What is the basis of anti-dispensationalism?

[Biblewriter]

I have read your "dissertation," Biblewriter. I am merely asking where Irenaeus CLEARLY states there is a third coming, or a second resurrection. A clear statement by Irenaeus would mean we would not have to rely on a long-winded dissertation to squeeze that meaning out of the text; but rather Irenaeus would simply state, "there will be a second resurrection", or "there will be a third coming."

You may have noted that I personally believe in a second resurrection and a third coming. I simply do not believe that Irenaeus did; and you most certainly have not shown that he did.


.

And where did you find me claiming that Irenaeus said these things?

You ignore what I did indeed point out in his doctrines, and then pretend that I claimed to have found things in his writings that I never said were there. This is the same way you treat the scriptures. You ignore what they actually say, and then pretend they mean something else.

 

[Rev20]

And where did you find me claiming that Irenaeus said these things?

You ignore what I did indeed point out in his doctrines, and then pretend that I claimed to have found things in his writings that I never said were there. This is the same way you treat the scriptures. You ignore what they actually say, and then pretend they mean something else.

So, you don't believe the so-called pretrib rapture is a resurrection? What exactly do you think it is?

You did claim that Irenaeus wrote of a pretrib rapture, didn't you?


.

 

[Biblewriter]

So, you don't believe the so-called pretrib rapture is a resurrection? What exactly do you think it is?

You did claim that Irenaeus wrote of a pretrib rapture, didn't you?


.

I pointed out that Irenaeus indeed said that when the church is suddenly caught up, there will be great tribulation. And I demonstrated why these words mean a rapture before the great tribulation. Then I demonstrated that he always used the words "the church" or "we" up to that point in his dissertation, but that after that point he changed his words, thereafter always using "they," "them," or "theirs."

Along the way, I demonstrated that he placed the timing of this event after the appearance of the Antichrist, and before the 3-1/2 year reign of that same Antichrist.

But I did not say. or even imply, that he said that "there will be a second resurrection", or "there will be a third coming."

So Irenaeus did indeed plainly say that the church would be caught up before the great tribulation.But since you do not want to admit this, you try to distract by inventing things he did not say, and claiming that he would have said them if that was what he meant. This is the same false way you deal with the scriptures we present. You deny and ignore the scriptures we give, and point to other parts of the Bible that are speaking of other things.

 

[Rev20]

I pointed out that Irenaeus indeed said that when the church is suddenly caught up, there will be great tribulation. And I demonstrated why these words mean a rapture before the great tribulation. Then I demonstrated that he always used the words "the church" or "we" up to that point in his dissertation, but that after that point he changed his words, thereafter always using "they," "them," or "theirs."

Along the way, I demonstrated that he placed the timing of this event after the appearance of the Antichrist, and before the 3-1/2 year reign of that same Antichrist.

But I did not say. or even imply, that he said that "there will be a second resurrection", or "there will be a third coming."

So Irenaeus did indeed plainly say that the church would be caught up before the great tribulation.But since you do not want to admit this, you try to distract by inventing things he did not say, and claiming that he would have said them if that was what he meant. This is the same false way you deal with the scriptures we present. You deny and ignore the scriptures we give, and point to other parts of the Bible that are speaking of other things.

I know what Irenaeus said; but what you appear to be saying is:

1) the "rapture of the Church" is identified by Irenaeus as the "resurrection of the just," or, on one occasion, the Church being "caught up from this".

2) that "rapture," according to Irenaeus, will occur after the Antichrist destroys the nations, but before the Antichrist begins to reign

3) the tribulation occurs after the Antichrist begins his 3.5 year reign, so the Church will not be subjected to the tribulation.​

The problem I have with your timing is, Irenaeus claims the children of Abraham, which he identifies as the Church, will receive their land inheritance (along with Abraham) at the resurrection of the just, which, according to you, will be before the beginning of the tribulation:

"Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, V.32.2, pp.142-143]​

Thus did [Abraham] await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: "I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates (Gen 15:18-21)." If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:8)." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise (Gal 4:28)."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.32.2, p.561]​

Something doesn't add up. Help me out here.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

I know what Irenaeus said; but what you appear to be saying is:

1) the "rapture of the Church" is identified by Irenaeus as the "resurrection of the just," or, on one occasion, the Church being "caught up from this".

