Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 6 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 112

Thread: Hyper Preterism Renounced

  1. #1
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts

    Exclamation Hyper Preterism Renounced

    Dear friends, I have come to a final decision on the matter of full preterism. I did not come to this position lightly, but it was a position that I came to through much time, study and prayer. It may hurt those of you who are preterists, but my intention is not to hurt - but to proclaim truth.

    Brandan

    Hyper Preterism Renounced - http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=555


    --------- EDIT 11/12/2003 -----------------
    Friends,

    Gene Cook, a Reformed Baptist Partial Preterist/Amillennial gave a very good teaching on heretical preterism, and I've placed it on this website for download. It's a 7.21 MB MP3 File, and I suggest you DOWNLOAD IT and listen to it. You can access it here: http://www.5solas.org/mp3/Introduction_to_Preterism.mp3

    To download it, right click on the link above and choose "Save Target As..."

    I hope you find the teaching to be edifying.

    Brandan

    --------- EDIT 11/15/2003 -----------------
    Friends,

    I finally got a chance to listen to the preterist debate that took place on PalTalk in late October. I was in the room when this was going on, but arrived only in the middle of the debate. I didn't stay to listen to it, but I DID get a copy of the debate from unchainedradio.com!

    I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH... DOWNLOAD THIS MP3!!!!!

    There are quite a few surprises and a very dramatic end to the debate. I won't spoil it for you with details!

    I have placed this debate along with the introduction to heretical preterism on this website - and I'll keep these as downloads as long as this site is active. This thread will always be near the top of the eschatology forum - as I think hyper preterism is gathering quite a following; and I want to warn people about it.

    Here are the details of the debate:

    "What Did Jesus Teach Concerning the Timing of His Parousia?"

    Pastor Gene Cook Jr. (Partial Preterist, Amillennial)
    Will be debating
    Dr. Kelly Birks (Preterist)

    Concerning the Timing of Jesus’ Second Coming.
    Was it past or is it still Future?
    Saturday October 25th, 2003
    at 5:00 PM (PST)
    7:00PM (CST)
    8:00PM (EST)

    The agreed format is as follows:

    Opening Statements 30 Minutes each speaker
    Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. 30 minutes
    Dr. Kelly Birks 30 minutes

    Rebuttal 15 Minutes each speaker
    Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. 15 minutes
    Dr. Kelly Birks 15 minutes

    Direct Cross Examination 20 minutes each
    Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. asks questions for 20 minutes
    Dr. Kelly Birks asks questions for 20 minutes

    Closing Statements 10 minutes each
    Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. 10 minutes
    Dr. Kelly Birks 10 minutes

    Brief intermission
    Questions from audience 30 minutes
    Questions must be alternating as directed toward speakers

    GET THIS 13.25 MB MP3 HERE: (Right Click - choose "save target as..") http://www.5solas.org/mp3/Preterism_Debate.mp3

    --------- EDIT 11/15/2003 -----------------

    Just listened to another AWESOME debate between partial preterist/amill Gene Cook and full preterist H.L. James. I have placed it on the website for download. If you're still struggling with this issue, please listen to this debate.

    Get this 6 MB mp3 here: GET THIS 6 MB MP3 HERE: (Right Click - choose "save target as..") http://www.5solas.org/mp3/Preterism_Debate_2.mp3
    This is my signature.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey, a member of the body of Christ to the people of 5Solas.org:

    Grace and Peace.

    Well, after reading your stand, I see that I am no longer wanted in fellowship here. I am sorry for any problems this has brought and respectfully remove myself from this forum. My prayer is that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be with you and yours.

    Grace to you,

    Jack Gillespie

    PS: If you can, would you send me the things that I have posted here so that I may add them to my documentation? Thank you again.
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  3. #3
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    Odyssey,

    I didn't intend on running you off, but I simply stated what I believe. I have appreciated your comments, and enjoyed the dialogue with you. I don't think of you as a brother though because of your stance on preterism. In fact, if I were to lead you to think you were in fellowship with me, I would be doing something unloving. I would like it if you would stick around and continue posting. If you don't want to do this, I understand. You are free to copy and use anything you want in the library or these forums as they are not copyrighted.

    In Love,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey, a member of the body of Christ to the people of 5Solas.org:

    Grace and Peace.

    1) How can I continue to fellowship here when I know that everything I write will be looked at with disdain? It will be seen as one who is twisting the scripture to fit his own perverted views. How can this be fruitful for anyone? I don't see that it can.

