Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183345 | ||
I'm brand new to this forum so please let me know if I'm out of line with this question or if it's been asked and answered or if it's not allowed on this site. Most people that I've talked to about this verse (and related verses) either avoid it altogether or say that it refers to Christ's transfiguration which imediatlely follows in Matt. 17. I don't believe He is referring to His transfiguration since it took place only six or eight days later. It seems unlikely that Jesus would inform the disciples that some of them would not die in the next week. That's not much of a prophecy. My questions are: Is it possible that the coming of the Son of Man (The Second Coming) took place at the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem and fulfilled this prophecy and many others commonly thought to be yet future? Was the "end" spoken of in the New Testament simply referring to the end of the Old Coventant system rather than the end of the literal earth? I'm aware that this line of thinking is called Preterism. I've been introduced to it rather recently and I can't disprove it. It has become an obsession with me and I would appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this subject and redirect me back to a more proper understanding of Scripture. |
||||||
2 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | kalos | 183348 | ||
Part 1 Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner '"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24:34 'The above passage is found in what is referred to as the Olivet Discourse of Jesus given a few days before Christ's crucifixion. The context for Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' response to the questions of the disciples regarding His return and the end of the age. There are those in the church of Jesus Christ who understand "this generation" to refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking the day He gave the discourse. 'The apostle Paul recognized this error and warned Timothy of it when he wrote, "But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and...spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-18) 'Today, there is a resurgence of this teaching known as preterism. The term preterism comes from the Latin word praeterism and means "past" or already gone by. The basic teaching of preterism is that the great tribulation has already occured in the distant past, principally at AD 70. Those who hold to this teaching are known specifically as full preterists. There is another subgroup of preterists known as partial or moderate preterists. This latter group sees parts of the Olivet Discourse, or Jesus' teaching on end times, as partially fulfilled in AD 70 but other parts as yet to be fulfilled at the second parousia of Christ. Several efforts have been made to establish preterism as historically sound and biblical but the clear warning of Paul reminds us that it is a...false teaching. The following reasons are offered to the student of Scripture and prophecy for consideration. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and examine the Word to "see if these things are so."' ____________________ To read the rest of this article and find out what "the following reasons" are, go to (www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
3 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183375 | ||
Rev. Bill Lee-Warner, It seems to me that Paul was obviously dealing with a heresy that was taking place prior to 70AD. Preterism says that Christ came back in approx. 70AD. So, Paul was definitely not refuting preterism. I wouldn't consider the discussion of Scripture and doctrines like the imminent return of Christ "empty chatter". Most prterists that I've talked to are sincerely interested in pursuing truth through a better understanding of Scripture. And, that is precisly what Paul was encouraging the Bereans to do. |
||||||
4 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | kalos | 183388 | ||
Part 2 Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'If the Rapture "has already taken place", then the resurrection has already taken place. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 writes of the day when the final "trumpet" for believers will be blown and mortality will put on immortality. In this passage, he links the Rapture with the resurrection of believers. In other words, when the Rapture takes place, the resurrection occurs. 'Those who insist that the events of Matthew 24 are history and say that the "generation that sees these things" was the generation concurrent with Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago, must of necessity show that the resurrection has also taken place. The only way that is possible is to spiritualize the text by saying that the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a physical one. 'Moderate (or partial) preterist, R.C. Sproul recognizes this when he says, To maintain that these events [the Olivet teaching] were indeed fulfilled in the first century, one must interpret the relevant passages in a way that makes early fulfillment possible. The most severe obstacle [to that] is the absence of any historical record that the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead occurred. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 161) 'There are two serious problems with understanding the resurrection as a "spiritual" event. R.C. Sproul says, The first difficulty is that it [Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15] involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically. ... if one announces or predicts things that will take place in the arena of real history involving physical reality, then empirical verification becomes relevant and crucial...It is unfortunate that the apostle failed to alert the Corinthians-and us, by extension-that he was speaking of a secret, hidden, spiritual resurrection. His language certainly suggests something else, particularly as Paul so clearly conjoins the resurrection of our bodies with the resurrection of Christ's body. The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of all who will be raised. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 162) 'And what was the resurrected body of Jesus like? First, the tomb was empty. In other words, there was a physical body in it but on the day of His resurrection, it became empty. A body had departed from it. Second, he had a glorified body. It was different from His previous mortal body, but it was the same body. Third, Jesus was visible to the disciples until the time He ascended and was touched by them and ate with them. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body, not a spiritualized one. 