 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|  Website Color Key |
Matthew 26:64 is NOT a "Preterist Time Indicator" Pointing to AD70 "In short, the usage of "Apo Arti" in Matthew 26:64 [Apo ("from" - Strongs 575) and Arti ("now on" - Strong's 737)] is highly suggestive of the themes that have been previously offered at this blog ; that is, a series of revelatory recognitions of the power and glory of Jesus Christ's dominance by friend and foe alike. Though the typically pret-friendly Weymouth translation would like to make Jesus say "later on, you will see.." this is not really honest. I would rather say that it was simply a mistake, but I find it impossible to believe that neither Richard Francis Weymouth ("If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the earlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully established. For it will then be seen that the book describes beforehand events which took place in 70 A.D.") nor Earnest Hampden-Cook (co-editor and author of "The Christ Has Come") were aware of how important (ironically) a futurist spin on this passage is to uphold their Preterist assumptions. However, not only is there no sense of futurity in this very emphatic Greek phrase, but rather we see quite the opposite.
R.C. Sproul, Sr. "Maybe the terms that best describe the two positions are full preterism and partial preterism. Both are preterist with respect to some eschatological events, but both are not preterist with respect to all eschatological events.." “...skeptical criticism of the Bible has become almost universal in the world. And people have attacked the credibility of Jesus. Maybe some church fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can’t abide with Jesus being a false prophet, because if I am to understand that Jesus is a false prophet, my faith is in vain.” [Covenant Eschatology Symposium in Florida 1993]
Sproul, Sandlin and Hibbard | Chalcedon's Letter to Ligonier Ministries Discussed | Two | Sproul Wiki | The Last Days According to Jesus (1998) | Video Series, Dust to Glory (1997) "Obviously the full preterists have no desire to deviate from Scripture. They bear the burden in this controversy of showing that creedal orthodoxy has been wrong at crucial points of eschatological understanding." (The Last Days According to Jesus, RC Sproul, pp.156-157)
"I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell's important work." "Russell's book has forced me to take the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem far more seriously than before, to open my eyes to the radical significance of this event in redemptive history. It vindicates the apostolic hope and prediction of our Lord's close-at-hand coming in judgment. My view on these matters remains in transition, as I have spelled out in
The Last Days According to Jesus. But for me one thing is certain: I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading
The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell's important work." ("Forward," in
The Parousia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999) (On the
Significance of A.D.70) "The most significant, redemptive, historical action that takes place outside the New Testament, is the judgment that falls on Jerusalem, and by which judgment the Christian Church now emerges as The Body of Christ." (R.C. Sproul, Dust to Glory video series, 1997) "While partial preterists acknowledge that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 there was
a parousia, or coming of Christ, they maintain that it was not the parousia." (The Last Days (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998, 158.) “If the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it seems strange that John would be silent about these cataclysmic events. Granted this is an argument from silence, but the silence is deafening.” (The Last Days According to Jesus, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998; p. 147) "If the sixth king is Vespasian, then we still fall short of the reign of Domitian, which is the time-frame usually given for the book of Revelation." (The Last Days According to Jesus; p. 146) "A more natural approach, however, is to begin the list of kings with Julius Caesar, as was the custom of ancient historians such as Josephus and Suetonius, as well as Dio Cassius. In this series (see table 6.3, option 3), the sixth king is Nero. If he is the king referred to in Revelation in the present tense, then this adds considerable wright to the argument for dating the book in the mid- to late-sixties." (ibid., p. 147) (On
Matthew 16:27-28) (On Matthew 24:1-3) (On
Matthew 24:34) (On Creeds and Tradition) "Obviously the full preterists have no desire to deviate from Scripture. They bear the burden in this controversy of showing that creedal orthodoxy has been wrong at crucial points of eschatological understanding."(The Last Days According to Jesus, RC Sproul, pp.156-157) (On
Second Coming and Deity of Christ) "It is my fear that evangelicals today tend to underplay the significance of the problems inherent in Russell's assumptions." (ibid, p. 17) "..skeptical criticism of the Bible has become almost universal in the world. And people have attacked the credibility of Jesus. Maybe some Church fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can't abide with Jesus being a false prophet, because if I am to understand that Jesus is a false prophet, my faith is in vain." ("The Problem of Imminency" presentation, Covenant Eschatology Symposium, Mt. Dora, FL 1993)
Objection to Modern Preterism
"To maintain that these events [the Olivet teaching] were indeed fulfilled in the first century, one must interpret the relevant passages in a way that makes early fulfillment possible. The most severe obstacle [to that] is the absence of any historical record that the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead occurred." (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 161) But... "To be completely candid, I must confess that I am still unsettled on some crucial matters." (Last Days, pp. 157-158) "Maybe the terms that best describe the two positions are full preterism and partial preterism. Both are preterist with respect to some eschatological events, but both are not preterist with respect to all eschatological events. The terms full and partial can then be safely applied to these two positions." "partial preterists acknowledge that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 there was a parousia or coming of Christ, they maintain that it was not the parousia...Partial preterists understand that there are nuances to biblical terminology regarding the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord, nuances that make it possible and necessary to speak of more than one event that encompasses all these things at once." (Last Days pp.158-159) "I am persuaded that, in the main, Russell is essentially correct"
Book Review: The Last Days Acccording to Jesus 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: 31 Aug 2003 Time: 14:12:06 CommentsWhat does A.D. stand for? Date: 07 Sep 2003 Time: 00:33:59 CommentsSproul is one of the greatest theologians and men of God of our time! Date: 11 Dec 2003 Time: 07:12:27 A.D. is an abbrieviation for 'anno Domini' which is Latin for 'year' (anno) of the 'Lord' (Domini). It refers to a year in the Christain era. Date: 09 Jan 2004 Time: 10:49:47 Some dispensationalists argue for two parousias, a secret one and the final one. So too partial preterist, the one on AD70 the final one. Only one is mentioned in scripture or do we conclude from the Olivet discourse Jesus actually spoke of two depending where you break the thought. Do the Apostles ever speak of two? Dr. R.C. Sproul ,Sr. is, in my humble opinion, the greatest theologian in my life time. If the Lord tarries generations to follow will read his works just as ours read the works of Augustine and Calvin and the like. Therefore I do not discount anything he says and like him there are unanswered questions in any eschatological system. As I become older one thing I am persuaded of is the more I learn the more I become aware of how little I actually know. Mike Hayes Date: 01 Apr 2004 Time: 01:59:53 I notice that some people say that Sproul is one of the greatest theologians of our times. I know that many would disagree because they do not agree with him, etc. I would like to add however, that I have been fortunate enough to have talked with him (as well as his son) on occassion, an while I agree with a great deal of what he teaches, the greatest reason for me to respect him to such a high degree is this: When we were talking about eschatology, (this was a few years ago) he stated as plainly as he could what he believed, but then even more clearly stated that he just didn't know when it came to some things. He said that he was on the same path to wisdom that everybody is on and he can say no more than that. I received an almost identical response on another topic that came up as well. That said, what I truly appreciate was the fact that he was humbled before the Lord and felt no shame at admitting he didn't know some thing or another. I truly appreciate that from someone in his position. Whether I agree with him or not on many or few subjects, I will always have great respect for the man because of his humble servant character that I witnessed. He sheds a little light on this in his works on eschatology in particular when he says that he feels best whispering where he believes God has whispered. He said that he was not willing, personally, to shout where he had not yet received "shouting" knowledge. Just wanted to share that. Date: 21 Apr 2004 Time: 21:04:02 Is kjv the main and true word for word bible? and is it the bible that everyone should read instead of the New age bible that are coming out? Can you tell me please Date: 21 Apr 2004 Time: 21:08:54 one other question, there is alot of church out there one for example, is Fundamental and the other liberial.. Fundamental: use King Jame Bible only not any other new age bible..they believe that it's the only bibe is word for word.. Liberial: use all sorts of bible, for example, NIV,NASB,NLB and etc.. WHY IS THAT? Date: 26 Apr 2004 Time: 20:05:52 I will have to agree about Sproul being one of todays leading teachers. I am an x Mormon and when I became a Christian I was flooded with Gods Truth but, I mistakenly swallowed the Left Behind Lie alone with Salvation. That was in 99/00 and in 2002 after a very disappointing 'lesson' during revivle on the Rapture of the Church all I could think about was the simarlites to the Mormonism. Maybe not in actual content but in interpreting practices. A peice here, there, and then over here a piece. Then with the plain context disregared a different meaning is approved. But as God opened my eyes to Christ, He again has chosen to show His faithfullness thru His Word to me. I've been a preterist for several years and love every new Truth that I learn. Thanks to Sproul and those like him that preach and teach the whole Word. Remember, Mormonism was basiclly started as an END TIMES CULT!! Thanks and let the Truth be True Hank Date: 03 Jun 2004 Time: 14:38:20 Sproul is always very enlightening... Date: 27 Sep 2004 Time: 09:52:54 I believe after reading his book the last days according to Jesus I am more convinced that the 1830 interpretation of the scripture is a news paper exposition to God's word. I believe Russell did a fantastic exposition of Mathew Chapter 24. but as RC says there is still more to learn about the subject. I agree with this also let every man Including the church father be liers and God be true in every thing. Jesus never lied or made a mistake but I think men made mistakes. who would stand and make this decleration to historical Christianity and creed. It has to be a man or a woman that would take the scripture as the ultimate authority to all believers. Jamal Bishara Date: 29 Sep 2004 Time: 10:28:00 What do you think of Watchman Nee's teaching especially the subject of spirit,soul and body Date: 17 Jan 2005 Time: 14:31:04 He has done much to give this respectability, but perhaps not enough to give a complete theory. Date: 03 Mar 2005 Time: 19:31:15 I don't see any denial of essential historic biblical christianity in partial preterism, so I think that as long as Sproul or anyone else, affirms with the new testament the future bodily resurrection of the saints and a new heaveans and new earth as per Rev. 21-22 and 2 Peter 3:13, there is no real problem. Full preterism seems to flat out deny this rather straight forward teaching of the new testament and I think Sproul maybe has done a possible dis-sirvice to christians for not more strongly warning against this, unless he has changed his mind on this too??? Date: 03 Mar 2005 Time: 19:32:08 I don't see any denial of essential historic biblical christianity in partial preterism, so I think that as long as Sproul or anyone else, affirms with the new testament the future bodily resurrection of the saints and a new heaveans and new earth as per Rev. 21-22 and 2 Peter 3:13, there is no real problem. Full preterism seems to flat out deny this rather straight forward teaching of the new testament and I think Sproul maybe has done a possible dis-service to christians for not more strongly warning against this, unless he has changed his mind on this too??? Date: 03 Apr 2005 Date: 29 Jul 2005 Date: 14 Jan 2006 Date: 21 Jan 2006 Date: 03 Feb 2006 Date: 22 May 2006 Date: 07 Jul 2006 Date: 28 Oct 2006 Date: 11 May 2007 Date: 26 Jul 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |
