cure-real
Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213
Results 181 to 185 of 185

Thread: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raybob View Post
    You interpret the OT prophecies just like the early Christians did. They were told of the Kingdom of God that the Messiah brought to His people. They searched the OT scriptures and saw that is WAS so.

    These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
    (Act 17:11-12)

    What these early Christians searched were all the kingdom/messiah prophecies of Daniel, Zechariah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, all the ones that modern pre-millers (past 120 years) now say MUST be future literally fulfilled.
    I think that you are confusing 'pre-tribbers' with 'pre-millers', because the premellennial position was held by the majority of the 'early church fathers'. Around the year 1700, one Sir Isaac Newton wrote from a pre-millennial perspective (that is far more than 120 years ago).

    From the early church until Augustine a future millennium age was 'orthodox'. After Augustine and the RCC enforced amil doctrine, the pre-millers were effectively 'silenced' thoughout the 'dark ages'. But there have always been those who held to a pre-millennial return of the Lord, and that He would establish His kingdom on earth at that time.

    Newton’s actual writings regarding the gathering and restoration of Israel:
    “…the final return of the Jews captivity and their conquering the nations of the four Monarchies and setting up a (peaceable) righteous and flourishing kingdom at the day of judgment is this mystery.”
    “…both described by Ezekiel chap 38 and 39 where he represents how the Jews after their return from captivity dwell safely and quietly upon the mountains of Israel in unwalled towns without either gates or barrs to defend them untill they are grown very rich in Cattel and gold and silver and goods and Gog of the land of Magog stirs up the nations round about, Persia and Arabia and Afric and the northern nations of Asia and Europe against them to take a spoile, and God destroys (18) all that great army, that the nations may from thenceforth know that the Jews went formerly into captivity for their sins but now since their return are become invincible by their holiness.”
    (Yahuda MS. 6, folio 12-19 – bolding added for emphasis)
    “Hence I observe these things, first that the restauration of the Jewish nation so much spoken of by the old Prophets respects not the few Jews who were converted in the Apostles days, but the dispersed nation of the unbelieving Jews to be converted in the end when the fullness of the Gentiles shall enter, that is when the Gospel (upon the fall of Babylon) shall begin to be preached to all nations. Secondly that the prophecies of Isaiah described above by being here cited by the Apostle is limited to respect the time of the future conversion and restitution of the Jewish Nation, and thirdly that the humour which has long reigned among the Christians of boasting our selves against the Jews, and insulting over them for their not believing, is reprehended by the Apostle for high –mindedness and self-conceipt, and much more is our using them despightfully, Pharisaicall and impious” (Yehuda MS.9.2, folio158 - bolding added for emphasis)
    Sources:
    “Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts” by H. Mclachlan
    “The Religion of Isaac Newton” by Frank E. Manuel

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Strawberry Plains, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    11,374
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    I don't have much confidence in any religious things that Isaac Newton wrote. Here are some examples of why not:

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Isaac Newton's religious views influenced his lifetime of work. Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, theologian and alchemist. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies.

    Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1] Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[2][3]

    'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[22] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[5] a personal devil and
    Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[5] a personal devil and literal demons.[5] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[5]

    Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[4] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[5]

    Newton did not see a coming 'millinnium' as modern people do, with Christ reigning! His was a completely different view. Read the article and you'll see why. But especially, he did not ever say that Jesus would rule in any kind of a millinnial reign!

    Actually, I would be careful about using any of his 'religious' writings as any kind of proof.
    My favorite scripture: Malachi 3:16

    "Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name!" (Every time we speak of the Lord, or even THINK of him--its written down in a book of remembrance!)

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    170

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diggindeeper View Post
    I don't have much confidence in any religious things that Isaac Newton wrote. Here are some examples of why not:

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Isaac Newton's religious views influenced his lifetime of work. Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, theologian and alchemist. He also wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies.

    Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible, as he considered himself to be one of a select group of individuals who were specially chosen by God for the task of understanding Biblical scripture.[1] Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[2][3]

    'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[22] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[5] a personal devil and
    Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[5] a personal devil and literal demons.[5] Although he was not a Socinian he shared many similar beliefs with them.[5]

    Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[4] in recent times he has been described as heretical to orthodoxy.[5]

    Newton did not see a coming 'millinnium' as modern people do, with Christ reigning! His was a completely different view. Read the article and you'll see why. But especially, he did not ever say that Jesus would rule in any kind of a millinnial reign!

