PDA

View Full Version : Differneces Between....



nikkiw
Sep 11th 2008, 01:01 AM
Preterism and Dispensationalism/Futurism.

Hi! This Question is mainly for MarkEdward and Literalist-Luke, and possibly Vinsight4u8, but I am open to discussion with others. I am currently researching Preterism for my own enrichment. I have done a search here on the board, but just having trouble understanding what's being talked about. I guess i am Pre-Trib (Tim LaHaye's Left behind Series doctrine is what i grew up with), but now i am hearing all sorts of stuff! LOL! I'm not doubting what i believe, but wish to gain a better understanding of different views. I appreciate your time and attention! Thanks!

Nikki

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:09 AM
Sorry I am none of those people but I am partial Preterism which means quite alot of the prophecies have been fulfilled already, including the tribulation which happened to the first century Christians...this is why John says in Revelation:

9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation ...(Revelation 1)...and why Paul speaks about the great persecution they were all undergoing at that time..

Anyway I am sure mark can explain it better then I can but here is a link to a site that has quite a few articles on it:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/

(full preterism is not allowed on here as its the belief Jesus already returned in His Second Coming)...that is why we are careful to use the word partial...as in partial fulfillment.

God bless

faroutinmt
Sep 11th 2008, 01:12 AM
I used to be premil disp. I have examined most if not all of the end times beliefs because I don't want to only listen to what one side of the fence teaches. I want to be open to examine carefully what everyone teaches. Most folks only read what the teachers they like say against what others say instead of reading books by the proponents themselves. To be honest with you, after examining preterism (not full preterism; I don't believe that to be accurate) and all the context of scripture, I am convinced (in my limited ability to see everything) that preterism is the best and most literal interpretation of end times prophecy.

I certainly don't have all the answers I would like to have, but what is called partial preterism is much more solid in my view than premil disp will ever be.

If you ever get the chance, read "End Times Fiction" by Gary Demar for a good examination and argument against the premil dispensationalism position.

nikkiw
Sep 11th 2008, 01:13 AM
I'll check that out. Thank you! I don't really know how to really ask my question, or even what my question is... i just know i want to learn more about this. :help:

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:20 AM
I'll check that out. Thank you! I don't really know how to really ask my question, or even what my question is... i just know i want to learn more about this. :help:

That's fine. I understand especially on this topic..its hard to even know what to ask! I was in that frustrated state for a long time once!

I used to also be pre-trib rapture..but the historical facts prove to me without a doubt the tribulation already happened and God did fulfill His promised to keep those that believe in Him from the 'hour of testing'....all the Christians fled Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by the Roman army just as Jesus said to do! And in that they were spared God's wrath. There was no rapture...no one needed to be taken off this earth as the wrath of God was directed on a certain group in a certain place!

Luke 21

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

See everyone focuses on Matthew 24 only...forgetting two other books also covered Jesus' end time predictions. The end time though was the end of the age FOR the Jews...for Jerusalem... If they would read the other two books on this same account, it fills it in a little more...

Good luck with your studies!

God bless

faroutinmt
Sep 11th 2008, 01:24 AM
One thing about preterism though....it's not as exciting as all of the other modern-news flash-stuff.

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:27 AM
One thing about preterism though....it's not as exciting as all of the other modern-news flash-stuff.

That's true! :rolleyes: :lol: But still there is alot left to be done..:hmm:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 11th 2008, 01:28 AM
One thing about preterism though....it's not as exciting as all of the other modern-news flash-stuff.By that same virtue, it's also not as potentially irresponsible and rash, in the wrong hands, that is. (Did I just hear somebody mention Pat Robertson? Must be my imagination........)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 11th 2008, 01:30 AM
“Dispensationalism” is the idea that God's approach in dealing with humankind has been a gradually developing process in which the rules “change” occasionally, going from one “dispensation” to another. Two prominent examples of occasions when the rules supposedly “changed” would be the giving of the Ten Commandments, which initiated the Mosaic Covenant, and Christ's death/resurrection, which made the so-called “Church Age” possible. (There are other examples in Biblical history, these are only two of them.)

