The Orthodox Preterist versus the Heretical Dispensationalist

[Arthur81]

By orthodox I mean conforming to established doctrine as held in the history of the church. By a preterist who is orthodox, I refer to one who believes Matt. 24:1-35 is a prediction of 70 AD and the end of the Jewish religion, and that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and in history these were considered within orthodox Christianity. Revelation chapter 20 refers to the general resurrection in our future. I am an Orthodox Preterist, and I believe THE LAST DAY, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION IS IN OUR FUTURE. I am comfortable fellowshipping with those within orthodoxy who hold to historic pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil views, but NOT dispensationalism. I can fellowship with those who view Revelation as preterist, historist or futurist, but NOT the dispensational futurist which is not orthodox Christianity.

By heretical I mean unorthodox, a religious opinion that is a departure from and contrary to historic Christian doctrine as found among the writers of the church in history. I can show the Orthodox Preterist view in the church of the past. Dispensationalism cannot show their scheme prior to 1830 or so, and it's mainly found after the 1920s and the fundamentalist movement with its Scofield Bible.

Adam Clarke (1760-1832) Introduction to Revelation:
"Wetstein contends (and he is supported by very great men among the ancients and moderns) that "the book of the Revelation was written before the Jewish war, and the civil wars in Italy; that the important events which took place at that time, the greatest that ever happened since the foundation of the world, were worth enough of the Divine notice, as the affairs of his Church were so intimately connected with them; that his method of exposition proves the whole book to be a well-connected, certain series of events; but the common method of interpretation, founded on the hypothesis that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly destitute of certainty, and leaves every commentator to the luxuriance of his own fancy, as is sufficiently evident from what has been done already on this book..."

Chapters Available - Revelation - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Choose from the available chapters in the 'Revelation' of the 'Clarke's Commentary' commentary FREELY provided by StudyLight.org to help as you prepare sermons, Bible studies, Sunday School lessons or personal devotions.

www.studylight.org

Joseph Benson (1749-1821) on Matt. 24:34:
"For he adds, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled, Hereby evidently showing that he had been speaking all this while only of the calamities coming on the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem. “It is to me a wonder,” says Bishop Newton, “how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation."

Matthew 24 - Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Matthew 24, Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments, Benson's Commentary enriches Christian understanding through meticulous historical analysis, providing profound insights into Scripture.

www.studylight.org

By the above it is clear that the Orthodox Preterist understanding of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was clearly within the bounds of orthodoxy. The book of Revelation has historical been understood as preterist, historicist or futurist. All have been within orthodoxy. In the history of the church, historic premillennial, amillennial and postmillennial understanding have been considered within the bounds of orthodoxy. What IS NOT found before the mid-19th century is the modern heresy of dispensationalism. What is the difference between orthodox premillennialism and heretical dispensationalist premillennialism? The dispensational heresies are as follows:

1. Separating the church and Israel as two different people of God. For one thing, "church" is an ecclesiastical word not found in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible. In both the OT and NT, God's people are referred to as the assembly of God or the congregation of God. Some translations prior to the KJV do not contain the word "church". You see this explained in the "Translators to the Readers" foreward found in the original KJV.

2. Introducing sacrifices into the supposed 1000-year reign of Christ(Eze 43:18-19), but Jesus is there in their midst, it can't be explained away as a memorial! That is blasphemy when compared to "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,'” (Heb 10:12 NRSV)

3. The historic premillennialist believed in two resurrections, one before and one after the millennium. Dispensationalists come up with at least three, one coming at the end of their supposed 7-year tribulation for those saved during those 7 years.

4. The dispensationalist misuse the term "rapture" with a completely different meaning than historically in the church. The rapture as in the "left behind" farce is totally foreign to the Bible. Two resurrections 7 years apart can hardly be both included as a "first resurrection", as claimed by dispensationalists. When you read men of God out of the past refer to the resurrection on "the last day", they refer to that as a "rapture", but that is not what dispensationalist think of as the rapture.

