Posted on 05/13/2014 3:04:52 PM PDT by HarleyD
So on the one hand, the Catholic Church since Vatican II has taught that the "old covenant" is still valid. On the other hand, they still teach that the Catholic Church is the "true Israel."Does anyone else see a problem here? Either the "old covenant" is still valid or the Catholic Church is (chas veshalom!) the "new Israel." Both can't be true simultaneously.
The Roman Catholic take on covenant theology is going to be quite different than that of classic Reformed C.T. In other words, Vatican II is not relevant right here.
Why not? You seem to be able to imagine everything else. All dispensational/futurist prophecy is based on vivid imaginations. If you don't believe that, you have not been following the Antichrist-of-the Month Book Club. LOL!
BTW, who is the Antichrist this month? LOL!
>>>your posts are no more than sophistry in my view<<<
At least they are not sour grapes. Would you care to post scripture supporting your unsubstantiated claims; or are you going to continue to cast aspersions, hoping the naive will fail to see through your deceptions?
>>> I don’t pay any attention to what you’ve got to say, quite frankly. Consider the source.<<<
It appears you have been paying quite a bit of attention!
>>>As to myself, I am historic premill, I am not dispensationalist.<<<
Not historic enough. I see you failed to challenge my quotes from Eusebius. Of course, you cannot; but I assumed you would at least try.
>>>Re: the Ligonier site, I went to its link in the lead article, first time there, when I saw the site featuring R. C. Sproul, which everybody knows is a prterist, I read no further, I assume Mathison is probably preterist. The site likewise.<<<
That is typical of dispensational/futurist hysterics. Dr. Mathison is a postmillennialist. And there are no preterists on the site: at least not in the narrow-minded way you define a preterist. Everyone check out Mathison's book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999.) Find out what the doom-and-gloomers don't tell you (e.g., "the rest of the story.") LOL!
>>>What I said about preterists being sneaky, in my personal experiences with them I’ve found to be true. It is like getting blood out of a turnip getting them to admit that is what they are.<<<
That is deceptive. Many postmillennialsts also claim to be partial preterists; for example, Ken Gentry. The reason they, like I, tend to avoid discussing "labels" with futurists is explained by the hysterical, unscholarly tirade you presented. They don't have the time or the patience for such antics.
When are you going to defend your doctrine with some scripture? You know your slanders will no longer work on this thread now that you have been challenged and exposed?
Philip
You can do a study yourself of all the Old Testament prophesies that point to Jesus and yet also had a least a partial fulfillment around the time spoken. For example, the bulk of Jeremiah and others' prophesies around that time, pointed to the imminent Babylonian overthrow of Israel, but also to events surrounding the birth and second coming of Jesus.
Another example is Chapter 2 & 3 in the Book of Revelation itself. What Jesus spoke to the seven churches is applicable personally and corporately at any time as all those conditions spoken of can be seen in individuals and the main characteristics of various churches.
Also, the names, descriptions, and words to the seven churches can be precisely mapped to the 2000-year history of the world since Christ. Examples are after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs). Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12). We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.
Don't discount the layout of the Book of Revelation: "the things which you have seen [Chapt One], and the things which are [Chapt 2-3], and the things which shall be hereafter [Chapt 4-22]" (Rev 1:19). The sealing of Israel who will evangelize the world may have happened in part and in a shadow in the past, but Revelation 7:3-10 will be fully realized in the future.
I couldn't let that misconception slide. In a previous post I referenced partial-preterism from Eusebius. In this post I will present partial-preterist commentary from several early Church Fathers; and all can be verified online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL;) http://www.ccel.org. All books listed are according to the CCEL naming schemes.
This is Justin Martyr, AD 100-165:
"And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: 'For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' And it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For out of Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the world of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we might not lie or deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ." [The First Apology of Justin, Chapter XXXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1]
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." [The First Apology of Justin, Chapter XI, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1]
Irenaeus, AD 130-200
"If any one, however, advocating the cause of the Jews, does maintain that this new covenant consisted in the rearing of that temple which was built under Zerubbabel after the emigration to Babylon, and in the departure of the people from thence after the lapse of seventy years, let him know that the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight." [Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXIV, Par 4, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]
1. … Even as Esaias saith, “The children of Jacob shall strike root, and Israel shall flourish, and the whole world shall be filled with his fruit.” The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also.
