highplainschristian
Highplainschristian
I began my journey into preterism when I was in my 20s. I was attending the Olsen Park Church of Christ at the time and the minister was a man named Sam Dawson. At the time, I accepted the standard church of Christ amillenialist interpretation of the Scriptures.
Bro. Dawson gave a lesson on Matthew 24 and announced that he believed that the entire chapter was about the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. At the time, I was not familiar with this scripture, so I thought, "So what?" However, as he read the scriptures, some of them were familiar to me as teachings about the so-called "2nd Coming of Christ." (By the way, why do people look at you like you have two heads when you say that Matt. 24 is not about the 2nd coming? After all, the term "2nd Coming" doesn't even occur in the Scriptures.) Anyway, he presented his lesson in a clear, logical fashion (something he always did) and convinced me that he was right. At this time, both he and I believed that Matt. 25 and 2 Pet. 3 were referring to this "2nd Coming."
Later, I was studying with some Jehovah's Witnesses and they brought up Matt. 24. I showed that much of the language in that scripture was symbolic and should be interpreted as a national judgement on Israel. Later in the same study, I pointed out 2nd Pet. 3 and told them that it should be taken literally. One of them said, "If the language in Matt. 24 is figurative, why isn't this language also? They are the same kind of language!" I had no answer for her. I pondered on this for several years when I saw a small book about 2 Pet. 3. I don't remember the author's name, but he took the position that 2 Pet. 3 was written about A. D. 70. Reading this book, I came to realize that he was absolutely correct.
As I have gone along in my studies, I find myself becoming more and more preterist. I would still be considered a "partial preterist", but this may end. Who knows what the future holds?
Darryl Trapp
Highplainschristian@yahoo.com
Bro. Dawson gave a lesson on Matthew 24 and announced that he believed that the entire chapter was about the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. At the time, I was not familiar with this scripture, so I thought, "So what?" However, as he read the scriptures, some of them were familiar to me as teachings about the so-called "2nd Coming of Christ." (By the way, why do people look at you like you have two heads when you say that Matt. 24 is not about the 2nd coming? After all, the term "2nd Coming" doesn't even occur in the Scriptures.) Anyway, he presented his lesson in a clear, logical fashion (something he always did) and convinced me that he was right. At this time, both he and I believed that Matt. 25 and 2 Pet. 3 were referring to this "2nd Coming."
Later, I was studying with some Jehovah's Witnesses and they brought up Matt. 24. I showed that much of the language in that scripture was symbolic and should be interpreted as a national judgement on Israel. Later in the same study, I pointed out 2nd Pet. 3 and told them that it should be taken literally. One of them said, "If the language in Matt. 24 is figurative, why isn't this language also? They are the same kind of language!" I had no answer for her. I pondered on this for several years when I saw a small book about 2 Pet. 3. I don't remember the author's name, but he took the position that 2 Pet. 3 was written about A. D. 70. Reading this book, I came to realize that he was absolutely correct.
As I have gone along in my studies, I find myself becoming more and more preterist. I would still be considered a "partial preterist", but this may end. Who knows what the future holds?
Darryl Trapp
Highplainschristian@yahoo.com
Upvote
0