Which was due to Catholic eschatology being carried over into the reformation. Rome did not believe in a literal Anti-Christ either.
The Reformers did.
Upvote
0
Which was due to Catholic eschatology being carried over into the reformation. Rome did not believe in a literal Anti-Christ either.
Again, I am talking about worship associated with Jerusalem according to the words of Jesus. Temple worship in Jerusalem, as evidenced by the book of Acts, continued long after the death of Jesus.
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
According to Jesus, the time for true worshipers to worship in spirit and truth was "now here". Jesus does not say the same about no longer worshiping in Jerusalem.
If you believe, as dispensationlists often do, that believers will again worship in a physical temple building (literal interpretation of the ezekiel temple) in Jerusalem, then you contradict the words of Jesus, that worship in Jerusalem associated with the temple would cease. And that should be a red herring for anyone.
The olivet discourses of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all parallel accounts that teach the fullfillment of Daniel 12.
I find it hard for there to be a tribulation greater than being divinely punished by God for rejecting His son.
42 months being literal contradicts your position.
the trampling of Jerusalem in Luke's olivet discourse ends with those seeing Jesus coming on a cloud of heaven. The 42 months of trampling Jerusalem in revelation 11 ends with the kingdoms of the world becoming of God's and of Christ's.
So there is no doubt that the trampling of Jerusalem in the olivet discourse of luke 21 and the trampling of the Jerusalem in revelation are the same event.
If 42 months is literal and the trampling began in the 1st century with the Jewish Roman war, then the preterist position is supported and the dispensational position is contradicted.
Jesus did not say he wouldn't die. If John remained til 70ad, then he lived to the coming judgment of Christ on the nation of Israel.
The timing of the AOD is not up for debate. It occurred in the 1st century. The parallel accounts of the olivet discourse attest to this.
Luke 21:20-21 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,
Matthew 24:15-16 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
The armies surrounding the city and the AOD were signs to flee the city. Whether or not besieging armies and the AOD are the same is up for debate, but not the timing.
The tabernacle was God's sanctuary consisting of the holy place and most holy place. The temple building was just that. A building that has the same purpose as the tabernacle.
Correct, Paul was applying the vision/parable of a forthcoming temple building in Ezekiel to its true interpretation, the body of Christ. Just as Ezekiel's vision/parable mentions Israel no longer defiling themselves with idols or transgression, so to does Paul mention the temple of God (body of Christ) no longer having fellowship with idols and wickedness. Again, Paul gives the us the true interpretation of the parable/vision in Ezekiel.
The NT tells us how to correctly interpret the visions/parables of the OT. You still have not shown 1 NT scripture that states believers will again worship God in a physical temple building, which would contradict the words of Jesus in John 4:21.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:25, Jesus is already reigning as "he must reign" is a present tense verb
1 corinthians 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
Jesus is already the ruler of the kings of the earth
Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
Revelation 20 no where mentions Jesus reigning on earth from a physical temple building for a 1,000 years. It simply states that those who partake in the 1st resurrection will reign with Jesus 1,000 years.
Jesus never defines the pearl. The merchant in search of great pearls is the same as the sower who sowed good seed in his field. For kingdom of heaven is compared to Both the merchant in search of pearls and the sower who sowed the good seed.
While Jesus defines the different parts of the parable of the weeds (matthew 13:24-30), he doesn't define the great pearl. Thus since the pearl is not defined, then according to your own interpretative rules, the pearl is literal and not symbolic. For you to state that the pearl is symbolic breaks your own interpretative rule. Unless you can show me where Jesus specifically defines what the pearl is?
The Reformers did.
No second century pretribbers.
If the reformers had
Second century eschatology had more in common with dispensationalist futurism than with Preterism
We are not debating the rapture.
What Jesus was saying is that it would no longer matter where someone decides to worship God as long as they did so in spirit and in truth. Whether or not a Temple is present does not in any way change that except in the minds of those who do not have faith in the finality of the Words of Christ. After Christ rose from the dead, His followers were not required to worship at the Temple when it was standing, nor did its destruction affect their ability to worship God.
