Great comprehensive MP3 series on Eschatology

[timspong]

I am really enjoying this MP3 series on Eschatology:

http://www.gcaarchive.com/revelation.shtml

It gives a VERY comprehensive view of pre-millenniumism drawing from all relevant sources in the bible. It is actually 112 lectures all about an hour long, so he really goes into depth.

Please let me know what you think. I download them onto my ipod and listen to them when in the car and travelling.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I clicked on the Amen button by accident. Sorry. I haven't listened to the series.

[Secretary of Defense Crow]

I'm not sure how one unamens an amen.

[timspong]

I clicked on the Amen button by accident. Sorry. I haven't listened to the series.

Providence is truly wonderful :tongue:

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Providence is truly wonderful :tongue:

I agree. The providence of God is something rarely (if ever) discussed on TWEB.

[Armor of God]

From the site:
While not holding to what is known as "Classic Dispensationalism," this teaching series does defend the Premillennial / Pre-Tribulational position that results from the most natural reading of the text.
:huh:

[timspong]

From the site:

:huh:

Can you please clarify the reason for your Bemusement?

[Armor of God]

Well, at first my "bemusement" was just due to the statement I have in bold. I guess you could say that despite the number of times I've heard that claim, it's never quite rang true as far as I can tell...unless of course you have a pre-everything stance in mind and then make the text fit it.

The second source was when I listened to the dude rant on Hank Hannegraaff. Just a wee bit dramatic, ain't he?

[timspong]

Well, at first my "bemusement" was just due to the statement I have in bold. I guess you could say that despite the number of times I've heard that claim, it's never quite rang true as far as I can tell...unless of course you have a pre-everything stance in mind and then make the text fit it.

The second source was when I listened to the dude rant on Hank Hannegraaff. Just a wee bit dramatic, ain't he?

I think what convinced me of the pre-everything stance was that it is in line with the teachings of the early church (post 70ad). Good examples are from Polycarp’s writings, who was actually a disciple of John (who wrote Revelation) and gave good accounts of Johns actual teaching on the matter.

Hank H. is a partial preterist, so his eschatological teachings are going to be well off base. As for Jim Mc. I personally like preachers that don't hold punches and say what they think rather than the seeker friendly types that seem a bit slimy and choreographed

[dizzle]

Ohh, give me the rant on Hanegraaff. I love to see the preebies get their undies all in a wad over Hank.

[Armor of God]

For your Bemusement...

[URL="http://www.gcaarchive.com/Audio/Eschatology/072_Answering%20the%20Answer%20Man.mp3"]You're wrong, answer man![URL]

[Armor of God]

For your Bemusement...

You're wrong, answer man! (http://www.gcaarchive.com/Audio/Eschatology/072_Answering%20the%20Answer%20Man.mp3)

[dizzle]

Thank you.

[Armor of God]

Hank H. is a partial preterist, so his eschatological teachings are going to be well off base. As for Jim Mc. I personally like preachers that don't hold punches and say what they think rather than the seeker friendly types that seem a bit slimy and choreographed
Which of Hank's teachings are "well off base?" The ones that make biblical sense? Or did you have some others in mind?

I like preachers that don't hold punches too. Are you saying you think that Hank is seeker friendly and such? Or are you just stating what you like about Jimmy?

[timspong]

Which of Hank's teachings are "well off base?" The ones that make biblical sense? Or did you have some others in mind?

I like preachers that don't hold punches too. Are you saying you think that Hank is seeker friendly and such? Or are you just stating what you like about Jimmy?

I think the audio link speaks for itself and adequately represents a rebuttal from a historic doctrinal view and no matter what you think of Jim McClarty, his doctrinal stance is an orthodox protestant one.

This unorthodox partial-preterist eschatological view seems to be the fad of the day and IMO just doesn't stand up to scriptural examination. The irony is that it is exactly this kind of unorthodox teaching that the bible answerman program was originally intended to expose until Hank took over.

I don’t think that it is an accident that in the US the most famous contemporary “Christian” personalities are those that hold to the faddy pop Christian doctrines and sell millions of glossy “best life now” type books.

May God give us all the wisdom to see beneath the glossy venire.

I can’t remember who said it but someone said that Christianity in the US is 3,000 miles wide but only an inch thick.

[dizzle]

Thanks for the laugh tim. :rofl:

I also got a Mac - so I am running completely with the cool kids I guess.

Dee Dee "Got Preterism?" Warren

[Armor of God]

I think the audio link speaks for itself and adequately represents a rebuttal from a historic doctrinal view and no matter what you think of Jim McClarty, his doctrinal stance is an orthodox protestant one.

I never said his stance wasn't orthodox. I just said he was a wee bit dramatic.

This unorthodox partial-preterist eschatological view seems to be the fad of the day and IMO just doesn't stand up to scriptural examination. The irony is that it is exactly this kind of unorthodox teaching that the bible answerman program was originally intended to expose until Hank took over.

