What are 'preterists'? ... 'full' or 'partial'?

[billvelek]

This is my first time in this forum. I notice that there is a note below the link to this forum which says "No full preterist views. Partial preterists welcomed."

What does that mean? What are 'preterists' and what are 'full' and 'partial'? And why are 'full' preterists not welcome here. I was a Catholic, but I no longer attend and have been considering changing to a different church. I believe in eschatology, signs of the times, tribulations, etc., and that Christ will come again as prophesied.

Thanks for any help.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

 

[revelation2217]

Full preterists are people who dispensationalists don't like and who don't have anything better to do but come up with Latin prepositions to describe their eschatology.

A partial preterist is a person who full preterists and dispensationalists don't like and who doesn't like being called a partial preterist but gets lumped in this group by full preterists and dispensationalists so they can sit back and take pejorative pot shots and ad homonym attacks such as

Oh, wow.. you are such a ....partial PRETERist....

Hope that helps.

 

[billvelek]

SNIP ...

Oh, wow.. you are such a ....partial PRETERist....

Hope that helps.

Heh, heh ... well, there are three things that I definitely know: first, that I believe in the Holy and Blessed Trinity, the one and only true God, as expressed in the Nicene Creed; ... second, that I love and honor the Blessed Trinity with all my mind, heart, strength, and soul; ... and third, that I am utterly confused most of the time, such as now, and that there is much more that I DON'T know or understand than that which I think I DO.

And eschatology is one area where I am particularly ignorant, and so my search for knowledge and understanding has led me to this forum; aren't you all lucky?!

I am a cradle-Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic School education, and I am very firm in nearly all that the RCC teaches, and am very conservative in my views (forget about same sex marriages and liberal theology). BUT I do not attend any church any more and so I have been looking; meanwhile, until I find one that I can join and follow in faith -- one which I am confident that the HOLY SPIRIT has led me to, ... I will remain un-churched with Catholic beliefs. I believe strongly that we are living ... right now ... in the end times, i.e., during the season of labor pains foretold by Jesus. It will continue to get worse. Despite that I suppose that I am 'technically' still a Catholic because I haven't joined any other church, I still believe that at some point in the future (and it might even be on the brink right now), ... the RCC will begin to teach apostasy, and to such a degree that she will become the harlot of Babylon, and then I will be compelled to leave the Catholic Church in order to obey Revelations 18:4 -- “Then I heard another voice from heaven say: 'Depart from her, my people, so as not to take part in her sins' . . .". That, and the fact that I totally reject the notion of infallibility of the Pope pretty much takes me out of the RCC. I'm researching the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches right now as possibilities; the Episcopal Church is way too liberal for me, and I can't go with any church which doesn't believe in the literal real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ and the Seven Sacraments, so I think that eliminates most other churches as far as I know.

As for eschatology, I firmly believe in watching for and interpreting 'the signs of the times' and in unfulfilled Bible prophecy which is literal in most respects. I believe it is figurative with regard to its description of the Beast (which I think represents a one-world government rather than literally some type of monster-animal, and that the lady who rides the beast is the Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon); I believe that the dragon is Satan is literal and that he swept with him the fallen-angels who rebelled against God; I believe in literal end-times plagues which are initiated by the literal two witnesses, and I believe in the literal transformation of the living and the dead into incorruptible bodies which shall rise into the sky to greet Jesus Christ in His second coming, and in the literal Battle of Armageddon. And although not expressly mentioned in Revelation as the "antichrist", I do believe in such as person who will rule over the earth in the last days, as prophesied in Daniel and other parts of the Bible. And I believe in the literal 'Day of the Lord' with cosmic-level events literally moving entire mountains from one place to another and making entire islands disappear. And I believe in a literal 'hell'.

And I believe that the word of God will be fulfilled soon enough in the future that it will probably occur within my lifetime, and I am 63 years old. As a result, I have been repenting and amending my life, and have been very deep in prayer and adoration, as well as scripture study.

May God have mercy on us.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

 

[Biblewriter]

As has been stated full preterists believe that all Bible prophecy had been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. They are considered unorthodox, and thue banned from this site, becaues they deny that Christ is coming again.

As has also been stated, partial preterists believe that most of Bible prophecy had been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But they do believe that Christ is coming again. So they are considered orthodox and are thus permitted on this site.

Another term for the interpretation of Bible prophecy that you should know is historicist, or presentist. These people believe that the prophecies in the Bible have been or are being progressively fulfilled during the present age, beginning with the death of the Lord Jesus on the cross. But they also believe that Christ is coming again, so they are considered orthodox and are thus permitted on this site.

Most of the people that fall under these three headings are also amillennial, that is, they do not believe in a future literal thousand year reign on this earth. They sometimes call themselves post-millennial, that is, that the millennium is going on at the present time, and that Christ will come at its end.

All other (at least well known) schools of prophetic interpretation fall generally under the umberalla term of futurist. These people believe that a great amount of Bible prophecy remains to be fulfilled in the future. Most futurists are millennial, that is, they believe in a future literal thousand year reign on this earth. In ancient times, this belief was called chilism, and was the standard doctrine of essentially all of the writers in the church's earliest centuries. As has been noted, this doctrine was largely abandoned after the time of Augustine, and was later condemned as heresy.

Most futurists a believe in the rapture, that is, that in a future time the Lord will suddeny take all His own to heaven. There are four schools of thought as to when this will happen.

Pre-tribbers believe it will take place before the beginning of a seven year tribulation whicl will come before Christ returns in power and glory to judge the world.

Mid-tribbers believe it will take place at the middle of this period of trouble. This doctrine was also taught in the earliest centuries of the church, but not widely.

Pre-wrathers believe it will take place near the end of this time of trouble, but before God begins to pour out His wrath on the earth. Most of them put it as seventy-five days before Christ comes in power and glory. to judge the world.

Post-tribbers believe it will take place at the end of this time, just as Christ descends to judge the world.

Dispensationalists are a subset of futurists. They believe that God changes the way that He deals with mankind at various times. And they believe that we are presently in the age of grace, as opposed to the previous age of the law, which passed away with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. They also believe that after the Lord has taken all His own to heaven, He will again change the way He deals with mankind, and that a new dispensation will be in effect during the millennium. They believe that during that age, God will again take up Israel as a nation, and bless it in its ancient homeland. A very few dispensationalists also teach that Jews can be saved without trusting in Jesus, but that is considered heresy by almost all dispensationalists. Most dispensationalists are either pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers, or pre-wrathers. Almost all of the essential doctrines of dispensationalism can be found in the writings of the early church.

The claim that dispensationalists are not orthodox Christians is grossly untrue. It is libel, and such libel is not permitted in this forum.

 

[Choose Wisely]

There are also a few that believe that there will be more than one rapture. When one rapture occurs it will be like the days of Noah. Noah is in the ark 7 days before the flood. And another rapture occurs when it is like the days of Lott. The very day Lot leaves Sodom destruction comes. Learn the parable of the fig tree.

 

[Biblewriter]

There are also a few that believe that there will be more than one rapture. When one rapture occurs it will be like the days of Noah. Noah is in the ark 7 days before the flood. And another rapture occurs when it is like the days of Lott. The very day Lot leaves Sodom destruction comes. Learn the parable of the fig tree.

Yes, I forgot these. They are often called partial-rapturists.

 

[Gideon]

Full Preterism leads them to deny the Apostles Creed, a creed which is fundamental to Catholic and Protestant alike.

Funnily enough, Catholic eschatology is more or less "partial-Preterist" except that they probably don't use the term. The Protestant reformers did not have major issues with the Church's doctrine of end times, except 'Purgatory', but were more concerned with abuses of Papal authority, and matters of salvation.

It seems from your introduction that you are searching for two separate things - 1) a good spiritual home, and 2) a good approach to end times. May I offer some general advice: Avoid extremes, because you can bet your boots, they exist on Internet forums.

You will find Biblewriters description on post #5 is the most informative post, though I must say, I prefer the 'Amillenial' view to his 'dispensatioal' one.

Last but not least, welcome to the forum

Gideon

 

[Biblewriter]

In comparing the many claims and counter-claims that you will find here, you need to keep several things in mind.

First, many people will claim that their opinion about the meaning of a passage of scripture is what "the Bible says." This a violation of the basic principle of interpretation that we need to draw a sharp line between what the Bible actually says and what we think those words mean.

Others often claim that what the Bible says in one place disproves what it says in another place. But when they do this, they are forgetting that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." So it all comes ultimately from the same Mind. And since that One Mind never changes and is never wrong, there can be no contradictions. If what the Bible says in one place seems to contradict what it says in another place, the problem is not with what it says, but with our understanding of one or both of the seemingly contradictory passages.

Finally, some claim that we can rely upon Old Testament prophecies only if they are repeated in the New Testament. This is again a violation of the principle that it all comes ultimately from the same Mind. And rather than telling us to ignore the Old Testament prophecies, it is concerning them that the New Testament says that "ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

 

[riverrat]

Biblewriter wrote:

The claim that dispensationalists are not orthodox Christians is grossly untrue. It is libel, and such libel is not permitted in this forum.

The rules may say it is not permitted in this forum but from my experience the rules are rarely enforced. As an example the following is copied from the thread "Rapture, resurrection and 2nd coming" post #164 by Rev 20. He
says "This is an Orthodox forum, Rat. Dispensationalist have never been Orthodox, and will never be. You don't belong here." I assume the moderators don't consider it libel or don't care to enforce the rule.

 

[BABerean2]

This is my first time in this forum. I notice that there is a note below the link to this forum which says "No full preterist views. Partial preterists welcomed."

What does that mean? What are 'preterists' and what are 'full' and 'partial'? And why are 'full' preterists not welcome here. I was a Catholic, but I no longer attend and have been considering changing to a different church. I believe in eschatology, signs of the times, tribulations, etc., and that Christ will come again as prophesied.

Thanks for any help.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

Brother Bill,

If you are looking for a pastor who will tell you the truth and prove it straight from God's Word, I have a suggestion.

You should be able to find his ministry on cable TV or on the Internet.

His name is Pastor James Merritt. His ministry is called "In Touch"

My wife and I support his ministry and watch it on a weekly basis.

He also has a new book which you might appreciate.
It is titled "52 Weeks with Jesus".

Also, all of us no matter our background, need to try to get back to the teachings of the Apostles in the New Testament and leave everything else behind.
This is not easy, however it is the only way to find the truth.


.

 

[parousia70]

And I believe that the word of God will be fulfilled soon enough in the future that it will probably occur within my lifetime, and I am 63 yearrs old.

The Apostles all held that same expectation. And with Good reason. Their Master taught them to.

As a result, I have been repenting and amending my life, and have been very deep in prayer and adoration, as well as scripture study.

As a result of what? The "fulfillemnt within your lifetime" expectation, or just being 63 years old?

 

[Danoh]

This is my first time in this forum. I notice that there is a note below the link to this forum which says "No full preterist views. Partial preterists welcomed."

What does that mean? What are 'preterists' and what are 'full' and 'partial'? And why are 'full' preterists not welcome here. I was a Catholic, but I no longer attend and have been considering changing to a different church. I believe in eschatology, signs of the times, tribulations, etc., and that Christ will come again as prophesied.

Thanks for any help.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

Get yourself a good, but simple book on how to study the Bible - just principles for how to do that.

Without that first, you face the false path that is "well here is what Dr. so and so thinks..."

Next thing you know, you are an expert in all sorts of cool things but how to sit down and study Scripture out for yourself.

Far too many have years and years in "books about" [supposedly "Bible based"] when all they are is the same parroting its author's picked up from "books about" before those all the way back to the ECF [Early Church Fathers].

You end up in reasoning about things the way their authors do.

What you need at this early stage is a simple "book about" how to study things out for yourself - Bible study principles.

