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

[beameup]

The fact that the King James translators not only translated the apocraphal books, but included them in the King James tells me all I want to know.

However, the King James is the only Bible I use, as I consider it the very best translation into English.  It is what I started with 50 years ago and continue to use.  I use it linked to the Strong's Concordance.

Unfortunately, the "whole world" does not revolve around the United States and the English language, but there are people in every corner of the world that have access to the word of God in their native language. 

I can attest to this first-hand, as I recently returned from 6 years in the Philippines. I am not stuck in an ethnocentric "superior mindset" as are some.

[Covenanter]

Steve:

You have not answered the original question - you keep dodging it.

If we as Christians are "Abraham's seed" and there is no more distinction between Jew and Gentile, then why is that distinction made again in Rev. 7, with the 144,000?  The 144,000 are defined in Rev. 14 as male virgins (PLURAL! - not "a chaste virgin" SINGULAR).

You are just being contentious - I have answered many questions courteously, with Scripture references.

 

The relevant Scripture is:

Gal. 3:²⁶ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

²⁷ For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

²⁹ And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

The obvious answer is that we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. The list that follows says that whatever our race, state of freedom or gender, we are all one in Christ Jesus. Those differences still exist, so they are mentioned in various places. Our status as children of God does not mean we are all equally suitable in Christian service - we have different callings (Rom. 12) & women may not be elders.

 

There are many references in the OT to the LORD expecting Israel to be devoted to him, in sexual terms, as a chaste wife. Worship of other gods is compared with whoredom. The 144,000 Israelites were clearly devoted to their God.     

 

 

 

[Steve Schwenke]

Dodgeball anyone???

 

Moving On....

 

In Christ,

[Ukulelemike]

The fact that the King James translators not only translated the apocraphal books, but included them in the King James tells me all I want to know.

However, the King James is the only Bible I use, as I consider it the very best translation into English.  It is what I started with 50 years ago and continue to use.  I use it linked to the Strong's Concordance.

Unfortunately, the "whole world" does not revolve around the United States and the English language, but there are people in every corner of the world that have access to the word of God in their native language. 

I can attest to this first-hand, as I recently returned from 6 years in the Philippines. I am not stuck in an ethnocentric "superior mindset" as are some.

Well, they WERE Anglicans, after all, and like the Catholics, probably used it themselves. But it was also removed it shortly thereafter. And it has nothing to do with their knowledge of the ancient languages and their ability to faithfully translate them into English.

 

The best Bibles in foreign languages are based on the TR/KJV.

[Covenanter]

You've all seen the discussion which was started by the anti-preterists.

 

Any comments of the quality of the posts - whether or not you agree with the poster?

[Steve Schwenke]

Uh, yeah...the quality of the posts....OK...here is a sample just from this page of this thread....

 

These are not the literal 12 tribes, but signified, Rev 1:1.

 

Interpretation: "Don't believe the actual words that were written.  If you don't understand it, or if it does not fit your interpretation, just say is "not literal", and move on" 

 

Your whole line of argument is offensive to the inspired author of Holy Scripture. It's time for repentance.

 

Interpretation: "You don't agree with me.  I am offended.  You need to repent."

 

To clear the ambiguity, it is often helpful to consider the Greek.

 

Interpretation: "My system can't handle the plain, clear teaching of the passage, so I recommend using the Greek to convolute it in such a way that it matches what I am teaching.  After all, if I really believed what it said, then my system would have serious problems.  I find the Greek useful to overcome such direct, plain passages, and maintain my theology."

 

You are just being contentious

 

Interpretation: "You are not being "nice" to me.  You are "attacking" my position too harshly.  I am being "respectful" and courteous.  You just want to "argue."

Goodness!  That is just a bunch of self-righteous nonsense.  Covenanter posts almost exclusively on end times events, insists on arguing the preterist position non-stop at every opportunity, calls dispensationalists "fanciful" and "offensive" (among other serious attacks!) but NO - HE is not contentious.  Not at all.  Nope.  It is I who am contentious.  Uh-huh....yep....OK...whatever...

 

Just had to clear the air here....

 

It is too bad that we cannot have open discussions amongst those who have similar beliefs, and hash out differing nuances from Scripture.  It is unfortunate that the conversations must be dominated by the singular contrarian.  There are many issues amongst those who have very similar approaches to Scripture, yet come to different conclusions, that could be discussed openly and rationally from Scripture, and actually be edifying and enlightening to all involved.  Yet, this cannot be on this forum because there exists a handful of people who insist on standing on their soap-box at every opportunity to advance their peculiar false teaching.  Why, they might even hijack threads to do it. 

Online Baptist is a good forum, but it could be great if it were not for a few folks who dominate certain discussions, and then blame everyone else for being "contentious."  Whether right or wrong, it seems to me that the "contentious" person would be the one who insists on advancing a particular agenda when most in the group are against it. 

 

Enough said.  

 

Moving on....

[John81]

Too many personal jabs, to many dodges, too little detail, plus a few other issues which make it rather difficult to try and follow the thread and see the points.

[Invicta]

Uh, yeah...the quality of the posts....OK...here is a sample just from this page of this thread....

