Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Refuting Preterism

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
You rely on the doctrines of men. I rely on the words of Christ. Who is the greater heretic? Who is twisting things more than you are???

You are just quoting the argument of every other cult who twist the scriptures. Cults are cults for a reason. You belong to a heretical teaching that was condemned by the church. If they are wrong, then why use the NT that they had authorised and canonised? Your opinions want to accept the NT, which they had safeguarded from heretics, yet reject their teachings. You reject or accept Christian orthodoxy that tickles your ears. That is why you have fallen into heresy.
 
I find it sad when smart guys just throw rocks...

If you are referring to me; I am not throwing rocks at all, I am stating what is Christian orthodoxy and what was condemned as heresy by church councils. This is factual and it has nothing to do with throwing rocks. Full preterism that denies the future coming of Jesus was denounced in the Nicene Council and the Council of Constantinople as being heresy. It falls into the same category as Arianism with the JW's and Mormons. That is not a thrown rock, it is a fact. Would you think the same if someone was to point this out to a JW?
 
People - like some here - throw rocks when they've run out of substantive arguments to make. It becomes about assassinating other people's character rather than dealing with the issues.

I have posted the words of Christ more than once and they haven't changed in 2,000 years. Yet we know the doctrines of men change all the time. Wonder why that is?

Preterism is the new Protestanism.
 
2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.



The above is small snippit of the ToS. Didn't you guys agree to abide by the ToS when you signed up?

On this topic and others i do not totally agree with either one of you... I am not so thick headed i do not see you both have much to offer. Seems you have eduacation and writing skills, use them for the Glory of God. While respecting the confines you agreed to.reba
 
The 1st four Ecumenical councils are accepted by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians. Any person who does not accept these council decisions are viewed as heretical by all three of these major Christian denominations. That is - by over half of the world's population. Small splinter cults have always defied the teachings of the four Ecumenical councils . They will always be considered heretical. Preterism will never be anything but a heresy. That is a fact; not an attack. Should we start to claim that JW's are now orthodox? No. Preterism has no greater claim to orthodoxy than do JW's or Mormons. They are all in the same category.
 
Please note I am making no personal derogatory remarks against anyone; my comments are directed against the belief system itself which is contrary to the teachings and councils of the church from the 2nd century until now. I do not see any reason to censor comments that are said within the context of discussion in which this thread was made. If we were talking about any other subject that was unbiblical and contrary to the churches teachings, such as Arianism; pointing out that Arianism was condemned by the church councils is not a personal attack; it is a factual statement. Along with Arianism; Preterism was also condemned by the church councils when those councils declared that our faith consists of the expectation of the future return of Christ. That is an impersonal fact.
 
Tri Unity wrote:

You belong to a heretical teaching that was condemned by the church. The church councils declared that Jesus is still coming, and to believe otherwise is heresy.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681828&viewfull=1#post681828

Tri Unity wrote:

The Preterism question has already been settled by the early church councils; and they declared Preterism as heresy.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681795&viewfull=1#post681795

Tri Unity wrote:

Preterism and Arianism are considered the same. They were both condemned at Nicaea and Contantinople. That has been the belief of all orthodox churches since the First Ecumenical Council.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681542&viewfull=1#post681542

Tri Unity wrote:

According to the doctrines developed by the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, "full preterism" is heretical. Council of Nicaea:

"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

Council of Constantinople:

"from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681533&viewfull=1#post681533

Tri Unity wrote:

The councils rightly proclaimed preterism as heresy.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681538&viewfull=1#post681538

How does this same Tri Unity reconcile the view that preterism was deemed heretical by the early church councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (359 AD) with what he wrote below:

Tri Unity wrote:

The Preterist view is akin to Mormonism or Brittish Israelite doctrines. They were all developd near the 17th century; which says a lot. Like most modern sects and cults; they have introduced new doctrines that were totally foreign to Christians in all ages until 1600 years after Jerusalem was destroyed. Why would God only reveal this part of the picture to those of a minority sect 1600 years after the events?

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=42998&p=681505&viewfull=1#post681505

How does a church council deem something heretical that didn't allegedly exist until 1,300 years afterward?
 
The statements made within the Ecumenical Councils referred to the common faith of all believers. Note that, while the Trinity and Christology were hotly debated; the future coming of Christ was never challenged. These beliefs were universally accepted. Preterism came about 1600 years after the passion. When the Councils referred to the future coming of Christ, they were not referring to any group that was challenging this view, they were simply reciting known agreed facts, such as:

"By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

These are commonly believed statements of faith that were agreed by all Christians. It was not until 1600 years later that a heresy developed which challenged this view. The word "heresy" is the view used by the councils. I am simply repeating what the councils have declared.
 
But He wasn't addressing us. He was addressing the disciples standing right there in front of Him. You know, the guys that went on to become the apostles and lived 2,000 years ago?
Concerning The Second Coming Jesus said -

35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming--in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning-- 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!" Mark 13:35-37


And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!"

I say to all!



