Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
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 | BradK | 183407 | ||
Hello Coper44, In my understanding, the major hurdle in Preterism is the (earlier)dating and time of Revelation. Dr. Gary Cohen in his work, "Understanding Revelation" notes, "That it was written by the apostle John (Rev.1:1, 4,9) at about A.D. 95-96 is firmly substantiated by the testimony of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 170). The tradition of the Church Fathers uniformly confirms Irenaeus' words. The advocates of an earlier date, A.D. 68-70 (F.W. Farrar, Schaff, et. al.), do so claiming that the internal evidence better seems to fit Nero's time, which assertion is both highly subjective and questionable." Bible.org ansers the following question regarding Matt. 16:28: "Question: Do Mat. 16:28 and Mark 9:1 discredit the second coming of Christ and the millennial kingdom? Answer: I believe these passages do refer to the coming kingdom of which some of the disciples would get a preview in the transfiguration that immediately followed. But this does not negate the reality of a future millennial reign of Christ as it is clearly taught in Revelation 20. Revelation specifically speaks of a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. Some, however, spiritualize this and many if not most of the books of Revelation. In other words, they take the Bible in a normal way until they come to prophecy, and then they spiritualize the prophetic passages to fit their bias. To answer your question, I’ll just include comments from some commentaries on these verses. 16:27-28 (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:26-27). As Jesus continued to instruct His disciples, He spoke prophetically of His second coming when He, the Son of Man, would return in His Father’s glory with His angels (cf. Matt. 24:30-31; 2 Thes. 1:7). As “the Son of . . . God” (Matt. 16:16) He possesses a divine nature, and as “the Son of Man” He possesses a human nature (cf. comments on 8:20). At that time the Lord will reward His servants for their faithfulness. Speaking of His return led Him to state that some disciples standing there with Him would be permitted to view His coming kingdom before they experienced death. This statement has caused many to misunderstand the kingdom program, for they wonder how the disciples saw the Lord coming in His kingdom. The explanation is found in the following event, the transfiguration (17:1-8). [Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.] 28. To stress the reality of his coming and kingdom as an incentive to men to follow him, even in suffering, Christ gave the promise of verse 28. This coming of the Son of man in his kingdom is explained by some as the destruction of Jerusalem and by others as the beginning of the Church. But referring it to the Transfiguration meets the requirements of the context (all Synoptists follow this statement with the Transfiguration, Mk 9:1; Lk 9:27). Furthermore, Peter, who was one of those standing here, referred to the Transfiguration in the same words (II Pet 1:16-18). Chafer calls the Transfiguration a “preview of the coming kingdom on earth” (L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, V, 85). 17:1-13. The Transfiguration. At this strategic moment in the ministry of Jesus, when he had evoked from Peter the true designation of himself (16:16), and had announced his coming death and resurrection, there was granted to three disciples this most remarkable experience. [Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1962.]" Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183589 | ||
BradK, I appreciate your timely response and your spirit of graciousness. However, I am still frustrated with the seeming lack of serious thought behind the opinions of those opposing preterism. I’m not speaking of you specifically but in more general terms (I’m in the process of reading as many futurist opinions supporting their theory, and opposing preterism, as possible). Most futurists I’ve read are content to quote commentaries or dismiss preterism as not possible because they see no evidence of the events being fulfilled in history. I think the best approach to pursuing truth is by comparing Scripture to Scripture. Not by referring back to commentaries, creeds or traditions (though they all have their place, they are clearly not inspired). Regarding the dating of Revelation, I have read the evidence that is most often quoted concerning Irenaeus. It is inconclusive at best. It is hardly enough to negate an earlier writing of Revelation and not enough to build an entire futurist doctrine on. The quote used by late-date supporters leaves plenty of room for an early-date theory. Some of the questions that remain regarding the late-date theory are: What events were impending “near” the proposed 95-96AD writing of Revelation, and what took place “soon” after? (Rev. 1:1-3, 3:10, 22:6,10) I have yet to run across anyone who believes Christ returned circa 100AD. The time-frame of Revelation, when considered along side audience-relevance and the internal evidence itself, makes no sense if John was writing in 95-96AD. On the other hand if John wrote in 65-66AD, the time-frame references make sense. It’s obvious that shortly after