Originally Posted by Dante (Post 1319734)

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Dante (Post 1319734)

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Dante (Post 1319734)

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Originally Posted by TJJJ (Post 1319759)

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

Originally Posted by TJJJ (Post 1319759)

I have studied preterism in depth and at first it makes more sense than dispensationalism.

But that is not saying much as dispensationalism is so flawed it is pitiful.

Preterism is the ditch on the other side of the road from the ditch of dispensationalism/futurism. But both are ditches.

I take a more balanced approach of a cyclic view of Revelations. One commentator called it the dramatic/cyclic approach.

There are many undeniable tenents of preterism, yet catholics believe some truths also.

My problem with the doctrine is that true preterism, taken in it's entire package, does away with everything that we as Apostolics hold dear. Not just the rapture but they will discard everything and put it at 70AD. Most preterists do not believe in the spirit world, they do not believe in any working of the Spirit of God in gifts, they really don't believe in much except eat drink and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Yet I am an ardent apposer of the false doctrine of dispensationalism. It has it's problems in that it must put everything into the future and makes it all physical.

Jesus rebuked both doctrines when He walked the earth, it was just that then he called them the Pharisees (Dispensationalists) and Sadducees (Similar to preterists).

Jesus rebuked them both and established another way. There was a kingdom He was currently setting up (not 2000 years in the future) but it was not going to be a physical kingdom. Thus he made the Pharisees angry.

Yet it is an ongoing Kingdom that will last forever, and there will be a resurrection of the dead unto eternal life thus making the Sadducees angry.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1319800)

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319817)

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Crit...p-critique.pdf

Michael, unless you are already into preterism(set in stone), you should check out this link.

I will not teach anything that has this much inconsistency. This, according to this website could be a heretical doctrine sweeping the churches in these last days. Most folks I am seeing are not looking at the negative side of it, only the positive. If you or I choose to "teach" a doctrine that is heretical, we will "oficially" become HERETICS, by Bible standards.

You owe it to yourself to research it well, before you make the final decision of what to teach...

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1319800)

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Originally Posted by TGBTG (Post 1319857)

This is wrong on so many levels, it's hilarious. If you think that's the appeal of preterism, then you do not understand the preterist view point (regardless of its flaws)

First, pre-trib has way more in common with post-trib than preterism. The only difference between both views is when the rapture occurs. Everything else is virtually the same (as far as their interpretation of Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 17, Luke 21, Daniel 7-12, and the book of Revelation)

As for preterism, its appeal is mainly due to the fact that the interpretation is from a 1st century perspective. In other words, how the original recipients of the book of Revelations would have understood the message? (not interpreting from a 21st century perspective)

Take for instance, when the writer in Rev 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him..." How would the original audience have understood it?
Would they have said, "sure those that pierced him will be alive for 2000 years, so this ain't gonna happen for a very long time..." or would they have thought "this event would happen soon, since those that pierced him would still be alive at his coming to see him."

How about when it says "Behold, I am coming soon..." How would the original recipients have understood it? If "soon" means for not for another 2000 years, then language has lost its meaning...lol

Both views have inconsistencies. Both views have to face the cognitive dissonance associated with their view, of course, that's an entire different can of worms. At least, each camp should acknowledge its inconsistency instead of ignoring it and berating that of the other camp.

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319895)

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319895)

Well, TGBTJ and JFROG, you guys both seem to be in the same camp.

May I ask, do you guys have a conclusive doctrine that is teachable, or are you a lifetime observer/critic ?

I believe a man must make up his mind and get out and teach it with(whatever it is) the big dogs. (or just stay on the porch)

Cmon, make the call...I can see if your mind is not made up, but dont spend the rest of your life trying to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1319820)

Michael is a post trib believer not a preterist unless i have really missed something in his post.

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319911)

Thanks, Luke...Sorry Michael, I might have interpreted that post as what you believe. Maybe, clarify?

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1319800)

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Originally Posted by TGBTG (Post 1319906)

Hahaha...funny you should say that. I was telling my friend I am now an "observer." On a serious note though, as far as coming to a conclusion, how does one come to a conclusion when there are major holes in all the doctrine?

Like I said in another thread, I used to be fully pre-trib (I saw inconsistencies, but figured I would one day be able to reconcile it.) So I would search/study/pray to figure it out. As of now, I see no reconciliation. Matter of fact, I started a thread a while back asking probing questions on both preterism and dispensationalism, for which there were no answers per se.

The obvious truth (IMO) is that preterism and dispensationalism are faced with the same problem, which is "what to do with the last half of Matt 24?"

Both sides agree that the first half of Matt 24 is fulfilled, but the how about the last half?

Preterism says since Jesus said "this generation will not pass away till all these things be fulfilled..." therefore it must have been fulfilled. Since, it was not fulfilled physically, they are forced to spiritualize Jesus' coming, the sun and moon events..etc

On the other hand, dispensationalists say Jesus said his coming would be physically SEEN by all, therefore must be a gap (~2000 years so far..lol) between the first half of matt 24 and the last half, or some hold to double fulfillment of the first half of Matt 24 (of course, double fulfillment negates the fact that Jesus said the tribulation of that magnitude will be a one time event).

In any case, the real issue IMO is the cognitive dissonance both sides of the debate are struggling with.

So, as far as a conclusion, well, for now, I'd say I'm an observer because I find it difficult to teach a doctrine as truth when it is obviously & blatantly wrong, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319924)

Brother, I have a ministry that includes teaching teachers how to teach...

That is why I asked you to "make the call" and figure out the safest way to teach eschatology and just teach it with all confidence.

God bless...

