purpose of prophecy

[Guest]

freelancer-

i've been listening to the gospel series- the life and teachings of christ-- it is excellent of course, but they all are so you probably cant go wrong.

TK

[Guest]

First, I don't think there is anything urgent about understanding eschatology. If prophecies have already been fulfilled, and the futurists don't recognise it, then they simply miss-out on some of the impressive proofs that God knew the future before it came to pass. The worst-case scenario would NOT be that they mistakenly look for a future fulfillment of something that has already happened, but that they would get zealously distracted with the whole impractical category of unfulfilled prophecy, and neglect the weightier matters of the teachings of Christ. In that case, the problem was not with their misunderstanding of eschatology, but with the shallowness and the immaturity of their Christian lives. Correct eschatology wouldn't have remedied that problem.

It seems to me that preterists and partial preterists seem to concentrate on and are "zealously distracted" by their own eschatology. I've noticed it is 85% of the conversation on here, even when you guys aren't trying to prove your points to someone like myself that does not believe the way you do.

This isn't meant to be offensive. All I'm saying is that there are people on either side of this eschatological debate that are distracted in their own views. For instance why is it important if Ch's 6 - 20 of Revelation are describing the past? Why dwell on it, read books about it, study so hard into it if it's past. But if it is future then we have something to warn those that aren't in Christ about.

[Guest]

Good point, AD

i am not emotionally attached to either view. i was pretty much your typical believer in the rapture before the literal 7 yr trib with a literal antichrist and literal 2nd coming of christ and literal 1000 yr millenium until a few months ago, but steve's teachings and others here have challenged those views somewhat- actually to a great degree.

since i am not a die hard proponent either way, i am not sure i can exactly explain the amt of attention the topic gets, but the preterist or partial preterist may feel it is necessary to "correct" what they perceive to be the very wrong impression that has been ingrained into modern evangelicalism by the "Left Behind" series, etc. you should have seen the color drain from my mom's face when i began explaining the alternative views to her.

of course, it is important to teach the truth, which i believe is obviously Steve's motivation. so i think it is good to hear both sides, so one can make up their own mind. the great majority of people sitting in churches today only hear one side, i.e. the dispensational side. at least that is my impression. one thing i have noted in my church is that my pastor seems to avoid the topic altogether. i havent heard him preach on end times in 6 years.

TK

[Guest]

I agree TK. THere are points that the P.P.'s make that are very good. Some I have come to see where their (as I believe) error is, and some I think are difficult if not impossible to refute. But as I looked deeper into both understandings I came to the conclusion that so many OT prophesies are made to mean nothing even resembling what they plainly say....Such as where it is stated that Nations would learn war no more...I can't for the life of me see this in todays world.

[Guest]

For instance why is it important if Ch's 6 - 20 of Revelation are describing the past? Why dwell on it, read books about it, study so hard into it if it's past. But if it is future then we have something to warn those that aren't in Christ about.

I would agree with you that many on all sides of the eschatological debate know much about their theological system, but know little obedience to Jesus.

Regarding the red statement in your quote, what about the futurist position gives them "...something to warn..." unbelievers about more than other eschatological positions?Shouldn't our warning for unbelievers transcend eschatology and center around the fact that we'll all stand before God to give an account and that repentance and obedience brings glory to God?

IMHO, calling people to turn to Christ based on a disputable, secondary matter leads to conversions based on weak faith and lack of perserverance.

Matthew 13:18-23
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

[Guest]

excellent schoel. i agree wholeheartedly!

TK

[Guest]

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, Paidon wrote:
"If the great tribulation period should begin to take place during our life time, both the preterists and the pre-trib rapturists will be mentally unprepared. The preterists will think, "This wasn't supposed to happen. I thought it all happened in 70 A.D."

I have been as mentally prepared for tribulation as I could possibly be for the last 35 years—more than half of which time I have held the preterist view of the Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation. I don't think one's preparedness to suffer has any dependency upon his eschatology but only upon his love for Jesus. There is no tribulation described in scripture (whether past or future) whose impact would test the resolve of Christians more than that which has been already suffered by the saints under the emperors, or the dissenters in the Middle Ages, under the popes, or our brethren in Communist countries. It would not have mattered at all what their eschatology was.