So Hank is unorthodox now? In my best Bill Lumbergh voice "Yeahh...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that." That's a pretty hefty claim in my book, Tim. You're basically calling Hank a hairy-tick. Ya better be able to back that up with some Biblical evidence.

I don’t think that it is an accident that in the US the most famous contemporary “Christian” personalities are those that hold to the faddy pop Christian doctrines and sell millions of glossy “best life now” type books.

I agree. Hagee and his ilk are pretty annoying.

[timspong]

I never said his stance wasn't orthodox. I just said he was a wee bit dramatic.



So Hank is unorthodox now? In my best Bill Lumbergh voice "Yeahh...I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that." That's a pretty hefty claim in my book, Tim. You're basically calling Hank a hairy-tick. Ya better be able to back that up with some Biblical evidence.



I agree. Hagee and his ilk are pretty annoying.

Sorry I may be a bit out of touch; but since whan did preterism (or variations thereof) become orthodox?

[dizzle]

Why do you think it is unorthodox?

[Armor of God]

Sorry I may be a bit out of touch; but since whan did preterism (or variations thereof) become orthodox?

Hmm. So are you really questioning the orthodoxy of preterism without understanding it? Or are you basing your decision of it's merits on the teaching of what's-his-face's rantings on Hank Hannegraaff?

[timspong]

Hmm. So are you really questioning the orthodoxy of preterism without understanding it? Or are you basing your decision of it's merits on the teaching of what's-his-face's rantings on Hank Hannegraaff?

I would not say I am any kind of expert but I probably know more about it than most that are jumping on the preterist bandwagon. It is after all the current fad.

As far as the rant on Hank Hannegraaff, I actually hadn't listened to that particular MP3 until you pointed it out.

[timspong]

As far as I can see, preterism et al was a result of some fancy Jesuit side stepping to avoid the obvious parallels in revelation to the RCC. I wouldn't go so far as saying the pope is the antichrist but it is pretty obvious that the woman in rev 17 is Rome. (ie Rome = the city on 7 hills)

BTW most people reject the pre-mill view because they see it as being inextricably linked with dispensationalism. So they end up rejecting both because of obvious flaws in the latter.

However, if you ever manage to get to the point where realize the futility of the “church replacing Israel” concept, biblical eschatology then comes into sharp focus. All the creative exegesis and spiritualization of text can be ejected as the truth becomes obvious.

I don’t think anything has built my faith more than finally seeing all the prophetic pieces fitting together perfectly. It is really quite a blessing.

[dizzle]

*snip*

What makes you think it is unorthodox? So far all I have seen is rants. I can assure you that I am pretty confident that I know just a tad bit more about it than you do.

[timspong]

What makes you think it is unorthodox? So far all I have seen is rants. I can assure you that I am pretty confident that I know just a tad bit more about it than you do.

Personally I consider that to be orthodox, it must follow a traditional mainstream church view.

[Armor of God]

I would not say I am any kind of expert but I probably know more about it than most that are jumping on the preterist bandwagon. It is after all the current fad.

Ya really should have stopped with "I would not say I am any kind of expert." Everything else you've said so far has supported that 100%

As far as I can see, preterism et al was a result of some fancy Jesuit side stepping to avoid the obvious parallels in revelation to the RCC. I wouldn't go so far as saying the pope is the antichrist but it is pretty obvious that the woman in rev 17 is Rome. (ie Rome = the city on 7 hills)

BTW most people reject the pre-mill view because they see it as being inextricably linked with dispensationalism. So they end up rejecting both because of obvious flaws in the latter.

However, if you ever manage to get to the point where realize the futility of the “church replacing Israel” concept, biblical eschatology then comes into sharp focus. All the creative exegesis and spiritualization of text can be ejected as the truth becomes obvious.

I don’t think anything has built my faith more than finally seeing all the prophetic pieces fitting together perfectly. It is really quite a blessing.

As for your first point, mayhap it was, mayhap it wasn't. But as long as it's biblical I could care less who systematized it. And just to be clear, I don't reject pre-mill due to dispy alone. I judge each form on it's own merits...something that appears could help you understand preterism better.

Personally I consider that to be orthodox, it must follow a traditional mainstream church view.

Wow. So mainstream defines orthodoxy now? I always thought the creeds were what more or less defined the boundary lines, but I guess now we get to shift the goal posts depending on popular thought.

[timspong]

Ya really should have stopped with "I would not say I am any kind of expert." Everything else you've said so far has supported that 100%



As for your first point, mayhap it was, mayhap it wasn't. But as long as it's biblical I could care less who systematized it. And just to be clear, I don't reject pre-mill due to dispy alone. I judge each form on it's own merits...something that appears could help you understand preterism better.



Wow. So mainstream defines orthodoxy now? I always thought the creeds were what more or less defined the boundary lines, but I guess now we get to shift the goal posts depending on popular thought.

