-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Eschatology
- Thread starter Tlaloc
- Start date
- Status
A
Anonymous
Guest
One of the things that seem to bind us together on this site is a hard-headed stubbornness regarding all things we personally hold dear. I think that is what holds me here, among others. I fit that catagory quite well. I firmly believe that "stubbornness is as the sin of withcraft", except when it is about the truth, where it becomes righteous as "holding fast to those things you have received". :lol: A short time ago on another thread that was radiating out into the far reaches of space, with very little terra firma to give foundation, I said something about speculation being fun, that it was like recess for theologians, it is a lot of fun, but little work was getting done.
This thread has similarities in that there is a good bit of speculation on issues that cannot be proven until events occur that verify our views. It doesn't matter that we can find someone else that is "published" to agree with our point of view. Eschatology can very easily become a divisive issue among loving believers. I have my own view that I am quite comfortable with and "I know I am right", but I will not portray it here. Don't we all feel the same way? If we wish to share our views on end times, let us please do so as brethren who recognize that what may be clear to us, may also be obscurred to someone else who has another equally clear view. Let us share our view of such issues with a great measure of love. Our conviction of end times events cannot be conclusively proven to a bunch of hard heads such as us. Rather let us focus our attention on biblical marriage and families, building one another up in Christ.
Someone famous said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". I fear that is the result of a discussion of eschatology here.
This thread has similarities in that there is a good bit of speculation on issues that cannot be proven until events occur that verify our views. It doesn't matter that we can find someone else that is "published" to agree with our point of view. Eschatology can very easily become a divisive issue among loving believers. I have my own view that I am quite comfortable with and "I know I am right", but I will not portray it here. Don't we all feel the same way? If we wish to share our views on end times, let us please do so as brethren who recognize that what may be clear to us, may also be obscurred to someone else who has another equally clear view. Let us share our view of such issues with a great measure of love. Our conviction of end times events cannot be conclusively proven to a bunch of hard heads such as us. Rather let us focus our attention on biblical marriage and families, building one another up in Christ.
Someone famous said, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". I fear that is the result of a discussion of eschatology here.
Well said Pastor John.
Your words remind me of DL Moody who once said, "we know he shall return so if if our watches do not align with the same exact time let us not destroy one another just because the hands on our watches are not exactly on the same time."
The precise time of when he was going to come back in his return was what he specifically warned the disciples not to get so caught up in (Acts 1:6-7). But instead while he was away they were to be busy in making disciples by the power of the Spirit.
Your words remind me of DL Moody who once said, "we know he shall return so if if our watches do not align with the same exact time let us not destroy one another just because the hands on our watches are not exactly on the same time."
The precise time of when he was going to come back in his return was what he specifically warned the disciples not to get so caught up in (Acts 1:6-7). But instead while he was away they were to be busy in making disciples by the power of the Spirit.
donnag, in a rather long quote:
Don't you think that the Apostle Paul would have told us to pray to the already-dead saints, such as Stephen, if this were true?
Rather, Paul said,
The authorship of Hebrews is disputed; IMHO, it was written by Paul and Luke. At any rate, we find:
Don't you think that the Apostle Paul would have told us to pray to the already-dead saints, such as Stephen, if this were true?
Rather, Paul said,
The authorship of Hebrews is disputed; IMHO, it was written by Paul and Luke. At any rate, we find:
Not one word about coming boldly before the throne of St. Stephen or any other dead saint of God, but the throne of grace, which is that of Jesus.
Pastor John said,
But there is one fundamental problem with all of our eschatological views: we are finite minds attempting to comprehend something being done by an Infinite God. Kind of like those three blind men trying to describe an elephant, only worse!
Ain't life as a Christian exciting?
To me, the whole thing is almost like recess!
PS- I know that MY point of view is the correct one. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Very true. When I was running from God and trying to prove that He does not exist, I found tons of published material that agreed with that point of view.
But there is one fundamental problem with all of our eschatological views: we are finite minds attempting to comprehend something being done by an Infinite God. Kind of like those three blind men trying to describe an elephant, only worse!
Ain't life as a Christian exciting?
To me, the whole thing is almost like recess!PS- I know that MY point of view is the correct one. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well I hope you aren't waiting on me to say some giant brainiac statement that will solve these age old debates, but here is what I believe (based on what I choose to believe, and that's all I can say on it on my lunch break!).
PRAYER TO THE SAINTS is encouraged by the Orthodox Church. Why? Because physical death is not a defeat for a Christian. It is a glorious passage into heaven. The Christian does not cease to be a part of the Church at death. God forbid! Nor is he set aside, idle until the Day of Judgment.
The True Church is composed of all who are in Christ-in heaven and on earth. It is not limited in membership to those presently alive. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, worshiping God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. They actively pray to God for all those in the Churchand perhaps, indeed, for the whole world. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us.
PRAYER TO THE SAINTS is encouraged by the Orthodox Church. Why? Because physical death is not a defeat for a Christian. It is a glorious passage into heaven. The Christian does not cease to be a part of the Church at death. God forbid! Nor is he set aside, idle until the Day of Judgment.
The True Church is composed of all who are in Christ-in heaven and on earth. It is not limited in membership to those presently alive. Those in heaven with Christ are alive, in communion with God, worshiping God, doing their part in the Body of Christ. They actively pray to God for all those in the Churchand perhaps, indeed, for the whole world. So we pray to the saints who have departed this life, seeking their prayers, even as we ask Christian friends on earth to pray for us.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Dr. K.R. Allen said:Huh how odd, I left those views you now affirm to become a futurist. So you left this to find truth. I left that to find truth.
I argued against the futurist point and called it sin and and raved along with my profs about how messed up it was to believe Israel was an elect nation with a special future in some earthly millennial kingdom.
But then I met some who were and through literal interpretation I came to see I was not a Jew, God still had plans for ethnic Israel, and that the earthly kingdom promises had never yet been fulfilled and despite being angry over their logic and clear teaching of Scripture I could not find holes to the main arguments.
So I then embraced futurism as the truth.
Hi K.R.,
Well, we seriously disagree on the identity of "Israel". If the Jews are the true Israel, then Scripture appears to be corrupt. God stated quite clearly that He no longer has a covenant with Israel, because of their sins. The modern nation of Israel is a false Israel, mentioned in the book of the Revelation.
I don't believe in Replacement Theology at all. The Children of Israel (i.e. the physical descendants of Jacob) were NEVER Israel. Israel has always been those that have faith in God. Thus, ancient Israel was made up of those that believed, while modern Christianity is the same thing--those that believe. Jews do not believe, and in fact have a false religion that hardly resembles the faith handed down to them by Moses at all. Judaism is as distinct from the Israelite religion as Mormonism is from Christianity.
Here's the main thing with eschatology: There's a pattern we are seeking. When we FIRST find that pattern, THAT is the answer. If it happens another time, it's not the fulfillment of prophecy, because it already happened.
You believe in futurism because you believe that modern Israel is "Israel" of eschatological prophecy. You are going at the whole thing backwards.
Scripture contains very strong evidence that preterism is the truth, in my opinion, and I'd be happy to show you why. We shouldn't take a premise--that modern Israel is the "Israel" of Scripture so that Day has not come--and place it before the words of Scripture. That was my error as well, because I'd been taught that way. EVERYTHING in Scripture is open to skepticism, and if you don't have that skepticism, then you'll get fooled by many false doctrines. (Not saying that you don't have that intelligent skepticism--I'm just speaking generically here.)
I went back and re-evaluated Scripture, and proceeded from Scripture to my eschatology, not the other way around.
I'll have to provide more information later, because I'm late for several appointments...
John for Christ
donnag said:
But the fact remains, that is not a Scriptural position. Prayer is a form of worship, and we are to worship only God.
I don't pray to any fellow believers who are still alive here on Earth. I might ask them to pray for me and with me, but that is not praying to them.
If, as the Orthodox Church teaches, the saints who have gone to glory are actively praying for us on Earth, it seems quite unnecessary to ask them to do what they are already doing. Wouldn't God give each his assignment, just as He does for those of us still here on Earth? Jesus said:
There is not one example in all of Scripture (unless I missed something) of a live-and-still-walking-on-the-Earth believer praying to a dead-and-gone-to-Heaven believer. In fact, communicating with the dead (necromancy) is strictly forbidden in Mosaic law (emphasis mine):
When Saul went to the witch at Endor (1 Samuel 28:6-25) he was not praying to Samuel, he was practicing necromancy. The Lord had left him and no longer answered, so he wanted Samuel's advice. The witch was scared almost to death when Samuel actually appeared! Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would die in battle the next day. (1 Samuel 28:19) I sure don't want that kind of message from beyond the grave...
In the New Testament, when Jesus died:
Paul obviously knew a large number of Christian martyrs – he was responsible for the deaths of many before his Damascus Road experience. He was there when the first Christian martyr died:
For the convenience of those who might not have been following this thread until this post, here are the Scriptures quoted in my previous (short) post about praying to dead Saints:
But what does this have to do with eschatology...? I only addressed it because it was in that passage from donnag's church's teaching that was quoted in defense of Preterism.
IMHO, and this may be totally wrong, time ceases to exist at death. (For the deceased, not those of us still here...) A believer who dies is immediately taken to that point in time of the ressurection of the Saints, and a nonbeliever, to the point in time of the ressurection of the lost. (We don't know when in time either one will be, of course!) This is only conjecture on my part. Nothing in Scripture confirms this - but to the best of my knowledge, nothing denies it. If I missed something, point it out and I will stand corrected.
But the fact remains, that is not a Scriptural position. Prayer is a form of worship, and we are to worship only God.
I don't pray to any fellow believers who are still alive here on Earth. I might ask them to pray for me and with me, but that is not praying to them.
If, as the Orthodox Church teaches, the saints who have gone to glory are actively praying for us on Earth, it seems quite unnecessary to ask them to do what they are already doing. Wouldn't God give each his assignment, just as He does for those of us still here on Earth? Jesus said:
He did not say to ask Moses or Abraham or Noah to ask the Father for us. (See also John 14:14,15:16, 16:23,24,26)
There is not one example in all of Scripture (unless I missed something) of a live-and-still-walking-on-the-Earth believer praying to a dead-and-gone-to-Heaven believer. In fact, communicating with the dead (necromancy) is strictly forbidden in Mosaic law (emphasis mine):
When Saul went to the witch at Endor (1 Samuel 28:6-25) he was not praying to Samuel, he was practicing necromancy. The Lord had left him and no longer answered, so he wanted Samuel's advice. The witch was scared almost to death when Samuel actually appeared! Samuel told Saul that he and his sons would die in battle the next day. (1 Samuel 28:19) I sure don't want that kind of message from beyond the grave...
In the New Testament, when Jesus died:
But nowhere are we instructed to pray to the saints who were raised.
Paul obviously knew a large number of Christian martyrs – he was responsible for the deaths of many before his Damascus Road experience. He was there when the first Christian martyr died:
Yet he never named even one of them – not even Stephen - as someone to whom we we should pray.
For the convenience of those who might not have been following this thread until this post, here are the Scriptures quoted in my previous (short) post about praying to dead Saints:
But what does this have to do with eschatology...? I only addressed it because it was in that passage from donnag's church's teaching that was quoted in defense of Preterism.
IMHO, and this may be totally wrong, time ceases to exist at death. (For the deceased, not those of us still here...) A believer who dies is immediately taken to that point in time of the ressurection of the Saints, and a nonbeliever, to the point in time of the ressurection of the lost. (We don't know when in time either one will be, of course!) This is only conjecture on my part. Nothing in Scripture confirms this - but to the best of my knowledge, nothing denies it. If I missed something, point it out and I will stand corrected.
A
Anonymous
Guest
ylop said:
Can you define what you mean by "amillennialist" in a bit more detail, please? That can have different meanings...
For instance, some amillennialists believe that the "millennium" is a symbolic number, not an actual span of years, while others believe it is an actual span of years, but that the reign of Christ is spiritual in nature, so we don't see it physically. And an amillennialist can be a futurist--expecting some kind of "rapture" or final judgment in the future after the millennium that is happening now--or a preterist--believing that we are at the tail end of the millennium or that it happened some time ago and little or no prophecy is left...
So please clarify that a bit for me, would you?
ylop said:
Sounds familiar. It's so comforting to believe that everything fits in nice little boxes, like the 6000 years, or dispensations. I graduated from those beliefs as well, when I discovered that they simply wouldn't work with Scripture. Dispensations are a terrible mess, that suggest that God's salvation differs from age to age, even though God tells us that His judgments remain the same forever. Instead, it seems to me that Scripture indicates that God's people have ALWAYS been those that have faith in God and believe on Him, from Adam to today. Nobody is a special case or gets a free ride because of their genetics (i.e. the Jews and Israelites).
ylop said:
I tend to agree with most of that. Escapist futurist rhetoric encourages Christians not to do anything about the world they are in, but to pack their bags, sit down, and wait for the Lord's return. Yet God constantly tells us in Scripture to live in Him and change the world by preaching the Gospel, and caring for those in need, showing His love to the lost.
When a person comes to realize, like I did, that most or all of the eschatological passages have already come to pass, Scripture takes on a whole new meaning, encouraging us to do just what Christ told us to do--spread His gospel and show His love to every person. We aren't looking for some pie-in-the-sky futuristic scenario, but rather live righteously day by day in the Holy Spirit.
Even futurists know that to die is to be present with the Lord. So why this reliance on being raptured first? It really doesn't make a difference in the long run--you go to the same place the same as other believers. Instead, I believe we should live righteously and do our Godly duty, and not worry about futurism or preterism, but concentrate on spreading God's love.
However, I also believe that to properly understand the meaning of Scripture, one must take a preterist view.
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Donnag,
Interesting article, but I think perhaps the author missed it on a few points and got it on a few points.
