Preterists - Put up or shutter up

[Ahwatukee]

This pre-trib rapture doctrine was not taught until circa 1830's. There was a guy, can't remember his name, who taught it in the 9th century, iirc, but was not taken seriously as a doctrine. So, the historical church has been predominantly historical-Premillenialism, with some amill after Augustine taught it in the 4th century, and then Darby and the Plymouth Brethern take the dream of a teenage girl and we now have pre-millennial dispensationialism. Gee, thanks Darby and Scofield.

For this doctrine to not have been taught for the first 1,800+ years and now have worldwide fame is scary. Uber scary.

My conclusion of the Lord gathering the church prior to the tribulation did not come from some guy in 1830, but from years of personal study. It can be garnered from cross-referencing and comparing scripture. The belief and teaching that the church is to be gathered when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age comes from two major errors:

1). Not discerning that the gathering of the church vs. the Lord's return to the earth as being two distinct events.

2). Not understanding the severity and magnitude of God's coming wrath

When the Lord descends to gather His church, the dead in Christ will rise first into their immortal and glorified bodies, immediately followed by those who are still alive being changed and caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air. At this point the entire church will be present from beginning to end where according to John 14:1-3, the entire church will be taken back to the Father's house to those places that Jesus went to prepare for all believers. The preterist view would only have 37 years of the church being resurrected and caught up, with the rest of the church throughout the entire last 1900 being left out of the Lord's promise.

The teaching of the "blessed hope" which is the Lord's appearing to gather the church, does not come from the teachings of men, but can be found right in scripture, which is where I and many others have obtained it from.

 

[Angela53510]

The bottom line for me, and I speak with knowledge WT, contrary to your vicious little character assassination, is that the Church awaits Christ's Second Coming, and has done for 2000 years.

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Christ's return is our blessed hope. Since many here class themselves as 'pre-trib' or 'post-trib', I know I am not the only person expecting and hoping for Christ's return. Therefore your denunciation of me as the perfect example of one who speaks and judges with no knowledge must be seen for what it is, slander of a Christian. Whether a Brother or not I do not know, because I cannot speak for you. Personally I would retract that statement and issue an apology. I have some knowledge....or am I wrong? Is the whole Church now happy that Christ has returned and am I Peter O'Toole, a lone Murphy alone in my belief bubble?

Preterism, partial and full, believes that Christ returned in AD 70 and that was his second and final coming. That is what I have just read.

Well, you have read wrong! Partial preterists believe in the second coming of Christ in the future. Obviously, Jesus is not on earth with us now, so for me, he will have to be coming in the future. But, no rapture is in the Bible, no THE Great Tribulation, monadic or par excellence, and not a literal millennium, as SG has explained above.

Sources as to your erroneous beliefs about partial preterism would be nice. Here's one about what is really believed.

"Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan."

https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/partial-preterism.html

 

[J7]

Well it says he comes with all his saints. The saints are the Church.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.[/FONT]


[/FONT]
So if Christ comes with ALL his Saints, and according to Preterism he came back in AD 70, what does that make us now, because clearly we cannot be saints?

That's not the issue. Paul, Jude, and John say (by Divine inspiration) that at His second coming Christ comes WITH His saints (and angels). But how could He come with His saints unless He had first come FOR His saints? And if you are suggesting that the Resurrection/Rapture and the battle of Armageddon all occur at the same time, not only would that be preposterous, but it would violate Scripture since there is absolutely no biblical basis for making such a bizarre assumption.

The truth (for those who want to the truth) is that Christ comes FIRST for His saints at the Resurrection/Rapture and later on -- AFTER the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Marriage of the Lamb -- He comes WITH His saints and angels in fiery judgment.

 

[J7]

That is why I asked for a Preterist's-eye view of Preterism, rather than fetching things, but I was roundly denounced for that.

Well, you have read wrong! Partial preterists believe in the second coming of Christ in the future. Obviously, Jesus is not on earth with us now, so for me, he will have to be coming in the future. But, no rapture is in the Bibke, no THE Great Tribulation, nomadic or par excellence, and not a literal millennium, as SG has explained above.

Sources as to your erroneous beliefs about partial preterism would be nice. Here's one about what is really believed.

"Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan."

https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/partial-preterism.html

 

[Ahwatukee]

Wait a minute. You're saying that the Disciples did not have the indwelling of the Spirit whilst walking with the Christ? Whoa! I have read this many times, and its as untenable now as it was then.

Well, read it for yourself. Before Jesus ascended back to the Father, he told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they received the promised Holy Spirit. Prior to that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

 

[J7]

This guy says there are 16 views of full preterism alone.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/2016_16-different-views-of-full-preterism/

I have absolutely no intention of reading 16 books on this, sorry Preterists. It's your baby, you can change its nappies.

