Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I found this statement on gotquestions.org to be interesting...

 

No one denies that Revelation contains amazing and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes many things figuratively—that’s the nature of apocalyptic literature. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation is to destroy the basis of interpreting any of the book literally. If the plagues, witnesses, beast, false prophet, millennial kingdom, etc., are all allegorical, then on what basis do we claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is the failure of preterism—it leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

I am a partial preterist. That means I believe some points of preterism and I am not a real preterist.

I could call myself a partial dispensationalist also, but that is harder to spell.

I say partial preterist because I am not convinced that all the 'common' teachings, on the end times, are

like what the colleges and seminaries teach, who have gone towards easy-ism and worldiness in compromising

to all 'christian' organizations. Ecumenicalism has infiltrated most, if not all the main seminaries, teaching for

doctrine, mans opinions.

[DaveW]

Luke 16
 29  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
 30  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
 31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I don't see any reference to two witnesses in this passage.

Revelation mentions two witnesses:
Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

I don't see any reference in Luke 16:29-31 of sackcloth, nor of them prophesying for 1260 days.
Moses and the prophets have been around a lot longer than that.

There are more questions than answers because you don't have many answers, even fewer reasonable answers, and still fewer biblical answers.

[MountainChristian]

No, Jesus did NOT get the order wrong. His prophecy clearly related to the AD 70 destruction, occurring within the lifetime of this generation. He gave specific warning signs about when the believers should flee to the mountains before the destruction. 

 

He was also warning, in his parable of the husbandmen & the vineyard, that he would come & destroy them & give the vineyard to others. We should therefore understand the destruction as a form of his coming - in clouds, therefore not visible in person. There are many references to the LORD appearing in clouds in the OT. 

 

Exo. 40:³⁴ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

³⁵ And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

 

Our understanding of prophecy has to make sense, complying with other Scriptures. Remember there were no inspired witnesses of the destruction.

 

But they saw him in 70 AD when he was in the clouds. Jesus was in the clouds it must comply with other scriptures. 

 

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.

[Genevanpreacher]

But they saw him in 70 AD when he was in the clouds. Jesus was in the clouds it must comply with other scriptures. 

 

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.

 

Partial preterism teaches no such thing.

You misuse the fact of scripture teachings, and are making fun of us because you think preterism and partial preterism are equal.

What part of 'partial' don't you understand?

[MountainChristian]

No, Jesus did NOT get the order wrong. His prophecy clearly related to the AD 70 destruction, occurring within the lifetime of this generation. He gave specific warning signs about when the believers should flee to the mountains before the destruction. 

 

He was also warning, in his parable of the husbandmen & the vineyard, that he would come & destroy them & give the vineyard to others. We should therefore understand the destruction as a form of his coming - in clouds, therefore not visible in person. There are many references to the LORD appearing in clouds in the OT. 

 

Exo. 40:³⁴ Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

³⁵ And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

 

Our understanding of prophecy has to make sense, complying with other Scriptures. Remember there were no inspired witnesses of the destruction.

 

 

Partial preterism teaches no such thing.

You misuse the fact of scripture teachings, and are making fun of us because you think preterism and partial preterism are equal.

What part of 'partial' don't you understand?

 

That's the part I don't understand. Covenanter says he came. Are you disagreeing with him and his teachings?

[Genevanpreacher]

That's the part I don't understand. Covenanter says he came. Are you disagreeing with him and his teachings?

We may not be exactly the same in all things.

The "I" in IFB is that way. Independent.

But I don't malign him when we do differ.

 

But you say he does believe that way, yet I have no memory of him saying it that way.

Do you remember him saying that? A post #?

 

In his post above, he was referring to the possibility of 'how' we could take that verse.

 

 "the destruction as a form of his coming"

[Invicta]

Being a spectator to these eschatology/dispensation conversations over the last few years (think maybe I've chimed in once), as they've gone from being perennial background debates to more or less taking over the forum, I think I've seen some of the more accusatory things Steve talks about being dealt out by both sides. If Covenantor and Invicta have said that Steve and co are preaching a false Gospel (and I certainly recall Invicta saying things close to that), then on the other hand the general impression I've got from Steve, Wretched, Miss Daisy and many others is that if a person doesn't hold to their eschatological views then that person is not IFB, is doctrinally in the same boat as mormons, JWs, muslims and other non-Christians, and is almost certainly unsaved. As someone who hasn't understood a lot of the debate and therefore has had to focus on folks' summing up statements, that's the 'take home' I've garnered. And I say overall impression because although I've heard all those things said I can't attribute quotes to individuals without doing some digging (and I've left some even worse things out).

 

Thanks but I don't think I have accused Steve or any others of preaching a false gospel.  I don't know what gospel they preach.  I have said that I believe their interpretation of the future is not correct.  I have also said that we cannot all be right, but we can all be wrong.  

[MountainChristian]

We may not be exactly the same in all things.

The "I" in IFB is that way. Independent.

But I don't malign him when we do differ.

 

But you say he does believe that way, yet I have no memory of him saying it that way.

Do you remember him saying that? A post #?

 

In his post above, he was referring to the possibility of 'how' we could take that verse.

 

 "the destruction as a form of his coming"

 

That's even more confusing. 

 

Jesus didn't say He was going to be in a form. That He would look like a Roman general named Titus.

 

Are you pulling my leg? I can't tell if you are joking. 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Preterism is a joke any way you look at it.

[Genevanpreacher]

Preterism is a joke any way you look at it.

 

That sounded like good sound doctrine there!

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Partial Preterism is another form of Preterism. It, therefore, is also a joke.

[Genevanpreacher]

Partial Preterism is another form of Preterism. It, therefore, is also a joke.

 

Hahahahahahaha....um, I don't get it.