Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | Coper44 | 184880 | ||
Jeff, You're right. I shouldn't have precluded other views. I'm not dogmatic about my opinion, it's just that, an opinion. I would like to share with you why I've arrived at the position you can't accept. Matt. 28:16-20 clearly states that it was directed to the eleven disciples. I don't see how that's debatable but maybe it is. Notice especially verses 18-20: 18And Jesus came and said to THEM, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded YOU. And behold, I am with YOU always, TO THE END OF THE AGE." I see Rom. 16:25,26 and Col. 1:23 (notice the past tense) to be the fulfillment of Matt. 24:14 and Matt. 28:19,20. When viewed in light of these passages, the eleven did not fail to fulfill the command of Christ. They succeeded and were victorious. If you and others see it differently that's fine. It's nothing to divide over. I would rather use Rom. 10:14-17 as the reason we preach the gospel. One may call it a matter of semantics but I think it is more in line with the meaning and context of Scripture. I am not one of the "many who wish not to take seriously the responsibilities of reaching the lost" and I apologize for implying that the majority of Christians are guilty of abusing Scripture. That was putting it too harshly and went further than I intended. I just think that when we share our opinion of Scripture we should make every effort to frame them in their proper context. Thanks again for your patience and hearing me out. Coper |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Hank | 184881 | ||
Coper: With your preterist views I patently disagree, which means that I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this forum, inasmuch as, by and large, you have been on this single track since you registered. Early on, however, you did make one statement with which I've no problem agreeing in light of your subsequent posts, which validate it. You admitted that eschatology had become an obsession with you, and your posts corroborate your admission. But friend Coper, this forum is no place to vent one's spleen of obsessions. The guidelines instituted by our friends at Lockman Foundation are there for the smooth operation of SBF and the benefit of its many readers and active contributors. They simply must be honored, and if they are not, errant registrants will lose their privilege to post to SBF. That's how it is. May we enjoin you to read carefully the terms of use if you have any serious intention of continuing to post to the forum? And as for this practically interminable marathon with the preterist brand of eschatology, it's past time to put it back in the box and let it rest. In plain language, knock it off! --Hank | ||||||