"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[Guest]

Crusader,

I didn't expect that you would actually answer my question, because you can't do so honestly. Perhaps you are simply parroting those teachers you admire (Ice, Hocking, etc.) who have exhausted their ability to simply defend their position with biblical exegesis and have desperately resorted to rhetoric and paranoia tactics.

What I find "dangerous" to the body of Christ (and to unsuspecting masses of Christians who blindly follow these teachers) is not the failing doctrine of dispensationalism, but the divisive attitude that is sown along with it. In my former church alone, I've heard such statements about Amillenialism as being "from the pit of hell", "doctrine of demons", "anti-semitic", etc. etc.

These type of statements simply show the desperate and futile attempt to isolate people from contrary viewpoints by those who want (or even need to) to cling to this doctrine. The unfortunate side effect of this alarmist attitude is an unnecessary wall of division built within the body of Christ. Fellowship is broken, the Great Commission is hindered, and the Spirit is quenched for the sake of proud committment to a very non-essential doctrine rather than a humble and submissive search for truth. That is the real tragedy and "danger" in my opinion.

What did Jesus say to John when he tried to stop someone outside their group from doing service in His name?

Luke 9:50
"Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side."
NKJV

Paul also exhorts us to....

2 Tim 2:22
pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
NKJV

It is one thing to joke around with others with opposing viewpoints on this, but I think it's quite irresponsible to draw inappropriate lines in the sand by planting false ideas of spiritual peril in the minds of others.

If nothing else, I hope we can at least get past that.

[Jill]

Hi Christopher

My problem is that Im a person who believes in rightly dividing the word and if someone gets there feelings hurt then so be it. We are never asked to walk by feelings but by faith. Debating the non essential issues is just that and shouldnt seperate mature beleivers in the Lord. But with all that said if a view is so off base as to push the limits of acceptability then that should be said and not kept silent. I am not a theologian but Ive been a born again Christian for 32 years and like to read and study Gods Word. In between these brief postings I work and raise children and enjoy life. I dont loose my grip and go to sleep bummed out that you guys post all your different views and say things like I just parrot Ice and Hocking...to me it sounds like you are upset and its because you may just be realizing how far out your views of eschatology really are but thats only speculation on my part. But you guys sure seem to want to provoke me or something which I am not going to do. But I do feel alarmed that you want to say most of if not all of Revelation has been fulfilled? From what Ive gathered a true preterist beleives the ressurection has occured! You can expand on that if you would like too. Plus that Jesus returned in the clouds in 70 A.D.? Plus the greatest tribulation the world ahs ever seen occured in 70 A.D.? Allyn illuded to my not being able to see the deeper preterist truths if I dont believe the Church replaced Israel,are these the truths he meant? Do you know what Paul said 2nd Timothy 2:4-19


4Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"[a] and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."


So like you all said I went and researched your own preterist information and I came away with the distinct impression that you believe the Resurrectiuon has already happened. I still cant beleive you think that and am hoping you will deny such rubbish.


Crusader

[Guest]

There is full preterism as you described and there is partial preterism which believes the plagues in Rev were about Jerusaem 70AD and that Jesus will come in judgement on the last day at the end of this age as it says in John at least a half a dozen times. Never mentions anything about Him coming a third time. At that time everyone gets resurrected in the same day not a thousand years apart. This would be the consummation of this age ,PPs don't see a millineum afterwards.
Of course i guess you could say Peter who quoted Moses said "a day to God is like a thousand years to man" meaning the last day could be a thousand years but there are so many difficulties with a millineum.
Lastly the PPs believe Rev was written around 65AD.

[Guest]

Crusader,
Here is something written on these forums which I believe all of us could agree to. These were written by Steve - whom you choose not to recognize. This statement expresses who we are as preterists who do not hold to the full-preterist view. Do whatever you want with this but for the last time, don't say you know about us unless you have read this.