'A theological problem with a spiritualized understanding of the resurrection is likewise addressed by R.C. Sproul - If a spiritual body cannot be seen, touched, or handled, is it a body at all? It is one thing to say that our resurrected bodies will be spiritiual bodies, but quite another to imply that our resurrected bodies will be merely spirits. The Bible speaks of spiritual bodies. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 164) 'A common problem among interpreters of the Bible is that of "shifting gears". If a person approaches his interpretation of the Bible with, for example, a face value hermeneutic, then it is critical that he remain consistent with his approach. However, many often "flip flop" in their interpretation approach to maintain a preconceived understanding of a text. An example of this is the above. Preterists interpret "this generation" in the simple sense as meaning the generation concurrent with Christ and then suddenly "shift gears" and apply a figurative approach to arrive at a spiritualized understanding of the Rapture and the resurrection. That is an inconsistent hermeneutic and leads to error. 'When spiritualization is introduced into one's interpretation, Pandora's box is opened and various meanings can be understood. The only way the integrity of the Author/author's wording and meaning can be preserved is by taking Scripture at face value. Taking Scripture at face value means that the student of Scripture recognizes the difference between what can be called the "simple sense" of a passage and what is understood as a literal understanding. A literal understanding includes the examination of the historical/cultural and lexical/syntactical considerations. It also recognizes symbols and figures of speech and realizes there is a referent for them. For further information on hermeneutical principles, see the "links" section of this website for an explanation.' (Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
5 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183592 | ||
Rev. Bill, Thanks for your input. In my opinion you are correct when you place the resurrection and the rapture together at the coming of Christ. I would add that the judgement takes place in this context also. Scripture does not say that Jesus came out of the tomb in a glorified body. He came out in a resurrected physical body similar to Lazarus and others who had been raised from the dead. He said as he was eating with the disciples that his body was flesh and bone. He received his spiritual, glorified body at his acension. According to Scripture our flesh and bone body will not leave this earth. However, God has a body prepared for us in heaven (II Cor. 5:1,8). We will one day be absent from this body and present with the Lord. You mentioned taking Scripture at face value and recognizing the "simple sense" of a passage. This is where I get confused in my search for truth. Why don't we take words like "soon", "at hand", "near" etc. at "face value". It seems that a "literal understanding" is thrown out when it comes to interpreting the time-frame references in the eschatalogical passages throughout the NT. To be fair to both sides, Do you see that as "shifting gears" on the part of the futurist? Again, I'm trying to come to a conclusion about preterism but when both sides of the debate use the same method of interpretation that they say the other side shouldn't use it keeps the entire issue unsettled. Thanks again for your help, Coper |
||||||
6 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | DocTrinsograce | 183624 | ||
Dear Coper, The eschatology questions are debatable. But you certainly won't find "lack of serious thought" on the nature of the resurrection. That "spiritual body" stuff is often promulgated by Mormons, and a few other fringe teachers. It certainly isn't taught by Christian orthodoxy (see post #183147), nor is it supported by a sound exegesis of Scripture. I'm curious about that statement you made to our Brother Brad: "I am still frustrated with the seeming lack of serious thought behind the opinions of those opposing preterism." (sic) I've come across rather extensive discussions of Preterism in just about every systematic theology I've had the pleasure of perusing. It has been commonly debated since Athanasius and Augustine, and far more frequently in the last four centuries. I'd venture to suppose that theologians of every eschatological stripe have given serious thought to the question. If there seems to be a lack of serious thought on the topic by those in disagreement with Preterism, I'd encourage you to do more extensive reading. In Him, Doc |
||||||
7 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183651 | ||
Doc, You seem to have taken exception to my "lack of serious thought" statement. All I meant by that was that in my limited study and personal experience in discussing the issue of preterism with friends who are futurists the topic is usually either dismissed or avoided. When I've run across one who does try to explain why the view is considered heretical they tend to do so, not with Scripture per se, but with traditions and creeds. And, by saying as you have, that it is outside Christian unorthodoxy (which they define using tradition and creeds). The time-frame issue is not treated honestly, in my opinion, by most futurists that I've come across. I readily admit that I have a long way to go before I have a good grip on the majority opinion of those opposed to preterism. However, that is my motivation for asking folks like you to share your opinion. I'm still in the process of trying to understand the time-frame and audience relevance perspective. I am currently doing "more extensive reading" together with discussing the issue here and with others. I'm sure there is ultimate truth regarding this and I intend to continue pursuing it. Coper |
||||||
8 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | DocTrinsograce | 183656 | ||
Hi, Coper... No, I didn't take exception... If I had, I would have written, "I take exception to thus and so!" :-) Don't eschew creeds and tradition over much, son. (You don't want to get into the proverbial baby and bathwater problem.) The creeds are particularly valuable as a kind of maidservant to the Church in support of the Scripture. What authority they have is, of course, only to the extent that they derive such authority from the Word itself. Take, for example, from my own preferred confession, how the old divines actually placed their own opinion subordinate to the Scriptures: "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. (Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23)" The problem arises when confessions, creeds, and tradition are given greater authority than the Scriptures. That's when we have a serious malady indeed! You're right, there is ultimate truth. The problem is that we aren't assured of possessing all of that truth in this life time. (We are assured of knowing enough ultimate truth to insure Godly and righteous lives.) In particular, some prophecy may only become clear after our lifetimes. Prophecy is actually given in a manner that is intentionally hazy, although unquestionably clear after it has been fulfilled. I can demonstrate these things from Scripture if you like. I'd encourage you in all your study that you beware of becoming monothematic. We see that frequently on the forum. Folks get so zeroed in on one theme that they miss the full spectrum of revealed truth. If you hang around the forum long enough, you'll see this happen all too frequently. God bless you in your studies. In Him, Doc PS You're probably right that ultimate truth in eschatology doesn't rest in any one camp. Frankly, I am certain that there are things that we will discover that no one got right! |