    Actually, I would be careful about using any of his 'religious' writings as any kind of proof.
    I did not allege anything about Newton other than that he foresaw a millennial age prophesied in the Bible, but I do take issue with you in your simplistic summary of Dr. Newton. I did read the wiki article and came to no such conclusion regarding Newton's belief about Christ NOT reiging during the millennial age. That, however, is another debate. Perhaps we can begin one on another post.



    "The first thing we can say about Newton's private prophetic studies is that
    they place him as a firm advocate of the premillenarian exegetical tradition.
    Newton was an exponent of literal prophetic hermeneutics par excellence."




    "In an earlier manuscript, he comes to what appears to be
    the same conclusion, and states that the Kingdom of God and Christ
    ``commences at ye sounding of ye seventh Trumpet, & is founded by ye
    conversion of ye Jews & their return from captivity.''

    S. SNOBELEN
    "`THE MYSTERY OF THIS RESTITUTION OF ALL
    THINGS'':
    ISAAC NEWTON ON THE RETURN OF THE JEWS"

    ""About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727 CE)"

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6)
    Posts
    14,928

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by arc111 View Post
    Wouldn't the amil interpretative method make it impossible to discern 'what is prophetic' as well as 'what does it mean'?
    Not at all.

    It is obvious that 'some' (actually most) of prophecy is and was intended to be literally understood.
    And some is not. The key is figuring out which is which and we disagree on that in many cases.

    Our understanding of the prophecies given are not dependent upon our understanding of them.
    This statement makes no sense and is contradictory so maybe you meant something else?

    My interpretative method permits for metaphors, but I do not search for a metaphoric way to understand. I search first for a literal understanding.
    I don't believe we should search first for either a literal or metaphorical understanding but rather should try to interpret scripture based on the kind of language being used. If the language is apocalyptic or figurative, as much of the book of Revelation is, then I don't believe it's wise to search first for a literal understanding of that text.

    Does your interpretative method permit that most of the prophecies thus far were literally fulfilled?
    What do you mean by this? My interpretative method permits all prophecies to be understood as they were intended to be understood with no bias towards either a literal or metaphorical interpretation.

    It seems to be a kind of smokescreen to introduce hypotheticals such as 'they didn't understand it literally when written' when the Holy Spirit Himself says that 'these things were fulfilled as spoken by the prophets'. The Good Shepherd was not a difficult subject for Israel to understand.
    But it wasn't literal language. How about a passage like Daniel 7. Do you think that was easy for people to understand? Of course it wasn't.

    I absolutely do not buy it. We operate from entirely different interpretative foundations; and the implications do not stop with prophetic understanding.
    That is very obvious. We are not only not on the same page but not even in the same book (figuratively speaking) when it comes to how we look at scripture.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6)
    Posts
    14,928

    Re: Are all amils also preterists (full or partial)?

    Quote Originally Posted by arc111 View Post
    Romans 11:28 "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,"

    I believe that the very same ones who are 'enemies of the gospel' are at the same time 'beloved for the sake of the patriarchs'.
    So, you believe Jewish Christians are included as "enemies of the gospel"? If so I beg to differ.

    The entire context is regarding the 'present blindness' of Israel and the 'future restoration' of Israel.
    You seem to be forgetting that it was only part of Israel that was blinded, not all. You are speaking as if all of Israel was blinded. Not so. That's why I pointed out what Paul said earlier about a remnant of believers in contrast with the rest who were blinded (Rom 11:5-7). The remnant of believers would be the ones who were beloved while the blinded ones were the enemies for the gospel's sake.

    I would see no reason for God to reveal to us that 'the ones are enemies' but 'the others are beloved' if the 'beloved ones' were believers.
    You're saying you don't think the beloved ones refer to believers? Let me show you some other verses where the same Greek word translated as "beloved" (agapētos) in Romans 11:28 is used elsewhere in scripture:

    Matt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    Acts 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

    Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    1 Cor 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

    Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;


    There's more but you can see that the word is not used to describe unbelievers. It is a word used to describe the special love that God has for His Son as well as His followers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for Partial Preterists
    By Cyberseeker in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jun 15th 2011, 02:20 AM
  2. We are all partial Preterists !?!?
    By Amos_with_goats in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Feb 7th 2011, 08:03 PM
  3. Question for Partial Preterists Re: Near/Far Prophecy
    By AtlGatekeeper in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Oct 25th 2010, 03:40 AM
  4. Are there any Partial Preterists here?
    By soulsurvivor316 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 30th 2009, 01:46 AM
  5. Discussion Amils and Partial Preterists-can I pick your brain?
    By Saved! in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec 11th 2008, 05:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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