The argument used most often is that the beginning of the Church Age supposedly necessitated the end of the Mosaic Covenant in which God's dealing with humans was primarily through Israel. The Mosaic Covenant is now over (supposedly) and God is now dealing primarily through the Church. The reasoning this leads to about the Rapture is that when the Rapture occurs, membership in the Church is cut off, meaning that the “rules” that apply during the Church Age can no longer be in effect necessitating a reverting back to the Mosaic Covenant rules and a change of God’s focus from the Church to Israel. This argument is most often used in support of the Pre-Trib position, since God said in Daniel 9:26-27 that there would be so many “sevens” for Israel and, as most of us would agree, there is still one “seven” left to go. Therefore, since God supposedly cannot be dealing with Israel and the Church simultaneously, the Church must be gone by the time that final seven years begins.

Some problems with this line of reasoning are as follows:

1. The suggestion that God “cannot” deal with two groups at once is ridiculous. God can do whatever He durn well pleases. There is nothing in Scripture that makes it impossible for God to deal with more than one group at a time. In fact, as we will see in a moment, there are actually Scriptures that specifically indicate that He does indeed deal with more than one group at once today at this very moment!

2. Even a Dispensationalist would agree that Israel's national salvation depends on their final acceptance as a nation of Jesus not only as their Messiah, but also as their Savior. Therefore, the “rules” of the Mosaic Covenant are not in effect, at least certainly not in their original form (which would beg the question, what other changes can we expect? to which a reasonable answer does not seem possible without useless random speculation and guesswork). There was no Jesus during the Old Testament that Israel had to accept, so the Mosaic Covenant’s rules therefore cannot be re-applied. There's no going back.

3. It seems foolish to suggest that every single Gentile on the entire planet who remains after the Rapture (unless it is literally a Post-Trib Rapture) has absolutely no further opportunity for salvation. This would mean that God's focus will not be exclusively on Israel. In fact, even Pre-Tribbers agree that Gentiles will be saved (by the billions, is what Pre-Tribbers usually say) during the Tribulation! That sets up a contradiction in a Pre-Trib Dispensationalist’s position. They say that God will be dealing only with Israel, but then they say there will be billions of Gentile converts. So which is it??

4. Paul stated in his epistles that the Mosaic sacrifices were never intended to achieve true justification before God for Israel. They were only a “shadow”. Ultimately, even the Old Testament saints are dependent on Christ's death on the cross for their salvation, even if they were not aware at the time of the specifics of precisely how their salvation was won for them by God. For God, this is no problem since He sees all of history occurring simultaneously, including history that is still future from our point of view, so to Him when Old Testament saints died, Christ's death was an already-accomplished fact since He was “slain from the foundation of the world”. This being the case, Christ's death is the only reason that anybody ever gets into Heaven all the way from Adam & Eve until the end of the Millennial Kingdom. The procedures and rules for what believers of each period were expected to do changed, yes, but the means of salvation has always been Christ's death ever since that first bite from the forbidden fruit. Without Christ’s death on the cross, there would be no salvation for anybody at any time in all of history, no can do, no sir, no how, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. God even specified that Jesus’ death would be the key event when he said at Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”, which most prophecy students would agree is the first prophecy of the coming Messiah/Savior. If Jesus had not died on the cross, there would be no salvation for anybody throughout all of history and every single human in all of history would be doomed, no matter how many sacrifices we kill on the alter, no matter how many “wave” offerings we bring to the Temple, no matter how many “arks” we build, no matter how many times we prove that we are willing to sacrifice our Isaacs on an alter. It would all be for nothing were it not for Jesus’ death on that cross.