To those who have a concern that the Lord has already come, I can only say that I hope it may not be far off. There are many things about the present age that make it hard to imagine what the world could possibly be like a hundred years from now, if the Lord should tarry. The fact that I have children, and look forward to having grandchildren makes me hope that the Lord may come before some of the current societal trends that are only in their germinal stages right now begin to flower. However, things can be pretty bad for centuries without it signalling the near coming of Christ (think of the Imperial persecutions and the Dark Ages!).

On the other hand, things may get unexpectedly better. I, for one, have been praying for revival. If God sends one, that would be worth staying around for!

As for concrete indicators of the near coming of Christ, the Bible doesn't give many. Most of the signs that are popularly applied to that topic (e.g., earthquakes, famines, pestilence, false christs, wars and rumors of wars) are not really applicable, and are found in passages related to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).

The one thing the Bible does indicate is that Christ will come after certain developments have occurred within His body, the church.

One of these is the evangelization of the nations. Though Matthew 24:14 may or may not be talking about conditions that were met prior to 70 AD (cf. Col.1:6, 23), it reveals the same concern of God that is found in the Great Commission, namely, that all nations be evangelized and discipled (Matt.28:19-20/ Mark 16:15). God has waited 2000 years, so far, for us to get as far as we have gotten on this assignment, and since it is still moving forward, I doubt that He will abort the project before it is completed.

The other development that God seems to be waiting for is the maturity and the unity ofthe saints (Eph.4:13-16/Mark 4:29).

The first coming of Christ is likened, in scripture, to a sunrise (Isa.60:1-3/ Mal.4:2/ Luke 1:78 ), and so is the second coming (2 Pet.1:19/ Matt.24:27 [see the Greek for "lightning": "Astrape" means "bright shining," as in Luke 11:36]). Before the morning sun appears, the light in the eastern sky becomes gradually brighter. "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that grows brighter and brighter until full day" (Prov.4:18 ).

The glory of the Lord will be revealed in us (Rom.8:18 ) as Christ is progressively formed in us (Gal.4:19). This process will be measured on the scale of our love for and unity with each other (Eph.4:13/1 Cor.1-3/ John 17:21-23). It seems that it will resemble the dawning of a new day, "the Day of the Lord," with His people more and more resembling Him, both corporately and individually, and the light of His countenance upon us becoming brighter (Psalm 4:6), until the Son Himself appears over the horizon to judge the world and to reward those who love His appearing.

Just so I am not misunderstood, I believe in an actual future day of the second coming of Christ, to raise and glorify the saints (John 5:28-29/ Phil.3:20-21) and to bring in the new heavens and the new earth (2 Pet.3:10-13). I do not necessarily anticipate the world getting better and better, as some do, though this may in fact happen. It is the change in God's own people that I think is predicted, and this change may occur in a hostile environment, and may even be augmented by persecution (2 Cor.4:16-18 ). So, even if the world gets worse and worse, and we are persecuted as never before, our light will shine in the faces of our persecutors, brighter and brighter until the Son Himself arises for all to see and his enemies wither like the grass on the rooftops in the blazing sun (James 1:11/Isa.37:27).

Looking at the present state of the church, I am not encouraged to expect the second coming of Christ this afternoon, but I hope it may not be very long.

Also, the truths I was speaking of are, of course, the truths Sean has been delivering to you with the full support of Scripture. You, however have only give the party line reasoning which has been unsupported by Scripture and of which you have failed in. Next time ask me the question instead of asking another person what I may be thinking

[Guest]

Hi Crusader,

You wrote:

to me it sounds like you are upset and its because you may just be realizing how far out your views of eschatology

If you honestly think you can say anything to upset me, I'm afraid you're only flattering yourself. Don't worry about me, I'm pretty thick skinned. As far as eschatology goes, I know you think you are combating some new deviant doctrine here, but you may be interested to know that it's actually your view that is the new kid on the block, historically speaking.

The fact that you still have not answered my original request to explain why you think "Replacement theology" is so "dangerous" only tells me that you cannot do so. It's merely another demonstration of meaningless rhetoric that is bandied about by people who can no longer defend their viewpoints biblically. My point still stands that these kinds of wreckless assertions are themselves divisive and damaging to the body of Christ as a whole.

