BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
Consistent Preterism vs. "Aggressive Futurist" Dispensationalism
Joey Faust and Bryan Forgy : Consistent Preterism vs. "Aggressive Futurist" Dispensationalism 1) Resolved: The Grammatico –Historical hermeneutic should be used in the interpretation of prophecy. Rather than the consistent literalism of Dispensationalism. Affirmative: Bryan Forgy - Denial: Joey Faust - 1st Affirmative | 1st Denial | 2nd Affirmative | 2nd Denial 2) 2 Peter 3 refers to a literal, future burning of the earth. | Affirmed By Faust | Denied By Forgy 3) Matthew chapter 24 teaches that the second eschatological coming of Christ was to happen at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. | Affirm: Forgy | Deny: Faust 4) Revelation 20 teaches a future earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem that is to last a literal 1000 years. | Affirm: Faust | Deny: Forgy
Forgy’s Second Affirmative on Hermeneutics
To begin with, I come to my second affirmative a little disappointed in my brother’s spirit of conduct. I began my last speech with the prayer that we both conduct ourselves in a Christian manner. I still view my brother as just that, a brother. He on the other hand views me as “an infidel liberal,” and a “heretic.” I find it hard for him to spread around heretic so easily when his brethren view him as the same for his book The Rod, in which he teaches what they call a form of purgatory. I will simply sweep it under the rug and pray that he refrains from such as this debate moves forward. The truth will stand, and after this affirmative, stand tall. I do not have time nor space for the name calling, but truth in love.
Hebrews 28 Our Brother and Time
This text, though my brother seeks to use it against me, gives him problems as to time. Not only because of Hebrews 10:25, but of 1 Peter 1:5 of the salvation ready to be revealed. It was the salvation of their souls (1:9) through the revelation of Christ (1:12). This is tied into Luke 17:30, which was when the Son of Man was to be revealed, which no doubt has reference to AD 70 (Luke17:37;Matt.24:28). This salvation was spoken of in “at hand “language. For Peter also affirmed that, “the end of all things is at hand” (4:5). And, that it was “time for judgment to begin at the house of God” (4:17). This salvation as Paul said that “now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Rom. 13:11). So thus we have the unmistakable idea that despite brother Faust, Christ’s appearing a second time without reference to sin unto salvation was imminently tied to his revelation at the destruction of Jerusalem! Brother Faust would object, because as he says,
“Paul uses language which shall keep his readers watching in suspense…Believers are to be kept in a state of anticipation. They are to be ready and watching for the Lord’s coming at any moment…They kept themselves in a state of suspense by stating that the Lord may cut the time short. Therefore, they stayed in a ready state. The Lord could have cut the days short in the 1st century, and He warned the churches that it was a possibility.” (Faust’s First Negative)
Really? How can this be so when according to you the future and final coming of the Lord could not have possibly have happened until after the partial type fulfillment of AD 70 happened first? Reader, get this because it destroys his WHOLE argument on imminence language! Brother Faust is arguing that the Lord and his disciples were using imminent language to describe an any moment final coming of the Lord before the type was put before the antitype! How can they be living as if the final coming of the Lord could happen at any moment when brother Faust’s prerequisite to it happening had not yet occurred? Hear my brother as we quoted him in our last speech,
“Often prophecies have two literal fulfillments: one near and contemporary and the other in the far future…An example of this is found in the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24. It did have a partial literal fulfillment in AD 70. Yet, many details remain to be literally fulfilled. There will therefore be a future literal fulfillment.”
Thus, according to this, the only fulfillment they could have been looking forward to that could happen at any moment before 70 AD was 70 AD!!! Brother Faust must deal with this! And it is the check mate on the argument on language of imminence, though there is even more to say later.
His empty arguments
Brother Faust next accuses me of making the second coming of Christ a figurative “HE.” This is a straw man! I nowhere argue that the coming of Christ is not the coming of Christ. No Preterist argues such. We argue that His coming is in the clouds using the same language as the OT prophets. The basis for the Lord coming in the clouds was based upon OT judgment upon nation’s texts, such as Psalms 18:3-15 and Isaiah 19:1. In both of these texts among others, the Lord came in the clouds by means of armies destroying nations. This was Christ’s meaning to Caiphas that he would see him coming on clouds; there is no other basis to make a different conclusion! The way an OT Jew would have understood is by the OT context (grammatico-historical) not the hermeneutic of brother Faust! And Christ’s words call to mind such texts as Psalm 104:1-3; 18:3-15; Isaiah 19:1-3; Joel 2:1,2; and Nahum 1-3. He was telling the Jews that as a result of his death they would be destroyed (Matt.21)! And he reiterated in Luke 19:39-44! This is how Christians and Jews of the 1st century would have applied it (hence the grammatico-historical despite brother Faust). In fact, there is no other basis for such language. But brother Faust must ignore the grammatico-historical and instead opt for this ridiculous “consistent literalism” and have it that Caiphas must be resurrected in the future so that his view can be vindicated! That has absolutely nothing to do with the biblical language of the texts brother Faust.
Next, brother Faust goes into his most unbrotherly tirade of name calling, but we will address some of his arguments here.
Brother Faust makes Preterists the scoffers of the last days in 2 Peter 3:3. He says, “No wonder that we can already hear these scoffers behind the curtain.” Funny, Peter could already hear them in the first century seeing that according to the Greek text they were presently willfully ignorant in Peters day (see also Jude 18 where the language makes the scoffers contemporary to the original readers). Beyond this, what should we biblically make of the term “last days?” This term is constantly under debate, but the OT gives us unmistakable definitions. For instance, in Jacob’s prophecy to his sons in Gen 49:1, we read the first case of the term, and it specifically has reference to the last days of Israel. We next come to the prophecy of Balaam in numbers 24:14-19. This prophecy has direct reference to Zech. 14, in that those that would not be cut off from the city answer to the group “remaining of the city.” Balaam then says in Num. 24:24, that, “ships shall come from the coast of Chittim…and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish forever.”
Chittim is commonly understood to refer to the Romans. Jerome gives us the Latin equivalent in the vulgate as venient in trieribus de Italic,” the translation being ships from Italy. The same word in Daniel 11:30, is translated as Romans in the Vulgate. Eber is commonly supposed to the root word for Hebrew. Used of Abraham in Gen. 14:13, who was a descendant of Eber? If this is true, which it is, then Balaam’s prophecy would refer clearly to the last days being the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Moses gives us a reference to what the last days may be in the Song of Moses (Deut. 31:28, 29). This whole section of scripture is primarily concerned with nothing but national judgment befalling Israel! It seems funny then that if the beast be anything but Israel, the saints should sing a song of Israel’s judgment when the beast falls (Rev. 15:3)!
All the OT points to the last days being the last days and judgment upon Israel, but brother Faust must say that it is coming upon us today! And we Preterists are the scoffers? Sorry brother Faust, but your timing is way off!
Faust and History
Brother Faust has come now to the histories of dispensationalism and Preterism, a subject I said was not for this debate, but he wants to make it a crux. A position he takes to avoid the real issues. I in no way completely disassociate Dispensationalism from Historic Premillenialism; these are words he put in my mouth to create a straw man. Nonetheless, if he wishes to say that Dispensationalism is so fruitful, I could write a book showing the damage it has done. As for his claim that premillenialism was the orthodox view for the first 300 years of Christian history, let’s hear historian William Rutgers,
“Amazingly meager indeed are the direct and explicit statements which can by any means show of reasonableness be claimed as evidence for Chiliasm. To imagine that we can distil from these rare fragments the orthodox faith of the early church is a huge assumption, and even more preposterous is it to claim that these barren feeble utterances represent Chiliasm in its modern premillenial manifestation. “(Premillenialism in America, pg. 52, 53)
Waddington tells us, “This obscure doctrine was probably known to but very few except the fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety, even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the greater majority. In fact, we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of a simpler sort.” (History pg.56)
Rutger’s again, “Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the apostolic fathers…The support from the apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed.” (ibid. pg57)
Then hear Phillip Schaff, “Though Millennialism had been suppressed by the early church; it was nonetheless from time to time revived by heretical sects.” (Schaff’s History pg. 299)
So, despite the claims of brother Faust, the most respected historians in Christendom, tend to disagree. And though Premillenialism is indeed ancient, the other doctrines in Dispensationalism are not. Though it is admitted that it is an offshoot of Chiliasm. But as for the fruit of dispensatinalism, though a book could be written (and had by Gumerlock) of the evils it has caused through the centuries, we give but some recent examples.