    2) I could reply to the problems with your article, but, as you and I have discussed others before and I know your view of them, a view with which I also share, I know that my response will fall on deaf ears. Therefore I won't reply in full to your article for I don't see the good that will come from it. With that stated, however, I will comment on one point. You wrote, 'Simply summarizing, Paul states emphatically that if we were to deny the resurrection, our “faith is futile” and we are still in our sins!' This is simply untrue. Paul did not state that a denial of the resurrection made our faith futile but that a denial of Christ's resurrection would make us 'still in our sins'. Furthermore, no preterist I have ever read or heard has never denied the resurrection of Christ nor the resurrection of the dead.

    Grace and Peace to you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Jack
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  5. #5
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    OK, Jack, I understand.

    In response to #2, to deny the nature of Christ's resurrection is to deny Christ's resurrection. To deny Christ's resurrection is to deny the resurrection in Him. To deny the true nature of the resurrection in Christ is to deny the true nature of Christ's resurrection, and thus deny Christ's resurrection as well as the resurrection in Him. It's all linked together - the nature of Christ's resurrection is the nature of the resurrection of the just.

    In response to #1, no I would not look on you or your posts with disdain, but would welcome your dialogue. I think it is important that we have these discussions. Bill Ross posted here for a long time (the Arian), and I don't remember looking on him with disdain but as a valuable component to the discussion. I believe I still can learn from preterists, because they have helped me to understand my position a lot better.

    As for your knowing your heart, I'm not God. I don't know if you are saved or lost. Maybe you truly don't embrace preterism in your heart. I didn't want to renounce preterism, but I had to do it. For me to ignore that command would be to disobey God, and I can't do that. I'm not mad or angry with you. And I am truly sad because I know this is going to hurt another person that I love dearly. *sigh*

    Sincerely,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey, a member of the body of Christ to the people of 5Solas.org:

    Grace and Peace.

    Again, who is denying the nature of Christ's resurrection? Did I not just state in another thread that Christ was resurrected in a spiritual body? The understanding of those terms is what is under debate/discussion. What is the 'nature' of Communion? Does it actually become the physical body of Christ or the spiritual body of Christ? That debate got a lot of people killed. Neither side denied the institution of the Lord's supper but the debated the nature of it. What about the nature of the will of man? Some believe that man's nature is not that corrupt and others believe that it is thoroughly corrupt. Again, the nature of the will is under debate/discussion. To discuss those things it healthy. To question is growth. And, as you have stated, to deny these things is clearly a reason to question their faith. However, again, no one that I know of denies the resurrection of Christ nor the resurrection of the dead. What we 'deny' is the fleshy understanding of the term 'body' and the idea of Christ having a purely physical body.

    I recant my early statements regarding your view of others. I was obviously wrong. I must have been talking to someone else.

    Grace to you,

    Jack
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  7. #7
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    Odyssey, would you please clarify what you mean by that last statement?

    If you are referring to what you stated earlier in this thread about me looking down on people with disdain - fine, no hard feelings.

    If you are referring to something else, but now think you were wrong about me, then please clarify.

    If you think poorly of me now, please tell me what you would do if you were in my position?

    After reserving judgment of full preterism for over a year and a half, I began to see how terrible and evil this teaching is. I kept this bottled up inside me because I wasn't sure of it. I didn't want to offend or hurt those I thought were my brethren. It's a terrible thing to have to "come out" and renounce something. But it's also a terrible thing to keep truth bottled. Forgive me for not coming forward sooner and leading you on like I did. I was newly converted and was almost immediately confronted with Full Preterism. I was ignorant, and unknowledgeable - and this debate between futurism and preterism has taken a lot out of me. *sigh*

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey, a member of the body of Christ to the people of 5Solas.org:

    Grace and Peace.

    I thought you and I had talked about trying to discuss something with people who were unregenerate. There is no point. They don't have the ability to 'see' because they are 'blind' to the things of god. Now, I don't know if it was you or not.

    I can understand about not wanting to hurt someone. We have all been there. I also understand about being true to your own convictions, just look at my 'tag' at the end of each post. But, to state that certain persons are not Christians because they don't agree with our view of the nature of something, is, in my opinion, wrong. As you stated, we can't know a person's heart. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Once we start doing that, we try to ursurp god and become god ourselves.

    I don't know what you've read or haven't read, but I think that you haven't read the right stuff! Again, no one I know of denies the resurrection of the dead nor Christ's resurrection.

    Grace to you,

    Jack
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Brandan,

    I am truly sorry to know that this is what it has come to. It would be unloving of me not to state at this point that I believe you are adding to the gospel the condition of believing that mortal bodies will in the future be reconstructed - a particular model of resurrection that is arguable.

