Do Preterists Apply Same Rules To Unfulfilled Prophecies As They Do To Fulfulled?

[Invicta]

Philip Mauro, an American Lawyer and an early US dispensationalist, who later rejected the doctrine, wrote:

 

From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others, (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility. That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before or a little after. And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out a new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries. There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it.      1927: The Gospel of the Kingdom - Dispensationalism is modernism. It is modernism, moreover, of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a "Bible" of its own for the propagation of its peculiar doctrines, since they are not in the Word of God. Ample proof of this will be given in the pages that follow.

 

 

[Steve Schwenke]

1.  One Baptist preacher rejecting dispensationalism does not mean that there were not any Baptists previous to him that taught this doctrine.

2.  If dispensationalism is "modernism" then J. Frank Norris, Rice, Hyles, and many others of the "giants" of the 1900's are "modernists."

3.  If it was the Congregationalist Scofield who "popularized" dispensationalism in the early 1900's (first edition of Scofield reference bible is 1917), then why did the Baptist Clarence Larkin's book gain so much traction at the same time?  No, Mauro's contention is a strawman contention.  I have a book on my shelf by the Baptist J. A. Graves that deals with dispensationalism (in support of it) written in 1883 - long before Scofield even dreamed of creating a reference Bible. 

4.  Making a spiritual application of a passage is one thing, but the "spiritualizing" Covenantor is doing is the same slop Origen did in the 3rd century.  Covenantor does not want to use that terminology because it would expose him and his false teaching for what it is.  He is in fact allegorizing things that don't fit. 

 

Here is a list of authors who wrote from a dispensational viewpoint (these men all vary amongst themselves to some degree or another, and also from current dispensational teaching to varying degrees.  The point is that they recognized the basic tenets of dispensationalism ):

William Gouge - 1575-1653

Pierre Poiret - 1646-1719

Isaac Watts - 1674-1748

John Flechiere - 1729-1785

John Taylor of Norwich - 1694-1751

John Priestly - 1733-1804

David Bogue - 1750-1825

George Faber - 1773-1843

Adam Clarke - 1762-1832

David Russell - 1779-1848

 

(source: The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism, David Walker, Daystar Publishing, c.2006)

 

it is not modern.  Many Baptists held to this form of doctrine to one degree or another. 

[Covenanter]

1.  One Baptist preacher rejecting dispensationalism does not mean that there were not any Baptists previous to him that taught this doctrine.

2.  If dispensationalism is "modernism" then J. Frank Norris, Rice, Hyles, and many others of the "giants" of the 1900's are "modernists."

3.  If it was the Congregationalist Scofield who "popularized" dispensationalism in the early 1900's (first edition of Scofield reference bible is 1917), then why did the Baptist Clarence Larkin's book gain so much traction at the same time?  No, Mauro's contention is a strawman contention.  I have a book on my shelf by the Baptist J. A. Graves that deals with dispensationalism (in support of it) written in 1883 - long before Scofield even dreamed of creating a reference Bible. 

4.  Making a spiritual application of a passage is one thing, but the "spiritualizing" Covenantor is doing is the same slop Origen did in the 3rd century.  Covenantor does not want to use that terminology because it would expose him and his false teaching for what it is.  He is in fact allegorizing things that don't fit. 

 

Here is a list of authors who wrote from a dispensational viewpoint (these men all vary amongst themselves to some degree or another, and also from current dispensational teaching to varying degrees.  The point is that they recognized the basic tenets of dispensationalism ):

William Gouge - 1575-1653

Pierre Poiret - 1646-1719

Isaac Watts - 1674-1748

John Flechiere - 1729-1785

John Taylor of Norwich - 1694-1751

John Priestly - 1733-1804

David Bogue - 1750-1825

George Faber - 1773-1843

Adam Clarke - 1762-1832

David Russell - 1779-1848

 

(source: The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism, David Walker, Daystar Publishing, c.2006)

 

it is not modern.  Many Baptists held to this form of doctrine to one degree or another. 

I've inserted the link, which gives the opening chapter & I've read it. His primary reference is, of course, Scofield, who many disps on this forum say they do not follow.