“In 1978, Jerry Falwell traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored and paid for by the Israeli government. In 1979, the Israelis extended another free trip, during a period when Prime Minister Menachem Begin was in a rush to build Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank. The Rev. Falwell traveled the road toward the Palestinian town of Nablus and turned off the highway and stood at a cluster of prefabricated houses built by Jewish settlers. At that time, Falwell declared that God was kind to America only because "America has been kind to the Jews."
At a gala dinner in New York in 1980, Prime Minister Begin bestowed upon Falwell a medal named for Vladimir Jobotinsky, the right-wing Zionist leader. In 1981, when Israel bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq, Begin immediately called Jerry Falwell for support.”(Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon The "Religious Right" and Middle East War By Allan C. Brownfeld)
“Grace Halsell became a participant in two Jerry Falwell-sponsored journeys to Israel where she mingled with many dispensationalists. One of them, Owen, explained his belief system, which entailed the need to destroy Jerusalem’s most hold Islamic shrine, and the necessity of waging a nuclear Armageddon to destroy the world.”(Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon The "Religious Right" and Middle East War By Allan C. Brownfeld)
“Christian fundamentalists who donate generously to Jewish terrorism include oil and gas tycoon Terry Reisenhoover, a frequent White House visitor, Mission to America Chairman Dr. Hilton Sutton and Dr. James DeLoach, pastor of Houston’s Second Baptist Church who visited me … and boasted that he and others had formed a Jerusalem Temple Foundation specifically to aid those intent on destroying the mosque and building a temple.”(Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon The "Religious Right" and Middle East War By Allan C. Brownfeld)
“At a meeting of Christian Zionists in Basel, Switzerland, the group adopted resolutions calling for all Jews living outside of Israel to leave the countries where they are now residing and move to the Jewish State. The Christians also urged Israel to annex the West Bank. When an Israeli in the audience urged more moderate language, pointing out that an Israeli poll showed that one-third of Israelis would be willing to trade territory seized in 1967 for peace with the Palestinians, one of the Christian leaders, van der Hoeven of Holland, replied, "We don’t care what the Israelis vote! We care what God says! And God gave that land to the Jews!"(Some Fundamentalists Ache for Armageddon The "Religious Right" and Middle East War By Allan C. Brownfeld)
And not to mention David Koresh, William Miller, Charles T. Russell, C.I. Schofield ect. The list goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that none of this has any bearing whatsoever on if Dispensationalism or Preterism are biblical truth. Evil men holding most any doctrine can be shown from history. But Faust tried to put words in my mouth to skirt the issues that he truly cannot deal with! We could argue history until we are blue in the face and do nothing at all to biblically support our positions, or we can return to the scriptures. I opt for the latter, how about you brother Faust.
Preterism and our Hope and Moral Living
Next, brother Faust begins to argue that since we believe that the parousia is past, all hope is gone by appealing to 1 John 3. His basic argument is that those who have hope of a future parousia have the ground for ethical living but those who do not have the hope of a future parousia do not have any ground for moral living. This is ridiculous, and it backfires on him. John said, “repent for the kingdom of god is at hand.” Does this mean when the future kingdom (as per brother Faust) finally gets here that there is no longer any need to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance? Please do address this brother Faust, your argument depends on it! Reader, brother Faust’s argument is thus,
1.) The parousia is the ground for moral living
2.) When the parousia occurs there will be no more ground for moral living.
Conclusion: Therefore since the parousia has occurred (as per preterism) there will be no ground for moral living in the kingdom.
But, if this is true then brother Faust has some serious problems because,
1.) The parousia is the ground for moral living.
2.) But, the parousia brings in the kingdom (as per dispensationalism)
Conclusion: Therefore when the parousia occurs (when the kingdom is established) there will be no ground for moral living in the kingdom.
Where is your hermeneutic getting you brother Faust? In a whole heap of doctrinal trouble it is! Of course it was bound to happen because unsound doctrine creates unsound arguments! But I love you anyway and hope you see the truth.
