realize that some of the argument may not have the same weight in a post-trib scenario, but there is another tremendous problem with post-trib thought, and here it is. Post-trib has all the living Christians being “raptured” at the end, the nonChristians are destroyed…. Well then who populates the “Millennium” and has the children mentioned as being born in the Millennium by Isaiah 65:20-23?

(this last post is an interesting specimen as it is several years old "when I was new to the position)

the citations are from Keith Mathison in his book "Postmillennialism" in which he has an appendix on this chapter

[GhostontheNet]

Last night i was following up on the context of a verse that was misused elsewhere on TWeb. But when i read through it, i realized that i pretty much had to rethink my current eschatological paradigm. This is what i read:


2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

If the antichrist had yet to emerge 2000+ years in the future, how come Paul seems to describe him in present tense? it is as though Paul understood that at the time of his writing this letter (c. A.D. 51), the antichrist was alive and well, and was merely waiting to become unrestrained. the language also implies that this individual was in fact a mortal human being, so this passage had to be fulfilled within a generation or few.

i dunno. i can't see any interpretation that merits serious consideration outside of that which we commonly call Partial Preterism.

To be devils advocate for the Futurist position, as I recall, the way they manage to get over this difficulty of the present tense being used of the man of lawlessness is the assertion that God has prepared potential Antichrist figures throughout history starting in the first century. I cannot see the logic however as Christ seems to indicate in Matthew 24 that the Father has predetermined the timing of that parousia, and if so appointing Antichrists in all ages makes no sense. As to Preterist candidates for the Man of Lawlessness, I have so far seen three.

Nero: Kenneth Gentry seems to advocate this one. Evidently, he argues most thoroughly in his work Perilous Times: A Study of Eschatological Evil for this though I haven't yet read it. A less complete argumentation for this is in He Shall Have Dominion http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2202_47e.htm
John Levi of Gischala: Gary Demar argues for this identification in Last Days Madness though I haven't yet read this (I should be getting a copy soon). Demar also argues this to a lesser extent in his End Times Fiction pages 148-150.
Vespasian: The only advocate I've yet seen of this view is J.P. Holding, and he provides much less argument than I think he should http://www.tektonics.org/paulend.html. Perhaps this view derives from other sources, but I haven't yet figured out what these could be.

[studyhound]

Last night i was following up on the context of a verse that was misused elsewhere on TWeb. But when i read through it, i realized that i pretty much had to rethink my current eschatological paradigm. This is what i read:


2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

If the antichrist had yet to emerge 2000+ years in the future, how come Paul seems to describe him in present tense? it is as though Paul understood that at the time of his writing this letter (c. A.D. 51), the antichrist was alive and well, and was merely waiting to become unrestrained. the language also implies that this individual was in fact a mortal human being, so this passage had to be fulfilled within a generation or few.

i dunno. i can't see any interpretation that merits serious consideration outside of that which we commonly call Partial Preterism.
Wohoo :cheers: :b_evil: :thumb:


orthodox preterists here following their ravishingly beautiful Preterist Princess leader.
And shes humble too :blush:

:Studyhound:

[Sheepdog]

:hehe:

no responses from the futurist camps?

Wikipedia has a section on Nero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero). i'm not sure if it is a perfect fit, but it is interesting

[dizzle]

I still think Gentry's positoin makes the most sense. and it explains the difficulty of the language..... Paul is being very obligue, purposefully so, which makes a whole lot of sense if this revolved around a senstive political issue

[Sheepdog]

yeah, we have to remember that in that day, speaking against the established Roman Government and especially the Caesar at the time was a guaranteed way to get oneself executed. Paul would indeed want to be careful, in case an enemy of Christ got a hold of a copy of the epistle and desired to have Paul elimated.

[Spiritus Naturae]

It is good to see a believer willing to alter his position through study and/or as prophetic events unfold. I for one have made several "alterations" over many years. But I would ask you regarding 2 Thess 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed when the Lord will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming.

Do you really believe this applied to Nero? Was he slayed with the breath of His mouth or by some other method, and was he (Nero) actually revealed in his time or was it only preterists many years later that understood such a revealing?

