The Appeal of Preterism

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sean

Thanks, Luke...Sorry Michael, I might have interpreted that post as what you believe. Maybe, clarify?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Hahaha...funny you should say that. I was telling my friend I am now an "observer." On a serious note though, as far as coming to a conclusion, how does one come to a conclusion when there are major holes in all the doctrine?

Like I said in another thread, I used to be fully pre-trib (I saw inconsistencies, but figured I would one day be able to reconcile it.) So I would search/study/pray to figure it out. As of now, I see no reconciliation. Matter of fact, I started a thread a while back asking probing questions on both preterism and dispensationalism, for which there were no answers per se.

The obvious truth (IMO) is that preterism and dispensationalism are faced with the same problem, which is "what to do with the last half of Matt 24?"

Both sides agree that the first half of Matt 24 is fulfilled, but the how about the last half?

Preterism says since Jesus said "this generation will not pass away till all these things be fulfilled..." therefore it must have been fulfilled. Since, it was not fulfilled physically, they are forced to spiritualize Jesus' coming, the sun and moon events..etc

On the other hand, dispensationalists say Jesus said his coming would be physically SEEN by all, therefore must be a gap (~2000 years so far..lol) between the first half of matt 24 and the last half, or some hold to double fulfillment of the first half of Matt 24 (of course, double fulfillment negates the fact that Jesus said the tribulation of that magnitude will be a one time event).

In any case, the real issue IMO is the cognitive dissonance both sides of the debate are struggling with.

So, as far as a conclusion, well, for now, I'd say I'm an observer because I find it difficult to teach a doctrine as truth when it is obviously & blatantly wrong, but that's just me.

Thanks bro. I dont know if you have followed my debates with the guys on the Matt 24 thread, But, I laid out the passages of Matt. and Luke in a easily understandable format with very little paraphrasing. If you have not seen it, I can direct you to it or post it.

I think that if anyone is confused on this subject, the "safest" position is to take the simple words of the Bible literally, and use the least amount of "symbolism" as possible. Anytime we start "symbolizing" passages, we are flirting with heresy. I symbolize a few things, but very carefully, with reservation, the least I can.

For instance, in Rev., John saw armies on horses. If he would have seen modern military equipment, he would be at a loss for words(like tank, aircraft, explosions etc.) The vision simply meant he saw a war. The Lord let him see things he could actually explain with his own vocabulary, but obviously we do not use horses and swords these days.



I believe that the greatest heresy that the Preterist movement is doing to our Bible, is effectively eliminating the book of Rev. to the modern day church as written to another group of believers. (Its just a good ol history book to them).

They way they attempt to explain the prophecies of Jesus concerning His 2nd coming are just comical. They almost call it a parable(allegory)!!!

Brother, I have a ministry that includes teaching teachers how to teach...

That is why I asked you to "make the call" and figure out the safest way to teach eschatology and just teach it with all confidence.

God bless...

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sean

Thanks bro. I dont know if you have followed my debates with the guys on the Matt 24 thread, But, I laid out the passages of Matt. and Luke in a easily understandable format with very little paraphrasing. If you have not seen it, I can direct you to it or post it.

I have followed it. It has its major holes, but I didn't really want to get involved in that debate because it might come across as if I was defending preterism. My stance is that both dispensationalism and preterism have major holes.
Having said that, I would try to go respond to your layout in that thread...lol

Originally Posted by Sean

I think that if anyone is confused on this subject, the "safest" position is to take the simple words of the Bible literally, and use the least amount of "symbolism" as possible. Anytime we start "symbolizing" passages, we are flirting with heresy.

Everyone symbolizes whether they like it or not on the parts that don't fit into their doctrine. Since you're a pre-trib, I'll give you some.

1. What does "Behold I am coming SOON" mean (Rev 22:7,12)?
Considering the time this was written, how do you interpret SOON?

Do you take SOON to mean literally? (the preterist does...)

2. How about Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

How do you interpret "those who pierced him being alive to see his coming?" Do you take it literally? (the preterist does...)

3. How about this "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth... Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev 3:7-11)

Did the church in Philadelphia witness his coming? Do you take that literally? (the preterist does...)

Originally Posted by Sean

I symbolize a few things, but very carefully, with reservation, the least I can.

See above...I can give you a whole lot more of symbolism innate to dispensationalism that you probably don't even realize because you're reading the text already from a dispensationalist view not a neutral view.

Originally Posted by Sean

For instance, in Rev., John saw armies on horses. If he would have seen modern military equipment, he would be at a loss for words(like tank, aircraft, explosions etc.) The vision simply meant he saw a war. The Lord let him see things he could actually explain with his own vocabulary, but obviously we do not use horses and swords these days.

That's one you see. Good. How about this?
Do you believe the mark of the beast to be literal? most dispensationalists I know believe it to be literal, yet the beast itself is not believed to be literal.

How about the 7 churches of Revelation? are they literal or symbolic or both?
The preterist takes it as literal...what do you think?

