preterism

[Suede]

Higgaion


+++I’m undecided about exactly where I come down on eschatological matters, but agree with reformedfan and others who question why Preterism should be considered so beyond the pale as to be heretical and banished to the unorthodox outlands to keep company with Arminianism, Catholicism, Mormonism and other cults/false religions.+++

That’s the most intelligent statement I’ve seen in awhile in regards to Preterism. It needs to be noted that Preterism has NEVER been viewed as damnable at any point in Christian history. I’ve actually got a copy of the NIV Bible Commentary here which is no doubt PreMill and heavily influenced by Dispensationalism, but in the intro to Revelation it lists Preterism as a valid form of Eschatology. The problem started with a small group of “Christians” known as Reconstructionists. They hope that OT Law will be recommissioned and followed by the world, putting themselves decidely out of Christianity with our Grace and Faith. However, this small group is extremely aggressive in condemning others and sadly other Partial Preterists, whether Reconstructionists or not have followed their lead. It’s funny though, that it is THEIR ideas that are quite unorthodox and makes this statement ring true, “Accusations say more about the accuser than the accused.”

+++Personally, I think it's the Dispy Pre-Mil Pre-trib rapture theology that should be tossed out as heterodox. Things are really out of whack here, and in Christendom at large.+++

Exactly. I questioned one of my accusers, an ardent Partial, about that one day. I asked her that if we have Biblically discovered that Dispensationalism is invalid, why aren’t they condemned as heretics by you all? She gave me quite an unBilical answer in that at least they still match up with Historic Christianity. This of course means that she has just placed higher value in History than in the Bible, and you can see the double standard. Condemn one, but not the other. You’re right that Preterism is only an Eschatology and Eschatologies have never, ever, ever been a cause for condemnation. Take care,

SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

Yes, and No.

Please note Revelation 20:11-15 where it clearly states those in Hades will be judged based upon their deeds and works.

So yes, they were judged/saved? on the basis of their deeds and works.

Nows lets be careful about properly understanding scripture - are you trying to say that you believe that salvation will depend not just upon faith but upon works? Or would you agree with me that salvation is based upon faith, and that the judgement of works is with respect to those who are saved with respect to their obedience and faithfulness apart from salvation?

 

[Toms777]

The Tribulation that is in view is not just a destruction of Persons and property, but also God's Abrogation of the Old Covenant with Israel. The Jews along with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD were stripped of their position as God's Chosen People.

Scripture is very clear about the intesity of the tribulation stating that one of the attributes of the tribulation will be the near entire destruction of all flesh.

BTW, if you feel that God rejected Israel, pelase explain Pauls comments to the contrary in Rom 11.

 

[Toms777]

You are real sure of that????? You have like maybe some proof?

For starters:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

 

[Toms777]

+++So those who have no accepted Christ now will never face judgement and hell - is that what you are saying?+++

No, Preterism does NOT teach universalism.</FONT>

SUEDE

You say that, but if the final judgement supposedly happened in 70AD and those in sin and rebellion are walking around today, then it appears to me that you are saying that these folk will never see judgement, contrary to what scipture says.

 

[stauron]

So Toms777 has conceded. He cannot refute that Israel was rejected, but the elect obtained the promises.

Therefore the judgement and divorce of that generation, as predicted by Jesus, was the worst suffering ever.

You intimated that there were other objections to understanding the context as the context. Let's move to the next one.

 

[Suede]

Toms777

No. If ALL faced judgement, then ALL faced judgement. Such as, just because Christ returned in 70 AD, does not mean that us living in the present time don't reap the benefits that came with his return. Besides, Christ said that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was unforgiveable in that Present Age, and the Age we are now in. So, unbelivers are obviously still not saved.

SUEDE

 

[armothe]

Nows lets be careful about properly understanding scripture - are you trying to say that you believe that salvation will depend not just upon faith but upon works? Or would you agree with me that salvation is based upon faith, and that the judgement of works is with respect to those who are saved with respect to their obedience and faithfulness apart from salvation?

The last sentence reads a bit odd to me, but I'll do my best to answer your question.

No matter how you cut it faith and works can not truly be seperated.

There is a difference between:
a) earning your salvation through works (can't be done)
b) works as a result of faith (occurs naturally in the lives of Christians)

Both Abraham and Noah had faith in God, but it was their works that proved it. However, both were still sinners lacking a perfect sacrifice/atonement; thus, no "salvation".

