Originally posted by KingsGambit
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Matthew 24:20 in a futurist paradigm
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostThanks for all the responses so far. It seems the majority of futurists see a double fulfillment there. Do you see more double fulfillments within the Olivet Discourse, at least prior to verse 30 (which I don't think anybody could reasonably place in the first century)?
With that said, I think Luke's (21) version fits the first century a little better up to vs. 24, or at least gave them some guidance in what do in that situation. He gives a better and more clearer version of what happened during the 70 AD war (though even with Luke, there are some inaccuracies in comparison to the war which I won't get into).
I would be willing to argue double fulfillment only as a byproduct of helping first century Christians to avoid that situation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWhat is your exegesis of Colossians 2:16 as it pertains to Paul's view of the Sabbath?
Christ came to fulfill and uphold the Law, not set it aside, except insomuch as He gives us something better by giving us a Spirit that can follow the Law perfectly as He did. And He also gave us the freedom to know that if we accidentally fail to follow some part of the Law, we are not condemned, but rather grace is allotted while we repent and correct our course.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostI tend to find preterism to be a rather non-intuitive way of interpreting Scripture, but there is one passage in particular that makes futurism very difficult for me...
Matthew 24:20: "Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath."
Since most Christians agree that rules that would prohibit movement on the Sabbath are no longer in effect, this would make little sense applied deep into the future. It's easy enough to understand this within a AD 70 paradigm; Craig Keener points out in his IVP Commentary that it was impossible to secure an animal for transport on the Sabbath in Jerusalem at that time.
As best as I can tell, here are the possibilities I can think of that would preserve a futurist paradigm:
1) This passage refers to AD 70 but switches to the end times later on (a sermon I heard on the Olivet discourse in church last month argued this, though the pastor used Mark 13, not Matthew 24).
2) The Sabbath is, in fact, binding on Christians.
3) This refers to Jews who will convert in the end times and who still choose to follow the Sabbath, sort of like how some Jewish Christians still saw circumcision as important in Paul's letters.
Anything else I'm missing here?
α. One solution to that hypothesis is, to postulate that different discourses of Jesus have been edited together.
β. Another is, to suppose that the whole Discourse derives in some sense from the same occasion, and that Jesus was “telescoping” the remote future into the near future, and speaking of both as though they were the same. This is similar to your 1), but not identical.
γ. A third suggestion is, that the seeming prediction is a “prediction after the fact”.
I’m sure there are other suggestions.
Another possibility - the whole thing refers to AD 70, and is spoken of in apocalyptic imagery, which, to readers unfamiliar with it, gives the (inaccurate) impression that Jesus was talking of the end of the world. I like both this suggestion, and β.Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-30-2019, 06:49 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostIt is a refutation of the legalism of the Pharisees. Following the law does not make you righteous, but that does not absolve one of following the law.
Christ came to fulfill and uphold the Law, not set it aside, except insomuch as He gives us something better by giving us a Spirit that can follow the Law perfectly as He did. And He also gave us the freedom to know that if we accidentally fail to follow some part of the Law, we are not condemned, but rather grace is allotted while we repent and correct our course.
Having the right motive in dealing with God and neighbour, does not, of itself, entail observing the Law of Moses - for “love is the fulfilling of the Law”. The 613 mitsvoth are therefore irrelevant to Christians. The summary of the Law in the Two Great Commandments is OTOH permanent: for the Church of the New and Everlasting Covenant in the Precious Blood of Christ, no less than for the Jewish Church of the Old Covenant in the blood of bulls and goats. What is permanent, is the two-fold commandment of love, that is binding in both covenants; the acts by which the 613 mitsvoth were performed, were a temporary expression of this love. Now that Christ has come, these 613 mitsvoth have been “done away in Christ”, Who is, in every sense, “the end of the Law” - its conclusion, its goal, its purpose, its fulfilment. The love He requires, from Jew and Gentile alike, is not less but more stringent than that commanded in the Law. What He requires is both much simpler, and much stricter and more searching, than what the Law requires. In that inward sense, He has certainly not “abolished the Law”.Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-30-2019, 07:27 PM.
Comment
Comment