 

Dispensational Camps -

A dispensationalist is one who follows and obeys 2 Tim. 2:15, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to be the “interpreter” (Gen. 40:8; Dan. 5:16; 2 Peter 1:20) of scripture. To some degree, everyone who divides the Old and New Testaments is a dispensationalist. But just as Baptists must be classified and sorted (i.e. Primitive, Hard-shell, Independent, American, General, Southern ect.) so it is with dispensationalists. The assorted dispensational “camps” are as follows:

1. Normative - those who follow Scofield, Chafer, Ironside, Walvoord, Pentecost, and Ryrie.

 

That shows the essential dishonesty of his thinking:

"To some degree, everyone who divides the Old and New Testaments is a dispensationalist."

That enables him to claim everyone as dispy. Eric accused me of really being a dispy because I pointed out 4 "dispensations" - innocence, guilt, Gospel, NH&NE (aka fullness of times).

 

Extraordinary that he should claim Isaac Watts - I went to the same school in Southampton; he was Independent (congregationalist & paedobaptist) NOT baptist. He objected to the poetry of the Scottish metrical Psalms & made his own poetical versions on the assumption that David was a Christian & that the imagery can be updated to refer to Christ.

 

Scottish Ps. 51

   7  Do thou with hyssop sprinkle me,
         I shall be cleansed so;
      Yea, wash thou me, and then I shall
         be whiter than the snow.

   8  Of gladness and of joyfulness
         make me to hear the voice;
      That so these very bones which thou
         hast broken may rejoice.

   9  All mine iniquities blot out,
         thy face hide from my sin.
  10  Create a clean heart, Lord, renew
         a right sp'rit me within.

  16  For thou desir'st not sacrifice,
         else would I give it thee;
      Nor wilt thou with burnt-offering
         at all delighted be.

  17  A broken spirit is to God
         a pleasing sacrifice:
      A broken and a contrite heart,
         Lord, thou wilt not despise.

  18  Show kindness, and do good, O Lord,
         to Zion, thine own hill:
      The walls of thy Jerusalem
         build up of thy good will.

  19  Then righteous off 'rings shall thee please,
         and off 'rings burnt, which they
      With whole burnt-off 'rings, and with calves,
         shall on thine altar lay.

Watts

   1  Lord, I am vile, conceived in sin;
      And born unholy and unclean;
      Sprung from the man whose guilty fall
      Corrupts the race, and taints us all.

   2  Soon as we draw our infant breath,
      The seeds of sin grow up for death;
      Thy law demands a perfect heart,
      But we're defiled in ev'ry part.

   3  Great God, create my heart anew,
      And form my spirit pure and true;
      O make me wise betimes to spy
      My danger and my remedy.

   4  Behold, I fail before thy face;
      My only refuge is thy grace:
      No outward forms can make me clean;
      The leprosy lies deep within.

   5  No bleeding bird, nor bleeding beast,
      Nor hyssop branch, nor sprinkling priest,
      Nor running brook, nor flood, nor sea,
      Can wash the dismal stain away.

   6  Jesus, my God, thy blood alone
      Hath power sufficient to atone;
      Thy blood can make me white as snow;
      No Jewish types could cleanse me so.

   7  While guilt disturbs and breaks my peace,
      Nor flesh nor soul hath rest or ease;
      Lord, let me hear thy pard'ning voice,
      And make my broken bones rejoice.

[Invicta]

Ian didpensationalist are usually dishonest when trying to trace their history.  They try to find their teaching when it is not there.  The thread title="Early Church Fathers Were Premillennial, Pre-Tribulation Rapture - started 06 September 2013 - 01:53 AM"> Early Church Fathers Were Premillennial, Pre-Tribulation Rapture was basically dishonest.  The early fathers were none of the sort.  They all had similar thoughts to Tertullian.  He taught that Christians prayed you the safety of Caesar as they knew the disaster which would come on the world when Caesar and the empire was removed. He taught that the Emperor and the empire where the let and hinderance in 2 Thess: 2:2 and after the empire was removed the man of sin would come and continuue for a short thine then would come the end of all things.  "We know" he said, "You know said Paul"

[Steve Schwenke]

 

[Covenanter]

1.  One Baptist preacher rejecting dispensationalism does not mean that there were not any Baptists previous to him that taught this doctrine.

2.  If dispensationalism is "modernism" then J. Frank Norris, Rice, Hyles, and many others of the "giants" of the 1900's are "modernists."