If the Bible describes a future tribulation in the passages in which most people find such, it will be characterized by two fearful features: 1) plagues from God, which are sent upon the unbelievers, not the believers, and 2) persecution and martyrdom of believers, which is not a new thing in any sense, and which believers in every age must be prepared to face. Therefore, I can't imagine how believing in a future tribulation would change anything in the way of the common preparedness required of all saints.

Second, Aaron expressed an impression that the preterists are pretty obsessed by their eschatology, judging from the posts here.

Most people who post in the "Eschatology" forum here, whether preterist or not, seem interested in advancing their own understanding of eschatology. I can see little other reason to post in this category.

Some, it is true, advance no position, but only post questions about eschatology. I think preterists post explanations of their views in this forum no more or less than the number of times that questions are posted to them asking for their explanation, or else non-preterists have attacked them, obliging them to respond. I know that I have not posted any comments about my eschatology here without first being asked or challenged.

It may be true that the preterists provide longer answers than do the futurists. However, in most cases this is because the preterists have desired to give the biblical reasons for their position, while, far too often, the futurists only want to make assertions without the necessary explanation or biblical defense. It does take fewer words to make bare assertions than, having made assertions, to exegete relevant scriptures in order to explain the basis and validity of those assertions. Those who have posted long preterist diatribes have usually written more due to the latter considerations. I have not found it to be the case that the preterists are more interested in winning the agreement of dispensationalists than the other way around.

[Guest]

far too often, the futurists only want to make assertions without the necessary explanation or biblical defense. It does take fewer words to make bare assertions than, having made assertions, to exegete relevant scriptures in order to explain the basis and validity of those assertions.

I agree that there are far too many wild assertions from the futurist side of the issue. THings that they say things must mean when there is no real reason to believe so other than a hunch. But I don't believe that the preterists are exempt from this either.
To say that right now the nations are not learning war and have beat their swords into plowshares is an awfully big stretch for instance. There is not a whole lot of difference between Jack Van Impe's assertions and that. You will only be making that statement mean something wildly different than what is stated if you are amil.

And of course there are many other verses and ideas that the PP's make strange assertions of that can't be opposed because they are simply making them mean what they will. And as much as I try to imply how odd it is that they assume it means what they say it means. They will only insist that it means such and such. No different than a dispenstional explanation.

[Guest]

Arron, since you brought it up, I suggest you listen to http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/bible ... Isaiah.mp3 and start at around time sequence 35:00 to the end of the recording and tell us where it is that you disagree with Steve on this lecture.

[Guest]

far too often, the futurists only want to make assertions without the necessary explanation or biblical defense. It does take fewer words to make bare assertions than, having made assertions, to exegete relevant scriptures in order to explain the basis and validity of those assertions.

I agree that there are far too many wild assertions from the futurist side of the issue. THings that they say things must mean when there is no real reason to believe so other than a hunch. But I don't believe that the preterists are exempt from this either.
To say that right now the nations are not learning war and have beat their swords into plowshares is an awfully big stretch for instance. There is not a whole lot of difference between Jack Van Impe's assertions and that. You will only be making that statement mean something wildly different than what is stated if you are amil.

And of course there are many other verses and ideas that the PP's make strange assertions of that can't be opposed because they are simply making them mean what they will. And as much as I try to imply how odd it is that they assume it means what they say it means. They will only insist that it means such and such. No different than a dispenstional explanation.

Hi Aaron,
I mean this in the nicest possible way, I'm wondering if you've studied the reason(s) why preterists interpret Isaiah 2 the way they do?

I asked this once before, pointing to an mp3 file series of Steve's (Topical Isaiah) were he goes into this in detail. You responded at that time that you weren't interested into hearing why people reach this conclusion. Instead, you just wanted to voice your concern that you don't know how someone would interpret that passage that way.

To be honest, you seem to be making Steve's point for him. (You assert that Isaiah 2 must be literal but don't explain or try and prove why). I enjoy any discussion where both sides try to understand the other side's position. It may not seem like I do this, but I certainly try to not only understand (in this case) the dispensational position but I actually try to learn it to the point I convince myself it's valid. Then, in that mindset I look honestly at the weaknesses and try to defend against them. I do the same with my own position, so I'm aware of it's weaknesses.

Peace to you Aaron, no matter what view you end up with.