    In future I will restrict my posts to the Skeptics forum.

    Sorrowfully,
    Dianne

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    461
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Brandan,

    unlike you, I have never really given alot of thought to hyper-preterism, or full preterism as it's also called.

    However, in the last week or so, it's come up alot, so I did talk with Kev about it, and others, and have printed out an article on the subject to read today.

    From the very limited understanding I do have about it, I can tell you, as hard as this decision was for you, you have my full support.

    Just learning some of the key points of hyper-preterism, I certainly cannot see it as a Biblical doctrine at all, but something that goes beyond the Scriptures.

    I will not debate it with anyone - and I'm still undecided if adhering to this doctrine truly makes one "lost" - but I can sure see some of the very valid points that have been brought up. I will definitely study this more.
    "SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by countrymouse
    Brandan,

    I am truly sorry to know that this is what it has come to. It would be unloving of me not to state at this point that I believe you are adding to the gospel the condition of believing that mortal bodies will in the future be reconstructed - a particular model of resurrection that is arguable.

    In future I will restrict my posts to the Skeptics forum.

    Sorrowfully,
    Dianne
    perhaps this would be a good point to discuss what "essentials" one needs to believe in order to be saved.

    such a strong declaration obviously begs for a justification.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    In reply to disciple

    Sigh, I know I said I wasn't going to do this, but...

    Originally posted by Dr. Gill
    Odyssey,

    I don't think of you as a brother though because of your stance on preterism. In fact, if I were to lead you to think you were in fellowship with me, I would be doing something unloving. In Love,
    Brandan
    Doug, if Brandan does not think of Jack as a brother because of Jack's stance on preterism, because he holds a different view of the timing and nature of resurrection, he is also rejecting me as a sister. Neither Jack nor I deny that Jesus and the apostles preached the resurrection. Neither one of us deny that Christ was raised bodily. I spoke with Jack by phone this morning to ask him to clarify, for me, something he had posted about Christ's body at His resurrection. Jack does not believe that Jesus' body was carted away somewhere. What we both believe is that Christ's body was changed, made qualitatively different.

    As for the timing of the general resurrection, we believe that both creedalists and all futurists have to ignore the hermeneutical principle of audience relevance; the historical part of interpretation, relative to part of Biblical eschatology.

    I realize that one of your objections relates to Christ's grave being empty while graves since his resurrection have not been. It's a valid question, and one that I have not fully been able to answer. Perhaps Jack or Ty or Barry or Peter or someone else can help me out with that one. However, every other requirement is, I am very sure, Biblically satisfied regarding the AD70 resurrection and judgement.

    While we believe futurists to be in error, we do not hold such error to amount to apostasy. Nor would it be for either of us to pronounce any professing Christian to be apostate.

    Perhaps I should not be shocked, and perhaps I should have had the wisdom to perceive this tendency earlier, and should have lovingly attempted to point it out. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I believe it is a very grave error to personally anathematize another professing Christian.

    Originally posted by disciple
    perhaps this would be a good point to discuss what "essentials" one needs to believe in order to be saved.
    Excellent idea. Perhaps we should begin with Peter's answer to those who asked him, "What must we do to be saved?"
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  13. #13
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    Originally posted by countrymouse
    Doug, if Brandan does not think of Jack as a brother because of Jack's stance on preterism, because he holds a different view of the timing and nature of resurrection, he is also rejecting me as a sister.
    That's right Dianne - I hope you don't think I'm glad about that. I would love desperately to embrace you as a sister in Christ. I've grown fond of you online and am sorry I came to this conclusion.

    I realize that one of your objections relates to Christ's grave being empty while graves since his resurrection have not been. It's a valid question, and one that I have not fully been able to answer.
    Thanks.

    There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but I believe it is a very grave error to personally anathematize another professing Christian.
    So should we renounce Roman Catholicism? What about Mormonism and JWitnessism? I know countless people who believe you can live any old way you please and still be a Christian. Would it be wrong for me to point out this sin and warn them if they continue in this sin, it just proves they're not a Christian? Should I just ignore what Paul had to say about people who professed to be Christians and taught that the resurrection had already occurred?