:hrm: I was hoping someone would address your point/question as it has me intrigued...

[NSMinistries]

""" Over tired responce """ (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ) """ Very over tired Responce... Disney the Happiest place on earth... I'm still looking for the happiness... Signed Grumpy """

[dizzle]

SN, ask me tonight in Paltalk.

[GoBahnsen]

Last night i was following up on the context of a verse that was misused elsewhere on TWeb. But when i read through it, i realized that i pretty much had to rethink my current eschatological paradigm. This is what i read:


2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
2Th 2:9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

If the antichrist had yet to emerge 2000+ years in the future, how come Paul seems to describe him in present tense? it is as though Paul understood that at the time of his writing this letter (c. A.D. 51), the antichrist was alive and well, and was merely waiting to become unrestrained. the language also implies that this individual was in fact a mortal human being, so this passage had to be fulfilled within a generation or few.

i dunno. i can't see any interpretation that merits serious consideration outside of that which we commonly call Partial Preterism.How about Reformed Theology Sheep? Seeing any lights come on there? Many Reformed folks are partial preterist. My new Reformed pastor, young guy with unction in the pulpit, is historical premil. I'm intrigued for the moment. Any warnings anybody?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

How about Reformed Theology Sheep? Seeing any lights come on there? Many Reformed folks are partial preterist. My new Reformed pastor, young guy with unction in the pulpit, is historical premil. I'm intrigued for the moment. Any warnings anybody?Reformed and Premil? Only in America!

[Spiritus Naturae]

SN, ask me tonight in Paltalk.
Arrggghhh!! I dont do the PalTalk thing here lately, DeeDee as I am having connection problems are something. Stupid dial-up.

[Sheepdog]

How about Reformed Theology Sheep? Seeing any lights come on there? Many Reformed folks are partial preterist. My new Reformed pastor, young guy with unction in the pulpit, is historical premil. I'm intrigued for the moment. Any warnings anybody?

i'm not seeing a connection. AFAICT, one can be a Preterist and not a Calvinist. i'm not familiar with historicism, so i wouldn't have any suggestions other than be discerning... as you probably would anyways.

[Sheepdog]

:hrm: I was hoping someone would address your point/question as it has me intrigued...

According to wikipedia, Nero actually committed suicide, however i'm wondering the passage refers not to his death but the downfall that led to it. sounds like near the end of his reign it all came crashing down.

here is something interesting. again from wikipedia:
For example, scholars who believe the Book of Revelation refers to real people and events argue that the number represents the value of Nero or Neron Caesar (נרון קסר, Nrwn Qsr*) in Hebrew letters, which also have numerical values (note that Hebrew is written from right to left):

r S q n w r n
666 = 200 + 60 + 100 + 50 + 6 + 200 + 50

Some early texts of the Book of Revelation use 616 instead, which would represent the alternative Hebrew spelling נרו קסר, Nrw Qsr:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast_%28numerology%29 >

it is possible that, if the early Christians picked up on this, that they may have anticipated him as the antichrist. i am not aware, however, if there is any evidence about how the early Christians unterpreted the 666.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

it is possible that, if the early Christians picked up on this, that they may have anticipated him as the antichrist. i am not aware, however, if there is any evidence about how the early Christians unterpreted the 666.Yes you are aware - you've just quoted it. The fact that some early Christians were happy to use 616 as well as 666 because either one could refer to Nero (depending on which language one uses) actually IS evidence that they thought the number referred to Nero.

In His grip,

Glenn

[Sheepdog]

Yes you are aware - you've just quoted it. The fact that some early Christians were happy to use 616 as well as 666 because either one could refer to Nero (depending on which language one uses) actually IS evidence that they thought the number referred to Nero.

In His grip,

Glenn

actually, the quote itself doesn't state that the early Christians intepreted it as such, just that some have (i presume they have some modern scholars in mind or something, but that might not be).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

actually, the quote itself doesn't state that the early Christians intepreted it as such, just that some have (i presume they have some modern scholars in mind or something, but that might not be).
"Modern scholars"? No, have another look at the quote:
Some early texts of the Book of Revelation use 616 instead, which would represent the alternative Hebrew spelling נרו קסר, Nrw Qsr:That's true. There are in fact early manuscripts of the book of Revelation that substitute 616 for 666.