Is preterism defined in a creed? If it is then I would, of course, bow to its orthodoxy.

[Raphael]

Is preterism defined in a creed? If it is then I would, of course, bow to its orthodoxy.

I think the point was that aslong as it doesn't go against the creeds, then it is an acceptable viewpoint. As soon as you start believing something that goes against the creeds you're in trouble.

[Armor of God]

Is preterism defined in a creed? If it is then I would, of course, bow to its orthodoxy.

Is pre-mill? I didn't see it in the oft-quoted creeds that are usually recited in churches today, but I'm assuming since you asked the question the way you did that there is a creed that you believe lays down pre-mill as the law of eschatology.

[dizzle]

Is pre-mill? I didn't see it in the oft-quoted creeds that are usually recited in churches today, but I'm assuming since you asked the question the way you did that there is a creed that you believe lays down pre-mill as the law of eschatology.

And actually - there are some who take a position on at least some of the Creeds that they implicitly deny premill by putting the Second Coming and the Final Judgment at one time, not separated by a thousand years. A premill has no leg to stand on to try and claim that the Creeds are premill. At best (which is my position) they do not intend to take a millennial position. At worst, they deny premillennialism.

[timspong]

I am saying that for a teaching to be orthodox I would assume that it needs to be a position that is taken up by a mainstream church.

Are you guys saying that any teaching not directly contradicted in a creed could be considered orthodox?

I am not trying to be argumentative, I just want to understand what you guys consider the definition of orthodoxy to be.

[dizzle]

I am saying that for a teaching to be orthodox I would assume that it needs to be a position that is taken up by a mainstream church.

That's silly. There was a point in time when the Church was over-run with Arians and for a time, like they would win out. Was Arianism orthodox then?

Followup question - what do you consider a mainstream church?

[tizzidale]

:popcorn:

[timspong]

That's silly. There was a point in time when the Church was over-run with Arians and for a time, like they would win out. Was Arianism orthodox then?

Followup question - what do you consider a mainstream church?

Just to clarify IMO I don't particularly consider orthodox to be the inspired word of God but rather what has been the accepted teaching of mainstream church bodies. For example I would say that there are many teachings given by the RCC et al that would be considered orthodox but which are merely uninspired traditions.

However, I believe that Gods word is buried within the various orthodox teachings and find it hard to believe that providence would allow a major part of Gods word to be excluded from the pale of orthodoxy.

My personal definition of a mainstream church would be one that can trace its heritage back to the “early church” ,in some form or other, through a line of apostolic inheritance. This would include all the major “post –reformation” protestant denominations.

In other words I think it is okay to "cherry pick" among traditional church teaching as you are inspired by the spirit, but to go outside of that is a very dangerous thing to do. It is like crawling out of the sand box and playing with the snakes among the nettles.

[Armor of God]

Just to clarify IMO I don't particularly consider orthodox to be the inspired word of God but rather what has been the accepted teaching of mainstream church bodies. For example I would say that there are many teachings given by the RCC et al that would be considered orthodox but which are merely uninspired traditions.

However, I believe that Gods word is buried within the various orthodox teachings and find it hard to believe that providence would allow a major part of Gods word to be excluded from the pale of orthodoxy.

My personal definition of a mainstream church would be one that can trace its heritage back to the “early church” ,in some form or other, through a line of apostolic inheritance. This would include all the major “post –reformation” protestant denominations.

In other words I think it is okay to "cherry pick" among traditional church teaching as you are inspired by the spirit, but to go outside of that is a very dangerous thing to do. It is like crawling out of the sand box and playing with the snakes among the nettles.
Ok, so like I said before, we get to shift the goal posts to wherever we like as long as the majority agrees with it. What has been considered "mainstream" throughout the ages has changed so much that it it almost a misnomer. It's too broad. Heck, a I've heard Word of Faith teaching referred to as "mainstream." I'm more worried about whether a view is biblical, as I've already said.

You never answered my question. Is premill defined in the creeds?

[timspong]

Ok, so like I said before, we get to shift the goal posts to wherever we like as long as the majority agrees with it. What has been considered "mainstream" throughout the ages has changed so much that it it almost a misnomer. It's too broad. Heck, a I've heard Word of Faith teaching referred to as "mainstream." I'm more worried about whether a view is biblical, as I've already said.

You never answered my question. Is premill defined in the creeds?

Premill is not defined in the creeds and I don't believe I ever alluded to that as a basis for my position. However, it remains the most obvious biblical position without the need to allegorize biblical text.

This position is attested to by the early "pre 300ad church and also in apocalyptic literature. Many of the early church writings attest to this position inc: Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In fact it wasn't until Origen introduced the tradition of allegorizing text to fit theology did the pre-mill stance loose its credibility. With the advent of Constantine’s interference the whole church movement became adulterated and mixed with a lot of allegorical interpretation and pagan influence.

As far as “shifting the goalposts” I honestly don’t think I have played any such games and have been quite forthright with what I believe.