Polycarp

[Justin Adams]

40 minutes ago, DeighAnn said:

Considering those are MOSTLY Gods Words, I certainly have FAITH in them.  

They are proof texts in a concatenation that makes very little coherent sense. Blasting out a wall of words is probably not the best way to present an argument or personal position.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Justin Adams
clarify

[Uriah]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Darbyism is just wrong. There is no viable "alternate version" because the entire paradigm is built of the man's inventions; inventions that are at best nowhere found in scripture and at worst are outright falsehoods. The very premise of "dispensations" is an invention and arbitrary. At least with covenants we can see the scripture itself names the covenants and speaks of the covenants from beginning to end. Regardless of what any of us think about the Reformed "covenant of grace" and the fact that phrase is nowhere found in scripture the fact remains scripture itself does speak often, diversely, and explicitly of covenants. 

Not so with dispensations. 

The seven, or nine, or five or whatever the number and list of dispensations asserted by Dispensationalists they are inventions of men. Scripture never labels the dispensations as dispensations. Never. The entire paradigm is an invention. 

When the ECFs wrote about a dispensation they did so with specific context. Always and everywhere. That context was always that of....... the covenants. This is another reason Darbyism fails: he separated dispensation from covenant and he did so without scriptural warrant, or doctrinal history for doing so. He invented the practice. In doing so he also discarded the continuity of scripture. That discontinuity is a self-asserted fundamental aspect of Darbyism. There is no "alternate version" of Darbyism. The entire paradigm needs to be discarded. 

As far as Hebrews 9:28 goes the verse says the second time Jesus comes will be to bring a salvation apart from sin. Darby's millennialism as all about sin and a salvation thereof. Anyone who cites Hebrews 9:28 and takes the verse as written must necessarily reject Darbyism. It's not just because Darbyism twists the verse to make it say something it doesn't actually state but also because the verse directly, openly, explicitly refutes the millennium as a response to man's sin!!!!! 

I have already posted what I think of Darby. So what is this above, straw man? Even if it is, not to worry, I am not so delicate as to be bent out of shape or anything like that.

Furthermore, the Bible never once mentions anything called "The Second Coming."  Never. Not once. The closest anyone will ever come to such a mention is Hebrews 9:28 and as I have just shown the verse speaks of a salvation apart from sin. Neither does the verse preclude a third, fourth, fifth, or gazillionth return.  Yep.

Except for what the verse states! I remember someone else around here driving that point, was it ....you?

The fact of historical Christian thought is Jesus comes many times in many ways for many purposes. He came at Pentecost to bestow the Holy Spirit. He came to Paul on the road to Damascus. He came in judgment in 70 AD to flatten the temple, destroy the old city of peace, and put an end to the Levitical priesthood, and replace them all with new alternatives He build with his own work, not those of men. 70 AD was NOT a "secret."

None of which changes the fact Jesus will come again on last time, not a second time, one last time on the last day on which all will face judgment but some will not stand condemned. 

Yikes, this needs some fine tuning, at least.

 

And it is not a "'certain point of view' framework." It is scripture as written, plainly read....as it states? 

 

Who was waiting for Jesus....... when the book of Hebrews was written? By its author.

So, Josh, I think you are sincere and don't mean to join the crowd (like pre-trib teachers) fist bumping Yoda.

Perhaps my understanding of your position is more like this: (let me know)

The second time IS the second coming according to Heb. 9:28. Jesus hasn't left heaven yet because of

Acts 3:21- For he must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago through his holy prophets.

So, what about Rev. 2:5- “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent"...?

That same word for "come" is found in  Luke 15:17- And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

The prodigal son didn't go anywhere to "come" to himself. Probably came down the list of people to blame, then came to himself it DID fit someone. Him.

Jesus is talking about removing a candle stick btw. Regardless, His will would be carried out in judgment. Now that is far different than the way some are using "come/coming" and renders it unnecessary. No gazillions needed either. I think it threads the needle and satisfies what two groups can live with.

Your thoughts sir?

[Guest kingdombrat]

14 minutes ago, electlady said:

Hi, Justin...  I’m having a great deal of difficulty understanding what it is that preterists/partial preterists believe compared to, say, me, a futurist? I truly hate labels, actually.  So would you mind making a succinct list of these differences?  Also, kindly speak with clarity (unlike the theologian-speak I’m seeing more and more of here on the forum where, it seems, impressing each other with fancy words is more important than teaching).  I truly want to understand these differences.  I’m not liking the fact that all this bickering is certainly blowing our witness to those who are coming on here to learn.  Aren’t we brethren still?  Can’t we just get along and go about pleasing the Lord?  

—electlady 

I am sure the One You've addressed will answer this.   But coming from a Person (Me) who is from the same Viewpoint as Yourself, I think I now understand.

 

Basically, there is no term Futurist, it's solely Preterism, and within Preterism there are 2 distinct Viewpoints.

1. ALL Prophecy has been Fulfilled

2. Not [all] Prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

You and myself and it appears Alive, Josh, and Justin are all a part of Number 2 Preterism, which is properly called Partial Preterism.

 

At least, that is how it is in my mind from what I have understood.

[Marathoner]

33 minutes ago, electlady said:

Hi, Justin...  I’m having a great deal of difficulty understanding what it is that preterists/partial preterists believe compared to, say, me, a futurist? I truly hate labels, actually.  So would you mind making a succinct list of these differences?  Also, kindly speak with clarity (unlike the theologian-speak I’m seeing more and more of here on the forum where, it seems, impressing each other with fancy words is more important than teaching).  I truly want to understand these differences.  I’m not liking the fact that all this bickering is certainly blowing our witness to those who are coming on here to learn.  Aren’t we brethren still?  Can’t we just get along and go about pleasing the Lord?  

—electlady 

I don't speak for our brother @Justin Adams but seeing as how we're in agreement regarding many things, I believe I'm in a position to answer your question in a manner he'll probably agree with. 

It's simple, sister. An exegetical examination (critical study) of scripture, free of modernist influences such as Dispensationalism, Premillennialism, et. al., reveals that a great deal of prophetic scripture:

Was fulfilled in the distant past (the past to us in the present day),
Or is in the process of being fulfilled as we live and breathe right now. 

This does not by any means stipulate that all prophetic scripture has been fulfilled for once again, an exegetical study of the scriptures reveals that there are matters which have yet to unfold... namely, the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord is that day when Christ returns in the same manner whence the Son of Man ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of our Father upon His throne, the fulfillment of the opening verses of Psalm 110. His return is the fulfillment of those last verses of the Psalm.

Justin supplied a simple definition of the term "preterist" earlier in this topic. Again, it's simple and not complicated at all. @Josheb has labored to explain that no one here is fully preterist because as I just explained, there are things which have yet to happen described to us in prophetic scripture. 

The Son of Man has yet to return to destroy all of His enemies.   

  

Edited May 15, 2021 by Marathoner

[Heleadethme]

39 minutes ago, electlady said:

Hi, Justin...  I’m having a great deal of difficulty understanding what it is that preterists/partial preterists believe compared to, say, me, a futurist? I truly hate labels, actually.  So would you mind making a succinct list of these differences?  Also, kindly speak with clarity (unlike the theologian-speak I’m seeing more and more of here on the forum where, it seems, impressing each other with fancy words is more important than teaching).  I truly want to understand these differences.  I’m not liking the fact that all this bickering is certainly blowing our witness to those who are coming on here to learn.  Aren’t we brethren still?  Can’t we just get along and go about pleasing the Lord?  

—electlady 

I'm confused too, and too burned out to even try sorting it...have to leave some of  these conversations to the professionals. 

[Uriah]

So if someone believes that prophecies around 70 A. D. were fulfilled but Jesus still didn't come at that time, WHY the label of preterist?

Of course prophecies were fulfilled at that time...but WHICH? I asked at this board if someone if being a preterist means you believe Jesus came at that time...no answer. I assume, maybe wrongly, that the person believes in multiple comings of Jesus, but did not want to say.

I also posted this:

preterist:- (Dictionary.com)

noun

a person who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled. Compare futurist (def. 2), presentist.

I don't think that the Apocalypse (the book of Revelation) has been fulfilled yet.

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Uriah
clarification -added "were fulfilled"

[Marathoner]

1 hour ago, Uriah said:

So if someone believes that prophecies around 70 A. D. were fulfilled but Jesus still didn't come at that time, WHY the label of preterist?

Of course prophecies were fulfilled at that time...but WHICH? I asked at this board if someone if being a preterist means you believe Jesus came at that time...no answer. I assume, maybe wrongly, that the person believes in multiple comings of Jesus, but did not want to say.