[Ted]

It's possible to be Calvinist and Premill. The key is that this guy is HISTORIC Premill, not DISPY premill.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It's possible to be Calvinist and Premill. The key is that this guy is HISTORIC Premill, not DISPY premill.Yeah, but he's not just a Calvinist - if I'm reading this right, he is a reformed pastor. That means, usually, that he claims to uphold the reformed faith, not just the five points. I'm talking about the Westminster confession, the catechism (shorter). It's just not possible to reconcile that theology with premillennialism.

[cjf375ptl]

Hi Sheepdog, don't give up on the futurist view yet (Pretribulationism you should by all means though). I have an answer for you.

[dizzle]

Funny, I have been to CARM and Rapture Ready and can't get a mainline futurist to have a verbal Paltalk debate with me.

[Pate]

It amazes me the scripture passage that turns people on to preterism. For some (like me) it is Matt. 24, for other (Dee Dee I think) it was I Cor. 15. It just goes to show, IMNSHO, that so many passages in the NT support preterism. To me that was the final nail in the coffin (that got started on my questions over Mt. 24), the overwhelming number of passages that support the preterist postion.

For me it was the book of Revelation that was really decisive. I first got to know the preterist view through its interpreation of the Olivet Discourse but were it not for the Revelation, I might still be undecided on the matter.

[studyhound]

Hi Sheepdog, don't give up on the futurist view yet (Pretribulationism you should by all means though). I have an answer for you.
I doubt that. :lol:

[commonman]

Q: Where is the Temple of God?

A: The Temple of God is within you (see Jer 31:31 and Gal 3:16 and there are others)

So if you are the Temple of God, and the Man of Lawlessness (or Perdition) sits on the throne of the temple, then the Man of Lawlessness is there instead of Christ, the rightful heir to the throne.

Now here is the punch line: Anti in Greek means instead of. Anti in English means opposed to. So if the Man of Lawlessness is on the throne of the temple instead of Christ, then that man is the AntiChrist.

So the question then is who is this antichrist sitting on Christ's throne?

The answer is YOU! You are the antichrist. And until you die (spiritually), Christ cannot rule in your life. My prayer is that no one dies physically before that happens.

:b_evil:

[themuzicman]

SD - How do you reconcile the post-mil aspect of preterism with the obvious rise of evil in the 20th century?

Michael

[GhostontheNet]

SD - How do you reconcile the post-mil aspect of preterism with the obvious rise of evil in the 20th century?

Michael

Post-mil aspect of Preterism? You are mistaken, Preterism doesn't require Postmillenialism, though several of its adherants hold to this view. In fact, I had once encountered a link to a website defending "Dispensational Preterism." As to the point of evil winning, I wish I hadn't lent someone my copy of End Times Fiction. If I had it, I would quote Demar's 'argument from three Josephs.'

[dizzle]

Sigh. Preterism is not necessarily postmill. Please do not confuse the two. Second, how would a first century Christian reconcile the ridiculousness of a ragtag band of disciples spreading a religion that would cover the globe?

And are you under the mistaken impression that postmill teaches that evil will NEVER increase?

And are you REALLY under the impression that EVIL has indeed increased OVERALL? I am not. In fact, I doubt any of us would trade places with someone living even a few hundred years ago. Natural evil certainly has been conquered in a large measure. Most women don't have to look forward to dying in childbirth. Most children live past infancy, etc ad nauseam. And I don't believe the evil of people has increased either. In other words, sheer poppycock.

[themuzicman]

I guess I was referring to the rise of communism, under which 20 million Jews were murdered by Stalin, two world wars, where 6 million Jews were murdered, and countless thousands (millions?) of lives were lost fighting those wars. The first use of a nuclear weapon, and the whole cold war, with it's skirmishes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, etc. The emergence of Islam (major step backwards for women's rights and health), the rise of abortion on demand, and general moral decline in the traditionally Christian west, and now the rise of global terrorism begins the 21st century.

Sure, women don't die in childbirth, but their children are murdered before birth in even greater numbers.

The Catholic church itself covers up and enables priests to abuse young boys. The church itself isn't too healthy, either.

And it would be difficult at best to say that the Kingdom of God on earth has been increasing over the last 40 years.

All of this is a MAJOR shift towards evil after the optimism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Michael

[dizzle]

I guess I was referring to the rise of communism...

There were just as evil of governmental systems before -


under which 20 million Jews were murdered by Stalin...

The population has increased --- millions of people have died over the ages in brutal ways



, two world wars, where 6 million Jews were murdered,

There have always been wars where populations get decimated. Do you know how ancient warfare worked? Try reading what happened in AD70.


and countless thousands (millions?) of lives were lost fighting those wars.

Nothing has changed. There has always been wars and people die in them. that does not prove an increase of evil etc....

But the bottom line is that forty years is NOTHING in the sight of God, things could go backwards for a millennia as part of God taking us giant leaps forward in the next. It is quite a bit of creaturely presumption to think we can judge God's plan in our puny lifetimes.

I am sure glad I don't have your POV.

Three thousand years ago God's truth was limited to one ethnically isolated group while the gentiles sat in darkness. Now it is worldwide. I think you have your perspective in the wrong place.

No doubt those things you said are evil. That does not mean evil has increased. People are not more evil today than they were thousands of years ago. they may be able to do things in greater numbers, but good can be done in greater numbers too - why you focused on evil and not on good?

Millions died for want of medicine that we can now buy for peanuts

[dizzle]

Note - I am not trivializing the acts of human evil that have happened. That does not negate the promised victory of God. Humans are capable of great evil and it is the Gospel, NOT MAN, that conquers. Human are as evil as they have always been.

[John Reece]

All of this is a MAJOR shift towards evil after the optimism of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Michael

No, Michael, it’s just a MAJOR lack of historical perspective on your part.

An historical note, selected at random (from Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity, pages 197-198):


Uncommitted contemporaries watched the contest with dismay. It fitted into pessimistic theories of the universe, based on the traditions of Jewish prophecy, which circulated in various forms, and were incorporated into works of historical analysis. Around the mid-twelfth century, for instance, the most learned German of the day, Otto, Bishop of Freising, wrote a huge chronicle of world history, The Two Cities. As the name implies, the thought behind the book was Augustinian, and Otto accepted Augustine's view that history was a series of phases, reflecting God's plan for man's destiny, culminating in an apocalypse and the final judgment. Otto thought the long period between Constantine and the reign of Henry III had been one of godliness and harmony because empire and papacy had been able to work together. Then Gregory VII and Henry IV had destroyed the unitary structure; heresy and schism had followed; and Otto detected other portents of impending dissolution. Obviously the power of evil was increasing, the world was in its death-throes, and the last trump would soon sound: 'We are here,' he wrote, 'set down as it were at the end of time.'

Have you read Solzhenitsyn? Do you know his personal history? Do you know where he is today?

God uses evil times to produce people of great courage, integrity, and wisdom - and works of great value. Then he flushes evil men and evil systems - like the communism of the Soviet Empire and the fascism of Nazi Germany - down the toilets of history. And new, unforeseen wonders happen . . .

New, unforeseen wonders will happen again and again in the future, and all evil men and evil systems will continue to be ultimately flushed down the toilets of history.

No evil man and no evil system ever ultimately triumphs in history.

The Church of Jesus Christ will continue to emerge victorious through every phase of future history, just as it has through all the phases of history to this day.

Ephesians 3

20 Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

SD - How do you reconcile the post-mil aspect of preterism with the obvious rise of evil in the 20th century?

Michael
Excelent point Dee Dee and John.

Like Dee Dee said there is a significant decrease in the amount of natural evil in the world today compared to 150 years ago. But there is also IMHO a decrease in the amount of moral evil. 200 years ago slavery was the rule not the exception. Today, in no small part due to the efforts of Christians, slavery is all but eradicated. Democracies were almost non-existent 200 years ago. Human rights are protected now more than ever.