5. Dispensationalism perverts the KJV translation of a dispensation into something foreign to the Bible. The Greek the KJV translates as dispensation is οἰκονομία oikonomia, which means "administration" and the word actually occurs 7 times in the KJV NT and four are in Paul where the KJV translates as dispensation: 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25. There is NO justification to invent 7 dispensations as if found in the Bible. There is the dispensation of the gospel and the prior dispensation of law. The "dispensation of law" would be implied by the contrast between law and gospel.

6. Dispensationalists deny that the body of Christ, the New Covenant assembly of God is the fulfillment of and continuation of Old Covenant Israel, as indicated in:

"Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation! All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:15-16 REB)

Who is Israel today? Those who are the "new creation" as in "For anyone united to Christ, there is a new creation: the old order has gone; a new order has already begun." (2Cor 5:17 REB) We who are born from above, New Covenant believers in Jesus Christ, make up the Israel of today.

 

[GISMYS_7]

Those that curse the Jewish people are cursed by God!!

 

[Truth7t7]

By a preterist who is orthodox, I refer to one who believes Matt. 24:1-35 is a prediction of 70 AD and the end of the Jewish religion, and that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?​

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence​

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446

 

[Randy Kluth]

By orthodox I mean conforming to established doctrine as held in the history of the church. By a preterist who is orthodox, I refer to one who believes Matt. 24:1-35 is a prediction of 70 AD and the end of the Jewish religion, and that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and in history these were considered within orthodox Christianity.

Now this thoroughly confuses me from the start! Preterists emerged from conventional Christianity, but diverged on the matter of their belief that the Olivet Discourse taught that Christ came in 70 AD. Partial Preterism came later, and were more orthodox on this question, accepting that whether or not Christ appeared in 70 AD, he is still going to come at the end of the age.

I would also suggest that the Early Church and many traditional, conservative (non-Preterist) Christians believed, like I do, that the Olivet Discourse was largely focused on the 70 AD event. It certainly did not focus *purely* on that event. But that was the introductory topic, and the main focus. Christ's 2nd Coming was a secondary topic in this conversation. Preterism came much later than the Church Fathers in Church history.

Until you straighten this out, I will remain confused about your post...

The book of Revelation has historical been understood as preterist, historicist or futurist. All have been within orthodoxy.

I agree with this, although the classic Full Preterist view has been considered aberrant by the vast majority of orthodox Christians.

In the history of the church, historic premillennial, amillennial and postmillennial understanding have been considered within the bounds of orthodoxy. What IS NOT found before the mid-19th century is the modern heresy of dispensationalism.

Now this confuses me. I am not a Dispensationalist, but I certainly feel that Dispensationalists are every bit as orthodox as any other Christian. But yes, Dispensationalism got its start from Darby in the 1830s, and was not found prior to that time. He was, however, part of a modern restoration of ancient Premillennialism. And that I agree with.

What is the difference between orthodox premillennialism and heretical dispensationalist premillennialism? The dispensational heresies are as follows:

There are aspects to Dispensatonalism that some consider to be "heretical," but I do not. They do not, for example, believe in a continuation of the Law of Moses, but at best, only a celebratory observance of the same, ie not a legal covenantal requirement.

1. Separating the church and Israel as two different people of God.

Quite simply, Israel is a nation, and the Church an international body. They are different words, and not mutually-exclusive entities. For example, the nation Israel is part of the international Church. That is, Israel is, in theory, a part of the Church, but it is not yet fulfilled as a nation. At present, its participation in the Church is strictly as a marginalized minority of Jewish people.

Maybe this is enough for now?

 

[marks]

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Did the sun rise this morning? Did you see the moon last night?

Have you been to the center of the earth? Have you measured the heavens with a yardstick?

Yes, yes, no, and no.

So then . . . Israel remains a nation before God. There is nothing Israel has done that God would cast them off. And this is the seed of Israel, the nation, as nations are known to be. It's the same now as in Jeremiah's day. We don't need to argue over what a nation is.