his writing (if 65-66AD), the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem were unprecedented in regards to bringing about the “end of the age” and also catastrophic as far as the entire Jewish economy was concerned. (The temple, priesthood, sacrifices etc. would be done away with, never to return!) These events are usually downplayed by those who support a yet future return of Christ. Concerning your answer regarding the Matt. 16:28 passage. You wrote that you “believe” the passage refers to the transfiguration. However, you did not address my earlier statement regarding that position (though you did quote commentaries, I would like to know how you think through this issue). I agree that the transfiguration was a remarkable experience for the disciples. It may even be considered a glimpse of the future kingdom as some assert. But again, do you really think Jesus would make a prophecy that included the fact that some of those standing before him would not die in the next six days? If you do, please explain the significance. The six day time period is the part of this prophecy that is being ignored by the futurist. The preterist would see verse 28 referring back to verse 27. When seen in this context, do you think that Jesus “came in the glory of his father with his angels, and repayed every man according to his deeds” at the transfiguration? If he didn’t, why do you think he would use eschatological language (v.27) just prior to informing them of events that would take place only six days later (v. 28 and 17:1-13)? And, by using the words “some standing here” wasn’t he implying that most of them would die before his coming (which was true by 70AD, but not within the next six days)? I hope you sense my frustration and realize that I mean no disrespect to you personally. I hope you can understand that I am trying to reconcile Scripture and my preconceived ideas. I was raised a pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensationalist. When confronted with the issues I’m raising here it turned my thinking upside down. And, I’m still trying to eliminate preterism as a viable alternative and as yet I’ve been unsuccessful. I really am trying to work my way through this issue and I won’t be satisfied until I can resolve the time-frame references and the audience-relevance as understood by the original writers and hearers of the Word of God. That, I believe, is the key to putting it all into its proper context and thereby discovering the truth. Thanks again for hearing me out, Coper |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183604 | ||
Hi Coper, What do you make of this passage? Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; What are the "last days" spoken of here, and when did they occur? What relevance does your answer to this question have towards how we view "time frames" in Biblical writings? From a different direction, concerning the prophecies, do we see literal fulfillments, or do we need to understand certain prophecies as symbolic in order to see them as having been fulfilled? If you answer yes to the latter, then I ask you, does the text give us that authority to without reservation declare that such-and-such passage is not be be understood as the plain statement it makes, but should be understood as actually referring to something other than what it says? To me, this is critically important, since if we are to make the claim that while the Bible says one thing, but actually means something else, we need to have a rock solid Biblical foundation for that claim. Do you believe that any given passage of Scripture has one truth (though there may be several applications), and that this truth is knowable? I would assert the the preterist view as it is predominantly taught is dependant on interpreting passages of Scripture in ways that are not supported by Scripture itself, and that if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183654 | ||
Mark, You are asking the same types of questions that I've been dealing with for some time now. I just finished writing to BradK and I covered some of the questions you asked. But, I'll answer you questions specifically to best of my ability. 1. What are the "last days" spoken of here, and when did they occur? The writer of the book of Hebrews was very specific in saying that they were living in the "last days". If they were living in the last days, how can any other time be considered the last days unless we re-define the word "last". If one holds that the entire 2000 year church age (up to now) has been the last days, it seems that the term loses all meaning. The last days of the church age would be longer than the entire old covenant age. So, the last days were to be considered by the first century audience the days leading up to Christ's return. Which by the way must have been understood by them to be within their generation, soon, at hand etc. 2. What relevance does your answer to this question have towards how we view "time frames" in Biblical writings? The time-frames are defined by the writers themselves. For example, what did Peter have in mind when he wrote: "The end of all things is near" 1 Pet. 4:7? Unless one re-defines "near" we must take Peter at face value. 