The "Already/Not Yet" Interpretation of Eschatology

[Twospirits]

Ram wrote,

And from my point of view, you arguments are often little more than a blunt rejection of what the Bible plainly states, and worse, your arguments are often entirely idiosyncratic with no support from any scholar. Case in point: Revelation beings by speaking of the EVENTS which must happen "soon" BECAUSE "the time is at hand." There are mutually confirming time texts, so the only way you can destroy what they plainly mean is to assert that the "time is at hand" refers to the giving of the Revelation, and not the events themselves. But there is not a single scholar on the planet who agrees with you as far as I know.

My argument on this shows that the interpretation of Rev. 1:1 is wrong. The Greek is 'en tachei' and is to be translated 'in speed' and not 'soon' as many have translated it to mean. I explained this in post #29, here's part of it:

The 'context' of verse 1 speaks about the 'suddenness or speed' (en tachei) in which the fulfillment of the prophecy would come in its time. My argument is that verse 3 is not a 'time reference passage.' John was commanded by Christ in 1:11 to write in a book and send it to the churches Jesus indicated, this is confirmed by the angel in Rev. 22:10 to not seal the 'words,' the writings of the prophecy given John 'for the appointed time (Kairos) was at hand.' The angel reminds and commands John of what Jesus commanded John to do, that is send these writings to the churches. Thus John says in verse 3 writes Happy is he that reads the words of this prophecy and keep to heart the things written therein 'for the (appointed) time is at hand.' This is the 'context' of verse 3. Then John gives his greetings to the churches in verse 4.

Concerning appealing to scholars, my case in point Rev. 1:1, scholars are fallible men as can be seen by how they have translated 'en tachei' to mean 'soon' in Rev. 1:1. I believe a student who believes the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and who is serious in finding God's truth should research these things (Greek translations) themselves and let God's Word, not the scholars who are fallible be the final authority to appeal to. And that is who I appeal to as my final authority in my research for that truth.

Originally Posted by Twospirits
God is the Author who inspired Paul. God and Paul knew the war had started a year before Paul wrote to Timothy. Even an uninspired person like myself if writing to them would state it in the 'present tense,' Why? to let them know and warn them that these perilous times 'has come,' not 'shall come.'

The context of the passage you use proves my point, Jesus states a prophecy that 'was to come,' but note that Jesus then makes clear to them in his following words that this has been fulfilled through John, 'But I tell you 'Elias is come already,' the context of Paul's passage does not give such a statement that this was being (present tense) fulfilled, but rather was future.

Ram replied,
I see no point in disputing this detail. You reject things that are explicitly stated with much more clarity, so I know that it would be vanity to discuss this point.

We have to start with the main and plain things that are established with many mutually confirming verses. If you reject the main and plain things, why should I think we could make any progress on the smaller details?

It's not vanity, it can't be disputed because its grammatically true. In prophetic scripture no detail is to small, every word and detail is important, for it is another piece of the puzzle that helps in the making of the final picture.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

Correct, but there are many different trials and temptations, so we cannot say that what Peter is speaking of is the same as what Jesus speaks of in Revelation, they are different times, places and circumstances. The context tells us Jesus is speaking of a particular testing or temptation (singular), whereas the context of Peter speaks of 'manifold temptations' (plural) indicating these are different temptations then that spoken of by Jesus.

Ram replied,

OK - so basically you are saying we can make the Bible say whatever we want. It is such a ambiguous document that no one can know what it really means with any certainty. That's the basic idea I get from your refutations of my arguments. We have no point of agreement on anything. After years of talking! If anything proves the Bible is useless as a guide to the future, this is it.

Not at all, when reading the context we see Peter is speaking of diversified trials (manifold temptations), these are trials that occur in ones lifetime in their walk in Christ. Which Peter refers as being 'tested with fire' (1 Peter 1:7), so that we may receive in the end 'the salvation of our souls' ( 1 Peter 1:9).

