Posted on 10/22/2004 8:11:53 AM PDT by missyme
The publishers of "Left Behind" are launching a new series that challenges the end-times theology of the phenomenally popular books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Illinois-based Tyndale House Publishers says the first book in the new series, "The Last Disciple," by "Bible Answer Man" Hank Hanegraaff and award-winning fiction author Sigmund Brouwer, asks the question, "What if the prophecies of Revelation have already been fulfilled?"
The opposing interpretation of the Bible is presented in a historical novel centered in first-century Rome and Jerusalem, the publishers say, as "these historical sites begin to experience the turbulence Christ prophesied as the beginning of the 'last days.'"
"Tension mounts as a villainous adversary seeks to find the disciple John's letter (the book of Revelation) and destroy it," a promo reads. "As a result, the early Christians must decipher a mysterious code in order to survive."
Hanegraaff, president and chairman of the board of the evangelical-based cult watchdog Christian Research Institute International, hosts a daily radio program, "Bible Answer Man," that boasts more than 6 million listeners a week.
"This series of novels constitutes one of the most significant projects I have ever been privileged to be involved in," Hanegraaff said in a statement. "Indeed, this initial novel is intended to be the first 'shot' in a debate that I believe will produce a paradigm shift -- a change in the way many in the church look at the end times."
He hopes the book will help people "read the book of Revelation, as well as the rest of Scripture, through the eyes of the early believers to whom it was originally written."
Hanegraaff also wrote best-sellers "The Prayer of Jesus," "Resurrection," "Christianity in Crisis," and "Counterfeit Revival."
Hanegraaff succeeded Christian Research Institute founder Walter Martin after Martin's death in 1989. Some Christians have criticized Hanegraaff for moving beyond Martin's critique of groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses and charging prominent evangelists with false teaching.
Hanegraaff contrasts the "Exegetical Eschatology" in his book with "Left Behind's" Dispensational theology, which grew in popularity in the 19th century and is embraced by many evangelical Christians today.
Dispensationalists believe in a future "rapture" of the church in which Christians will be suddenly taken to be with Jesus Christ before a seven-year period called the Tribulation. Jesus then will establish a 1,000-year reign on earth before Satan is released again on earth and then thrown in the lake of fire. They believe God will then establish a new heave and earth.
Hanegraaff believes most of the prophecies of Jesus and the book of Revelation were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The tribulation, he contends, was the persecution of believers during the reign of Emperor Nero in Rome. When Jesus returns again, Hanegraaff says, he will immediately judge all peoples and establish a new heaven and earth.
Meanwhile, Tyndale has signed with LaHaye and Jenkins to extend the 12-book "Left Behind" series, creating two additional books.
The plot of one takes place before the first book, "Left Behind," and the other is set after the 12th book, "Glorious Appearing."
Your link was very interesting. If nothing else, I see the left and the Muslim agree on class warfare. They detest those evil rich people and wish to redistribute the wealth and rid the world of the American dollar.
Well, I have several works in progress. Have spent the last month regrouping and closing down a website that wasn't very productive.
I would have thought that it was for just such people that newspapers are written.
In and of itself, I don't take the Merovingian heresy seriously--I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and was able to poke holes in it pretty easily. Mind you, the fact that there are those in Europe who believe that the Merovingians are the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdaline is true and has been around for centuries, but the "evidence" that the writers offer that these claims are based in fact are heavy on speculation and low on uncontestable evidence.
But what has my attention is the number of people who do take Brown's fiction and the thesis that it's based on as gospel, and are using it to attack authentic Christianity. This is one of those cases where if we aren't ready with an answer, perception will end up mattering far more than reality in most people's minds.
Actually, my beef with the LB series is much the same. I don't mind it as a work of fiction (though I didn't think it was particularly well written and never finished it), but it bugs me how many people are reading LB, just accepting all of its interpretations as fact, and never bothering to do their homework in the Bible itself.