 

[J7]

So what part of Preterism are you believing then?

Well, you have read wrong! Partial preterists believe in the second coming of Christ in the future. Obviously, Jesus is not on earth with us now, so for me, he will have to be coming in the future. But, no rapture is in the Bible, no THE Great Tribulation, monadic or par excellence, and not a literal millennium, as SG has explained above.

Sources as to your erroneous beliefs about partial preterism would be nice. Here's one about what is really believed.

"Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan."

https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/partial-preterism.html

 

[Ahwatukee]

Wait a minute. You're saying that the Disciples did not have the indwelling of the Spirit whilst walking with the Christ? Whoa! I have read this many times, and its as untenable now as it was then.

Jesus asked His Disciples “Who do people say the son of Man is?”[Matthew 16:13] This is what Peter said after Christ asked them “But who do you say that I am?” “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” He then told Him it was God who had revealed this to him and not His flesh and blood.

We know that men in the flesh(unregenerate in proper context) can not please God.[Romans 8:8] So, those who are devoid of the Spirit are unregenerate. Then are none saved without the indwelling of the Spirit, OT or NT economy.

This is just dispensationialism error being taught. Those in the OT were saved folk, too. None are saved and not unregenerated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. To the one who believes in Me, it is just as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’”He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

[J7]

Well, you have read wrong! Partial preterists believe in the second coming of Christ in the future. Obviously, Jesus is not on earth with us now, so for me, he will have to be coming in the future. But, no rapture is in the Bible, no THE Great Tribulation, monadic or par excellence, and not a literal millennium, as SG has explained above.

Sources as to your erroneous beliefs about partial preterism would be nice. Here's one about what is really believed.

"Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan."

https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/partial-preterism.html

Why do you want sources? Do you not believe me, or do you want to write to them and correct them?

Given that the core belief of full Preterism, (as I understand it), is that Christ has already returned, why would you want to be associated by nomenclature to such a belief system, which many in the Church view as heretical?

Are you and WT telling me that I need to read at least 16 books to understand what Preterism is? Surely this is cabbalistic - mystery religion. If the disciples could spread the gospel without script, surely we should be able to too? Or do we need to read umpteen books on Preterism, and every other ism, and then go to a School of Theology-ism, before we can even quietly breathe the name of Jesus under our lips?

 

[TMS]

I believe this is another distraction to take people away from the truth. I don't need to study this theory to know if it is a counterfeit. I need to study the bible and if it doesn't line up with the word it is error.
From what i have read it doesn't line up with the bible so it must be error. (Neither does futurism)

 

[Nehemiah6]

This is just dispensationialism error being taught. Those in the OT were saved folk, too. None are saved and not unregenerated.

No one is denying that the OT saints were justified by grace through faith (thus saved by grace). But neither can you deny that the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles only AFTER the resurrection of Christ (John 20:22), and the filling on the Holy Spirit was given only after Pentecost (Acts 1:4-8). Can you see the difference?

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soeversins ye retain, they are retained...

And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

[valiant]

Well, read it for yourself. Before Jesus ascended back to the Father, he told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they received the promised Holy Spirit. Prior to that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

That was speaking of the outpouring of the Spirit promised by the prophets, (Isaiah 44.1-5). It did not mean that He had not come at all. Indeed Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to anyone who asked for Him, at that time (Luk 11.13). Compare also John 3, 4 etc.

 

[TMS]

This is my understading of where the preterist and futurist theories came from
Francisco Ribera
In 1585 Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera (1537 - 1591) appears. He started the futurist interpretation by publishing a 500-page commentary on the book of Revelation. Ribera took the last “week” (seven day-years) of the 70-week prophecy of Daniel 9:25, divided it into two 3 ½ year periods, and applied it to a future Antichrist, while avoiding any application to the papal system.

Ribera’s views would have fallen away quickly if not for Robert Bellarmine (1542 - 1621), a cardinal who promoted Ribera’s ideas. His lectures were published as Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against Heretics of This Time. Froom describes these lectures as “the most detailed apology of the Catholic faith ever produced.” Froom also says they “became the arsenal for all future defenders and expositors.”

The Jesuit scholar Luis de Alcasar (preterism’s creator) in 1604. His book, Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, was published in 1614. Froom states this:
Applying the New Jerusalem to the Catholic Church, Alcazar contended that the Apocalypse describes the twofold war of the church in the early centuries—one with the Jewish synagogue, and the other with paganism—resulting in victory over both adversaries. Revelation 1 to 11 he applied to the rejection of the Jews and the desolation of Jerusalem by the Romans. Revelation 12 to 19 Alcazar allotted to the overthrow of Roman paganism and the conversion of the empire to the church, the judgment of the great Harlot being effected by the downfall of pagan idolatry; Revelation 20 he applied to the final persecution by Antichrist, and the day of judgment; and chapters 21 and 22, referring to the New Jerusalem, he made descriptive of the glorious and endless triumphant state of the Roman church.

