How I came to embrace Preterism.

[EchoPneuma]

Neither do I, I’m quite comfortable in sharing heaven with Preterist.

I too am quite comfortable sharing heaven with whomever Jesus allows in. It IS His call after all.....we are merely invited guests into His home.

I am concerned that some of the comments made on here and on the web make it sound like an ‘us and them’ situation. I am interested in this topic but I’m not interested in invoking indignation from somebody because I don’t see their point of view. I look on the other threads for that.

I don't like to pit one Christian against another and I try my best to not put out those "vibes".....but I may fail sometimes. Often in debate it seems as "us" against "them".....when really it's just the doctrines that are competing. Capish?

 

[gort]

An end, yes but an end to what?

Hmmm....

That would be quite an exhaustive list.....

<><

 

[Hidden Manna]

So in your opinion preterism is a salvation issue; salvation has little to do with Christ but everything to do with subscribing to the correct theological thought?

As I said I WAS WANDERING about that issue, I was not stating a fact or belief. God only knows for sure and who is and is not born of the Spirit and therefore saved.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Those that are relegated to the LOF are clearly represented as to their identity in the bible. The short summary says "anybody who is not found in the Lambs book of Life."



The kingdom of heaven is in my heart today. THe NJ is in the future.



I believe the White Throne judgement futuristic. Nobody is yet in the LOF.



Feel free to quote some and we can discuss. I would question the "eagerness" part.



If there is Scripture that points to redemtion from the LOF, please point it out. I consider the LOF the finality of judgement. The universalists have tried.



The term "everlasting" has different meanings in the bible. For instance, "everlasting" has a different meaning in the context of God. God is everlasting to everlasting.

In the context of the "everlasting gospel" can it really be used in the same context of God?



The word "fire" also has different meanings, depending on the context. There is a refiners fire, fiery wrath of God, the LOF, and I'm sure others.



Nope, not at all. Why?

Because you and I and all the preterists, futurists, pre-trib, amillenialists, blah blah blah have at least one thing in common.

That would be, hopefully, being saved by Grace through faith, and not by works.

<><

Okay we can say that they were expecting to be with the Lord instead of being EAGER.

I'm not a universalist, however that does not mean that God will not have mercy on some who repent when there eyes are opened. I believe it maybe so only during the time a person is physically alive. After physical death it would be to late.

Fire might be refiner fire to one but hell fire to another but the same fire, who knows for sure, I don't do you?

If there are two or three kinds of fire then does hell fire get cast into the lake of fire? The first scripture on the word hell is defined as God's wrath and is spiritual situation, not physical, although there can be physical conseqences involved as a results. You reap what you sow.

I see that you are a friendly futurist, I glad you do not consider us Preterist Hereitic because a hereitic would not be considered saved, not even by Paul.

 

[gort]

HM quotes:

Okay we can say that they were expecting to be with the Lord instead of being EAGER.

Depends on the parable.

I'm not a universalist, however that does not mean that God will not have mercy on some who repent when there eyes are opened. I believe it maybe so only during the time a person is physically alive. After physical death it would be to late.

I'm not willing to add to Scripture, but instead trust in God. Jesus said we have this life and then the judgement. THe parable of the 10 virgins shows when the door is shut, the door is shut.

Fire might be refiner fire to one but hell fire to another but the same fire, who knows for sure, I don't do you?

That word and many others are an interesting study, opening up understanding.

If there are two or three kinds of fire then does hell fire get cast into the lake of fire? The first scripture on the word hell is defined as God's wrath and is spiritual situation, not physical, although there can be physical conseqences involved as a results. You reap what you sow.

Hell does get cast into the LOF. The LOF representing eternal consequences of rejecting God. God's wrath can also be physical, yet is fiery. God's wrath seems to always be designed to turn one around. To repent. Unless Scripture shows, the LOF is the terminal end, eternal wrath.

I see that you are a friendly futurist, I glad you do not consider us Preterist Hereitic because a hereitic would not be considered saved, not even by Paul.

If full preterist views wander into the salvation by Grace and determines that one must believe in such manner, I would'nt hesitate to call it heretical.



<><

 

[EchoPneuma]

If full preterist views wander into the salvation by Grace and determines that one must believe in such manner, I would'nt hesitate to call it heretical.



<><

Me either. It's not a salvation issue. I'm so glad that Jesus didn't say -

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him (and understands eschatology) will not perish but will have everlasting life"

 

[parousia70]

If by Jack’s article you are referring to “Time keeps on Ticking” then I have finished reading it and can’t see where you think this is a sound defense of Preterism.