I like what he said about the "thousand years" representing an indefinite number. That's how I understand it as well. Just as we say things like "not in a million years", meaning "not in a long, long time", the ancients used similar phrases to designate huge but limited numbers. In the case of the Millennium, I believe that it represented an actual time period of between approximately 1000 years or more. Specifically, I believe that it represented just about 1888 years, give or take a few years, from the time that John recorded the Revelation until the modern state of Israel was born in 1948.
However, I think he came up with the wrong answer when it comes to praying to the saints. We have a High Priest, and we can go boldly to the throne, without any intermediaries.
When the Revelation speaks of ruling and reigning with Christ during the 1000 years, I try to take the book of Revelation in the sense it was given--as a vision. Therefore, the images are symbolic, not physical reality. It occurred to me that Jesus' disciples DID rule and reign with Him during the past 1888 (+ or -) years--THROUGH SCRIPTURE!!!
You see, the saints were responsible for recording the New Testament Scriptures for us. Their writings have "RULED" us all during that time--providing the guide we need to understand the Lord's Plan. Along with Christ, the saints have "ruled and reigned" through the Scriptures. The Bible is our key guide to the truth, and it has reigned supreme when it comes to understanding God's plan for us and for the present and the future.
He gets it right when he notes that the kingdom of God is "not food or drink", but that it is spiritual in nature. It's not a physical kingdom with a physical throne. Jesus flat out told us that! Many of us have blindly accepted the futurist interpretation that the kingdom will be a physical one for 1000 years. What in Scripture suggests that? Christ made it clear that it was spiritual, not physical. How do we turn it physical again?!? Isn't the spiritual SUPERIOR to the physical? If so, why would Christ lower Himself back to a physical level, rather than ruling with God from His throne. Why would He sit on some earthly throne? It simply doesn't make sense in light of Scripture and reason.
Then I think he also gets it wrong when he thinks of the loosing of Satan as the coming of the Antichrist. One of the major points of Scripture is the failure of the Mosaic Law and that religion. Man could not be righteous enough to satisfy God. Only through Jesus' righteousness can we stand before God.
You see, at the time of Christ, the Jews opposed God. They even went so far as to murder His son, as Jesus prophesied in the parable of the wicked workers in the vineyard, who represented the Jewish leaders. Israel rejected God, and He rejected Israel as a nation. That's not to say that He rejected ALL of Israel, because He did not. Instead, He grafted those that believed on Jesus BACK into the Root, Who was Himself. By Christ, we are no longer two, but one new man. Both Jewish believers (the remnant) and Gentile believers were Israel in God's eyes.
So anything that opposed Christianity was a "satan" or accuser of the brethren, and a great deceiver. That was EXACTLY what Jews were after Christ's resurrection. They opposed Christianity with zeal (take Paul's example, for instance) and persecuted GOD HIMSELF.
After God judged the nation of Judah in 70 A.D. and following, Israel ceased to be a physical nation. Their persecution and deceit disappeared almost completely. They were "locked up" during the thousand years...
Then in 1948 Israel was revived, with Jewish descendants who could only claim the most tenuous connection to the original Israel. Again, they started teaching worldwide and THROUGH THE NATIONS THAT GRANTED THEM THE MODERN NATION OF ISRAEL, that Christians were all wet and didn't know what they were talking about, and that Judaism was the true religion. In other words, they fulfill Revelation 20:3 and following PERFECTLY.
Now please don't take any of this the wrong way. I love Jewish people. It isn't the people that are the problem--or at least not most of the Jewish people--but rather the religion that is a deceiver and an accuser. People are falling under its spell right and left, deceiving even the saints through such nonsense as "Messianic Judaism" and the like. It's a huge and devastating lie.
Anyway, those are some of the things I noticed in the article...
John for Christ
Interesting article, but I think perhaps the author missed it on a few points and got it on a few points.
I like what he said about the "thousand years" representing an indefinite number. That's how I understand it as well. Just as we say things like "not in a million years", meaning "not in a long, long time", the ancients used similar phrases to designate huge but limited numbers. In the case of the Millennium, I believe that it represented an actual time period of between approximately 1000 years or more. Specifically, I believe that it represented just about 1888 years, give or take a few years, from the time that John recorded the Revelation until the modern state of Israel was born in 1948.
However, I think he came up with the wrong answer when it comes to praying to the saints. We have a High Priest, and we can go boldly to the throne, without any intermediaries.
When the Revelation speaks of ruling and reigning with Christ during the 1000 years, I try to take the book of Revelation in the sense it was given--as a vision. Therefore, the images are symbolic, not physical reality. It occurred to me that Jesus' disciples DID rule and reign with Him during the past 1888 (+ or -) years--THROUGH SCRIPTURE!!!
You see, the saints were responsible for recording the New Testament Scriptures for us. Their writings have "RULED" us all during that time--providing the guide we need to understand the Lord's Plan. Along with Christ, the saints have "ruled and reigned" through the Scriptures. The Bible is our key guide to the truth, and it has reigned supreme when it comes to understanding God's plan for us and for the present and the future.
He gets it right when he notes that the kingdom of God is "not food or drink", but that it is spiritual in nature. It's not a physical kingdom with a physical throne. Jesus flat out told us that! Many of us have blindly accepted the futurist interpretation that the kingdom will be a physical one for 1000 years. What in Scripture suggests that? Christ made it clear that it was spiritual, not physical. How do we turn it physical again?!? Isn't the spiritual SUPERIOR to the physical? If so, why would Christ lower Himself back to a physical level, rather than ruling with God from His throne. Why would He sit on some earthly throne? It simply doesn't make sense in light of Scripture and reason.
Then I think he also gets it wrong when he thinks of the loosing of Satan as the coming of the Antichrist. One of the major points of Scripture is the failure of the Mosaic Law and that religion. Man could not be righteous enough to satisfy God. Only through Jesus' righteousness can we stand before God.
You see, at the time of Christ, the Jews opposed God. They even went so far as to murder His son, as Jesus prophesied in the parable of the wicked workers in the vineyard, who represented the Jewish leaders. Israel rejected God, and He rejected Israel as a nation. That's not to say that He rejected ALL of Israel, because He did not. Instead, He grafted those that believed on Jesus BACK into the Root, Who was Himself. By Christ, we are no longer two, but one new man. Both Jewish believers (the remnant) and Gentile believers were Israel in God's eyes.
So anything that opposed Christianity was a "satan" or accuser of the brethren, and a great deceiver. That was EXACTLY what Jews were after Christ's resurrection. They opposed Christianity with zeal (take Paul's example, for instance) and persecuted GOD HIMSELF.
After God judged the nation of Judah in 70 A.D. and following, Israel ceased to be a physical nation. Their persecution and deceit disappeared almost completely. They were "locked up" during the thousand years...
Then in 1948 Israel was revived, with Jewish descendants who could only claim the most tenuous connection to the original Israel. Again, they started teaching worldwide and THROUGH THE NATIONS THAT GRANTED THEM THE MODERN NATION OF ISRAEL, that Christians were all wet and didn't know what they were talking about, and that Judaism was the true religion. In other words, they fulfill Revelation 20:3 and following PERFECTLY.
Now please don't take any of this the wrong way. I love Jewish people. It isn't the people that are the problem--or at least not most of the Jewish people--but rather the religion that is a deceiver and an accuser. People are falling under its spell right and left, deceiving even the saints through such nonsense as "Messianic Judaism" and the like. It's a huge and devastating lie.
Anyway, those are some of the things I noticed in the article...
John for Christ
donnag said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi K.R.,
Well...there is some dispute over whether the early church fathers were futurists, preterists, or some other "-ists" concerning eschatology.
Regardless, Scripture comes first, whether they believed one way or the other, wouldn't you agree?
I also find the writings of the early church fathers to be both interesting and useful, but not on the level of Scripture. Many of them got a lot of doctrines wrong, and their logic is highly suspect in a number of places. Some of it is just plain weird. I believe it was Augustine that thought that sex was a sin, except for procreation. That's simply nuts. That's why their writings are not canonical Scriptures...
As for those that may have said that the apostle John taught them the future millennial view, I'd have to say either they were wrong, or their words have been misunderstood. John clearly teaches a chronological soon fulfillment of prophecy within the lifetimes of those that were first reading the Revelation, as we can see in the following verses from the Revelation:
Each of these verses contain a phrase that indicates the chronological nearness of Jesus' coming in some manner.
Given that the current creation has only been around for about 6,000 years, to tell us the He is coming quickly when He means 2,000 years or more, it would be an unmitigated lie. That is one of the weakest points in futurist doctrine. Quickly means quickly. It doesn't mean that when He comes He will come quickly. That would be irrelevant. What's He going to do, take a few years to meet us in the sky? It simply isn't rational to interpret "quickly" as anything other than the common meaning. That virtually guarantees that some form of preterism is the truth.
Of particular interest to me was the statement in Revelation 22:10:
Similar language was used at the end of the book of Daniel, but God told them TO SEAL the book, not "do NOT seal the book", because the time was a ways off from Daniel's time. Some 490 years later (or thereabouts) the events prophesied in Daniel started coming to pass, particularly the advent of the Messiah. At that time in our New Testament, we see many of the quotes from the book of Daniel, and their interpretation as they applied to Christ. At that time, the words were UNSEALED!!!