2) that "rapture," according to Irenaeus, will occur after the Antichrist destroys the nations, but before the Antichrist begins to reign

3) the tribulation occurs after the Antichrist begins his 3.5 year reign, so the Church will not be subjected to the tribulation.​

The problem I have with your timing is, Irenaeus claims the children of Abraham, which he identifies as the Church, will receive their land inheritance (along with Abraham) at the resurrection of the just, which, according to you, will be before the beginning of the tribulation:

"Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, V.32.2, pp.142-143]​

Thus did [Abraham] await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: "I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates (Gen 15:18-21)." If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:8)." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise (Gal 4:28)."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.32.2, p.561]​

Something doesn't add up. Help me out here.


.

I did not say that Irenaeus was absolutely consistent in everything. He may not have thought out the full consequences of every statement he made. I only pointed out.

I did not claim, but indeed demonstrated that Irenaeus indeed said that the resurrection of the just would be after the Antichrist appeared, but before the 3-1/2 years of his reign.)

Nor do I believe anything just because Irenaeus, or anyone else said it. I believe only the Bible, all of it, not part of it.

If you re-read my initial paper, you will notice, if you did not before, that I clearly pointed out that the doctrines of these early chilists were what seems to us to be a strange mixture of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. And my conclusion was that no modern system of interpretation can legitimately trace its roots to these early documents.

 

[Rev20]

I did not say that Irenaeus was absolutely consistent in everything. He may not have thought out the full consequences of every statement he made . . . I did not claim, but indeed demonstrated that Irenaeus indeed said that the resurrection of the just would be after the Antichrist appeared, but before the 3-1/2 years of his reign.)

Is that what Irenaeus intended for you to believe? Irenaeus also declared that the second coming will occur after the Antichrist reigns, according to your quote, presented in context:

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, Book V.30.4. pp.138-39]​

And, according to that quote, Abraham and his seed will receive their inheritance at that time--at the second coming. But as I posted earlier, Irenaeus wrote in V.32.2 that Abraham and his seed receives their inheritance at the resurrection of the just, which you claim occurs prior to the reign of Antichrist. I am reposting V.32.2 quotes here for clarity:

"Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then,they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, V.32.2, pp.142-143]​

Thus did [Abraham] await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: "I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates (Gen 15:18-21)." If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:8)." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise (Gal 4:28)."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.32.2, p.561]​

Therefore, I have no alternative but to conclude that Irenaeus believed Abraham and the Church receives their inheritance at the resurrection of the just, which occurs at the second coming of Christ and at the end of the reign of Antichrist. In other words, Irenaeus believed in a post-Antichrist (post-trib, post-wrath) resurrection of the just.
.

Nor do I believe anything just because Irenaeus, or anyone else said it. I believe only the Bible, all of it, not part of it.

All Christians believe all of the Bible, Biblewriter. Do you have a point you are trying to make?
.

If you re-read my initial paper, you will notice, if you did not before, that I clearly pointed out that the doctrines of these early chilists were what seems to us to be a strange mixture of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. And my conclusion was that no modern system of interpretation can legitimately trace its roots to these early documents.

Of course. There was a lot of preterism amongst the early Church Fathers, but none believed the way I do. Of course, they did not have every book authenticated and presented to them in a neat little wrapper, like we do.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Is that what Irenaeus intended for you to believe? Irenaeus also declared that the second coming will occur after the Antichrist reigns, according to your quote, presented in context:

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, Book V.30.4. pp.138-39]​

And, according to that quote, Abraham and his seed will receive their inheritance at that time--at the second coming. But as I posted earlier, Irenaeus wrote in V.32.2 that Abraham and his seed received their inheritance at the resurrection of the just, which you claim occurs prior to the reign of Antichrist. I am reposting V.32.2 quotes here for clarity:

"Know ye therefore, that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham. But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Thus, then,they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book, "Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 09." T & T Clark, 1869, V.32.2, pp.142-143]​

Thus did [Abraham] await patiently the promise of God, and was unwilling to appear to receive from men, what God had promised to give him, when He said again to him as follows: "I will give this land to thy seed, from the river of Egypt even unto the great river Euphrates (Gen 15:18-21)." If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For his seed is the Church, which receives the adoption to God through the Lord, as John the Baptist said: "For God is able from the stones to raise up children to Abraham (Luke 3:8)." Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise (Gal 4:28)."" [Roberts & Donaldson, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book V.32.2, p.561]​

Therefore, I have no alternative but to conclude that Irenaeus believed Abraham and the Church receives their inheritance at the resurrection of the just, which occurs at the second coming of Christ and at the end of the reign of Antichrist. In other words, Irenaeus believed in a post-Antichrist (post-trib, post-wrath) resurrection of the just.
.