Why am I not suprised?

He bases his entire article on a rebuttal on the futurist view that 2 Peter 3 is the measuring stick for all prophecy in the Bible.

INCORRECT.
He bases his entire article on a rebuttal of the futurist view that 2 Peter 3 is the measuring stick for all Jesus' and the apostles' claims that Christ's coming was, near at hand, about to take place, and must shortly come to pass.

It is the TIME STATEMENTS that are the issue, not, as you say "all prophesy".
Are you sure you read it?

I can’t find any futurist sites or material to verify that this is their views.

You obviously didn't look too hard then.
A simple google search of "2 peter 3 preterism" yielded much.
For example:
THIS LINK

Contains the following argument:
1) The words and phrases - "at hand," "quickly," "near," "a little while" - are from God's perspective, not man's. In the context of this exact issue of the timing of the return of Christ, Peter said, "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). Thus, to God, time is relative. To Him, a thousand years are like one short day.

and THIS LINK
contains a very similar one:

Preterism & 2 Peter 3:8 ​

It has been suggested (by preterists) that it is inconsistent or rather gratuitous to appeal to 2Pet.3:8 to explain the "delay" in Christ's return. "With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day." But it must be noted that this is Peter's own explanation. The preterist argues that since Christ spoke of the "nearness" of His coming it must be that He has already come. The scoffers whom Peter addressed argued that the same evidence indicated that He will not come at all. And it is Peter's answer that leads us to think in terms of God's view of time. "For God, it's not been long at all!" This is an entirely legitimate argument.

I’m picking this is a strawman.

As you can see, it's hardly a straw man, rather it is a staple futurist talking point.

If this is their view then all Jack has done was provide strong argument that you can’t apply that to all the prophecies in the Bible which does nothing to strengthen the Preterist views.

Where did you get this "all the prophesies in the Bible" stuff? it isn't anywhere in the article. Neither Jack,nor I have EVER argued such. I'd submit that the straw man is you creating a view that no one is putting forth, then tearing it down. well, knock yourself out.

He goes to great lengths to show how prophecy is literal in the Old Testament and then tries to make a connection to the poetic version of prophecy in 2 Peter 3.

WHAT?
Actually, he goes into great depth on the FACT that prophetic TIMING is ALWAYS literal, new testament or Old. Nothing you have said refutes this fact.

It should be pointed out that Peter instructed his first century audience that they should "watch unto prayer." Why? What was the reason for Peter’s admonition? Because "the end of all things [was] at hand." This was written to them, not us.

So? Do we discount what we read in the Bile because it wasn’t written to us? Is he saying nothing in the Bible pertains to us because it wasn’t written directly to us?

Of course not.
Are saying that nothing in the Bible was written for the first Christians because it's all for us instead?
what's your point?

I don’t know, perhaps not being a futurist of preterist prevents me from seeing the argument Jack was trying to put forth. I think he simply created a strawman to disprove the other’s views and then stretched a few scriptures to come up with his views. I was disappointed in what the article had to offer. Perhaps I’ll try reading it again later tonight.

well, Judging by your belief that the article makes claims about "all prophesy" clearly shows you didn't understand the point of it at all, so, yes, I'd recommend a re-read, keeping in mind it's an issue of TIME STATEMENTS.

What does
"THE COMING OF THE LORD IS AT HAND,..... SHORTLY, ......ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE, ....SOON COMING, ....DRAWING NEAR, ....AT THE DOORS, mean to you?
You clearly don't take those statements of Jesus Literally.

please explain your reason for spiritualizing them.

 

[odysseyjak]

Hey! This is Jack. The writer of 'Time Keeps on Tickin'. Parousia70 has hit the nail on the head. The article was written from the perspective of how futurists (mostly dispensationalists) use 2Peter 3 to refute the 'time statements' in the NT concerning the nearness of the coming of Christ.

Another important question was asked (and I am paraphrasing), 'Who says we are not living in the last days'? To which I would reply, the apostle John. St John wrote, 'Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour' (1John 2.18). The point is this, during the writing of the NT, the time 'grew short' according to the prophecy of Jesus and realized by St Paul (1Cor 7.29). It had gone from the 'last days' to the 'last hour'. Modern dispensationalism, refuses to address this point. Instead, the throw out 2Peter 3 like it completely solidifies their position. The article was written to show that this is not the case.

Grace to you all,

+ Jack

 

[drstevej]

Welcome to CF, Jack
Good to have you join the discussion.

In Him,
Steve

 

[EchoPneuma]

Hey! This is Jack.

