| Author |
Message |
Hiddenmanna
Registered user
Username: Hiddenmanna
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:21 pm: |     |
Chris and Colleen, are you both Partial Preterist. Have you people been listening to the Bible answer man lately. Hank has wrote a book called The Last Disciple. In the book he has taken a Partial Preterist stand. I've been listening to him lately on the radio and he has some very important things to say about how scripture has been fullfilled.
I believe we will begin to see a big swing in what Christians believe in the near future. I see most will eventual become Partial Preterist then many of them will become full preterist when they study and begin to understand the view.
After I left the SDA belief I began to wander what was really the truth about scripture and became a Partial Preterist for a while until I began to see the complete picture and how all things that were important come together and fit into a Full Preterist view.
If any or you people would like to know more about it I would love to share with you but I do not like debating. Debating just gets messy and ends up going in circles if you know what I mean.
Some of the differences that PP differ on compared to FP is the resurrection of the dead which I have already covered.
Then there is the 1000 years which I believe was the 40 years from 30 AD to 70 AD.
Then there is Satan been destroyed.
We could start another tread, if anyone is interested in understanding what FP really believe just let me know on this tread then we could go from there.
If not I will not bother anyone here if you people would rather not.
I am a former Adventist and it does sadden me that most former Adventist have bought into a Pre Mill view asmost tradiational Christians have. I do see changes coming and would be dissappointed in seeing most former Adventist coming out of SDAism into futurism, espeacial premill.
I believe the the SDA's had one thing right in part that is and that was Daniel 9:27 being the Messiah and not the "anti-christ" |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
What does the word, "preterist" mean? |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 497
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Susan, the term preterist usually describes an interpretive approach to eschatological passages. In might help to define the term to compare the four major views of the book of Revelation.
HISTORICIST: This view basically sees Rev. as a chronology of everything that has happened and will happen during the chruch age. In other words, it covers the time between Christ's first and second comings. Some of the book has been fulfilled, some of the book has not been fulfilled (this is the SDA postion, but it has almos completely disappeared from the evangelical scene since the 1800s).
FUTURIST: This view sees Rev. as primarily about events that will happen just before the return of Christ. Very little in the book has been fulfilled, almost everything has a yet future fulfillment (This is probably the most popular view in North American evagelical circles today. This is the view presented in the Left Behind series).
SPIRITUAL: This view doesn't look for any one specific historical fulfillment of symbols in Revelation, but instead sees the information presented as applicable to the Church of all ages. For instance, the church will always experience persecution and Christ will always overcome. Under this view the truths presented in the book are fulfilled repeatedly in different times. (I can't give you any big names on this one, there might be some, but I don't know who they are).
PRETERIST: This view takes John's statement that the things in the book must take place soon in a very literal way. This view sees Revelation as being John's Olivet Discourse, basically the same information covered in Matt. 24 (and also in Luke and Mark) only in expanded form. This view sees the primary focuses of the book as being prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This view would also say Revelation deals with the persecution Christians were experiencing under Nero. Under this view the book is nearly all fulfilled with the possible exception of the last several chapters.(R.C. Sproul, Steven Gregg, and Hank Hannegraff are some big names that hold this view).
A partial preterist ascribes to the view above, but still sees the last several chapters of Revelation as dealing with the second coming of Christ and the ressurection of the dead. The names I mentioned above would all be partial preterist.
Full preterist basically believe that 100% of the book has been fulfilled. They do not look for any future coming of Christ nor any future resurrection.
I have only applied these terms to Revelation, but there are many other passages that these interpretive constructs are applied to. I hope that helps explain what we're talking about.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 498
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
I am not dogmatic in the least about eschatological views to the extent that they do not compromise core Christian doctrine. There are at least 3 reasons for this:
1) Overtime my views have shifted several times and it seems likely that they could shift again, so why be dogmatic when I might have to take it all back again?
2) This is extremely difficult material and great men and women of God have struggled over these issues for the last 2000 years and still come up with different interpretations. This is a clue to me to be very very humble.
3) These are non-essentials and while we may debate non-essentials, we shouldn't divide over them.
I currently lean (and I stress the word "lean" as opposed to "believe" or "know") toward a moderate/partial preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. I won't claim to have completely made up my mind. So if you ever see me espousing partial preterist views on this forum it's probably more an exercise in seeing how this view stacks up against others than it is an asserion of being right.
As to the millenium I see substantial strengths (and some weaknesses) in both the amillenial and historic/classic premillenial (not dispensational premillenial) views. I'm still working through that one. It's *extremely* complicated because it involves interpretation of many OT prophecies that seem to be referring to the same period as Rev. 20.