Much love!

 

[GISMYS_7]

Preteristism is from the pit of hell!!!

 

[Arthur81]

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?​

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence​

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,


To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446

The point I was making about a pre-70 AD date for Revelation is, that view has been held in the history of the church, centuries past, so that keeps it within orthodoxy. One can be mired down in the various arguments about the dating for Revelation. For me, there is no way possible that the following symbolism could have been written after the temple was destroyed. The idea of a revived Roman Empire and a rebuilt temple is pure nonsense with no clear scriptural basis -

"Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months." (Rev 11:1-2 NRSV)

No one can convince me that was written after the temple had been destroyed 25 years earlier. For those who like the intricate arguments about the dating, John A. T. Robinson's 1976 book treats this beginning at page 197. On page 203 I lift the following paragraphs out of a long chapter -

"A further instructive parallel is provided by the situation presupposed in Jude
and II Peter, which we gave grounds for supposing to be addressed to
Jewish Christians in some part of Asia Minor in 61-2. At that time indeed
there was no hint of persecution, but there was plenty of evidence of
insidious attack from gnosticizing, Judaizing heretics who were making false
claims to leadership of the church and were scoffing at the Christian hope.
We have already seen that the nearest parallels both for the gnosticizing
tendencies and for the eschatological teaching in these epistles is not with
second-century literature but with other New Testament writings to be dated
in the late 50s and 60s - and with the book of Revelation. The themes in
common with the last are sufficiently striking to merit more extended
treatment.

In both, the false teachers are accused of the error of Balaam (Jude 11; II
Peter 2.15; Rev.2.14), which in Revelation is closely associated with the
teaching of the Nicolaitans (2.6,15). In both Christians are described as
being lured into immorality (II Peter 2.14, 18; 3.17; Rev.2.20), into
contaminating their clothing (Jude 23; Rev.3.4), and into disowning their
Master (Jude 4; II Peter 2.1; Rev.2.13). There is the same contrast between
the true and false γν•σις (Jude 8; II Peter i.2f., 16; Rev. 2.17,24). The
heretical teachers are claiming to be shepherds and apostles of Christ's
flock (Jude 1.1f.; Rev.2.2), and there is a similar appeal to remember the
teaching of the true apostles (Jude 17; II Peter 1.12; 3.if.; Rev.3.3), who are
the foundation of the church and of its faith (Jude 3; Rev.21.14). The
eschatological symbolism too shows remarkable parallels, with the day of
Christ being likened not only, as in the common Christian tradition, to the
thief (II Peter 3.10; Rev.3.3; 16.15) but uniquely in these two documents to
the morning star (II Peter 1.19; Rev. 2.28; 22.16). In both the existing
heavens and earth disappear (II Peter 3.10; Rev. 6.14; 16.20; 20.11) to be
replaced by new (II Peter 3.13; Rev.21.1); in both the fallen angels are
chained in the depths of hell (Jude 6; II Peter 2.4; Rev.20.1-3, 7), and
appeal is made to the theme of a thousand years (II Peter 3.8; Rev.20.2-7)."

https://richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-testament.pdf

A couple points, the etymology of the word "preterist" was never used in theology until 1836. An Orthodox Preterist does NOT think the resurrection and judgement of the last day has past, it is in our future.

 

[Arthur81]

Now this thoroughly confuses me from the start! Preterists emerged from conventional Christianity, but diverged on the matter of their belief that the Olivet Discourse taught that Christ came in 70 AD. Partial Preterism came later, and were more orthodox on this question, accepting that whether or not Christ appeared in 70 AD, he is still going to come at the end of the age.

I would also suggest that the Early Church and many traditional, conservative (non-Preterist) Christians believed, like I do, that the Olivet Discourse was largely focused on the 70 AD event. It certainly did not focus *purely* on that event. But that was the introductory topic, and the main focus. Christ's 2nd Coming was a secondary topic in this conversation. Preterism came much later than the Church Fathers in Church history.

Until you straighten this out, I will remain confused about your post...

I agree with this, although the classic Full Preterist view has been considered aberrant by the vast majority of orthodox Christians.

Now this confuses me. I am not a Dispensationalist, but I certainly feel that Dispensationalists are every bit as orthodox as any other Christian. But yes, Dispensationalism got its start from Darby in the 1830s, and was not found prior to that time. He was, however, part of a modern restoration of ancient Premillennialism. And that I agree with.

There are aspects to Dispensatonalism that some consider to be "heretical," but I do not. They do not, for example, believe in a continuation of the Law of Moses, but at best, only a celebratory observance of the same, ie not a legal covenantal requirement.

Quite simply, Israel is a nation, and the Church an international body. They are different words, and not mutually-exclusive entities. For example, the nation Israel is part of the international Church. That is, Israel is, in theory, a part of the Church, but it is not yet fulfilled as a nation. At present, its participation in the Church is strictly as a marginalized minority of Jewish people.

Maybe this is enough for now?

The use of the label "preterist" is used as with many labels, one meaning one thing and the other something different. The label of preterist began to be used in theology in 1843.

"preterist (n.)
one who favors the past, one whose chief interest is in the past," 1864, from preter- "before" + -ist. As a theological term from 1843, "one who holds that the Apocalyptic prophecies have been nearly or entirely fulfilled" (opposed to futurist)."

Search 'preterist' on etymonline

Search results for 'preterist' on etymonline

www.etymonline.com

On another thread I quoted men of God writing prior to 1843 before the label "preterist" even existed, and they applied Matt. 24:1-35 to 70 AD. There is no reason to remain ignorant of this fact when you can read so many commentaries out of the past found on -https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html

Check those by Joseph Benson on Matt. 24:34; John Gill, who was historic pre-mil on Matt. 24:34 and also Matthew Henry in his introduction to chapter 24 of Matthew though Henry does say the prophecy of 70 AD was a type and figure of the consummation of all things, and I doubt any deny that as all great judgments of God have similarities.

As to the "Full Preterist" is AM NOT. It is a misrepresentation to class Orthodox Preterists as if they are Full Preterists, which is clearly heretical. What I believe as an Orthodox Preterist is found in respected church writings prior to the use of the word preterist in theology and it existed long before the heresy of dispensationalism.

You do not find teaching of the Law of Moses being taught in the 1644/1646 First London Confession of Faith for it emphasizes Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in his blood with the Old Covenant being fulfilled, completed and abolished. That pre-dates dispensationalism by 200 years.

There is no biblical nation of Israel in existence today, and the Israel of God under the New Covenant are the believers, those of the new creation which come out of all nations. The UN formed nation called Israel in the Middle East today is not a fulfillment of any Bible prophecy and even many Jews recognize that -

Our Mission | Torah Jews

www.truetorahjews.org

Dispensationalists cannot be termed orthodox and believe the millennium is a merely the Old Covenant, including the sacrifices taken literally from Ezekiel. The Dispensationalist millennium is a slap in the face to Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in his blood.

 

[marks]

There is no biblical nation of Israel in existence today,

Isn't this above a slap against the One Who said,

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

?

Much love!

 

[marks]

1. Separating the church and Israel as two different people of God. For one thing, "church" is an ecclesiastical word not found in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible. In both the OT and NT, God's people are referred to as the assembly of God or the congregation of God. Some translations prior to the KJV do not contain the word "church". You see this explained in the "Translators to the Readers" foreward found in the original KJV.

We don't have to use the word "church" if you prefer. Ekklesia is literally, called out ones. An assembly that has been called out from another group.

We see two groups that were particularly called out from among the rest. They are intrinsically different. The first is Israel, called out from the other nations, called out from Egypt. The second is the Body of Christ, called out from the world. The first an ethnic people-group, the second a spiritual body.