3.  If it was the Congregationalist Scofield who "popularized" dispensationalism in the early 1900's (first edition of Scofield reference bible is 1917), then why did the Baptist Clarence Larkin's book gain so much traction at the same time?  No, Mauro's contention is a strawman contention.  I have a book on my shelf by the Baptist J. A. Graves that deals with dispensationalism (in support of it) written in 1883 - long before Scofield even dreamed of creating a reference Bible. 

4.  Making a spiritual application of a passage is one thing, but the "spiritualizing" Covenantor is doing is the same slop Origen did in the 3rd century.  Covenantor does not want to use that terminology because it would expose him and his false teaching for what it is.  He is in fact allegorizing things that don't fit. 

 

Here is a list of authors who wrote from a dispensational viewpoint (these men all vary amongst themselves to some degree or another, and also from current dispensational teaching to varying degrees.  The point is that they recognized the basic tenets of dispensationalism ):

William Gouge - 1575-1653

Pierre Poiret - 1646-1719

Isaac Watts - 1674-1748

John Flechiere - 1729-1785

John Taylor of Norwich - 1694-1751

John Priestly - 1733-1804

David Bogue - 1750-1825

George Faber - 1773-1843

Adam Clarke - 1762-1832

David Russell - 1779-1848

 

(source: The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism, David Walker, Daystar Publishing, c.2006)

 

it is not modern.  Many Baptists held to this form of doctrine to one degree or another. 

 

The first chapter of your cited book is on line:

(source: The Bible Believer's Guide to Dispensationalism, David Walker, Daystar Publishing, c.2006)

 

I have a personal interest in Isaac Watts - I went to the same school (King Edward VI, Southampton, founded in 1553.) The prison where his father was imprisoned for preaching contrary to the CofE Prayer Book still stands. His mother took baby Isaac to the prison window so father & son could hear each other.

 

I found this link that examines the claim in detail - 22 pages:

Was Isaac Watts a "Proto-dispensationalist" ?

 

Pages 5-6 - Simlarities between Watts’s and Scofield’s dispensational definitions and divisions, combined with the relative dissimilarities between Darby and Scofield, have led dispensationalists like Ryrie to concludethat “if Scofield parroted anybody’s scheme it was Watts’s, not Darby’s.” Discussing dispensations or even articulating a detailed dispensational scheme does not make one a dispensationalist, however, a point that most dispensationalists recognize. For example, Walvoord observes that Charles Hodge, a postmillennialist, described four biblical dispensations, which leads him to the conclusion that “acknowledging the presence of dispensations is not limited to a single theological system.”

Moreover, Ryrie himself admits that “Covenant Theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace,”and even Watts notes a common naming of dispensations by other covenantal theologians in his day.

 

Bass points out that such dispensational divisions, rather than proving the presence of other dispensational distinctives, may rather be simply a natural practice of dividing biblical history into ages. And as Dale Sumner DeWitt correctly notes, “Age schemes are almost as old as the Christian Church.” Investigation into whether Watts may be accurately described as a proto-dispensationalist must, therefore, explore more deeply into Watts’s writings to arrive at a convincing conclusion. This exploration will rely on Charles Ryrie’s “sine qua non” of dispensationalism as a helpful framework through which to evaluate Watts’s understanding:

1.  The hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation,

2.  A clear distinction between Israel and the church, and

3.  Belief that the underlying purpose of God in the world is the glory of God.

 

It is common, without being a card-carrying dispy, to refer to the OT & NT dispensations - when I used the term, Eric asked why I wasn't a Dispy. Ryrie's 3 points are useful. It is striking that the author studies Watts' versions of the Psalms to demonstrate the way he interprets OT Scripture - as I did. Watts gives precedence to the NT interpretation of OT Scripture & is therefore far removed from the dispy "literal interpretation." Further, it is apparent that he sees the church (comprising both Gentiles & Jews) as being Israel in the new covenant situation. He did believe in a future conversion of Israel, and a millennium.

 

CONCLUSION

Page 22 - Isaac Watts was a faithful student of Scripture, a gifted author, and an influential hymn-writer, but he was no proto-dispensationalist. Yet what he shares with the dispensationalist is a love of Scripture, a belief that God has a sovereign and unified plan for human  history, and a desire to understand the progress of God’s revelation to mankind. But perhaps best of all, Watts shares a deep hope and longing for that day in which Christ Jesus will return to rule among his people:

How long, dear Savior, O how long,

Shall this bright hour delay!

Fly swifter round, ye wheels of time,

And bring the welcome day.

 

I do not propose to study the other men cited. Presumably they used the term "dispensation" as Watts (& I) did for the obvious ages in Scripture. I expect that it would be much easier to prove they were "covenant theologians" like Watts (& me.)

[Steve Schwenke]

. He did believe in a future conversion of Israel, and a millennium.

 

Walker's claim is NOT that these men he listed believed everything exactly or similarly to what we believe today, but rather that they held a view of Scripture that is not solely preterist, and that also made some type of divisions between ages.  This statement confirms that Watts' view of Scripture is not as entirely "covenantal" as you would like us to believe, and looks more like a dispensationalist to me, at least on these points.

The problem is that the covenant mindset blurs so many lines of distinction, that they are constantly trying to FORCE a similarity where there is none, and cover up the distinguishing characteristics of something in the Bible.  That mindset has carried over to their view of history as well.

 

I quote from Walker's book, pg. 62

"The evidence confirms that dispensational ideology ('certain features') was well established before Darby was even born (1800).  This is because the tenets of dispensationalism are biblical.  The following men produced dispensational systems before Darby.  <insert list from previous post.>

Ryrie says that 'evidence is available and shows that dispensational concepts were held early and throughout the history of the church," and lists Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (150-200), and even Augustine (354-430).  The idea that Darby "created" dispensationalism is absurd.  Simply because he emphasized some Bible truths does not mean he invented them.....Additionally, note comments by Timothy Rose:

'Darby is often referred to as the father of modern dispensational theology.  It is equivalent to William Carey being the 'father of modern missions.'  Carey did not invent missions.  Jesus Christ did.  Carey was not the first missionary sent out of a local church.  Paul and Barnabas were.  So it is with Darby.  He did not invent Dispensational Thought.  He propagated it on a universal level.' "

 

That is what Walker and I are communicating.  We are not saying that the men he listed taught a system that was anything like what we teach today, but rather that there were similar elements within their body of teaching that fits into some areas of our teaching that today are considered uniquely "dispensational."  Watts idea of a restoration of Israel and a future millennium do not fit within the scheme of modern "covenant theology" teachings, but rather into the mold of modern "dispensational" teaching.   The words I have bolded should help you distinguish the main idea being advanced. 

 

Finally, why stop at trying to single out one man on Walker's list?  He wrote an entire chapter (Chapter 3 - covering 22 pages) giving an historical examination to the claims of dispensationalism.   It would be well worth your time to examine his claims.   

[ASongOfDegrees]

David E. Walker's book on dispensationalism is one of the best I've read.

[Covenanter]

Walker's claim is NOT that these men he listed believed everything exactly or similarly to what we believe today, but rather that they held a view of Scripture that is not solely preterist, and that also made some type of divisions between ages.  This statement confirms that Watts' view of Scripture is not as entirely "covenantal" as you would like us to believe, and looks more like a dispensationalist to me, at least on these points.

I don't think we need to disagree on this specific aspect. All Bible believing Christians must have a basic agreement, & we start with a Bible that is divided between two ages/eras/dispensations - OT & NT, aka old covenant & new covenant.

 

The problem is that the covenant mindset blurs so many lines of distinction, that they are constantly trying to FORCE a similarity where there is none, and cover up the distinguishing characteristics of something in the Bible.  That mindset has carried over to their view of history as well.

I'm not sure I understand - covenant theology is a system of understanding Scripture, as is disp-ism, & the article I cited showed Watts applying CT to the various "dispensations" he listed.