The surrounding context shows that this is not speaking of the prophetic 'tribulation of Revelation,' but rather the trials and tribulations that occur in the life-time of a saint in Christ (read Peter 4:12-19).

Originally Posted by Twospirits

Yes the Jews had dominion, a government, but the point of the scriptures is that all dominion ends with the coming of Christ, not just the dominion/government of the Jews in 70 A.D.

1 Cor. 15:24, 'Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.'

Dominion/governments still rule since 70 A.D., the dead in Christ have not been raised, and the living have not been changed into immortality, and death has not been swallowed up (1 Cor. 15;52-54) therefore Christ could not have come in 70 A.D. He is still reigning until that time (1 Cor. 15:25).

Ram replied,

Yes, that's a good point. It shows how Jesus was wrong when he predicted the end would happen in the first century. Nice work! You have proved Jesus is a failed prophet - or that Paul was a false prophet, or both I guess.

It shows by your answer that you are so certain that preterist hermeneutics is correct that you didn't include that as a 3rd option in your equation. That your hermeneutical approach to eschatology is wrong.

God bless---Twospirits

[CWH]

You did not answer my question. Where do you get the idea that the prophecy in Revelation spans thousands of years? There is nothing in the text to suggest that, let alone prove it. Where did that idea come from? Why should anyone believe it?


Yes, the meaning of the beast would have been obvious - it represents an evil government opposed to God's people. Any first century Jew would have understood it as a symbol of Rome. Things like the vials were obvious too - they represent God pouring out his wrath (judgment). There are, of course, plenty of details that remain ambiguous (especially to folks 2000 yeas removed from the events), but the Big Picture is pretty plain. The two women represent carnal (harlot) vs. heavenly (bride) Jerusalem, just as Paul explained the allegory of the two women in Galatians 4 represent carnal (Hagar) vs. heavenly (Sarah) Jerusalem. It's all so very simply, any child could understand ... unless his mind has been filled with unbiblical Futurist speculations and false doctrines.


You didn't answer my question. Why did the disciples immediately connect the destruction of the temple with the coming of Messiah and the end of the age? The answer should be obvious. The Jews understood the destruction of the Temple would mark the coming of Messiah and the day of judgment. Jesus had already told them that John the Baptist - who announced that Jesus was the Messiah - had fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who would come before the "great and dreadful day of the LORD." Here is how Donald Hagner explains these facts in the Word Biblical Commentary:

As far as the apostles were concerned, the ominous words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the temple could point in only one direction: to the experiencing of the eschatological judgment. This was a subject to which Jesus had often alluded in his teaching ministry and therefore something they may well have expected him to indicate. They were accordingly eager to know how soon this might occur and what sign they might anticipate to indicate its approach. Their concern was not one of idle curiosity, for mere information’s sake, but concern that they might be properly prepared for the time of judgment. From their perspective, the destruction of the temple must have meant the coming again of Jesus, not as he now was with them when his glory was veiled but as the clearly revealed Son of God for all to see.

These facts seem so obvious to me I marvel how futurists can't see them at all. The only way they can make room for Futurism is to shred the text. Thus, they try to separate the disciples questions into three when they were in fact one. It is totally obvious that the disciples were asking a single WHEN question - WHEN would the ESCHATOLOGICAL EVENT involving the destruction of the Temple, the coming of Messiah, and the end of the age happen? That was the question they asked, and that was the question Jesus answered when he said - THIS GENERATION. It's all so very simple, clear, and obvious, especially when compared with the convoluted speculations, inventions, and denials of Scripture required to support Futurism.


It is "nit-picking" when the analysis is used to avoid the plain and obvious meaning of the text that is supported by many mutually confirming verses. It's "straining at gnats" while "swallowing a camel."