Of course it's secular...as secular as the Bible belt is in this country if you want to talk about secular. It tries to be secular but the orthodox jews, catholics, protestants,muslims, Greek orthodox,Kabbalists,would be third temple builders, ect won't let Israel be secular. The Palestinians want to drive the Jews into the sea... it's a religious point of view you see. Some Ultra orthodox Rabinnical students tried to lay a corner stone for the third temple at the edge of the old temple(Dome of the Rock complex), argueing that scripture doesn't say that the temple has to be built on the exact spot as Solomon's old temple...just near bye.(True...despite what a bunch of premillenialists would argue, while the temple is supposed to be rebuilt, no where in the Bible does it say it has to be built on the exact same spot as the former temple...you see Tomcat I get flamed from the LB'ers for holding the same view as those cornerstone laying Rabbi's)
My main point is this, Israel can make believe all it wants to that it is a secular society, but history and destiny won't let it be so...! They still keep God at arms length while desperately seeking his face at the same time!
Technically you are correct, I should have said day or hour!
So it's the Democrats that are the harbingers of the antichrist? :-)
Just so I understand we're not talking theology here. Or perhaps you are. If the presupposition behind this concern is that the one world government/revived Roman empire/antichrist is just around the corner, and any technology can be a tool of that future antichrist, then I can see how folks get all weak-kneed when they read this stuff in the paper.
I'm not a futurist, so I do not share those presuppositions. I don't believe that all government is evil, and that all technology is a potential tool of the antichrist.
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Rom. 13)
No futurist has succeeded so far. Just ask Edgar Whisenant and Harold Camping. They had the "season" nailed.
They are not. They are self-seeking (Rom. 2:8). They do not seek after Christ. They deny Christ with all their hearts. The only "face" that God has revealed to men is the face of Jesus.
There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. (Rom. 3:11)It seems to me lots of Christian Zionists have deceived themselves with regard to the real spiritual state of modern Israel.
Well DUH! ;^)
If the presupposition behind this concern is that the one world government/revived Roman empire/antichrist is just around the corner, and any technology can be a tool of that future antichrist, then I can see how folks get all weak-kneed when they read this stuff in the paper.
That is indeed my presupposition (as it is for most who take the Bible seriously where the prophecies of the Second Coming are concerned), but I approach the subject this way: Even if the Lord tarries His Coming for another generation or two, or a century or two, or whatever length of time, would-be tyrants will still want to find ways to watch and control the rest of us. To say otherwise is to ignore 6000+ years of recorded human history or to think we've somehow "evolved" beyond that. (HA!) Why should we make it easier for them?
It's not being weak-kneed or Luddite. I happen to love technology, and I think that when the real MotB comes, it'll be obvious to all for the fact that getting it won't just be a matter of going to the DMV, but of pledging ourselves to and worshipping a man who claims to be God, so I don't think that this technology in and of itself is it. But I'm also just not keen on the government having more power over our lives than is strictly necessary.
That's why I hang out on FR. :^)
Are you suggesting that those like myself who do not agree with the futurist agenda do not take the Bible seriously?
It's funny that the apostle Paul, living at a time of great oppression from the state, would write these words:
Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.The antidote to oppressive civil authority is to do what is right, pure and simple. Perhaps Paul was naive and didn't realize how "evil" technology could be.
it'll be obvious to all for the fact that getting it won't just be a matter of going to the DMV,
I don't not share your speculative conclusions.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Governor of the nations. He is seated on the throne of David, ruling from the heavenly Zion (Psalm 47:8; Acts 2:29ff; Heb. 12:22ff). I believe that He has been given "all authority" over the nations (Matt. 28:18ff), and He is presently putting all things in subjection (1 Cor. 15:25).
Our mission and message to the nations is clear:
How beautiful upon the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who proclaims peace, Who brings glad tidings of good things, Who proclaims salvation, Who says to Zion, "Your God reigns!" (Isaiah 52)Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. (Psalm 2)
No. Read the whole sentence: "That is indeed my presupposition (as it is for most who take the Bible seriously where the prophecies of the Second Coming are concerned) . . ." Many preterists and historicists take the Bible in general very seriously and piously, but after reading your side's commentaries, I have to say that the systematic, literal, and very serious approach that you as a group take when it comes to soteriology, history, etc. breaks down to broad generalizations whenever prophecies of Israel's future restoration and Christ's Second Coming are considered.
