Posted on 01/14/2002 11:35:19 AM PST by NATE4"ONE NATION"
Well, then it must be true. After all, Luther was appointed by, by, by,...Well, who did appoint Luther the author of God's truth?
You are more interested in promoting your erroneous views than finding and aligning with the truth.
He is excited about finding truth, something most churches have long given up on. Maybe Lord willing you will one day get excited about truth rather than feeding on the ancient swill of modern organized Christianity.
I agree these men began churches that were in many ways as bad as the one they railed against. I'm more interested in where God was working at those times among the poor common people who would have gotten no historical ink.
For twenty centuries God has not lifted a finger on the earth. The Holy Ghost is here still but it is hamstrung by lazy Christians spoon fed by personalities and cannot work as designed because of us. I think I know how to get it working again but I cannot do it alone.
Not hard to imagine, seeing how fraught with error dispensationalism is!
To return to an earlier answer of mine, your earlier refutation of pre-millenialism was addressed against dispensationalism. How do you think you stack up against a historical pre-mil position?
His words are not twisted. They are part of a context, and honest people can see more than one way to make them fit that context.
1. Do you admit that some scripture in the bible has been futurist? Of course you do! Others when they remember that, that God has given futurist predictions in the past, continue to look for other futurist scriptures in the remainder of the bible. That's not dishonest; it's based on an already established pattern. However, and I will admit this: it certainly isn't a unanimous opinion. This leads me to the conclusion that there are various interpretive methods that can be used by equally honest Christians that cause them to reach differing conclusions on secondary and tertiary biblical doctrines.
2. What must I conclude? First, that YOU are NOT a heretic and that your interpretive method has merit. Second, I must conclude, if I"m to be honest, that there are a variety of strands of interpretation regarding prophetic scripture. There's some things I like about the preterist position. But there are also things I like about the a-millenial and the pre-milennial positions. I believe in trying my best to have an understanding of each of these strands and approaching this area with an honest openness.
3. I think that many of Jesus' words in his Olivet discourse can be taken by honest people to be futuristic in nature. Once a person makes that assumption about any one section, that will color other sections and require them to be fit into a comprehensive interpretive framework. If, for example, I interpret as futuristic Jesus' words about "Jerusalem being trodden under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are ended" then it is only natural that I might see the "this generation shall not pass away" statement in that futuristic context. There's nothing dishonest about that. There's no twisting being done. It's simply an honest person trying to put difficult pieces of a puzzle into a comprehensive interpretive framework.
5. The bottom line. I believe the resurrection actually occurred. I believe Jesus is alive. I believe he is the source of salvation for those who turn to him. I don't think my position on futurism, preterism, dispensationalism, etc., has ANYTHING to do with my or your salvation. The resurrection and salvation is a primary doctrine. Future things or future scriture is in my mind, at best, a tertiary doctrine. He is risen!
Genesis 8:22
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."
No offense, but this hardly seems definitive.
The preterist view has interested me since I left the dispensational camp years ago. Partial preterism make sense to me from a Scriptural standpoint. But, IMO, full Preterism seems Darby-like in its rigid construction. Like Darby, you require everything to conform and throw out “hyperbolize” those numerous pesky verses.
Actually I see a lot of similarity between Preterists and capital "L" libertarians. They have many good ideas and ask the right questions, but the rigidity of its typical adherents ensures the truths they espouse reach a limited audience.
"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight...Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. " (Acts 1:9,11)
As Jesus was literally taken up in a cloud, we see the admonition that He "will return in like manner".
It obviously wasn't intended to be an allegorical return "in men's hearts", as some will claim, for the clear understanding of both Jesus and (most likely angels) the two men in white garments is that this will be a literal and visible event, seen by many.
Can you please cite when/where Jesus literally fulfilled this prophecy in the past?
Thank you.
There is a name for this heresy--Hymenaeanism.
It is not "conservative" as it attempts to overthrow the historic view of the Christian faith that, while much, perhaps most, of what Jesus foretold was indeed intended for His immediate audience, not *all* things were fulfilled in His time nor were they meant to be (i.e., the bodily Resurrection of the just and unjust; the final judgement; the bodily return of Jesus Christ at the close of history, etc.).
"Full" (or "hyper") preterism denies the following: the future physical Advent of Christ; the future final judgment; and the future physical, bodily resurrection of the just and unjust.
This places it outside of Christian orthodoxy and within the pale of heresy--it is sub-christian belief.
As Andrew Sandlin observed, while theological progress and reformation is good, not all doctrinal "development" is progress, "This theological progress and creativity must occur within the strictures of orthodox Christianity, however, or it subverts the Faith."
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_Hymenaen.html
Advocating beliefs that are against the core doctrines of the historic Christian faith is not "Reformation," and, indeed, goes against everything the great Reformers stood for valiantly.
Regarding the "recommended" works, of the writers I am familiar with, *none* of them advocate the heretical Hymenaeanism. Ken Gentry has publically spoken against it.
The post in question cites Kenneth Gentry in support of hyper or full preterism, which is simply not reflective of the facts. Indeed, Gentry has written, "No Creed allows any second Advent in A.D. 70." He adds, "No Creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgement of all men, not a representative judgement in A.D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A.D 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected!" (See Kenneth Gentry, "A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism," *Chalcedon Report* no. 384 [July 1997]: p. 23).
In short, Gentry (rightly) considers it outside of the historic Christian faith.
R.C. Sproul in his excellent work, The Last Days According to Jesus, cites, "'We need to state it clearly for the record that R.C. Sproul, Sr. is not a full preterist, but he does see a lot of merit in the partial preterist approach similar to Ken Gentry.' It is comforting to be quoted accurately." (See R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus Baker Books, 1998, p. 158, quoting and responding to Edward E. Stevens, in Stevens' Response to Gentry Bradford, PA: Kingdom, 1997).
The unqualified citing of DeMar, Gentry, Sproul, et.. al., as supportive of heretical hyper, or full, preterism is a dishonest use of sources, to say the least.
While these men certainly eschew the novel view of dispensationalism and do hold to a historic post-millenial, partial-preterist view and historic orthodoxy, they do not in any sense advocate the "full" preterism and heresy of the post in question. They hold to Biblical Reformation--not heresy.
I dunno. I haven't read Sproul.
Where do you mark the division between those things that have already been fulfilled and those that are future?
I dunno. I haven't settled into a confident interpretation of, say, the Olivet Discourse. But I think I have figured out most of Revelation 20.
The Holy Ghost that was given at Pentecost is and has been operating all along among mostly the poor. As you said, NATE, you can find truth in most churches. Take the good and leave the bad. My experience with the independent Pentecostal churches has introduced me to the proper use of this power of God, some think it is God but whatever it is at least I know it is available here and now. I have much more but I need feedback to know where to go with this next.
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.