If you can see the typology of Babylon, then you should be able to see how it applies to apostate Israel who opposed God, killed the Messiah, and persecuted the people of God. This fits perfectly with totality of the testimony of Scripture which says the events in Revelation would happen "soon" because the "time is at hand." And this fits perfectly with Christ's statement that everything would be fulfilled during the "days of vengeance" when the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. And this is confirmed by history.


The irony comes from the inconsistency of the Futurist doctrines. On the one hand, they claim to be taking the Bible literally, while on the other they consistently deny what it plainly written.

I present Preterism as the best fit to the Biblical and historical data. I don't know if it is "true" or not. If it is true, then it is the best evidence for fulfilled prophecy and hence, the best evidence for the truth of the Bible. And that's another profound irony. The Futurist position is aligned with the atheists who reject the prophecies as fulfilled. They read what the Bible plainly states about the first century coming of Messiah, and agree with the Futurists that it didn't happen and so conclude that it is proof that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and the Bible is false. In other words, Futurists destroy the only solid objectively verifiable evidence that could prove the Bible. I find that extremely ironic.

The fulfillment of the combined prophecies of Daniel and Christ in 70 AD are provide the only hard evidence that proves the Bible contains supernatural prophecy. This is because Daniel predicted the Messiah would come, be killed, and then the city and sanctuary would be destroyed. All scholars agree those prophecies were written before Christ was born. Christ amplified Daniel's prophecy and added detail. Therefore, their fulfillment in 70 AD the greatest proof of the Bible. This has been known for many centuries. This is not a new idea. Here is a typical explanation written over two hundred years ago (source):

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

An Absolute and Irresistible

PROOF OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY

Including a narrative of the calamities which befel the Jews
so far as they tend to verify our Lord's predictions relative to that event.

By George Peter Holford
(Written in 1805)

"I consider the Prophecy relative to the destruction of the Jewish nation, if there were nothing else to support Christianity, as absolutely irresistible." --Mr. Erskine's Speech, at the Trial of Williams, for publishing Paine's Age of Reason

PREFACE
History records few events more generally interesting than the destruction of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the Jewish state, by the arms of the Romans. -- Their intimate connexion with the dissolution of the Levitical economy, and the establishment of Christianity in the world; the striking verification which they afford of so many of the prophecies, both of the Old and New Testament, and the powerful arguments of the divine authority of the Scriptures which are thence derived; the solemn warnings and admonitions which they hold out to all nations, but especially such as are favoured with the light and blessings of REVELATION; together with the impressive and terrific grandeur of the events themselves--are circumstances which must always insure to the subject of the following pages more than ordinary degrees of interest and importance. Many eminent and learned men have employed their pens in the illustration of it; but the fruits of their labours are, for the most part, contained in large and expensive works, out of the reach of numbers, to whom the discussion might prove equally interesting and improving. For the use and gratification of such, the present Treatise, in a more accessible and familiar form, is diffidently offered to the public. In order that it might be better adapted for the general reader, critical inquiries and tedious details are equally avoided; but it has been the care of the writer not to omit any important fact or argument that, in his opinion, tended to elucidate the subject. Countenanced by the example of many respectable names, he has ventured to introduce the extraordinary prodigies, which, according to Josephus, preceded the destruction of the Holy City. He has also added a few sentences in their defense, but he does not intend thereby to express his unqualified admission of their genuineness.

Folks who oppose these facts are opposing the only hard evidence for the supernatural origin of Christianity. I can't think of anything more ironic.

Great chatting!

Richard

RAM, If Full Preterism is so good, why did you give up Full Preterism? Now Come Back, Come Back, Come Back! I would rather that you return as a Full Preterist than to remain as a Non-theist or Atheist, whatever you name it. I have a feeling you didn't want to give up Full Preterism which is why you talks so highly of Full Pretertism but yet claimed yourself as a Non-theist or Atheist. As such, you are still a Full Preterist, if so just be man and admit it rather than hide under the cloak of Non-theism and Atheism. Just say I am Back Everyone!

