Hi TK,TK wrote:Allyn- I have a quick question that I hope you can answer quickly.
Why does "full preterism" matter? In other words, if full preterism is in fact the correct view, then should I be living my life any differently, or doing anything differently? I guess the same thing can be said for various theological debates-- Calvinism vs. Arminianism, old earth vs. young earth, etc. I want to strive to be a good disciple of the Lord and all that entails.
You obviously are very strong on full preterism, which is fine. There was another poster here not long ago who was also strongly full preterist, but I can't remember his name. He was also a "missionary" for the cause. But can you, in a summary fashion, explain why this is so important? (I would prefer that you not simply say something like "because that is what the Bible clearly teaches" because that is an honestly debatable point). Rather, I would like you to explain the ramifications of full preterism as it relates to the daily life of a Christian. assuming full preterism is the correct view.
Thanks in advance,
TK
I hope you don't mind me chiming in here...
I guess for me, it is the idea that most Christians are still waiting for their hope to be realized. I now live in God's kingdom with God's presence and because of that I can avail myself to all that it encompasses. If one is still waiting, how can one take advantage of what has already been given? It is like living like the cattle that have been trained by the proverbial electric fence. They believe the fence is electric and no longer challenge their confinement (crude example). God is our King now because we are in His kingdom. I have also found it odd that futurists (especially dispensational futurists) constantly sing about their reigning King but do not believe He is reigning... nor do they believe THE kingdom is here.
And it is good to realize that what Jesus and His apostles said to that first century church was true. So many Christian "scholars" reject the words of Christ as being a mistake, or an embarrassing situation. I quote C.S. Lewis:
“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
I think many of us have forgotten the ministry of the Holy Spirit as once given to those almost 2,000 years ago. It has a direct correlation to future things (to them). I have heard a lot of discussion as to how Jesus didn't know the day or the hour. But it is evidently clear that Jesus did know the generation, else what He said concerning the disciple’s question in Matthew 24:3 was just a bunch of guesswork with bologna thrown in. Of course, further to this argument is the suggestion that the destruction of Jerusalem IS NOT at the end of THE AGE, if you know what I mean:
John 16:13 - Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
I believe the Apostles had perfect understanding as to the timing of the parousia and expressed that understanding to the to the ones who would be affected by it, the first century church.
Two not so interesting things about those who can also "see" these time texts related to the first century church:
1. J. Farell Till, previously a church of Christ pastor, and NOW ATHEIST, has had this to say regarding the time texts:
“It is the height of folly to think that an omniscient deity, wanting all men to be saved, would have “inspired” instructions for salvation to be written in language that was comprehensible to him rather than to the humans the message was intended for. This, then, is a major flaw in the fundamentalist claim that Jesus will indeed return “soon” or “shortly” in the sense of a thousand years being like just one day to God. Presumably God would know when this return would take place, so in warning humans that the return was “near” or “at hand,” those terms had to have been used in the way that human readers would understand them or else we are left with a god who inspired in his “word” vitally important instructions that only he would understand. Why tell early Christians that Jesus would return soon if they were not going to understand what soon meant?” Source: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/023basic.html
To me, it seems that the traditionalism of futurist's claims regarding the timing has helped to turn Mr. Till away from the faith...
2. A few months ago I had the pleasure, yes, the pleasure, of speaking to two Mormons concerning exactly these things (timing of the parousia). I honestly had to admire these two individuals for the integrity they desired (although a very misplaced integrity) to hold to the New Testament Scriptures. Regarding John 21:22, they were both adamant that the beloved disciple was STILL ALIVE! This belief they held to because they understood what Jesus was saying! Unfortunately, because they are futurists too, and reject the first century timing of the parousia coming, their only recourse was to believe that the beloved disciple must still be alive.
If it was possible for the beloved disciple to be alive at His coming as Jesus suggested, then how is it possible that the coming would not be for at least another 1,950 years without him still being alive? I hope no one misconstrues what I have said here. In no way do I respect Mormonism or its teachings. I respected those two individuals for willing to go against the grain in believing that the beloved disciple was still alive.
With all my heart I believe that most of today's evangelical Christianity has rejected the time statements mentioned by Jesus and His Apostles under the influence of the Holy Spirit (who knew these things) because of their presupposed understanding of the NATURE of the parousia and resurrection. It is these presuppositions that have led to spectacular claims why "this generation" doesn't mean the first century generation, and why "at hand" doesn't mean at hand.
I had decided a while back to believe the testimony of the inspired apostles regarding the timing of the parousia and have since discarded the traditional understanding of the NATURE of the resurrection and of His coming...Finally I could believe the book ends of Revelation (the timing for the entire content of Revelation) as being perfectly and completely true:
Revelation 1:1 – The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 1:3 – Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
{CONTENT OF REVELATION}
Revelation 22:6 – And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Revelation 22:10 – And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
I have always wondered why the “These sayings are faithful and true” from Revelation 22:6 would not be represented as the general content of Revelation and believed to be shortly coming to pass as the rest of the verse indicates.
I had always wondered why Revelation was NOT to be sealed. But when one understands that the prophecies of Daniel WERE TO BE SEALED because the time was for MANY DAYS (Daniel 12:4, 12:9), it is not a stretch at all to understand that Revelation was NOT to be sealed because “the time is at hand.” For me to consider anything else in this regard is to become similar to C.S. Lewis saying that John, who was guided by the Holy Spirit and given this revelation by God (Rev 1:1), was somehow mistaken or an embarrassment to those seven first century churches he was writing to.
I can not, for the life of me, believe (anymore) that Christians from those seven first century churches believed that John was speaking of a time frame thousands of years in their future. Where does John state that what he wrote did NOT apply to them? And if application was to them (and I truly believe it was since John says it was), what do we do with our traditional timing of the parousia? Isn’t that really the question?
Personal experience has shown me that most Christians would rather continue to hold to the traditional teachings of the NATURE of the resurrection and parousia. This position is maintained by attempting to explain away the clear teaching of its apparent TIMING to that first century church – hence, “generation” does not mean the first century generation and “at hand” does not mean at hand, etc. There is very little attempt to re-examine their traditional teachings of the NATURE in the light of the clear TIMING.
For all those who read thoroughly and completely to the end of this post, I thank for your kind attention in this matter.
Blessings to all in their endeavour to seek the Truth and its accompanying glories…
P.S. - Sorry, but I won’t be answering specific questions related to my post. I believe the Scriptures speak for themselves, and besides, there are plenty of resources available for that sort of discussion. Again, I thank you for your time…