 

 

I quote from Walker's book, pg. 62

"The evidence confirms that dispensational ideology ('certain features') was well established before Darby was even born (1800).  This is because the tenets of dispensationalism are biblical.  The following men produced dispensational systems before Darby.  <insert list from previous post.>

Ryrie says that 'evidence is available and shows that dispensational concepts were held early and throughout the history of the church," and lists Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (150-200), and even Augustine (354-430).  The idea that Darby "created" dispensationalism is absurd.  Simply because he emphasized some Bible truths does not mean he invented them.....Additionally, note comments by Timothy Rose:

'Darby is often referred to as the father of modern dispensational theology.  It is equivalent to William Carey being the 'father of modern missions.'  Carey did not invent missions.  Jesus Christ did.  Carey was not the first missionary sent out of a local church.  Paul and Barnabas were.  So it is with Darby.  He did not invent Dispensational Thought.  He propagated it on a universal level.' "

 

Again we are not in disagreement, except specifically what are "dispensational concepts" where there is clearly a measure of agreement and "modern dispensational theology?" Also there is serious disagreement as to the "Bible truths" that Darby emphasised/invented that were distinct from the dispensational concepts taught down the centuries.

 

That is what Walker and I are communicating.  We are not saying that the men he listed taught a system that was anything like what we teach today, but rather that there were similar elements within their body of teaching that fits into some areas of our teaching that today are considered uniquely "dispensational."  Watts idea of a restoration of Israel and a future millennium do not fit within the scheme of modern "covenant theology" teachings, but rather into the mold of modern "dispensational" teaching.   The words I have bolded should help you distinguish the main idea being advanced. 

Now I understand what you are communicating:

"We are not saying that the men he listed taught a system that was anything like what we teach today."

That is the heart of the argument. The historical witnesses are cited as "disps" because they used the term, not because they "taught a system that was anything like what we teach today."

 

Finally, why stop at trying to single out one man on Walker's list?  He wrote an entire chapter (Chapter 3 - covering 22 pages) giving an historical examination to the claims of dispensationalism.   It would be well worth your time to examine his claims.   

I've explained why I singled out Isaac Watts, & I answered the point without consulting the internet, apart from the exact wording of the metrical versions of Psalm 51. From what you are now posting, if I were to examine the teaching of the other men, I would no doubt find that they did not teach "modern dispensational theology" with the highly controversial PTR, "Left Behind" systems, future millennial kingdom populated by glorified resurrected believers & mortal unbelievers breeding and waiting to join a great Satan-led rebellion. 

 

Your further studies may be able to find such teaching before Darby. If you find them, telll us, but simply listing people who used the term "dispensation" will not convince me, especially when you acknowledge that they did not teach "anything like what we teach today." 

 

And, of course, I know that I can't cite a vast number of historical Christians who held to a Preterist position. But that does not mean I'm wrong, it does mean that I must examine the Scriptures & counter arguments very carefully. BUT what I can do is list people who taught "preterist concepts" like interpreting the Olivet prophecies as primarily relating to AD 70, and OT prophecy as relating to the Gospel dispensation, and covenant theology as a system running through Scripture....   

[Covenanter]

For really early non-inspired teaching about the millennium, Barnabas around the year 100 wrote:

 

Surprisingly he doesn't quote Revelation, but circulation of the manuscripts needed hand copying. It's not Scripture, it contains some useful teaching & some ridiculous ideas. I wouldn't prove anything from Barnabas. He was an early Christian writer with some strange interpretations, including allegorical interpetations.

 

Barnabas 15:1
Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten
Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And
ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a
pure heart.

Barnabas 15:2
And in another place He saith; If my sons observe the Sabbath then
I will bestow My mercy upon them.

Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

Barnabas 15:6
Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure hands
and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallow
the day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have gone
utterly astray.

Barnabas 15:7
But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest and
hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being
justified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and all
things have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it
then, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.

Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

 

The only mention of "tribulation" is of believers, in a reference to the day of atonement:

 

Barnabas 7:10
For how is He like the goat? For this reason it says the goats
shall be fair and alike, that, when they shall see Him coming
then, they may be astonished at the likeness of the goat. Therefore
behold the type of Jesus that was to suffer.

Barnabas 7:11
But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in the midst of the
thorns? It is a type of Jesus set forth for the Church, since
whosoever should desire to take away the scarlet wool it behoved him
to suffer many things owing to the terrible nature of the thorn, and
through affliction to win the mastery over it. Thus, He saith, they
that desire to see Me, and to attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold
on Me through tribulation and affliction.

[Genevanpreacher]

 

I've inserted the link, which gives the opening chapter & I've read it. His primary reference is, of course, Scofield, who many disps on this forum say they do not follow.

