Christian Forums

for our church to discuss/decide upon:

From Wikipedia

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible, especially Daniel and Revelation, as events which have already happened in the first century A.D. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is listed in Webster's 1913 dictionary as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond," signifying that either all or a majority of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70. Adherents of preterism are commonly known as preterists
Proponents of preterism sometimes argue that this position was the original eschatological understanding of the Early Christian church,[2][3] a claim contested by historicists and futurists.[4] One preterist has been said to hold that the view was developed in the 17th century,[5] a view also held by many non-preterists.[6][7][8]
There has historically been general agreement with non-preterists that the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy was written by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter Reformation.[9][10] Moses Stuart noted that Alcasar's preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants,[11] and preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.[12]
Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.[13] Among Protestants it was first accepted by Hugo Grotius,[14][15] a Dutch Protestant eager to establish common ground between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.[16] His first attempt to do this was entitled 'Commentary on Certain Texts Which Deal with Antichrist' (1640), in which he attempted to argue that the texts relating to Antichrist had their fulfillment in the 1st century AD. This was not well received by Protestants,[17] but Grotius was undeterred and in his next work 'Commentaries On The New Testament' (1641-1650), he expanded his preterist views to include the Olivet prophecy and Revelation.
Preterism still struggled to gain credibility within other Protestant countries, especially England.[18] The English commentator Thomas Hayne claimed that the prophecies of the Book of Daniel had all been fulfilled by the 1st century ('Christs Kingdom on Earth', 1645), and Joseph Hall expressed the same conclusion concerning Daniel's prophecies ('The Revelation Unrevealed', 1650), but neither of them applied their preterist views to Revelation. However, the exposition of Grotius convinced the Englishman Henry Hammond. Hammond sympathized with Grotius' desire for unity among Christians, and found his preterist exposition useful to this end.[19] Hammond wrote his own preterist exposition in 1653, borrowing extensively from Grotius. In his introduction to Revelation he claimed that others had independently arrived at similar conclusions as himself, though he gives pride of place to Grotius.[20] Hammond was Grotius' only notable Protestant convert, and despite his reputation and influence, Grotius' interpretation of Revelation was overwhelmingly rejected by Protestants and gained no ground for at least 100 years.[21][22][23]
By the end of the 18th century preterist exposition had gradually become more widespread. The first full preterist exposition was finally written in 1730 by the Protestant and Arian, Frenchman Firmin Abauzit ('Essai sur l'Apocalypse'), who worked in the those time independent Republic of Geneva as a librarian.[24] This was part of a growing development of more systematic preterist expositions of Revelation.[25] Later, though, it appears that Abauzit recanted this approach after a critical examination by his English translator, Dr. Twells.[26]
The earliest American full preterist work was 'The Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ: A Past Event', which was written in 1845 by Robert Townley. Townley later recanted this view.[27]
Preterists, full and partial, believe that it is becoming increasingly popular due to more accurate translations of the Bible- with Young's Literal Translation being a key work.
The two principal schools of preterist thought are commonly called partial preterism and full preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of preterist thought.
Some partial preterists prefer to call their position orthodox preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the full preterists' rejection of the same.[28]This, in effect, makes full preterism unorthodox in the eyes of partial preterists and gives rise to the claim by some that full preterism is heretical. (Partial preterism is also sometimes called orthodox preterism, classical preterism or moderate preterism.)
On the other hand, some full preterists prefer to call their position consistent preterism, reflecting their extension of preterism to all biblical prophecy and thus claiming an inconsistency in the partial preterist hermeneutic.[29]
Sub-variants of preterism include one form of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries of the current era, culminating in the fall of Rome. In addition, certain statements from classical theological liberalism are easily mistaken for preterism, as they hold that the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. Theological liberalism generally regards these apocalyptic expectations as being errant or mistaken, however, so this view cannot accurately be considered a form of preterism.[30]
Partial preterism
Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ, were fulfilled either in A.D. 70[31] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[32][33] Some partial preterists identify "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17-18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright, identify it with the city of Jerusalem.[34][31] Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor's head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[42] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was "written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in A.D. 95 or 96".[43] Additional Protestant scholars are in agreement.[44][45] The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[46]
[edit] Full preterism
Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that all eschatology or "end times" events were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia.[47] Full preterism is also known by several other names: preterism (because the term itself means "past"), consistent preterism, true preterism, hyper-preterism (a pejorative term used by opponents of preterists), and Pantelism. (The term pantelism comes from two Greek roots: παν (pan), "everything", and τελ- (tel-), referring to completion—another attempted pejorative label that never caught on).
Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw him coming in his kingdom)[48] places the second coming in the first century. This precludes a physical second coming of Christ. Instead, the second coming is symbolic of a "judgment" against Jerusalem that is said to have taken place when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.[49] For this reason, some people also call full preterism "The AD 70 Doctrine."[50]
Full preterism is often referred to as hyper-preterism by its detractors.[51]