Originally Posted by TGBTG (Post 1319951)

I have followed it. It has its major holes, but I didn't really want to get involved in that debate because it might come across as if I was defending preterism. My stance is that both dispensationalism and preterism have major holes.
Having said that, I would try to go respond to your layout in that thread...lol


Everyone symbolizes whether they like it or not on the parts that don't fit into their doctrine. Since you're a pre-trib, I'll give you some.

As I said, bro. I do "symbolize" some things, realizing that I may be errant, so I dont teach it as 'set in stone"

1. What does "Behold I am coming SOON" mean (Rev 22:7,12)?
Considering the time this was written, how do you interpret SOON?

There are 2 trains of thought I may use depending on the context, one is "quickly"(momentarily..ie...in the twinkling of an eye) and the other is to the Lord in eternity, soon is really no time at all(1,000 years as a day) for instance.

Do you take SOON to mean literally? (the preterist does...)

My way is still a literal view, but it is through Gods perspective

2. How about Rev 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

How do you interpret "those who pierced him being alive to see his coming?" Do you take it literally? (the preterist does...)

Absolutely, all will see him and wail in the earth. It includes the Jewish decendants(they also which pierced him) and Gentiles. The Jewish race is big time marginalized by The Lord in the book of Revelation.

3. How about this "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth... Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev 3:7-11)

Did the church in Philadelphia witness his coming? Do you take that literally? (the preterist does...)


This is what I posted on the rapture thread. There are 3 ways to view Revelation...#1 Literally, #2 Spiriturally and #3 Dispensationally.
Dispensationally speaking, the 'Philadelphian" church of modern days is the will of God for us today. verse 10, will even get them "raptured". These 7 churches are still relevant to us today.



See above...I can give you a whole lot more of symbolism innate to dispensationalism that you probably don't even realize because you're reading the text already from a dispensationalist view not a neutral view.


That's one you see. Good. How about this?
Do you believe the mark of the beast to be literal? most dispensationalists I know believe it to be literal, yet the beast itself is not believed to be literal.

It is a "literal" mark, however the beast is obviously symbolizing something,a "literal" something(or a man). This is what I mean about folks using"sensationalistic" rationale to make this bigger than it is. Even from Irvin Baxter, he is a "sensationalist". I will not say what this literal mark or beast is(other than a man), just only that is "literal". You cant go wrong with that interpretation.


How about the 7 churches of Revelation? are they literal or symbolic or both?
The preterist takes it as literal...what do you think?

I mentioned it above


No, on the contrary preterism actually seeks to proof that Jesus is who he claims he is because (according to them), everything He said would happen in the first century happened thus proving Jesus is the Messiah.

N.B. I am not a preterist, I just think its strengths are more than that of dispensationalism.


Lol...like I said above, there's a lot of allegory in your position also, but you might not realize it because it's innate to your position.
Here's another one for you:
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Literal or symbolic?? (and please, don't even say it was the transfiguration 8 days after as some dispensationalists teach...lol). Remember verse 27 says when He comes, he'll reward every man and then right after, it says "there'll be some standing here who would not die..." So do you take vs 28 literally?


Literal, Judas was still there with them, and the "coming in His kingdom" is the Acts 2 experience. I dont even know if those in my camp agree with me on that one, but the KINGDOM OF GOD IS NOT MEAT AND DRINK, BUT RIGHTEOUSNESS, PEACE AND JOY IN THE HOLY GHOST...(He just did not want to single out Judas at that time).


Are you saying I should teach with all confidence something that I can see is not coherent?? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1319971)

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1319800)

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 1319984)

He just pointed out about 20 differenet holes in your eschatology ship... He also pointed out about 20 different holes in the preterist eschatology ship... you really think it'd be wise for him to get on either of those boats just so he could say he's on a boat?

Originally Posted by TGBTG (Post 1319987)

Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.



Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?

Hey bro. Jesus said He would return, gave them signs and admitted HE HIMSELF did not know when it will be....And the bottom line...He never has returned to this day.


Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him? Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.

The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...


Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, (and) they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


Hey bro. , just saw that one. About the Gentiles(not the Jews) piercing Jesus. Thank you.
See how easy it is to fix this...That will help me greatly in a lesson.
But the rest is obviously futuristic, because it just did not literally happen yet. Again, thank you for pointing that out.


So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?


Well, the "alternative" is to ignore it having any relevance to me and treat it like O.T. history(preterism)...I realize I did not invent my theology, but it must be taught some way some how. I have to look at the best model of eschatology that I can find and teach it until I can find some better model. Otherwise, we can just be like the Pope, who said the book of Revelation is too difficult to understand, so he discourages Catholics from reading it.



So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.


Like I said above...


Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in Acts 2?

Revelation 22:12
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.?????



Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.?????

Is this what you are talking about? Please clarify bro. I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about the "judgement seat of Christ"?





I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.

Originally Posted by Monterrey (Post 1320013)

I got looking at larkins charts again, pre trib dispensationalist, ...

What a joke!

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1320037)

Originally Posted by Monterrey (Post 1320113)

Ardent anti-dispensationalist, have been for years.

It is all my parents fault......































































































































































































They taught me to read.

Originally Posted by Dante (Post 1319734)

I used to be critical and skeptical of preterism as a valid doctrine, but I find myself lately giving it serious consideration as a valid understanding of the scriptures.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple (Post 1319800)

The appeal of preterism is clear. It means Christians don't have to go through the great tribulation! It's effect is the same as pre trib. It removes the teaching of Jesus that saints go through the great tribulation.

That is quite popular!

Originally Posted by Revelationist (Post 1320347)

Living for God out of love and not fear...