|
Consistent Preterism vs. "Aggressive Futurist" Dispensationalism
(Not Progressive Disp'ism - Faust disagrees with PD view that Christ is now on David's throne)
Joey Faust and Bryan Forgy
: Consistent Preterism vs. "Aggressive Futurist" Dispensationalism 1) Resolved: The Grammatico –Historical hermeneutic should be used in the interpretation of prophecy. Rather than the consistent literalism of Dispensationalism. Affirmative: Bryan Forgy - Denial: Joey Faust - 1st Affirmative | 1st Denial | 2nd Affirmative | 2nd Denial 2) 2 Peter 3 refers to a literal, future burning of the earth. | Affirmed By Faust | Denied By Forgy 3) Matthew chapter 24 teaches that the second eschatological coming of Christ was to happen at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. | Affirm: Forgy | Deny: Faust 4) Revelation 20 teaches a future earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem that is to last a literal 1000 years. | Affirm: Faust | Deny: Forgy
Joey Faust's Second Negative
FAUST'S SECOND DENIAL
Forgy's second affirmative accuses me of calling him an "infidel liberal." I certainly believe that preterism (and most certainly the HYPER preterism of Forgy!) is a dangerous heresy. It is a SAD MINIMIZATION of the Christian experience. The glorious, blessed HOPE of scores of Bible passages, of entire Epistles, is MINIMIZED by preterism, and constricted to fit into an event in the first century (i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). Christianity is much larger than his full preterism is attempting to portray it. We can be sure that any increase in the spread of preterite views is due, not to revival or Spiritual illumination, but to the fact that the Devil can use preterism to bring forth the Antichrist and his final deception. He that is forewarned, is forearmed. But preterism teaches that the prophetic warnings concerning the rise of the Antichrist and his Satanic delusions in the last days have all been fulfilled in the 1st century! But my actual words in my first denial were: "[The obedient Bible believer] does not care what infidel liberals think of a literal coming of Jesus." My point, in CONTEXT, was that professing Christians should not fashion their theology according to the so-called intellectual views of "infidel liberals." Therefore, my words only accused preterists of down-grading eschatology in order to make it palatable to lost infidels. But if the Lord Jesus is not understood by preterists, what hope can I have of being comprehended (John 5:47, 15:20)? Yet, I will do my best, and try harder to make myself plain to Mr. Forgy.
FULL PRETERISM IN HISTORY
In regard to one of my own views being deemed heretical by certain brethren, I teach literal, temporary chastisement at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and Millennial exclusion for unfaithful Christians. My "consistent literalism" led me to these views. Through research, I soon found the same views defended and expanded upon by William De Burgh, Robert Govett, and George H. Pember in the 19th century (among hundreds of others). Spurgeon, in 1889, listed the FOREMOST FUTURIST writers as Govett, Pember and De Burgh.(1) Therefore, I believe that my views are not only Biblical, but they have a rich and fruitful representation in history. But what kind of FRUIT can HYPER preterism (Forgy's view) show in Christian history? Please, Mr. Forgy, do list a DOZEN representatives of full/hyper preterism before the 20th century, so we can compare their FRUIT with the thousands of premillenial, dispensational, futurist writers. I have already revealed to you one of your main advocates in history (i.e. Noyes, the devil inspired, sex pervert). But you implied that this historical representative of your views was only a bad apple. Please show us all the "good apples" that believed that the resurrection and ALL the Second Coming passages have already been fulfilled:
Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT.
But Forgy writes:
"And not to mention David Koresh, William Miller, Charles T. Russell, C.I. Schofield, etc. The list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that none of this has any bearing whatsoever on if Dispensationalism or Preterism are biblical truth."
William Miller, as a historicist (not a futurist), simply set a date for the Lord's return, for which he later repented. Can this be compared to a perverted "sexual communism," justified on the very grounds of preterism? Charles T. Russell believed the Second Coming was spiritual (not bodily), and that it occurred invisibly in 1874, and that the mystical resurrection occurred in 1878. Therefore, in spite of his millennialism, it appears that his system of interpretation is closer to Forgy's than the consistent literalism of premillennial dispensationalism. But for the sake of argument, let us pretend that all of the above men are representatives of the premillennial, dispensational view, and that their sins are of the same brand as the sins of Noyes; these men would only be a few rotten apples on a healthy tree, which contains THOUSANDS of apples without blemish. Therefore, let Forgy show us all the "healthy apples" throughout Christian history that were advocates of full preterism, so he may PROVE that we should not judge full preterism by NOYES, and men like him. Who were the great Christians that believed the resurrection totally occurred in A.D. 70? This is pertinent to our debate since Forgy should be able to show that his hermenuetic (full preterism's idea of "grammatico-historical") has been fruitful in history (Matthew 7:17).
A METAPHORICAL FLOOD?
Forgy thinks he knows what the 1st century disciples would have understood our Lord's words to mean. But he arrives at this system of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) by first ASSUMING that the Old Testament prophets did not speak literal truth. He then runs with this assumption and uses it to "decode" our Lord's words (e.g. "sun" doesn't mean sun, etc.). But his only supposed ground that these things will NOT absolutely be fulfilled to the LITERAL LETTER is that, "since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4). But the scoffers in the days of Noah could have used the same argument (and no doubt did) to deny the preaching of Noah (2 Peter 2:5). On the other hand, Noah, being a godly man, took God literally, and did not ASSUME the Lord was speaking allegorically without good evidence (Ezekiel 20:49):
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, PREPARED AN ARK to the saving of his house...
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The END OF ALL FLESH is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will DESTROY THEM with the earth.17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring A FLOOD OF WATERS UPON THE EARTH, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come INTO THE ARK...
Noah did not try to build an allegorical ark. Even though there had never been a flood since Adam, and it had never even rained (Genesis 2:5), Noah knew better than to sit around and say, "Now what does this apocalyptic language REALLY mean? I must contend for the 'principle of literary genera which is inherent in the hermeneutic.' Maybe that's how Cain interpreted God's words. But Noah knew better. He "moved with fear," and even though it was shocking to think that "flood" meant flood, and that "all flesh" meant all flesh, Noah exercised FAITH, and SAVED HIS HOUSE! Jesus teaches us that we should not forget this lesson:
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
The PRETERITE assertion that the "resurrection is PAST already" (2 Timothy 2:18), and that the prophets will not be literally fulfilled since, "all things continue as they were," is in direct opposition to our Lord's warning. He teaches us to USE HIS PAST JUDGMENTS as an example of His faithfulness to His words. The "flood" literally came. It was NOT simply a local flood. It was not a figurative flood. Therefore, our Lord's coming (which will be in "like manner" as the flood) will not be figurative in nature. The Lord's coming was not, therefore, fulfilled in the "armies which came against Jerusalem in A.D. 70." His coming is still future, and it will be as literal and deadly as the flood of Noah was (Matthew 24:37). It will be as literal and bodily as His ascension.
WHAT DOES "LIKE MANNER" MEAN?
Forgy writes:
"This text, [Hebrews 9:28] though my brother seeks to use it against me, gives him problems as to time....This is tied into Luke 17:30, which was when the Son of Man was to be revealed, which no doubt has reference to AD 70 (Luke17:37; Matt.24:28)."
There is nothing in the above verses that teaches anything about A.D. 70! We are still watching this day of our Lord's coming as it "approaches." Although some have fallen asleep spiritually, and some are drunken with the "philosophical fables of Philo," others are awake and watching. Christ will one day be revealed FROM Heaven, in that same LITERAL and BODILY manner in which He went up TO Heaven:
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER as ye have seen him go into heaven.
