Hey Steve(Gregg)...

[psychohmike]

Do you remember us standing and talking in the living/family room at the Saturday fellowship down in Orange County, you said to me that Full Preterism was counterintuitive.

I bring this up because of the definition of counterintuitive that I found on Wikipedia.

A counterintuitive proposition is one that does not seem likely to be true when assessed using intuition or gut feelings.

Scientifically discovered, objective truths are often called counterintuitive when intuition, emotions, and other cognitive processes outside of deductive rationality interpret them to be wrong. However, the subjective nature of intuition limits the objectivity of what to call counterintuitive because what is counter-intuitive for one may be intuitive for another.

Is this what you meant by counterintuitive?

If not, can you explain what you meant by counterintuitive?

Thanks, 8) Pmike

[MoGrace2u]

Hi PMike,
Don't you just love Wikipedia?

While we wait for Steve, my thought is that intuition unaided by the Spirit cannot discern spiritual truth at all. And we still have a mix within us (knowledge of good and evil) which requires us to discern which is which. Full preterism has not "fully arrived" at the whole truth and nothing but, any more than the rest of us have. But a good conscience which has grown in discernment as it considers the whole counsel of God as far as it knows it, is in a better position to heed a flag when it goes off - if only to cause us to investigate further whether these things be true or not.

There are some things we will probably never fully understand until we see the Lord face to face. But our faith in Christ is the key we must pursue while here, for that is where our hope lies in what is yet ahead. We don't need to have all the answers. But Full Preterism seems to think we have it all already, so what is their hope? That's the part I don't understand in their view. Maybe Steve will address that too.

Robin

[Allyn]

Hi PMike,
Don't you just love Wikipedia?

While we wait for Steve, my thought is that intuition unaided by the Spirit cannot discern spiritual truth at all. And we still have a mix within us (knowledge of good and evil) which requires us to discern which is which. Full preterism has not "fully arrived" at the whole truth and nothing but, any more than the rest of us have. But a good conscience which has grown in discernment as it considers the whole counsel of God as far as it knows it, is in a better position to heed a flag when it goes off - if only to cause us to investigate further whether these things be true or not.

There are some things we will probably never fully understand until we see the Lord face to face. But our faith in Christ is the key we must pursue while here, for that is where our hope lies in what is yet ahead. We don't need to have all the answers. But Full Preterism seems to think we have it all already, so what is their hope? That's the part I don't understand in their view. Maybe Steve will address that too.

Robin

Hi Robin,

Yes, there are some things that we may never be able to know in this life but I am fully convinced that God has that as a purpose for us so that we will be drawn closer to Him in our search and to practice loving one another more perfectly as we disagree with each other.

As far as what is our hope, well it has come more to me as confidence. Confidence in knowing that what was promised has been done. Confidence in knowing that we have the evidence from Scripture in these things. And confidence in the empty tomb that since Christ is our resurrection then we have resurrection in Him knowing that we who are alive shall never die.

He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

[psychohmike]

Just wanted to bump this back up to the top...In hopes that Steve might see it.

8) Pmike

[psychohmike]

Just wanted to bump this back up to the top...In hopes that Steve might see it.

8) Pmike

Again...8)

[psychohmike]

Just wanted to bump this back up to the top...In hopes that Steve might see it.

8) Pmike

Again...8)

Again...8)

[steve]

Hi Mike,

I'm glad you kept bumping this up, because I don't think I ever saw it until now. I notice that it was first posted just before I went overseas and was gone from home most of a month. Though I did check the forum during that time, I often did so in great haste, and did not have time to look at all the categories. The old forum used to have an icon of a file folder at each category, and every time I logged in, if there was a post that had come in since my last visit, the file folder next to that category was pictured as open. Thus, I could tell at a glance where the new and unread posts might be found. We don't have that feature at the new forum, so I am sometimes not able to quickly ascertain where a new post might be lurking.

As for my use of the term counterintuitive, I meant it exactly as Wikipedia defined it. However, I never intended to say that my whole case against full preterism rests upon the question of its being intuitive or counterintuitive. If an idea is counterintuitive, it does not mean that it is incorrect, but it does mean that it must shoulder a greater burden of proof in order to gain our confidence.

It is counterintuitive to believe that objects of very different weights all fall at the same rate of speed as one another. Thus it was doubted by the scientific community—until it was proved by experiment to be correct.

When reading the Bible, the idea that abortion is wrong seems quite naturally agreeable with the many places that scripture condemns murder. Thus, though the BIble does not plainly teach against abortion, one would intuit that it is wrong, given the abundance of scriptural testimony on a relevant topic. Knowing what the Bible says about murder, it would be counterintuitive to say that God finds abortion acceptable. One might be able (I think not), by the clever analysis of biblical data to overcome this hurdle and to prove that abortion is all right, but it would be a case of evidence overwhelming intuition.

When reading the New Testament, we read passages that seem to speak of bodies being resurrected to immortality, and the wicked (including the devil) suffering ultimate punishment, resulting in abolition of the effects of the fall, and the restoration of a pristine Paradise at the end of history. When reading such things, one's intuitions would be to take them as actual descriptions of a time that has not yet come. To say that these things all actually happened in AD 70 is, in my judgment, counterintuitive. This alone does not damn the view, but it places it under the requirement of presenting compelling evidence that these things occurred in history, though no historian recorded it, and it does not appear to be true.

[darinhouston]

Hi Mike,

I'm glad you kept bumping this up, because I don't think I ever saw it until now. I notice that it was first posted just before I went overseas and was gone from home most of a month. Though I did check the forum during that time, I often did so in great haste, and did not have time to look at all the categories. The old forum used to have an icon of a file folder at each category, and every time I logged in, if there was a post that had come in since my last visit, the file folder next to that category was pictured as open. Thus, I could tell at a glance where the new and unread posts might be found. We don't have that feature at the new forum, so I am sometimes not able to quickly ascertain where a new post might be lurking.

Steve, you may not have noticed -- there's a link at the top of the main index page "View New Posts", along with others such as...

_____View unanswered posts • View new posts • View active topics

You can also bookmark this link, and it will give you a list of new posts since your last visit (or those of the day if you visited multiple times):

_____"http://www.theos.org/forum/search.php?s ... d=newposts"

This is the way I check the forum -- I rarely if ever go to the main index.

[psychohmike]

Thank you Steve...

[RV]

This alone does not damn the view, but it places it under the requirement of presenting compelling evidence that these things occurred in history, though no historian recorded it, and it does not appear to be true.

Thank you Steve...

So Mike... compelling evidence that those things actually took place?

Am I wrong to assume that this subject in its entirety is nothing more than speculation? Either path you take, it boils down to guess work. This question isn't directed toward Mike or Steve, but not limited to their impute as well.

Take both both ends of the rope. Full Pret. - the rapture might have happened. Futurist - the rapture might happen. I'm using that one event as the example, not limiting the subject in it's entirety.