2012 - The Movie

[Mellontes]

Michelle wrote:

What are the changes that need to be experienced in order to not fall away easily from your beliefs?

Mellontes replied:

LOTS of personal study into the Scriptures with no theological lenses on...taking at face value what Jesus and his inspired personnel said...believing John when he said the content in Revelation "must shortly come to pass, the time was at hand (Rev 1:1, Rev 1:3, Rev 22:6, Rev 22:10) - the book ends of time frame for the entire content, including Revelation 20. Believe Jesus when he said that the beloved disciple could be alive at his return (John 21:22). There would be no point for Jesus to say something like that if His "return" was not expected for another 2,000+ years.

Perhaps I shuld leave it up to someone else to answer these points, since almost anyone could, and since Mellontes and I are already getting along like a poor tipper and a slow waiter, but I am here now, so I might as well say something.

First, the idea of reading scripture without a theological lens is a commendable goal, but one is naive if he thinks he is doing this. Your theogical lenses (like your contact lenses), are something you see through, but not something that you yourself can see. Others can see your lens, perhaps, better than you can. Anyone who thinks he is reading with total objectivity has longer to live and to learn.

As for the time statements in Revelation bracketing the whole book, there is certainly more than one way to see this. I believe the time statements apply to the book, in general, but not necessarily to every particular. One may disagree with this thesis, but none can say that they are doing so based upon the required meaning of the words. There can be (and are, in my opinion) parenthetical sections that take a longer view than does the main body of the work. If this happened to be the case, there would be no need to modify the time statements at the beginning and end of the book, unless one had a theological agenda requiring that he take them in an absolute sense. For example, one of the last time statements (22:10) says that the book is not to be "sealed up", because the time is at hand. Yet, there is an earlier portion that is commanded to be sealed (10:4)—perhaps because the fulfillment was more remote? I believe that every vision in Revelation should be interpreted upon its own internal factors, without imposing a wooden structure that is not required by the time statements. However, I can't see any reason to argue about something so relatively trivial. I only point out that an assumption is being made here by one who foreswears the use of theological assumptions.

But then there is the material about the survival of the beloved disciple. I do not see how one can make the mistake Mellontes is making about this, if he reads the actual passage in John 21. Mellontes' point is that Jesus predicted John's possible survival until the coming of Christ:

Some Mormons dropped by. I invited them in (horror of horrors). I began to discuss fulfilled eschatology with them (since they also believe in a future return) and showed them John 21:22 as well. I was startled by their response, but at the same time, I had to admire their integrity. They, almost in unison, said that the beloved disciple is still alive! They knew that Jesus couldn't lie about something like that.

This mistake just seems so unnecessary. Just as a point of clarity, Jesus did not say that the beloved disciple would survive until Christ's coming—nor did He imply that he could survive until then. This was the mistaken interpretation that some took from Christ's statement (as John informs us in the passage), but John is at pains to explain that Jesus did not make any such prediction:

Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" (John 21:23)

If I were to hear a politician say, "Were I to become the emperor of the galaxy tomorrow, I would still not abuse my power," I would be disappointed with the integrity of any news service that would run the headline: "Congressman Jones Claims That He Could Become Ruler of the Galaxy Within 24 Hours!"

There may be some arguments for full-preterism somewhere, but this one certainly is not relevant in any way to the case, and the use of it gives the impression that theological lenses are most certainly in place.

I don't get your analogy of the congressman at all. You said, "This was the mistaken interpretation that some took from Christ's statement" in regards to tthe beloved disciple COULD still be alive at Christ's coming. But this is patently false. The mistaken interpretation was that the beloved disciple was not going to die at all! See the verse below:

John 21:23 - Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Jesus corrects their false assumption that he should not ever die, by RESTATING "if I will that he tarry till I come"! the same exact thing Jesus said in verse 22:

John 21:22 - Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

The crowd was wrong in their interpretation. Jesus was not. How you can say what you did say is remarkable...

Anyway, you have publicly stated that you have no wish to discuss/debate the issues of full-preterism, so I won't "browbeat" you any further...You have done much to help the dispensationalsits in their error - and I appreciate that very much!

And as a side note, I believe the reason why the crowd thought the beloved disciple would not die is because he had been resurrected from death already. And of course I am not speaking of JOHN, I am speaking of Lazarus, who I believe to be the disciple whom Jesus loved. This is not a full-pretrerist tenet, so please do not make it one. May I suggest http://thedisciplewhojesusloved.com/? The short book can be downloaded for free. Another site offers a .pdf file of why he believes Lazarus was the disciple who Jesus loved is http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transc ... _loved.pdf

Perhaps you will take the time to learn more...

[steve]

And as a side note, I believe the reason why the crowd thought the beloved disciple would not die is because he had been resurrected from death already.

Just a helpful note to you: The above is a theologically-driven statement (it is made only because of theological "lenses"). It is not drawn from scripture. In fact, it contradicts the scriptures. The reason people believed that the beloved disciple would not die is not connected to his having ever previously been raised from the dead, but was due to the popular misinterpretation of Jesus' comment. So, despite the lofty claims of taking the clear meaning of scripture, rather than the theologically-driven one, it seems that full-preterists turn out to be just like the rest of us subjective folks!