The fact that in His final descent to earth Jesus appears WITH A HEAVENLY HORSE, does not in any manner negate the force of the above words. Forgy argues that because Jesus did not go UP with a horse in Acts, the words "like manner" cannot be taken literally. The words "like manner" mean that as His BODY went up into Heaven, His literal BODY will one day come back down out of Heaven. This is what Hebrews 9:28 is teaching. The "manner" of the "COMING" is the thing that is the same, not whether or not He has a horse with Him! But to say that Jesus came again in an allegorical, mystical sense (or whatever Forgy wishes to call it) by "coming" through the "armies that attacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70," cannot logically and honestly be referred to as coming in a "like manner" as described in His ascension in
Acts 1:11. No "armies" attacked Jerusalem in
Acts 1:11! Therefore, Jesus did not "come" in A.D. 70. Jesus will APPEAR a SECOND TIME (Hebrews 9:28), in the FUTURE, and this appearance or coming out of Heaven will be IN LIKE MANNER as His ascension to Heaven in
Acts 1:11. This is the true grammatical interpretation of consistent literalism. And since Forgy refuses to see the difference between the "relative sense" and the "figurative sense" (of which I will have more to say later), for the sake of argument, most premillennial futurists believe that there will be more than one stage of the Second Coming. Therefore, before the final Tribulation age, our Lord will come to catch away His watching saints in "like manner" that He ascended in
Acts 1:11 (in an absolute sense). He will not, at that time, appear on a white horse. Yet, He will later certainly descend on a white horse in Revelation 19 (it will be as literal as when He rode on a literal ass in the LITERAL fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 - see Matthew 21:5).
"AT HAND" LANGUAGE
Forgy writes:
"This salvation was spoken of in 'at hand' language. For Peter also affirmed that, 'the end of all things is at hand' (4:5)."
Forgy has not answered my arguments concerning this language in my first denial. I will not take the space to wholly repeat my arguments, yet I will restate them:
1. The "at hand" language is meant to keep saints in a state of watching and readiness since in regard to its absolute timing, "of that day and that hour knoweth no man....Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is" (Mark 13:32-33).
2. The "at hand" language establishes that the New Testament age will not be as long as the Old Testament age. Peter uses time in relation to God as his very point to refute the scoffers.
3. The "at hand" statements, according to common sense, the rules of common language, and Scriptural example, must not be interpreted in regard to only one relation. A mother might address her 14 year old son by saying, "Son, the time when you will have a family of your own is 'at hand....I want you to memorize the Proverbs 31." But she might also say, "Son, I do not want you dating or holding hands. You have quite awhile before you can begin courting." Therefore, when dealing with "at hand" statements, we must ask: "In relation to what? From what perspective? From whose perspective?" For example, the following verse refutes everything Forgy has stated about "at hand," and it reveals to us that such time statements must be rightly divided regarding the subject matter they are describing, and in regard to the perspective they are operating in:
2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye BE NOT SOON shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is AT HAND.
While the first stage of the Lord's coming to catch away His watching saints may occur at any moment, the final stage of our Lord's appearing (to set up His kingdom on earth) cannot occur until the Tribulation age has come and run its course. The day that Christ comes in fiery judgment and sets up His kingdom is therefore BOTH:
1. Near, compared to the length of the Old Testament age, and from God's perspective.
2. Yet, FAR, from a Christian's perspective before the Tribulation age, since that whole age must run its course before the Lord sets up His kingdom on earth.
This is why Tribulation saints are told that until certain signs have taken place in the Tribulation age, the "end is not yet":
Matthew 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but THE END IS NOT YET. 8 All these are the BEGINNING of sorrows.
Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and THE TIME DRAWETH NEAR: go ye not therefore after them.9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must FIRST come to pass; but THE END NOT BY AND BY.
Notice how these Scriptures force Forgy to admit that time statements must be interpreted in regard to PERSPECTIVE. He has already stated that John the Baptist (who preached BEFORE our Lord made the above statements) was referring to EVENTS IN A.D. 70 in Matthew 3:2:
Matthew 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is AT HAND.
Forgy writes in his first affirmative:
"We should notice for example that in the New Testament JOHN THE BAPTIST, Christ and the apostles all taught that the kingdom of God was AT HAND (Matt. 3:1; 4:17; 10:7)....there was not one passage in the Old Testament that tells us the kingdom was then at hand also....when Christ came the first time they entered the last days, and thus the kingdom was now at hand (Hebrews 1:1)."
Yet, Luke 21:8-9, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, etc. all state that there was another TIME PERSPECTIVE in which the kingdom was NOT "at hand" or near. It will only be near or at hand in one sense, WHEN certain events have been fulfilled FIRST:
Luke 21:31 So likewise ye, WHEN ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is NIGH AT HAND.
Let the reader compare the words in Luke 21:8, with the words in 1 Peter 4:7, Romans 13:12, Mark 1:15, etc., and he or she will see that Forgy is logically forced to admit (PRETENDING for the sake of argument that the Preterist interpretation is correct), that the events of A.D. 70 were both "at hand" and "NOT AT HAND," depending upon perspective. Read Luke 21:8! THEREFORE, since Forgy MUST LOGICALLY ADMIT that the same event can be BOTH "at hand" and "not at hand," he must therefore admit that he has no real argument against me distinguishing the "at hand" statements according to the perspective the subject and context demands. In short (and I am repeating this point), "at hand" in the NT, in regard to prophecy, means:
1. At hand, compared to the length of the OT age; something about to occur in God's perspective of time, which Peter describes in 2 Peter 3:8-10; something soon to occur when seen in the light of the whole history of mankind from Adam, etc.
2. At hand, in the sense that all PRELIMINARY signs have come to pass, and the event is soon from the perspective of a man's lifetime or his immediate future.
3. Therefore, the Second Coming of Christ to set up His kingdom was, IN ONE SENSE, likely a LONG TIME AWAY (from the standpoint of man in the 1st century):
Matthew 25:19 AFTER A LONG TIME the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
Matthew 25:5 While the bridegroom TARRIED, they all slumbered and slept.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
On the other hand, IN ANOTHER SENSE, it was SOON when viewed from the standpoint of the whole 6000 year history of mankind, and when examined in light of the fact that 1000 years is one day to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8).
BUT WHAT ABOUT IMMINENCE?
"Consider the times and EXPECT HIM...to be made visible." (Ignatius)
How do I hold to the doctrine of imminence in light of my above points? It is simple. The Second Coming of Christ to SET UP HIS KINGDOM ON EARTH (i.e. 2 Thessalonians 1:5, 8, 2:2) will not occur until certain signs, which the Lord and His apostles have predicted, have come to pass. The whole future Tribulation age, which includes the rise of the Antichrist, must come to pass before the Lord will destroy the Antichrist, and bring in His kingdom:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
It appears that Paul was warning us against preterite interpretations! They say that the day of the Lord's coming to set up His kingdom has already come to pass, that the resurrection is past already, and that all things continue as they were! But such men had to arise, as sure as Israel had to become a nation again, and as sure as Babylon will become a great commercial center, and a literal temple shall be built in Jerusalem. But although there are certain signs, which must first come to pass before the literal, Millennial kingdom is established on earth, the coming of the Lord to catch away His watching saints can occur at any time. And that there are multiple stages of our Lord's Second Coming is no more incredible than the fact that there were multiple stages of His first coming. Our Lord's reading in the synagogue (Luke 4:21), and His triumphal entry (Matthew 21:9), were TWO significant events of ONE coming predicted in the Old Testament.
Furthermore:
1. There is no clearly established length of the Tribulation age after the catching away of the watching saints. And although many modern dispensationalists believe that it is only seven years, some of the most popular dispensational and futurist writers have held that the age must be AT LEAST seven years, but probably much longer. Therefore, there is in reality no way for us to calculate the day or hour of any stage of our Lord's coming. Yet, the longer we wait, and the more we see the stage being set (e.g. Israel currently in the land, preterists arising, computer technology to place a chip in the hand and control buying and selling, etc.), the more we are moved to awaken and stay in a state of readiness and anticipation that His coming must be very near from our perspective.
