The Appeal of Preterism

[Dante]

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

[shazeep]

oh, man--here we go...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Dante

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Im so sorry to hear that. You should read this.


http://www.entrewave.com/view/reform...surrection.htm

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Dante

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Well, all the current interpretations are more reactive than predictive. Something happens and they go out in droves to see if anything in the bible sounds like the event was predicted.

Preterism at least involved people actually taking heed of a prophetic warning and it worked for them! That's much more amazing than how bible prophecies are currently considered by the established crowd.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Dante

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

Well whatever you decide to believe in the middle of the road. It needs a name...howabout dramatic/cyclicism?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well whatever you decide to believe in the middle of the road. It needs a name...howabout dramatic/cyclicism?

Or, the naming in and of itself might be taken as a sign of human thinking, and thus straying. I'm with TJJJ-just say 'no'

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

Interesting thoughts.

[houston]

Good grief

[Dante]

Preterism is far more systematically consistent than any other formulation of eschatology.