Dispensationalist theology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Dispensation (disambiguation).
Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of Dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible.
Each dispensation is said to represent a different way in which God deals with man. Some writers also believe that it also involves a different testing of Man. "These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man's responsibility," explained C. I. Scofield. "Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment—marking his utter failure in every dispensation."
The seven dispensational periods
Dispensationalism seeks to address what many see as opposing theologies between the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name comes from the fact that it sees biblical history as best understood in light of a series of dispensations in the Bible. Most dispensationalists cite seven dispensations although this is not a critical or foundational factor to the theology:
•   the dispensation of innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7), prior to Adam's fall,
•   of conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22), Adam to Noah,
•   of government (Gen 9:1–11:32), Noah to Abraham,
•   of patriarchal rule (Gen 12:1–Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses,
•   of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:1–Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
•   of grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3—except for Hyperdispensationalists and Ultradispensationalists), the current church age, and
•   of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come but soon will (Rev 20:4–20:6).
John Nelson Darby did not consider the Garden of Eden to represent a dispensation, and listed only six.
Each one of these dispensations is said to represent a different way in which God deals with man, specifically a different test for man. "These periods are marked off in Scripture by some change in God's method of dealing with mankind, in respect to two questions: of sin, and of man's responsibility," explained C. I. Scofield. "Each of the dispensations may be regarded as a new test of the natural man, and each ends in judgment—marking his utter failure in every dispensation."
Viewing the flow of biblical history as a series of "dispensations" may be seen in some works that predate Darby's dispensationalism. Joachim of Fiore proposed that human history would be divided into the three ages of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The term "dispensation" is drawn from Calvinist theology, as in the Westminster Confession, to describe the different forms of divine worship and law practiced in Judaism and Christianity. Some writers, such as L'Économie Divine by Pierre Poiret (1646–1719), listed multiple dispensations. However, these earlier works did not include the unique testing/failure motif described by Scofield or any hint of the four underlying tenets of classic dispensationalism listed below.
Basic Tenets of Dispensationalism
[edit] Progressive Revelation
One of the most important underlying theological concepts for dispensationalists is progressive revelation. While some nondispensationalists start with progressive revelation in the New Testament and refer this revelation back into the Old Testament, dispensationalists begin with progressive revelation in the Old Testament and read forward in a historical sense. Therefore there is an emphasis on discontinuity as seen in Scripture. Biblical covenants are intricately tied to the dispensations. When these Biblical covenants are compared and contrasted, the result is a historical ordering of different dispensations. Also with regard to the different Biblical covenant promises, dispensationalists place more emphasis on to whom these promises were written, the original recipients. This has led to certain fundamental dispensational beliefs, such as a distinction between Israel and the church.
[edit] Historical-Grammatical Interpretation
Another important theological concept is the emphasis on what is referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This is often popularly referred to as the "literal" interpretation of Scripture. Just as it is with progressive revelation, the historical-grammatical method is not a concept or practice that is exclusive to dispensationalists. However, a dispensational distinctive is created when the historical-grammatical method of interpretation is closely coupled with an emphasis on progressive revelation along with the historical development of the covenants in Scripture.
[edit] Distinction Between Israel and the Church
All dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between Israel and the church, particularly as different groups who receive a different set of promises. Dispensationalists hold that God provided the nation of Israel with specific promises which will be fulfilled at a future time in the Jews. The Church has received a different set of promises than that of Israel. Most dispensationalists also recognize "membership" overlap between Israel and the Church. Jewish Christians such as Paul, Peter and John are in this category. While most do not believe that Israel and the church are mutually exclusive groups, there is a small minority of past and present dispensationalists who do. Those who do hold that Israel and the church are mutually exclusive include some classical dispensationalists and virtually all ultradispensationalists.
[edit] Other Proposed Distinctions: Law and Grace
Classical dispensationalism teaches that law and grace are mutually exclusive concepts. Statements made by Scofield and other early classic dispensationalists teach a radical law-grace distinction.[1][2] In other words, they teach that law contains no grace, and that grace is not conditioned on keeping the law. This does not mean that grace was missing from the dispensation of law, only that the law itself was diametrically opposed to grace, which operated by other means (such as promises and blessings). Some modern dispensationalists disagree with making such a radical distinction. In fact, Daniel Fuller, a non-dispensationalist, stated in his book Gospel and Law (p. 51) that "Although today's dispensationalism explains the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from that of covenant theology, there is no substantial difference in meaning."