The antidote to oppressive civil authority is to do what is right, pure and simple.
As a general rule, yes. But Paul was executed by that same state, wasn't he? Obviously, being good does not guaruntee that the civil authority will like you in all cases.
For that matter, while obedience to the civil authorities is a good general rule, there are times when God calls for exceptions. The book of Judges is a long rendering of such occassions, and the Maccabean Revolt was another. I'd like to believe that the foundation of our country was another.
The other point you miss is that the civil authority in this country is not a power unto itself--it derives its power from the Constitution and from we the people. If it violates those authorities, it is the government who is in rebelleon, not the people.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Governor of the nations.
In a sense, I do too. But I don't believe that He has openly begun to rule as the Bible says He will--His will is NOT being done on earth as it is in Heaven.
He is seated on the throne of David, ruling from the heavenly Zion (Psalm 47:8; Acts 2:29ff; Heb. 12:22ff).
Zion is Jerusalem, not Heaven, as even a cursory study of its use in the Old Testament will show. For that matter, David's throne was also in Jerusalem--David has never, ever ruled from God's throne in Heaven. Furthermore, Psalm 110 makes it clear that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, "Until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (v. 1). In other words, it's a temporary position until He sets His throne bodily on the earth, as all the Scriptures affirm will happen.
I believe that He has been given "all authority" over the nations (Matt. 28:18ff),
He has indeed. But that doesn't mean that He is seated on David's throne in Jerusalem ruling the earth bodily. In other words, authority has been given, but He is not yet exercising it fully.
If you think He is, why is the world such a mess?
. . . and He is presently putting all things in subjection (1 Cor. 15:25).
"Putting," perhaps, but not "has put." Do you realize that Paul is alluding to Psalm 110 here? And all things will have been fully put under subjugation after He returns in glory--including death (1 Cor. 15:26). When we're actually immortal (vv. 39-54), we'll talk about God having fulfilled all of His promises.
I did. In fact I quoted the whole thing.
I have to say that the systematic, literal, and very serious approach that you as a group take when it comes to soteriology, history, etc.
I think you have pointed out the precise reason why non-futurists believe as they do. They have done very hard work in other areas of theology, esp. soteriology and ecclesiology, and based on those assessments have not come to the futurist/literalist/Israel-centric view of eschatology.
We don't believe in putting the cart before the horse. Our eschatology flows from a coherent view of Christ's work and Christ's church. For instance, we cannot accept the radical distinction between Jew and gentile that some futurists make. Such a view would do great violence to biblical ecclesiology. As a result we cannot jump to the extreme conclusions about the place of nationalistic Israel in the futurist schema.
In short, we non-futurists take all what the Bible says about the second coming "seriously", we just cannot make eschatology preeminent over other areas of theology, especially when the resulting theories do violence to the rest of the Bible.
Here's a good example of such incomplete thinking:
Zion is Jerusalem, not Heaven, as even a cursory study of its use in the Old Testament will show.
Problem is we have more than just the Old Testament to teach us in this regard.
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Heb. 12)Do you just ignore what the New Testament says about the true Mount Zion? Or do you simply prefer the Old Testament?for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4)
The impact of these verses on our understanding of reality is profound. We (believers, both Jews and gentiles), have come to the heavenly Mount Zion, the new Jerusalem. The New Testament explains all those Old Testament propmises in magnificant details.
Furthermore, Psalm 110 makes it clear that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, "Until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (v. 1). In other words, it's a temporary position until He sets His throne bodily on the earth, as all the Scriptures affirm will happen.
Again, why do you assume that until means that there is a change of location? Your "in other words" is based on an assumption not found in the text. In fact is is counter to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.
Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.But according to some futurist theory, this is not the "end" because you still have to account for a literal 1000 year reign on earth, where death still reigns. The conquest of death, in the futurist scheme, doesn't happen until the end of the thousand years. So you need to insert a "gap" between two verses.
