Blog Archive

Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Labels

Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian

Followers

Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Answering King Neb "A full preterist" Round 2

As seen from HCR

Norm,

Let me restate the issue here because
apparently you do not understand the problem - or - perhaps you do understand it
and I can't tell that you do, because you never really addressed it. You
basically implied that I should not be allowed at the table because my view is
"new" - it has no "ancient" precedent. Ok. But here’s the problem. IF PM is
“apostolic doctrine”; AM, PoM, and even much of modern PM is NOT apostolic…it is
erroneous and was at one time NEW. And if AM, PoM, and much of modern PM was NEW
at some point and it is argued that NEW stuff can’t be allowed at the table;
then why are AMs, PoMs, and many modern PMs given a seat at the table?

That’s the jist of the post and you did not answer it, other than to
merely assert that you don’t see a problem with it.

The Bible only
teaches one correct eschatological view. It is simply impossible for PoM, AM,
and PM to all be right. Logically speaking, either one is correct or none are.
So no matter what view you want to plug in as the correct interpretation of
Scripture, that leaves the others as being in error and at some point they too
were “new” in the game. Again, for sake of argument, let’s just say
Premillennialism is the doctrine Paul taught. Then that means that
Amillennialism was a “new” and “erroneous” doctrine introduced into the church.
And so was Postmillennialism and anything else other than premillennialism.

So what you’re telling me is that basically because these other views
got their voice in a little sooner, they get a free pass? That is arbitrary and
complete nonsense.

Others have said, “well, though these views greatly
differ on some points, they ALL affirm the proposition that Jesus WILL
eventually return. This belief has been preserved by God in the church.” The
question then is, why is that one proposition made a test for fellowship? On
what Biblical grounds can that be made a test?

Again, you mean to tell
me that a premillennialist can go off with some of the most wackiest and
unbiblical ideas about a rebuilt temple, reinstituted ceremonies, gaps in
Daniel, etc., and yet because he affirms this ONE proposition, he can sit at the
table and I can’t and all because he got his thesis turned in a little earlier?
Again, complete nonsense.

Norm, I hope you and others truly rethink your
reasoning here. I find it very disturbing. I have suffered because of it and I
hear stories every week from others – true brothers and sisters in Christ – who
are suffering as well from leaders who reason this way.

As for the rest
of your posts, we’ve already been through that.

·The Church is not the
final authority. God’s word formed the church, not vice-a-versa.

·Being
a direct disciple of someone does not insure that the disciple carries on the
teacher’s doctrine at all points. Paul’s letters are filled with evidence to the
contrary. How many times did Paul have to remind his listeners and correct them?
Often.

PS. I am also tired of J.W., SDAs, and Mormons always being
brought up in a discussion with preterists. They simply don’t compare. In fact,
they have more in common with traditional eschatology than with Preterism.

PPS. It is an argument from silence, hence a fallacy, to claim that full
preterism is “new”. You simply have no idea what all was floating around in
those days. Granted, I can’t prove that it did exist – that whole argument is
irrelevant. Arguments from silence and appeals to tradition are fallacies, plain
and simple.







Neb,

You can't really call amill new. Most christians rejected the book of Revelations, So most christians never had a pre-mill view to begin with. And when the early PMers started to spread to other regions, this is when you had arguments about such a view. So you can't call Amill (brand new).

Also,

If you are going to mention Historic PM then you are going to have to use the Church as being the final authority. It was the Church at a euceminical council that took a stand on the issue. You can't use another standard that did not exist yet. How can you use that as the standard when the canon was still in flux?

You have to use the standard of the time. And at that time, the Apostolic tradition of Saint John (on this issue) was trumped by the Apostolic traditions of Mark, Andrew, Peter, and Paul.

The Christians in Ashia minor had a little more detail about end time views that other regions didn't have. And they lost the fight, just like they lost the fight some decades earlyier at the council of Nicea, in regards to Pascha observance.

