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.