Hi Jack! Welcome...
How did you come to understand the preterist perspective of scripture?

Another important question was asked (and I am paraphrasing), 'Who says we are not living in the last days'? To which I would reply, the apostle John. St John wrote, 'Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour' (1John 2.18). The point is this, during the writing of the NT, the time 'grew short' according to the prophecy of Jesus and realized by St Paul (1Cor 7.29). It had gone from the 'last days' to the 'last hour'.

Good point. Paul said "last days" and John said "last hour"....showing that John understood that it was right around the corner....and it WAS.

Modern dispensationalism, refuses to address this point. Instead, the throw out 2Peter 3 like it completely solidifies their position. The article was written to show that this is not the case.

Yes, it is frustrating that they won't even address the scriptures, but instead just throw out opinions and ideas. 2 Peter 3 does nothing but show that to GOD time is nothing.....but when dealing with men, God remembers that WE are "timely" beings and concerning prophetic utterances there is a time frame involved. That's why He tells Daniel to "seal up" his prophecy, yet tells John "don't seal up this prophecy"....and also why Jesus tells the apostles that ALL those things that He prophecied would happen in THAT GENERATION.

Grace to you all,

+ Jack

Blessings...
and welcome
EP

 

[odysseyjak]

This is a long journey so I will make it brief.

'I started out as a child . . .'

Seriously, through a number of events I began to study the scriptures by asking a group of questions (who, what, where, when, why, how) and realized that the events in the Bible were written down, not to us but for us. As St Paul put it the stories in the Bible were written as 'examples for us' -- that 'those things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction' (1Cor 10). I then had to ask some very hard questions -- namely, how would the people who first heard these things have understood them? With that, the answers come flooding in, they would have thought the writers/speakers were referring to them -- not some distant generation of people. It was because of this that I could no longer support a dispensationalist view point. I then found that the church has always held that most of the events of the Bible were fulfilled in the first century and that not until the mid to late 1800s did the idea of a complete futurists position emerge. In other words, I was not alone in my studies. I was being backed by a 'great cloud of witnesses'. I was connected to the entire history of the church.

Since then, and of late, my studies have taken me into a different direction, namely, my views of the resurrection have changed. The reason for this turn of thought is primarly due to the fact of what that term meant and how it was understood in the ancient world. I think one of the greatest things the preterist movement has done is driven people back to a historical searching of the context of the Bible. However, and I can only speak for myself, that search was only limited to the actual writing of the NT. It wasn't until recently that I have started looking at 'extra-biblical' texts to help get an understanding of the thoughts and views and teachings of the cultures from which Judaism was in the midst and from which Christianity grew. Coupling this with the texts of the Bible, I believe, gives a better understanding of the ancient world and the teachings of the early church.

While my thoughts have changed of late, most of the things I have written I will defend and still uphold. The article 'Time Keeps On Tickin' is such an article.

---
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2Corinthians 13.14

+Jack

 

[EchoPneuma]

This is a long journey so I will make it brief.

'I started out as a child . . .'

Seriously, through a number of events I began to study the scriptures by asking a group of questions (who, what, where, when, why, how) and realized that the events in the Bible were written down, not to us but for us. As St Paul put it the stories in the Bible were written as 'examples for us' -- that 'those things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction' (1Cor 10). I then had to ask some very hard questions -- namely, how would the people who first heard these things have understood them? With that, the answers come flooding in, they would have thought the writers/speakers were referring to them -- not some distant generation of people. It was because of this that I could no longer support a dispensationalist view point. I then found that the church has always held that most of the events of the Bible were fulfilled in the first century and that not until the mid to late 1800s did the idea of a complete futurists position emerge. In other words, I was not alone in my studies. I was being backed by a 'great cloud of witnesses'. I was connected to the entire history of the church.

Since then, and of late, my studies have taken me into a different direction, namely, my views of the resurrection have changed. The reason for this turn of thought is primarly due to the fact of what that term meant and how it was understood in the ancient world. I think one of the greatest things the preterist movement has done is driven people back to a historical searching of the context of the Bible. However, and I can only speak for myself, that search was only limited to the actual writing of the NT. It wasn't until recently that I have started looking at 'extra-biblical' texts to help get an understanding of the thoughts and views and teachings of the cultures from which Judaism was in the midst and from which Christianity grew. Coupling this with the texts of the Bible, I believe, gives a better understanding of the ancient world and the teachings of the early church.

While my thoughts have changed of late, most of the things I have written I will defend and still uphold. The article 'Time Keeps On Tickin' is such an article.

---
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2Corinthians 13.14

+Jack

Thanks for sharing your testimony. I had much the same journey. It wasn't easy, but like you. once I started looking at the words of Jesus and the Apostles in the context in which they were spoken...and seeing that they were speaking to specific people...and understanding what those words would have meant TO THEM....then there was no way to remain a futurist. The statements they make are TOO CLEAR.

Then seeing in Luke 21 where Jesus says that the time of punishment (in 70AD) was in fulfillment OF ALL THAT'S BEEN WRITTEN. It just clicked.

I simply HAD to believe what Jesus said even if it went against everything I had been taught my whole life. It came down to believing Jesus or believing the traditions of my church eschatology. I chose Jesus.

The rest has been a roller coaster of biblical understanding like I had never had....coupled with a tremendous faith increase. It's been a blessing.....however bittersweet because preterism is considered heresy in the baptist church....and I am a lifelong Baptist and still teach a large class in a large southern Baptist church.

Blessings to you on your journey.........
EP

 

[odysseyjak]

Thanks EP.

 

[Tawhano]

Why am I not suprised?

Are you sure you read it?

You obviously didn't look too hard then.

Thank you for your constructive criticism. As I mentioned I have never closely looked at Preterism before and my knowledge of what it teaches is very limited. I am interested in looking into it more closely but I am certainly not interested in discussing it with intolerable people. My first read of jack’s article was in ignorance of what Preterism views are and I gave my honest opinion and asked for an honest reply. I see that I will not get this here.

 

[odysseyjak]

Tawhano,

While I agree with you regarding the responses of some being less than 'kind', please don't think that all preterists are this way. And don't think that all Christians are this way either. And don't think that all people are this way either.

I must admit, to my own shame, that I have responded worse in the past. That I have been less than gracious with others and I hope that I have learned from my mistakes. However, and I'm sure that this is from where P70 is coming, people who are challenged by the view of others are often 'sharp tongued' especially within a written format like message boards and email. The repsonse from P70 is most likely from the stand point of being 'slammed' so often that once in a while an honest question is seen as 'mean spirited'.

If you would like to continue this discussion, I, being the writer of the article, would more than happy to field any questions I can.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. As I mentioned I have never closely looked at Preterism before and my knowledge of what it teaches is very limited. I am interested in looking into it more closely but I am certainly not interested in discussing it with intolerable people. My first read of jack’s article was in ignorance of what Preterism views are and I gave my honest opinion and asked for an honest reply. I see that I will not get this here.

I don't think P70 meant anything personal. Don't be offended. Remember....

Proverbs 19:11
A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.

Seriously, if you really want to understand the preterist perspective I can lead you to an article called "Dear Dispensationalist Friend"....it's a long read, but it's the absolute best complete analysis I've seen of why preterists believe what they do and how the scriptures line up. Here is the link if you are interested in going deeper.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/dennis-todd_p_09.html

It is on the Preterist Archive....all you want to know about Preterism AND THEN SOME..you can find there.
Blessings...
EP

 

[Tawhano]

Hey! This is Jack. The writer of 'Time Keeps on Tickin'. Parousia70 has hit the nail on the head. The article was written from the perspective of how futurists (mostly dispensationalists) use 2Peter 3 to refute the 'time statements' in the NT concerning the nearness of the coming of Christ.

Hi Jack,
Would you mind clarifying what I thought you were saying in your article without thinking I am some futurist wanting to debate the issue with you? I am not and I simply would like to look into this further. I read this statement:

So the question then is, "Did Peter intend for these statements to be used as a formula for interpreting prophetic time?" That is to say, when we see prophetic time statements in Scripture, are we to use 2 Peter 3:8-9 as a formula to determine when the prophesied events are to take place? The futurist says, "Yes."

From that I understood your position to be that the futurist claim all prophecies dealing with time are measured with the one day equals a thousand years. Was I correct in assuming this? If so what is your reason for believing that is the futurist point of view?

My reason for believing that the end hasn’t come yet has nothing to do with 2 Peter at all but with 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

What are your thoughts on those verses?

 

[odysseyjak]

Tawhano,

Thanks for the invitation. I hope I can help explain myself a little better.

I think the answer to your first question is found in the openning statements of my article. There I wrote:

'Whenever the Full Preterist view of eschatology is first considered, there is always one thing that stands out in its presentation -- the imminent return of Christ in the first century. That is, the time statements that indicate His coming to the first century generation. With that said, however, the first line of argument against the time statements is 2 Peter 3:8-9' (emphasis added).