The fact that you continue to use an inaccurate perjorative term like "Replacement theology" only tells me that you remain ignorant of what it is you are arguing against. Otherwise, you would feel foolish in using such a term. Go back and read what Sean has so carefully explained to you.

But you guys sure seem to want to provoke me or something which I am not going to do.

Sounds like you think you are in the enemy's camp here defending "sound doctrine". But nobody views you as an enemy unless you are of "the enemy" (which I have no reason to suspect that you are). I've seen no evidence that anyone here has attempted to provoke you.

So like you all said I went and researched your own preterist information and I came away with the distinct impression that you believe the Resurrectiuon has already happened.

I'm sorry but, I don't see any evidence that you have. Keep researching and you'll find out that the second part of your statment is false. Maybe you can start by digging that RC Sproul book out of the trash and actually reading it.

Anyway, if you feel like addressing my original question, I'd be happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I'm done.

Lord bless.

[Jill]

Chris you sound tense...heres my advice for you....take off your preterist glasses and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into the truth regarding Israel and instead of reading all preterist books and listening to all Steves tapes...read the other info too....Its dangerous to teach preterism because it removes Israel from the equation....something Paul didnt do in Romans 11 and something Ezekiel and Jeremiah didnt do either...Yes I did throw R.C.Sproul in the garbage can,if a guy can be so off on this issue I simply dont want to wade through his stuff haveing to check everything he says with the Bible.I guess I will have to trust R Stedman,Dave Hunt,Walvoord instead. .I was happy to see that Allyn doesnt believe Jesus came back in 70 A.D. and that he doesnt beleive extreme preterists idea that somehow the ressurection occured in 70 A.D.....although I will say many preterists do beleive it....anyway Chris may the Lord bless you and fill you with His peace and love....and build you up in whatever ministry He has given you...The Lord is coming soon...and Maranatha is something the Christian Church needs to start believing again....In the Old Testament when a Jewish bridegroom came for his bride the bride was supposed to always be ready....for she didnt know when He would come....Jesus said it would be like a thief in the night and we all need to be ready and have this blessed hope within us....One cannot look at the world and whats going on in Israel and help but think its soon....then God will once again begin to deal with Israel...remember we were grafted into the tree....or root as Paul said..Anyway have an awesome day bro....I dont think this is the enemys camp..but I find it odd..I am the only guy here who ever defends traditional eschatological Christian beliefs ...gets kind of lonely..Is there anyone out there who looks at this forum who shares my views???????


Maranatha

Crusader

[Guest]

Crusader,

I once thought just like you do--many of us did. When I came to know what "Not all Israel is Israel" entailed, I was astonished. That's all the teaching over many years taught.

The fact is, careful attention to the text teaches that there is only one people who have possesion of the promises of God--the people who have the faith of Abraham. That includes anyone of any ethnicity. Your lineage is of no importance.

If you were to take in the four part lecture "What are we to make of Israel?" every point is answered with clarity.

You are free to think anyway you wish. I believe you are a lover of the God of the Bible. May the Lord through His Spirit lead you to all wisdom.

[Guest]

Crusader,

Thanks for finally answering the question of why you think preterism is dangerous. Your answer is:

"Its dangerous to teach preterism because it removes Israel from the equation."

In this you have misunderstood what preterism teaches. It is your view that takes Israel out of the equasion, because, in your view, God has taken the Jews out of the equasion for the past 2000 years, and may yet do so for another 2000 years, if the Lord tarries that long. The only Jews that your view holds out any hope for is the relative few who happen to live in the final generation. The last 50 generations of Jews were blinded and excluded by God!

Preterism teaches that God fulfills all of His promises to Israel, and does so for every Jew who believes in Him. Paul did indeed speak of some Jews being blinded, but he does not make reference to any other than those who rejected Christ. It may be that some Jews are indeed excluded from the equasion, but only by their own failure to embrace the Messiah—in which case it is they themselves, not we, who are taking them out of the equasion.

What is dangerous about teaching something like this? This is what Paul taught in Romans 11 and Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and all the prophets taught as well. If you think preterists teach differently from this, you need to do more homework.