All Christians believe all of the Bible, Biblewriter. Do you have a point you are trying to make?
.



Of course. There was a lot of preterism amongst the early Church Fathers, but none believed the way I do. Of course, they did not have every book authenticated and presented to them in a neat little wrapper, like we do.


.

You cannot demonstrate any significant amount of preterism in the writings from the church's first two centuries.

 

[Rev20]

You cannot demonstrate any significant amount of preterism in the writings from the church's first two centuries.

First, let me briefly state that no early church father taught dispensationalism.

The first author that included preterism was Clement of Rome in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In that epistle Clement explains that sacrifices can only occur at the altar of the temple in Jerusalem, which can only mean the temple was still standing:

"Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, 1Clem 41:2-3, p.16]​

Here, Clement refers to Paul preaching the gospel to the whole world, which fulfilled Matthew 24:14.

"Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: Apostolic Fathers." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, 1Clem 5:5-7, p.6]​

This is the verse that Paul fulfilled:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." -- Matt 24:14​

Of course, we already know that from Paul's epistles (the plain words of which dispensationalists deny):

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." -- Rom 1:8​

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." -- Rom 10:17-18​

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" -- Rom 16:25-26​

"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:" -- Col 1:5-6​

"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" -- Col 1:23​

That is the first example of ECF preterism that I know of.


.

 

[Rev20]

You cannot demonstrate any significant amount of preterism in the writings from the church's first two centuries.

This is the other Clement, of Alexandria, who lived from 150-220. Here he writes of fulfilment of Matthew 24:3.

"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and ever-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple. He said: 'See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you. There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin. For they shall come, and shall sit here, and shall besiege it, and shall slay your children here.' And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clementine Homilies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 08: 3rd & 4th Centuries." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916, III.15, p.241]​

He also wrote that Nero placed the abomination of desolation:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria (150-220), The Stromata or Miscellanies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book I.XXI, p.329]​

"We have still to add to our chronology the following,— I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him. Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away." [Roberts & Donaldson, Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata or Miscellanies, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 02: Fathers of the 2nd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913, Book I.XXI, pp.333-334]​

A fairly convincing argument can also be made on an early date for the book of the Revelation from Clement's statements regarding John's return from Patmos. Read the following page, and the next, beginning at chapter XLII, and imagine John as a man in his 60's, and then imagine John as a man who is at least 90 years old:

Online page link:
ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Common sense would dictate that John would not be in his 90's, and that the tyrant referred to in the first paragraph of chapter XLII is Nero, and not Domitian.

In any case, Clement of Alexandria held the Preterist view of both the Olivet discourse and the book of Daniel.


.

 

[Danoh]

Rev20, this may probably go nowhere with you, but here it is. Grab a Concordance and track down where the word "world" is used in Matthew - Revelation; noting HOW it is used.

Forget the Greek til after you do that. Allow HOW "world" is used, where it is used to give you its intended sense.

My point?

Here, I'll use the more obvious of the passages you cited - Romans 10:18.

That passage is a quote from Psalm 19. Paul cites it in Romans 10 as a reiteration of what he asserted in Romans 1 and 2, first against the Gentile, then against the Jew.

And what he asserted there, and what Psalm 19 asserts, is that the whole of creation itself has always been a witness to God.

You cited Romans 10:18 as one of your proof texts that Paul fulfilled Matthew 24:14's "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

You are in error as to your rendering of that Romans 10:18 passage. As off as you are on the others, and here is why:

It is obvious you took the passages at their surface level, or first impression sense of their meaning. That you did not dig deeper.

They appeared to confirm your view so you bought into their first impression - and that from your view.

I suggest you re-examine those passages outside of ANY view; simply allowing them to lead where they do through properly exegeting them.

Next, ask yourself "if I was off about this, what else might I be off about in a similar, first impression/reading into manner, that I might go back and carefully exegete the passages on their own merit?"

