The Father Of (Partial Preterism) A Catholic Jesuit "Luis De Alcasar" (1554-1613)

BABerean2

Newbie
Site Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How do you decide which is true or not?

I do not have to decide, because it is the Word of God as revealed in John 1:1.
It is all true.

Sola Scriptura

Once you come to understand what is written in Luke 24:25-27, the Bible becomes a book about Jesus Christ.

He is the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15, and He is the Alpha and Omega in the Book of Revelation.

The Bible is like a tapestry in which each verse of scripture represents one thread interwoven into the fabric.
Once you stand back and look at the whole piece of cloth it reveals the face of the Son of God.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

David Kent

Continuing Historicist
Aug 24, 2017
2,173
663
86
Ashford Kent
✟116,777.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
as far as ORIGINS of various eschatologies; you have opponents of pre-trib saying it was from Margaret Macdonald's vision (which if you read through it -- is NOT pre-trib), and out the other side of their mouth, saying Manuel De Lacunza's book is where Darby "got his stuff" from -- thing is -- I read through Lacunza's book years ago and it is VASTLY DIFFERENT from what Darby proposed -- a 45 day tribulation period rather than 7 year trib; it is not the same eschatology AT ALL

as far as the claims that BOTH preterism and Futurism came from the counter-reformation -- that is surely false in the area of FUTURISM - for it was the view of the early church before Augustine...

Known as CHILIASM, the ecf were pre-millennial though not pre-trib; so FUTURISM has been around from earliest times of the church, and was not "invented by Jesuits to 'get the Pope off the hook' of being pegged as the AntiChrist"

Pre millenialism is not futurism. It may be but originally it belonged to the historicists, which is what the Early church were. They taught that the temple in Revelation was the church, which is an historicist not futurist teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,403
15,493
✟1,109,304.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your Problem Is This Is The Second Advent That You Deny Is Seen, To Make Your Interpretation Work Falsely.

The Whole Chapter Is Devoted To The Second Advent.

Matthew 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days

What days are 'those days'? The days that Jesus was talking about when the temple would be destroyed.
The Second Advent did not follow the tribulation of 'those days.' So what else could these scriptures to saying?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0