Dee Dee, convert me to preterism! (HOF thread)

[Gavin]

DD, very interesting post. I especially liked the point about the Jewishness of Matthew.

I agree, generally, under my first point, that Matthew 24:34 is hard to account for under a futurist model.

My only question about your post is about all the blood of the ages coming on that generation. Does that mean that in 70 AD Jesus punished those Jews? Is that the argument for preterism? Couldn't all the blood of the generations precednig them come upon them even if Jesus returned, in, say, 3000 AD, just in the final judgement? I am not sure to what extent 23:26 really argues for preterism.

In any case, lets do as much as we can on my other questions before I go out of town on tuesday. (we can resume after I get back if you want.)

I am going to study for a greek final now, but feel free to post more and I will catch up.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

<<====== First of all..... graciously accepts Boom's nonflirtatious worship..... LOLOLOLOL (before the hypnotism wears off of him)

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Gavin:

If it is alright.. I am not going to post the rest of the proofs or on your other questions until we finish discussing each point, if that is okay. I think the discussion will be most fruitful that way. Your question on Matthew 23:36 is very important and pivotal. I will address that first before proceeding on.... i don't mind taking breaks while you are on vacation.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Yxboom
NEWSFLASH: I have been converted by DDW.

NEWSFLASH: There is only room for ONE TheologyOnLine preterist moderator.

 

[drbrumley]

NEWSFLASH : ANOTHER PERSON HAS BOUGHT INTO THE " I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN THEOLOGY.

What a shame and a tragedy. How many more will be sucked into this theology that can't add two plus two? Boom, for your sake, I would reconsider.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by drbrumley
NEWSFLASH : ANOTHER PERSON HAS BOUGHT INTO THE " I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN THEOLOGY.

What a shame and a tragedy. How many more will be sucked into this theology that can't add two plus two? Boom, for your sake, I would reconsider.

2 of 3 Dr.'s agree! :thumb:

 

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by Knight
2 of 3 Dr.'s agree! :thumb:

:crackup:

 

[drbrumley]

Knight,

2 of 3 Dr.'s agree!

Thanks for that! This is just mind boggling as to how this turn of events has happened. I just can't believe anyone would fall for this, but hey, some fell for Gnosticism and such.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Some real meat for Gavin to chew upon.

 

[drbrumley]

Knight,

Excellent choice if I say so myself.

 

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Knight,



Thanks for that! This is just mind boggling as to how this turn of events has happened. I just can't believe anyone would fall for this, but hey, some fell for Gnosticism and such.

Ouch.

 

[drbrumley]

Brother Boom,

All kidding aside now, I am not intentionally trying to hurt anyone, But I will not stand still and let someone (esp. people I respect and like) to be swayed from total truth to half the truth. And that is what this preterism vs. dispensationalism fight is all about. Preterism ONLY tells half the story. Then they rant about covenant theology and the church is Isreal and we live in a pretty good time. What nonsense. Just think about it first before falling off the bridge.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

 

[Gavin]

DD,

that is fine. Go ahead and give me your thoughts on Matthew 23:36 when you are ready. I will read the Bob Hill article Knight posted while I wait.


members of the futurist camp at TOL are dropping like flies. . . .:noid:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Brother Boom,

All kidding aside now, I am not intentionally trying to hurt anyone, But I will not stand still and let someone (esp. people I respect and like) to be swayed from total truth to half the truth. And that is what this preterism vs. dispensationalism fight is all about. Preterism ONLY tells half the story. Then they rant about covenant theology and the church is Isreal and we live in a pretty good time. What nonsense. Just think about it first before falling off the bridge.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

DR. Wouldn't you agree that the whole Preterist vs. Futurist debate tends to sweep over the fact that there is a much more logical biblically consistent THIRD option in dispensationalism?

 

[drbrumley]

Knight,

DR. Wouldn't you agree that the whole Preterist vs. Futurist debate tends to sweep over the fact that there is a much more logical biblically consistent THIRD option in dispensationalism?

Yes, I would agree with that. If this is in reference to Ephesians and Galatians passages as to the Body of Christ and when it started. (The Church)

The thing with Preterism and Futurism, to me anyway, is they oversimplify the plain verses in scripture. They MUST by neccessity spiritualize almost every passage to come to their respective theologies. More so with Preterism I think though. You agree with that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Knight,



Yes, I would agree with that. If this is in reference to Ephesians and Galatians passages as to the Body of Christ and when it started. (The Church)

The thing with Preterism and Futurism, to me anyway, is they oversimplify the plain verses in scripture. They MUST by neccessity spiritualize almost every passage to come to their respective theologies. More so with Preterism I think though. You agree with that?

Yes I would CERTAINLY agree with that.

Futurists get into trouble dealing with the verses in Matthew that the Preterists base their entire theology on. But Preterists get into far more trouble not understanding the "big picture" of the Bible. Which in my opinion is a far larger mistake (impacting theology) than the mistake the Futurists make.

 

[drbrumley]

Knight,

Futurists get into trouble dealing with the verses in Matthew that the Preterists base their entire theology on.

That is so true. I used to believe in the Great Tribulation was future according to how most futurists taught it. (Lindsey, VanImpe,etc.....)and it made no sense to me at all, but I believed it anyway. Which is probably the case for 95% of all dispensationalists. Then I leaned toward Preterism. And that didn't make sense either. Then for some reason, I prayed for understanding and a settlement to these issues I was dealing with. God has put a few very good teachers in my life and the ability to understand. And Enyart is one of those. I don't beleive every word he says, but test what he says according to much study and prayer. If it is true, there will be no doubt and this is one of those "no doubts." Dee Dee has got some truth in her words, but she knows very little when it deals with this issue. I know she WILL disagree, but I don't care. I know to much now that God has shown me.

One thing I am very thankfull for is Dee Dee is not a full preterist. As you said and you are dead on target:

But Preterists get into far more trouble not understanding the "big picture" of the Bible. Which in my opinion is a far larger mistake (impacting theology) than the mistake the Futurists make.

Thats why I say they have half the picture.

God Bless,
DRBrumley

P.S. I didn't mean to get on a rant there but this issue can be deeply troubling and get some people into loads of trouble.

 

[drbrumley]

Of course after reading this a couple times, I think Boom is making a joke here.

 

[Gavin]

perhaps Knight or another would care to explain the dispensational view. I was not aware there was a third option.

 

[Yxboom]

drbrumley,

Bro....you guys know you really took the fun out of it since I was looking for reaction by Knight. DDW and I had an extensive discussion on absolutism and lying. I yielded to her argument and thus gave my word to announce I was converted by DDW. As for her preterism cult she has yet to defeat the Acts 9/12 out OV position which I firmly stand.