If you are honest with yourself in this, and consistent in its application, you just may end up where I did - at the Mid-Acts Perspective, for that is how I ended up at Mid-Acts rather than at Matthew 16, or Acts Two.

I've had my share of similar mistakes, no one is perfect...

 

[Rev20]

Rev20, this may probably go nowhere with you, but here it is. Grab a Concordance and track down where the word "world" is used in Matthew - Revelation; noting HOW it is used. . . Forget the Greek til after you do that. Allow HOW "world" is used, where it is used to give you its intended sense. My point? Here, I'll use the more obvious of the passages you cited - Romans 10:18.

The King James translators tended to lump together the Greek words for age (aion) and world (kosmos) into a single word, "world". The Greek word "aion" is also translated as "for ever". However, the Greek word for land in Rom 10:18 is "ghay" or "gh", which is translated as ground, land, country, earth, or world, depending on the context.

But the Greek word for world in Rom 10:18 is "oikoumene" which is translated as land, earth, world, but especially the Roman Empire. The only way to obtain an accurate reading of Romans 10:18 is via an analysis of other scriptures translated in a similar manner.

So, what does Paul mean by "their words [the Gospel went] unto the ends of the world (oikoumene)?" He means the Roman Empire, which we derive from Luke:

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world (oikoumene) should be taxed." -- Luke 2:1​

That was the same Greek word that Christ used in his Olivet Discourse instruction to his disciples:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." -- Matt 24:14​

Therefore, according to Paul, the instruction that Christ gave to his disciples, to preach the Gospel to all the world, was fulfilled before Paul wrote to the Romans. Therefore, everyone in those days should have been expecting the "end of the age" at that time. And, of course, the end of the age was the destruction of Jerusalem, the elimination of old covenant temple worship, and the Jewish elements (2Pet 3:10, 12), generally.

Is that the point you were trying to make?


.

 

[Danoh]

Rev20, you did fine as to identifying where the same Greek word, not its definition, is found in various passages, that their witness together give you their intended sense, in contrast to relying on the Greek definitions, as this latter leaves things open to bias. So, nice job there!

That's how I cross-reference words, though I go by how they are used, not by the Greek much at all these days.

But where you and I differ also, will have to be in the distinction between the Psalmist's and Paul's sense him in Rom. 10:18; which is actually Rom. 1:20.

Further, we will differ as to the distinction between Matt. 24:14 and 2 Peter 3:10, 12, as, even per Peter, his sense was of a time yet future from him.

 

[Biblewriter]

Rev20, I knew that Clement of Alexandria held Preterist views. That is why I said "no significant amount," not "none."

But I am hard pressed to understand how you draw Preterism from the quots you made from Clement of Rome. I do not know of a single dispensationalist that would find any disagreement with either of the quotations yu made from his writings.

And you are totally mistaken that dispensationalists have any problem with the expressions about the gospel being preached throughout the whole world. I have never had the sligest problem with this, nor Have I ever heard of even one other dispensationalist that had a probem with it.

 

[Rev20]

Rev20, you did fine as to identifying where the same Greek word, not its definition, is found in various passages, that their witness together give you their intended sense, in contrast to relying on the Greek definitions, as this latter leaves things open to bias. So, nice job there!

That's how I cross-reference words, though I go by how they are used, not by the Greek much at all these days.

But where you and I differ also, will have to be in the distinction between the Psalmist's and Paul's sense him in Rom. 10:18; which is actually Rom. 1:20.

Further, we will differ as to the distinction between Matt. 24:14 and 2 Peter 3:10, 12, as, even per Peter, his sense was of a time yet future from him.

Peter's prophecies of the coming of Christ denoted imminence:

"Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." -- 1Pet 4:5​

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." -- 1Pet 4:7​

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" -- 1Pet 4:17​

"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" -- 2Pet 3:12​

.

 

[Rev20]

Rev20, I knew that Clement of Alexandria held Preterist views. That is why I said "no significant amount," not "none."

But I am hard pressed to understand how you draw Preterism from the quots you made from Clement of Rome. I do not know of a single dispensationalist that would find any disagreement with either of the quotations yu made from his writings.

And you are totally mistaken that dispensationalists have any problem with the expressions about the gospel being preached throughout the whole world. I have never had the sligest problem with this, nor Have I ever heard of even one other dispensationalist that had a probem with it.

