Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
I agree that is what he says. I strongly disagree with the truth of the statement.
The proof text of preterism is “this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”
I have yet to hear a credible explanation as to how the original audience of His comments would have understood this as meaning anything but what it clearly states: that those within that generation (roughly 40-year timeframe) would see those things He referenced fulfilled.
In that list of prophecies in Mt 24 is the prophecy of Jesus’ own return. It is among the “ALL of these things.”
That means any variety of preterist MUST believe that Jesus returned in that generation.
Do you?
In a fashion, yes. By no means do I believe He returned in the full consumation of His Kingdom in final judgement.
See, the problem here is that you choose to interpret time-frame references figuratively and descriptions of the parousia literally. Scripture much more strongly supports the opposite.
Regardless though, you seem bent on an oversimplification of the preterist view that makes it easy to slip in subtle implications about what we believe. I state clearly and unequivocally that as a partial preterist I believe in a future coming of Christ in the full consummation of His Kingdom and final judgement upon mankind.
Natch. He probably knows about as many preterists and their personal evangelistic habits as you do.
As a seasoned veteran of the PCA, I can tell you that I’m not very impressed when folks bring up that tired argument, whether it be used against preterism, postmillennialism, strict subscriptionism, theonomy, even good, old-fashion Southern Presbyterianism. The speaker is more-often-than-not clueless.
Yet, you just said you believe Jesus returned “in a fashion.”
I am certain that the proof text demands that Jesus have returned in that generation. If He did not return in that generation, then there is something wrong with the preterist interpretation of the proof text.
In what fashion do you think that Jesus returned?
At least you mentioned the Bible.
How you coming on Matt. 16:28?
The speaker has an extensive reformed, PCA background if you read his bio.
Is that the best you can offer in criticism of preterism? Somebody's experience?!?
Funny how you would go to such great lengths to defend a statement by the author that has NOTHING to do with the Scriptural and doctrinal issues at stake. Rather than focusing on the issue of preterism in light of Scripture, you're bent on defending this guy's unquestionable "experience" regarding the behavior of preterists (even though his experience is easily demonstrable as not being indicative of how many preterists actually behave).
Is this guilt-by-association argument really that important to you?
I've never heard one either - other than the utterly unsatisfactory "Matthew is for the Jews" argument. I remember asking some Plymouth Brethren dispensationalists (I grew up among them) why the ingathering of the elect was clearly after the tribulation, and I got that answer. I became amillennial after that answer.
How are you coming on giving a summary of what you believe about the 70AD “return” of Christ, as I’ve asked so many times now....and a list of those prophecies yet unfulfilled according to preterism?
So do partial preterists! :)
x:I agree. The bible demands it.
Partial preterists agree as well.
1. You're assuming that the guy posting that website isn't puffing his resume. That never happens.....
2. Frankly, eschatology in the Reformed denominations isn't that big an issue. One could go years at a time in a Reformed church and never hear a thing about eschatology. I know I haven't heard an eschatological sermon or Sunday School class in the 3 years I've been a Presbyterian.
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, partial preterists most certainly affirm the hope of the resurrection for the people of God. Yet there seems to be a persistent effort to imply that we don't.
Do you believe partial preterists rob people of the hope of the resurrection?
I am not sure what I would be labeled actually!
yeah, topcat...you should know by now that xzins is an expert at identifying something truly Reformed ;)
The author has made a series of points about preterism in his article. His concluding comments included a personal observation.
That concluding observations was something that was commented on by you to me in post #5. When you posted to me, did you want me NOT to respond? If you'd simply said so, then I probably would have obliged.
If you had wanted me to respond to you on one of points 1 through 7, then perhaps you might now want to point out one of those.
Resume’s can sometimes be easily checked on the internet.
See if there’s a guy of this name who is president of whatever college he says he president of.
No, Jude. xzins is an expert at determining whether somebody is truly Reformed or not, and he's convinced this guy is thoroughly Reformed...so much so that xzins is unwilling to question his experience. So if this guy says we preterists spend more time preaching our eschatology than preaching the Gospel then it must be true.
(whoa....got dizzy there for a second...)
Yup, and I gave my personal observation regarding the misleading nature of such a spurious comment. I questioned the unquestionable.
That concluding observations was something that was commented on by you to me in post #5. When you posted to me, did you want me NOT to respond? If you'd simply said so, then I probably would have obliged.
I honestly didn't think you would go to such great lenghts to defend a ridiculous statement like this one. You invited such criticism the moment you passed this guy off as some sort of proof that preterism is not truly Reformed.
But not on the return of Christ, which, partial preterists insist, had to be fulfilled as one of "ALL these things (that) must be fulfilled" in the "generation" living at that time in 70 AD.
I suspect you aren’t addressing any of the 7 points for a reason. Far easier to bloviate about his personal observation.
Read my lips, x, because I'm going to say this (again) as clearly and unequivocally as I can:
Partial preterists believe and teach a future as-yet-unrealized coming of Christ in the full and final consumation of His Kingdom and judgement of all mankind.
Now, are you going to accept what partial preterists tell you they themselves believe, or are you going to take it upon yourself to continue telling us we are lying and that we really believe something else?
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.