You did mentioned that Full Preterism in not perfect, perhaps you may want to tell the readers here the reasons why you think so that made you give up Full Preterism. You did tell us why you quit Christianity but you have yet to tell us why you quit Full Preterism. I am sure your Full Preterist friends in this forum will try their best to reason with you and talk you in.


God Blessed.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

RAM, If Full Preterism is so good, why did you give up Full Preterism? Now Come Back, Come Back, Come Back! I would rather that you return as a Full Preterist than to remain as a Non-theist or Atheist, whatever you name it. I have a feeling you didn't want to give up Full Preterism which is why you talks so highly of Full Pretertism but yet claimed yourself as a Non-theist or Atheist. As such, you are still a Full Preterist, if so just be man and admit it rather than hide under the cloak of Non-theism and Atheism. Just say I am Back Everyone!

You did mentioned that Full Preterism in not perfect, perhaps you may want to tell the readers here the reasons why you think so that made you give up Full Preterism. You did tell us why you quit Christianity but you have yet to tell us why you quit Full Preterism. I am sure your Full Preterist friends in this forum will try their best to reason with you and talk you in.


God Blessed.

Good morning CWH,

I don't think Full Preterism is "so good" - it's just the best fit to the Biblical data. But it's not a perfect fit by any means, which is why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This shouldn't be surprising since there are so many other errors in the Bible.

I would really like to know why you think it is important that I return to Christianity. Why does it matter to you what I believe? And besides, my beliefs are a thousand times better than what the Bible teaches. I don't have to come up with excuses for all the evil that God commanded. On the contrary, I can be a good person with a clean heart who doesn't have to believe in talking snakes, eternal hell for unbelievers, the inferior status of women, or the high moral value of genocide. And besides, no one can choose to believe something they really don't believe, so I have no choice in the matter, do I?

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

Good morning CWH,

I don't think Full Preterism is "so good" - it's just the best fit to the Biblical data. But it's not a perfect fit by any means, which is why I've concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. This shouldn't be surprising since there are so many other errors in the Bible.

I would really like to know why you think it is important that I return to Christianity. Why does it matter to you what I believe? And besides, my beliefs are a thousand times better than what the Bible teaches. I don't have to come up with excuses for all the evil that God commanded. On the contrary, I can be a good person with a clean heart who doesn't have to believe in talking snakes, eternal hell for unbelievers, the inferior status of women, or the high moral value of genocide. And besides, no one can choose to believe something they really don't believe, so I have no choice in the matter, do I?

All the best,

Richard

My answer was already given, "I would rather believe that God exist than to believe there is no God only to die and go to heaven realizing God exists"..

You have not answered my question which many eager readers will want to know....or...are you avoiding the question, Why did you quit Full Preterism?

Many God Blessings to you and all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My answer was already given, "I would rather believe that God exist than to believe there is no God only to die and go to heaven realizing God exists"..

Your answer makes no sense. What if you die and find out Allah is the true God? According to Islam, he will send you to hell if you believe that Jesus is God. According to Christians, you will go to hell if you don't believe Jesus is God.

If God is true, and kind, and loving, and wise, I have nothing to fear if I don't "believe" in him because no rational being would use that to determine my eternal fate.

You have not answered my question which many eager readers will want to know....or...are you avoiding the question, Why did you quit Full Preterism?

I didn't "quit" Full Preterism. I still think it is the best fit to the Biblical data. But it's not perfect and so I concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. That's why no one can agree about what it teaches.

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

Your answer makes no sense. What if you die and find out Allah is the true God? According to Islam, he will send you to hell if you believe that Jesus is God. According to Christians, you will go to hell if you don't believe Jesus is God.

It doesn't matter if God is Allah or what as long as you love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, you will be saved. To me God is omnipresent regardless of what they name their God. Even if God is Allah it doesn't mean He cannot pardon you for being loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.