God has made promises to Israel, the nation, and God is true. Saying "two different people of God" is misleading I think, as if we are saying "two different kinds of the redeemed". The fact that God selected a particular man and his descendents - the nation of Israel - and made promises to bless him, them, is completely separate from who we are in Christ.

In the terrestrial, God chose a nation, and promised to preserve that nation for as long as the sun rose and set, and the moon rose and set. In the terrestrial, God promised that nation that there would be nothing they could do that would cause God to cast them off from being a nation.

In the spiritual, God is calling out a people, to build into His temple, the living spiritual temple of the Living God. Both of these things are completely true, being the plain saying of the Word.

Much love!

 

[marks]

2. Introducing sacrifices into the supposed 1000-year reign of Christ(Eze 43:18-19), but Jesus is there in their midst, it can't be explained away as a memorial! That is blasphemy when compared to "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,'” (Heb 10:12 NRSV)

You declare this passage void because you have an objection that it must contradict Jesus' sacrifice. However the same Spirit Who gave Zechariah this prophecy,

Zechariah 14:16-21 KJV
16) And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17) And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18) And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19) This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20) In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21) Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

. . . also gave Isaiah this prophecy,

Isaiah 53:9-11 KJV
9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

. . . that the Messiah would die, an offering for sin, and then would live, our Redeemer.

Tabernacles was a feast given to the Jews alone. In that day it will be given for all the nations of the earth, which of necessity requires a change of Law. So then this likewise prophesies that change of Law. And is it too difficult to think that the sin offering is not continued in the feast where all nations come to honor the One Who gave Himself a sin offering for us all?

There is no conflict here, not so that we should simply overturn this passage, declaring, NO, these things will not be!

I believe we can read the words of these prophecies and believe them. I believe God is true.

Much love!

 

[marks]

3. The historic premillennialist believed in two resurrections, one before and one after the millennium. Dispensationalists come up with at least three, one coming at the end of their supposed 7-year tribulation for those saved during those 7 years.

You seem to object to a resurrection at the end of the "7 year tribulation", however, you include a resurrection before the millennium. Wouldn't "before the millennium" be "at the end of" the 7 year tribulation?

Much love!

 

[covenantee]

Isn't this above a slap against the One Who said,

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

?

Much love!

Matthew 21
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation is that?

 

[marks]

4. The dispensationalist misuse the term "rapture" with a completely different meaning than historically in the church. The rapture as in the "left behind" farce is totally foreign to the Bible. Two resurrections 7 years apart can hardly be both included as a "first resurrection", as claimed by dispensationalists. When you read men of God out of the past refer to the resurrection on "the last day", they refer to that as a "rapture", but that is not what dispensationalist think of as the rapture.

I'll go ahead and presume to give the "dispensationalist's" answer . . .

We don't misuse the word. The word means to suddenly remove with force, and that's exactly what we mean when we say it. That we are suddenly removed, forceably, to meet Jesus in the air.

"First" resurrection isn't called by the ordinal, "one", it's called by "prote", which can be the first, or the beginning of a series, first of a kind, so we always need to go to the context. But right away, it's not called the "#1 resurrection", that wording is not used.

There is the "first resurrection", but there isn't something called "the second resurrection". There isn't something called "the last resurrection". There is the "first resurrection", and then this:

Revelation 20:5 KJV
5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Those not of the first resurrection would not live until another 1000 years. But even when they do "live", they are still called "the dead".

Revelation 20:12 KJV
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

To me it more appears that these aren't so much as defining a series, but of a kind of resurrection, and blessed are those who are part of the first resurrection.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Matthew 21
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation is that?

Non-sequitor. This does not negate God's promise that the nation of Israel would remain a nation before Him for as long as the sun and moon still rise and set.

This does not negate God's promise that there is nothing they could do to make Him cast them off.

God removed the kingdom of God from the rulers of Israel, but He did not cast them off as a nation.