 

Interpretation: "Don't believe the actual words that were written.  If you don't understand it, or if it does not fit your interpretation, just say is "not literal", and move on" 

 

Interpretation: "You don't agree with me.  I am offended.  You need to repent."

 

Interpretation: "My system can't handle the plain, clear teaching of the passage, so I recommend using the Greek to convolute it in such a way that it matches what I am teaching.  After all, if I really believed what it said, then my system would have serious problems.  I find the Greek useful to overcome such direct, plain passages, and maintain my theology."

 

Interpretation: "You are not being "nice" to me.  You are "attacking" my position too harshly.  I am being "respectful" and courteous.  You just want to "argue."

Goodness!  That is just a bunch of self-righteous nonsense.  Covenanter posts almost exclusively on end times events, insists on arguing the preterist position non-stop at every opportunity, calls dispensationalists "fanciful" and "offensive" (among other serious attacks!) but NO - HE is not contentious.  Not at all.  Nope.  It is I who am contentious.  Uh-huh....yep....OK...whatever...

 

Just had to clear the air here....

 

It is too bad that we cannot have open discussions amongst those who have similar beliefs, and hash out differing nuances from Scripture.  It is unfortunate that the conversations must be dominated by the singular contrarian.  There are many issues amongst those who have very similar approaches to Scripture, yet come to different conclusions, that could be discussed openly and rationally from Scripture, and actually be edifying and enlightening to all involved.  Yet, this cannot be on this forum because there exists a handful of people who insist on standing on their soap-box at every opportunity to advance their peculiar false teaching.  Why, they might even hijack threads to do it. 

Online Baptist is a good forum, but it could be great if it were not for a few folks who dominate certain discussions, and then blame everyone else for being "contentious."  Whether right or wrong, it seems to me that the "contentious" person would be the one who insists on advancing a particular agenda when most in the group are against it. 

 

Enough said.  

 

Moving on....

 

Uh, yeah...the quality of the posts....OK...here is a sample just from this page of this thread....

 

Interpretation: "Don't believe the actual words that were written.  If you don't understand it, or if it does not fit your interpretation, just say is "not literal", and move on" 

 

Interpretation: "You don't agree with me.  I am offended.  You need to repent."

 

Interpretation: "My system can't handle the plain, clear teaching of the passage, so I recommend using the Greek to convolute it in such a way that it matches what I am teaching.  After all, if I really believed what it said, then my system would have serious problems.  I find the Greek useful to overcome such direct, plain passages, and maintain my theology."

 

Interpretation: "You are not being "nice" to me.  You are "attacking" my position too harshly.  I am being "respectful" and courteous.  You just want to "argue."

Goodness!  That is just a bunch of self-righteous nonsense.  Covenanter posts almost exclusively on end times events, insists on arguing the preterist position non-stop at every opportunity, calls dispensationalists "fanciful" and "offensive" (among other serious attacks!) but NO - HE is not contentious.  Not at all.  Nope.  It is I who am contentious.  Uh-huh....yep....OK...whatever...

 

Just had to clear the air here....

 

It is too bad that we cannot have open discussions amongst those who have similar beliefs, and hash out differing nuances from Scripture.  It is unfortunate that the conversations must be dominated by the singular contrarian.  There are many issues amongst those who have very similar approaches to Scripture, yet come to different conclusions, that could be discussed openly and rationally from Scripture, and actually be edifying and enlightening to all involved.  Yet, this cannot be on this forum because there exists a handful of people who insist on standing on their soap-box at every opportunity to advance their peculiar false teaching.  Why, they might even hijack threads to do it. 

Online Baptist is a good forum, but it could be great if it were not for a few folks who dominate certain discussions, and then blame everyone else for being "contentious."  Whether right or wrong, it seems to me that the "contentious" person would be the one who insists on advancing a particular agenda when most in the group are against it. 

 

Enough said.  

 

Moving on....

 

It sweems to me, steve, that you are contnually on your soapbox pushing your Brethren doctrine.

[Steve Schwenke]

It sweems to me, steve, that you are contnually on your soapbox pushing your Brethren doctrine.

I am not a Brethren.  The doctrine I am adhering to is a Baptist doctrine, and has been for centuries...so stop with the revisionist view of history....

And it seems we have covered that ground before as well....

Further, I don't personally know of any IFB's that hold to a preterist / a-mil view of Scripture, and I have been in IFB churches all over this country. 

I don't know of any IFB colleges or seminaries that hold to the preterist / a-mil view of Scripture either.

It is a Baptist doctrine, and has been before Darby was even born.

[John81]

I am not a Brethren.  The doctrine I am adhering to is a Baptist doctrine, and has been for centuries...so stop with the revisionist view of history....

And it seems we have covered that ground before as well....

Further, I don't personally know of any IFB's that hold to a preterist / a-mil view of Scripture, and I have been in IFB churches all over this country. 

I don't know of any IFB colleges or seminaries that hold to the preterist / a-mil view of Scripture either.

It is a Baptist doctrine, and has been before Darby was even born.

The Baptist Pastor Charles Spurgeon spoke out strongly against the "strange, new, unbiblical teachings" of Darby.