||||||
9 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183673 | ||
Doc, Thanks again for the spirit with which you write. Others have pointed out to me the need to hold the creeds and traditions of the church in high regard. And I do. However, I am trying to focus entirely on the content of Scripture to resolve this issue. In this instance, the creeds and traditions only serve as distractions (please don't respond to that I do mean it with respect). As I've said before, if one focuses on placing Scripture into its proper context everything should eventually fall into place. I am aware that its not easy to do that. And, I'm also aware that most interpreters believe they are doing it. However, I'm trying not to become distracted by those who would dismiss this issue or treat it like it is disruptive to the unity of the church etc. And, I do say this with respect also: When I'm told that "we aren't assured of possessing all of that truth in this life time" I cringe a little. Who gets to determine which truths to pursue and which truth is beyond pursuit? After all, the Bible is God's revealed truth. Some resort to those "unsearchable truth" type statements when they are challenged to defend a doctrine that is becoming indefensible for them. I can tell that you are more learned and informed than others I've corresponded with, but I honestly don't consider a preteristic approach to Scripture beyond searchable truth. Again, please help me focus on the mindset of the first century church in regard to the writer's intentions and their expectations. Did they believe Jesus would return in their lifetime? If so, didn't they believe it because an inspired apostle or the Lord himself told them that he would return soon, in their lifetime? Did they believe that the coming of Christ would bring relief to them from the afflictions they were suffering? (II Thess. 1:6-8) Aren't we really reading someone elses mail and trying to apply it to ourselves? Again, the reason we should make every effort to determine the context of Scripture is to determine what God's Word means. And, that is everyone's goal, right? Coper |
||||||
10 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | DocTrinsograce | 183682 | ||
Dear Coper, You asked, "Who gets to determine which truths to pursue and which truth is beyond pursuit?" "Beyond pursuit?" I did not use this wording. What I wrote was "we aren't assured of possessing all truth." You have brought up an entirely different subject. All that the Bible contains is true, but the Bible does not contain all truth. In that sense, there are things that we know to be true that Paul, for example, did not know. Some of the doctrines we hold as commonplace today, were not so conveniently articulated even by the apostles. In the intervening centuries, by careful, considered, contemplation, and cogitation of the revelation of Scripture has yielded a great deal of fruit. "Now we see darkly, as in a mirror." But occasionally, by exertion and debate, we are able to see a bit more clearly. For in this process we have Biblical precedent. The prophets desired to understand many things that we now see clearly, because God has provided further revelation (1 Peter 1:10-12). There's even indications in verse 12 that the angelic host of heaven desire for their knowledge to be expanded in some areas. There are a myriad of things to which we simply are not meant to be privy (Deuteronomy 29:29). The old divines deemed that this included the "secret will of God." Some of that will be revealed in time. But there are other things that we simply will never know, even in glory. Isn't that obvious, given our nature and given the nature of our Maker? You asked, "Did they believe Jesus would return in their lifetime?" Yes, they did. Look at John 28:18-24. Here we have John explicitly refuting such a misunderstanding of the words of Christ Himself. Also, as you've pointed out, the Thessalonians were expecting His imminent return. But aren't all the redeemed? And aren't we commanded to do so? (cf Mark 13:31-32) You asked, "If so, didn't they believe it because an inspired apostle or the Lord himself told them that he would return soon, in their lifetime?" (sic) See above. You asked, "Did they believe that the coming of Christ would bring relief to them from the afflictions they were suffering? (II Thess. 1:6-8)" Yes, there is great hope in Christ's return. We long for it because we so deeply desire to behold the Object of our devotion. We long for it because it represents the beginning of the consummation of the final stage of our transformation. I quoted Moltmann just the other day when I posted, "Eschatology means the doctrine of Christian hope, which embraces both the object hoped for and also the hope inspired by it. From first to last, and not merely in epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore is also revolutionizing and transforming the present. The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but is the medium of Christian faith as such, the key in which everything in it is set, the glow that suffuses everything here in the dawn of an expected new day." You asked, "Aren't we really reading someone elses mail and trying to apply it to ourselves?" (sic) Yes, some of it was "someone else's mail." (Take for example the pastoral epistles.) But how do you think we got that mail? We aren't just snooping! :-) Certainly the Holy Spirit was responsible for the Word being made available to us. (There are many, many other letters and sermons that haven't made it to us... they simply aren't Scripture!) From a purely human standpoint, clearly Timothy and Titus recognized the value of the letters they received from Paul for subsequent generations. Some mail contained explicit instructions for its dissemination (Colossians 4:16); some were written to survive their writers (2 Peter 1:15); some were written directly to all of us (John 20:31; Revelation 1:3). In Him, Doc |
||||||