2.Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John." And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David, and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation when the new covenant was revealed. " [Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter IV, Par 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]
"CHAP. VII.--RECAPITULATION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT, SHOWING THAT ABRAHAM, THROUGH THE REVELATION OF THE WORD, KNEW THE FATHER, AND THE COMING OF THE SON OF GOD. FOR THIS CAUSE, HE REJOICED TO SEE THE DAY OF CHRIST, WHEN THE PROMISES MADE TO HIM SHOULD BE FULFILLED. THE FRUIT OF THIS REJOICING HAS FLOWED TO POSTERITY, VIZ., TO THOSE WHO ARE PARTAKERS IN THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, BUT NOT TO THE JEWS WHO REJECT THE WORD OF GOD. . . .
2. For not alone upon Abraham's account did He say these things, but also that He might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son Himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passable, and spake with the human race, that He might from the stones raise up children unto Abraham, and fulfil the promise which God had given him, and that He might make his seed as the stars of heaven,(5) as John the Baptist says: "For God is able from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."(6) Now, this Jesus did by drawing us off from the religion of stones, and bringing us over from hard and fruitless cogitations, and establishing in us a faith like to Abraham. As Paul does also testify, saying that we are children of Abraham because of the similarity of our faith, and the promise of inheritance." Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter VII, Title and Par 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1]"
Hegesippus (from Eusebius) on the martyrdom of James the Just:
"James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time . . . The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."" [The Church History of Eusebius, Book II, Chapter XXIII, Para 4, 12, 13, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol I]
Clement of Alexandria, AD 150-220:
"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said." [The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book I, Ch XXI, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 2]
Pseudo-Clement (attributed to Clement of Alexandria):
"But our Master did not prophesy after this fashion; but, as I have already said, being a prophet by an inborn and every-flowing Spirit, and knowing all things at all times, He confidently set forth, plainly as I said before, sufferings, places, appointed times, manners, limits. Accordingly, therefore, prophesying concerning the temple, He said: "See ye these buildings? Verily I say to you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall not be taken away [Matt. 24:3]; and this generation shall not pass until the destruction begin [Matt. 24:34]. . . ." And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. [The Clementine Homilies, Book III, Chapter XV, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8]
This is a partial list. There are many more examples of early partial-preterism among the early Church Fathers.
Philip
That is a novel interpretation. However, I believe that in John 12:32, Jesus was simply explaining in another manner how his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, in which he will eventually put all things under his feet, even death. Jesus was using that particular phraseology as another way to inform his disciples that he and the Father are one. For example, Jesus also said this:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44 KJV)
So which is it, Jesus or the Father? That appears contradictory to 12:32, until you recollect this:
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 KJV)
>>>You can do a study yourself of all the Old Testament prophesies that point to Jesus and yet also had a least a partial fulfillment around the time spoken. For example, the bulk of Jeremiah and others' prophesies around that time, pointed to the imminent Babylonian overthrow of Israel, but also to events surrounding the birth and second coming of Jesus.<<<
I recall that some of Jeremiah's prophecies also point to the ministry of Christ; but as part of the chronological sequence, and not as dual-fulfillment. Do you have any specific examples?
>>>Another example is Chapter 2 & 3 in the Book of Revelation itself. What Jesus spoke to the seven churches is applicable personally and corporately at any time as all those conditions spoken of can be seen in individuals and the main characteristics of various churches.<<<
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. The "seven churches in Asia" were simply seven churches in Asia at the time John received the revelation from Christ. I personally would hesitate to add any words to that prophecy that are not already written.
>>>Also, the names, descriptions, and words to the seven churches can be precisely mapped to the 2000-year history of the world since Christ. Examples are after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs). Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12). We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.<<<
There is no evidence that Christ intended any of that. The only evidence we have is he was using his servant John to get messages to those churches at or about the time of the great tribulation that occurred around AD 66-70. I have read some rather imaginative interpretations of the seven Churches; but they are all simply that: imaginative interpretations. One that comes to mind is by Cyrus Scofield:
"The messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application:
(4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period, there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after Rev 3.22. Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, "where Satan's throne is," after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, Song Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonie. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not "fulfilled." Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea."
This is from a fellow who frowned on "spiritualization" of the prophecy; that is, unless he was the one doing the spiritualizing. LOL!
Other imaginative works on the seven churches include:
"The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, William Mitchell Ramsay , 1904"
"Commentary on the Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, Richard Chenevix Trench, 1862"
"Seven Lectures on the Prophetical Addresses to The Seven Churches, John Nelson Darby, 1862"
It takes quite an imagination to stretch seven short epistles, with little if any scriptural or historical documentation, into an entire book.
Philip
Not so novel - in black and white in the next verse. To discount he is also describing being hoisted up on the cross ignores the very next verse: This he said, signifying what death he should die (vs. 33).
no evidence...quite an imagination
It takes the living and powerful Word of God, and you've been given historical evidence.
Well, Phillip, although it looked like a good-faith question you asked about God's Word being multidimensional, it looks like you're not interested other than to just argue against the idea of a living and powerful Bible. That's OK, but I'm not interested in sharing with one who's mind is closed.
You left out a part of what you wrote. This is all of it:
>>>[part 1]Scripture is alive ("quick") (Hebrews 4:12). It is not dead letter but of God's spirit (2 Cor 3:6). Jesus Christ is the very Word of God himself - alive and giving life. A word that is spoken will minster to the hearers at the time spoken while still referring to something in the future. [part 2]A simple example is Jesus saying, "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to me" (John 12:32). Although this referred to how he would be hoisted up on the cross, it also refers to 2000 years of lifting up the name of Jesus drawing men to himself.<<<
I responded to both parts.
To the first part I responded as being "novel," which is defined in Merriam-Webster as "original or striking especially in conception or style." That is exactly the way I see it.
The second part I gave my own interpretation, which is not too dissimilar to yours; but with a twist about the Jesus-Father relationship. However, I believe the "theme" (if you will) of your comment was based on dual-fulfillment; and that particular example was weak, to be kind. I was hoping you could point to something where it is written, "this will be fulfilled both now and in the future."
For example, dispensationalists claim there will be a dual-fulfillment of Malachi's "Coming of Elijah" prophesy. If that was an accurate interpretation, one would think there would be at least one prophetic record of a dual fulfillment in the New Testament. Rather, Jesus gave not so much as a hint of a future fulfillment when he stated that John fulfilled the Malachi prophecy.
>>>It takes the living and powerful Word of God, and you've been given historical evidence.<<<
There is no historical or biblical evidence whatsoever that the messages of Jesus Christ to the seven churches in Asia meant anything other than what is written; and you have provided none.
>>>Well, Phillip, although it looked like a good-faith question you asked about God's Word being multidimensional, it looks like you're not interested other than to just argue against the idea of a living and powerful Bible. That's OK, but I'm not interested in sharing with one who's mind is closed.<<<
It appears your definition of "closed minded" is anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you ever want an honest, non-fluffy debate on the scriptures, look me up. If want to play lecturer, please pick someone else.
Philip
“In this post I will present partial-preterist commentary from several early Church Fathers.”
Yeah, right, just like your fellow preterist, Hank Hanegraaf, “presented” at this debate on the dating of the book of Revelation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlT8S6KgOl4&list=PL0osYxTc0WTMkqnpnVM9UNefs-p5r6FNv
Hanegraaf’s “presentation,” to an unbiased observer, was laughable, I actually felt sorry for poor old Hank, all he had to offer was the typical preterist twisting of the scripture and history...like you just did.
Mark Hitchcock, on the other hand, presented the truth in a very sensible way. Hanagraaf didn’t even attempt to respond to 90% of Hitchcock’s arguments for the late date writing of Revelation. I suggest anyone confused by Freneau listen to the debate. The debate is quite lengthy, but well worth the time.
If Revelation was written in the very late part of the first century, which it was, then all this twisting of scripture and history, which you’ve just seen, is exposed for what it is, worthless and contrived.
I know, Hitchcock is a dispensationalist, which I’m not, however, he is a futurist and a premillennialist, which I am, I agree with him on those points. I think he did a great job debating Hanegraaf.
I have, and you fail to address them. Again,
1) after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs).
2) Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12).
3) We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.
Sorry about blurting out "closed minded" but I question the good-faith of your inquiry to me meaning that you'd be at least willing to consider what I'm saying (it's not about "agreeing" with me).
BTW, it looks like you've sort of proven my point by coming up with more than one way John 12:32 is/was fulfilled.
My apologies. I assumed the article was by a Catholic (from the designation "Ligornier," which I perhaps conflated with Liguorian.
By the way, I made mention on this thread about how very shy preterists are in telling you that is what they are, listen to Hanegraaf in the debate. He was asked repeatedly what he was. He was there to argue for his side, preterism, yet he couldn’t bring himself to admit that is what he was. Incredible, simply incredible. The part where they are trying to get him to say what he is, is in the last part of the debate.
If you wish ME to explain the anomalies of the Catholic faith you've got the wrong person. ;O)
1) after age of the initial birth of the Christian church (Ephesus) came the suffering Smyrna age where many Christians were slaughtered in the Roman world (Cf. Fox's Book of Martyrs).
2) Another example is the dark ages of Thyatira (Thyatira means "continued sacrifice"). The Catholic Church is well described as the church that demands "continued sacrifice" even though Jesus "offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" (Heb 10:12).
3) We've just come out of the great Christian Philadelphia age of world evangelization which ended around 1900 and are now steeped in the final age, the lukewarm Laodicean age, before Jesus comes back.
<<<
I truly do not understand how anyone came up with those "ages," because I cannot find a shred of evidenced for them in the scriptures. The only scriptural reference provided, Hebrews 10:12, relates to continual burnt offerings of animals in the Jewish temple vs the single, permanent offering the Lord provided with his own, bodily sacrifice. It is no more related to the so-called "continual sacrifices" to the Catholic Church than to the "continual sacrifices" of Protestant tithing and offerings. Recall that Abraham gave ten-percent of his worth to Melchesidec: but he did it only once. Maybe Christians should adopt the faith of Abraham, tithe only once, and then forget about it. After all, we no longer have the Levitical priesthood to support.
>>>Sorry about blurting out "closed minded" but I question the good-faith of your inquiry to me meaning that you'd be at least willing to consider what I'm saying (it's not about "agreeing" with me).<<<
I consider everything that is written to me. On many occasions I do not respond as expected; but it is, in all cases, sincere.
>>>BTW, it looks like you've sort of proven my point by coming up with more than one way John 12:32 is/was fulfilled.<<<
As aforementioned, I believe that to be a weak example. In the scheme of things, it is completely fulfilled only one way: after Jesus draws all men to himself; and we both agree that will happen. I must be missing your point.
Philip
My apologies. I assumed the article was by a Catholic (from the designation "Ligornier," which I perhaps conflated with Liguorian.
This one is a place name. Ligonier Ministries was originally the "Ligonier Valley Study Center", named after its original location.
You seem like a smart guy. I think if in good faith, you did a study of historical periods beginning in the first century in the light of the order of , meaning of, and words to the churches in Chapters 2 & 3 you'd find startling parallels right up to now - a godless age (Jesus knocking outside not only the church but the world) of lukewarmness towards God, where many people believe they have no need for God, exactly as Jesus spoke of the Laodiceans.
You wrote: Yeah, right.
You can read, can't you? I see you have failed to dispute a single quotation I presented from the early Church Fathers. Therefore I must assume you either cannot read, or you cannot find anything to dispute. Whatever the case, your only recourse would be to either acknowledge your doctrinal weakness, or cast aspersions and redirect the conversation. I see you have chosen the latter. But I do understand: you are, after all, only a futurist.
>>> … just like your fellow preterist, Hank Hanegraaf, “presented” at this debate on the dating of the book of Revelation. Hanegraaf’s “presentation,” to an unbiased observer, was laughable, I actually felt sorry for poor old Hank, all he had to offer was the typical preterist twisting of the scripture and history...like you just did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlT8S6KgOl4&list=PL0osYxTc0WTMkqnpnVM9UNefs-p5r6FNv<<<
LOL! You are absolutely correct about Hank's presentation! I watched the entire video last summer (very long and boring,) and Hanegraaf is truly a lightweight. Why else would a lightweight like Mark Hitchcock choose him to debate? You did notice that one of the "moderators" was another dispensational lightweight named Tommy Ice, didn’t you?
>>>Mark Hitchcock, on the other hand, presented the truth in a very sensible way. <<<
Mark Hitchcock doesn't know the truth. He is a dispensationalist.
>>>Hanagraaf didn’t even attempt to respond to 90% of Hitchcock’s arguments for the late date writing of Revelation. I suggest anyone confused by Freneau listen to the debate. The debate is quite lengthy, but well worth the time.<<<
I also recommend watching the debate, not for Hanegraaf's presentation (which is almost non-existent,) but for Hitchcock's. Be certain to read (actually read) the references that Hitchcock claims support his late-date theory. In particular, carefully read the reference by Polycarp (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter XI.) It is an eye-opener, exposing Hitchcock for the charlatan he truly is, since the claim he makes about Polycarp is not to be found in Polycarp's epistle. But it is a common claim by futurists, and helps expose the weakness of their arguments.
>>>If Revelation was written in the very late part of the first century, which it was, then all this twisting of scripture and history, which you’ve just seen, is exposed for what it is, worthless and contrived.<<<
It would not affect me one way or the other. I go wherever the scripture leads. I have no cult/clique to defend. However, those with "set in stone" doctrines, like dispensationalists/futurists, have a lot to lose, including a massive book industry (which is affectionately called, the "Fundamentalist Industrial Book Complex.") Be certain to join their "Antichrist-of-the-Month Book Club" if you want to keep current on the name of latest antichrist. LOL!
One dirty little dispensationalist/futurist secret is this: when it is proven (and it will be) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the entire, dreary, dispensationalist/futurist house of cards comes crashing down. Good riddance!
>>>I know, Hitchcock is a dispensationalist, which I’m not, however, he is a futurist and a premillennialist, which I am, I agree with him on those points. I think he did a great job debating Hanegraaf.<<<
We debated (briefly) a dissertation by Hitchcock on this forum several months ago in a related thread. The Hitchcock-Hanegraaf debate was also mentioned. The link is below, if you are interested:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3129149/posts
Philip
I believe that is called "patronizing."
>>> I think if in good faith, you did a study of historical periods beginning in the first century in the light of the order of , meaning of, and words to the churches in Chapters 2 & 3 you'd find startling parallels right up to now - a godless age (Jesus knocking outside not only the church but the world) of lukewarmness towards God, where many people believe they have no need for God, exactly as Jesus spoke of the Laodiceans.<<<
In good faith, I have studied historical periods, and continue to do so. I am certain I could never arrive at the conclusions you arrived at because I do not believe they are biblical. Further, I believe all of the Revelation up to 20:8 has been fulfilled, and was fulfilled by the end of AD 70, exactly as Christ predicted. I also believe that Satan has been loosed for some time on an unsuspecting Church, world-wide (exactly as Christ predicted in Rev 20,) and has created all sorts of havoc: for example, changing our once God-fearing nation into another Sodom and Gomorrah, not to mention the former Christian nations of Europe. But he will be destroyed in due time.
How do you interpret this passage?
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (Rev 3:9-10 KJV)
Philip
"I could never arrive...": "Could never"? I don't know how to say it any other way - it sounds close minded to me.
"because I do not believe they are biblical"
What's not biblical? The Greek meaning of the second church, "Smyrna" means "crushed myrrh", a symbol for suffering which took place in the early church under Rome's heal about which Jesus said "you will suffer" and have "tribulation" and "be faithful unto death" about which Foxes Book of Martyrs" goes into detail. What about that isn't "biblical"?
What about the fourth church, "Thyatira" which means "continued sacrifice" which I mentioned? It's order of placement in these two chapters maps with the end of the state religion of Constantine and before the Reformation - the dominance of the Catholic Church in the dark ages for about 1000 years. Jesus rebukes the church for allowing spiritual fornication and misdirected sacrifice, exactly what the Church did during those years of selling indulgences and forbidding the Bible to be read by anyone other than church officials. What about that isn't "biblical"?
What about the sixth church, the Philadelphia Church, which means "brotherly love"? Jesus said he set before them an open door because they kept his word and did not deny his name. It's order of placement in these two chapters maps around 1700-1900, after the Reformation period and before the present godless age. You are very aware of the exploits of Christians all over the world during this time. Great Awakenings in the New World and America, Spurgeon, Sunday, and Wigglesworth, missionaries all over the world, the birth of a nation founded on the very principals of the Bible, never before seen. The church was strong and vibrant and went through "the open door" Jesus spoke of and evangelized the world. What about that isn't "biblical"?
What about the last, seventh church, the Laodicean church, the "people-centered" church? Jesus had not ONE good word to say to this church. He called them lukewarm, that they think they are rich and have need of nothing certainly not God. Jesus is seen outside knocking on the door to be let back in. Is that not the dominant state of the world today? Never since the flood has the whole world turned away from the God of the Bible like this. "God is dead" is echoed around the world except for those fanatics who will kill you in the name of their false "God" (Allah) for naming Jesus. What about that isn't "biblical"?
“One dirty little dispensationalist/futurist secret is this: when it is proven (and it will be) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, the entire, dreary, dispensationalist/futurist house of cards comes crashing down. Good riddance!”
I think what you said here should be restated... thusly:
“One little secret is this: it has been proven (despite what you said, Hitchcock did a very good job) that the Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, which has brought down the entire preterist house of cards.”
Notice, I didn’t include your last over the top words, “good riddance,” it doesn’t sound like something a Christian should say on a forum like this.
And, by the way, I’ve told you before, I’ll tell you again, I am not a dispensationalist, futurist, yes, but not dispensationalist.
It seems to irritate you why I won’t go point by point with you, I certainly could, especially on the early church fathers, if I thought you a genuine seeder of truth I would, but I don’t waste time with debaters, it is clear to me that all you are is a debater.
I should have read this before I posted it. “After” the fall of Jerusalem for heaven’s sake, NOT “before!”
“One little secret is this: it has been proven (despite what you said, Hitchcock did a very good job) that the Revelation was written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem, which has brought down the entire preterist house of cards.”
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.