No more Preterist talk

[kern]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

You can even go so far as to say that you're convinced and know that God exists. But saying "God says, and therefore I say" is tantamount to "I say, therefore God says." It begs the question of authority. There are better ways of making a decisive statement than this.

I agree. This is almost as bad as the similar "If you don't beleive X you are calling God [or Jesus] a liar". Both are versions of appeals to force to make a point, and have no place in a rational discussion.

-Chris

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by DaveKerwin
you do not have empirical fact that God exists. you have faith. so you are correct in saying you think/believe that God exists. I don't see the problem with this

From your Christian paradigm, you find my faith in God as acceptable criteria for "knowing" His existence. What if you were an atheist? Faith is a theistic, and in this case, Christian concept. If I can have faith that God exists, why can I not also have faith -- according to my concept of God's existence -- that I also have the opportunity to describe the specific doctrines of my deity?

Denominations, sects, groups, etc. of Christian influence are merely individuals that believe as they wish. And it just so happens that these individuals assent to most of the same things. However, when it comes down to it, doctrines are the decision of the individual. You may be right to say that there is the chance that one individual can not have total truth, but you must also say that there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that SOME ordinary individual must have, perhaps not total, but the MOST, or the most accurate, truth.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by humblejoe


From your Christian paradigm, you find my faith in God as acceptable criteria for "knowing" His existence. What if you were an atheist? Faith is a theistic, and in this case, Christian concept. If I can have faith that God exists, why can I not also have faith -- according to my concept of God's existence -- that I also have the opportunity to describe the specific doctrines of my deity?

Denominations, sects, groups, etc. of Christian influence are merely individuals that believe as they wish. And it just so happens that these individuals assent to most of the same things. However, when it comes down to it, doctrines are the decision of the individual. You may be right to say that there is the chance that one individual can not have total truth, but you must also say that there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that SOME ordinary individual must have, perhaps not total, but the MOST, or the most accurate, truth.

Atheists are in the same boat, they have faith too. they have no proof there is no God. While they contend that no proof is needed, they still make the statement that God does not exist without fact, which means they believe (faith) that God does not exist.

Yeah, people pick denominations, and groups, but there are still over 33,000 different denominational opinions on scripture that are claimed to be true. This should not be.
Regardless of what might be the "most accurate" truth, it is still not fact. So we must treat it as non-fact. We should have a dynamic theology. A theology that is not set in its ways, but one that is moldable. If that is the case, then we will never be a Mr or Mrs Preterist; or a Mr or Mrs Baptist. We will be simply people of faith in Jesus, with a few different opinions. But not opinions that make us closed minded and without liberty to fellow christians with different views on the Bible.

I am finishing up at William Tyndale College. I have been lucky enough to go to a non-sectarian school. So I hear every interpretation, and take classes will all different kinds of people. Have you ever sat in a room with people representing numerous different denominations and talked about salvation? It can get ugly, be we didn't let that happen. We treated each other with respect and admitted that we don't have it all together. It is in that context that I learned that I don't have all the right interpretations, and that someone other than my pastor can be right! I may never believe what someone else says about the Bible, but I at least admit it could be true, and I don't rely on a static theology.

I still say that these imperfect interpretations of the Bible should not be preached as Bible and guaranteed truth, because they are still interpretations!

 

[Caedmon]

Then Dave, you have no have no absolute reason to believe in any doctrine, including the existence of God.

You misunderstand atheists, Dave. They have no Faith, only reasonable expectations based on previous observations. Most of them act and react based on possible consequence; that's called pragmatism. You can't observe God Himself, Dave. Atheists are fundamentally different from Theists.

 

[DaveKerwin]

Originally posted by humblejoe
Then Dave, you have no have no absolute reason to believe in any doctrine, including the existence of God.

You misunderstand atheists, Dave. They have no Faith, only reasonable expectations based on previous observations. Most of them act and react based on possible consequence; that's called pragmatism. You can't observe God Himself, Dave. Atheists are fundamentally different from Theists.

Since when does a person need absolute reason to believe in anything? After all, we are talking about beliefs here! I have faith in God, no empirical proof. I have evidences that lead me to faith, but it all boils down to that faith. I trust what I do not see.

Atheists are not random people who do not know what they believe. That is what most people think they are. Atheists are anti-theism, they claim there is no God. But since God cannot be proven to exist or not-exist, both atheists and christians rely on some amount of faith. Why? Because they believe their opinions are true. Belief without proof requires faith.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by DaveKerwin


Atheists are not random people who do not know what they believe. That is what most people think they are. Atheists are anti-theism, they claim there is no God. But since God cannot be proven to exist or not-exist, both atheists and christians rely on some amount of faith. Why? Because they believe their opinions are true. Belief without proof requires faith.

Excellent point!

Atheists rely entirely on faith to support their position.

 

[Archaggelos]

I echo the sentiments of Kern a few pages back. One of the original reason given for banning the Preterists threads from the eschatology forum was that Preterists were not considered to be orthodox in their beliefs. All Preterist threads were then to be posted in the Apologetics forum.
"After much discussion amongst the staff of Christian Forums, over many days, and a lengthy voting session, the staff of Christian Forums in an overwhelming majority of 3 to 1 have decided that preterists should not be allowed to post in Christians-only forums because the preterist belief deviates so much from conventional Christian orthodox beliefs and does not comply with the Nicene Creed, the standard that we use for defining a Christian, as stated in our Forum Rules (note: This definition is for the purposes of defining who can post in the Christians-only Forums only - the Nicene Creed has been found to be the most accurate in defining conventional evangelical Christian views, both Protestant and Catholic).

Basically, the fact that preterists believe that the 2nd coming of Jesus has already happened and the end-times are behind us are views that this site does not support and was not the reason why the original End Times and Prophecy Forum, now the Eschatology forum, was created."


I was aghast at this commentary. Then Preterists ideas were relegated to the 'Spirituality, Religion & Ethics' forum. That forum is for the discussion of:"general spirituality & other non-Christian world religions as well as Ethics and Morality."That commentary coupled with that action implies that Preterists are non-believers. Am I wrong? I wrote to an Administrator about this. It is their board and they can do what they want to with it. But, as a Christian, I am saddened and disappointed that they feel the need to imply that Preterists are not followers of Jesus the Christ. Such an implication is unnecessary and likely untrue. Since I cannot judge anyone's heart, I cannot say for sure. If someone trusts Christ alone for his salvation and is generally Orthodox in his beliefs, I would gravely consider declaring him a non-believer due to his eschatological beliefs. This disturbs me deeply. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

In His grace,

Archaggelos

PS:  Just to be clear, I have no problem with the owners of this board moving anyone anywhere.  I just have a problem with what looks to be declaring Preterism Anathema.  BTW, Preterists believe in Christ coming again, they just believe that He has already, as far as I can tell. 

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Archaggelos
....I just have a problem with what looks to be declaring Preterism Anathema....

Some churches have already done this. 

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
Some churches have already done this.

Auntie, what do you mean, exactly?

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by humblejoe  

Auntie, what do you mean, exactly?

Hello joe 

I read it somewhere, actually I found it at a lot of sites, including one of the preterist sites.  I'll see if I can find it, but I have always hesitated to post it because I knew the preterist would start another round of hateful attacks on me.

 

[Auntie]

From Preteristarchive:

The Reformed Church in the United States Takes Action to Condemn Hyper-Preterism as Heresy

Overture to the Western Classis


The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church does hereby overture the Western Classis to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:


"Whereas,

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no physical Resurrection of the body, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that the Second Coming of our Lord is already past, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no future Great White Throne Judgment, and

Whereas, these views represent a satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, the Reformed Church in the United States does hereby find the Hymenaean heresy to be contrary to orthodoxy, and its adherents to be preachers of a false gospel. Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be anathema maranatha."

We further urge the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States to broadly communicate the action taken this day to those of like precious faith, that the people of God may be warned against this false gospel, and encouraged to pray for the repentance of those lost souls who have been enslaved by it.

ADOPTED BY WESTERN CLASSIS MARCH 13, 1997 AND FORWARDED TO SYNOD.

 

[Archaggelos]

<DIV>That is interesting.&nbsp; If someone believes that there will be no physical resurrection of the body and no white throne judgment, then such beliefs are not orthodox.&nbsp; I still would not say that they are not Christians, though.