Matthew 21:45 KJV
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Jeremiah 31:35-37 KJV
35) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
36) If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37) Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 59:20-21 KJV
20) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

I believe Him.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

By orthodox I mean conforming to established doctrine as held in the history of the church. By a preterist who is orthodox, I refer to one who believes Matt. 24:1-35 is a prediction of 70 AD and the end of the Jewish religion, and that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and in history these were considered within orthodox Christianity. Revelation chapter 20 refers to the general resurrection in our future. I am an Orthodox Preterist, and I believe THE LAST DAY, THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND RESURRECTION IS IN OUR FUTURE. I am comfortable fellowshipping with those within orthodoxy who hold to historic pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil views, but NOT dispensationalism. I can fellowship with those who view Revelation as preterist, historist or futurist, but NOT the dispensational futurist which is not orthodox Christianity.

By heretical I mean unorthodox, a religious opinion that is a departure from and contrary to historic Christian doctrine as found among the writers of the church in history. I can show the Orthodox Preterist view in the church of the past. Dispensationalism cannot show their scheme prior to 1830 or so, and it's mainly found after the 1920s and the fundamentalist movement with its Scofield Bible.

Adam Clarke (1760-1832) Introduction to Revelation:
"Wetstein contends (and he is supported by very great men among the ancients and moderns) that "the book of the Revelation was written before the Jewish war, and the civil wars in Italy; that the important events which took place at that time, the greatest that ever happened since the foundation of the world, were worth enough of the Divine notice, as the affairs of his Church were so intimately connected with them; that his method of exposition proves the whole book to be a well-connected, certain series of events; but the common method of interpretation, founded on the hypothesis that the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly destitute of certainty, and leaves every commentator to the luxuriance of his own fancy, as is sufficiently evident from what has been done already on this book..."

Chapters Available - Revelation - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Choose from the available chapters in the 'Revelation' of the 'Clarke's Commentary' commentary FREELY provided by StudyLight.org to help as you prepare sermons, Bible studies, Sunday School lessons or personal devotions.

www.studylight.org

Joseph Benson (1749-1821) on Matt. 24:34:
"For he adds, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled, Hereby evidently showing that he had been speaking all this while only of the calamities coming on the Jews, and the destruction of Jerusalem. “It is to me a wonder,” says Bishop Newton, “how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation."

Matthew 24 - Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Matthew 24, Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments, Benson's Commentary enriches Christian understanding through meticulous historical analysis, providing profound insights into Scripture.

www.studylight.org

By the above it is clear that the Orthodox Preterist understanding of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was clearly within the bounds of orthodoxy. The book of Revelation has historical been understood as preterist, historicist or futurist. All have been within orthodoxy. In the history of the church, historic premillennial, amillennial and postmillennial understanding have been considered within the bounds of orthodoxy. What IS NOT found before the mid-19th century is the modern heresy of dispensationalism. What is the difference between orthodox premillennialism and heretical dispensationalist premillennialism? The dispensational heresies are as follows:

1. Separating the church and Israel as two different people of God. For one thing, "church" is an ecclesiastical word not found in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible. In both the OT and NT, God's people are referred to as the assembly of God or the congregation of God. Some translations prior to the KJV do not contain the word "church". You see this explained in the "Translators to the Readers" foreward found in the original KJV.

2. Introducing sacrifices into the supposed 1000-year reign of Christ(Eze 43:18-19), but Jesus is there in their midst, it can't be explained away as a memorial! That is blasphemy when compared to "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, 'he sat down at the right hand of God,'” (Heb 10:12 NRSV)

3. The historic premillennialist believed in two resurrections, one before and one after the millennium. Dispensationalists come up with at least three, one coming at the end of their supposed 7-year tribulation for those saved during those 7 years.

4. The dispensationalist misuse the term "rapture" with a completely different meaning than historically in the church. The rapture as in the "left behind" farce is totally foreign to the Bible. Two resurrections 7 years apart can hardly be both included as a "first resurrection", as claimed by dispensationalists. When you read men of God out of the past refer to the resurrection on "the last day", they refer to that as a "rapture", but that is not what dispensationalist think of as the rapture.