As you learn those and apply them, turn around and apply them to what their author asserts and see for yourself how even those kinds of book writers end up violating the basic how to study principles their books teach.

Case in point - using one bible study principle - the principle of contrasts between things - compare this description in Nehemiah 8:

8. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

With their actual practice centuries later - Matthew 23:

1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The ones "in Moses' seat" centuries earlier followed the principles reading distinctly, and giving the sense, and causing the people to understand the reading as God would that they cause them to understand it, while, in contrast to that, their "scribes" or ["the scholars"] centuries later had long since made of said principles whatever helped them get over on those under them.

Learn how to study the Bible for yourself first - forget what anyone would have you "read about" as there is a very high possibility they never followed this route I have just laid out here, thus their "well it doesn't fit my books" antagonism towards anyone who gets this vital first step out of the way.

The best to you and your family in that...

 

[BABerean2]

Every book recommended on this forum is to be judged by how it compares to God's Word.
.....................................................................................................

Excerpts from “Things That Differ” by C.R. Stam


The reader is invited to read the entire work to make sure none of the following quotes are taken out of context.

Page 33.

“It should be noted too that both the actual old and new testaments, though
they affect us, were made with the nation Israel, and that the new covenant
simply promises that Israel will one day render spontaneously the obedience
required of her under the old covenant. (Deut. 5:1-3, Jer. 31:31).”

………………………………............................

Page 35 , 36 from the section on Prophecy and the Messianic Kingdom

“4. It will extend to all the earth: "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him: all
nations shall serve Him" (Psa. 72:11). "And there was given Him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him"
(Dan. 7:14). "Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord
of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord" (Zech. 8:22).

5. All Israel will then be saved: "They shall all know Me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them" (Jer. 31:34). "I will save them ... and will
cleanse them: so shall they be My people, and I will be their God" (Ezek. 37:23).

This was confirmed by Paul in Romans 11:26, etc.

6. Israel's suffering and sorrow will then be over: "Speak ye comfortably
[comfortingly) to Jerusalem . - . that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned" (Isa. 40:2). "Give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for
mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" (Isa. 61:3). "They
shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa.
35:10).

7. Israel will then become a blessing to all nations:
“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy
rising" (Isa. 60:3). "And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the
heathen, 0 house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall
be a blessing" (Zech. 8:13). "In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men
shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the
skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that Godis with you" (Zech. 8:23)
.
These promises date back to the covenant which God made with Abraham,:
"I will multiply thy seed ... and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed" (Gen. 22:17,18).”

………………………………............................................................

Page 128

“Chapter XI
GOOD NEWS
THE "FOUR GOSPELS"

It has often been stated that the so-called Four Gospels are actually four
accounts of our Lord's earthly ministry as recorded by four different writers.
These four accounts are given to us in the Scripture, not as different gospels but
as portrayals of our blessed Lord Himself in four different aspects. Matthew
portrays Him as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man and John as God; and
each writer, while acknowledging the other aspects of Christ's person and place,
keeps consistently to the particular aspect which he was inspired to portray.

Some have suggested that one biography; one composite picture, so to
speak, would have been better, but one might as well try to depict a house by
one composite picture. It would seem rather odd to have the mop, the refuse
can, the milk box and the connection for the hose all showing up on the front
porch! And where in the picture would there be room for all the doors and
windows on all four sides? Similarly four separate accounts of our Lord's
ministry were necessary to set forth the four aspects of His person, position and
work.

IS THERE ONLY ONE GOSPEL?
But while it is technically incorrect to call these four records four gospels, it is
equally incorrect to say, as many have said, that the Scriptures present only one
Gospel.”

………………………………..............................................................................

Questions to be considered in reference to Stam’s book.


1. Is the Gospel preached by Paul different from the Gospel preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost or are they the same Gospel directed to a different audience?

2. Is there really more than one Gospel?

3. Will all of the descendants of Jacob be saved during the end-time or only a small remnant?

4. Will the salvation of most of the end-time Jews occur at His Second Coming?

5. Will Israel be a blessing to all of the nations in the future or has it already been done through the sacrifice of Christ?