My point in all this, is simply to say, there are many ways to approach these difficult passages so we need to do so in humility. Regardless of which approach we take there are over arching truths that are edifying to all Christians. Hopefully, we can at least agree on these overarching truths.
Chris |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 171
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
Yes. Very complex material. That's why I remain firmly pan-millennial. That means: Jesus is coming back and it's all going to "pan" out in the end!
It's so good to now be in a position where I don't have to know or be right about everything!
Praise God... |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
PraiseGod--I love your pan-millennial stance!
Chris, I so relate to your "working through" the whole millennial issue. I also see substantial strengths and some weaknesses in the amillennial view, but the OT prophecies that seem to correspond to Revelation 20 keep me from feeling certain about the amillennial understanding.
At this point I lean (as you described above, I stress "lean" as opposed to "believe") toward a millennium on earth before the establishment of the new earth--but I feel so grateful that I don't have to really have it figured out. In fact, there just isn't enough clarity to have all of it figured out, anyway! I find it a great relief to be able to live without KNOWING!
I'm certain, though, that as things unfold, the prophecies will suddenly become clear, and we can know God is in our circumstances because of the prophecies. I do pray that I will not be deceived. The OT prophecies of the Messiah were there, but most people missed Him. To be sure, the prophecies were not all compact and didn't paint an unbroken portrait of how things would happen--but that seems to be the case also with eschatological prophecies.
I trust that God who knows my heart knows I want to see reality and know the truth as things happen. And, just as He brought the sincerely seeking Gentile magi to the Christ Child, so He will keep our trusting hearts seeing Him as the shrouded future emerges.
Colleen |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 130
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Other than attending one non-SDA Revelation seminar, which I believe was from an amillenial view, I have not extensively studied out any end-time viewpoints. When I first read posts here and there of former SDA's believing or leaning towards a millenium on earth before establishment of the new earth (like you said above, Colleen), I have to admit I found that prospect upsetting and depressing! As one born into the SDA church, I have been so programmed to look forward to the second coming as meaning immediately being taken out of our sinful environment. Even when looking at the amillennial view, I found it comforting that when the second coming happens with that view, it's an immediate end to sin--no waiting 1000 more years for people to finish making up their minds.
If it's the way you're leaning towards, Colleen, I don't know how much looking forward to the second coming there would be, because wouldn't we still have 1000 more years of sin to put up with? Doesn't sound like with this viewpoint sin is 100% removed until the new earth.
But, like you said, I no longer have to know for sure how it's all going to work out. I also love Praisegod's new "pan-millenial" word! |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 79
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
After a lifetime of SDA viewpoint I found it hard, at first, to accept a millenial viewpoint, but have now embraced it. In the millenial view, the church will be removed from earth before the time of trouble, so it is a given that the church will be through with sinful earth from that moment on other than to reign with Christ for a thousand years.
I speak simplistically because I have no degrees in scriptural studies. I have had the good fortune to have had an intensive study through the book of Revelation, both from an SDA perspective, and then more recently from the accepted Christianity perspective. For the SDA perspective to be right you have to accept that John tells and retells the story of how prophecy unfolds seven times, each iteration taking you a bit closer to final completion. The standard view has a more linear approach and sees the story as being one telling only. The person who gave me the seven iterations viewpoint was a SDA minister, and our study was done one-on-one, with, of course, explanations from the writings of EGW. I've had to throw that one away, but that is the historical viewpoint, as Colleen has so gracefully mentioned already.
I'm so glad that I don't have any effect on the unfolding of all of this, that it is truly in God's hands and that it will be perfectly in accordance with His will.
Belva |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 192
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Raven, if by second coming you mean the rapture, then according to the most common pre-trib view, we would be in heaven for 7 years before the millennium.
