Preterism's Achilles Heel

[Guest]

I wonder which prophecies they believe predict this? I have never read them.

[Guest]

Thank you Steve for typing this up. Very informative.

[Guest]

You make me want to study the Word more and more everytime I hear you speak or type something like this. I thank God for you.

[Guest]

Thanks for the refutation, it was great.

It makes more sense to me now, why a dispensational teacher commenting on Galations 6:15,16 was not just being inconsistent with his theology. He was sounding an aweful lot like a preterist to me. It's not that I'm not complaining, it was just surprising after he complained so much about replacement theology, that he was one too, for a few verses anyway.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God."
Gal 6:15,16

[Guest]

BTW, have you ever posted the rules of argumentation/logic, and how to flag violations. It might be helpful if Christians were better equiped to hold up in the heat of a discussion, and could quickly spot illegal retorical devices being used to support weak or false points.

You have probably heard about the preacher who had marked in the margin in his sermon notes, "weak point, POUND pulpit." If we could better divide and anaylze emotionally charged erronous statements, we might be more persuasive in the end.

Knowing the Bible and wielding it effectively under the guidance of God's Spirit is essential, I understand. Seeing it done well is very inspiring. Keep wielding the Sword, for the love of Christ.

Any suggestions or advise on this would be appreciated.

[Guest]

I found and then created a link that describes a few rules for reasoning from the Scriptures

http://fbf.wvss.com/index.php?option=co ... &Itemid=25

[Guest]

Thanks for posting that, John.

[Guest]

I was unaware that Jesus had physically returned and Revelation had been fulfilled in 70 A.D. I found it also perplexing that there where those that held such a beleif.I found this site and found it interestingly shed some light on the preterist view.

In His Service

Crusader

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Critica ... index.html

[Guest]

I was unaware that Jesus had physically returned and Revelation had been fulfilled in 70 A.D. I found it also perplexing that there where those that held such a beleif.I found this site and found it interestingly shed some light on the preterist view.

In His Service

Crusader

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Critica ... index.html

Yes, there are Preterist that believe Jesus is coming again, and there are others (full-preterist) that believe the "second coming" has already taken place, final judgement has ocurred, etc.

[Guest]

In reading the entire NT, it is clear that the only case preterists have for anyting related to 70AD could be in Matt 24 and Luke 21. Aside from that, the rest of the NT is decidely DIspensational futurist. It would be quite comical to read preterist "explanations" of all the NT passages related to the Second Coming were it not that people actually believe these fantasies. I have been reading the grand-daddy of all preterists publications, THE PAROUSIA, by J. Stuart Russell. Hilarious "exegesis" of 1THess 4:13-17, 2THess 2, among other things. Pretersim shipwrecks when the whole NT is considered regarding the Second coming of the Lord.

Even if Matt 24 primarly referred to 70AD, the rest of the NT DOES NOT. The attempts to try to make it all refer to 70AD is one of the most ludicrous attempts I have ever read. Yeah sure, Jesus came back in 70AD--INVISIBLY. The dead were raised--INVISIBLY. We were raptured into the air--INVISIBLY. Etc. Preterist "exegesis" of the NT passages is every bit as hilarious, warped and absurb as those of the Watchtower, who teach the Lord came back in 1914AD---INVISIBLY, or the Adventists, who teach He came back in 1844--INVISIBLY.

What do all three of these beliefs have in common? Utter nonsense. Pure error. Freak "exegesis" to borrow Alexander Reese's term. They are all from the same spirit of error.

Look at the absurd expositions by preterists of the book of Revelation, and the attempts to make it HAVE TO BE WRITTEN before 70AD. Why? Because of evidence? Hardly. Its because of an agenda brought to the text, where, if such agenda is to be maintained, Revelation HAS TO BE written prior to 70AD.

Aside from the fact that the facts all point to 96AD, and the arguments presented by Gentry, Chilton and others are as sound as a three-dollar bill, how ridiculous it is to believe that the Lord gave John this book on a remote island, with almost no time to get it to all the Christians in Asia minor and Europe, so they could read it and be encouraged and prepared!!!

WHy give the book to John so late in the scheme of things? Why give it so late, and in a time when travel was difficult, no photocopy machines were available, and so it would be certain that most of the Christians of that time would never see the book prior to 70AD anyway!


Preterists have never thought this through. The book of Revelation should have been given in Jerusalem in 50AD if the Lord was serious about getting the churches ready for what was coming in 70AD.

Your viewpoint on its date makes it COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to its stated purpose, and makes the Lord look foolish indeed. Pagans know how to plan ahead better than the God of preterists!

The Lord's pattern is to warn way ahead of time. The majority of written prophecies is way before they happen. Many things the prphets prophecied never happened in the generation to whom they wrote, but in the distant future. And so it is with Revelation. It focuses on the last 3 and 1/2 years of this age, as any simple reading, despite the symbols in it, makes plain.


Anyway, this is my first post on this forum, and it may seem quite blunt. It is. I type this way when I'm in a hurrry, seeing I have other things I must do today. Sorry.

But to Steve I want to say, I respect you. Your article on Divorce and remarriage is superb. Your debate on Once Saved Always Saved was well done. I agree with most of your views, hence I was suprised to find out you are a preterist. It seems so contrary to the way you approach the Bible otherwise.

Sean:

Darby did not "invent" Dispensationalism. You need to get your facts straight before posting. The beliefs of Dispensationalist can be seen throughout all church history, ESPECIALLY the ante-Nicene times. Most were premil-restored Israel-Jewish Millenium until 250AD.

Darby and many others simply tightened things up, so to soeak, as did the Nicene creedalists regarding the Divinity of Christ, and the Athanasian Creedalsits regarding the Trinity. It was a Systemizing and declaration of what was beleived to be in Scripture, not an "invention".