6. Who is the "seed" through which all nations will be blessed? Gal. 3:16

7. Is the viewpoint of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism portrayed in Stam’s book based on scripture?

.

 

[Danoh]

Every book recommended on this forum is to be judged by how it compares to God's Word.
.....................................................................................................

Excerpts from “Things That Differ” by C.R. Stam


The reader is invited to read the entire work to make sure none of the following quotes are taken out of context.

Page 33.

“It should be noted too that both the actual old and new testaments, though
they affect us, were made with the nation Israel, and that the new covenant
simply promises that Israel will one day render spontaneously the obedience
required of her under the old covenant. (Deut. 5:1-3, Jer. 31:31).”

………………………………............................

Page 35 , 36 from the section on Prophecy and the Messianic Kingdom

“4. It will extend to all the earth: "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him: all
nations shall serve Him" (Psa. 72:11). "And there was given Him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him"
(Dan. 7:14). "Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord
of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord" (Zech. 8:22).

5. All Israel will then be saved: "They shall all know Me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them" (Jer. 31:34). "I will save them ... and will
cleanse them: so shall they be My people, and I will be their God" (Ezek. 37:23).

This was confirmed by Paul in Romans 11:26, etc.

6. Israel's suffering and sorrow will then be over: "Speak ye comfortably
[comfortingly) to Jerusalem . - . that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned" (Isa. 40:2). "Give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for
mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" (Isa. 61:3). "They
shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa.
35:10).

7. Israel will then become a blessing to all nations:
“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy
rising" (Isa. 60:3). "And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the
heathen, 0 house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall
be a blessing" (Zech. 8:13). "In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men
shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the
skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that Godis with you" (Zech. 8:23)
.
These promises date back to the covenant which God made with Abraham,:
"I will multiply thy seed ... and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed" (Gen. 22:17,18).”

………………………………............................................................

Page 128

“Chapter XI
GOOD NEWS
THE "FOUR GOSPELS"

It has often been stated that the so-called Four Gospels are actually four
accounts of our Lord's earthly ministry as recorded by four different writers.
These four accounts are given to us in the Scripture, not as different gospels but
as portrayals of our blessed Lord Himself in four different aspects. Matthew
portrays Him as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man and John as God; and
each writer, while acknowledging the other aspects of Christ's person and place,
keeps consistently to the particular aspect which he was inspired to portray.

Some have suggested that one biography; one composite picture, so to
speak, would have been better, but one might as well try to depict a house by
one composite picture. It would seem rather odd to have the mop, the refuse
can, the milk box and the connection for the hose all showing up on the front
porch! And where in the picture would there be room for all the doors and
windows on all four sides? Similarly four separate accounts of our Lord's
ministry were necessary to set forth the four aspects of His person, position and
work.

IS THERE ONLY ONE GOSPEL?
But while it is technically incorrect to call these four records four gospels, it is
equally incorrect to say, as many have said, that the Scriptures present only one
Gospel.”

………………………………..............................................................................

Questions to be considered in reference to Stam’s book.


1. Is the Gospel preached by Paul different from the Gospel preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost or are they the same Gospel directed to a different audience?

2. Is there really more than one Gospel?

3. Will all of the descendants of Jacob be saved during the end-time or only a small remnant?

4. Will the salvation of most of the end-time Jews occur at His Second Coming?

5. Will Israel be a blessing to all of the nations in the future or has it already been done through the sacrifice of Christ?

6. Who is the "seed" through which all nations will be blessed? Gal. 3:16

7. Is the viewpoint of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism portrayed in Stam’s book based on scripture?

.

You just don't get it - ask all the questions one wants they first have to go and learn how to study things out objectively.

I have a very good friend who is a Muslim - swears up and down he is right and Christianity is wrong. Great guy. Great friend.

But guess what - just like you, he is convinced beyond any real light ever getting in that just because someone believes a thing is true, it therefore is.

