Then why did he edit some and discard others? Just one of many contradictions in Luther's life.
Are the events of I Thessalonians 4:13-18 (described by dispensationalists as the "rapture", but self-described by the text as the "coming of the Lord".) seen by preterists as future or already fulfilled?
This is something that I have not yet to see explained in Sproul's book. I think that I could be in agreement with a "partial fulfillment preterism" if this event is seen as being yet to occur. If preterists see it as already fulfilled in the first century, exactly what event fulfilled it?
Except, of course, the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6).
The rest... what's the point?
Try instead What Is Biblical Christianity? There are some Biblically-grounded theses with clear and crucial application.
Indeed. Interesting that one group of his philosophical heirs, the Communists, spoke in a manner similar to their father: "the revolution never ends." Peas in a pod.
This may get interesting, if we can do a discussion of ecclesiology and not be overwhelmed by RC bashing posts.
My point is always that the Roman Catholics were the first Protestants. It is understandable thet the monk Luther rebelled against the mess of the western and papal church.
Go East, young man, Go East.
Honest question is "Why and how did you find yourself in this sad situation"
If, as you admit, you have lost your way, it seems that you might try to remember where you lost the way.
Actually, there's a disconnect between what the author says in point 5 and how the old testament community viewed this 100% accuracy rule. In Micah 5:2, Micah prophesies that Bethlehem would have a ruler come out of it. This clearly was seen by the scholars in King Herod's day as having been a futuristic prophecy; one that had not yet been fulfilled.
In Micah's day, they realized that no ruler had come forth from Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy. Wonder why they didn't stone Micah for being a false prophet? Instead, rather than be even slightly upset with him, they included him in the list of biblical books.
They must have had some guideline they used to determine when a prophet was speaking about something that had yet to take place in the far distant future.
In the Olivet discourse, it's obvious that Jesus is in many portions talking about the far distant future. Luke reports that Jesus said, "Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles come to an end." Then he talks of signs in the heavens, etc.
It's not possible for a truly honest person to say that that verse simply cannot be viewed futuristically. An honest person will allow that these are future things.
(Incidentally, it's in the context of this Jerusalem/Gentiles statement that the "this generation shall not pass away" statement is properly placed.
It's easy for an honest person to allow that that statement refers to the future generation that sees these things coming to pass. It's also easy for an honest person to relate the Greek "gens" which means either "generation" or "racial group" to be speaking of the Jewish race; especially given that the entire context is of their near destruction by the Gentiles.
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?
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.