​

I then quoted the passage and then followed it by the section you quoted. As can be seen by the context, I was not stating that the futurist (read: dispensationalist) interpret all prophecy from 2Peter 3, but the time statements in the NT that seem to point to a first century fulfillment.

My point in using the OT passages was to show that some people only use 2Peter 3 when referring to the NT. When looking at the OT passages that use time statements, 2Peter 3 is never even addressed. The article was written to show the inconsistancy of that position. No reason is given for the change of interpretation between the OT time statements and the NT time statements.

Conerning 1Thess 4.13-18: There are a couple of things that I would state here. First, St Paul was not writing to you or me or anyone else down through the ages. He wrote that letter to the community of believers in Thessalonica. So, before we can even get to get to understanding the meaning, we have to understand that St Paul was not writing to us, but to them, the Thessalonians. Our follow up question would be, 'How would the Thessalonians have understood those verses?' They answer, I think, would be, 'They believed St Paul was referring to them.' Second, I think that, as St Paul's letters were being read in other communities, they would have thought the same thing -- i.e., that St Paul was referring to them. But, how far does this go? Is there a point where this understanding stops? Is there an 'end' to this type of reading of this passage? I think that before we answer that, we need to as you a question.

The next question I would ask is based on your statement: ' My reason for believing that the end hasn’t come yet . . .' What do you mean by 'the end'?

 

[Tawhano]

Thanks for the invitation. I hope I can help explain myself a little better.

Thank you for taking the time in clearing that up for me. Based on your explanation I will reread your article again.

So, before we can even get to get to understanding the meaning, we have to understand that St Paul was not writing to us, but to them, the Thessalonians.

I agree totally. In order to understand the scriptures better it is important that we take into account who the writer is addressing and the message he is presenting. However, it must be consider also that the letters were written to be shared among the churches in the area it was sent as instructions and edification for everybody. They were written to the ignorant as well as the schooled.

What do you mean by 'the end'?

I am unorthodox in many of my beliefs and not the same as most religious beliefs but similar in some ways. Let me try and explain if I am able.

(Mat 10:22) And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

This verse and others like it lead me to believe we are not ‘saved’ yet. That this “end” will be a time when we will be changed from this earthly vessel we inhabit to a spiritual one. This will happen at a given time not known to us and it will happen all at once to those who are dead (asleep in Christ) and those who are alive and in Christ.

(1Co 15:52-54) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

This end will catch many unawares, and when Christ calls for his bride only those who were steadfast will hear his voice and be taken to be with him forever. This is the message Paul was sending to the Thessalonians; that those who were dead will remain in death until the ‘end’ and they will rise along with those who are alive. This is the end I envision. Christ returning for his bride.

 

[parousia70]

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Look Taw, I'm sorry you took offense, but my preterist friends hit the nail on the head.

allow me to explain.

Why am I not suprised?

rhetorical question, not meant as a personal attack, although I suppose can see how it could be construed as such. my Bad for not being more clear.

Are you sure you read it?

Honest question.
you came out against a position the article does not argue for, and attributed it to the article anyway. I couldn't help but wonder if you actually read it.

You obviously didn't look too hard then.

Honest observation.

You said:
"I can’t find any futurist sites or material to verify that this is their views"

Taking you at your word, I tried to see how difficult it would be to find such information from scratch so I did a simple google search for the term "2 peter 3 preterism", (reasonably suspecting you would have undertaken something similar in your quest for a futurist website that took the position in question) and I found several sites that champion such, on the first page of hits alone.

I asked myself "How hard was that?" and my answer was, "not very".

Perhaps it would have been even more correct for me to say "you obviously didn't look at all" instead of saying you didn't look "too hard".

Sorry, the "ignorance" card dosen't fly for me here.
I don't equate an ignorance of preterism with an ignorance of how to use google.

As I mentioned I have never closely looked at Preterism before and my knowledge of what it teaches is very limited. I am interested in looking into it more closely but I am certainly not interested in discussing it with intolerable people.

Well, thank you for the constructive criticism. I'll try to be less "intollerable" to you, but ultimately, it's your choice as to what you will "tollerate" and what you won't.

If you won't tollerate my honest dialogue, you certainly have that choice.

My first read of jack’s article was in ignorance of what Preterism views are and I gave my honest opinion and asked for an honest reply. I see that I will not get this here.

Again, just because you chose to take offense at my response, dosen't make it any less "honest".

I hope you continue to explore and test this view and if dialoguing with me will inhibit such, You and I probably shouldn't chat, but if you say something here that I believe to be off base, I'm going to speak up as to what it is why I think so.

Peace ( & I mean it)
P70