    Thanks for responding... And please don't feel constrained to the skeptology forum if you feel inclined to continue posting.

    cordially,
    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    As for the timing of the general resurrection, we believe that both creedalists and all futurists have to ignore the hermeneutical principle of audience relevance; the historical part of interpretation, relative to part of Biblical eschatology.
    True futurists do in fact ignore this principle, but not everyone who isn't a preterist is a futurist. This seems to be a tactic used by the preterists to win arguments among the foolish without having to look at the real issues. They present everyone with a false dichotomy as if the only two choices are being a futurist or being a preterist and most creedalists are not futurists.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: In reply to disciple

    Originally posted by countrymouse
    Excellent idea. Perhaps we should begin with Peter's answer to those who asked him, "What must we do to be saved?"
    i can see how this could have come confusing but i was actually responding to brandan's initial post in leiu of your comment. so when i said, "such a strong declaration obviously begs for a justification" i was referring to the initial declaration. i think this may be a good time at which we can all discuss what are the minimums to consider someone part of the body of Christ and regenerate. perhaps i should start a new thread for this...
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Dr. Gill

    So should we renounce Roman Catholicism? What about Mormonism and JWitnessism?
    While I do not agree (and you know this) with certain things the RCC teaches, I also know personally several Roman Catholics who do not fully agree with their church (and whom I consider radiant Christians). If the RCC actually started combing through its membership for everything canon law has anathematized, they wouldn't have enough members left to pay for anything. They know that; they've never entirely enforced canon law. Why do these people stay? The same reason I stay in my UMC church. There are no perfect churches, just as there are no perfect Christians. As for Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, I leave it to God to deal with them. None of them would call me "sister," and they insult the body of Christ by claiming that the whole church was in apostasy from antiquity until they came along. They have proclaimed themselves enemies. If they come to my door or I have a chance to engage with one of them online, I'll gladly discuss our differences and try to dissuade them.

    I know countless people who believe you can live any old way you please and still be a Christian. Would it be wrong for me to point out this sin and warn them if they continue in this sin, it just proves they're not a Christian? Should I just ignore what Paul had to say about people who professed to be Christians and taught that the resurrection had already occurred?
    There is an enormous difference between pointing out what you perceive as sin, and disowning a professing believer, as you have done. Disfellowshipping is under the jurisdiction of the local assembly, period. As for what Paul said about people who taught that the resurrection had already occurred, applying it the way you do, you could be anathematizing people long after this planet has ceased to support life! For crying out loud, Brandan, one more time, Paul wrote that before there was any possibility at all that the resurrection had occurred, while the temple was still standing and the priests still performing the daily sacrifices. Does that mean nothing to you?

    Yup, I'm beginning to be irritated. Sorry about that, but I might as well confess it, since it's true.

    It takes a long time and a lot of work to build bridges, but very little at all to burn them behind you.
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  17. #17
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    For the record, I'm just stating that the renouncement of preterism that I made is a personal one. I am in no way speaking for those that serve as administrators/moderators on this forum.
    This is my signature.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by wildboar
    True futurists do in fact ignore this principle, but not everyone who isn't a preterist is a futurist. This seems to be a tactic used by the preterists to win arguments among the foolish without having to look at the real issues. They present everyone with a false dichotomy as if the only two choices are being a futurist or being a preterist and most creedalists are not futurists.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    Hi, wildboar;

    It is a sweeping generalization to call everyone who isn't preterist a futurist; I agree. Rather black/white all/nothing. It would be fair to say that everyone in between is either a partial pret or partial futurist, I suppose. Whichever you prefer. However, it really looks to me, and has for quite a while, that the full pret position regarding the parousia and resurrection is the only one that does not fudge on the audience relevance principle.

    Joy to you,
    Dianne
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by countrymouse
    However, it really looks to me, and has for quite a while, that the full pret position regarding the parousia and resurrection is the only one that does not fudge on the audience relevance principle.
    not if mt 24 et al is referring to 70AD and other eschatological sounding passages are referring to something else (e.g., a future coming, a final judgment of all nations, etc.). as for mt 24 et al, i believe it was fulfilled in 70AD. in other words, i do not believe that jesus's response in mt 24 et al was referring to the final judgment of all nations. i believe that Jesus was using end-of-the-world language to refer to the judgment of the nation israel and the closing of the Old Covenant. but that this was different than what the Apostles have in mind when they speak of a final day of judgment and a future coming of Christ in the epistles. there's nothing that so constrains us to make them refer to the exact same event. if we did this in the OT, we'd have chaos. here is what g.b. caird says:

    "Language and Imagery of the Bible", G.B. Caird, pp. 256-260

    1. The biblical writers believed literally that the world had had a beginning in the past and would have an end in the future

    2. They regularly used end-of-the-world language metaphorically to refer to that which they well knew was not the end of the world.

    3. As with all other uses of metaphor, we have to allow for the likelihood of some literalist misinterpretation on the part of the hearer, and for the possibility of some blurring of the edges between vehicle and tenor on the part of the speaker.