Originally Posted by Sean

I believe that the greatest heresy that the Preterist movement is doing to our Bible, is effectively eliminating the book of Rev. to the modern day church as written to another group of believers. (Its just a good ol history book to them).

No, on the contrary preterism actually seeks to proof that Jesus is who he claims he is because (according to them), everything He said would happen in the first century happened thus proving Jesus is the Messiah.

N.B. I am not a preterist, I just think its strengths are more than that of dispensationalism.

Originally Posted by Sean

They way they attempt to explain the prophecies of Jesus concerning His 2nd coming are just comical. They almost call it a parable(allegory)!!!

Lol...like I said above, there's a lot of allegory in your position also, but you might not realize it because it's innate to your position.
Here's another one for you:
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Literal or symbolic?? (and please, don't even say it was the transfiguration 8 days after as some dispensationalists teach...lol). Remember verse 27 says when He comes, he'll reward every man and then right after, it says "there'll be some standing here who would not die..." So do you take vs 28 literally?

Originally Posted by Sean

Brother, I have a ministry that includes teaching teachers how to teach...

That is why I asked you to "make the call" and figure out the safest way to teach eschatology and just teach it with all confidence.

God bless...

Are you saying I should teach with all confidence something that I can see is not coherent?? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

I have followed it. It has its major holes, but I didn't really want to get involved in that debate because it might come across as if I was defending preterism. My stance is that both dispensationalism and preterism have major holes.
Having said that, I would try to go respond to your layout in that thread...lol


Everyone symbolizes whether they like it or not on the parts that don't fit into their doctrine. Since you're a pre-trib, I'll give you some.

As I said, bro. I do "symbolize" some things, realizing that I may be errant, so I dont teach it as 'set in stone"

1. What does "Behold I am coming SOON" mean (Rev 22:7,12)?
Considering the time this was written, how do you interpret SOON?

There are 2 trains of thought I may use depending on the context, one is "quickly"(momentarily..ie...in the twinkling of an eye) and the other is to the Lord in eternity, soon is really no time at all(1,000 years as a day) for instance.

Do you take SOON to mean literally? (the preterist does...)

My way is still a literal view, but it is through Gods perspective

2. How about Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

How do you interpret "those who pierced him being alive to see his coming?" Do you take it literally? (the preterist does...)

Absolutely, all will see him and wail in the earth. It includes the Jewish decendants(they also which pierced him) and Gentiles. The Jewish race is big time marginalized by The Lord in the book of Revelation.

3. How about this "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth... Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev 3:7-11)

Did the church in Philadelphia witness his coming? Do you take that literally? (the preterist does...)


This is what I posted on the rapture thread. There are 3 ways to view Revelation...#1 Literally, #2 Spiriturally and #3 Dispensationally.
Dispensationally speaking, the 'Philadelphian" church of modern days is the will of God for us today. verse 10, will even get them "raptured". These 7 churches are still relevant to us today.



See above...I can give you a whole lot more of symbolism innate to dispensationalism that you probably don't even realize because you're reading the text already from a dispensationalist view not a neutral view.


That's one you see. Good. How about this?
Do you believe the mark of the beast to be literal? most dispensationalists I know believe it to be literal, yet the beast itself is not believed to be literal.

It is a "literal" mark, however the beast is obviously symbolizing something,a "literal" something(or a man). This is what I mean about folks using"sensationalistic" rationale to make this bigger than it is. Even from Irvin Baxter, he is a "sensationalist". I will not say what this literal mark or beast is(other than a man), just only that is "literal". You cant go wrong with that interpretation.


How about the 7 churches of Revelation? are they literal or symbolic or both?
The preterist takes it as literal...what do you think?

I mentioned it above


No, on the contrary preterism actually seeks to proof that Jesus is who he claims he is because (according to them), everything He said would happen in the first century happened thus proving Jesus is the Messiah.

N.B. I am not a preterist, I just think its strengths are more than that of dispensationalism.


Lol...like I said above, there's a lot of allegory in your position also, but you might not realize it because it's innate to your position.
Here's another one for you:
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Literal or symbolic?? (and please, don't even say it was the transfiguration 8 days after as some dispensationalists teach...lol). Remember verse 27 says when He comes, he'll reward every man and then right after, it says "there'll be some standing here who would not die..." So do you take vs 28 literally?


Literal, Judas was still there with them, and the "coming in His kingdom" is the Acts 2 experience. I dont even know if those in my camp agree with me on that one, but the KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK, BUT RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST...(He just did not want to single out Judas at that time).


Are you saying I should teach with all confidence something that I can see is not coherent?? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Sean

Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

He just pointed out about 20 differenet holes in your eschatology ship... He also pointed out about 20 different holes in the preterist eschatology ship... you really think it'd be wise for him to get on either of those boats just so he could say he's on a boat?

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sean

As I said, bro. I do "symbolize" some things, realizing that I may be errant, so I dont teach it as 'set in stone"

Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.

Originally Posted by Sean

There are 2 trains of thought I may use depending on the context, one is "quickly"(momentarily..ie...in the twinkling of an eye) and the other is to the Lord in eternity, soon is really no time at all(1,000 years as a day) for instance.