If God is true, and kind, and loving, and wise, I have nothing to fear if I don't "believe" in him because no rational being would use that to determine my eternal fate.

You will need to believe in 2 things, love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Is it so difficult to do these 2 things? It is like buying life insurance, is it so difficult?

I didn't "quit" Full Preterism. I still think it is the best fit to the Biblical data. But it's not perfect and so I concluded that Biblical eschatology is logically incoherent. That's why no one can agree about what it teaches.

That answers it, you are still a Full Preterist! Congratulation RAM, welcome back to Christianity!

God Blessed.

[highflyertoo]

It doesn't matter if God is Allah or what as long as you love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, you will be saved. To me God is omnipresent regardless of what they name their God. Even if God is Allah it doesn't mean He cannot pardon you for being loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself.


You will need to believe in 2 things, love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Is it so difficult to do these 2 things? It is like buying life insurance, is it so difficult?


That answers it, you are still a Full Preterist! Congratulation RAM, welcome back to Christianity!

God Blessed.

You seem somewhat confused..... Allah is not God of the Jews....... Two different God's and teachings... I see you and many other so called Christians go around saying how the Bible is the word of God of Israel who is the ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, only to contradict yourselves by saying there could be Mohammed's god called Allah.....

You are thus far from a believer and are full of doubt. That makes you a fake and a flaunting hypocrite.

[CWH]

You seem somewhat confused..... Allah is not God of the Jews....... Two different God's and teachings... I see you and many other so called Christians go around saying how the Bible is the word of God of Israel who is the ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, only to contradict yourselves by saying there could be Mohammed's god called Allah.....

You are thus far from a believer and are full of doubt. That makes you a fake and a flaunting hypocrite.

I see God in everything we see, touch, eat, smell, hear, think because everything was created by Him and for Him. When I see animals, they remind me that they are God's creatures, I hear bird's singing, they remind me that the birds are singing perhaps of the glory or creation of God, when I saw the food I ate, it reminds me that it was God who created those food for us, when I see cars and computer, they remind me of God that gave man the brain and wisdom to create those things. God is everywhere around us, God is omnipresent. Therefore, whatever name they call their God is also calling our Christian God. I hope you understand what I am talking or is it too profound?

May God Blessed the ignorant and the proud.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see God in everything we see, touch, eat, smell, hear, think because everything was created by Him and for Him. When I see animals, they remind me that they are God's creatures, I hear bird's singing, they remind me that the birds are singing perhaps of the glory or creation of God, when I saw the food I ate, it reminds me that it was God who created those food for us, when I see cars and computer, they remind me of God that gave man the brain and wisdom to create those things. God is everywhere around us, God is omnipresent. Therefore, whatever name they call their God is also calling our Christian God. I hope you understand what I am talking or is it too profound?

May God Blessed the ignorant and the proud.

The question is not whether Yahweh is Allah, but if Yahweh and Allah have the same set of rules to get into heaven. The answer is no: Allah sends you to hell for obeying Yahweh and vice versa so Pascal's Wager fails.

[Twospirits]

From thread “Preterism in the 21 Century”

Originally posted by Richard Amiel McGough
"One step at a time" is an excellent suggestion. Let's be very focused on the exact argument I present and the reasons I say it is fatal to your position. Let's try to avoid getting sidetracked.

The best thing for us to do is to find AGREEMENT about the exact points where we differ and the reasons why. I'm looking for clarity, not obfuscation. We should be able to come to perfect agreement about the exact reason for our disagreement and the relative merit of our two positions.

I totally agree on your statement bolded in red above. And here is that disagreement between us you posted in post #3 of this thread:

Richard said,
I rejected your interpretation because contrary to your assertion, it was neither logical nor biblical so it was not a "choice" I made but rather a conclusion I was forced to take based on logic and facts.

You say it is my assertion, and it is neither logical nor biblical, where rather yours is based on logic and facts. But your logic and facts simply don't add up to the logic and facts of the prophetic scriptures. They run counter to the prophetic scriptures as the evidence will show.

