Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dartuser
Youre a funny man topcat.

I’m sure I have my moments.

You define scholarship …

I define biblical scholarship, in part, as a careful, reproducible, documented method for interpreting the Bible which does justice to the historical views of the Church and is mindful to avoid fads and popular theories. That leaves out much of what is called “futurism” in today’s Church.

15 posted on 10/13/2010 11:10:54 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Don't whine to me. It's all Darby's fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: topcat54
I define biblical scholarship, in part, as a careful, reproducible, documented method for interpreting the Bible

Preterists make it a point to ignore the Old Testament context, the progress of revelation, the grammatical context of key passages ... items that I would hardly omit from "being careful." Most DO reproduce the same results over and over again, which is not really advancing the view. Not sure what documentation has to do with anything, everyone documents their views.

which does justice to the historical views of the Church

Only lip service ... when dating the book of Revelation, then you have to depart from the historical view of the Church in a big way. The overwhelming majority of scholars, of any theological persuasion, date the book of Revelation around 95 AD; due mostly to solid external evidence. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. The clear statement of Irenaeus that the book was written in 95 AD is why the vast majority of scholars accept the AD 95 date.

In my opinion, authors like DeMar are wasting their time discussing the nuances of "this generation" or "what did Peter mean by apostasy" ... Preterism rises or falls on the date of Revelation ... and so far ... the weak unserious arguments for an early date condemn preterist as an unBiblical view.

I urge you as a brother in Christ to reevaluate your thinking in this area.

A most important PS:
Eschatology, in my opinion, is a "matter of conscience" topic. We have freedom in Christ to form our theological methods and hermeneutical approaches to conform to what we consider exegetically important. Are Amillenialists Christians? If they have accepted the atoning work of Christ on their behalf then yes. Do we understand the answer to "what must I do to be saved?" correctly in each of our systems; yes. Etc. etc. The gap between dispensationalists and covenantalists is large (at least in their eschatological views) ... but that gap is not as deep or wide as, say, the difference between Catholics and Protestants.

19 posted on 10/13/2010 6:19:57 PM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson