L
Lehigh3
Guest
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Words such as “soon,†“near,†“shortly,†“quickly,†“at hand,†“at the door,†etc. are to be understood in a literal sense. It will not do to stretch the obvious meaning of these words so as to place their fulfillment time thousands of years into the future. It should be clear to the unbiased reader that these terms refer to a time of fulfillment in the immediate future. To remove all doubt, our Lord promised that His coming would occur within “this generation†(Matt. 24.34) and before “some standing here shall not taste death†(Matt. 16:28). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Simply because the definitive imminency passages of the New Testament have been either ignored, passed over too quickly, or denied outright, in most denominations including our Reformed churches. How many of us have ever listened to an in-depth message preached from our pulpits on any of the over 100 imminency verses from the lips of Jesus or His apostles? In cases where these passages may have been cited, there is usually no attempt to thoroughly exegete the verses; no teaching to remind us of the intense sufferings of those first century Christians and how these people were to be soon delivered from their severe persecution and given rest (I Thess. 4:13-18; II Thess. 1:6-7). It is apparently an unspoken rule that these important promises made by Jesus are best left alone, hoping that they will go away. They seem to be an embarrassment to many pastors, since a normal reading will suggest conclusions that are in conflict with long established eschatological teaching and at variance with the historic creeds and confessions. Searching dozens of commentaries for a satisfactory interpretation of these verses will likely result in the same uncertainty, denials, warped exegesis, and confused thinking that I encountered in my studies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]** It is often assumed that if a preterist can not explain to his own satisfaction (or to anyone else’s either) just how a particular prophecy was fulfilled, that this refutes the entire preterist system. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In view of the time statements that Jesus and His disciples made, a first century fulfillment is the logical outworking of these promises. Is it so incredible that Jesus would fulfill His promise like He said He would do? Perhaps the logic of it all ought to be turned back upon the opponents of preterism. How can they dare to suggest that Jesus really did not fulfill His promises that He said He would and in the way that He said He would? If it is scary to 21st century ears that the second coming has already happened, how much more scary should it be to suggest that the second coming has not yet taken place? What does this do to Jesus’ credibility as a true prophet? If He did not keep His promises, then He either deceived, mislead, or outright lied to His disciples. If so, how can anyone be sure that Jesus’ Cross sacrifice was truly efficacious and that His way of salvation is really the true way into heaven? This demonstrates the extreme importance that eschatology holds in the overall interpretation of the Holy Scriptures! [/FONT]
From:
The Bridge from Futurism to Preterism
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Simply because the definitive imminency passages of the New Testament have been either ignored, passed over too quickly, or denied outright, in most denominations including our Reformed churches. How many of us have ever listened to an in-depth message preached from our pulpits on any of the over 100 imminency verses from the lips of Jesus or His apostles? In cases where these passages may have been cited, there is usually no attempt to thoroughly exegete the verses; no teaching to remind us of the intense sufferings of those first century Christians and how these people were to be soon delivered from their severe persecution and given rest (I Thess. 4:13-18; II Thess. 1:6-7). It is apparently an unspoken rule that these important promises made by Jesus are best left alone, hoping that they will go away. They seem to be an embarrassment to many pastors, since a normal reading will suggest conclusions that are in conflict with long established eschatological teaching and at variance with the historic creeds and confessions. Searching dozens of commentaries for a satisfactory interpretation of these verses will likely result in the same uncertainty, denials, warped exegesis, and confused thinking that I encountered in my studies. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]** It is often assumed that if a preterist can not explain to his own satisfaction (or to anyone else’s either) just how a particular prophecy was fulfilled, that this refutes the entire preterist system. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In view of the time statements that Jesus and His disciples made, a first century fulfillment is the logical outworking of these promises. Is it so incredible that Jesus would fulfill His promise like He said He would do? Perhaps the logic of it all ought to be turned back upon the opponents of preterism. How can they dare to suggest that Jesus really did not fulfill His promises that He said He would and in the way that He said He would? If it is scary to 21st century ears that the second coming has already happened, how much more scary should it be to suggest that the second coming has not yet taken place? What does this do to Jesus’ credibility as a true prophet? If He did not keep His promises, then He either deceived, mislead, or outright lied to His disciples. If so, how can anyone be sure that Jesus’ Cross sacrifice was truly efficacious and that His way of salvation is really the true way into heaven? This demonstrates the extreme importance that eschatology holds in the overall interpretation of the Holy Scriptures! [/FONT]
From:
The Bridge from Futurism to Preterism