I also posted this:

preterist:- (Dictionary.com)

noun

a person who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled. Compare futurist (def. 2), presentist.

I don't think that the Apocalypse (the book of Revelation) has been fulfilled yet.

 

Hence why I'm what's known as a partial preterist, Uriah. The goal is to keep this as clear and concise as possible so those who are experiencing confusion can understand the partial preterist view of scripture. 

Many prophecies have indeed been fulfilled and some are still being fulfilled right now, but there are some which have yet to unfold on earth. That's a simplification of the partial preterist stance, and it will do just fine. 

In any case I outlined my understanding elsewhere on this forum in detail, so there's no point in going through all of it over again. Three times is enough, I think. 

Besides, it's never been my heart to "win arguments," my friend. That's not my motivation for sharing here on Worthy. I've caught myself traveling in such a direction a few times and when I do, I apply the brakes and desist. I have no qualms with remaining silent. The Truth is a Person, and His name is Jesus Christ. He is capable of speaking for Himself, He doesn't need me to do that.   

Edited May 15, 2021 by Marathoner

[Marathoner]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Point of clarification: I don't mean to proof-text Psalm 110:1 but according to that verse and the many times it is referenced in the NT Jesus doesn't return to destroy all his enemies directly. He remains enthroned on his Father's throne at his Father's right hand as his Father's right hand until his Father defeats all his enemies and they don't get destroyed until the fiery lake even when the adversary and death itself are abolished. 

Thanks. I was attempting to simplify matters and your clarification is an improvement upon what I wrote. Not proof-texting at all.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Marathoner

[Uriah]

31 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

Hence why I'm what's known as a partial preterist, Uriah. The goal is to keep this as clear and concise as possible so those who are experiencing confusion can understand the partial preterist view of scripture. 

Many prophecies have indeed been fulfilled and some are still being fulfilled right now, but there are some which have yet to unfold on earth. That's a simplification of the partial preterist stance, and it will do just fine. 

In any case I outlined my understanding elsewhere on this forum in detail, so there's no point in going through all of it over again. Three times is enough, I think. 

Besides, it's never been my heart to "win arguments," my friend. That's not my motivation for sharing here on Worthy. I've caught myself traveling in such a direction a few times and when I do, I apply the brakes and desist. I have no qualms with remaining silent. The Truth is a Person, and His name is Jesus Christ. He is capable of speaking for Himself, He doesn't need me to do that.   

Hey...thanks for that! Indeed, many people on discussion boards try to get others to cry "uncle" or something like that. I don't think arm twisting works.

So do you believe Revelation was fulfilled, or how much of it? Most importantly for me is -did Jesus come at that time? I am more likely to think of someone as a preterist on those matters. Full preterism is one thing, but I am in the process of trying to  understand the boundaries.

 

 

[Marathoner]

@Justin Adams has touched upon this before in the forum: we may learn everything we ought to know before we arrive at the book of Revelation. I've experienced this for myself and I know this to be true. Indeed, this was how I discarded the vestiges of Dispensationalism as well as Premillennialism I picked up here and there during my travels. (more on those in a moment)

The Gospel of Matthew demonstrates how the coming of Christ, the Word made flesh and the Son of Man, fulfilled scripture (prophetic and otherwise) so therefore anyone who embraces the Gospel of Matthew are by confession partial preterists. Make sense?

Partial preterism is independent of Dispensationalism as well as Premillennialism, since most of the brothers and sisters I have met who ascribe to one (or both) are partial preterists themselves. Still making sense?

I hope so. The real issue isn't (partial) preterism, then, but rather Dispensationalism and Premillennialism. Josh has done a wonderful job of expounding upon the theological "nuts and bolts" of these matters which reflects his calling, and while I understand that isn't for everyone it doesn't diminish the truth of what he shares with us all. Not in the least. I enjoy reading his contributions and find them edifying. 

I'm a partial preterist who is definitely not a Dispensationalist nor Premillennialist. When I learned what exegesis meant, I realized this is the way of studying the scriptures which is approved of God. Exegesis leads to what many of us proclaim as the harmony of the scriptures, for the Lord never contradicts Himself and neither do the scriptures which are God-breathed. 

Dispensationalism and Premillennialism are the culprits and authors of confusion, not partial preterism. Every Disp. and Premil. I know is a partial preterist themselves!
 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Marathoner
typo