PRETERIST---->PRE-MILLENIAL

[Guest]

you seem to be equating "intelligence" with preterism and "ignorance" with premillenialism.

I think you are missing the point. Intelligence has very little to do with it compared to the presuppositions that people cling to. Which drives people to hold on to incorrect views.

how then, do you explain seemingly intelligent (if not brilliant) theologians who are not preterists? are they simply willfully ignorant, like the pharisees (i.e. in their heart of hearts they know that preterism is correct but because of their denomination, etc they simply push premillenialism)?

Some people also hold on because of their position in a church or organization or even because of a paycheck. Pride is a big motivator too. Imagine having written many books and having taught for many years. All that teaching and all those books now mean nothing. So they don't even consider the idea that they could be wrong. How could they be...They are published. Even I had to sign a statement of faith when I started working for the church I do that says I believe in a futurist view of eschatology.

there seems to be a tone in this thread that goes something like this:
"any intelligent, well-read person must be a preterist. if you are a pre-millenialist, you are either unintelligent, or not well-read, or both."

isnt that rather, for lack of a better word, pompous?

Once AGAIN...These are just OBSERVATIONS. There is no subjectivity involved. Anyone can observe this.

Nooooowwww...If you disagree with these observations, please take the time and explain why they are wrong. Maybe I'm missing something. Let's work this out. I've shown what my observations have been. Show me yours...Let's learn.

[Guest]

The church didn't move from a form of preterism to futurism. Individuals that didn't know any better accepted what they were told. I'm not talking about the church as a whole but of individual people. INDIVIDUALS. Now obviously there was a big uprising starting in the early 1800's of premil dispy teaching. But once again this is something that was being taught to new believers. America was the land of the free and the home of the brave where you could come and preach WHATEVER you wanted without fear of reaprisal. For the most part. Hense the origin of many futurist cults. MORMONS...JW'S...ADVENTISTS...MILLERITES, etc. All founded after J.N. Darby came over with his doctrine. COINCIDENCE...I DON'T THINK SO. And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but believers and adhearents to these groups BACK THEN(Early 1800's) weren't exactly achedemia material.

As a former Seventh-day Adventist I can assure you Miller and the Adventists were and are the most staunch covenant theologists and solidly locked in Historisicm. The SDA church was built on the Historist theory of Revelation.

[Guest]

The church didn't move from a form of preterism to futurism. Individuals that didn't know any better accepted what they were told. I'm not talking about the church as a whole but of individual people. INDIVIDUALS. Now obviously there was a big uprising starting in the early 1800's of premil dispy teaching. But once again this is something that was being taught to new believers. America was the land of the free and the home of the brave where you could come and preach WHATEVER you wanted without fear of reaprisal. For the most part. Hense the origin of many futurist cults. MORMONS...JW'S...ADVENTISTS...MILLERITES, etc. All founded after J.N. Darby came over with his doctrine. COINCIDENCE...I DON'T THINK SO. And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but believers and adhearents to these groups BACK THEN(Early 1800's) weren't exactly achedemia material.

As a former Seventh-day Adventist I can assure you Miller and the Adventists were and are the most staunch covenant theologists and solidly locked in Historisicm. The SDA church was built on the Historist theory of Revelation.

"Perhaps more than 100,000 Millerites were awaiting this "Blessed Hope", some who abandoned their farms or sold their homes and left their employment, to propagate the gospel of the last days chronology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites

This guys set dates...TWICE.

Sounds awfully futuristic to me. Am I missing something in my assesment?

[Guest]

The church didn't move from a form of preterism to futurism. Individuals that didn't know any better accepted what they were told. I'm not talking about the church as a whole but of individual people. INDIVIDUALS. Now obviously there was a big uprising starting in the early 1800's of premil dispy teaching. But once again this is something that was being taught to new believers. America was the land of the free and the home of the brave where you could come and preach WHATEVER you wanted without fear of reaprisal. For the most part. Hense the origin of many futurist cults. MORMONS...JW'S...ADVENTISTS...MILLERITES, etc. All founded after J.N. Darby came over with his doctrine. COINCIDENCE...I DON'T THINK SO. And feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but believers and adhearents to these groups BACK THEN(Early 1800's) weren't exactly achedemia material.

As a former Seventh-day Adventist I can assure you Miller and the Adventists were and are the most staunch covenant theologists and solidly locked in Historisicm. The SDA church was built on the Historist theory of Revelation.

"Perhaps more than 100,000 Millerites were awaiting this "Blessed Hope", some who abandoned their farms or sold their homes and left their employment, to propagate the gospel of the last days chronology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites

This guys set dates...TWICE.