JLB
 
Preterism and Arianism are considered the same. They were both condemned at Nicaea and Contantinople. That has been the belief of all orthodox churches since the First Ecumenical Council. If Preterists are orthodox then so are Jehovah's Witnesses and Christadelphians. Most churches have a Statement of Faith that identifies with the Nicene Creed. Don't claim that it is absurd; it is fact. Your beliefs are outside of the orthodox church; just like Mormons and JW's. Come to terms with it.
Interesting that millennialism is not found in the Creed.
. A great can of worms was opened in the 16th and 17th centuries, and a lot of crazy ideas flooded the historical landscape. Preterism was one of them.
Dispensational pre-millinialism was another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting that millennialism is not found in the Creed.
Dispensational pre-millinialism was another.

Yes, there was an avalanche of distorted truths under the banner of "millennialism" that developed. Many of these distortions can be traced back to Jesuits. After the Council of Trent the Catholic Church took a proactive opposition to the protestant churches, and it looks like divide and conquer was their strategy. This time frame saw the advent of Preterism, JW's, Mormons, Dispensationalism, Restored Israel, British Israelites, Adventist's, and about a thousand other break-aways.
 
Preterism was a doctrine invented by the Catholics in the 17th century to dissuade Protestants from believing that the Catholic Church was the Antichrist.

Wikipedia:

‘The first systematic preterist teaching of prophecy was written in 1614 by the Spanish Jesuit Luisde Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. Alcasar's preterist interpretation was of considerable benefit to the Roman Catholic Church during its arguments with Protestants, 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. Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.’

It is not surprising that educated non-Catholics would be suspicious of such a doctrine as an introduced heresy. Mainstream Catholics themselves do not believe this doctrine; for it is only for the purpose of disrupting the historicist claims of Protestants. Most Protestants today have discarded historicism and returned to the futurist perspective of interpreting Revelation. However, there are still die hard religious hooligans that have always existed in the church under every denomination. They were the Huguenots and the Jacobins. These were the iconoclasts. They were the Herodians and zealots. These religious hooligans, who are a little worse than fanatics, are the trouble makers for the church everywhere; whether they are preterist; futurist or historicist. They have always stirred up the mob to frenzy to the end that fires are lit and crosses are carried. Be careful of the religious hooligan.

Tri
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.

Apocalypse commentary In order to remove the papacy of the Catholic Church from consideration as the Antichrist (as an act of countering the Protestant Reformation), Ribera began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, proposing that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse apply to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3½ literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy because of the Reformation cry stating that "the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Martin Luther, Aug. 18, 1520). Then, he proposed, the Antichrist, a single individual, would:

  • Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
  • Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
  • Abolish the Christian religion.
  • Deny Jesus Christ.
  • Be received by the Jews.
  • Pretend to be God.
  • Kill the two witnesses of God.
  • Conquer the world.
To accomplish this, Ribera proposed that the 1260 days and 42 months and 3½ times of prophecy were not 1260 years as based on the year-day principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6), but a literal 3½ years, hence preventing the arrival of the deduction of (i) the 1260 years to be related to the Dark Ages (according to the Historicism (Christianity) interpretation of eschatology from 538 A.D. when the papal power was fully established in Rome until its political blow in 1798 A.D., when Louis-Alexandre Berthier the general of Napoleon captured pope Pius VI as prisoner to Valence, France) and (ii) the Antichrist to be related to papacy.

Heresies abound, it would seem.
 
Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.

Apocalypse commentary In order to remove the papacy of the Catholic Church from consideration as the Antichrist (as an act of countering the Protestant Reformation), Ribera began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, proposing that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse apply to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3½ literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy because of the Reformation cry stating that "the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Martin Luther, Aug. 18, 1520). Then, he proposed, the Antichrist, a single individual, would:

  • Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
  • Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
  • Abolish the Christian religion.
  • Deny Jesus Christ.
  • Be received by the Jews.
  • Pretend to be God.
  • Kill the two witnesses of God.
  • Conquer the world.
To accomplish this, Ribera proposed that the 1260 days and 42 months and 3½ times of prophecy were not 1260 years as based on the year-day principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6), but a literal 3½ years, hence preventing the arrival of the deduction of (i) the 1260 years to be related to the Dark Ages (according to the Historicism (Christianity) interpretation of eschatology from 538 A.D. when the papal power was fully established in Rome until its political blow in 1798 A.D., when Louis-Alexandre Berthier the general of Napoleon captured pope Pius VI as prisoner to Valence, France) and (ii) the Antichrist to be related to papacy.

Heresies abound, it would seem.


Well he got most of it right, which is alot more that I can say for the preterist view.


JLB
 
Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.

Heresies abound, it would seem.

Yes, this is absolutely correct.

From the Jesuit Ribera came the Dispensational doctrines adopted by Darby and Scofield; and the Preterist doctrines were introduced by the Jesuit Alcasar. These were introduced heresies by Jesuits, I agree. Futurism, however, was not introduced; as futurism was already the oldest doctrine of the church (along with the Trinity) acknowledged by the Ecumenical Councils. Preterism and Dispensationalism were both introduced. Preterism offered a policy on one end of the scale while Dispensational offered a policy on the other end of the scale. They were both introduced for political ends by Jesuits. Dispensationalism attached itself to the futurist doctrine as a parasite is attached. This is how Satan works in deflecting from truth; he muddies the waters. Good catch!
 
Back
Top