Today we DO have Christ's perfect sacrifice and it is our faith in Christ along with our demonstrative works which not only allow us to be with God eternally, but also show the world who God truly is.

-A

 

[Toms777]

So Toms777 has conceded. He cannot refute that Israel was rejected, but the elect obtained the promises.

I am really quite sick and tired of you and others claiming that I said something that I did not say. I will be blunt - that is dishonest. is it not good enough to simply deal with the facts?

I never said anything of the sort and I note that you chose not to use any quotes and it is abundantly clear why.

I reject replacement theology in any shape or form as heresy. Try mis-representing that!

 

[stauron]

I am really quite sick and tired of you and others claiming that I said something that I did not say. I will be blunt - that is dishonest. is it not good enough to simply deal with the facts?

I never said anything of the sort and I note that you chose not to use any quotes and it is abundantly clear why.

I reject replacement theology in any shape or form as heresy. Try mis-representing that!

I don't know anything about misrepresenting, but so far you have not addressed anything. Silence is a form of concession.

God rejected Israel. You are not willing to deal with context when it works against your pet theology.

By lack of argument you have conceded. If that is not so please deal with my post.

In the context of Romans 11 Paul says very clearly that God rejected Israel as a nation.

If you desire to prove your point please show how the context changes from the Nation in the rest of Romans 11 to meaning just a few individuals in verse 15. The clear contrast in the passage is between the nation as a whole and the 7000 faithful.

I am quite tired of you changing subjects and then not responding. You brought up the context of Romans 11 trying to say that it disproved my point. I addressed that by going through the entire chapter. You did not respond 1 time. Concession is the same with or without admission. If you are not conceding the point than show me how the context for verse 15 is different than the rest of the entire chapter. Otherwise I stand by my words.

 

[Toms777]

I don't know anything about misrepresenting, but so far you have not addressed anything. Silence is a form of concession.

Saying that I said something that I did not say is a form of lying.

Either show the quote or apologize.

I have no interest in discussing anything with something who cannot deal with others honestly. When you are prepared to deal with me honestly, we can pick up the discussion. This has happened too often.

 

[ikester]

For starters:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

good post....and if it's the preterist position that the book of Daniel has been fulfilled...doesn't sound like chapter 11 happened in 70 ad.......

 

[Toms777]

The last sentence reads a bit odd to me, but I'll do my best to answer your question.

No matter how you cut it faith and works can not truly be seperated.

Scripture is clear that works are not required for salvation

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
KJV

[/QUOTE]There is a difference between:
a) earning your salvation through works (can't be done)
b) works as a result of faith (occurs naturally in the lives of Christians)

Both Abraham and Noah had faith in God, but it was their works that proved it.
[/QUOTE]
Works follow salvation...I would agree.

However, both were still sinners lacking a perfect sacrifice/atonement; thus, no "salvation".

Sinners, yes, we all are, but how do you judge them as unsaved?

Gal 3:6-8
Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand,
NKJV

Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness and he had the gospel preached to him. How does one become righteous if not through Jesus?

 

[stauron]

Saying that I said something that I did not say is a form of lying.

Either show the quote or apologize.

I have no interest in discussing anything with something who cannot deal with others honestly. When you are prepared to deal with me honestly, we can pick up the discussion. This has happened too often.

Toms777, the whole point is that there is no quote. You have not addressed any of my posts about Romans 11. Saying that I need to look at the context is not an argument, it is an assertion.

That is not misrepresentation. You do not need to say anything to concede, lack of an answer is all I am addressing.

You brought up the context of Romans 11. I disproved your theory. You answered with silence. The ball is in your court. Either you act or not. No action is as much an answer as acting.

 

[Toms777]

Toms777, the whole point is that there is no quote.

Exactly my point. There is no quote because I never said what you claimed. And you have given no apology.

Until you do, and until I can therefore have some assurance that you will not continue to mis-reprersent me, there will be no further debate between us.

 

[stauron]

Let's just review the debate so far.

Toms777 and Der Alter asked for evidence that 70AD was the worst ever. They both specifically said things like "how could it possibly be the worst ever" or "how is that class of suffering the worst ever".

Toms777 asked to stay on topic with small posts about this specific point.

We showed that there is at least one way that it could be viewed as the worst ever.