And if we were to witness the erection of another Temple today, we would still worship Christ in the same way as we have always done: In spirit in truth no matter where we are at.
And this divine punishment is going to affect the entire world and not only that, man in his wickedness, at a time when evil is least restrained, is going to be carrying out death and destruction of his own which is why if Christ does not return, all life will perish. That is why it is written in Daniel 12, and in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark that there will be distress such as never been experienced in the world at any time before nor after.
No, it does not contradict my position but it does pose problems for yours in that Jesus did not return to rule over the kingdoms of the world. If He did, then I am very disappointed in how He is ruling because of the evil, unbelief, and suffering that is increasingly rampant in this world because the scripture tells us that during His reign upon the earth that the evil and unbelief that we see today will be almost non-existent then in comparison to now. In fact there will be such peace that even the animals will not be killing one another, but that is not the world that we live in.
Plus the account of Luke 21 and Revelation 11 cannot be the same event for several reasons; John foretells of happenings in Revelation 11 that were neither foretold in Luke nor took place in 70 A.D.
That is not what Christ was talking about. He was talking about His return for His Church and to reign upon the earth. Christ still has not returned as the scriptures said that He would and whether or not John is still alive and kept in obscurity to this day is anyone's guess, but scripture leaves room for that possibility except in the minds of those who think God is limited in His ability to fulfill prophecy exactly as He said that He would.
If whether the besieging armies and the AOD are the same is up for debate, then so is the timing of the appearance of the AOD since there is no record of a man in 70 A.D. doing the things in the Temple that the man tied to the AOD will do.
Only the building was meant to be a permanent throne room for God on the earth. The tabernacle was only a temporary dwelling place.
Paul was using an analogy rather than an interpretation and we know this when we read the verses preceding the ones you cited which state "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", (2 Cor. 6:14) going on to tell us why.
The NT tells us how to interpret the OT visions and parables when it explains them and once again, the presence of another Temple would not contradict the words of Jesus in that He was simply saying that the place of worship does not matter so long as the worship is done in spirit and truth. It was true before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., it is true today, and it will remain true even if we should see another Temple erected.
The New Testament does not tell us everything about the Millennial reign which is why it is important to see what the full counsel of scripture says about any given matter and that requires searching out both the Old and the New Testament scriptures.
You just mentioned that the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to the merchant seeking precious pearls. If you know that much, then the lesson of that parable should not be so hard to understand.
And the Reformers did.
Samples:
Martin Luther (1483 - 1546)
"nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." (Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196-197)
John Calvin (1509 - 1564)
"Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist it has ceased to be what it was before. Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt .. I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.3, p.149)
Thomas Cranmer (1489 - 1556)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of Antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons." (Works by Cranmer, vol.1, pp.6-7)
If you disbelieve, provide contrary quotes.
By recognized Reformers, of course.
It didn't have a pretrib rapture in common.
What are we debating?
What the Bible says about the Anti-Christ is contrary to what the reformers thought he was. That should be enough. What is not up for debate is that the same spirit behind the forthcoming Anti-Christ was also the same spirit at work within the imperial Papacy.
According to which Scripture?ContendersEdge said:And this divine punishment is going to affect the entire world
I didn't say the second century Church was in agreement with modern day dispensationalism on every point, I only said that their eschatology agreed more with modern day dispensationalism than it ever did with post-Augustinian eschatology which we know to be Preterism.
As for what we are debating, you tell me. I just know the rapture is not one of those topics being debated on this thread nor was this thread intended to address that particular topic.
If you are going to accuse me of claiming "must shortly come to pass... for time is at hand" to mean the exact opposite of the plain sense text itself in its full counsel, you might as well accuse Peter of the same since it appears that he made that claim before I did or else you will be applying what is called a double-standard.