Regarding the second coming, I would have to research this further, but I have no problem with someone asserting that Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD and will come again to claim His own.&nbsp; But to say that He will never come again, I am not so sure about.&nbsp; But again, I have not studied this topic sufficiently.&nbsp; Again, I would still be very hesitant to declare someone reprobate who holds this belief but names the name of Christ.

I am seeing points on both sides of this issue.&nbsp; May we all diligently seek after the Truth by God's grace.

a</DIV>

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Archaggelos



<DIV>That is interesting.&nbsp; If someone believes that there will be no physical resurrection of the body and no white throne judgment, then such beliefs are not orthodox.&nbsp; I still would not say that they are not Christians, though.

Regarding the second coming, I would have to research this further, but I have no problem with someone asserting that Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD and will come again to claim His own.&nbsp; But to say that He will never come again, I am not so sure about.&nbsp; But again, I have not studied this topic sufficiently.&nbsp; Again, I would still be very hesitant to declare someone reprobate who holds this belief but names the name of Christ.

I am seeing points on both sides of this issue.&nbsp; May we all diligently seek after the Truth by God's grace.

a</DIV>

&nbsp;

I like you already.&nbsp;

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler &nbsp;

&nbsp;I like you already.&nbsp;

Somehow I just knew you would say that!&nbsp;

Hey Mike!&nbsp; Where'd ya get those blessings!&nbsp; 7777!!!&nbsp; Wow!&nbsp; Interesting numbers.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Archaggelos
That is interesting.&nbsp; If someone believes that there will be no physical resurrection of the body and no white throne judgment, then such beliefs are not orthodox.&nbsp; I still would not say that they are not Christians, though.

G'day Archaggelos

The preteristic&nbsp;understanding doesn't deny the resurrection-white throne, or any of those things etc&nbsp;-our approach is simply that of explaiming them in terms other than those who call themselves "orthodox." And your "I still would not say that they are not Christians, though." simply reflects a worthy&nbsp;christian grace -thank you.&nbsp;

Originally posted by Archaggelos
Regarding the second coming, I would have to research this further, but I have no problem with someone asserting that Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD and will come again to claim His own.&nbsp; But to say that He will never come again, I am not so sure about.&nbsp; But again, I have not studied this topic sufficiently.&nbsp; Again, I would still be very hesitant to declare someone reprobate who holds this belief but names the name of Christ.

The preteristic&nbsp;assertion is that "Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD" and that this WAS the definitve Coming-Resurrection-Judgment-New Creation etc to "claim His own" -concurrant events in the fall of Jerusalem.

davo

 

[Kevin_Gould]

>>The preteristic assertion is that "Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD" and that this WAS the definitve Coming-Resurrection-Judgment-New Creation etc to "claim His own" -concurrant events in the fall of Jerusalem.

Here I thought it was the roman legions... unless Jesus came back as a legionare...

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Somehow I just knew you would say that!&nbsp;

Hey Mike!&nbsp; Where'd ya get those blessings!&nbsp; 7777!!!&nbsp; Wow!&nbsp; Interesting numbers.

Hmmmm ... maybe it's an indication of divine approval for my preterist beliefs!&nbsp;

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by Kevin_Gould
&gt;&gt;The preteristic assertion is that "Jesus came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70AD" and that this WAS the definitve Coming-Resurrection-Judgment-New Creation etc to "claim His own" -concurrant events in the fall of Jerusalem.

Here I thought it was the roman legions... unless Jesus came back as a legionare...

The LORD came many, many times in the OT&nbsp;in judgment against different nations, including Samaria/Israel and Judah.&nbsp; Each&nbsp;time, God used other nations' armies to do His "dirty work."&nbsp; What makes AD 70 Jerusalem any different in method?&nbsp;

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler
The LORD came many, many times in the OT&nbsp;in judgment against different nations, including Samaria/Israel and Judah.&nbsp; Each&nbsp;time, God used other nations' armies to do His "dirty work."&nbsp; What makes AD 70 Jerusalem any different in method?&nbsp;

Thanks Mike Hey, your observations on those OT scriptures [Hosea &amp; Amos etc] were quite good

davo

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
From Preteristarchive:

The Reformed Church in the United States Takes Action to Condemn Hyper-Preterism as Heresy

Overture to the Western Classis


The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church does hereby overture the Western Classis to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:

BTW, thanks for using a Reformed source.

Are there other sources like this? Is this what&nbsp;most Reformed churches believe?