MAIN ARTICLE COLLECTION
Typically Organized by Author’s First Name
Having seen that it was the Zealots and the Idumeans who trampled Jerusalem for 3.5 years (42 months), we also see in Revelation 11:3 that God gave power to His two witnesses to prophesy for 3.5 years (1260 days). These time periods were identical in length, but did they begin and end at the same time?
Like Hymenaeus and Philetus, Russell, who lived in the 19th century, was guilty of profane and vain babblings and has increased unto more ungodliness, (II Tim. 2:16-18). Like Hymenaeus and Philetus, Russell’s word eats like gangrene.
Forcing the Millennium upon the rest of Scripture is a high interpretive price to pay on behalf of one figurative passage in the third chapter from the Bible’s end! Maybe our Futurist brethren should count the cost before erecting such a hermeneutically expensive structure that takes glory away from Christ and His church. With these and other interpretive machinations, it is well to note exactly what is NOT in Rev20.
he study of eschatology is made more complex by the existence of different schemes or “systems” which purport to assess the evidence in an unbiased manner, and present an objective framework to assist in understanding the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the study of “last things” must be undertaken if we are to arrive at correct conclusions regarding God’s redemptive plan.
So if Dr. Gentry can accept the Noahic correlation in Luke 17 with the Parousia of Christ at 70 AD, he must therefore concede that this character of tranquillity did in fact have a clear relationship with the apostate Jews of that day.
if we explain what St. Peter says, as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, we must take his expressions in a figurative sense; but figurative language, though it is well adapted to prophecy, such as that which is recorded Matt, xiv, is not very suitable to a plain doctrinal dissertation, especially to one delivered in the form of an epistle.
Widely considered a full preterist convert in his final years, based on his self-identification with that community – “here I am as a full preterist”. Nevertheless, his doctrine continued to anticipate a culmination of prophetic fulfillment in the postmillennial “paradise mandate” he had championed his entire life.
Examples could be multiplied, in every field. The whole rise of Western Civilization—science and technology, medicine, the arts, constitutionalism, the jury system, free enterprise, literacy, increasing productivity, a rising standard of living, the high status of women—is attributable to one major fact: the West has been transformed by Christianity.
Some Christian Reconstructionists hold that certain parts of Matthew 24 and the Apocalypse were fulfilled in AD 70, but all of them affirm the future physical Second Advent of Christ, resurrection of the just and unjust, and final judgment. That is, all are orthodox eschatologists.
Since not all errors that touch upon the Resurrection are inescapably damnable, and since non-damnable errors can exist in the historic Church and in her Creeds, as we agree, and since (more importantly) the grammatical-historical exegesis of Scripture is offering strong support for preterism, then futurism could possibly be a non-fatal, historic Church error.
They scoffed at the claims made by Jesus that the temple would be destroyed and Jesus Himself would be the one to make it happen before their generation passed away. Since more than 30 years had passed since Jesus made this prediction, and the temple was still standing with no indication that it would be destroyed in less than a decade, they began to mock the words of Jesus.
This is where the thinking of Calvinists and Catholics comes to a screeching disconnect, based on Luther’s faulty notion of “sola fide” justification. This isn’t even covenantal and those who are in the reformed camp ought to take a closer look at how a covenant works before they go spouting off Luther’s nonsense as truth.
John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70; “The hour of testing” (Rev 3:10) occurred immediately after the death of Nero; The Emperor Titus was one of the horsemen of the Apocalypse; The seal and trumpet judgments were fulfilled in the first century Roman-Judean war; The Roman Emperor Nero was the beast of Revelation 13; Nero’s name was used in calculation of the number of the beast, 666
Commentators often argue that Matthew 24 contains both a discussion of the A.D. 70 destruction as well as a reference to a yet-future return of Christ. This supposed distinction is drawn by contrasting “this generation” and “that day and hour.”
Ever since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, dispensationalists have been sorely tempted to announce, “Prophecy is being fulfilled. Jesus is coming back soon.” This is inconsistent with the academic version of the dispensational system of interpretation, because the official position says that no Old Testament prophecy has been, or can be, fulfilled in the Church Age,
I’ve been reading Samuel Frost’s articles lately as he, as a Full Preterist, is trying to persuade his fellow-FPs that “infinite procreation” is bad theology. He has been pointing out to his FP colleagues that FP needs to add a “consummation doctrine” or FP theology is not going to survive. He argues that FP begins with assuming a paradox and that is not a good way for a theological system to begin. LOL – I agree.
A number of scholars, however, have begun to propose a fifth approach, which may be termed the eclectic approach. As one proponent of this view explains, “The solution is to allow the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized.’
Jesus is shifting his attention from the destruction of the temple in AD 70 to his second coming at the end of history. In this and the next few articles I will present more than a dozen arguments for the transition in Matthew 24.
One of the best known and most accessible of the ancient preterists is Eusebius, the “father of church history.” In his classic Ecclesiastical History he details Jerusalem’s woes in A.D. 70. After a lengthy citation from Josephus’s Wars of the Jews, Eusebius writes that “it is fitting to add to his accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events”
Given that most of the eschatological texts have been devoured by the preterist gangrene, what is there to stop the men of Postmillennial Reconstructionism from adopting full-blown preterism? We appreciate the fact that a future Second Advent still occupies a place in their theology, but after “preterizing” most of the New Testament, where will they find Biblical evidence to support this eschatology?
In brief, Gregg’s attempt to rescue the partial preterist position he shares with Hank Hanegraaff is a failure. It rests upon a methodologically unorthodox way of interpreting Scripture. If this same method were used on the Gospel narratives of the resurrection of Christ, the preterist would also be theologically unorthodox.
Chilton was only a full Preterist for 6 months before he died. How much do you think he was able to rethink in that amount of time? How much did you have all worked out within 6 months of becoming a full Preterist? Do you honestly think that if he lived for just one more year he would have been where is was when he died? You of all people know it takes time to rethink one’s entire theological understanding.