Ram wrote,

There are many problems with your interpretation, the most prominent being your attempt to divide the Olivet Discourse into past and future fulfillments. The discourse simply will not allow for that. It is impossible to deny the unity of the three synoptic versions, as I have shown in my article The Synoptic Apocalypse. We discussed this at length in the thread The "ye" principle, this generation, & Mt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. Here is what I wrote in post #74:

Originally Posted by RAM
OK, so now we are back to the original problem: You want to assert that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another. But as I said, this is impossible because the three accounts are inextricably tangled together. Matthew and Mark agree in one part, Mark and Luke agree in another, and all three agree in a third:
Matt 24:3 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Mark 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
Luke 21:7 Master, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things shall come to pass?

This profound "entanglement" is found throughout all three records of the Olivet Discourse. There is no logically consistently way to argue that Matthew and Mark record one event while Luke records another, especially since all three follow the same basic pattern from beginning to end as seen in this list of parallels:
SYNOPTIC Christ predicts Destruction of the First Century Temple
SYNOPTIC The Disciples ask, When will these things be?
SYNOPTIC Jesus answered, Take heed that no man deceive you!
SYNOPTIC Wars and Rumours of Wars ~ The Six Seals of Revelation
SYNOPTIC Persecution for Jesus' Name
SYNOPTIC The Days of Vengeance
LUKE ONLY Christ Predicts the Dispora
MATT/MARK The Great Tribulation
MATT/MARK False Christs
MATT ONLY As Lightning shineth from East to West
SYNOPTIC The Coming of the Son of Man
SYNOPTIC The Answer to the Question of "When?" ~ This Generation!

All three synoptic Gospels begin with the same set of six parallel passages with only minor variations, and end with the same pair of parallel passages. Thus, all but four subsections are found in each synoptic Gospel, and the parallel passages appear in the same order in all three synoptic Gospels. It seems impossible to assert that such detailed and consistent parallels could be coherently separated into two distinct events.

So now we see two issues you need to overcome: 1) the total entanglement of all three records, and 2) the strong agreement in the overall pattern of all three records. This seems to me an impossible task.

Ram wrote,
You then explained how you divide up the synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse into past and future:

Originally Posted by Twospirits
The 1st century fulfillment events are given beginning in Mt. 24:4-14a; Mark 13:5-13b; Luke 21:8-24a.

The events that concern Christ's coming and end of the age are the events beginning from Mt. 24:14b F; Mark 13:13b F and Luke 21:24 b F.

Ram wrote,
I then explained that this was impossible because the three accounts have the same elements in the beginning, middle, and end:

Originally Posted by RAM
OK - let's take a look at the parallel passages relating to the point that you think begins the future fulfillment:

MATTHEW 24:15-20 [FUTURE]
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

MARK 13:14-18 [FUTURE]
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.

Now let's compare those with the parallel part from Luke that you say is past:

LUKE 21:20-23 [PAST]
And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

See that? Exactly the same words are found in exactly the same order in all three accounts:

And when ye shall see ... desolation ... Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains ... But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Given the extreme similarity between these three passages, how is it that you could think that two are future and one is past? Is that not entirely arbitrary and inconsistent?

Ram wrote,

You then CHANGED THE SUBJECT and NEVER RESPONDED to these facts that contradict your interpretation.

I think it would be great if you would like to pick up the conversation and respond to the facts I have presented.

All the best,

Richard

Now since we have agreed to take it one step (issue) at a time, let's put aside our argument on the Discourse until later and stay focused on finding “AGREEMENT about the exact point where we differ and the reasons why." The main point of disagreement between us concerning the fulfillment of all prophetic scriptures of the end time can be seen nestled in Acts 2:17-21. And here is my argument:

Richard, by your doctrine (full preterism) you are essentially saying (denying) that the preaching of the gospel bringing salvation to the world and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is NOT scriptural and part and parcel of THE prophecy (All the prophetic scriptures, ie Daniel, the Discourse, Revelation, etc) by your very own words you proclaim to be “fulfilled.”

