Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
Elder Blume most of the FP that I have communicated with do seem intelligent thus I cannot blame ignorance on their absurd statements so I think they make them up to cover their gross error. I am sorry it seems somewhat dishonest to me, but you know them better than I so I could be wrong. If I am how could seemingly intelligent men be so absurd?
|
I really think they are forcing scirpture to say what they feel they have no choice to derive from it. It is a battle to come to grips with beliefs to be wrong when you have stood for them for a certain amount of time. Traditions stick hard.
To me, it's plain as day that a statement is wrong that says there is no more death means more than saying physical death continues to exist and take people away from life and that it is a spiritual issue disregarding such physical death. Same with the nature of the resurrection in
1 Cor 15. It's so plainly a physical one.
But I saw the mindset of ful preterism, in my opinion. SOME folks are convinced that certain scriptures cannot mean anything else than an FP viewpoint, for example. And the only way to fit still other passages into the scheme is to take leaps of ill reason to maintain their overall view. But they think they have to do this. This is what I think is the major difference between full and partial preterism. FP's know, themselves, that anyone who would read
Rev 22 or
1 Cor 15 would not conclude what FP proposes from them. But they claim OTHER passages are "clearly" FP, and the only way to take the first set of passages is to stretch them to fit an FP freamework. So they take the risk and leap.
Threaded Mode