His old man - another prince of a person. Same erroneous notion nevertheless.

I love those two guys to pieces - but they are still way off base because they do not know, nor want to know, how to study a thing out objectively.

That is you to a T.

In this, your above "guiding" questions are absolutely worthless as "a Berean test."

Take that last question - "is it based on Scripture?"

Oh, that sounds wise, and all that, but in reality it is the same old same old out there that Christians mean when they use the phrase "Biblically based."

What they mean is "does it match my traditions and books about...?"

It means nothing but fill in the blanks with what each denomination, cult, movement out there means by that even as they all point out the same passages to one another.

You do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what I am talking about, and you haven't a snails chance on a drunk turtle with no legs of ever getting up to a speed where you might begin to be able to figure out what any Mid-Acts writer is talking about.

Why?

Because you need to start over. Because the following passage is you to a T.

Hebrews 5:

11. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

That's you - a babe in Christ after all his time as to this simple, "get those Bible study principles out of the way first" issue, now wanting to lead another down your cluelessness with, "oh, just ask these magic questions and presto, you'll know what's what - oh by the way - here are several pdfs and you tube videos, so you can be as walking into these things your mind already made up as mind was long ago.

If there is one thing that riles me up it is that kind of obtuseness to this important issue.

Go ahead, now, turn this to something else - prove - my - point - once - more!

 

[BABerean2]

You just don't get it - ask all the questions one wants they first have to go and learn how to study things out objectively.

I have a very good friend who is a Muslim - swears up and down he is right and Christianity is wrong. Great guy. Great friend.

But guess what - just like you, he is convinced beyond any real light ever getting in that just because someone believes a thing is true, it therefore is.

His old man - another prince of a person. Same erroneous notion nevertheless.

I love those two guys to pieces - but they are still way off base because they do not know, nor want to know, how to study a thing out objectively.

That is you to a T.

In this, your above "guiding" questions are absolutely worthless as "a Berean test."

Take that last question - "is it based on Scripture?"

Oh, that sounds wise, and all that, but in reality it is the same old same old out there that Christians mean when they use the phrase "Biblically based."

What they mean is "does it match my traditions and books about...?"

It means nothing but fill in the blanks with what each denomination, cult, movement out there means by that even as they all point out the same passages to one another.

You do not know what you are talking about, you do not know what I am talking about, and you haven't a snails chance on a drunk turtle with no legs of ever getting up to a speed where you might begin to be able to figure out what any Mid-Acts writer is talking about.

Why?

Because you need to start over. Because the following passage is you to a T.

Hebrews 5:

11. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

That's you - a babe in Christ after all his time as to this simple, "get those Bible study principles out of the way first" issue, now wanting to lead another down your cluelessness with, "oh, just ask these magic questions and presto, you'll know what's what - oh by the way - here are several pdfs and you tube videos, so you can be as walking into these things your mind already made up as mind was long ago.

If there is one thing that riles me up it is that kind of obtuseness to this important issue.

Go ahead, now, turn this to something else - prove - my - point - once - more!

Danoh,

You are really good at changing the subject from problems with a doctrine to finding character flaws in any person that examines and finds holes in your doctrine.

Your performance deserves an Academy Award, at least.

It would be in the category of "Best Legalist".

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,

You are really good at changing the subject from problems with a doctrine to finding character flaws in any person that examines and finds holes in your doctrine.

Your performance deserves an Academy Award, at least.

It would be in the category of "Best Legalist".

You're absolutely wrong about that. I am pointing out flaws in your approach, as I do believe that you mean well.

Problem is you misread that as well.

Personally, I could care less about who came up with what how long ago, or what have you.

To me, focusing on that is wrong-headed.

But that is the tradition of far too many.

Given this fact, I sometimes wonder why so many even bother owning a Bible.

There is a bit of a duplicity in citing "well the Lord said search the Scriptures" only to spend way more time in books supposedly about the Bible than the other way around.

I find that suspect. Call it what you believe you must, BAB2.

 

[riverrat]

BB2 wrote:

Questions to be considered in reference to Stam’s book.