Contenders Edge said:If you are going to accuse me of claiming "must shortly come to pass... for time is at hand" to mean the exact opposite of the plain sense text itself in its full counsel, you might as well accuse Peter of the same since it appears that he made that claim before I did or else you will be applying what is called a double-standard.
Parousia70 said:Peter makes no such claim.
In fact Peter's claims support mine
Take a look at this other verse from Peter's letter:As it pertains to things that have yet to come to pass, Peter tells us that the Lord does not count slowness as we count it and he tells us why. (2 Pet. 3:8-9) If that is the case, then neither does He count "must shortly come to pass" or "time is at hand" as we do.
I see where Jesus stated the time "is coming, and now is" for worshiping in spirit in truth. I do not see where Jesus state the time "is coming, and now is" where worshipers will no longer worship in Jerusalem, to substantiate your claim.
The divine judgment I am talking about is 70 ad, when Israel was leveled to the ground for not recognizing the time of God's visitation and for all the righteous blood shed on earth
It does contradict your position, the trampling of Jerusalem in luke 21 ends with the coming of Christ. the trampling of Jerusalem in revelation 11 ends with the coming of Christ. thus they are the same event. If 42 months is literal, as you say it is, it contradicts your position.
Jesus is already the ruler over the kings of the earth.
revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
Jesus reigns while his enemies exist.
1 Corinthians 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
Just because you don't like how Jesus reigns, doesn't mean He doesn't reign.
So you disbelieve the words of Jesus? You literally state Christ has not returned as the scriptures said he would.
Incorrect. If the AOD was a sign for those to flee Jerusalem and the armies surround Jerusalem were a sign to feel Jerusalem, then they occurred around the same time, IF they are not the same thing.
If I told you that when you see the fireworks exploding in the sky, the festival has begun, but another friend told you that when you see a man lighting the fireworks, the festival has begun, your logic is to assume that these signs are about 2 completely different events?
The earthly building was only a copy, not the true reality.
Paul shows that we are the temple of God. Paul quotes from Ezekiel to show its true fulfillment in the body of Christ. You are free to reject it, but should at least support your counter argument with NT scripture that shows a future earthly temple will be rebuilt for believers to worship in.
Paul applies the Ezekiel temple to the body of Christ, and yet you still reject it, thus showing your eschatological bias.
Do you believe, true believers of Christ will worship in earthly Jerusalem in a temple building in the future?
Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a man who sows Good seed.
Did Jesus define the wheat, tares, harvest servants of that parable? yes
Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to merchant searching for fine pearls.
Does Jesus define the pearl of that parable? No
Thus according to your own interpretative rule, because there is no explanation of the pearl, it must be taken literally.
unless you can post specific scripture that shows where Jesus explains the pearl? you continue to avoid doing this.
Take a look at this other verse from Peter's letter:
2 Peter 3:14 ~ And so, dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen, make every effort to be found living peaceful lives that are pure and blameless in his sight.
Was Peter mistaken and leading his followers on - causing them to believe those things would happen during their lifetime?
Peter makes no such claim.
In fact Peter's claims support mine:
“…salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (I Peter 1:5)
“He …has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.” (I Peter 1:20)
“They shall give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” (I Peter 4:5)
“The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (I Peter 4:7)
"For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.” (I Peter 4:17)
“…as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is about to be revealed.” (I Peter 5:1)
“We have the prophetic word …which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the Day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” (II Peter 1:19)
“Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” (II Peter 2:3)
Peter Instructed His flocks to be ready for the Judgment "about to be revealed" for "the end of all things was at hand"
Was He wrong to exhort them this way? Was He mistaken?
was He applying a double standard?
Exactly! And let's not forget that Jesus also had some things to say about what was to be "soon" in His day, when He said (recorded in Matthew and Mark):
"This generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mark 13:30; Matthew 24:34)
"When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-growers?' '....He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers, who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.' '....Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.' ....When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them." (Matt. 21:40-41,43,45)