My way is still a literal view, but it is through Gods perspective

Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?

Originally Posted by Sean

Absolutely, all will see him and wail in the earth. It includes the Jewish decendants(they also which pierced him) and Gentiles. The Jewish race is big time marginalized by The Lord in the book of Revelation.

Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him? Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.

The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...

Originally Posted by Sean

This is what I posted on the rapture thread. There are 3 ways to view Revelation...#1 Literally, #2 Spiriturally and #3 Dispensationally.
Dispensationally speaking, the 'Philadelphian" church of modern days is the will of God for us today. verse 10, will even get them "raptured". These 7 churches are still relevant to us today.

So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?

Originally Posted by Sean

It is a "literal" mark, however the beast is obviously symbolizing something,a "literal" something(or a man). This is what I mean about folks using"sensationalistic" rationale to make this bigger than it is. Even from Irvin Baxter, he is a "sensationalist". I will not say what this literal mark or beast is(other than a man), just only that is "literal". You cant go wrong with that interpretation.

So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.

Originally Posted by Sean

Literal, Judas was still there with them, and the "coming in His kingdom" is the Acts 2 experience. I dont even know if those in my camp agree with me on that one, but the KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK, BUT RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST...(He just did not want to single out Judas at that time).

Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in Acts 2?

Originally Posted by Sean

Well bro. eschatology is part of the gospel. We should be well versed in our gospel message.....

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

That is a circular manner of reasoning, which is illogical, though. First, the bible has to say there is a future tribulation and that we will go through it before one can say that resistance of such a thought is error. The bible does not plainly spell that out, which is why there are varying views on the issue! Also, more importantly, your reasoning demands that the bible says that doctrines that avoid a great tribulation in their future is a sign of false doctrine, which it does not say. You have, as a result, a position made from deriving conclusions and basing tenets of faith on those derivations that are not laid out in the bible itself.

IMHO, Futurism disregards the correlation between all the gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse as well as the timeframe elements in Revelation that demand it be first century in fulfillment, as well as what Jesus said about Jerusalem in the end of Matt 23 compared with Rev 18:24.

The eschatology of the Bible is far more dependent and focuses on the timeframe of the immediate years following the cross, as it should when one stops to think about it. The worst crime in the world was Christ's own people disowning and killing him in exchange for calling Caesar their king in a spiritual adulterous relationship for which Jerusalem has been known to be a harlot especially noted in Ezekiel 16 time and time again!. No city was ever called a harlot in the bible like Jerusalem was. And if we want to compare bible with bible to understand the harlot and when the trib. occurred, Jerusalem in the first century fits the bible more solidly than any other view.

It makes Revelation a changeover account of the covenants, showing the mopping up God had to do in judging Israel as well as the Kingdom inception that started since the CROSS and not in our future to begin in a so-called "millennial rule."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by jfrog

He just pointed out about 20 differenet holes in your eschatology ship... He also pointed out about 20 different holes in the preterist eschatology ship... you really think it'd be wise for him to get on either of those boats just so he could say he's on a boat?

Well, what are you going to tell souls that you are witnessing to if you have no opinion and they ask what revelations is all about?

Are you going to send them to our debate?

Im just encouraging you to study and make the call, so you can evangelize the gospel. Not just argue the rest of our lives on the internet.

[mfblume]

The greatest thing about preterism that I see is that it teaches a solidly present kingdom without another Kingdom to come in our future. Jesus is on the throne NOW. We're born again into it. We are seated with Him in His throne over all powers. If He is seated over all powers now, then how in the world is there another throne in the future for him to sit upon?

Acts 2, of all chapters where we should understand the kingdom, clearly shows he is on the throne of David seeing that He is king and has descended from David to be king. ALL OTHER VIEWS rob him of that PRESENT ultimate rule and dominion. He is KING NOW! Praise His name!

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.



Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?

Hey bro. Jesus said He would return, gave them signs and admitted HE HIMSELF did not know when it will be....And the bottom line...He never has returned to this day.


Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him? Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.

The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...


Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, (and) they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


Hey bro. , just saw that one. About the Gentiles(not the Jews) piercing Jesus. Thank you.
See how easy it is to fix this...That will help me greatly in a lesson.
But the rest is obviously futuristic, because it just did not literally happen yet. Again, thank you for pointing that out.


So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?


Well, the "alternative" is to ignore it having any relevance to me and treat it like O.T. history(preterism)...I realize I did not invent my theology, but it must be taught some way some how. I have to look at the best model of eschatology that I can find and teach it until I can find some better model. Otherwise, we can just be like the Pope, who said the book of Revelation is too difficult to understand, so he discourages Catholics from reading it.



So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.


Like I said above...


Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in Acts 2?

Revelation 22:12
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.?????



Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.?????

Is this what you are talking about? Please clarify bro. I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about the "judgement seat of Christ"?





I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.

Well my only suggestion, if I may, is you figure out what your "middle ground" is and start preaching it before you get too old to do it.