1. Is the Gospel preached by Paul different from the Gospel preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost or are they the same Gospel directed to a different audience?

2. Is there really more than one Gospel?

3. Will all of the descendants of Jacob be saved during the end-time or only a small remnant?

4. Will the salvation of most of the end-time Jews occur at His Second Coming?

5. Will Israel be a blessing to all of the nations in the future or has it already been done through the sacrifice of Christ?

6. Who is the "seed" through which all nations will be blessed? Gal. 3:16

7. Is the viewpoint of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism portrayed in Stam’s book based on scripture?

You will not like my answers but I don't expect you to.
1. Different gospels to different audiences.
2. Only one gospel for this dispensation. There have been other gospels in
previous dispensations and there will be a different gospel in the coming
dispensation.
3. Small remnant.
4. Salvation of the remnant will be at second coming.
5. Both
6. Christ
7. Yes

 

[BABerean2]

BB2 wrote:


You will not like my answers but I don't expect you to.
1. Different gospels to different audiences.
2. Only one gospel for this dispensation. There have been other gospels in
previous dispensations and there will be a different gospel in the coming
dispensation.
3. Small remnant.
4. Salvation of the remnant will be at second coming.
5. Both
6. Christ
7. Yes

Thanks for giving an answer based on your understanding of scripture.

What more could anyone ask for?

Others will have to also compare the book to their understanding of scripture.

I appreciate your honest answer.

 

[Danoh]

Thanks for giving an answer based on your understanding of scripture.

What more could anyone ask for?

Others will have to also compare the book to their understanding of scripture.

I appreciate your honest answer.

Hopefully they will compare said understanding in accordance with objective Bible study principles they can actually point out they applied in contrast to simply posting pdfs and YouTube clips where said principles are nowhere to be found, let alone mentioned.

Again, I am not against you, in any way shape or form - you are not the issue, never have been, and never will be for me - He Alone is.

Rather, your off-base approach as to this "objective Bible study principles" issue your thus far posted pdfs and YouTube clips against any and all Dispensationalism, consistently fail to address.

Citing ECF, the Reformers, or what have you, is to me, not said objective Bible study principles anymore than asserting "well, see that is against the truth."

All such assertions really assert is "that is not the truth as [I, BAB2, or whomever], see it."

You know, its time I apologize to you for the obvious spiritual injury my words appear to have caused you - as God is my witness, that was never ever my intent.

My intent has always been to challenge you to examine where you are looking at things from.

Again, my apology for my part in that misunderstanding my words have obviously resulted in.

Yours, in Him...

 

[BABerean2]

Hopefully they will compare said understanding in accordance with objective Bible study principles they can actually point out they applied in contrast to simply posting pdfs and YouTube clips where said principles are nowhere to be found, let alone mentioned.

Again, I am not against you, in any way shape or form - you are not the issue, never have been, and never will be for me - He Alone is.

Rather, your off-base approach as to this "objective Bible study principles" issue your thus far posted pdfs and YouTube clips against any and all Dispensationalism, consistently fail to address.

Citing ECF, the Reformers, or what have you, is to me, not said objective Bible study principles anymore than asserting "well, see that is against the truth."

All such assertions really assert is "that is not the truth as [I, BAB2, or whomever], see it."

You know, its time I apologize to you for the obvious spiritual injury my words appear to have caused you - as God is my witness, that was never ever my intent.

My intent has always been to challenge you to examine where you are looking at things from.

Again, my apology for my part in that misunderstanding my words have obviously resulted in.

Yours, in Him...

When we attack another persons career choice by making a derogatory implication against all public school teachers, the intent is crystal clear.

When you make a negative comment about an effort by any of us to evangelize any people group or individuals, the intent is crystal clear.

Those are always going to be low blows in any debate.

Lets try to keep the focus on the topic at hand and off of the person we are debating. I am sure most of us have enough character flaws to go around.
I admit to having more than my share.

I am a sinner no better or no worse than you.

...Only saved by Grace.

Apology accepted.


.