Where in scripture does it “say” (not inferred) that the preaching of the gospel bringing salvation to the world and the pouring out of the Spirit is to be fulfilled (completed) within one generation, ie in the 1st century generation?

Where in scripture does it “say” (not inferred) that the end of the age was 70 A.D.?

Scripture clearly shows us that the preaching of the gospel bringing salvation and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit are “inseparately linked and tightly knitted together.” You CANNOT eliminate nor separate from its fulfillment of the prophecy one from the other, they go hand in hand. So when full preterists maintain that post 70 A.D. completed all prophecy, leaving “nada” to be completed; this then includes the gospel, salvation and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit as also having ENDED in 70 A.D. Yet according to Acts 2:17-21 the VERY PURPOSE AND REASON for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit was for the “salvation” of all in the world who would call on the Lord when the Lord would pour out his Spirit and send his disciples to preach the good news of the gospel. Scripture reveals that the full preterist doctrine flies in the very face of all prophetic scripture!

Full preterist doctrine maintains that the “last days” (Acts 2:17-21) were fulfilled in a span of a 40 year period-30-70 A.D. leading to the fall of Jerusalem. At that point “all” prophecy was fulfilled. Which would include that which is tightly knitted together in this prophecy before “the great and notable day of the Lord” which is the “pouring out of the Spirit upon all flesh” as the gospel is being preached so that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Anyone post 70 A.D. is left outside the gates of the heavenly city with NO chance of salvation, it “eliminates” the saving blood of Christ.

So we see that Acts 2: 17-21 is revealing to us that it is in direct opposition to the full preterist doctrine. The passage reveals that UNTIL the “great and notable day of the Lord, the preaching of the gospel, the preaching era of salvation and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit will continue. Where then the prophecy reveals that once the notable day of the Lord judgment occurs “all prophetic scripture” then becomes complete and fulfilled; the “all” includes what Acts 2:17-21 speaks of, “the pouring out of the Spirit.” In Mt. 28:19-20 Jesus confirms that the teaching, preaching, baptizing and the pouring out of the Spirit will continue “unto (to, up to, until) the end of the age,” but only until all is fulfilled and no longer.


According to the full preterist doctrine, the preaching of the gospel, the era of salvation, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit ended in 70 A.D. Therefore no one has salvation post 70 A.D., we are all damned and Christ died not for the whole world, but only for that select generation of Jew and Gentile in the known Roman world and no other anywhere else. Among others passages they point to Mt. 28:19-20 as being a proof text that 70 A.D. was the end of the age (OC age) fulfillment of all prophecy. We see in John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit is to be representative of Christ until his coming to fulfill all prophecy. So if Christ came in 70 A.D. and fulfilled all prophecy as full preterists claim, then the Holy Spirit is no longer being poured out post 70 A.D., and all are damned. For Christ said in Mt. 28:20, I am with you always, unto the end of the age.” If the end of “the age” was 70 A.D. then it all “ended then,” there is no other conclusion unless you wrest the scriptures, and this flies in the very face of all prophetic scripture to the very core.

Most prophecies given throughout scripture span hundreds of years with intermittent (stopping and starting at intervals) time/events occurring between the prophetic times. Like Daniel's 4 beasts for example, so it is with the Discourse. There is an intermittent time/event between the prophetic events, ie the fall of the 1st century temple and the coming of Christ (Mt. 24:3). Scripture reveals that intermittent time/event to be the preaching of the gospel bring salvation and the pouring out of the Spirit BEFORE the great and notable day of the Lord. The evidence of scripture reveals that there would be a great span of time between the fulfillments of Mt. 24:3.

Sorry for the long post,

God bless---Twospirits