5. Dispensationalism perverts the KJV translation of a dispensation into something foreign to the Bible. The Greek the KJV translates as dispensation is οἰκονομία oikonomia, which means "administration" and the word actually occurs 7 times in the KJV NT and four are in Paul where the KJV translates as dispensation: 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25. There is NO justification to invent 7 dispensations as if found in the Bible. There is the dispensation of the gospel and the prior dispensation of law. The "dispensation of law" would be implied by the contrast between law and gospel.

6. Dispensationalists deny that the body of Christ, the New Covenant assembly of God is the fulfillment of and continuation of Old Covenant Israel, as indicated in:

"Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; the only thing that counts is new creation! All who take this principle for their guide, peace and mercy be upon them, the Israel of God!" (Gal 6:15-16 REB)

Who is Israel today? Those who are the "new creation" as in "For anyone united to Christ, there is a new creation: the old order has gone; a new order has already begun." (2Cor 5:17 REB) We who are born from above, New Covenant believers in Jesus Christ, make up the Israel of today.

That's a lot of 'isms. In fact so many that it is hard to determine just what it is that you are trying to say. Best I can figure is that you are against the idea of dispensationalism. But then, not being a fan of 'isms, I am not sure I even know what that even means-- which is not to say that I don't understand the scriptures. I do. It's rather the 'isms of men that I don't fully understand.

Evens so, I am intrigued by your style, so I have a question: How does "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd" (John 10:16) fit into your idea of dispensationalism or the lack thereof?

 

[Randy Kluth]

The use of the label "preterist" is used as with many labels, one meaning one thing and the other something different. The label of preterist began to be used in theology in 1843.

"preterist (n.)
one who favors the past, one whose chief interest is in the past," 1864, from preter- "before" + -ist. As a theological term from 1843, "one who holds that the Apocalyptic prophecies have been nearly or entirely fulfilled" (opposed to futurist)."

Search 'preterist' on etymonline

Search results for 'preterist' on etymonline

www.etymonline.com

On another thread I quoted men of God writing prior to 1843 before the label "preterist" even existed, and they applied Matt. 24:1-35 to 70 AD. There is no reason to remain ignorant of this fact when you can read so many commentaries out of the past found on -https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng.html

I hope you're not suggesting that *I'm* ignorant on the subject of Preterism? I've been accused of being a Partial Preterist for years--only because I see the Olivet Discourse as focused on the events of 70 AD.

As I just told you, believing that the Olivet Discourse is *primarily* about the events of 70 AD does *not* make one a Preterist! This form of "historical interpretation" existed well before Preterism came into existence as a school of interpretation.

Preterism does indeed see most of biblical prophecy as fulfilled in the *past.* It simply sees most of NT theology and prophecy as fulfilled in the time of Christ, leaving the entire NT era as rather ambiguous, and founded upon the eternal truths that Christ established at his Cross.

As to the "Full Preterist" is AM NOT. It is a misrepresentation to class Orthodox Preterists as if they are Full Preterists, which is clearly heretical. What I believe as an Orthodox Preterist is found in respected church writings prior to the use of the word preterist in theology and it existed long before the heresy of dispensationalism.

It sounds as if you're giving a new official name to "Partial Preterists?" I have no problem seeing PP's as being doctrinally orthodox in their Christianity, for the most part. So there is no need, as I see it, to call them "Orthodox Preterists." It is much more important to distinguish between Full Preterists and Partial Preterists, because the former are unorthodox, and the latter are orthodox.

You do not find teaching of the Law of Moses being taught in the 1644/1646 First London Confession of Faith for it emphasizes Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in his blood with the Old Covenant being fulfilled, completed and abolished. That pre-dates dispensationalism by 200 years.

You did not address the point I made about Dispensationalists largely *not* teaching the Law of Moses as a displacement of New Covenant Theology. Some may do that, but it is certainly not typical of Dispensationalism. Utilizing the Law as a ceremonial observance is not the same thing as observing it in a covenant observance as done in pre-Christian times.