Non-futurists try to account for all that the Bible says that would impact our understanding of the second coming, not just focusing on select, pet verses.
To turn this around, are you claiming that futurists have not done very hard work in soteriology, ecclesiology, and other areas of theology? I daresay you could not back up that argument.
For instance, we cannot accept the radical distinction between Jew and gentile that some futurists make.
In regards to salvation in Christ, there is no distinction; however, no where does the Bible say that there is no Israel outside the Church--on the contrary, Paul builds a rather extensive case in Romans 9-11 that while there is a remnant of Israel saved within the Church and many of her branches were broken off so that we could be grafted in, that the day would come when God would graft the natural branches back in, "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written." Thus, Paul draws a distinction between Israel (the natural branches) and the "Gentile" Church (the wild branches).
In short, we non-futurists take all what the Bible says about the second coming "seriously", we just cannot make eschatology preeminent over other areas of theology, especially when the resulting theories do violence to the rest of the Bible.
Futurist eschatology does no violence whatsoever to the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, we believe that God says what He means and means what He says. Since God promises repeatedly in the OT and New to bring Israel back into a right relationship with Himself and that His Messiah will rule from David's throne in Jerusalem, we don't try to twist that.
We've been over this before, doubtless we will again.
Regarding the two passages you cite, I would point out that in Galatians Paul says flat out that he is speaking of Hagar and Sarah and their sons as prophetic types, per v. 24--"which things are symbolic" or "an allegory," and he is comparing the covenant of the flesh--the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic--with the covenant of grace. That does not mean that you can take all of the plainly-spoken prophecies of the OT that the Messiah would rule from Jerusalem and David's throne and twist them to be an allegory of the New Jerusalem.
In regards to Hebrews, it must be pointed out that the fact that we the Church ultimately have our homes in the New Jerusalem in no way presupposes that God cannot either previously or simultaniously restore Old Jerusalem.
One can also understand the passage in the same sense as this one from chapter 11: "And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." In other words, the "heavenly country" is not in contrast to the physical land of Israel, but to Ur of the Chaldees. Israel, when Christ Comes again, will be a "heavenly country"--both in the sense of being paradisical and in the sense of being ruled from heaven.
One could expect the same regarding a "heavenly" Jerusalem here on the earth. There are other reconcilliations that have been proposed, but we needn't go through each one.
The New Testament explains all those Old Testament propmises in magnificant details.
No it doesn't. It says that we are citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven now, and that Christ rules from Heaven, but it never once attempts to explain away all of God's promises to Israel as being fulfilled only in allegory in the Church. I mean, you have to pull two NT quotes completely out of context to aborigate away more than 2/3rds of the rest of the Bible. That seems rather out-of-balance to me.
Again, I commend Romans 9-11 to your study:
I say then, have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!So tell me, is the Church its own enemy because of the Gospel? Or is Paul saying in no uncertain terms that yes, Israel has fallen because they chose legalism over faith, but that God's plan is to restore the whole nation? Not just the remnant already within the Church (which he deals with in chapter 10), but the whole nation.For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their (Israel again) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
. . . For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."
You may try to dodge around this issue all you want. But rest assured, the futurist position is not based on a confusion about who and what the Church is or an ignorance of the New Testament.
Again, why do you assume that until means that there is a change of location?
Because otherwise the "until" is superfluous and misleading, and I don't believe that either is ever true with God's Word. Why do you assume that it does not?
But according to some futurist theory, this is not the "end" because you still have to account for a literal 1000 year reign on earth, where death still reigns.
It doesn't exactly "reign" as it does now, but I understand your point. But let's put that aside for a moment, since millenniumism is not our main argument at the moment and I don't want to be sidetracked: I'm still waiting for you to explain how death has been conquered in the here and now. Please, point me to the immortal Christians.
Oh yes they are…
Daniel 11
The King Who Exalts Himself
36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers (Chemosh, Molech) or for the one desired by women (Ashtoreth), nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38 Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses (Allah); a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39 He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god (Allah) and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.
2 Kings 23:13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption-the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon. 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.
