I want to thank Praxeas for giving his time as moderator, and Bro. Anderson for contributing to this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabellius
Futurism and Preterism (Full Preterism or FP heron) have been peering at a great divide for years. This divide however usually centers upon different hermeneutic styles of the text of Scripture. Primarily the Apocalyptic and Eschatological literature (e.g. Daniel, Revelation). Upon closer examination however I contend that the Christ of Preterism is not the Apostolic Christ, nor is it then truly the Christ of Scripture.
It was not until the 2nd and 3rd Century that allegorical type hermeneutics came about through the pen of Origen. Later, in Medieval (A.D. 500-1500) times, St. Augustine viewed the Church as equal with the Kingdom of God and prophecy took on a new look. From this Preterism has evolved. The grammatical-historical method, however, should be sought by modern believers.
|
To claim AFP is based solely on “allegorical hermeneutics” is an unreasonable summation of the hermeneutic methods employed in AFP. AFP is principally determined by comparing a text with all other occurrences where similar text/language is found in the Bible. Since the Bible contains “literal” and “figurative” language, either may be required to determine a passage’s proper interpretation. Futurism/Dispensationalism also uses both these methods. For instance, no Futurist of which I’m familiar suggests the “Beast” in the “Mark of the Beast” refers to anything other than an allegorical nature of man, nor do they literally take the “You” found in
Matthew 24:34,
Mark 13:30, and
Luke 21:32 as being literally for the generation then living. Jesus spoke in both plain language and in parables. A parable is an allegorical teaching. To correctly understand His parables one would also have to involve both hermeneutics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabellius
FP views the following Christo-centric events as past:
1. The Second Coming
2. The resurrection of the dead
3. Great White Throne judgment
|
Bro. Anderson, I am sure you’d agree that none of these are small enough to deal with in this single debate. Consequently, each of these requires its own thread.
Now to what you asked to debate: you affirm:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabellius
…the Christ of Preterism is not the Apostolic Christ, nor is it then truly the Christ of Scripture.
|
Bro. Anderson, the evidence you offered is from two men who are anti-apostolic. In his book,
Charismatic Chaos, John McArthur writes against speaking in tongues and spiritual gifts. Your other source, Spiros Zodhiates, opposes the necessity of baptism and the importance of Jesus’ name baptism in his
Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Do you believe such differences amount to these men having a Christ different than the Apostles’? If so, how could their Jesus agree with your Jesus so as to prove AFP’s Jesus is not apostolic?
The subject you chose to discuss is “The Christ of Apostolic Full Preterism” is different than the “Apostolic Christ ‘of scripture.’” Consequently, to determine whether this is true, we need to determine what the Bible says is the evidence for the prophesied Messiah.
The crux of our eschatological differences comes down to whether there is a gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks of
Daniel 9. If there is no gap, then there is no basis for Futurism. If there is a gap, then AFP collapses.
Daniel 9 includes a six point description of what the Messiah must complete to qualify as the Savior. These points do describe the Jesus of the Apostles. AFP contends these points are all fulfilled, thus leaving no reason for a gap. Futurism/Dispensationalism contends these points (most or all) are unfulfilled, thus necessitating a gap. The answer whether these points are fulfilled mostly settles the differences on the Second Coming, Resurrection, and White Throne, as well as what Christ is found in the Apostles’ teachings. These points are highlighted here:
Daniel 9:24
(24) Seventy weeks [490 years] are determined upon thy people [Jews] and upon thy holy city, [Jerusalem] [to accomplish six things] [1] to finish the transgression, and [2] to make an end of sins, and [3] to make reconciliation for iniquity, and [4] to bring in everlasting righteousness, and [5] to seal up the vision and prophecy, and [6] to anoint the most Holy.
I assert Futurism/Dispensationalism invalidates the Apostles’ Jesus by saying He has not fulfilled all points in
Daniel 9:24, and that AFP authenticates the Apostles’ Jesus, because it confirms that He fulfilled these points. Therefore, to claim AFP does not teach the Apostles’ Jesus, Bro. Anderson you must prove Jesus did not fulfill all written of Him in
Daniel 9:24 through the Apostle’s writings.
Bro. Anderson, I await your evidence where Jesus did not fulfill the six points of
Daniel 9:24.
Jesus’ best,
TK Burk
Threaded Mode