    Proposition 1 is easily established for the OT. It is implied in such phrases as 'until the moon is no more' (Ps. 72:7) and in the ancient promise to Noah (Gen 8:22). In some passages it is explicitly stated (Ps 102:25-26; Isa 51:6, 54:10)...

    Our first problem arises when we try to decide whether the expressions 'the latter end of the days' (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30, 31:29; Hos 3:5; Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20, 30:24, 48:47, 49:39; Ez 38:16; Dan 2:28, 10:14) and 'the day of the Lord' (Amos 5:18, 20; Isa 2:12, 13:6, 9; Zeph 1:7, 14; Jer 46:10; Ez 13:5, 30:3; Obad 15; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11, 31, 3:14) are eschatological in this plenary sense. For the first of these phrases the Hebrew dictionary of Brown, Driver and Briggs gives the following definition: 'a prophetic phrase denoting the final period of the history so far as the speaker's perspective reaches.' It is thus the equivalent of the English expressions 'in the end' or 'ultimately' when we use them to mean 'sooner or later' or 'in the future'; and it has precisely that vagueness which makes for the blurring of the edges mentinoed in Preposition 3. The origins of the phrase 'the day of the Lord' are as yet obscure and conjectural. When it is first used in the eighth century B.C. by Amos, it clearly has a long history behind it. His contemporaries who long for it regard it as a day of Yahweh's victory in which they will share, and Amos warns them that it will be Yahweh's victory over them. What is not in doubt is that the day came to be described in terms of cosmic disaster, as the return of primaeval chaos, and so by imaginative elision to be seen as the end of the world.

    In thirteen of the eighteen instances of its occurrence, the day of the Lord is said to be either imminent or present. It is here that Preposition 2 comes to our aid. For when we examine the contexts, we find that in one case the referent is the overthrow of Babylon, in another the annihilation of Edom, in another the ravaging of Judah by a plague of locuts...The day was his victory, when he would come decisively for salvation and judgment, and they were inviting their hearers to see that day in the current crisis. In other words they were using the term as a metaphor...

    The book of Joel provides an interesting study in what we might call prophetic camera technique. The book opens with some close-up shots of a locust swarm overrunning the countryside. Then the scene changes to the temple, where priests and elders are instructed to proclaim a national fast in recognition that the calamity is God's judgment (Joel 1:15). The prophet says that he day is 'near', because that is the traditional word to use about the day of the Lord, but what he means by it is that it has arrived. Any possible doubt about this is rapidly dispelled (Joel 2:1-2).

    But this local manifestation of God's judgment has the power to call the nation to repentance because it is seen as an anticipation and embodiment of the universal judgment to come. So the foreground scene fades into a telephoto panorama of all nations gathered in the Valley of the Lord's Judgment (Joel 3:14).

    Few would hesitate to call this an eschatological vision, yet it is not the end: the effect of this judgment is not to determine the destiny of individuals in some after-life, but to 'reverse the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem' (3:1), so that afterwards 'there shall be people living in Judah forever, in Jerusalem generation after generation.' (3:21)

    Thus the nearness of the day is given both a short range and a long range application, and it is of some significance for the interpretation of Mark 1:15 that in the short range 'is near' is synonymous with 'has arrived'.(Lam 4:18) On the other hand the long range vision is introduced by two quite vague indications of time, 'a day will come' (2:28) and 'when that time comes' (3:1), so that the proclamation that the day has now arrived for the multitudes of all nations tells us nothing whatever about its date.
    there's a bunch more quotes here
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Doug,

    That's more than I can address this evening; I may be able to start tomorrow, but I'd rather have time, say, until Tuesday or Wednesday, to do the best I can with it. I appreciate the opportunity, brother.

    ---------

    Brandan,

    You are within your rights to have and express doubts about anyone, of course. Nothing I've written is an effort to force you or anyone else to call me sister; that's a matter of conscience. In retrospect, I'm not sure that you have actually blanketly pronounced Jack or me to be apostate, as though you are uniquely endowed with the authority to do so. I appreciate the invitation to continue posting.

    As for emotions, I will get over it.

    -Dianne
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

Page 1 of 6 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hello every one!!
    By Nicholas Heath in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-28-06, 08:08 AM
  2. The meaning of matt 25:31-40
    By beloved57 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-19-06, 10:53 AM
  3. Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia
    By Bob Higby in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-06, 05:30 PM
  4. Where does it say Jesus went to Hell to get the Keys to Heaven?
    By Faithnhope in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-05, 02:24 PM
  5. Lou Rugg AKA Louis Ruggerio
    By John 6-37 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-25-04, 07:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •