Why I haven't been "in" on the full-preterist threads here

[RickC]

Why I haven't participated in threads started by full-preterists on the forum is: I don't see quality contextual exegesis happening. It's like: Full-Preterist Systematic Theology being posted ASAP---and the individual support texts for each belief in it.

I'm wondering how full-preterists can expect a conversation to happen {???}.
Verses are quoted and we are being "told" what they mean....

It's true that systematic theologies "quote" texts in support of the overall belief system. This is what systematic theologies are all about {what they "do"}: put the general view of the said system out there.

At the same time, any systematic theology's truth is to be examined from biblical theology: What the biblical authors meant and said {wrote} within their context. Systematic theology of any type or kind is, thus, always in a subservient position under biblical theology. This being so, each and every text a system "cites" has to be examined from the context of the original authorial intention and meaning...and how any given text was originally understood.

Perhaps the full-preterists on the forum are just trying to get out all of their information {"their" systematic theology} as quickly as possible for future reference & later discussion {???}.

In this post I'm simply pointing out that long lists of verses, certain beliefs on what those verses mean {as in being "told" it}, and so on, isn't much of a discussion. This doesn't even foster an atmosphere for meaningful debate {no matter what the topic is}.

But as I posted {above}, it could be that full-preterists are trying to get out as much as what they believe as quickly as they possibly can {???}. I can't critique or discuss full-preterism based on "citing texts." Each verse has to be critically examined. This is impossible to do at the rate so many {many} verses are being posted in support of full-preterism....

Anyway, I'll be starting new Eschatology threads on some stuff I've been studying. They won't be designed for "debates." Rather, they'll be contextual/exegetical {oriented toward biblical theology as opposed to systematic theology} and thematic {or topical} in construction {see my "Jesus on: The Resurrection, John 11:25-26," e.g.}.

Biblical theology "reigns!" over all systematic theologies, as far as that may go {which is a very, very long way}!!!

Thanks for reading,

[RV]

Hi Rick,

While you're at it, can you start a thread proving the Full-Preterist wrong?

[quote=RickC]In this post I'm simply pointing out that long lists of verses, certain beliefs on what those verses mean {as in being "told" it}, and so on, isn't much of a discussion. This doesn't even foster an atmosphere for meaningful debate. But as I posted {above}, it could be that full-preterists are trying to get out as much as what they believe as quickly as they possibly can {???}.[/quote]

Well then please Rick, spare me and other like me. Once and for all, put and end to Full-Preterist.

As a matter of fact, you don't even have to angle it that way, just simply lay out what you believe on the topic (your approach to eschatology); well enough though, that there will not be any doubt that the Full-Preterist have it wrong.

Again, simply stating they have it wrong, doesn't prove anything.

Sincerely Rick, I am being sincere.

[RickC]

Hello RV,

This thread is not about debating the relative merits of full-preterism. It's about how we go about determining what is true based from sound biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, which applies to any systematic theology, idea, or belief: {not just full-preterism, partial-preterism, dispensationalism, or any other concept or set of concepts}.

I can't critique or discuss full-preterism based on "citing texts." Each verse has to be critically examined. This is impossible to do at the rate so many {many} verses are being posted in support of full-preterism....

Whether full-preterism {or anything for that matter} is true or isn't, an appropriate setting has to be set up for meaningful discussion first. Till this happens, I don't have anything to say...and couldn't even begin to do appropriate exegesis on the possibly hundreds {???} of texts cited so far. "Which verse should I pick?," I ask myself.

It could very well be that full-preterists see the Bible so differently than I that "respectfully disagreeing" is the best option: since dialog is impossible in a "quoting verses format." I came to realize respectfully-disagreeing to be the best thing to do with universalists a few months back, and with dispensationalists several years ago....
Anyways, Thanks,

[RV]

Hi Rick, I understand, can you set that up so things can get on the right track? Start the right setting so that can happen.

[RickC]

Hi RV,

Hi Rick, I understand, can you set that up so things can get on the right track? Start the right setting so that can happen.

Theoretically, it could be possible.

But let me give an illustration of potential problems.
Everyone {all of the Christians} in my family are pre-tribulational dispensationalsists. Presuming you're familiar with this; I recall when my family & I discussed 1 Thess 4. I mentioned that Paul was writing to comfort them about their deceased loved ones, who would be resurrected, etc. I asked my folks, "Where does 1 Thess 4 say, 'We will meet the Lord in the air and then, he will turn right back around, and we will go to heaven with him for seven years'?"

{This absolutely cannot be found in 1 Thess 4}....

I came to see it was impossible to discuss, leave alone debate, 1 Thess 4 with them. They had it so ingrained in them that the chapter teaches we "will meet Jesus, go to heaven with him for seven years, then come back." They didn't get this belief from the chapter itself {which is easy to see}. So where did they get it? From a systematic theology named: Pre-Tribulational Dispensationalism: What Paul says in the chapter is essentially ignored! and the text is "remolded to 'fit'." A perfect example of biblical theology {what the Bible says} taking second seat to post-apostolic theologians {circa 1830s, ff., in this case}.

Also during this conversation, I attempted to explain my view: amillennial. They, plainly put, just couldn't quite seem to comprehend it. They did say, however, that they didn't agree with it...but couldn't give biblical reasons as to why. They could "quote pre-trib texts" {as they understood them from the systematic theology of dispensationalism} but those texts were quoted out of context and didn't deal with the verses I presented....

As I said before, biblical theology is always "above" systematic theology, imo. Systematic theology is utterly dependent on biblical theology.

At any rate, my pre-trib family and I finally decided to "drop the end times" from things we talk about. Reason being, we see things so differently---and we knew that---and there was no point in "arguing" over it any more.
____________

I may be wrong about it, I don't know....
It could be that full-preterists and people like me {a "parital-futurist" lol} have such differing presuppositions and/or beliefs that a meaningful discussion may not be possible.

So, to me, basic presuppositions and theological methods would have to be discussed before any texts are gone into, in terms of discussing and/or meaningful-civilized-debating full-preterism {or any topic}.
____________

My family did learn about the ways I interpret the Bible and seem to understand the basics about how I see: "Apocalyptic is symbolic," etc., etc., {iow, they understand my basic presuppostions/methods at least on apocalyptic, anyway}. But beyond this, we don't have much to discuss on "the end times" these days.
____________

My past experiences with full-preterists have not been good. It was in Paltalk and I was "blasted" for "not seeing the truth of God's Word," Ad Hominem, ad infinitum. I expect better from folks who post here...and have no reasons not to believe that could happen!,

Lastly, I empathize {understand how they feel} with former dispensationalists {like myself} who have become full-preterist. I know how hard it is to get out of "dispensational thought patterns." I think I can understand how & why former dispensationalists have become full-preterist also.

I don't agree with their conclusions. But as an "ex-dispie" I can see how they arrived there {at which point I'm already discussing basic presuppositions}. Maybe we can go into that more here or on another thread some time?
Thanks for reading,

[Allyn]

Why I haven't participated in threads started by full-preterists on the forum is: I don't see quality contextual exegesis happening. It's like: Full-Preterist Systematic Theology being posted ASAP---and the individual support texts for each belief in it.

I'm wondering how full-preterists can expect a conversation to happen {???}.
Verses are quoted and we are being "told" what they mean....

It's true that systematic theologies "quote" texts in support of the overall belief system. This is what systematic theologies are all about {what they "do"}: put the general view of the said system out there.

At the same time, any systematic theology's truth is to be examined from biblical theology: What the biblical authors meant and said {wrote} within their context. Systematic theology of any type or kind is, thus, always in a subservient position under biblical theology. This being so, each and every text a system "cites" has to be examined from the context of the original authorial intention and meaning...and how any given text was originally understood.

Perhaps the full-preterists on the forum are just trying to get out all of their information {"their" systematic theology} as quickly as possible for future reference & later discussion {???}.

In this post I'm simply pointing out that long lists of verses, certain beliefs on what those verses mean {as in being "told" it}, and so on, isn't much of a discussion. This doesn't even foster an atmosphere for meaningful debate {no matter what the topic is}.

But as I posted {above}, it could be that full-preterists are trying to get out as much as what they believe as quickly as they possibly can {???}. I can't critique or discuss full-preterism based on "citing texts." Each verse has to be critically examined. This is impossible to do at the rate so many {many} verses are being posted in support of full-preterism....

Anyway, I'll be starting new Eschatology threads on some stuff I've been studying. They won't be designed for "debates." Rather, they'll be contextual/exegetical {oriented toward biblical theology as opposed to systematic theology} and thematic {or topical} in construction {see my "Jesus on: The Resurrection, John 11:25-26," e.g.}.

Biblical theology "reigns!" over all systematic theologies, as far as that may go {which is a very, very long way}!!!

Thanks for reading,

Rick,

The reason for the Epistles thread and the Book of threads were in promise to TK that I would illustrate how the NT deals with the fulfillments. It was not necessarily intended for a discussion, however it has been going on, but intended for reference.

[RickC]

Hello Allyn,

The reason for the Epistles thread and the Book of threads were in promise to TK that I would illustrate how the NT deals with the fulfillments. It was not necessarily intended for a discussion, however it has been going on, but intended for reference.

Okay, I understand & thanks for this reply!

I'll mention {here} that there was one text in particular you wrote about on "The Epistles" thread that I did some fairly in-depth study on yesterday: Hebrews 10:37. It's a verse that could be discussed at some time. My preferred method is simply studying a verse or verses, "etching them out," and then see where & how they apply to my overall beliefs, and so on. In other words, I want to understand the original context and meaning alone, first. After that, it can be discussed in whatever application or, even, what place in a systematic theology the verse/verses may have.

I could do a thread on Hebrews 10:37. But I want to be clear that I'm not interested in trying to prove anyone wrong; all want to do is learn and know what is true. This isn't to say a decent, healthy debate couldn't, or shouldn't, happen.

This is why I feel basic presuppositions should probably be discussed before we get into details; that is, in as far as in terms of evaluating the basic merits of the full-preterist view.

I also want folks to know that "what I post" is stuff I'm studying and/or believe and that I'm not "looking" for debates {especially of the Ad Hominem variety, of which I try to avoid}. Also, every Eschatology post I make on this new forum isn't being put out there for a full-preterist debate...if this make sense, {I hope it does}....

Beliefnet, my old hangout, has boards specifically designed for debates {they're called "________{insert topic} Debate." That's the one thing I still like about Beliefnet, other than the friends I made there. Here we don't have a special place where things are put up for debate {outside of the organized debate link on Main Page}. I'm not complaining, just saying. What was nice @ Beliefnet was posting on "non-debate" threads. Then if the discussion became somewhat heated or a particular sub-topic was brought up for debate, a new "Debate" thread was started.
Anyways, Thanks, Allyn,

[Allyn]

Fair enough, Rick. I would only question what a full-preterist could bring to the table in an eschatological thread if it wasn't his view on eschatology?

[RickC]

Hello Allyn,

When you get done posting all of your posts/threads let us know. I've been reading them. However, I must admit that...I'm really not that interested in debating full-preterism.
Thanks,