2. At any time, the Lord could have come "suddenly" (Mark 13:36-37), and although there are certain signs which must come to pass before the Millennial Kingdom is established on earth, there are no exact time statements where the signs could not have immediately been fulfilled once the catching away of watching saints occurred, at any point in history. Therefore, the coming of Christ to catch away the watching saints is a sign-less event. It is imminent.
But Forgy thinks he has found an argument against imminence. He writes:
"How can this be so when according to you the future and final coming of the Lord could not have possibly have happened until after the partial type fulfillment of AD 70 happened first?"
The question only concerns one generation of Christians between the time the Lord preached the Olivet Discourse and the events of A.D. 70. Therefore, (pretending the argument can not be answered) this leaves almost 2000 years of imminence! Forgy appears to want to turn this debate into a debate concerning whether or not Jesus could have come at any moment. But if we pretend that the first generation of Christians could not expect Jesus at any moment (until the events of A.D. 70), this does not argue against imminence for the rest of Christian history. Yet, the truth of the matter is that since no man knows the exact time of the Lord's coming, early Christians had no way of knowing that the Olivet Discourse would be a double application prophecy. It would have been wrong for them at the time, without a special revelation, to assume that there would be first be a germinate fulfillment of the prophecy (leaving the many details to be fulfilled to the letter, in the future). The early Christians (along with Christians today), if they watched, were promised an escape from ALL the things the Lord predicted would come to pass (Luke 21:36). But ALL those things did not occur in A.D. 70. Therefore, the escape (wherein our Lord comes to catch away His watching saints) has not yet occurred. But it COULD have occurred AS FAR AS THE DISCIPLES KNEW:
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
He did not tell them "NO" (yet, WE now know that it was not the time). And He certainly did not tell them that the kingdom of Israel would never be RESTORED. He only told them that it was not for them to know. This kept them watching in readiness and holiness (which includes staying busy for the Lord). Therefore, in one area, we now know more than these early Christians could have known. We now know that it was not the Father's will for Jesus to return before the present time. However, we do NOT have the right to conclude that He will not come today. The man who says that the Lord "delayeth His coming," is an EVIL, presumptuous servant according to our Lord (Matthew 24:48). We have no more right to conclude that He will not come tomorrow, than the early church in the days of Acts 1, before A.D. 70, could have concluded that He could not come before A.D. 70. Any future events predicted by special revelation were sure to be fulfilled; yet they could not in any way hinder an imminent coming to catch away watching saints. The fact that the temple was destroyed, and the Jews were persecuted in A.D. 70 does not mean that every prophesied event in Matthew 24 occurred in A.D. 70. The Lord will simply do what the great premillennial interpreters have always known He would do. They knew that He would bring the Jews back into their land and establish their nation, and they would again possess a REBUILT temple, and then ALL THE THINGS written in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 would be fulfilled upon them to the letter:
"....the Jews shall...be restored to their own land." (Thomas Newton, 1760)
"...the greater portion of the Jewish nation will return to their land in a state of unbelief... they WILL REBUILD THEIR CITY AND THEIR TEMPLE, and...God will choose that time to consummate His judgments on them..."
(William Burgh, 1833)
"The temple in Jerusalem will be yet rebuilt by the Jews in unbelief, and be the scene of wickedness greater than has ever appeared..." (Robert Govett, 1861)
Half of these things have already occurred! A preterist today is far more guilty of unbelief than the preterists before 1948 (the time of the restoration of Israel in unbelief)!
Many of these early, premillennial Christians believed that Israel would be restored AFTER the coming of the Lord to catch away His watching saints. Yet, WE now know that this coming of the Lord DID NOT come before the STAGE-SETTING in 1948. In the same manner, the early Christians before A.D. 70 did not know the Olivet Discourse would be a double application prophecy (which simply means there is a contemporary, partial type before the final fulfillment). But LIGHT SHINES BRIGHTER as the day star begins to arise:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
The fact that prophecy is to be understood literally does not mean that Christians are always able to be FULLY comprehended it in all its details. I have already noted the example of Isaac Newton and the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11. He doubted the literal fulfillment, since people could not travel fast enough to spread the news of their death. But a few centuries later, Robert Govett wrote in 1861:
"...is it not perfectly conceivable if the electric telegraph shall then have extended itself at the rate it has done of late years?"(2)
My point is that some details of prophecy shine brighter with time. Jeremiah predicted that Zedekiah's eyes would see the king of Babylon, and he would go to Babylon (Jeremiah 34:3). But Ezekiel predicted that Zedekiah would not SEE Babylon (Ezekiel 12:13). Torrey writes:
"Josephus says that he [Zedekiah] thought the two prophecies so inconsistent with each other, that he believed neither; yet both were EXACTLY FULFILLED, and the enigma of Ezekiel explained, when Zedekiah was brought to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, where he had his eyes put out, and was then carried to Babylon, and there died."(3)
What a lesson this is for Forgy and his QUIVER FULL OF ENIGMAS! In concluding this section, let it simply be stated that early Christians before A.D. 70 were commanded to watch and expect the Lord's coming at any moment. The hidden plan which is in the Father's power does not in any manner negate the responsibility to watch! The real point is not whether Jesus COULD have come before A.D. 70. He cannot come until the time established by the Father, and this exact time is hidden from our view. The real point is whether or not the first century Christians before A.D. 70 had the responsibility to WATCH and EXPECT a possible, any moment coming of the Lord to catch them away and then bring tribulation upon the world. They were commanded to watch in expectation. This command is still in force, regardless of preterite prattle to the contrary.
FIGURATIVE FORGY?
Forgy writes:
"Brother Faust next accuses me of making the second coming of Christ a figurative 'HE.' This is a straw man! I nowhere argue that the coming of Christ is not the coming of Christ. No Preterist argues such....In both of these texts among others, the Lord came in the clouds by means of armies destroying nations."
Therefore, are we to believe that Forgy believes that the Lord came LITERALLY in A.D. 70? A "literal" coming, in the context of the "second time" of Hebrews 9:28, would mean BODILY. If He "came" by "means of armies," then He did NOT come in the same manner as He came to earth the FIRST TIME. Does Forgy believe that JESUS (IN HIS BODY) came to the earth (or the sky above the earth) in A.D. 70? Why didn't the Lord come the FIRST TIME by means of armies? The same prophets foretold of His first coming that foretold of His second coming. What happened to the 'principle of literary genera which is inherent in the hermeneutic'? Did Isaiah predict a literal first coming of the Messiah IN A BODY? Why is Forgy so sure that OT prophecies concerning the second coming will not likewise be BODILY? Can he tell us why Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in a literal BODY with LITERAL STRIPES (Isaiah 53:5)?
Forgy writes:
"This was Christ's meaning to Caiphas that he would see him coming on clouds; there is no other basis to make a different conclusion! The way an OT Jew would have understood is by the OT context (grammatico-historical) not the hermeneutic of brother Faust! And Christ's words call to mind such texts as Psalm 104:1-3; 18:3-15; Isaiah 19:1-3; Joel 2:1,2; and Nahum 1-3."
Forgy's assertion that "there is no other basis" is simply due to his unwillingness to believe the Bible. How about the "basis" of the literal, detailed fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Isaiah 53? The Old Testament Scriptures such as Forgy cites above will have a LITERAL, future fulfillment when the Lord LITERALLY and BODILY comes in literal clouds in all the various stages of the Second Advent. Therefore, Forgy's WHOLE FOUNDATION is based on his ASSUMPTION that the prophecies concerning the coming of the Lord in the clouds in the OT WILL NOT HAVE A FUTURE, LITERAL FULFILLMENT. After erroneously assuming (presuming) that these prophecies are fully fulfilled through human agencies (i.e. METAPHORICALLY), Forgy then runs to the New Testament and interprets the second coming in a manner that is inconsistent with the fact that ISAIAH 53 was not fulfilled through human agencies, or in a metaphorical sense! The "stripes" were literal! Why is it so difficult for Forgy to believe that the same Jesus who was crucified and rose again in His literal BODY, will come again to earth to judge and reign in His literal BODY - visibly and in glory? Why are His "suffering" Scriptures literal in His body, but His "glory" Scriptures metaphorical?
THE SCOFFERS IN THE LAST DAYS
Forgy next attempts to deny the obvious futurity of 2 Peter 3:3 by appealing to the "Greek text":
2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there SHALL COME in the LAST DAYS scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
The text is plain. Peter is looking in the last days, and that is the reason for the present tense wording of verse 5. Forgy is grasping at straws to get out from under the Spirit's REBUKE of preterism. 2 Peter 3:3 clearly shows that these scoffers would arise in the future. The language in verse 5 is guided by the context set in verse 3. I wonder if Forgy is likewise confused with Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 53:2 For HE SHALL grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he HATH no form nor comeliness; and when WE SHALL see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and WE HID as it were our faces from him; he WAS despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he HATH borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we DID esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Are these events all future, or were these events all "contemporary to the original readers"? There were indeed "mockers" in the first century. But Peter expressly tells us that there will be SCOFFERS who will deny that the Lord will COME AGAIN IN THE FUTURE (2 Peter 3:4). The "last days" of 2 Peter 3:3 are days that are FUTURE to the time Peter is writing. They logically refer to the "last days" of whatever period they are designating. WHEN they occur depends upon the LENGTH of the period.
Forgy appears to want the phrase "last days" to refer to only ONE particular time period throughout the 66 Books of the Bible. However, the words must be interpreted according to subject matter and context. When the whole age of man is viewed beginning in Genesis, the "last days" would refer to the New Testament age contrasted with the larger, Old Testament age (Hebrews 1:2). Yet, there are last days of the last days! The stage-setting which is occurring all around us argues strongly that we are in the last days of this present period before the Tribulation period begins.
Forgy refers to the prophecy of Balaam and the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 31. He appears to be arguing that the words "latter days" must always have a reference to the events of A.D. 70. He has not proven that there is not a reference to the Tribulation period (that is still future to us) in these words. In the very words of Moses, "...evil will befall YOU in the latter days..."(Deut. 31:29), Forgy must interpret the "you" (if he will apply the warning to A.D. 70) to a "you" that is CENTURIES away from the people who first heard these words. Yet, Forgy tries hard to get out from under this same principle of interpretation in the NT. When Paul said, "we which are alive and remain," and "as ye see the day approaching," etc., he did so because he was providing an example to believers to live in watchful expectation of the Lord's coming. And his words are as easily applied to modern believers (centuries later) as Forgy applies them to events of A.D. 70 (centuries later). Yet, I believe the phrase "latter days" find ultimate fulfillment in the future Tribulation age.
WHO IS THE BEAST?
Forgy writes:
"It seems funny then that if the beast be anything but Israel, the saints should sing a song of Israel's judgment when the beast falls (Rev. 15:3)!"
The saints will likely sing the song of Moses in Exodus 15:1, which is a victory song over persecution. They had just gone through the sea, and these saints are standing on the sea of glass, with victory over the Beast. The Beast rules the world. When did Israel rule the world? This is absurd.
PREMILLENIALISM REIGNED THE FIRST 300 YEARS
Forgy quotes William Rutgers (an AMILLENNIALIST!) who offers no evidence to show that ANY OTHER millennial view reigned during the first 300 years of Christan history, other than premillennialism. His claim that the evidence for premillennialism is feeble is obviously biased by his anti-premillenial viewpoint. Let Forgy show us the evidence for any other view in the first three hundred years. If I must quote Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc. I will do so, in order to show the folly of the men you quote. But until then, refute the following testimonies, if you can:
"Ebrard (Herzog's Real Ency., Vol. 10, p.579) says: 'The apostolic tradition (so say Hase and others correctly) was SO DECIDED, that CHILIASM WAS THE RULING BELIEF in the first three centuries of the church...'....Semisch (Herzog's R. Ency., vol. 1, p. 658) remarks: 'Before the end of the first century. CHILIASM WAS THE COMMON BELIEF in the Church...'....Thus e.g. Gibbon's statements (Decl. and Fall Rom. Emp., ch. 15), Carrodi's 'His. of Chiliasm (pronounced even by Prof. Stuart as uncandid), Whitby's 'Treat. On Mill.,' Bush's 'Treat. on Mill.,' the Church Histories of Neander, Mosheim, Kurtz, etc., the Art. 'Chiliasm' in Herzog's 'Encyclop.' (by Semisch), or Art. 'Millennium' in Kitto's 'Ency.,' [Etc.]....Thus presenting unbelievers, opposers, critics, historians, commentators, and believers, uniting in the same testimony....Gibbon [writes] 'Though it might not be universally received, it appears to have been THE REIGNING SENTIMENT OF ORTHODOX BELIEVERS,'....Chillingworth ('Works,' p. 347)...says: 'It appears manifest out of this book of Irenaeus that the doctrine of the Chiliasts wa sin his judgment APOSTOLIC TRADITION, as also IT WAS ESTEEMED (for aught appears to the contrary) BY ALL THE DOCTORS, AND SAINTS, AND MARTYRS of, or about, his time; for ALL that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are in any way recorded, are FOR IT; and Justin Martyr professeth, that all good and orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that did not, he reckons them heretics.'"(4)
Joseph Mede, in the 17th century, writes:
"This was the opinion of the whole orthodox Christian Church in the age immediately following the death of St. John (when yet Polycarp, and many of the Apostle's disciples were living), as Justin Martyr (Book III, p. 664) expressly affirmeth....A testimony absolute, without all comparison, to persuade such as rely upon authority and antiquity...those [later] times, which extinguished this brought other alterations in the church..." (5)
"Eusebius...admits that most of the ecclesiastics of his day were millenarians...Geisseler...says 'millenarianism became the general belief of the time and met with no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics.'...Muncher says...'How widely the doctrine of the millenarianism prevailed in the first three centuries appears from this, that it was universally received by almost all teachers....Chillingworth says:...'it was the catholic or universal doctrine of those times.' Stackhouse...says: 'The doctrine was once the opinion of all orthodox Christians.'....Bishop Russell says: 'On down to the fourth century the belief was universal and undisputed.'"(6)
Thomas Newton (the 18th century premillennialist who believed that Matthew 24 must have a final, full, future, literal fulfillment) writes:
"Lactantius at the beginning of the fourth century is very copious upon this subject...He saith...'When the Son of God shall have destroyed injustice...he shall be conversant among men a thousand years, and shall rule them...This is the doctrine of the holy prophets which we Christians follow; this is our wisdom.' In short the doctrine of the millennium was generally believed in the three first and purest ages." (7)
ANSWERS TO FORGY'S OTHER POINTS
1. Forgy's argument that when the Kingdom comes there will be no more ground for holy living is only possible by using a straw man. I never said the coming of Christ was the ONLY motive, but simply a strong one. The actual presence of Christ (not to mention the glorified state of the body, which will be without sin) will serve as a new motive at His return. But Preterists do not have a sinless body, the blessed hope, or the literal, bodily presence of Christ.
2. Forgy offers two examples in his first affirmative of what he calls OT prophecy being figuratively fulfilled in the NT. He believes this is enough to refute the literal prophecies fulfilled in regard to the First Coming, which prove to us that the Second Coming prophecies will be literal (e.g. Isaiah 53). First, we have never denied that some OT prophecies have a double or typical fulfillment. We only maintain that there will also be a literal fulfillment. For example, John the Baptist was a NT, typical fulfillment of Malachi; yet the literal Elijah will come also again as our Lord teaches. And the NT teaches this literal fulfillment in Revelation 11. Let Forgy provide for us a list of OT prophecies of which he is sure there will be no literal fulfillment (either in past history or in the future) alongside any typical fulfillment.