You also wrote:

"Yes I did throw R.C.Sproul in the garbage can, if a guy can be so off on this issue I simply dont want to wade through his stuff haveing to check everything he says with the Bible. I guess I will have to trust R Stedman,Dave Hunt,Walvoord instead."

You forgot to finish the sentence. It needs the words added : "...because reading them does not require me to check everything they say with the Bible."

The suggestion that Chris, or any of those who have answered you sound "tense," sounds to me like a dodge, to deflect attention from the fact that you have no biblical way of answering their points.

You lamented, "I am the only guy here who ever defends traditional eschatological Christian beliefs."

You might be the only dispensationalist writing at this thread, at the moment. There have been others in the forum in the past, and still others are likely to come along in the future.

What is ironic is that you think dispensationalism represents "traditional eschatological Christian beliefs." In this, you show that you have never studied anything about historic theology. Preterism may not be able to claim the title "traditional," but amillennialism (which is the "replacement theology" that you misunderstand) certainly can make that claim. Preterism has been around longer than has dispensationalism, and amillennialism has been around longer than both combined.

You, or anyone else, can freely suggest that there are defects in traditional eschatology, and may defend your theory with as much scripture as you think may serve your purpose, but you only advertise your ignorance when you claim that your views are the traditional views of Christianity (even if you are only referring to the traditions of the past century or so).

You may have scared off other dispensationalists from contributing, lest they appear to be in your camp. You have not covered dispensationalism with glory in your presentation. We welcomed you and encouraged you to do a better job, but you declared that you preferred not to think for yourself nor do any thorough research on your own, but only to trust the "tense" idealogues of dispensational theology, who cannot defend their position without misrepresenting their opponents in debate.

For example, if you thought the preterists here (and most preterists) believe that Jesus literally returned and the resurrection occurred in AD 70, then you clearly made no effort whatsoever even to discover the nature of the beliefs of those whom you endeavored to correct, and you know too little about the meaning of the word "preterism" to discuss it intelligently.

I have one question that keeps bugging me every time you bring it up. Why do you keep saying that we were grafted onto the "root" and not onto the "tree"? The root is the covenant God made with Abraham, and the olive tree with the broken branches is Israel (Jer.11:16). Paul doesn't say that Gentiles were grafted onto the root, but onto the tree:

"For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted... into a cultivated olive tree..." (Rom.11:24)

It is true that Paul also says we "partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree" (Rom.11:17), but this is only because we are part of the tree, and it is the whole tree, with all of its branches, that partakes of the root and fatness of the tree.

I don't expect you to understand this—not because you lack the intelligence, which I doubt to be the case, but because you seem to be afraid to understand. If you ever came to understand what Paul said in Romans 11, it would only turn you into one of those awful people that David Hocking, Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice speak so harshly about. Not everyone has the backbone to invite such bombastic criticism against oneself.

You have been asked many questions here that you have neglected to answer. I'm going to request that you don't post any more here until you want to interact with those who are interested in your answers. I am sure that most will agree that continuing this thread in the manner of the past six or seven pages is little more than a waste of valuable time.

You are welcome to interact with the points that you have left unanswered. You have repeated your favorite texts several times already, so we needn't have you cite them again. If you post anything more on this thread without interacting with the points of your correspondents, do not be surprised if your post is deleted.

[Jill]

Steve I have not done anything wrong here. I have repeated myself at times and so have others...if you feel so inclined to sensor me due to my style because you dont like it..or if you decide you have to remove me completely then I guess thats your decision and not mine..correct! I wont leave willingly but cant stop removal...so I guess you must decide...after all you have the power to do so...correct. But I am not going to be atagonistic or be abusive.If in your oppinion and those who run this forum I should be removed then what can I really do...but I wont use that threat to be someone Im not..you be the judge.

Crusader

[Guest]

I just plead with you Steve not to delete this thread. It is a wealth of concise information and truth. Crusader sort of reminds me of a man constantly being thrown a floating device but to only throw it back because he refuse to believe it will support him.