There is no biblical nation of Israel in existence today, and the Israel of God under the New Covenant are the believers, those of the new creation which come out of all nations. The UN formed nation called Israel in the Middle East today is not a fulfillment of any Bible prophecy and even many Jews recognize that -

Not true at all. The Jewish People who formed into a nation in 1948 is biblical Israel. God said He would bring them back into covenant with Himself at a time when they are in unbelief as a people and as a nation. And that's where they are today. It is entirely biblical.

Dispensationalists cannot be termed orthodox and believe the millennium is a merely the Old Covenant, including the sacrifices taken literally from Ezekiel. The Dispensationalist millennium is a slap in the face to Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in his blood.

Inaccurate and judgmental is where you're going with this.

 

[marks]

5. Dispensationalism perverts the KJV translation of a dispensation into something foreign to the Bible. The Greek the KJV translates as dispensation is οἰκονομία oikonomia, which means "administration" and the word actually occurs 7 times in the KJV NT and four are in Paul where the KJV translates as dispensation: 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25. There is NO justification to invent 7 dispensations as if found in the Bible. There is the dispensation of the gospel and the prior dispensation of law. The "dispensation of law" would be implied by the contrast between law and gospel.

Oikos = house, nomos = Law, oikonomia = House-Law, that is, the way the household is run, primarily towards providing for (dispensing what is needed for) the needs of it's occupants. This idea of "dispensing" is why the word was translated "dispensation".

Citing disagreement with "how many" dispensations is not an argument against dispensations. You yourself recognize two distinct dispensations, one of Law, and one of the Gospel. This is dispensationalism.

Now, having established that dispensations show a correct understanding of the the message of the Bible, we can go on to discuss whether or not we should consider other possible dispensations, such as what we may find during the millennial kingdom, when Jesus rules on the earth, for instance.

Much love!

 

[GRACE ambassador]

What I believe as an Orthodox Preterist is found in respected church writings prior to the use of the word preterist in theology and it existed long before the heresy of dispensationalism.

I believe we should be Very Careful about condemning God's Word/Words:

1Co_9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, A Dispensation of
The Gospel is committed unto me.

Eph_1:10 That in The Dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him:

Eph_3:2 If ye have heard of The Dispensation of The Grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col_1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to The Dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to Fulfil The Word of God;

eh?

Amen.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Oikos = house, nomos = Law, oikonomia = House-Law, that is, the way the household is run, primarily towards providing for (dispensing what is needed for) the needs of it's occupants. This idea of "dispensing" is why the word was translated "dispensation".

Citing disagreement with "how many" dispensations is not an argument against dispensations. You yourself recognize two distinct dispensations, one of Law, and one of the Gospel. This is dispensationalism.

Now, having established that dispensations show a correct understanding of the the message of the Bible, we can go on to discuss whether or not we should consider other possible dispensations, such as what we may find during the millennial kingdom, when Jesus rules on the earth, for instance.

Much love!

While this is true for the meaning of the word "dispensationalism," it doesn't really describe how the word applies *technically.* Dispensationalism is a school of thought that certainly adds some dispensations, but to say that "adding dispensations" is not significant to the matter of "orthodoxy" is another thing entirely.

I personally define Dispensationalism as "orthodox" because I define "orthodoxy" as a basic fundamental agreement with the spirit of the creeds, ie the historic creeds. I say the "spirit" of the creeds because not all doctrinally orthodox Christians agree on the jots and tittles of these creeds.

But for most of history, Christianity has agreed on the fundamental spirit of the creeds in matters of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, our Salvation by the work of Christ on the Cross, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life in the age to come.

Adding "dispensations" certainly does move in possible non-orthodox directions, but I don't personally believe that Dispensationalism does this, except in extreme cases where the adherents begin to advocate for a renewal of the Law of Moses for the Jewish People or even for Christians in general.