Yes, there is still evil in the world. But like John said, there has always been evil in the world and man has always been eager to assume that the time he is living in is worse than the generation before him (there is even a name for that but I don't recall what it is).

It is also true that the advances in technology that have brough about so much good, have also made it possible for evil to be more efficient (ie Hitler and Stalin could not have killed so many people without advances in technology). But on the balance, is the world a better place to live now than it was 200 years ago?

I think the answer to that is a resounding yes!!!!

[themuzicman]

However, is the world a better place to live than, say, 100 years ago? I already acknowledged that there was a height of optimism in the late 18th and 19th century, with Christianity expanding around the world, and the enlightenment/modern era producing philosophy, politics, religion; human rights under democracy being defined and defended; and knowledge from scientific study, and economies producing wealth.

However, enter the 20th century. Wealth has given way to corruption and monopolies. Slavery persists in Africa. We've had a large portion of the world population subject to anti-theist goverments (communism). (Remember that circa 320AD, the entire Roman world was mandated to be Christian.) Two world wars which resulted in the deaths of millions. The rise of abortion, which has contributed to (hundreds?) of millions of deaths world wide, the promise of enlightenment/modern thought is crumbling under its own weight, such that even objective truth is questionable, such that philosophical and political thought seem to be waning.

Science seems to be doing alright, albiet for the most part as part of the economy rather than as discovery, and medical science, while still moving forward, continues to be haunted by the possibility that they're just creating the supervirus by defeating the ones that they can. They were very concerned that SARS was it, and an epidemic may have only been prevented by good quarentine.

Human rights? Democracies still protect them where democracy exists, but how many successful democracies have formed in the last 100 years? Germany... Japan... (both after being literally torn up from the roots by WW II)... Possibly some of the republics and satellites of the former USSR, although that record is spotty.

Wealth continues to be produced, but seemingly at the cost of the more important items like morality and compassion, and even more importantly, Christianity.

The difference is the time period. Last 200 years, probably up. Last 100 years? The previous 100 were definately more upward, with the last 40 or so having seriousl question marks.

Now consider new events such as global terrorism, which appears to be the battle of the early 21st century. People killing other innocent people outside the context of war for political gain.

Yes, there have been advances in the last 100 years, but if you weigh the momentum of both good and evil, they seem to be in opposite directions, good declining, evil increasing.

At its core, if the Kingom of God is to be increasing, not only should we see an increase in morality, but an increase in the percentages of people on earth who are Christian. The most recent core of Christianity, namely the west, appears to be entering a post-Christian era, even as Islam is on the rise.

And ask yourself: Under the current trends, how many Christians will be left in 60 or 70 years? How many developed nations will even have a majority of Christians in their borders? The US? Probably. For all our decline, nothing has come to replace it, yet, except maybe materialism. Europe? I think that is very much in question.

So, even if there are 500 million Americans among 7 billion in the world, how many will be Christian in 70 years? If Christians are to be the majority, where will those 3.5 billion Christians live? (Presently Christianity has the most numerically, but the percentage has been falling, and is under 50 percent. Sounds like probably a BIG percentage decline from centuries past.)

Is revival possible? Of course. But the trend over the last 100 years has not been good.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not all doom and gloom. There is always reason to hope in God. But if you look at the movement of the world over the last 100 years, there are some serious downers and reasons to wonder about being post-mil.

Michael

[dizzle]

Michael, and points of time leading up to better times are often bad. You cannot judge history in terms of one century (though I would still highly disagree with you - you are ointing out bad at the expense of good - very much so). But here is the better question, do you think postmills are postmill because they look at the world and go, "Gee, it looks like things are swell, I think I will be postmill." Postmills are postmill (or optimistic amill) because they believe Scripture teaches it which is the bigger and more important question.

[themuzicman]

However, if an interpretation is going to make statements about the progress of history, and especially the kingdom of God, there should be some evidence to suggest that this process is ongoing.