Lewis Sperry Chafer implied a future fulfillment:

"Service for God is an essential of any true religion. In the case of Judaism, service consisted in the maintenance of the tabernacle and temple ritual, and all tithes and offerings went to the support of the priesthood and their ministry. In the case of Christianity, service faces outward with its commission to preach the gospel to every creature and includes the edification of the saints. . . The heralds of this gospel went not to Gentile nor Samaritan, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5-7; 15:24, 26); whereas the gospel of the grace of God is to be preached to all nations and to the uttermost part of the earth." [Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Dispensationalism." Public Domain, 1951, III.3,p.10; IV.3.1c, p.25]​

John Walvoord insinuated a partial fulfillment in the present age:

"In Matthew 24:4-14, at least nine major characteristics of this general period are described. These characteristics may be itemized as follows: (1) false Christs, 24:4-5; (2) wars and rumors of wars, 24:6-7; (3) famines, 24:7; (4) pestilence, 24:7; (5) earthquakes, 24:7; (6) many martyrs, 24:8-10; (7) false prophets, 24:11; (8) increasing evil and loss of fervent love, 24:12; and (9) worldwide preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, 24:13-14. . . . In general, these signs have been at least partially fulfilled in the present age and have characterized the period between the first and second coming of Christ. They should be understood as general signs rather than specific signs that the end is near. As stated in verse 8, these are the beginning rather than the end of the sorrows which characterize the close of the age." [John F Walvoord, Chapter 24: The Signs of the End of the Age, "Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come." walvoord.com, 1974, Matt.24:4-14]​

Scofield wrote of a future fulfillment:

"The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here call "my brethren." These "brethren" are the Jewish Remnant who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the tribulation." [Cyrus I Scofield, "The Scofield Reference Bible." Oxford University Press, 1909, Mat.25:32, p.1036]​

"Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jew's rejection of the King. The other is yet future Mt 24:14 during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory." [Cyrus I Scofield, "The Scofield Reference Bible." Oxford University Press, 1909, Rev.14:6, p.1343]​

Many dispensationalists apparently read Scofield, and argue those same talking points. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with them.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Lewis Sperry Chafer implied a future fulfillment:

"Service for God is an essential of any true religion. In the case of Judaism, service consisted in the maintenance of the tabernacle and temple ritual, and all tithes and offerings went to the support of the priesthood and their ministry. In the case of Christianity, service faces outward with its commission to preach the gospel to every creature and includes the edification of the saints. . . The heralds of this gospel went not to Gentile nor Samaritan, but only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:5-7; 15:24, 26); whereas the gospel of the grace of God is to be preached to all nations and to the uttermost part of the earth." [Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Dispensationalism." Public Domain, 1951, III.3,p.10; IV.3.1c, p.25]​

John Walvoord insinuated a partial fulfillment in the present age:

"In Matthew 24:4-14, at least nine major characteristics of this general period are described. These characteristics may be itemized as follows: (1) false Christs, 24:4-5; (2) wars and rumors of wars, 24:6-7; (3) famines, 24:7; (4) pestilence, 24:7; (5) earthquakes, 24:7; (6) many martyrs, 24:8-10; (7) false prophets, 24:11; (8) increasing evil and loss of fervent love, 24:12; and (9) worldwide preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, 24:13-14. . . . In general, these signs have been at least partially fulfilled in the present age and have characterized the period between the first and second coming of Christ. They should be understood as general signs rather than specific signs that the end is near. As stated in verse 8, these are the beginning rather than the end of the sorrows which characterize the close of the age." [John F Walvoord, Chapter 24: The Signs of the End of the Age, "Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come." walvoord.com, 1974, Matt.24:4-14]​

Scofield wrote of a future fulfillment:

"The test in this judgment is the treatment accorded by the nations to those whom Christ here call "my brethren." These "brethren" are the Jewish Remnant who will have preached the Gospel of the kingdom to all nations during the tribulation." [Cyrus I Scofield, "The Scofield Reference Bible." Oxford University Press, 1909, Mat.25:32, p.1036]​

"Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jew's rejection of the King. The other is yet future Mt 24:14 during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory." [Cyrus I Scofield, "The Scofield Reference Bible." Oxford University Press, 1909, Rev.14:6, p.1343]​

Many dispensationalists apparently read Scofield, and argue those same talking points. I am surprised you are unfamiliar with them.