Jeremy |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1231
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Chris, I recently took a class in the book of Revelations from our locol bishop. We had the option of just pruchasing the book and study materials and contributing a nominal amount to help ofset the bishops expenses as he had to travel a great distance to offer this class and he needed a motel, etc. or we could pay a lot of money and get college credit. I took the class for just the learning experience and I would have to say the Lutheran must fall into the spritual catagory the most, but there were some of each of the other three catagories too. I learned so much and I am so thankful I took the class. I almost didn't take the class beause from my growing up religious training I had developed a anxiety disorder that would surface at the mention of the book of Revelations. I decdided "How suvere can the Lutheran church be with the book of Revelations? After all, they got the handle on grace." And, I learned Revelations is not such a scary book after all. Then several weeks after I'd finished the class my mom asked me if I wanted to attend a series at the local SDA church on the book of Revelations. I told her I didn't because I'd just finished a class on Revelations. She asked me where I took the class and who taught it. I told her. It was made very clear to me that whatever it was that I'd learned was wrong and that ended the discussion. |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 131
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Jeremy, I mean second coming the way SDA's mean second coming. I haven't studied other end time viewpoints enough to understand any but SDA. Therefore, I meant no secret rapture, and it would be a post-trib "rapture." I really don't feel the need to obsessively figure it out. The details aren't clear enough in the Bible anyway. I was merely commenting that as a former SDA, it is unsettling to consider any end time viewpoint that doesn't coincide with second coming equals immediate end to the righteous living in a sinful world.
I know the Isaiah texts mentioned for a description of the earth during the millenial reign of Jesus (before new earth) has also been interpreted to mean a description of how the earth would have been if the Jews has accepted Jesus at the first coming, and that was described through "old covenant eyes"--I think I read that in Dale Ratzlaff's Sabbath in Christ book.
Sure was easier as an SDA when we supposedly had all the answers! But I sure wouldn't trade back! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Raven, I'm not sure I am convinced there will be a rapture before the millenium or not--there may well be, but whether or not we're taken out of the earth before the tribulation or not, if there is an earthly millenium, I see that (from what I read in Revelation and also some of the prophecies) as being quite different for the church than it is now. Since the resurrection of the righteous dead will happen before it begins and they will reign with Christ, I see that suggesting that all the church will be transformed with resurrection bodies before the millenium.
Now, I don't pretend to be dogmatic about this or to understand exactly how it will work, but it does seem to me that the church will be done with sin and will reign with Christ.
As far as the church being resurrected and the wicked not--why couldn't they coexist that way? Now, spiritually reborn people coexist with non born-again people. If Christ is reigning on earth and we are reigning with Him, I see existence for the church as being very different from now.
But of course, I'm speculating now. Praise God, the future is in good hands!
Colleen |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
Although I am basically a "pan-millennialist" also, I lean toward the partial preterist position that Chris ably described. The little Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald claimed a revelation in her 1830 vision, and a traveling evangelist named J. N. Darby took it as his own and marketed it successfully to the 19th-century American church and the "rapture" view was born. An American preacher, Cyrus Scofield, edited a Bible that amplified Darby's views, and millions of Evangelicals use it now. The "Left Behind" novel series further entrenched rapture theology that is only a recent concept when it comes to church history. I guess they figure the church has had it all wrong during its first 18 centuries!
Wisely, my church does not take a doctrinal stand on eschatology. However, the majority in my church family are leaning toward the dispensational premillennialist view that includes the "rapture." This is commonly the Baptist view that many others also share. Interestingly, Tim LaHaye and Hank Hanegraaff are currently battling it out in religious circles. It will be interesting to see who gets the larger royalties when the dust eventually settles.
Dennis J. Fischer |
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 172
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:03 am: | |
One thing that puzzles me is why do we have all these elaborate views about the millennium all based upon Revelation 20? Where else is a millennium discussed? I thought proper hermeneutics suggested a need for mention in more than one passage, especially when it is found in a book full of symbolism. Then, strangely enough, the millennium isn't supposed to be symbolic (to most views), but an actual 1000 years.
That's one reason why I've just not been able to get too excited about all these views. Driving home last night I caught a little of Hank promoting his book and a caller commenting on his partial preterist view. Should be very interesting with him and LaHaye tangling.
Praise God... |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:53 pm: | |
Actually, that's a good question, PraiseGod. The reason, from my viewpoint, that a millennium seems so significant is that there are many prophecies in Ezekiel and Isaiah as well as other books that seem to mesh with the Rev. 20 picture. (And the Rev. 20 picture is quite clear in itself--especially when I put it side-by-side with the Adventist view of the millennium which I really can't find there at all!)
I've not studied the issue in great depth, but I do see that the millennium appears to be something quite different than I was taught it was. It also appears to me to be anchored squarely on earth, and it seems there will be nations here over whom Jesus will be King on David's throne.
As far as the premillennial rapture goes, while I'm not ruling it out, I see it a a dubious possibility. I just don't see Biblical passages to suggest that God necessarily removes His people from severe suffering. And, I have to admit, when I learned a couple of years ago how recent the idea of the rapture was and how dubious its basis, that moved me even further away from embracing it than I already was.
Yep--I guess I really am more of a pan-millennialist than anything!
Colleen |
|