Sounds awfully futuristic to me. Am I missing something in my assesment?

Somewhat Futuristic, but certainly not dispensational. They set those dates due to a peculiar intrepretation of Daniel 8:14 coupled with a historist view on revelation.

[Guest]

Hi Pmike,

Just out of curiosity, why have you been focused/fascinated with this topic?

Hasn’t the church as a whole made this transition? All the Preterist history I’ve read seems to indicate that. Correct? If I understand it correctly, the church largely prior to the 1800's had the Preterist root. So as a whole, it seems to have moved from the Preterist perspective to the Futurist.

Slight correction brother - it's been more like a boomerang. For the first few centuries, not only was the church almost uniformly Futurist, but they were also Premillennial. Despite it's flaws, Dispensationalism represented a return to this heritage.

Mike--

you seem to be equating "intelligence" with preterism and "ignorance" with premillenialism.

...there seems to be a tone in this thread that goes something like this:

"any intelligent, well-read person must be a preterist. if you are a pre-millenialist, you are either unintelligent, or not well-read, or both."

isnt that rather, for lack of a better word, pompous?

TK

Thank you TK - you have expertly expressed what I have been thinking. So called gnosis puffing up

[Guest]

Slight correction brother - it's been more like a boomerang. For the first few centuries, not only was the church almost uniformly Futurist, but they were also Premillennial. Despite it's flaws, Dispensationalism represented a return to this heritage.

Maybe if you took the time to read the WHOLE thread CAREFULLY you would see that I am NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE CHURCH COLLECTIVELY.

I was however speaking of INDIVIDUALS. Feel free to address my WHOLE thought again if you would like.

Thank you TK - you have expertly expressed what I have been thinking. So called gnosis puffing up.

Now...If you are done calling names and would like to address something here I'm sure we ALL would like to learn something.

Once again all I have done is made an observation. IF IT IS FLAWED THAN PLEASE ADDRESS THE FLAWS...And leave my character out of this.

What I have observed is that people go from one position...futurism, to another...preterism on a regular basis in varying degrees and steps. But never in the other direction. Does it happen because of a direct vision from God or an some strange epiphany? Maybe...Through study? Definitely.

Is this some kind of Gnosis? Well I do suppose that it takes the Spirit of God to reveal things to us perhaps like the Spirit did with Peter.

So...Ely. If you are done slinging mud and would like to contribute to this conversation, please feel free. If you have a better explanation...I'm all ears.

[Guest]

Mud?

Anyway, I'm just making the rather obvious observation that you have an extremely condescending attitude toward people who do not share your eschatological views. As a premillennialist, I may be a Neanderthal on your "truth-seeking evolutionary chain" but one thing truth that I have managed to recognise is that God resists the proud but gives grace to those who are humble.

[Guest]

Mud?

Anyway, I'm just making the rather obvious observation that you have an extremely condescending attitude toward people who do not share your eschatological views. As a premillennialist, I may be a Neanderthal on your "truth-seeking evolutionary chain" but one thing truth that I have managed to recognise is that God resists the proud but gives grace to those who are humble.

I'm sorry you feel that way Ely. Maybe if we knew each other face to face you wouldn't feel the same way. Sometimes things don't come across well in type...online. I'm just a nobody looking for answers.

I would truly appreciate further dialogue and any ideas you might have concerning this. I just want answers. If not...I understand.

Sorry

[Guest]

WELL Mike..........i would like to address your character flaws...............but they're are just tooo many.............heheheehheeahaha

I think, TK, its presupposes that mike was addressing..........but i think i agree ELY, that sometimes things may come across that way.

But arent we all dogmatic??? And doesnt it come across negatively sometimes, even though that is not the intent?? And if it does, cant frustrations be let out some time?? I have felt that from U, and from a few others that have strong beliefs as psycho does.
For me, its not the end of the world (ooopps), maybe it is, (hehehehe). I would prefer guys like you all, rather than the typical uncaring or unthinking christian.

jimd

[Guest]

i guess to me the whole topic of eschatology is rather unimportant in the way we should live our daily christian lives but we seem to spend tons of time on it.

dont get me wrong, i think the topic is extremely interesting. and steve g, mike, etc have all caused me to drastically re-think my previously held "left behind" views. but sometimes i wonder if Jesus is shaking his head at us as if to say "why dont you all move on to something really important?

i mean, if my eschatology is wrong, oh well. if mike's is wrong, big deal. if ely's is wrong, so what. if jim's is wrong, that's the breaks. but if we fail to love those around us, or care for those less fortunate, or allow the devil to cause us to backslide, God have mercy on us.

TK