3. Forgy appears to have a great misunderstanding concerning what the word "literal" means. He writes: "Stick to your literalism, it does not say ravenous lion, but NO lion..." In either case, it is STILL A LION, thus it is literal, not figurative. Forgy mainly ignored my examples of relative language expressing literal truth. I only maintain that one must have good reason (from context) to see something in a relative sense. Perhaps it is the highway of Isaiah 11:16. I will now ask Forgy a question, for I would guess that he holds many Scriptures in a relative sense (though literal), even where there is sometimes no evidence that he should do so. Mr. Forgy, who are the "all men" of 1 Timothy 2:4?
4. Mr. Forgy wants to know why people may die in Isa.65, but not in Rev. 21. One is the new earth of the Millennium, and the other is the new earth after Millennium. The Millennial earth is new, in the sense that the curse is restrained, etc. I get the feeling that if the feeding of the FIVE THOUSAND (Matthew 14) and the feeding of the FOUR THOUSAND (Matthew 15) were not in the SAME BOOK (plainly showing two different events), Mr. Forgy would see it as a contradiction and use it as a plug for figurative interpretation!
5. Forgy has trouble understanding how David can be a shepherd as well as Jesus; yet the very same arguments I gave concerning the different level and sphere of kingship, also applies here. Mr. Forgy: All Christians are sons of God. But I am having trouble with something. Please help me. Why did Paul say Timothy and Titus were HIS sons? Why did Paul say he had begotten the Corinthians? And how can Timothy be the son of a Greek, the son of Paul, and the son of God? Please answer this for me.
6. In regard to the resurrection, if dead bodies will not be raised, why were dead bodies raised at all in the Gospels? Forgy's argument about firstfruits is pressing a figure beyond its limits. It is God's perspective we are dealing with. The Sadducees denied the resurrection of the BODY. So does Forgy.
7. Forgy's stuff about "mello" isn't even pertinent. We have already proven that it does not always mean what he wants it to mean; yet what if it did? "Soon" must be defined according to perspective, as we have already proven. But in regard to the word, Mr. Forgy, since you ducked Romans 5, and skirted the idea of "certainty," please interpret Matthew 11:14, Hebrews 11:8, 20, Acts 26:22-23 for us! Forgy interprets the word to mean "near" and then argues on his assumption. I'll stay with the A.V.
8. I did not ignore the "thousand generations," you just missed it. God was not giving the LIMIT; He was giving a literal truth as an example of His faithfulness. For example, in Proverbs 6:16, God literally hates the six; yet He also literally hates the seven. But the 1000 years in Revelation 20 are not an example. The Bible says they will end.
9. The remaining two (prophetic) days likely began with the preaching of John the Baptist (Mark 1:15).
10. When the English word "week" means a literally week of years or a week of days, it is the context that must decide the usage.
11. As to Babylon, the prophecy refers to the FUTURE destruction, and therefore the "never" applies to judgment that has not yet occurred.
Now, Mr. Forgy is claiming to be able to PROVE that consistent literalism is an incorrect system. The premillennial, dispensational, futurist system of interpretation recognizes symbols and parables. We mean "consistently literal," where the Bible means to be understood literally. I really hope that Mr. Forgy is going to take some time to try to PROVE that the same hermeneutic which predicted Israel would become a nation again, and that Jesus will literally and bodily come out of Heaven again, is the wrong hermeneutic. So far, he has built a house of cards on ungrounded assumptions.
NOTES:
1. Charles Spurgeon, "The Sword and the Trowel," (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1889), 36.
2.Robert Govett, "The Apocalypse Expounded By Scripture," 1861. Reprinted by Schoettle Publishing.
3. R.A. Torrey, "The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge," note on Ezekiel 12:13.
4. George N. H. Peters, "The Theocratic Kingdom," Vol. 1, p.450.
5. Joseph Mede, "Mr. Mede's Second Letter to Dr. Meddus...", Book IV, p. 770-771.
6. I. M. Haldeman, "The History and Doctrine of our Lord's Return."
7. Thomas Newton, "Dissertations on the Prophecies" (London: 1760), p.339-340.
Please send all replies to bricas1715@yahoo.com if you have any questions brother Dennis.
Bryan Forgy
What do YOU think ?
Send an email with your comments to
todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.
They will be posted shortly
upon receipt
- Date:
- 13 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 08:16:59
CommentsHello everybody, it will be about 1 week before I get my third affirmative done. This debate has been great thus far and I hope you all have enjoyed the first proposition. I do wish that more readers would comment on what they think about the debate so that brother Faust and I can more gauge as to who the readers think is offering a better defense of his position. I really can't believe that Faust has used the argument on 2 Thess. 2:2 which has been answered beyond a doubt in other debates such as McGuiggan King, and also he gave a beginning for his two day theory of eschatology in the NT, and you will see in my 3 affirmative where his hermenutic has gotten him there (date setting!!!) and how that affects his other arguments on imminence. Like I said, about a week for my 3 affirm. And then brother Faust will probabally introduce all kinds of arguments in his 3rd neg thinking that I will not be able to answer them because the propo is over. But alas, that is why when we set up the debate we selected for each the affirm and neg to have each a five page rejoinder at the end of each prop, that even though no new arguments can be introduced in the rejoinder, it's pur pose is to adress what has already been said, and then sum up what has been accomplished and or ignored throughout the proposition. So again, I hope you all are enjoying the deabte, and remember that there are 4 more after this one to come! Bryan Forgy
- Date:
- 14 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 09:35:53
CommentsOur debate format was set at 15 pages. But notice that Forgy continues to use the comment section to debate these points. Is this a confession that his position needs such extra props? - Joey Faust
- Date:
- 14 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 09:42:06
CommentsBrother Faust, first off, it only took me 9 pages to refute your first post. But we did agree to the 5 page rejoinders, so I will post the old e-mail when we were working out the details, and you can ask anybody else that has agreed to the debates that a five page rejoinder was indeed agreed upon. It seems more and more that you are just plain dishonest.
- Date:
- 14 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 09:43:07
CommentsBrother Faust, first off, it only took me 9 pages to refute your first post. But we did agree to the 5 page rejoinders, so I will post the old e-mail when we were working out the details, and you can ask anybody else that has agreed to the debates that a five page rejoinder was indeed agreed upon. It seems more and more that you are just plain dishonest.
- Date:
- 14 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 14:39:18
CommentsWho is arguing about the rejoinder? I am suggesting that you spend time debating in your formal papers, and not in the comment forums. -Joey Faust.
- Date:
- 18 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 12:27:36
CommentsMr Faust, Your idea that Isaiah 65 is some "new earth" of the future "millenium" is hogwash. Isaiah 65 concerns the punishment upon Israel after the flesh who would become apostate. This then would bring about the proclaimation of the Gospel to the Gentiles and the taking of them "for priests and for Levites". "The LORD God shall slay thee, and call His servants by another name". This lines up perfectly with what Mr. Forgy has already shown you in Matthew 21 where the "Lord of the vineyard cometh" and destroys "those wicked men" and lends out His vineyard to "other husbandmen" which were "bringing forth the fruits". Notice that at this point the Kingdom of God is "taken" from them, and given to ANOTHER NATION. Unless you would deny that this has all happened already, your conclusion would at least have to be that we are in the "Millenium" now. Robert L. Statzer
- Date:
- 25 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 12:10:01
CommentsI must disagree with the preterists about Matthew 21. Verse 33: "...There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard...and went into a far country." Who is this householder? It must represent God the Father, since he has a son who is a different person: v 37: "But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son." Notice also that he planted the vinyard AND LEFT before sending his son. V 40 does not talk about the son coming back to life and coming again; it talks about his FATHER coming: "When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh..." Therefore it CANNOT be talking about Christ's second coming. That is not even hinted at. Rather, it is about the FATHER'S coming to "let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen" and "break off the branches" of national Israel (cf. Rom 11). Comparing verse 42 with Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7-8 actually shows that this happened BEFORE AD 70 - isn't this too early for the preterists?!!! You may reply that the coming was not physical; however, the Father never came down physically to begin the nation of Israel (or whatever it is you take the planting the vinyard to be), so why should we expect him to come physically at the end of the parable? If you reply that this is not being literal, I will reply that this is a parable (v 33 "Hear another parable..."), and nobody is advocating taking all details of parables literally. The "coming" and "going" are needed to make the story work. This is a far cry, though, from your statements about the coming of Jesus, which are not just contained in details of parables! Besides, he came physically the first time, so why not the second time? You seem to be taking (in my view misunderstood) details of a parable, and using them to over-ride clear statements elsewhere! (Now, isn't that what people like brother Joey are always accused of...???)
- Date:
- 25 Jan 2004
- Time:
- 12:17:22
CommentsBy the way, Mr. Forgy, if all this prophecy has passed and is not literal, please can you tell me what I am saved from, and to? It seems I've either already missed (or am already in) the ressurection, the millenium, and new heaven and earth? And all the unsaved have missed the lake of fire? So what is there for me after this life? If you respond to passages about heaven, how do I know these aren't just figurative, like all the ressurection passages? It seems that I am of all men most miserable. I shall eat, drink and be merry. Tomorrow I die. :( Bartholomew Dobson
- Date:
- 09 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 19:48:41
CommentsIts sad, Mr Faust here is something you might ask yourself and every other futurist but please have enough self honesty to admit what you see. I just felt compelled to post this, it makes me disgusted how the word is butchered out of its original context and Im sick and tired of people calling Jesus Christ a lier. Here is the challenge: Examine the following Scripture passages and see if you can accept what they say at face value. The problem with most people is that when they come across verses such as these, and understand the obvious implication of them, they immediately begin looking for an alternate explanation. Not because the text demands it, but because the system they have been taught requires it! I suggest you read all the material with your bible alongside, that you may be blessed. The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or men and church tradition? Are you going to leave it up to someone else to tell you the truth or are you going to take full responsibility for you life and find out for yourself? It is never wrong to accept a piece of fruit it is only wrong to accept it without determining if it is real or not. Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. Will God Ever Destroy This World? Psalm 78 69And He built His sanctuary like the heights, Like the earth which He has established forever. Psalm 104 5You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, Psalm 119 90Your faithfulness endures to all generations; You established the earth, and it abides. Ecclesiastes 1 4 Generations come and generations go but the earth remains forever. Ephesians 3 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Isaiah 45 17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. Genesis 8 21And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. Psalm 148 4Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens! 5Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. 6He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away. Psalm 93 1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved. Psalm 96 10Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved; He shall judge the peoples righteously." Here is the challenge: Examine the following Scripture passages and see if you can accept what they say at face value. The problem with most people is that when they come across verses such as these, and understand the obvious implication of them, they immediately begin looking for an alternate explanation. Not because the text demands it, but because the system they have been taught requires it! I suggest you read all the material with your bible alongside, that you may be blessed. The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or men and church tradition? Are you going to leave it up to someone else to tell you the truth or are you going to take full responsibility for you life and find out for yourself? It is never wrong to accept a piece of fruit it is only wrong to accept it without determining if it is real or not. Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you(The Apostles) will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt 10:23). "For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt 16:27-28). The transfiguration that took place a few days after Jesus made this statement cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy. Note that during the transfiguration there were no angels present, and no rewards given in accordance to anyone's deeds. It would also have been an odd thing to say that only "some" of those listening to Him would live long enough to witness this event! (Perhaps His audience was composed of octogenarians). "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matt 24:33-34). Compare this to the NEB translation: "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all." For those who may be tempted to interpret the word "generation" (Greek: genea) as meaning "race" (Greek: genos), compare the use of the same word by the same author, just one chapter earlier : "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:35-36). "But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you(High Priest, Scribes and Pharasees): In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'" (Matt 26:63-64). Please note that the high priest Jesus was addressing died during the AD 70 siege of Jerusalem. If he did not see the coming of Christ in the events that took place at that time, Was Jesus mistaken? I don’t think so Who are you going to believe Church Tradition or the Bible. If we believe the Bible is God's word, why can't we believe what it says? Why do we hold the traditions of the church over the Word of God? The Lord clearly told his disciples and us WHEN he would return: Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Verse 27 clearly speaks of the second coming, He comes with the angels to reward every man. Look at the next verse. "I say to YOU, there are some standing HERE who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Who are the "YOU" of this verse? Verse 24 tells us that Jesus is speaking to his disciples. So, Jesus is saying to his disciples who were standing there that some of them would still be alive when He returned in the second coming. Now some say he is talking about the transfiguration of Matthew 17:2, but that is only six days later and none of them had died in that six day period. Did he come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and reward each according to his works at the transfiguration? Of course not! How about Pentecost? No, that was only two months later and they were all still alive except Judas. What are the possible explanations to this verse? I see only three: 1. There are still some of the disciples alive today. 2. Jesus was confused or lying. 3. Jesus actually did what he said and came in the lifetime of his disciples. This is really our only sensible choice This seems like the simple and clear answer that holds to the inspiration of Scripture. Jesus did what he said he would do. Jesus also said: Matthew 24:34 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Jesus here, very plainly and very clearly, tells His disciples that ALL of the things he had mentioned would come to pass in THEIR GENERATION. This includes the gospel being preached in all the world (Yes there are verses in the New Testament that Clearly state The Gospel has Been Preached to all the world), the abomination of desolation the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of man. This is so clear that it greatly troubles those who hold to a futuristic eschatology. Listen to C.S. Lewis's comments on this verse: The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." (Essay; "The World's Last Night (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385) Because of his view of the nature of the Second coming, he felt that it hadn't happened yet, and therefore Jesus had been wrong. That would be, in fact, much more than embarrassing, it would be devastating to the credibility of Jesus. If Jesus was wrong, as Lewis says he was, what else might he have been wrong about? Will those who believe in Him truly have everlasting life? Jesus wasn't wrong, Lewis was the one who was wrong. We can count on the truthfulness of what Jesus tells us. Aren't you glad of that? Most commentators see a generation as referring to about a forty year time span. More important then that, what does the Bible say about the time of a generation? Let's look and see. Matthew 1:17 (NKJV) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. In this genealogical table, we have data to estimate the length of a generation. It tells us that from the captivity in Babylon until Christ, are fourteen generations. Now the date of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is said to be 586 BC. From 586 BC until the birth of Christ would be about 586 years which, divided by fourteen, makes the average length of a generation about 41 years. Some have tried to twist the etymology of the word "generation" in Matthew 24:34 to make it mean "race,"and try to make Jesus say that all these things would happen before the "race" of Jews had passed away. By doing this, they think they can expand the time of the second coming by thousands of years. There is no biblical or linguistic justification for such a position. Generation does NOT mean race! The following quote by David Chilton is very informative: Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51;18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means 'race' tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! What Jesus meant by all those things happening in that generation, including the parousia of Christ, was that they would all happen while some of those folks to whom He preached, were still alive, just as he said they would be, in Matthew 16:27-28. The Modern church teaches that Jesus' coming is yet future, but does the Bible teach this ?. Our responsibility is to study the Bible and learn what it says, not to blindly follow church tradition. I believe that Paul's exhortation to Timothy applies to us as well: The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or man and church tradition? Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
- Date:
- 09 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 19:56:07
CommentsIts sad, Mr Faust here is something you might ask yourself and every other futurist but please have enough self honesty to admit what you see. I just felt compelled to post this, it makes me disgusted how the word is butchered out of its original context and Im sick and tired of people calling Jesus Christ a lier. <P> Here is the challenge: Examine the following Scripture passages and see if you can accept what they say at face value. The problem with most people is that when they come across verses such as these, and understand the obvious implication of them, they immediately begin looking for an alternate explanation. Not because the text demands it, but because the system they have been taught requires it! <P> I suggest you read all the material with your bible alongside, that you may be blessed. <P> The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or men and church tradition? <P> Are you going to leave it up to someone else to tell you the truth or are you going to take full responsibility for you life and find out for yourself? <P> It is never wrong to accept a piece of fruit it is only wrong to accept it without determining if it is real or not. <P> Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. <P> Will God Ever Destroy This World? <P> Psalm 78 69And He built His sanctuary like the heights, Like the earth which He has established forever. <P> Psalm 104 5You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, <P> Psalm 119 90Your faithfulness endures to all generations; You established the earth, and it abides. <P> Ecclesiastes 1 4 Generations come and generations go but the earth remains forever. <P> Ephesians 3 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. <P> Isaiah 45 17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. <P> Genesis 8 21And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. <P> Psalm 148 4Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens! <P> 5Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. 6He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall not pass away. <P> Psalm 93 1 The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established, so that it cannot be moved. <P> Psalm 96 10Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns; The world also is firmly established, It shall not be moved; He shall judge the peoples righteously." Here is the challenge: Examine the following Scripture passages and see if you can accept what they say at face value. The problem with most people is that when they come across verses such as these, and understand the obvious implication of them, they immediately begin looking for an alternate explanation. Not because the text demands it, but because the system they have been taught requires it! <P> I suggest you read all the material with your bible alongside, that you may be blessed. <P> The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or men and church tradition? <P> Are you going to leave it up to someone else to tell you the truth or are you going to take full responsibility for you life and find out for yourself? <P> It is never wrong to accept a piece of fruit it is only wrong to accept it without determining if it is real or not. <P> Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. <P> "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you(The Apostles) will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt 10:23). <P> "For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt 16:27-28). <P> The transfiguration that took place a few days after Jesus made this statement cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy. Note that during the transfiguration there were no angels present, and no rewards given in accordance to anyone's deeds. It would also have been an odd thing to say that only "some" of those listening to Him would live long enough to witness this event! (Perhaps His audience was composed of octogenarians). <P> "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matt 24:33-34). <P> Compare this to the NEB translation: "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all." For those who may be tempted to interpret the word "generation" (Greek: genea) as meaning "race" (Greek: genos), compare the use of the same word by the same author, just one chapter earlier : <P> "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:35-36). <P> "But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you(High Priest, Scribes and Pharasees): In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'" (Matt 26:63-64). <P> Please note that the high priest Jesus was addressing died during the AD 70 siege of Jerusalem. If he did not see the coming of Christ in the events that took place at that time, Was Jesus mistaken? I don’t think so Who are you going to believe Church Tradition or the Bible. <P> If we believe the Bible is God's word, why can't we believe what it says? Why do we hold the traditions of the church over the Word of God? The Lord clearly told his disciples and us WHEN he would return: <P> Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." <P> Verse 27 clearly speaks of the second coming, He comes with the angels to reward every man. Look at the next verse. "I say to YOU, there are some standing HERE who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." <P> Who are the "YOU" of this verse? Verse 24 tells us that Jesus is speaking to his disciples. So, Jesus is saying to his disciples who were standing there that some of them would still be alive when He returned in the second coming. <P> Now some say he is talking about the transfiguration of Matthew 17:2, but that is only six days later and none of them had died in that six day period. Did he come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and reward each according to his works at the transfiguration? Of course not! How about Pentecost? No, that was only two months later and they were all still alive except Judas. <P> What are the possible explanations to this verse? I see only three: 1. There are still some of the disciples alive today. 2. Jesus was confused or lying. 3. Jesus actually did what he said and came in the lifetime of his disciples. This is really our only sensible choice This seems like the simple and clear answer that holds to the inspiration of Scripture. Jesus did what he said he would do. Jesus also said: <P> Matthew 24:34 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. <P> Jesus here, very plainly and very clearly, tells His disciples that ALL of the things he had mentioned would come to pass in THEIR GENERATION. This includes the gospel being preached in all the world (Yes there are verses in the New Testament that Clearly state The Gospel has Been Preached to all the world), the abomination of desolation the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of man. This is so clear that it greatly troubles those who hold to a futuristic eschatology. <P> Listen to C.S. Lewis's comments on this verse: The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." (Essay; "The World's Last Night (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385) <P> Because of his view of the nature of the Second coming, he felt that it hadn't happened yet, and therefore Jesus had been wrong. That would be, in fact, much more than embarrassing, it would be devastating to the credibility of Jesus. If Jesus was wrong, as Lewis says he was, what else might he have been wrong about? Will those who believe in Him truly have everlasting life? Jesus wasn't wrong, Lewis was the one who was wrong. We can count on the truthfulness of what Jesus tells us. Aren't you glad of that? <P> Most commentators see a generation as referring to about a forty year time span. More important then that, what does the Bible say about the time of a generation? Let's look and see. <P> Matthew 1:17 (NKJV) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. <P> In this genealogical table, we have data to estimate the length of a generation. It tells us that from the captivity in Babylon until Christ, are fourteen generations. Now the date of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is said to be 586 BC. From 586 BC until the birth of Christ would be about 586 years which, divided by fourteen, makes the average length of a generation about 41 years. <P> Some have tried to twist the etymology of the word "generation" in Matthew 24:34 to make it mean "race,"and try to make Jesus say that all these things would happen before the "race" of Jews had passed away. By doing this, they think they can expand the time of the second coming by thousands of years. There is no biblical or linguistic justification for such a position. Generation does NOT mean race! <P> The following quote by David Chilton is very informative: <P> Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51;18:8; 17:25; 21:32. <P> Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means 'race' tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! <P> What Jesus meant by all those things happening in that generation, including the parousia of Christ, was that they would all happen while some of those folks to whom He preached, were still alive, just as he said they would be, in Matthew 16:27-28. The Modern church teaches that Jesus' coming is yet future, but does the Bible teach this ?. Our responsibility is to study the Bible and learn what it says, not to blindly follow church tradition. <P> The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word, man or church tradition? Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
- Date:
- 09 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 20:00:32
CommentsHere is the challenge: Examine the following Scripture passages and see if you can accept what they say at face value. The problem with most people is that when they come across verses such as these, and understand the obvious implication of them, they immediately begin looking for an alternate explanation. Not because the text demands it, but because the system they have been taught requires it! I suggest you read all the material with your bible alongside, that you may be blessed. The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or men and church tradition? Are you going to leave it up to someone else to tell you the truth or are you going to take full responsibility for you life and find out for yourself? It is never wrong to accept a piece of fruit it is only wrong to accept it without determining if it is real or not. Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you(The Apostles) will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt 10:23). "For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt 16:27-28). The transfiguration that took place a few days after Jesus made this statement cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy. Note that during the transfiguration there were no angels present, and no rewards given in accordance to anyone's deeds. It would also have been an odd thing to say that only "some" of those listening to Him would live long enough to witness this event! (Perhaps His audience was composed of octogenarians). "Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matt 24:33-34). Compare this to the NEB translation: "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all." For those who may be tempted to interpret the word "generation" (Greek: genea) as meaning "race" (Greek: genos), compare the use of the same word by the same author, just one chapter earlier : "And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:35-36). "But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you(High Priest, Scribes and Pharasees): In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'" (Matt 26:63-64). Please note that the high priest Jesus was addressing died during the AD 70 siege of Jerusalem. If he did not see the coming of Christ in the events that took place at that time, Was Jesus mistaken? I don’t think so Who are you going to believe Church Tradition or the Bible. If we believe the Bible is God's word, why can't we believe what it says? Why do we hold the traditions of the church over the Word of God? The Lord clearly told his disciples and us WHEN he would return: Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Verse 27 clearly speaks of the second coming, He comes with the angels to reward every man. Look at the next verse. "I say to YOU, there are some standing HERE who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Who are the "YOU" of this verse? Verse 24 tells us that Jesus is speaking to his disciples. So, Jesus is saying to his disciples who were standing there that some of them would still be alive when He returned in the second coming. Now some say he is talking about the transfiguration of Matthew 17:2, but that is only six days later and none of them had died in that six day period. Did he come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and reward each according to his works at the transfiguration? Of course not! How about Pentecost? No, that was only two months later and they were all still alive except Judas. What are the possible explanations to this verse? I see only three: 1. There are still some of the disciples alive today. 2. Jesus was confused or lying. 3. Jesus actually did what he said and came in the lifetime of his disciples. This is really our only sensible choice This seems like the simple and clear answer that holds to the inspiration of Scripture. Jesus did what he said he would do. Jesus also said: Matthew 24:34 (NKJV) "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Jesus here, very plainly and very clearly, tells His disciples that ALL of the things he had mentioned would come to pass in THEIR GENERATION. This includes the gospel being preached in all the world (Yes there are verses in the New Testament that Clearly state The Gospel has Been Preached to all the world), the abomination of desolation the great tribulation, and the coming of the Son of man. This is so clear that it greatly troubles those who hold to a futuristic eschatology. Listen to C.S. Lewis's comments on this verse: The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." (Essay; "The World's Last Night (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385) Because of his view of the nature of the Second coming, he felt that it hadn't happened yet, and therefore Jesus had been wrong. That would be, in fact, much more than embarrassing, it would be devastating to the credibility of Jesus. If Jesus was wrong, as Lewis says he was, what else might he have been wrong about? Will those who believe in Him truly have everlasting life? Jesus wasn't wrong, Lewis was the one who was wrong. We can count on the truthfulness of what Jesus tells us. Aren't you glad of that? Most commentators see a generation as referring to about a forty year time span. More important then that, what does the Bible say about the time of a generation? Let's look and see. Matthew 1:17 (NKJV) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations. In this genealogical table, we have data to estimate the length of a generation. It tells us that from the captivity in Babylon until Christ, are fourteen generations. Now the date of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is said to be 586 BC. From 586 BC until the birth of Christ would be about 586 years which, divided by fourteen, makes the average length of a generation about 41 years. Some have tried to twist the etymology of the word "generation" in Matthew 24:34 to make it mean "race,"and try to make Jesus say that all these things would happen before the "race" of Jews had passed away. By doing this, they think they can expand the time of the second coming by thousands of years. There is no biblical or linguistic justification for such a position. Generation does NOT mean race! The following quote by David Chilton is very informative: Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51;18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means 'race' tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! What Jesus meant by all those things happening in that generation, including the parousia of Christ, was that they would all happen while some of those folks to whom He preached, were still alive, just as he said they would be, in Matthew 16:27-28. The Modern church teaches that Jesus' coming is yet future, but does the Bible teach this ?. Our responsibility is to study the Bible and learn what it says, not to blindly follow church tradition. I believe that Paul's exhortation to Timothy applies to us as well: The question remains, are you going to believe God’s word or man and church tradition? Psalm 118 8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
- Date:
- 25 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 09:56:27
CommentsConcerning the word ever that the last brother mentioned I would like to offer the following; remember we are taking this "at face value." Le 6:13 The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out. (Is this fire still burning? God said "it shall NEVER go out." Le 10:15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded. (Are they still waving heaves? God said it was a statute "for ever.") 1Sa 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever. (Is Samuel still in the temple? He was supposed to abide there "for ever.") Ps 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever. (According to this verse there are not any wicked persons on the earth and there never shall be again. "Thou hast destroyed the wicked...for ever.") My point is simply that reading the entire bible is a start to understanding words that seem to have an infinite meaning. While reading the ENTIRE bible, have a dictionary along side of your bible: this way you can readily understand those words that seem to be "troubling." Da 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Please note that the kingdom here shall break in pieces all kingdoms (that includes America where you now live and breath) and shall stand "for ever." I will now show that this kingdom does and does not last for ever. 1) Ge 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:… Are we to assume, here, that this mountain range never ends? Is there any evidence that such a mountain exists? And is the mountain mentioned in the text that mountain? 2) How long does the millennial kingdom last? For Ever! Ps 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom...12 To make known to the sons of men...the glorious majesty of his kingdom. 13 Thy kingdom is an EVERLASTING kingdom and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. Even though the kingdom lasts for ever the Holy Spirit "limited" the length of the kingdom to one thousand years: Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a THOUSAND years. The point that I am trying to make is words are defined by their context and the sum of the entire document that contain them. That is the rule of thumb for reading. Any attempt to do other wise is insanity!
- Date:
- 25 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 09:59:12
Comments***** Adding my name to the bottom of the comment. Sorry for the duplication ***** Concerning the word ever that the last brother mentioned I would like to offer the following; remember we are taking this "at face value." Le 6:13 The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out. (Is this fire still burning? God said "it shall NEVER go out." Le 10:15 The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded. (Are they still waving heaves? God said it was a statute "for ever.") 1Sa 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever. (Is Samuel still in the temple? He was supposed to abide there "for ever.") Ps 9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever. (According to this verse there are not any wicked persons on the earth and there never shall be again. "Thou hast destroyed the wicked...for ever.") My point is simply that reading the entire bible is a start to understanding words that seem to have an infinite meaning. While reading the ENTIRE bible, have a dictionary along side of your bible: this way you can readily understand those words that seem to be "troubling." Da 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Please note that the kingdom here shall break in pieces all kingdoms (that includes America where you now live and breath) and shall stand "for ever." I will now show that this kingdom does and does not last for ever. 1) Ge 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:… Are we to assume, here, that this mountain range never ends? Is there any evidence that such a mountain exists? And is the mountain mentioned in the text that mountain? 2) How long does the millennial kingdom last? For Ever! Ps 145:11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom...12 To make known to the sons of men...the glorious majesty of his kingdom. 13 Thy kingdom is an EVERLASTING kingdom and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. Even though the kingdom lasts for ever the Holy Spirit "limited" the length of the kingdom to one thousand years: Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a THOUSAND years. The point that I am trying to make is words are defined by their context and the sum of the entire document that contain them. That is the rule of thumb for reading. Any attempt to do other wise is insanity! -Lewis Palmer Jr.
- Date:
- 27 Feb 2004
- Time:
- 16:36:11
CommentsIt appears that Mr. Forgy has thrown in the towel. We agreed that we would limit the time between our responses to two weeks at the most. I sent my second negative to Mr. Forgy on January 12th, 2004. Today, it is February 27th and I still have not received Forgy's third affirmative. On January 24th, I received the following note: "I am sorry that I have not been able to get my third affirmative to you but I have been violently ill with the flu for over a week, three days of which I was in the hospital being IV fed fluids. I must now take about 4 days to catcth up all that has fallen behind in my businuess, so I should have my next affirm to you by Thurs..." I told him I was sorry to hear of his sickness. But he then continued to delay. On February 6th, Forgy wrote one last note to me: "I'm sorry brother Faust, it did take a little longer for me to recoup than I thought, but then the burden of the work I had fallen behind on was overwhelming. I have my third affirm half done, I just got to it again last night and had to stay up until 3 am to work on it. I will have it done and typed by the end of the weekend..." I have heard nothing from Mr. Forgy since this last note on February the 6th, and I have repeatedly asked him for a simple explanation of his delay and lack of communication. If he is back in the hospital, then I can certainly understand this delay. However, if Mr. Forgy is well, then it would appear that he has thrown the debate. In that case, I rest my case! And may all observers take note that Forgy's preterism cannot honestly and reasonably be maintained from the Holy Scriptures. -Pastor Joey Faust, 2-27-04
|
