Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Preterism refuted by Scripture alone | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183374 | ||
BradK, Thanks for your response it was helpful. It seems from your quote of Spurgeon that he was possibly a partial preterist. However, I can't agree with the quote you used from The Bible Knowledge Commentary. I don't think Jesus could have been referring to the transfiguration because not enough time passed to make this prophecy, of some of the disciples not dying, relevant (six to eight days). I have a few more questions about this. Do you believe that Jesus could have been unsealing the previously sealed book of Daniel in Matt. 24:15 for that generation? If so, it would indicate that "this generation" was indeed living in the time of the end. Also, do you consider Matt. 24:32-34 and James 5:7-9 parallel passages? If the preterist is correct, Jesus was telling His 30AD audience that they would be able to recognize the signs of His coming when He, as Judge, would be standing "at the door". Then James tells his audience 20-30 years later that they should be patient because the coming of Christ was near and that the Judge was standing "at the door". A 70AD coming would certainly fit that scenario. Also, I have asked a few people to explain to me how the NT writers could be inspired by God to write to their audiences about the imminent coming of Christ (and they all did) if God didn't intend to send Christ back for thousands of years. Surely God could have used language like he used in Daniel and said that it wouldn't take place for long period of time. Thanks again for your time. |
||||||
2 | Preterism refuted by Scripture alone | Matt 16:28 | DocTrinsograce | 183376 | ||
Hi, Coper... You might find the links at the following web page of interest in your study. They represent a rather broad set of eschatalogical perspectives. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/eschatology.html Regarding your question, "how the NT writers could be inspired by God to write to their audiences about the imminent coming of Christ (and they all did) if God didn't intend to send Christ back for thousands of years?" It is true that all Scripture was written to a specific set of people at a particular time in history to address specific issues. Remember that God is not bound by time. Time is an artifact created by Him, a medium in which His creatures function. Consequently, God doesn't necessarily even think in a chronological fashion (Isaiah 55:8). In His providence, as He inspired any given writing (2 Timothy 3:16), would it be any problem for Him to have done so in order to speak to the needs of the contemporary readers, people from the middle ages, folks in Geneva in the 16th century, or 21st century Internet users? When you think of God working in His eternal purpose for His glory through the redemption of His people, you have to broaden your thinking! In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Preterism refuted by Scripture alone | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183591 | ||
Doc, In reading my response to BradK I'm sure you will understand my situation a little better. However, I would like to address a few of the points you brought up. I agree that God exists outside of time and that He created time as a medium in which we function. At the same time (no pun intended) I'm sure you would agree that He also inspired the writers of the Bible to direct His word to us. He was not speaking either in a vacuum or indiscrimantely. So, when He used words like "soon", "near", "at hand", "shortly" etc. I'm sure you would agree that He did so in order to communicate to us something we could understand and relate to. He told Daniel to seal up his vision because it was something that would not take place for a long period of time. It was for the time of the end. Then He told John not to seal up his vision because the time was at hand. If God chose to communicate a distant time-frame to Daniel, why do we resist an imminent time-frame when it comes to John? Could it be due our own pre-conceived bias? So, though everyone agrees that God is not bound by time, when He communicates to us He uses a format that we are familiar with: time-frame and audience-relevance. That is why it appears to me that it is the preterist who has broadened their thinking! Thanks for your time, Coper |
||||||
4 | Preterism refuted by Scripture alone | Matt 16:28 | DocTrinsograce | 183597 | ||
Dear Coper, Sounds like a adequate conclusion to me. Although I'm not a full Preterist, I'm not much bothered by them. I rather think the Left Behind bunch tend to exploit a preoccupation that reflects something that is spiritually unhealthy. Sometimes it seems to boarder on the fascination that is exploited by the fortune-teller. The Bible is so rich with the business that I must be about right now, why get so wrapped up in the future? God is sovereign, no doubt the future is fully in His capable hands. God graciously grants grace for this day's work of progressive sanctification. He is the author and finisher of my faith. If conforming me to the image of His Son is His primary work of the moment, why should my mind be off focused on other things? Isn't this clear from the amount of space taken in the kyrigma of apocalyptic writing versus didactic writing? Oh well... just my two widow's mites on the topic. In Him, Doc |
||||||