 

IFBs have only been around about a hundred years. There is a great deal of Baptist history prior to the formation of IFBs. The spectrum of Baptist beliefs is very broad and varied.

 

We could all likely put forth a belief and find Baptists who held that belief previously just as we could also find those who rejected the same belief.

[Steve Schwenke]

The Baptist Pastor Charles Spurgeon spoke out strongly against the "strange, new, unbiblical teachings" of Darby.

 

IFBs have only been around about a hundred years. There is a great deal of Baptist history prior to the formation of IFBs. The spectrum of Baptist beliefs is very broad and varied.

 

We could all likely put forth a belief and find Baptists who held that belief previously just as we could also find those who rejected the same belief.

Which is exactly why the charge of "Darbyism" and following the "Brethren" is false.  Baptists are fiercely independent by nature, thus the varied beliefs. 

Spurgeon was a great man, and influential in his day.  But as all men, he had his flaws and blindspots - just as Hyles, Rice, Norris, Vick, Roberson, Ruckman, and all other men do.  So just because Spurgeon was opposed to dispensationalism does not mean it is wrong....

 

I am done on this thread....this is all ground we have covered previously....same people, same arguments....

[ASongOfDegrees]

Dispensationalim is the only way to make any sense of scripture unless you spiritualize it like a lot of the early Christians did (ex. Origen) which ultimately led the church into apostasy. Once you get away from the literal meaning of scripture you open the door to any sort of interpretation. Without dispensationalism the bible is a contradictory mess.

 

Personally, I don't care who may have "invented" the doctrine or who, no matter how great of a Christian he may have been in his day, was originally against it. We are further down the road now, much closer to the Lord's coming. Spurgeon lived prior to the two World Wars, the bloodiest century in world history, the Holocaust, the splitting of the atom, the rebirth of the nation of Israel, the rise of Islam, the rise of China, the decline of his nation, the end of the monarchies, the ascension of the USA to world power, the birth and death of communism, the creation of mass communication and transportation, the unification of Europe, the legalization of abortion and gay marriage, the teaching of evolution within schools, the integration of the races, the suffrage of women, the breakdown of traditional roles within the family and society, the decline of Christianity in the West, the rise of Christianity in the East, the apostasy of the majority of churches, the rediscovery of Gnostic writings and their popularity, the translation of 300 different versions of the English bible, the complete corruption of the words of God, the rebirth of Catholicism within Protestant nations (including England) etc. etc, etc. Please don't talk to me about Spurgeon's position on "Darbyism".  It means nothing to me. 

[Covenanter]

Dispensationalim is the only way to make any sense of scripture unless you spiritualize it like a lot of the early Christians did (ex. Origen) which ultimately led the church into apostasy. Once you get away from the literal meaning of scripture you open the door to any sort of interpretation. Without dispensationalism the bible is a contradictory mess.

 

As I understand it - without studying the EFCs - Origen & co imposed allegorical interpretations as distinct from spiritual. Paul emphasises the need for a spiritual, rather than carnal literal interpretation.

2 Cor. 3:⁵ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

⁶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

 

That line of interpretation we see also in Hebrews, where the writer shows time & again the spiritual meaning of the OT Scriptures. Our Lord challenged the literalist Pharisees with the intended meaning of Scripture.

 

How dispensationalism makes sense of the Bible, while rejecting a spiritual understanding is not proved by asserting "Without dispensationalism the bible is a contradictory mess." 

 

What we ALL need to understand is that although the Bible is literally true (noting obvious poetry & symbolism) there are many allusions to the person & work of the Messiah in the OT, including the sacrifices, feasts tabernacle, temple, King & kingdom, priesthood, etc. They are intended to be spiritualised, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Apostolic writings. The visions of Revelation are difficult or impossible to understand literally (e.g the locusts of Rev. 9) but these visions are necessarily of real events. Whether past or future or continuous present is the question we are discussing. 

 

The trouble with dispensationalism is that it is not explicitly taught in Scripture, but is an interpretative system imposed on Scripture, rather than arising from a literal/spiritual reading of Scripture.  

[Invicta]

 If you care to look up the 1689 London Baptist declaration of faith you will find no evidence of their believing that doctrine.  There were several earlier declarations which did not mention it.  It would have been difficult as the PTR doctrine did not exsist.

[John81]

I am not a Brethren.  The doctrine I am adhering to is a Baptist doctrine, and has been for centuries...so stop with the revisionist view of history....

And it seems we have covered that ground before as well....

Further, I don't personally know of any IFB's that hold to a preterist / a-mil view of Scripture, and I have been in IFB churches all over this country. 

I don't know of any IFB colleges or seminaries that hold to the preterist / a-mil view of Scripture either.

It is a Baptist doctrine, and has been before Darby was even born.

The only reason for mentioning Spurgeon was because of the assertion above as to dispensationalism being Baptist doctrine and being so for centuries. The fact one of the most prominent Baptists, little over a century ago, rejected dispensationalism as a new teaching and a false teaching, makes it clear that dispenationalism has NOT been Baptist doctrine for centuries.