You could be right, tho. My time frame could just be too short. I guess we'll see.

Michael

[Sheepdog]

Q: Where is the Temple of God?

A: The Temple of God is within you (see Jer 31:31 and Gal 3:16 and there are others)

So if you are the Temple of God, and the Man of Lawlessness (or Perdition) sits on the throne of the temple, then the Man of Lawlessness is there instead of Christ, the rightful heir to the throne.

problem is, at the time Jesus said that, everyone would be thinking of the physical temple that stood in Jerusalem. there are no indicators anywhere in the Fourfold Gospel that Jesus would have meant anything other than the physical Temple. We have to read what Jesus is saying, not try to read in between the lines with our own presumptions and such.

The answer is YOU! You are the antichrist. And until you die (spiritually), Christ cannot rule in your life. My prayer is that no one dies physically before that happens.

did you even read the passage in the Opening Post? there was indeed an individual the NT writers had in mind. also, look at how John uses the term "antichrist" in his epistles.

[Sheepdog]

SD - How do you reconcile the post-mil aspect of preterism with the obvious rise of evil in the 20th century?

i'm not sure why a rise in evil should be problematic in the first place. besides, a casual reading of history shows that evil tends to come in waves. between the end of the cold war and 9-11, we saw a suprizing amount of peace. (though, isolated exceptions are also in mind, e.g. Kosovo, Gulf War 1).

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

However, if an interpretation is going to make statements about the progress of history, and especially the kingdom of God, there should be some evidence to suggest that this process is ongoing.

You could be right, tho. My time frame could just be too short. I guess we'll see.

Michael
I think you time frame is too short. But I also think your "geographric" frame is too short as well.

I have to admit that it certainly seems that Christianity in the West (especially Europe) is on the decline. However, the church is growing in Africa, China and South Korea. I would love for the West in general and USA in particular to be the Christian light of the world until Christ come again in judgement. That may not be the case. Of course like you said there is always the possiblity of revival.

Now, I think the what we are seeing in the US could be a good thing. Late 19th early 20th century, "everybody" went to chruch. But how, much of that was a cultural thing. I optimistically (not becasue I am an Optimil, nothing in scripture says anything about the US, but becasue I am Optimistic about America) think that the declind in percentage of church attendance could be a good thing in the long run.

Not that people not going to church is good, but people "doing church" for social reasons is no better. I hope that this trend is a pruning process that will ultimately strengthen the Church in America.

(boy this is way off topic.)

[Jezz]

Three thousand years ago God's truth was limited to one ethnically isolated group while the gentiles sat in darkness. Now it is worldwide.
I just wanted to throw in a comment about this... God's truth was not limited to one ethnically isolated group at any point in history. Sure, God chose the Israelites for a special purpose, but His truth can be found (to varying degrees) in just about any ancient culture.

[dizzle]

I just wanted to throw in a comment about this... God's truth was not limited to one ethnically isolated group at any point in history. Sure, God chose the Israelites for a special purpose, but His truth can be found (to varying degrees) in just about any ancient culture.

I would both agree and disagree. Comparatively speaking (and the text bears this out), Israel was in light and the rest of the world was in darkness.

[Sheepdog]

I would both agree and disagree. Comparatively speaking (and the text bears this out), Israel was in light and the rest of the world was in darkness.

if the alien (i.e. Gentile in NT speak) wanted to be in the light, they had to become part of the Jewish community. sooo... you both are right, in a sense.

[Jezz]

I would both agree and disagree. Comparatively speaking (and the text bears this out), Israel was in light and the rest of the world was in darkness.
Yeah, I don't think that disagrees with what I said. I wrote: His truth can be found (to varying degrees) in just about any ancient culture (emphasis added). I agree that the light shone brightest in Israel, so comparatively (ie, compared to Israel) the other nations were "dark". But being more dark than Israel does not equate to being in complete darkness. One only needs to read "Eternity in their Hearts" to know that. :smile:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

But being more dark than Israel does not equate to being in complete darkness. One only needs to read "Eternity in their Hearts" to know that. :smile:Or the book of Jonah.