Really empty arguments and ignoring mine
Next, brother Faust is looking for a black cat in a dark room that is not there and finding it! He claims that I am not truly using the grammatico-historical hermeneutic. I can’t be because I am not a premillenialist. I already pointed out that all schools claim the hermeneutic and could quote Cox, Terry, Fairbairn, Boettner ect. To show that. None of these men are Premillenialists. But Faust quotes Peters, but does this prove his case? No, the hermeneutic has existed its whole history apart from and with premillenailism. He then quotes several no applicable statements to align me with a pro – homosexual doctrine, calls me a sinner who refuses God’s commands, and then admits that I was right all along! Read it! My definition of grammatico-historical is the same as his, though he leaves out the principal of literary genera which is inherent in the hermeneutic, and is exactly what often makes a literal interpretation necesscerily figuratively understood. Something I went to great lengths about and he ignored! So his argument is simply smoke and mirrors. He then says that the prophecies of Christ’s first coming negate me. He then said I offered no support of what I said about them being allegorical. I in fact gave two examples he obviously missed, and if he would deal with them or at least acknowledge them then I would give more. I said only 35% of them can be taken literal and I meant it and can show it. The fact is that he ignored them because they were detrimental to his case.
Next, brother Faust spends a long time dealing with the lion. He makes the lion equal to the ravenous beasts, but it does not say that. Stick to your literalism, it does not say ravenous lion, but NO lion, nor any ravenous beast. No lion period! Let me ask you brother Faust, where does the highway run through?
Your argument on the sun has no validity because Rev. 7:16 and 16:8 are both dealing with the scorching of the sun. There is no question of literal against figurative here and any other translation would have made that clear. But here is a good question for you if you do not ignore it. In Revelation 21:4 we read that there is no death in the NH & NE. Yet, in Isaiah 65:20 we read that the child SHALL DIE at 100. How do you literally reconcile death and no death?
Beyond all of this, how does your historical narrative passage of John 3:22 show anything about hermeneutics in prophetic and apocalyptic passages? It just shows how you do not distinguish genera. And as per David being the one shepherd, how is this reconciled to passages such as Is. 40:11; John 10:14; ect as Christ as shepherd? Your argument as to absolute and literal is pish-posh. There is either one shepherd or there is not, and to make statements such as “specific sphere” is just another way of saying not consistently literal. You are creating other categories to avoid saying figurative interpretation, and a good reader will see this. Your explanation of Revelation 9:16, 17 is a good way of making an argument that can neither be verified nor denied, but it flies in the face of most other dispensational interpreters. But this is a tactic of dispensationalism and we have been hearing for 2 centuries now that it is all at hand, yet their literal interpretations go on unfulfilled. So be it. But I do know this. Your (very incredible) literal interpretation does not fit the fact that Revelation was concerned with things which must shortly come to pass (Rev. 1:1), or things which “is now close at hand, “ (Rev. 1:3, Weymouth). Nor is it concerned with, “things you have just seen, and those which are now taking place, and those which are soon to follow, (Rev 1:9 Weymouth). So how can it have anything to do with Revelation at all? There is no way that your “literal” interpretation fits these time verses. Yet, you do not take time literally do you? And we have seen where that has gotten you.
Preterism’s Misery and Faust’s Miserable Argument
Next, brother Faust affirms the misery of Preterism by associating us with Hymenaus and Philetus, and the “fact” that Christ was physically raised then so must we be. First off brother, if it was clear that Hymaneus and Philetus were overthrowing the faith of many by teaching a past spiritual resurrection, how could this teaching even begin to propogate in the presence of a staunch literal bodies rising out of graves apostleship? The nature of the resurrection is not addressed! And, if it were as brother Faust says, why did Paul not counter by saying, how so? The bodies are still in the graves!” The fact that Paul did not confront the doctrine in this way, and the fact that it could gain so much ground despite no literal bodies rising out of graves gives great problems to your view, not mine! The only thing Paul called their bluff on was a pre 70 AD resurrection, not the nature of it.
As for our resurrection having to be our literal bodies rising out of graves like Christ’s has several problems.
1.) Jesus is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). This gives a timing problem because anyone familiar with harvest knows that this does not allow for a 2000 year gap. To deny that firstfruits implies the imminent harvest is to deny the signifigance of firstfruits. To lodge this against the spiritual nature of the resurrection demands that the physical resurrection was imminent in the first century! Where was that literal resurrection brother Faust? When did it happen?
2.) Jesus’ resurrection was a sign (Matt. 12:39,40; John 21:30-31), and a sign never signifies itself! Turning water into wine did not signify future winemaking for Christians ect. Mark 2:1-10 tells us that Christ’s miracles were a sign of spiritual truths.