 

Dispensational Camps -

A dispensationalist is one who follows and OBeys 2 Tim. 2:15, thus allowing the Holy Spirit to be the “interpreter” (Gen. 40:8; Dan. 5:16; 2 Peter 1:20) of scripture. To some degree, everyone who divides the Old and New Testaments is a dispensationalist. But just as Baptists must be classified and sorted (i.e. Primitive, Hard-shell, Independent, American, General, Southern ect.) so it is with dispensationalists. The assorted dispensational “camps” are as follows:

1. Normative - those who follow Scofield, Chafer, Ironside, Walvoord, Pentecost, and Ryrie.

 

That shows the essential dishonesty of his thinking:

"To some degree, everyone who divides the Old and New Testaments is a dispensationalist."

That enables him to claim everyone as dispy. Eric accused me of really being a dispy because I pointed out 4 "dispensations" - innocence, guilt, Gospel, NH&NE (aka fullness of times).

 

Extraordinary that he should claim Isaac Watts - I went to the same school in Southampton; he was Independent (congregationalist & paedOBaptist) NOT baptist. He OBjected to the poetry of the Scottish metrical Psalms & made his own poetical versions on the assumption that David was a Christian & that the imagery can be updated to refer to Christ.

 

 

I found this quote from your link interesting -

 

4. King James Bible believing – this is the category upon which this author will fall.

 

While considered “moderate” or “normative” up to a point, this group cannot be considered “ultra,” or “hyper.” They hold to water baptism and the Lord’s supper for this age, and apply portions of Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews through Revelation to the Church Age. They do affirm that salvation has not always been by “grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8,9), and that no one in the Old Testament was saved by “looking forward to the cross.”

The most prolific author in this “camp” is Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. Others who have addressed dispensationalism in this light would include: Dr. James Modlish, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Dr. Ken Blue, and Dr. Douglas Stauffer. The out-standing characteristic of this camp is their complete adherence to the AV text as the absolute and final authority.

[Genevanpreacher]

44 Prophecies of the Messiah  were fulfilled in Jesus Christ's first advent.  Often these "propecies" amount to only one verse or even

one phrase in a lengthy passage. http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/Prophecies-Jesus.htm

 

I have heard that preterists demand that we read "entire passages" for the "context" concerning any prophecy that "futurists" claim is

yet unfulfilled (including the so-called "second-coming" passages).

 

If preterists apply the same "rules" to the first-advent as they do the the second-advent, it would appear that they would

reject all prophecies concerning the Messiah  in order to be "consistent".

 

I am a partial preterist [if my convictions could be called any type of 'system'], so yes there are some things that weren't/aren't fulfilled yet.

And in my bible, the notes in the gloss are also partial preterist.

 

It just so happens that I agree with those notes.

 

It's not because of those notes, but it is interesting to me that notes written 404 years before I was born, agree with my convictions on scriptural meanings today.

Partial preterism is not as stringent as some suppose preterism is.

 

And as for consistency in beliefs, where is dispensationalism consistant?

There are as many 'forms/beliefs' of dispensationalism as there are species of birds. [slight exaggeration]

[John81]

I am a partial preterist [if my convictions could be called any type of 'system'], so yes there are some things that weren't/aren't fulfilled yet.

And in my bible, the notes in the gloss are also partial preterist.

 

It just so happens that I agree with those notes.

 

It's not because of those notes, but it is interesting to me that notes written 404 years before I was born, agree with my convictions on scriptural meanings today.

Partial preterism is not as stringent as some suppose preterism is.

 

And as for consistency in beliefs, where is dispensationalism consistant?

There are as many 'forms/beliefs' of dispensationalism as there are species of birds. [slight exaggeration]

One really has to look into the matter to know the difference between a Preterist and a Partial Preterist as in many writings on these subjects they are not distinguished. Especially helpful is finding a source which lists the key views of both and points out where they differ.

 

The best of such are those which address all the end time views, putting forth each ones position, and then offering a compare and contrast. This really aids in study and coming to understand the various views more clearly.

 

There was a website, which I'm unable to find again, which did this very well, even to the point of breaking down the many different versions of Dispensationalism; whether 5, 7, 9 or other, along with comparing their overlap and differences.

 

That site also broke down the views of pre, mid and post trib very well.

 

I had the link on my old computer but since it died I've not been able to relocate that site, or several others I had saved on my old computer.