.

After your explanation, it remains a mystery to me how you can even imagine Preterism in a statement that the gospel went out to the whole world. The gospel did indeed go out to the whole world. But even to this day, there are places where it has not yet reached.

 

[Rev20]

After your explanation, it remains a mystery to me how you can even imagine Preterism in a statement that the gospel went out to the whole world. The gospel did indeed go out to the whole world. But even to this day, there are places where it has not yet reached.

Preterists believe that passage was fulfilled and the end of the age occurred in the generation of Christ, exactly when he said it would.

It remains a mystery to me how you could not know that, being a so-called "Biblewriter."


.

 

[Danoh]

The basis of any "anti" is the frame of reference it is approached from, whether said frame, bias, or premise, or perspective is for or against what it is looking at, as well as whether or not one is aware one is being guided by said bias.

Matt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensationalism are subject to that. As are Acts 9 and Acts 28 Dispensationalism.

As are Amilliannialism, Preterism, and all the rest.

What information is gathered after one has decided on one of those, is impacted by the particular bias.

Intuitions arrived at from the particular synthesis looking at things from one of those above biases.

How does one free oneself of the error that can lead to?

By approaching a passage on its own merit regardless of one's chosen perspective.

My chosen "perspective" is, for example, Acts 9, also known as Mid-Acts - the distinction between what in Scripture was Prophesied [Prophecy] and that in Scripture which was kept secret til the Apostle Paul [the Mystery].

That is a distinction different from what the Mt. 16/Acts 2 Dispensationalist means when he speaks of "Prophecy," for example.

And that is going to result in difference in understanding some things in Scripture.

All schools of thought have these kinds of distinctions.

An overall perspective is helpful for its automatic synthesis of many things intoone, overall premise from which one can deduce various componants without having to check and recheck every knook and cranny said deduction might call for without it.

And yet, therein lies an important problem; often - very often - a blinding one...

The absence of the awareness of the need to nevertheless allow Scripture to render its own, intended sense by approaching outside of preferred persoective other than the simple laws of grammar, that the words through which the Holy Ghost teacheth the things of God, be allowed to do so.

For me, such moments call for my temporarily putting aside my Mid-Acts Perspective until I get at the intended sense of the passage. Only afterwards do I look for where it fits within my Mid-Acts Perspective, a perspective which I arrived at by this same means - pasages on their own merit, yea, or nay as to Mid-Acts.

An example is Romans 10:18. I can take it as it APPEARS, or, I can ask "what's it actually talking about - are there other passages that might shed light on it?"

The thing I do is to leave such things at that until more time in Scripture has resulted in awareness of more and more and more passages that arise from my memory due to time in Scripture - thus, why I harp on this over time in books supposedly about Scripture.

As a result, passages like Psalm 19 arise from my memory to make increase in my understanding by that which every member of Scripture - other, related passages - supplieth.

That is what arises - not Dr. So and so, the church fathers, the Greek and all these other SECONDARY resources that far too many turn into their idols, thus, their lack of any true understanding, together with their arrogance and inability to allow correction.

Its really that simple - in Romans 10, Paul is dealing with the issue that Israel had known the will of God even before the Law - which is why he connects that to Psalm 19.

And Psalm 19 is the same issue of Romans 1, as to the witness of God via creation.

One cannot arrive at that though, when one approaches it from the bias of one's chosen perspective - be that Acts 2, Mid-Acts, Preterist, Partial this, partial that, or what have you...

There is a principle in this example. The example itself is not my intended point.

Apply it, and you end up at Mid-Acts.

Negate it and you end up at "books about," and at "well, the Greek this, the Greek that..."

In short, you end up at various means of fitting a thing into your chosen bias.

You end up at an intuitive synthesis of the things of God of your own school, not His...

 

[Danoh]

You'll note I spoke from a bias... intentionally so...

 

[Biblewriter]

Preterists believe that passage was fulfilled and the end of the age occurred in the generation of Christ, exactly when he said it would.

It remains a mystery to me how you could not know that, being a so-called "Biblewriter."


.

First, it is a simple, undeniable, fact that the gospel has not even yet reached the entire world. And second, the fact that it went out "to the whole world" never even so much as implied that it had reached every spot in the world.