3. ...does the text give us that authority to without reservation declare that such-and-such passage is not be be understood as the plain statement it makes, but should be understood as actually referring to something other than what it says? Of course we should understand Scripture in context. Having said that we must determine how to put something into context. We must ask: Who, what, where, why and how. Who was the writer. Who was he writing to. What was he saying to them etc. This is why I'm so focused on the time-frames and audience relevance in Scripture. It is the best way to begin to place the Scripture into its proper context. And, It is more difficult to misinterpret the text by applying something to someone it was not intended to be applied to. 4. Do you believe that any given passage of Scripture has one truth (though there may be several applications), and that this truth is knowable? Yes. Without question. That is why we must begin by placing Scripture into its proper context. Thanks for your excellant questions. Coper |
||||||
6 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183683 | ||
Hi Coper, Thank you for a good answer! I have to respond quickly, so this will be short. The "last days" referring to a 2000 period is relevant if the "first days" referred to a 4000 year period. There is the possiblitly that we re-defining the writers terms, but is it possible we are simply preferring our own definitions? We have to be sure we have defined the writers terms from within the text, and not just as we use these English translations today. But to the heart of the matter, if you believe that, for instance, the plagues of Revelation have happened (trumpets, bowls), then you need to show one of two things. Either that these events as described happened literally in the past, ---or--- how the text supports that these events as described do not refer to literal events, that they symbolize other events; you have to show, from the text, what they symbolize, and then be able to say where they happened in history. . . . without gaps, or leaving parts un-authenticated, or unfulfilled. Can you do either of these? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
7 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183722 | ||
Mark, Thanks for your compliment and your further questions. I would say first that I believe that the "first days", as far as the NT is concerned, is the old covenant period which was in force for, I believe, 1500 years or so. That would mean that the 2000 year "last days" are longer, by 500 years and counting, than the entire period that was said to be ending. Again, take a look at the Heb. 8:13 passage. I don't think that the burden of proof is on me or anyone else to show that the details of the relevant prophecies took place literally or spiritually in the past. Again, if the time-frame clearly spelled out in Scripture places these prophetic events in the first century the authority of Scripture itself depends on whether or not they took place as predicted. That is why I've said that we should thoroughly study the time-frames to settle the issue. If they show an imminent coming of Christ, then he, by necessity, returned in the first century. If they indicate no such imminency, then the question is open regarding a future coming. So, the burden of proof lies with you and others to eliminate the idea of an imminent coming of Christ from a first century perspective. With respect, Coper |
||||||
8 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183744 | ||
Greetings Coper! You wrote to Brad: "hat is why I've said that we should thoroughly study the time-frames to settle the issue. If they show an imminent coming of Christ, then he, by necessity, returned in the first century." In other words, you have already predetermined how any conversation about this topic is going to turn out since you have defined the terms to fit your position. Where exactly does Scripture define an imminent return as necessarily a first century return? This seems to be an assumption on your part. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183924 | ||
Tim, First, my intention was not to define the terms to "fit my position". I thought I was clear as to my motive. I asked if we could limit our discussions, at least initially, to the clear time frame of the NT and the audience to whom it was originally directed. Because, if we were to open it up to every relevant topic it would be endless and little would be accomplished. This is why I felt we could establish a foundation based on the more clear teachings of Scripture then we could go on to interpret the more obscure. By doing this we could eliminate unnecessary diversions. You asked, "Where exactly does Scripture define an imminent return as necessarily a first century return?" Scripture does not use the word "imminent" to my knowledge. However, most of the posts have expressed the fact that the NT repeatedly uses words like soon, near, at hand, about to be etc. to frame the coming events. How do you define these terms? Again, you would better understand the preterist perspective if you viewed the words of the NT writers from the perspective of their audiences. Have you done that? If you lived in that generation and heard Jesus and the Apostles speak those words how would you interpret them? Let me know what you come up with. Coper |
||||||