The Roman Church produced two contradictory interpretations of end-time prophecy, neither of which were true to Scripture.

 

[J7]

Bravo. Well said. Tares in action, imo...that all makes perfect sense. Still haven't seen anything to suggest Preterism is not what it is widely thought to be, and is as such entirely incredible.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well, read it for yourself. Before Jesus ascended back to the Father, he told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they received the promised Holy Spirit. Prior to that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given.

Well Brother, you have quite a conundrum here. Either the OT saints were saved and devoid of the Spirit of God, meaning regenerated. So that has a bunch of saved unregenerate folk doing God's will. Or, you have a bunch of ppl who are lost fulfilling God's will. Which is it?

Let's look at Abraham for instance. It says and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God.[James 2:23] Here Abraham was called a friend of God. The unregenerate are God's enemies and not friends. That's the context of Romans 8:5-8. So, if Abraham was devoid of the Spirit of God, and he was also God's friend. Something's amiss. This is grave error that has infiltrated our churches.

Here's Adam Clarke's take on John 7:39...

Was not yet given - Δεδομενον, given is added by the Codex Vaticanus, (B.) the Syriac, all the Persic, later Syriac with an asterisk, three copies of the Slavonic, Vulgate, and all the Itala but three; and several of the primitive fathers. The word seems necessary to the completion of the sense.

Certain measures of the Holy Spirit had been vouchsafed from the beginning of the world to believers and unbelievers: but that abundant effusion of his graces spoken of by Joel, Joel 2:28, which peculiarly characterized the Gospel times, was not granted till after the ascension of Christ:

1. Because this Spirit in its plenitude was to come in consequence of his atonement; and therefore could not come till after his crucifixion.

2. It was to supply the place of Christ to his disciples and to all true believers; and therefore it was not necessary till after the removal of his bodily presence from among them. See our Lord's own words, John 14:16-18, John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-15.

And from John Calvin...

For the Holy Spirit was not yet given. We know that the Spirit is eternal; but the Evangelist declares that, so long as Christ dwelt in the world in the mean form of a servant, that grace of the Spirit, which was poured out on men after the resurrection of Christ, had not been openly manifested. And, indeed, he speaks comparatively, in the same manner as when the New Testament is compared to the Old. God promises his Spirit to his elect and believers, [197] as if he had never given him to the Fathers. At that very time, the disciples had undoubtedly received the first-fruits of the Spirit; for whence comes faith but from the Spirit? The Evangelist, therefore, does not absolutely affirm that the grace of the Spirit was not offered and given [198] to believers before the death of Christ, but that it was not yet so bright and illustrious as it would afterwards become. For it is the highest ornament of the kingdom of Christ, that he governs his Church by his Spirit; but he entered into the lawful and -- what may be called -- the solemn possession of his kingdom, when he was exalted to the right hand of the Father; so that we need not wonder if he delayed till that time the full manifestation of the Spirit.

I know these are mere mortal men who have went on to await their time before the Lord, but I don't think anyone can honestly say the OT saints were not regenerate, devoid of the Spirit.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Well Brother, you have quite a conundrum here. Either the OT saints were saved and devoid of the Spirit of God, meaning regenerated. So that has a bunch of saved unregenerate folk doing God's will. Or, you have a bunch of ppl who are lost fulfilling God's will. Which is it?

Well, I gave you the scripture to support what I was trying to get you to understand. At that time the Spirit worked outside of the individual, where he now indwells all believers. what makes you think that the OT saints could not be saved without the indwelling of the spirit? I'll post the scripture here again and you can read it and decide for yourself:

[FONT=&quot]On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. To the one who believes in Me, it is just as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.[/FONT]

 

[J7]

[FONT=&quot]Joel 2 27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:[/FONT]

 

[J7]

Psalm 51:11
Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

Well something has got to give....

 

[SovereignGrace]

What makes you think that the OT saints could not be saved without the indwelling of the spirit?

Because its in the bible. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.[Romans 8:5-8]

The unregenerate are those who have set their minds on the things of the flesh, it is set upon death, is hostile towards God.

 

[dcontroversal]

Not at all. From Abel to Pentecost, there were OT saints throughout. Study Hebrews 11. They are called "the spirits of just men made perfect" in Heb 12:23. They were perfected after the resurrection of Christ, whereas the NT saints receive the gift of the Holy Spirit upon conversion. So there can also be Tribulation saints just like them after the Church is in Heaven. And, as we all know, with God nothing is impossible.

We don't live in the O.T. and in the New Testament saints are identified with being members of churches....wake up