So the means of salvation has never changed, ever. As a matter of fact, the Mosaic Covenant is STILL in effect today and we are still living under it! Now before you start accusing me of being a Judiadizing legalist, I'll point out that we live in a time when the Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled on our behalf by Christ’s perfect, sinless life, and we are therefore not bound by its rules, just as Paul went to great lengths to explain in Romans and Galatians, among other places. Because Christ paid a price for us that He didn’t owe for Himself, we don't have to worry about the Mosaic Law, because Christ fulfilled it for us. The Law is still in effect, but we can get out of it, so to speak, by claiming Christ’s death as our own. That's why Paul explains at great lengths in Romans that those who choose to live as being under the Law must obey the ENTIRE law or bring condemnation on themselves, because the Law is still in effect today. If it wasn’t still in effect, then one cannot bring the Law’s condemnation on oneself by breaking even just one law and the apostle Paul is a liar. It's just that you and I don't have to worry about it, because we have been given judicial immunity because of Christ’s death and our acceptance of it on our behalf.

All these things being the case, the Rapture will have NO EFFECT on who God is dealing with. He’ll simply be clearing the chessboard, so to speak, of His own people. The ones left will still be eligible to be “grafted in”, which at the time it occurs will be the Jewish remnant at Petra/Bosrah in fulfillment of Romans 9-11.

There’s another problem with Dispensationalism that I’ll mention. Notice in Romans Chapter 1 that God is holding everyone throughout history in the entire world responsible for rejecting Him:

Romans 1:19-20 – “...what may be known about God is plain to them [humankind in general], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Notice here that God is talking about a level of revelation that involves no Israel, no Mosaic sacrificial system, no Scriptures, and no Christ, only nature and the creation around us. God says we should know based only on His revelation of Himself in the creation around us. This is precisely the condition that existed up until Moses wrote the Pentateuch. And yet Paul is using it as a reason for God's condemnation of the lost AFTER the start of the “Church Age”. “...what may be known about God IS plain to them...” “...so that people ARE without excuse.”

Here’s why that’s a problem – traditional Dispensationalism has one phase of God’s revelation replacing the previous one, all going sequentially in order. This is why a lot of people believe that, today, unless you believe on the name “Jesus”, you are automatically condemned to hell, even if you've never even heard the name Jesus. Romans Chapter 1 directly contradicts this. Romans Chapter 1 suggests that we are only responsible for the level of revelation that we have been given. That being the case, the only logical conclusion is that God’s phases of revelation do not replace each other, but rather are added on top of each other, each one clarifying the previous and giving us a better understanding of the issues at hand.

The highest level of revelation we have been given thus far is the combination of the completed 66 books of the Word of God along with the historical revelation of Christ Himself in the flesh when He visited the earth 2000 years ago. But that doesn't mean that everything else before that simply gets thrown out with the bathwater.

This is proof that it is indeed possible for God to deal with more than one group of people at a time. He is not restricted to dealing only with Israel or only with Gentiles. This is an assumption made by Pre-Tribbers.

I should also point out that this does not provide an “excuse” for us to not respond to Christ. We cannot say “Well, I don't want to respond to Christ, but I can agree that the world around me was definitely created by an intelligent being, so I'll just respond on that level.” Nope, sorry Charlie, you're still condemned, because Christ was revealed to you and you are responsible to respond to the revelation that you were given.

So my point is that different phases of Dispensationalism do not cancel each other out, they simply clarify previous phases. It's like adding layers on a cake. Each layer makes the cake better, because it adds more flavor, but the lower layers are still kept. The key is that we are all responsible for the level of revelation that we have been given.

So there is no requirement that the start of the 70th “Week” requires the removal of the Church.

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:30 AM
By that same virtue, it's also not as potentially irresponsible and rash, in the wrong hands, that is. (Did I just hear somebody mention Pat Robertson? Must be my imagination........)