God divorced His covenant people, wrote Ichabod over them, judged them for their faithlessness and slew them. It is unrepeatable. God disowned the rebels and gave the kingdom to another. Those were the days of vengeance where God poured out His wrath and brought to a close the Old Covenant. He also brought to fruition all the promises to the (faithful, Jewish) fathers. The divinly appointed means of worship, the "holy" city and the "holy" people were all cast down and found disfavor with God. How is that not earthshaking? We take our status in Christ for granted and fail to realize what has taken place on our behalf when we think it no small thing that branches were broken off for us.

And finally the justification (not sin-wise) and vindication of Christ and His body was brought to fruition when that which offended was finally removed. The major and near fatal stumbling block (the white-washed sepulchars, the synagogue of satan, the anti(against)-christs) to the church were parading around with little opposition and killing Christians, with zeal, and the whole while claiming to do it in God's name, as demanded from His Law.

So it is not that hard to begin to see the true impact on the world and how to logically fit in the New Heavens and Earth.

Toms777 and Der Alter did not say one thing. In fact Der Alter brought up the gospel being preached to all nations. I quote Paul saying that it was. Der Alter responded in silence...

So, ironically, Toms777 says this.

Early on I suggested that we try to deal with one sign at a time, to avoid getting overwhelmed with enormous messages. Well, we are going off on too many tangenst for me to handle without giving up things that I consider important.

So he rebukes us for not staying on topic, hasn't answered the post that addresses his question, and then changes the topic.


In post 160 Toms777 asserts that I haven't proved anything about the nature of the suffering. Still silence regarding the post I quote above.

Following the above Toms777 cuts snippets from my posts but ignores my repeted pleas to address my original post that is the topic that he asked about from the start. (posts 171, 178 and 183)

Then several days later I ask again to please address the post that is on topic and about what Toms777 started asking. (post 205) Again NOTHING!

So then in post 219 I state that Toms777 must be ignoring my posts becuase of a theological bias against Romans 11:15. His answer is to assert "replacement theology" is a heresy and accuse us of it. Assert Romans 11 is only a warning about being anti-semitic.

We all begin to show the context of Romans 11 and I spend several posts going point by point over the verses and Toms777 fails to address them again.

So the question is will Toms777 step up and answer or concede by silence.

My claim is that your silence is the answer. So is it or not? Sir Thomas More argued that silence is assent. I am also argueing for that understanding.

 

[StuckRags]

On the "preached to all the world" thing.

I would contend that from Jesus' POV, the world meant the entire Earth. From Paul's POV, it meant the "known" world at the time. Columbus and Magellon were a long ways off, and it would be safe to say that NO ONE of Paul's time knew about the American continents, the Poles, Pacific Islands, Austrailia, and on and on in those days. But Jesus resurected would know. And unless you are Mormon, you can't believe that the Gospel had been preached to the Americas at that time.

 

[armothe]

Scripture is clear that works are not required for salvation
Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
KJV

Right. You cannot obtain everlasting life in Heaven through works.

Works follow salvation...I would agree.
Sinners, yes, we all are, but how do you judge them as unsaved?
Gal 3:6-8
Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand,
NKJV
Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness and he had the gospel preached to him. How does one become righteous if not through Jesus?

Abraham did indeed have the gospel preached to him. And there may have possibly been others (Moses?) as well who were clued into God's plan. But these are only a handful of the entire population of the world. Now the question remains, on what basis were the rest of the entire OT population judged upon?

-A

 

[stauron]

On the "preached to all the world" thing.

I would contend that from Jesus' POV, the world meant the entire Earth. From Paul's POV, it meant the "known" world at the time. Columbus and Magellon were a long ways off, and it would be safe to say that NO ONE of Paul's time knew about the American continents, the Poles, Pacific Islands, Austrailia, and on and on in those days. But Jesus resurected would know. And unless you are Mormon, you can't believe that the Gospel had been preached to the Americas at that time.

So Jesus used oikoumene in Matt 24 to mean all of creation and Paul used pavsh/ ktivsei th'/ uJpo; to;n oujranovn in Col 1:23 to mean the then known world?

 

[Toms777]

Abraham did indeed have the gospel preached to him. And there may have possibly been others (Moses?) as well who were clued into God's plan. But these are only a handful of the entire population of the world. Now the question remains, on what basis were the rest of the entire OT population judged upon?

-A

What makes you think that it was only a handful? I would agree that those who are saved have always only been a remnant and no doubt that was true then, but if any can be saved in OT times, then salvation was possible in the OT, which is the point that I was making.

That does not mean that it was by any means other than the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross, but it was looking forward to the cross, they were loking forward to the Messiah and saved through their faith in Him.