Theology Club: Open View and Preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Derf

Well-known member
You should read back through your post and notice how you're so unconvinced of your position here that you intuitively see the evidence against it and preemptively undermine the counter arguments.

If God promising land and a nation whose numbers are as the stars in the sky to Abraham isn't a falsifying counter example, what in the world could be? I understand that sometimes the exception proves the rule but I don't think that can possibly apply here. I mean, God started making prophecies about far distant places and peoples as early as Genesis chapter 3 and pretty much didn't stop all the way through to John's Revelation. When the entire bible is full of exceptions then maybe the exception is the rule.

And, do you really think its hard for God to figure out what the condition of a people's hearts and minds will be in the future? Has there ever been a time since Adam's fall when the condition of men's hearts wasn't wicked? Further, you know, as an Open Theist, that God is not required to fulfill a prophesy of blessing toward a people who are evil nor a prophecy of destruction against a people who repent (Jer. 18). If He were, Jesus would have returned, set up Israel's Kingdom and the Millennium would have been over with a thousand years ago.

Lastly, while exploring what God's motives might be for doing this or that is interesting and is often a fruitful thing to do, I think I would shy away from making doctrine based on a lack of understanding as to what God's motives are, especially when you can clearly see several examples of Him doing precisely the thing that you think "wouldn't make any sense".

Clete
I'm not sure what the point of your post is, Clete, though I appreciate the response. If you're trying to convince me to be convinced of a position you're not convinced of, why? Are you trying to say nobody should post if they aren't completely convinced of their position? I understand most people here are merely here to 'splain to the world what truth is, but that's not why I'm here.

I've learned lots of stuff since I've been here. I've heard positions I disagreed with and then reconsidered. I even suggested at the onset of this thread that I'm considering the idea--not that I'm convinced of it.

It seems to me that anyone that is so convinced of his theology that he can't question it a little is too perfect for this world. Even Jesus said, "If possible, let this cup pass from me...", as if He wasn't so sure He really had to go through with it.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Correct. Preterism IS founded upon a natural reading of the text

As you say: Matthew 24:34 as literal is a 'plain reading' of the text.

Matthew 24:13, is clearly read as directly to the Apostles and disciples, they surely were persecuted to death, every last one of them. It 'was' a time of great tribulation and the whole of Matthew 24 is seen as specific to the time.
You'd see a good many MAD and Covenant agreeing on this.

I'm partial for several reasons, I believe there are good arguments regarding future prophecy that hasn't happened yet.

-Lon

Yes, I agree. I'm open to the possibility of a further tribulation period, but I'd like to ask what purpose is there in it? And why would God promise to punish His people in the future so gravely. The best I can see is that they rejected the Messiah He promised them. And if that's what 70 AD was all about, why plan another one? Because they rejected Him AGAIN? or to a greater extent? I think this is where the literal interpretation breaks down when used on prophetic language--when we say that the sun and moon haven't been darkened, so those prophecies can't have been fulfilled, while we can already read of sun and moon prophetic language that isn't so dire to the whole world.

And God could easily still allow the use of types and antitypes using the existing prophetic language for other things, like destruction of the US, for instance, if it continues down its wayward path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Thread is starting to devolve into mud-flinging.

Knock it off, please, or I'm going to lock the thread. And I'd rather not do that, because this is one of my favorite topics.
Last post on this from me. I really do want to see him change, but I will not read anything from Clete now in thread. He can have the last words.
This is as close to an argument against anything I've ever said that I can remember you ever posting, which is why you're such a long standing member of my ignore list.


The fact that you like being there is the best reason you've ever produde to entice me to take you off of it.
No idea what you meant to type. DON'T take me off ignore. I put you on mine first. Again, if you weren't quoted or someone didn't tell me, I'd have no idea of your petty, immature, backstabbing. I DON'T talk about you behind your back in these threads because I simply don't read you. You aren't important to any conversation on TOL to me, not even for Open Theism questions BECAUSE you accuse first and learn, if ever, last. I'm a BETTER theologian than you. You don't even hang around long enough to hear half of the conversation, just the soundbytes you are interested in. You got this one wrong (again, see the link, Mr. Ignorant). Muz, Chickenman and a few others are better equipped to field any of the conversation, importantly, in a meaningful manner. You just shouldn't be taking potshots at me, behind my back. What kind of disdain do you have to have to even take me off ignore to do this kind of thing??? Especially when you are quite mistaken.




You're projecting, Lon. The reason you annoy me so much is precisely because I am passionate about what I believe and you're as sloppy and careless with what you say as it seems possible to be.
:sigh: See here, you were/are wrong. YOU are projecting. You know what ONE (1) kind of partial preterist is, likely from wiki or something. It isn't helpful in this case.

The fact that you think that discussions of theology ought not be approached in a dispassionate, rational manner is only evidence that you are incapable of doing it, not that it shouldn't exist or that there is some problem with the fact that I am capable of it.
See that 'fact' up there? It is 'subjective' to "just Clete." That, I believe, IS a fact.

The fact is, I caught you with your pants around your ankles and it's embarrassed you. The word preterist has a definition and you displayed, as I said, either a blatant ignorance of or a flagrant disregard for that definition, which is your typical mode of operation around here. You don't really seem to care what words mean. So long as you can make some wildly convoluted connection to it within the recesses of your over educated brain then you're perfectly fine with stretching the meaning of nearly any word to means whatever you want it to mean, which, of course means it means nothing at all.
As I've shown, YOU are the one who is sloppy. Why didn't you just ask, or ask someone to ask 'what kind of preterist' I was, if it didn't fit your only knowledge of it? Were all your teachers/mentors this simpleton/simplistic? You don't have to be. Ask more, accuse less. It hurts YOUR image for having done it the wrong way. And, in a basal as well as unkind manner. I ask about your daily devotions because you are so full of salt and vinegar, no matter if you are wrong or right. It certainly could be against 'just me' but I've not seen it particular to me, but to all you converse with. You 'think' you've got answers and you really don't. You aren't read well-enough for that, as is clear even here. You cannot admit ignorance so will come up with something else, just like you did entering this conversation 'about' me. In IGNORANCE, you made an ignorant statement that wasn't factual, logical, or truthful at all. I have trouble ever showing you such things, so I simply leave you on ignore. Our conversations are ever unprofitable. I know my own actual prowess. -Lon
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Thread is starting to devolve into mud-flinging.

Knock it off, please, or I'm going to lock the thread. And I'd rather not do that, because this is one of my favorite topics.
My apologies.
Lon just sort of instinctively stretches the meaning of words until they mean nothing at all.

If you don't believe that at least most of biblical prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jersusalem, then you're not a preterist in any meaningful sense of the word.

In effect, "Don't listen to Lon, he doesn't know what he is talking about."

I guess I could have just ignored him and simply posted "Partial Preterism, if you are interested."

In hopes it helps get your thread back on track. -Lon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top