[Allyn]

LOL, I feel so ignored LOL

[steve]

Didn't mean to ignore you, Allyn. I actually did not see your last post because it was at the bottom of the previous page, and I generally click automatically to the most current page. I am not used to being in the discussion while it is rapidly being added to. You wrote:

I would have to agree with you, Steve, that there is a better argument for FP then the ones currently underway in this thread. I believe we are able to understand those arguments from Scripture alone. As a small example, I cannot understand how the partial preterist takes Matthew 25:31 to mean a future second coming of Christ. Personally I would like for you to address this for me. How can it be justified as the second coming and not as His ascension? Is it purely traditional thought or is there support from Scripture that this is what is referenced?

I can see how a comparison with Daniel 7:13-14 might incline one to think that the enthronement of the Son of Man in glory could be a reference to the ascension. If the verses following described something different from what they describe, I would probably take this approach. I could see the sheep being the Jewish remnant entering the kingdom of God (the church) in the first century, and the goats being the apostate Jews who, based upon their ill-treatment of their fellows, were consigned to outer darkness (the term is not used in this parable, but it is used in the parable preceding this one—v.30). That would be very neat, and I would really love to have that option. My problem is that the parable does not deal with categories within Israel, but with "all nations" (v.32), which changes the picture. Perhaps, if that hurdle could be reasonably overcome, I might see this parable your way.

However, I do not believe that the hope of a future resurrection (such as I believe to be biblically promised) rests upon the interpretation of this parable. There is much on this subject written to Gentile readers (e.g., the Corinthians, the Philippians and the Thessalonians), whose fortunes could hardly be said to have been significantly affected by events of AD70.

My view of the progress of Jesus' reign is similar to that of David's reign, whom I regard as a type of Christ. David was anointed king by Samuel in a more-or-less private ceremony—as Jesus was anointed king at His baptism. Shortly afterward, when he fled from Saul, David became the de facto king ("captain") of a growing number of rag-tag followers, who suffered with him during the season of his national rejection—as Jesus, since His enthronement in heaven, has become King to such a group of followers in this present age. Finally, upon the death of Saul, David became the universal ruler of Judah, and then all Israel, and those who had suffered with him were elevated with him to positions of responsibility in the government and the military—as Jesus, in a yet future event, will be acknowledged as King by all people ("every knee...and every tongue..."), and those who are loyal to HIm at this time will then reign with Him.

Thus, I see the advancing reign of Christ to have three installments: His anointing, His unpopular reign, and His universal reign. We live during the second of these installments. I believe that Matthew 25:31ff refers to the third.

[Mellontes]

And as a side note, I believe the reason why the crowd thought the beloved disciple would not die is because he had been resurrected from death already.

Just a helpful note to you: The above is a theologically-driven statement (it is made only because of theological "lenses"). It is not drawn from scripture. In fact, it contradicts the scriptures. The reason people believed that the beloved disciple would not die is not connected to his having ever previously been raised from the dead, but was due to the popular misinterpretation of Jesus' comment. So, despite the lofty claims of taking the clear meaning of scripture, rather than the theologically-driven one, it seems that full-preterists turn out to be just like the rest of us subjective folks!

But it does offer a valid reason as to why the crowd was wrong. They were aware of Lazarus' resurrection. And by the way, I did not use that as my "proof" for what Jesus clearly said. The crowd was wrong and Jesus corrected them by restating what He said before. One can only wonder if the crowd went away still believing that the beloved disciple would not die. Jesus did not say anything different than before.

And Allyn, I am not ignoring you. I am too busy contemplating my appreciation of you that I fail to find the time to enter the keystrokes...

[steve]

The crowd was wrong and Jesus corrected them by restating what He said before.

Not to nit-pick, but Jesus is not recorded as restating anything. The writer of the gospel, writing decades after Jesus' departure, restates what Jesus said (and said only once, so far as anyone knows). It is a minor point, but it makes one wonder how closely you are reading even the passages you cite for evidence. It raises questions about your claim to have studied the Bible so much more thoroughly and more objectively than those with whom you disagree.

[Mellontes]

The crowd was wrong and Jesus corrected them by restating what He said before.

Not to nit-pick, but Jesus is not recorded as restating anything. The writer of the gospel, writing decades after Jesus' departure, restates what Jesus said (and said only once, so far as anyone knows). It is a minor point, but it makes one wonder how closely you are reading even the passages you cite for evidence. It raises questions about your claim to have studied the Bible so much more thoroughly and more objectively than those with whom you disagree.

Would you be willing to accept "restated" as meaning it is mentioned twice in that short passage? At the very least, it is being RE-EMPHASIZED. Would you go along with that? I was wrong in saying that JESUS did the restatement. Luke restated it. But Jesus' words were restated, right? The point still stands. And as for your last statement, I will just ignore it. It is of the usual petty, arrogant rhetoric so often used against us. And by the way, you totally ignored my compliment to you. I guess this was your kind answer...

[SteveF]

Steve Gregg wrote

Good questions from Michelle. I wonder the same things.

I remember (way back in my youth) feeling angry at my teachers for having taught me only one eschatological system. The reaction is probably natural enough. I have seen it in many people. The most harsh critics of dispensationalism are those who were once dispensationalists (the same is true of anti-Calvinistic ex-Calvinists). However, once the initial disappointment has passed, one should settle down and see things in perspective, which includes at least the following:

1. People who taught me dispensationalism were not deliberately hiding anything. They thought they were right, and probably knew no alternatives themselves;

2. There are lots of things more important than the correct end-time scenario, or even the correct fulfilled eschatological scenario;

3. When one sees through a former error, it is possible for that subject to become an obsession, and a one-stringed instrument upon which I can play incessantly a single tune—to the exclusion of a balanced approach to discipleship and theology;

4. I, with my "corrected" views, can be more displeasing to God than are those who taught me wrongly, if my spirit is uncharitable (1 Cor.13:2).

I wanted to repost Steve’s points here because I don’t want them to be missed and I think they are very important. It's a caution to all of us. Unfortunately and sadly I’ve seen points 3 and 4 happen over and over again to individuals. They get hooked on a particular point of view and become so dogmatic that they drive others away from them and they become isolated. The point they are making is not really the issue but rather it's the predominace placed on it. The topic could be the nature of a church meeting (tradtitional vs. open house church style), the identity of demons/spiritual warfare, and yes…eschatology. Sometimes I largely agree with them and other times I don’t. But, as I said, that’s not the point. It’s the manner in which they are handling the truth. It doesn’t resemble the following verses:

2Ti 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,
2Ti 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2Ti 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,


Something to consider…

When discussing eschatology we are talking about the Kingdom of God. The principal fruit of that Kingdom is love. If the Kingdom is indeed here (as the argument goes) then isn’t the most important part to live according to its key principle?

I think it’s possible to be 100 % right and 100 % wrong at the same time.

[steve]

Mellontes,

You wrote:

Would you be willing to accept "restated" as meaning it is mentioned twice in that short passage? At the very least, it is being RE-EMPHASIZED. Would you go along with that? I was wrong in saying that JESUS did the restatement. Luke restated it. But Jesus' words were restated, right? The point still stands.

Jesus didn't repeat it, nor did Luke. The statement was repeated by the final author(s) of the fourth Gospel (the "we" of verse 24), clarifying that there had been an error circulating about the beloved disciple. The error was that that disciple would, or at least could possibly, survive until Jesus comes. It was based upon a misunderstanding of an actual remark that Jesus was heard to have made. In order to correct the misunderstanding, the author:

a) tells the story, giving the context in which the statement was made;
b) mentions that there had by a misunderstanding of what Jesus said;
c) clarifies by pointing out the statement that was NOT said by Jesus ("that [the beloved disciple] would not die"—v.23);
d) restates the original statement ("what is that to you?") in order to show its contrast in meaning from (c).

The restatement truly does present an emphasis upon the actual wording of Jesus' comment, but not so as to emphasize the actual possibility of the beloved disciple actually living to see Christ's coming. If he wished to do that, the author could have said: "Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only that there was the possibilty of John living that long." Of course the author had no intention of making such a point, which is why he made an entirely different one, and left that one unsaid.

Actually, for one to take from Jesus' comment the idea that Jesus meant to assert that John might in fact live to see the coming of Christ would be to miss the entire point of the author's correction.

And as for your last statement, I will just ignore it. It is of the usual petty, arrogant rhetoric so often used against us. And by the way, you totally ignored my compliment to you. I guess this was your kind answer...

I receive many compliments, and many constructive criticisms, from others (I hope that you do also). I don't consider that I give a man a compliment in order to elicit his thanks, and I did not know that you did so either. I will say that I consider the man who corrects me to be doing me a favor, as I would have hoped you would also. To correct another is a kindness shown, unless the man wishes to not be corrected.

If the errors were made privately, it would have been unkind for me to correct you publicly (I would have used the private message option). However, whenever I or anyone else asserts a given thing in a public forum, a public response is assumed to be invited. I hope I did not embarrass you. There is such a thing as welcoming correction.

[Suzana]

[partial quote]

3. When one sees through a former error, it is possible for that subject to become an obsession, and a one-stringed instrument upon which I can play incessantly a single tune—to the exclusion of a balanced approach to discipleship and theology;

4. I, with my "corrected" views, can be more displeasing to God than are those who taught me wrongly, if my spirit is uncharitable (1 Cor.13:2).

I wanted to repost Steve’s points here because I don’t want them to be missed and I think they are very important. It's a caution to all of us. Unfortunately and sadly I’ve seen points 3 and 4 happen over and over again to individuals.They get hooked on a particular point of view and become so dogmatic that they drive others away from them and they become isolated. The point they are making is not really the issue but rather it's the predominace placed on it...

I have seen this very thing (with slight variations in circumstances) happen to someone close to me, regarding a disputed point of doctrine. Everyone except this one person can see the deleterious effect, and recognize that it’s self-inflicted.
It is so frustrating, painful to watch, and such a waste.