3.) Romans 6 tells us the kind of death and resurrection experienced by Jesus that is to be emulated by believers. Read verses 8-10. Jesus experienced sin death for all men (1 Pet. 2:24); His Father turned His back on Him (Matt. 27:46), because He was made to be sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). When he died he went to the hadean realm separated from His Father (Acts 2:31). But because he was personally sinless Hades could not hold Him (Acts 2:24). He rose physically to manifest His triumph over the Hadean realm of separation from the Father. We would not know of Jesus’ vicory over sin death were it not for that physical resurrection (Rom. 1:4). When Paul speaks of the believers participation in Jesus’ resurrection he concentrates on Jesus’ death to sin and resurrection to life with the Father! This is patently not physical but spiritual! Brother Faust fails to realize that not only does Paul say the believer must participate in Christ’s resurrection, but we must also participate in the likeness of His death! If physical resurrection is required to emulate His resurrection, why is not a physical death in the likeness of His death not required? Must we be crucified, scourged, and unjustly condemned? And if we do not die in true likeness of this does that mean we will not be raised in likeness of Him? In Romans 6:3 Christians are baptized into his death, and they had been united with him in the likeness of His death (v.5). They had died with Christ (v.8), but none of this was physical death! In Romans 6 they had already died; in 1 Cor. 15 they had already borne the image of the man of dust (v.49); In Col. 3:3 they had already died; in 2 Tim. 2:11 they had already died. In each of these texts, the death had already occurred and the future resurrection was to overcome the present death. Physical death is not the death they had experienced. But, if the future resurrection was to overcome death did they not have to die some more and a different kind of death? How many kinds of death did Paul say one had to die to participate in Christ’s resurrection? If the future resurrection in these passages is of a different nature than the death they had died, why did Paul see such a direct relationship? And if the future resurrection in these passages would not deliver them from the death they had already died does this not mean that they would be physically raised but not spiritually? Did Paul say one had to die twice; once spiritually with Christ and then physically like him? Just where does the apostle suggest such a thing? He does not! The apostle speaks of one death and one resurrection! (adapted from A Study of the Resurrection by Don Preston)
As for Daniel 12 yo say, “ AD 70 is not even in the text.” Answer this then brother Faust, when was the power of the holy people completely shattered? You ignored this last time.
As for his argument by using the Saducees and their view of the resurrection. Their view and mine are nowhere near the same. They did not hold a spiritual view, they held that there is no resurrection (Acts 23:8). Thus your point is pointless.
Wrapping it Up Some Final Thoughts
Next, you come to the time texts, and seek to negate me using Romans 5:14, this is laughable. First off, I argued concerning the resurrection using mello with the infinitive which always implies imminence! Always! And we saw earlier where your arguments lead you, but let’s do more. “Mello appears 108 times in the NT; 92 or 85% of these 108 appearences may reasonably be taken to mean soon (thirty two times to indicate the imminent expectation and sixty times soon otherwise) (A.J. Matill; Luke & Last Things pg. 45). Thus there are 12 uses out of 108 where it may not mean near and Rom. 5:14 is one of them. But with the infinitive it will always have time imminence. Thus what brother Faust is trying to do is make the exception the rule, and this is not valid at all. But his hermeneutic demands this indefensible usage. But, I am sure he will ignore this, especially what we said earlier. Reader, consult translations such as Weymouth, Green, Moffit ect and see how Mello is translated. Brother Faust flies in the face of Greek scholarship. And as for the primary meaning of resurrection (Ananstasi) it is not literal bodies coming out of graves, but simply standing up.
Brother Faust, you address the “thousand hills” and you only support my definition of completeness through your argument. But, why did you ignore 1000 generations? Was it because you could try to look literal (which you did not) on the hills, but there was no way on the generations was there? Nope, you would have had to admit that 1000 is not necessarily literal wouldn’t you have? Of course! And ignoring is easier than letting the position die is it not?
Now, I love his work on this 2 day thing! I have only one question and please answer it brother Faust. When did the first of the two days begin? When and if he answers this we will have much more to say. But if he does not it’s only because he knows the predicament it will put him in. And if he does not answer we will still address it.
As for the seventy weeks thing. He is using smoke and mirrors. Answer this, where in the text of Daniel does the Hebrew or anything suggest weeks of years? It does not, he has to import it from another passage which is something that not all agree with (though I do). It is a heptad theory! Theory! Thus he is only saving face by yelling literal here, but in all actuality because an outside theory has to be applied it is in no wise literal and he knows it.
As for Babylon, it is again pointed out that he ignored all I said which negates him completely. He ignored “never” in Isaiah 13, and all I said of Revelation and just goes on asserting that Babylon in Revelation is literal Babylon. That is not how a debate works brother Faust! You must first deal with the argument and then your view stands! I showed how the text is figurative now deal with it.
In Matthew 21 he ignores that verse 40 says that he came in destroying the husbandmen. You say “ without the coming,” the text says when he comes! That’s his convienient, oops I meant consistent literalism for you reader! Coming now means no coming! Straight from the horses mouth. He seems to think that he can apply his “double fulfillment” theory whenever it suits him, despite the fact that I dealt with it and he had no answers! He then uses texts that clearly imply imminence (a point he has lost) to support it. Oh well, truth will never get through to some, but the discerning reader will see it.
Last but not least, I have this to say. In Luke 21:8, Christ tells the disciples not to believe the premature declarations of the end. Whatever generation Jesus was addressing, all previous generations that said the end was near were false and to be rejected. Therfore, if Jesus was in anyway speaking to our generation when he gave the warning, then the apostles were some of the very false teachers that Jesus was warning about! No one was to declare the end was near before it was near. The apostles said the end was near. Therefore if the end was actually not near, then the apostles were some of the false teachers Christ warned them about! Where has you hermeneutic gotten you brother Faust?
What do YOU think ?
Awesome arguments Mr.Forgy!
Thanks Bryan Forgy
Mr. Forgy, My guess on how brother Faust will answer your last point on Luke 21:8 is that he will say that Jesus was actually saying that the time men would start saying "I am" was drawing nigh, and not that they would be necessarily be saying this themselves. I do believe the text can be read that way. What do you think? Rob
With respect to time it seems to be clear that time (though absolute) can be used reletivley. For example: Jacob told Laban for his daughter Rachael he would labour for seven years. However as Jacob put it "it seemed but a few days..." (Genesis 29) In another instance concerning prayer notice how our Lord uses time... Lu 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he (God) BEAR LONG with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them SPEEDILY. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Time is relative depending on whos perspective. In the case of the praying person it "seems" long, but from God's point of view it was answered "speedily." Having said that, and without starting a new debate, let us consider the following bible verses. Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Well what did God do in the beginning? He created the heaven and the earth. It took him six days (literal 24 hour periods) to do it and on the seventh day he rested. Taking what he said, the end of the creation will be just like the beginning six days of labour and one day of rest. Consider the following: Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Paul contended that there remained a day of rest that has not yet been fulfilled. Please consider the following: 2Pe 3:8 ¶ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Peter here is asserting that God's timetable may be different than ours. He is arguing that Jesus will literally fulfill all things bringing in the kingdom on the seventh (seven thousandth) day! It is all here in the word of God. There is no need for germatico or hermanutico (spelled purposly) arguing, just plain bible reading and believing! De 1:32 Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God, -Lewis Palmer Jr.
FAUST'S THIRD NEGATIVE It appears that Mr. Forgy has thrown in the towel. We agreed that we would limit the time between our responses to two weeks at the most. I sent my second negative to Mr. Forgy on January 12th, 2004. Today, it is February 27th and I still have not received Forgy's third affirmative. On January 24th, I received the following note: "I am sorry that I have not been able to get my third affirmative to you but I have been violently ill with the flu for over a week, three days of which I was in the hospital being IV fed fluids. I must now take about 4 days to catcth up all that has fallen behind in my businuess, so I should have my next affirm to you by Thurs..." I told him I was sorry to hear of his sickness. But he then continued to delay. On February 6th, Forgy wrote one last note to me: "I'm sorry brother Faust, it did take a little longer for me to recoup than I thought, but then the burden of the work I had fallen behind on was overwhelming. I have my third affirm half done, I just got to it again last night and had to stay up until 3 am to work on it. I will have it done and typed by the end of the weekend..." I have heard nothing from Mr. Forgy since this last note on February the 6th, and I have repeatedly asked him for a simple explanation of his delay and lack of communication. If he is back in the hospital, then I can certainly understand this delay. However, if Mr. Forgy is well, then it would appear that he has thrown the debate. In that case, I rest my case! And may all observers take note that Forgy's preterism cannot honestly and reasonably be maintained from the Holy Scriptures. -Pastor Joey Faust, 2-27-04
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996