This is an interesting twist on what Romans actually says, namely, that the "natural branches" are the Jews and the "wild branches" are the gentiles (not the "gentile" church). "For I speak to you Gentiles;" (Rom. 11:13).
What is the "root" that Paul speaks of? Well, it must be Jesus Christ. "For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches." (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). I don't see any option. So, Paul is speaking that both Jews (natural) and gentiles (wild) are grafted into the same Root, Jesus Christ.
This misreading of Romans 11 to imply that there is presently a "wild" branch made up of Jews and gentiles ("gentile church") and a future "natural" branch made up of just Jews is unsupportable. There is a remnant of Israel that will eventually be saved. "Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom. 11:5). It is all by God's grace. It is all according to election. All Israel will be saved in keeping with His election by grace. Paul tells us who "all Israel is, "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel," (Rom. 9:6).
It's hard to tell whether this twisting of ecclesiology results in failed eschatology, or whether the emphasis on a failed eschatology leads one to adopt a twisted ecclesiology.
But there is an obvious denial by futurists of key New Testament concepts, e.g., that the church is a continuation of the people of God from the Old Testament. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense for the writer of Hebrews to speak of the heavenly Mount Zion and the heavenly New Jerusalem. It makes no sense for Peter to tell the church that they are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people." It makes no sense for Paul to tell gentiles that they have been "brought near" to the commonwealth of Israel "by the blood of Christ". It would make no sense for Paul to tell gentiles, "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." "Only those" who are of faith are the sons of Abraham!! Paul was saying that apostate Jews are not even the sons of Abraham. Exactly what Jesus told the pharisees in John 8 when they said, ""We are Abraham's descendants." He told them, "You are of your father the devil."
16 He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17 so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18 This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate (count) the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
http://www.islamicmint.com/products.html
http://www.e-dinar.com/html/1_0.html
The History of the Dinar & Dirham
Under what was known as the coin standard of the Khalif Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the weight of 10 dirhams was equivalent to 7 dinars (mithqals)
In the year 75 (695 CE) the Khalifah Abdalmalik ordered Al-Hajjaj to mint the first dirhams, thus he established officially the standard of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. In the next year he ordered the dirhams to be minted in all the regions of the Dar al-Islam. He ordered that the coins be stamped with the sentence: "Allah is Unique, Allah is Eternal". He ordered the removal of human figures and animals from the coins and that they be replaced with letters.
This command was then carried on throughout all the history of Islam. The dinar and the dirham were both round, and the writing was stamped in concentric circles. Typically on one side it was written the "tahlil" and the "tahmid", that is, "la ilaha ill'Allah" and "alhamdulillah"; and on the other side was written the name of the Amir and the date. Later on it became common to introduce the blessings on the Prophet, salla'llahu alayhi wa sallam, and sometimes, ayats of the Qur'an.
Gold and silver coins remained official currency until the fall of the Khalifate. Since then, dozens of different paper currencies were made in each of the new postcolonial national states created from the dismemberment of Dar al-Islam.
Revelation 13
1 And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea.
2 And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
We agree completely on this point.
This misreading of Romans 11 to imply that there is presently a "wild" branch made up of Jews and gentiles ("gentile church") and a future "natural" branch made up of just Jews is unsupportable.
Neither I nor Paul nor any futurist said that there was. The natural branches are Jewish believers in the distinctly Jewish Messiah, and the wild branches are those Gentiles who came by God's grace to worship Him also as Savior and King. Paul says that the natural branches that were broken off for unbelief will be grafted back in.
There is a remnant of Israel that will eventually be saved. "Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom. 11:5).
Did you look at the tenses before you posted? Paul was speaking of the remnant, the Jewish believers, who existed in his day and have always existed, as distinct from the branches Israel that were broken off and will be re-grafted in the future.
Secondly, it makes no sense to assert that there is a remnant and then to promise that "all Israel will be saved" in the future tense if that remnant is already "all Israel" in some sense.
