Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183626 | ||
Hello Coper44, I appreciate your response on this question. I (too) would hail from the pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensationalist viewpoint as far as my eschatology goes. Let me offer a comment and 3 points that tip my viewpoint away from adopting preterism. I’m by no means an expert on prophecy and specifically preterism, but my views are based on where I’m at after 20-plus years as a believer. I would completely agree that “the best approach to pursuing truth is by comparing Scripture to Scripture.” I can empathize with your statement that you’re “frustrated with the seeming lack of serious thought behind the opinions of those opposing preterism. However, this seems more of an opinion, than an undisputed fact:-) I don’t see this as an issue. 1. Preterism is not widely held within the pale of Orthodoxy. While this doesn’t condemn it or invalidate it, I find it somewhat telling; 2. The issue of an earlier vs. later dating of Revelation lacks compelling support to me. This is really the crux upon which preterism hinges; 3. I think Acts 1:11 offers a valid point against the Preterist view that denies Christ's literal and bodily second coming. Allow me to quote in part, Dr. Mal Couch regarding the passage: “There are many biblical answers to the liberal view of prophecy called Preterism. But a little tucked away verse in Acts 1 makes a strong argument against the anti-biblical teaching of Preterism that denies Christ's literal and bodily second coming." What is being labeled Full-Preterism teaches that Jesus has already returned to the earth around AD 70. Arguing from both sides of their mouths, they say that Christ came back "in person," though His resurrected body did not appear in the sky to signal this special coming, "nor will it," they say. Yet, "his bodily Presence was there." Partial-Preterism would agree with this argument, but would add that there is still a future literal second coming in the future. In other words, there are two second-comings. The Clear Statement of Acts 1:11 As the Lord Jesus bodily went into heaven, and the disciples "were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing," two angels appeared and stood beside them (v. 10). They said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky?" Because This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven. (v. 11)" I quote from “authorities” or commentaries because they have, for the most part provided a sound framework with regard to perspective. As C.H. Spurgeon wisely noted, “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.” Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183636 | ||
Hi, We must be careful that we do not just fit Scripture into a neat pattern. It is dealing with matters of huge complexity. For example there is no doubt that Jesus came to His disciples at Pentecost. His promise was 'lo I am with you always even to the end of the age (Matthew 28.20). It is not enough to say that He came in the Holy Spirit. He was talking about Himself personally. At Pentecost they were to see 'the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule (Matthew 16.28) which had to happen in the disciples' lifetime and it continued on through Acts. Indeed we must distinguish His coming in power (to happen 'from now on' - Matthew 26.64 which has in mind Daniel 7.13-14 where the coming is to the throne of God but as Jesus says to be revealed in power on earth - 'you will see') from His coming in glory (Matthew 16.27; 24.30-31). But this is not to see two 'second comings'. If you like His coming in power was a continuation of His first coming. Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming' (although it does speak of His coming personally at the consummation of all things). Jesus' activity is not to be limited to two events, although His bodily ptresence is. We must not be tied down to a primitive way of simplifying the complexity of God's ways. We do love to systematise everything. And then if we are not careful we become arrogant and think that only we are right. With regard to interpreting the Old Testament we should recognise that the New Testament sees much of it as fulfilled in the heavenly Kingdom and the true Jerusalem as being the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.24-28; Hebrews 12.22; and regularly in Revelation. The New Testament does not take the 'literalist' stand. It recognises thet the Old Testament prophets had to describe things in the terms that could be understood in their own day (there was then no conception of a possible hevenly kingdom), but much of what they said could not be taken literally (although of course much could). We must use discernment. For fuller treatments of these subjects see http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183645 | ||
Hello jonp, Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure if they were directed to me, as I have a bit of trouble connecting what you said to the matter of Preterism. Did I miss something? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183649 | ||
Hi Brad, My point is partly that we do not necessarily have to say 'this position is right' or 'this position is wrong'. Very often there is truth in a number of positions because the Bible has a number of factors in mind. That is why people have garnered them from The Scriptures. Thus the fact that Jesus in some way 'came' in the destruction of Jerusalem does not necessarily signify that He will not come personally at His second coming, and vice versa. The problem lies in our trying to fit divers verses into a single picture. See the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183679 | ||
Greetings Jonp! One problem with your position here is that preterist's don't claim Jesus came in some sense in 70 a.d. and that He will also come again in the future. They claim that Jesus did return in 70 a.d. and that is the end of the story. :-( So, these two positions cannot be harmonized. They are mutually exclusive. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183685 | ||
Hi Tim. The danger with labels is that we can begin to isolate ideas. As with Futurists there are different types of Preterist. There are many who both believe that Jesus in some sense came at the destruction of Jerusalem (and at Pentecost) but still believe in His return in glory. Cearly those who do not believe in a visible return of Christ must be seen as stretching Scripture, but that is not true of all Preterists. See the Commentary on Revelation at http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ which coul be described as both preterist and futurist. It is all a matter of definition. Best wishes jonp | ||||||