That was a LONG period of 490 years. In the case of the Revelation, not sealing the book, because "the time is at hand" and "coming quickly" can indicate only one thing--that Jesus would return in a much shorter time than 490 years. In fact, if we base it on the probable date of the writing of the Revelation by John, those things prophesied in the book of Revelation took place only 5-15 years after the book of Revelation was written. Those people AT THAT TIME could understand the prophecies in the Revelation, because it was UNSEALED to them, just when it needed to be.
These are just a few of many reasons that I have to accept preterism as the truth. Nothing else appears to be rational. For that reason, I tend to discount the eschatological beliefs of any of the early church fathers that believed in futurism...
John for Christ
Well...there is some dispute over whether the early church fathers were futurists, preterists, or some other "-ists" concerning eschatology.
Regardless, Scripture comes first, whether they believed one way or the other, wouldn't you agree?
I also find the writings of the early church fathers to be both interesting and useful, but not on the level of Scripture. Many of them got a lot of doctrines wrong, and their logic is highly suspect in a number of places. Some of it is just plain weird. I believe it was Augustine that thought that sex was a sin, except for procreation. That's simply nuts. That's why their writings are not canonical Scriptures...
As for those that may have said that the apostle John taught them the future millennial view, I'd have to say either they were wrong, or their words have been misunderstood. John clearly teaches a chronological soon fulfillment of prophecy within the lifetimes of those that were first reading the Revelation, as we can see in the following verses from the Revelation:
Each of these verses contain a phrase that indicates the chronological nearness of Jesus' coming in some manner.
Given that the current creation has only been around for about 6,000 years, to tell us the He is coming quickly when He means 2,000 years or more, it would be an unmitigated lie. That is one of the weakest points in futurist doctrine. Quickly means quickly. It doesn't mean that when He comes He will come quickly. That would be irrelevant. What's He going to do, take a few years to meet us in the sky? It simply isn't rational to interpret "quickly" as anything other than the common meaning. That virtually guarantees that some form of preterism is the truth.
Of particular interest to me was the statement in Revelation 22:10:
Similar language was used at the end of the book of Daniel, but God told them TO SEAL the book, not "do NOT seal the book", because the time was a ways off from Daniel's time. Some 490 years later (or thereabouts) the events prophesied in Daniel started coming to pass, particularly the advent of the Messiah. At that time in our New Testament, we see many of the quotes from the book of Daniel, and their interpretation as they applied to Christ. At that time, the words were UNSEALED!!!
That was a LONG period of 490 years. In the case of the Revelation, not sealing the book, because "the time is at hand" and "coming quickly" can indicate only one thing--that Jesus would return in a much shorter time than 490 years. In fact, if we base it on the probable date of the writing of the Revelation by John, those things prophesied in the book of Revelation took place only 5-15 years after the book of Revelation was written. Those people AT THAT TIME could understand the prophecies in the Revelation, because it was UNSEALED to them, just when it needed to be.
These are just a few of many reasons that I have to accept preterism as the truth. Nothing else appears to be rational. For that reason, I tend to discount the eschatological beliefs of any of the early church fathers that believed in futurism...
John for Christ
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi John,
I appreciate your viewpoint. You often offer very peaceful and sound advice.
However, I'd like to point one thing out...
There is a significant difference between the futurist and preterist viewpoints, such that one CAN be determined here and now, while the other's veracity can only be determined after the supposed events occur.
In other words, if preterism is true, then we can find evidence that it is true, whereas we cannot find evidence that futurism is true until it has happened.
Based upon that simple logic, it is easy to point to both the Biblical presentation of the nearness of the coming of the Lord and the reasons for His coming, and the historical events surrounding the BIGGEST event ever to devastate Israel (much bigger proportionally than Hitler's reign of terror) and those connections to eschatological prophecy and fulfillment.
So, preterism is favored over futurism for that reason. Futurism cannot be proved, while preterism has the possibility of being proven.
If one is not deceiving themselves, and reads Scripture as if they have never heard of futurism or preterism or any other kind of eschatology, then it becomes clear that it was written with a near fulfillment in mind. Only by presupposing the futurist position can a person change the common meaning of the text to extend the end-times to 2000 years or more. I know, because I've done it myself, until I saw the blinking obvious preterist nature of Scripture.
Anyway, it isn't important to our salvation to understand eschatology. We are saved by faith, not by doctrine.
However, it is valuable to know God's plan, and how it developed via eschatology. Without a proper knowledge of eschatology, much of Scripture is hidden from view.
As long as our discussion is peaceful and useful, I say we should just enjoy it and not worry so much about whether people will get hurt feelings. If they do, they need to communicate those feelings to the group so we can decide what to do. Just some thoughts...