The Rapture is a term in Christian eschatology which refers to the "being caught up" discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, when the "dead in Christ" and "we who are alive and remain" will be "caught up in the clouds" to meet "the Lord".[1] The Rapture is used in at least two senses in modern traditions of Christian eschatology: in pre-tribulationist views, in which a group of people will be "left behind", and as a synonym for the final resurrection generally.[2][3][4]
There are many views among Christians regarding the timing of Christ's return (including whether it will occur in one event or two), and various views regarding the destination of the aerial gathering described in 1 Thessalonians 4. Denominations such as Roman Catholics,[5] Orthodox Christians,[6] Lutheran Christians,[7] and Reformed Christians[8] believe in a rapture only in the sense of a general final resurrection, when Christ returns a single time.
Pre-tribulation rapture theology was developed in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren,[9] and popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.[10]

OK GUYS, THERE THEY ARE. IT'S A LOT FOR Y'ALL TO READ AND DISCUSS........WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES I SUPPOSE.

Think I will pass on this one p.r 

Now these subjects aren't issues for me because I don't believe in them.

But I do have to deal with those that do from time to time. And where it is a pain I can usually clothspin my nose long enough to get the job done.

I'm still reading through all of it............so.............however, a few of my "personal thoughts," and not church teachings are:

1)  I believe that a type/form of Rapture (if that is the word folks wanna use) will occur, because I believe when the Eastern sky splits, and Jesus makes His return, the dead in Christ will rise first, and we who are His will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and meet Him in the sky.  I believe this because the Scripture says it will be, and I think it's kinda fitting (if that makes sense).

2)  I believe that once we (the Church) have been changed, and rise to meet Christ in the sky, that at that time the day of atonement (judgement) for all others left behind will begin.  Time will be no more, because the Kingdom of God has come, and all has been completed (save for judgement to determine the wheat from the chafe).  Don't know what this makes me with regards to theological labels, and I believe this based on what I read in Scripture, as I said, it's my "personal thought."

3)  As for the dispensations, I am still working on them, however, I firmly believe in the two Covenants!  The First Covenant (Law), and the New Covenant (Grace).  I firmly believe that it is the New Covenant (Grace) that provides God's salvation plan for all mankind to choose to accept.  I firmly believe that no man is saved by the Law (works).  There is no good deed, no matter how good a man leads/lives his life that could ever possibly make him worthy to be called a Son of God.  It is only through God's undying love and grace that we can ever be worthy.

4)  I believe we must be blood bought, and born again to become children of the King.  I believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour, and it is He (with His death and Resurrection) who paid the price for our sins, and established God's salvation plan for all mankind.  Don't know what this makes me with regards to "dispensations," but these are my "personal thoughts."

5)  I do not believe most of this (these issues) have to do with a persons salvation.  What I have read to date, would lead me to believe that folks could respectfully agree to disagree on most of this.  As I finish reading, I may change my mind, but at present, these are my "personal thoughts."