The christians in Ashia minor were at one time called " quartodecimans" (because they observed Pascha on the same day the Jews observed Passover, which was Nisan 14)

This custom came from John, so the christians in his region did what he did. But they lost the fight at the council of Nicea, because the other Apostles (in other regions) did it differently.

So they were trumped. I don't see a problem with it. The Circumcision group were trumped at the very first Church council. And they were fighting for the customs of Moses.


This is what happens King Neb, and you shouldn't see a problem with it. Certian customs & beliefs/interpretations get trumped by other customs & beliefs/interpretations.....that are also ancient. It's always been that way.

You can look at the ancient universal councils, and you will see groups with different interpretations about a text fighting it out. We see this with the very first council in the book of Acts, and it's been the same way since.


The idea of a future second Temple was shared by some early PMers. The only difference, in this regard, between them and most of the modern Protestant PMers is that they believed the Anti-Christ was going to rebuild a future 3rd temple. They also believed that the anti-christ would bring the Jews back to Palestine, and they had a view about the rise of China before the coming of the jewish anti-christ. They also believed that the anti-christ would come from the tribe of Dan.


Everything in ancient PM was not declared heretical. Only the literal 1,000 earthly year riegn of Christ, and their carnal view of Paradise in that 1,000 year riegn
As seen below:


Quote:
"The days will come in which vines having ten thousand brances will grow. In each branch, there will be ten thousand clusters. Each cluster will have ten thousand grapes, and every grape will give twenty-five metretes of wine, when pressed.....in like manner, a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand ears."


Irenaeus, citing Papias 120 A.D.




This is one of the reasons why ancient PM was disliked by most christians in other regions. They saw it as too carnal.....just like how Islam is carnal in how it views heaven.....infanct, some think that "Chilism" was a major influence on Islam in regards to how it viewed heaven.


Justin Martyr believed in the theory, but he admited that everyone did not agree with this idea.

You had two competing views. One group from Ashia minor that believed in a literal 1,000 year reign and embraced the book of Revelations. And those who either rejected Revelations, or just didn't embrace it. And these were the christians that did not believe in a literal 1,000 earthly reign of Christ.


Eventually the majority of christians won the day, for their view silenced the idea of a literal reign. They both were futurist, but they differed about the millenium.

Thus the Millenium was "spiritualized/Allegoricalized" Along with it's carnal understanding of "super foods".

Everything about modern Pm isn't wrong. Their literal view of the Millenium is wrong, their dispensational view of End times is wrong, for they will end up siding with the jewish anti-christ if they keep at it.

But not everything they believe in is wrong. It's a mutation of the ancient view, but so is postmill, and some forms of western amill.

But alot of modern PMers don't know that PM was declared heretical in the 4th century, so for the most part it's a view held in ignorance. I know when I was PM, I didn't know it was heretical until some years ago.


Full-Preterism is different from modern PM because Modern PM is still a futurist system. A system that believes in a future anti-christ, a future second coming as well as a future resurrection. So it's not as dangeruos as full-preterism.

My Godfather is a PMer(ancient PM. He picked it up from some of the early fathers & nonfathers). He is not suppose to be, because he's ORthodox. But as long as he's not dogmatic about his PMism, and as long as he doesn't try to spread it to others then he is still allowed to partake of cummunion.


So yeah, it's a heresy, but it's not a bad bad heresy. There are different levels of heresies/sins/error.....ect.

Historic PM is only on the table in some protestant circles. It is not on the table over all. It's not on the table with Rome, and it's not on the table with Eastern Orthodoxy.....eventhough we may tolerate it in regards to some members.


So at the end of the day, the onlything you can say about ancient christianity is:


Some believed in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on planet earth.

Most did not believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on planet earth.


Both views are old, and eventually one view won over the other one....well....for the most part. Much of what the early PMer's said is still legal so alot of Eastern amill views embrace alot of the other views of ancient PM.....the literal 1,000 year reign is rejected, as well as the carnal view of a 1,000 year paradise with super foods. But alot of the other stuff is embraced.