Pat Robertson believes in partial preterism?? :eek:

IPet2_9
Sep 11th 2008, 01:30 AM
I would add that not all futurism is dispensationalism. Futurism is just the opposite of preterism; that's all. Anything that says the events in Revelation et al. refer to future events is futurist. There's a third minority camp, idealism, which says all the events are allegorical, and don't refer to anything except how to live our Christian lives.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 11th 2008, 01:38 AM
Pat Robertson believes in partial preterism?? :eek:No, no, no, I'm sure that whoever I thought I heard mentioning his name was probably making a comment about how some people use the modern-news flash-stuff in an irresponsible fashion. I'm not sure what Pat Robertson could have to do with that.

moonglow
Sep 11th 2008, 01:46 AM
No, no, no, I'm sure that whoever I thought I heard mentioning his name was probably making a comment about how some people use the modern-news flash-stuff in an irresponsible fashion. I'm not sure what Pat Robertson could have to do with that.

Well I could name a few in regards to him...but I won't...:rolleyes:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 11th 2008, 05:03 AM
Well I could name a few in regards to him...but I won't...:rolleyes:Now, now, be nice. http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/heh-1.gif

nikkiw
Sep 27th 2008, 02:57 AM
Hello, all... I am back online finally after having no power for close to 12 days, and then issues with my apartment. We are fine.... =)

Luke, i understand your remarks about dispensationalism, i don't think that's me... i'm more "Left Behind" doctrine... was always taught that and it makes sense to me.

I guess my main concern in preterism is the fall of jerusalem/dating of revelation predicament. I haven't done extensive research, and i am still reading my book (Lahaye's End Times Controversy), almost done with it. =) I was hoping MarkEdward would jump on here and speak with us, but i appreciate the other responses. i guess, i just don't know how to respond or the right questions to ask....LOL! i might need a push or two. I guess i am more of a listener, and then ask questions as they arise.

Thanks in advance for all of y'all's help! :D

Nikki

third hero
Sep 28th 2008, 10:03 AM
There is another camp. Not all futurists are dispensationalist. There is a set of beliefs that is called "Classical Premillennialism". You might want to check that out as well. Very enlightening, if you ask me.:hmm:

Raybob
Sep 28th 2008, 06:06 PM
Preterism and Dispensationalism/Futurism.

...I guess i am Pre-Trib (Tim LaHaye's Left behind Series doctrine is what i grew up with), but now i am hearing all sorts of stuff! ...
Nikki

I actually grew up not believing in Jesus but began to know about Jesus at a pre-trib church at age 27 and that was all I was taught until I began to study the bible on my own, using the Holy Spirit as my guide instead of man's teachings. I found far too many scriptures that clearly showed one judgment day for believers and non-believers and had to eventually give up the idea of a pre-trib rapture in favor of what the bible actually teaches.

The plain words of Jesus is a prime example:

Joh 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (29) And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The big pre-trib verse used by most pre-trib teachers is 1Thes.4:16-17 but that verse is surrounded by the context of the second coming of the Lord, going back three verses and forward 5 verses into the next chapter. If you read that rapture verse in context, taking chapter and verse numbers out from 1Thes. 4:13-5:7, you will KNOW this is about the 2nd coming, not some secret event 7 years prior.

quiet dove
Sep 28th 2008, 07:55 PM
Preterism and Dispensationalism/Futurism.

Hi! This Question is mainly for MarkEdward and Literalist-Luke, and possibly Vinsight4u8, but I am open to discussion with others. I am currently researching Preterism for my own enrichment. I have done a search here on the board, but just having trouble understanding what's being talked about. I guess i am Pre-Trib (Tim LaHaye's Left behind Series doctrine is what i grew up with), but now i am hearing all sorts of stuff! LOL! I'm not doubting what i believe, but wish to gain a better understanding of different views. I appreciate your time and attention! Thanks!

Nikki

Don't get frustrated. Pre trib is hardly based on Tim Lahay or just one or two passages in the Bible. I was pre trib before Left Behind and remain so after giving serious thought and study to the other views.

You will also find that with in each camp there is varying views of end times, so just take your times, study and pray, let the Holy Spirit lead you on and you will be fine. Take your time and you will get a feel for and understanding of what others belief prophecy teaches. We are all on the same team but sometimes we disagree on what the team is going to be doing and when.