John for Christ
I appreciate your viewpoint. You often offer very peaceful and sound advice.
However, I'd like to point one thing out...
There is a significant difference between the futurist and preterist viewpoints, such that one CAN be determined here and now, while the other's veracity can only be determined after the supposed events occur.
In other words, if preterism is true, then we can find evidence that it is true, whereas we cannot find evidence that futurism is true until it has happened.
Based upon that simple logic, it is easy to point to both the Biblical presentation of the nearness of the coming of the Lord and the reasons for His coming, and the historical events surrounding the BIGGEST event ever to devastate Israel (much bigger proportionally than Hitler's reign of terror) and those connections to eschatological prophecy and fulfillment.
So, preterism is favored over futurism for that reason. Futurism cannot be proved, while preterism has the possibility of being proven.
If one is not deceiving themselves, and reads Scripture as if they have never heard of futurism or preterism or any other kind of eschatology, then it becomes clear that it was written with a near fulfillment in mind. Only by presupposing the futurist position can a person change the common meaning of the text to extend the end-times to 2000 years or more. I know, because I've done it myself, until I saw the blinking obvious preterist nature of Scripture.
Anyway, it isn't important to our salvation to understand eschatology. We are saved by faith, not by doctrine.
However, it is valuable to know God's plan, and how it developed via eschatology. Without a proper knowledge of eschatology, much of Scripture is hidden from view.
As long as our discussion is peaceful and useful, I say we should just enjoy it and not worry so much about whether people will get hurt feelings. If they do, they need to communicate those feelings to the group so we can decide what to do. Just some thoughts...
John for Christ
John Whitten said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi PolyDoc,
One thing to consider is that eschatological passages of Scripture ARE MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. So, finite minds or not, there is a fulfillment to those prophecies, whether in the past or the future.
John for Christ
One thing to consider is that eschatological passages of Scripture ARE MEANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD. So, finite minds or not, there is a fulfillment to those prophecies, whether in the past or the future.
John for Christ
PolyDoc said:Pastor John said,
Very true. When I was running from God and trying to prove that He does not exist, I found tons of published material that agreed with that point of view.
But there is one fundamental problem with all of our eschatological views: we are finite minds attempting to comprehend something being done by an Infinite God. Kind of like those three blind men trying to describe an elephant, only worse!
Ain't life as a Christian exciting?
PS- I know that MY point of view is the correct one. :lol: :lol: :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Donnag,
What would be the purpose of communicating with the saints? We don't personally know any of them, so we really don't have much to talk about. And why go through an intermediary rather than going directly to God, as we have the right to BOLDLY do? It's not like God cannot handle all of our prayers at once, nor is He so weak as to not be able to deal with everything all at once.
It just seems to weaken the nature of God to suggest that we need to pray to saints, or enlist their assistance in getting God's attention. God deals with each of us directly.
Which Orthodox church are you talking about? Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? I know that the Roman Catholics have a similar belief concerning the saints, but their doctrines are so messed up as to be practically cultish. No offense intended to Roman Catholics, but too many of their doctrines depart from the Biblical view that I have a difficult time believing that Roman Catholicism itself is actually a Christian religion. It has so many elements of the Babylonian Mystery religions that we can trace its roots to those, suggesting that Roman Catholicism is not wholly a Christian religion. (Note: Individual believing Catholics may still be Christians, because of their faith and despite the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism. I'm not picking on them at all.)
John for Christ
What would be the purpose of communicating with the saints? We don't personally know any of them, so we really don't have much to talk about. And why go through an intermediary rather than going directly to God, as we have the right to BOLDLY do? It's not like God cannot handle all of our prayers at once, nor is He so weak as to not be able to deal with everything all at once.
It just seems to weaken the nature of God to suggest that we need to pray to saints, or enlist their assistance in getting God's attention. God deals with each of us directly.
Which Orthodox church are you talking about? Roman Catholic? Greek Orthodox? I know that the Roman Catholics have a similar belief concerning the saints, but their doctrines are so messed up as to be practically cultish. No offense intended to Roman Catholics, but too many of their doctrines depart from the Biblical view that I have a difficult time believing that Roman Catholicism itself is actually a Christian religion. It has so many elements of the Babylonian Mystery religions that we can trace its roots to those, suggesting that Roman Catholicism is not wholly a Christian religion. (Note: Individual believing Catholics may still be Christians, because of their faith and despite the false doctrines of Roman Catholicism. I'm not picking on them at all.)
John for Christ
donnag said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Hi PolyDoc,
We ought to get a discussion on time going somewhere... It's an interesting study in both Scripture and physics.
I'll just give a hint of my viewpoint...does time really exist in any meaningful way?