QUOTing Neb·"The Church is not the final authority. God’s word
formed the church, not vice-a-versa"

Jesus, and his Apostles formed the Church. The Apostles and their scribes wrote New Testament Scripture, so what do you mean by "God's word formed the church"? Where are you getting this from? Are you getting this from Owen again? Owen is not scripture and scripture never said that.




QUOTing Neb "Being a direct disciple of someone does not
insure that the disciple carries on the teacher’s doctrine at all points. Paul’s
letters are filled with evidence to the contrary. How many times did Paul have
to remind his listeners and correct them? Often."


Outside of moral behavior, most of the doctrinal correction came from those who were influenced by outsiders, like the Circumcision party and gnosticism. What we don't see in scripture is error from followers of the Apostles who miss heard what they said. The Apostles spoke to the masses, so in order for their followers to get them wrong is for everyone to miss understand them.. We don't see that in scripture, and we don't see that in the accounts after the first century.

What we see are people erroring from being influenced by either the sect of the circumcision (The later Ebionites), or Gnosticism.

If the apostles spoke to 100 people in a room, and one miss heard him, then the 99 would correct that person by saying "we were there too and I didn't hear him say that". In order for you to be right, everyone who heard the Apostle speak had to hear them wrong. That just can't happen, especially when they sent people in their place to help sheppard the flock.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

You will also have to conclude that even Timothy miss understood Paul, and thus was spreading miss information to the flock.

That view just isn't realistic King Neb. If Paul tought the samething everywhere then those who got him wrong would "stick out" like a sore thumb.





QUOTing Neb, "PPS. It is an argument from silence, hence a
fallacy, to claim that full preterism is “new”. You simply have no idea what all
was floating around in those days. Granted, I can’t prove that it did exist –
that whole argument is irrelevant. Arguments from silence and appeals to
tradition are fallacies, plain and simple."



It can be sure that they weren't floating around, the same way we know that JWism, Mormonism, and SDAism wasn't floating around back then. Nobody was arguing for a "fullpreterist" view.

There was no distubance of the faith in regards to the possition that you hold to. The distubance in christian circles came much later in time. Infact, It came from Calvinistic circles.

All the contingencies that reguire your view to form, came much later in time. One of which was the Reformed hermenuetic of a literal reading of a text. The idea that a text can have more than one meaning is rejected by you. There are contingencies in order for your view to exist.


Now in regards to PM. I only gave the historical context of it all. PM has a real ancient christian history, and full preterism doesn't. The ancient councils are more like guidlines of where you can and can't go with a doctrine. So it doesn't really matter if other views pop up. If they don't go out of bounds then what's the problem?

I don't see a problem with it. People can always agree to differ, and that's what the Church did for the first 381 years. But in the 4th century it ruled on the issue and that's that.

As long as your eschatology doesn't go out of bounds then what's the problem?










JNORM888

2 comments:

Jnorm888 said...

I modified this post. I was wrong about premill being condemned in the 6th century. It was condemned in the 4th. Any future revision of my position will be done in future posts.



JNORM888

Jnorm888 said...

"Now I know that the Quartodeciman controversy is a different topic than pre-mill so everything isn't going to be the same. There will be some differences, because they each have there own contexts. But that is where my diverse tradition theory of different regions comes from. However, when pressed on the issue. I saw that the argument for it, in regards to pre-mill wasn't as strong. Plus in regards to the Quartodeciman controversy. It was a difference in custom. And the New Testament allowed for a difference in certain customs. So yes, I may of been wrong to borrow that idea, and bring it into the pre-mill situation. I saw that primative christian eschatology wasn't a monolith. It is my theory, and yes, it has some weaknesses, but it also has some strengths. In the future, I will modify/revise my argument."






JNORM888

Related Posts with Thumbnails