See, this is what I mean by preterism suddenly getting sloppy when it comes to eschatology. You have started out with the assumption that God has forever rejected national Israel as being a part of His future plans (an assumption that historically--and I say "historically" because I'm not pining this label on all modern preterists--developed out of anti-seminism and collaboration with the Roman state rather than out of sound exegesis), and you simply gloss over any text that disagrees with that thesis rather than do the same kind of sound exegesis that you would on the subject of salvation, for example.
And the futurist response to all your objections makes perfect sense, if one simply understands what Paul is saying in Romans and elsewhere. God has elected the nation of Israel, a nation bound together by blood and culture--a blood that God elected and a culture that He ordained--to be His special nation among many, the seat of His Messiah. That has nothing to do with individual election or salvation. Even in the OT, people of Israel doubtless went to hell, and many Gentiles were "saved" as we put it in our parlance, like Naman the Syrian or Nebuchadnezzar.
Individual salvation has always been dependent on the person trusting in God's provision for their sin. However, Israel's national election--an election of blessing rather than an election of salvation of the soul--was based solely on God's one-sided covenant of grace with Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, etc.). It is a covenant which Israel cannot lose, though obviously God could put it on hold. This is why Paul writes of Israel, "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:28-29).
If Israel has no assurance of its election by God's grace, then neither do you: "Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (vv. 20-21). But if your covenant with Jesus Christ, given by His grace and accepted in faith, is assured, then so is Israel's covenant as entered into by Abraham's faith.
Ultimately, we will all be together in one tree with Jesus Christ as our Root, but the Bible makes clear that only "after the fullness of the Gentiles," and only after Israel sees the Son of Man on the clouds of the sky and mourns for Him (Zech. 12; Mt. 24; Rev. 1 and 6-7), that same time that the Church is gathered to Him (Mt. 24, 1 Th. 4-5, Rev. 6-7), will the nation as a whole be gathered back in to worship their Messiah King. There is therefore a distinction between the two that will be reconciled only in the End of the Age.
I think I was saying the same thing....they have this desire for God but on their own terms. Paul speaks of Jews in general being actually cursed with hard heartedness towards Christ, that they would feel "jealousy" towards Christians at the same time concerning their relationship with God. This hardheartednes, this heart blindness will be lifted at the coming of Christ. (So it is no surprise regarding Israel's "secularity", though our ACLU would be screaming fits if the U.S. displayed the same version of "secularity" as the Israelis do in their country!)
Indeed, there seems to be a sizeable movement in this country regarding younger Jews coming to Christ. Every so often I read articles in jewish publications regarding concerns regarding the inroads evangelical Christianity have made with Jewish young people. The Jews for Jesus group is especially hated. NPR had a news segment(at least 30 minutes) devoted to this a couple of years back on the impact of evangelicals on the Jewish community. Some Jewish young persons have actually been "kidnapped" and attempted to be "deprogrammed" by anxious parents who were afraid they'd joined a cult!
Which leaves me curious, what has God begun to do within the hearts of younger Jews who display more openess towards Christ in this nation than in any previous era and nation.
Yes I know there isn't a mass revival going on among American Jews, but the movement among the youngsters is noticeable and measurable to Jewish Rabbi's and leaders and it isn't going away!
I hold to an ideological understanding of the book Revelation. I believe that Revelation is a book written to describe the conflict between God and evil over the span of creation / history with Christ winning all in the end! Revelation is written in symbolic language not because it contains codes to be deciphered by future theologians but because it is primarily interested in teaching general spiritual principles regarding the spiritual warfare every Christian of every generation experiences.
John was exiled on the island of Patmos for Christ's sake and is valuable to all Christians in that his testimony gives peace and comfort to all Christians because it points out that there IS an end to all sorrow and conflict, that the enemies of God's elect will be defeated and punished, and that Jesus is being and will be ultimately glorified along with His chosen people. Ultimately it encourages all of God's people to persevere in faith in an antagonistic environment. It lets us know that we can stand up to false religion and enemies of the cross because Jesus is returning! All Christians should take courage from His promise! I think it's sad that preterism, dispensational theology / chilliasm are the dominant interpretations of this wonderful book today because it takes this beautiful message of Christ and turns it into a future telling book to be interpreted with help from the modern newspaper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.