John for Christ
John_for_Christ said:
An analogy might be an ant walking on a picnic table. We can see where that ant is headed - towards danger, or towards food - but the ant can see only some fraction of an inch around itself. We could pick up the ant and deposit it in a jar of honey or a jar of acid, depending on which direction the ant was headed when we decided that it's "picnic table life" was over. (Very crude analogy, to be sure...)
Scientists talk about the universe being made up of "space-time-matter." This temple of clay that houses my soul and spirit is part of this universe. When a person dies, he leaves this "space-time-matter" that we call the universe. So time exists only for those of us presently confined to "space-time-matter."
And one more point...unless we can find something in the Bible which, using proper hermeneutics and exegesis, would prove all this, it should not be made into a doctrine. It's what John Whitten might call "recess for theologians."
My salvation is by grace through faith, and as you pointed out, does not depend on any doctrine of any church. It also for sure does not depend on this "recess for theologians" stuff!
Maybe there should be a separate thread for this one?
Time, just like matter and energy (which Einstein showed to be the same) and space, are all part of God's creation. That is why God can see both the beginning and the end.
An analogy might be an ant walking on a picnic table. We can see where that ant is headed - towards danger, or towards food - but the ant can see only some fraction of an inch around itself. We could pick up the ant and deposit it in a jar of honey or a jar of acid, depending on which direction the ant was headed when we decided that it's "picnic table life" was over. (Very crude analogy, to be sure...)
Scientists talk about the universe being made up of "space-time-matter." This temple of clay that houses my soul and spirit is part of this universe. When a person dies, he leaves this "space-time-matter" that we call the universe. So time exists only for those of us presently confined to "space-time-matter."
And one more point...unless we can find something in the Bible which, using proper hermeneutics and exegesis, would prove all this, it should not be made into a doctrine. It's what John Whitten might call "recess for theologians."
My salvation is by grace through faith, and as you pointed out, does not depend on any doctrine of any church. It also for sure does not depend on this "recess for theologians" stuff!
Maybe there should be a separate thread for this one?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thanks for your kind words, my friend. I have not delved very deeply into preterism, as yet. My one foray into the field was rather disappointing because of things that happened on another site. But, I am still looking, when I have the time. One thing that does trouble me about preterism, so far, is the tremendous need to treat so many scriptures metaforically. It appears to me, that treatment leaves interpretation open to the understanding of each individual, rather than some concrete truth that will be available to all people and cultures. I lean toward a realization of progressive revelation, that is, God teaching us as it comes along, kind of a need to know basis, or a capable of understanding basis. I pray to keep the eyes of my understanding open and receptive to all God's truth, trusting Him for every bit of truth and knowledge.
A
Anonymous
Guest
John Whitten said:
Hi John,
It is good not to jump into anything and to seriously consider every doctrine we accept. Take it slowly or fast as God leads you. For me it was relatively instant, but I have no idea what your experience will be.
Let me offer you one thing to consider concerning the "metaphorical" treatment of eschatology. Both futurists and preterists treat eschatology metaphorically. We MUST treat it metaphorically, because it is prophecy and is symbolic. We aren't given another choice.
However, I believe that the key to understanding eschatology is to chuck out all our pre-conceived notions and try to put ourselves in the place of those to whom the New Testament letters were originally written. If we read the Scriptures as if they are simple, understandable, and when it is time for those eschatological passages to be revealed, we'll understand them. (Of course my belief is that they already ARE clearly understandable, and have been revealed in the past.)
Anyway, here's what I discovered. As you noted, the preterists take certain passages metaphorically that the futurists do not. On the other hand, futurists tend to take certain things metaphorically that fit their presuppositions as well. Let me give you an example: Preterists see "heaven and earth" as describing the religious system which will be overturned, not the actual heave and earth. Futurists see "coming quickly" and "the time is at hand" as something other than their normal and common meaning.
The question isn't which side is treating eschatology metaphorically, but which side is treating it correctly. To me, the question is simple. The book of Revelation is quite clearly a vision, not a movie of the future. Much of the Revelation is undoubtedly symbolic, and everyone seems to agree on that. However, where the futurist and preterist part ways is in the consistency of interpretation of the eschatological passages. Preterists tend to take the Revelation from Revelation 4 through 22 as completely symbolic. Futurists see both symbolism and reality in those chapters, and seem to me to be inconsistent in their interpretation. For instance, the beasts in heaven are symbolic, but when it comes to the armies, those are real armies. It seems like picking and choosing to me, and I feel it is the reason that there are so many futurist interpretations.
Just some thoughts. Hope you give preterism an honest chance. At the very least, you'll be able to refute it better if you come to believe it is incorrect! ;->
John for Christ
- Status