Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)



Church-State Relations and the Book of Revelation
An Introduction to The Parousia: A Careful Look at the New Testament Doctrine of the Lord's Second Coming
by James Stuart Russell (1878) // Written by
Todd Dennis, Curator
 


Critical Article
Critical Articles Main
Study Archive

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

Scoffers: Preterists and II Peter 3

By James Lloyd

Preterist Apostasy | Scoffers: Preterists and II Peter 3

There is only one verse in the Bible that carries the word "scoffers" and it is found in II Peter 3:3. This is an interesting section of Scripture that provides the remnant believer with some crucial information concerning how to combat the false doctrines that are 'flooding the temple' even as I write these words. This often cited passage refers to people living in the last days that will scoff at the expectation of an impending return of Jesus Christ:

"...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up." — II Peter 3:3, 4, 10

These extraordinary verses wreak havoc on two of the primary false doctrines that are presently leavening the church in these perilous times. Indeed, this chapter from the famous fisherman contradicts the two-sided coin of false prophetic expectation that is found in preterism and it's theological cousin the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine.

Although preterists (those who teach the tribulation happened in 70 AD) chafe at the idea of any relationship between their doctrine and the rapturists (and vice versa), the two doctrines are actually closely related. They both agree that the church misses the tribulation, they both characterize the final empire as the Roman (the original and the so-called "revived" Roman empire respectively) and they are both inextricably committed to a union with the state through licensing and a politically expedient symbiotic relationship with the beast government.

The truth is, the "gospel" that is found in these two fraternal twins is thoroughly false — and Peter destroys them both in this single chapter. Both systems inexorably lead to the Antichrist order, and both are the epitome of the dialectically inspired system of managed spiritual opposition. In the end, they will meet in the middle and embrace the Beast of Babylon.

While the preterists love to quote verses that seem to show the New Testament writers taught that they were in the last days at that time, they almost universally avoid verse 3 of chapter 3 in II Peter. The reason is obvious, for the tense "there shall come" plainly demonstrates that Peter projects this 'scoffing' to occur in the future — at a time he bluntly states will be "the last days."

This point cannot be understated. While it is readily apparent that scoffers have existed since the time of Noah, the specific taunt that is provided here is unique to preterism. Peter tells us they will say "where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (II Peter 3:4). The fact that the scoffers refer to "the fathers" is indicative of their awareness of the patriarchs — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

While it may be argued that Peter actually foresaw the Christian era church "fathers" in his prophetic utterance, the point is academic for it is clear the scoffers are religious. Atheists don't speak about the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel — so-called "believers" do. Furthermore, the verse then states these scoffers will assert that things have never changed since the time of "the creation." Again, Darwinists never refer to the creation — religious people do. When the verse says "all things continue," we recognize the core of amillennialism and other forms of non-literal exegesis of prophecy. The fascinating thing is how poignantly Peter provides us with the antidote for the poison of preterism. In response to the concept that all the known prophecy concerning universal devastation in the last days must somehow be a just a way of expressing an inner reality, he immediately globalizes the issue and equates it with a Biblical catastrophism that is described in the most physical terminology possible.

Peter succinctly refers to Noah and reminds his reader how "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" ( II Peter 3:6). Thus, if we believe the Genesis account, "...all flesh died that moved upon the earth...all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" (Genesis 7:21, 22). Although many try to turn numerous passages of this nature into a local event, these verses are coherent and compelling: the flood killed the whole world.

Peter then goes on to warn that the entire world is scheduled to be destroyed again "by the same word" (II Peter 3:7) that brought about the previous devastation. With this pointed statement, the Apostle is categorically predicting that since the Lord destroyed the entire world previously, it is not inconsistent to believe that he will keep his word and do it again — but this time it will be brought about by "fire" that God has "reserved" for the day of judgment. In fact, the entire point of the statement is that "in the last days" wicked religionists will scoff at the idea of tribulational events that are destined to culminate in a final global reckoning of "fire...in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat..." (II Peter 3:7, 10).

The incredible thing here is that the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Peter, is telling the remnant that the primary defense against the preterist apostasy is in recognizing the truth of Biblical catastrophism. In my previous work on the subject, I noted how preterists commonly conceal the fact that they must treat even Old Testament accounts of cataclysms in a symbolic fashion. Indeed, because Jesus compared the events of His second advent to the global flood of Noah as well as what appears to be the hemispheric devastation associated with the incineration of the cities of the plains (most notably Sodom and Gommorah), preterists are usually forced to relegate Noah's flood to a mere local event.

As a case in point, a prominent preterist named John L Bray refers to the Sodom and Gommorah passage where the Lord Himself says "I will go down now, and see whether they have dome altogether according to the cry of it" (Genesis 18:21). The reader will remember this is the famous passage where Abraham sees "three men" that are apparently a manifestation of "the angel of the Lord" on their way to Sodom to destroy the place.

Yet Bray (and other preterists) goes on to say that this action where the Lord says He will be directly involved in such things is not to be taken literally — as he assumes this to be "highly symbolic language" (Matthew 24 fulfilled, J L Bray, page 176). Continuing this line of reasoning, Bray goes on to say that when the prophet Micah refers to the Lord saying "...the mountains shall be molten under him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire..." that such Old Testament scripture must be just a figure of speech.

Yet I am aware of a mountain in the Middle East called Jabal Al-Laws that archaeologists say is the mountain where Moses received the Ten Commandments, and that mountain is completely (and inexplicably) burned — just as the text says it was. I am also aware of a massive geological formation known as "the great rift" — an enormous intercontinental rupture in the ground evidencing an ancient devastation of incomprehensible power that runs right through the place where Sodom and Gommorah once practiced their insidious iniquity.

Bray and the apostates called preterists can't seem to muster enough faith to believe that God actually does what he says. Like all the others caught in the same web of intellectual deceit, John L Bray continually seeks to allegorize Old Testament accounts of the Lord's direct intervention as a way to show why they believe that Jesus does the same thing whenever He predicts spectacular events — catastrophic future events such as the time when "the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light" (Matthew 24:29).

A good example of this attempted scriptural distortion is found in a preterist book called Matthew 24 Fulfilled. In this undiscerning work, Baptist pastor Bray coolly informs us that when God promises to Moses concerning the Israelites "I am come down to deliver them" (Exodus 3:8), He doesn't mean that He will literally be present. Yet my Bible has convinced me that God said "I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn..." (Exodus 12:11). The whole episode is in the first person, for to Israel, God says that "...when I see the blood, I will pass over you" (Exodus 12:13).

Is not this pattern of questioning the Lord's clear and concise statements very reminiscent of the tactic of the serpent in the garden when he asked the unsuspecting Eve "yea, hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1).

Just like his spiritual father with the age old questioning of the veracity of the word of God, preterist Bray also asks "Why should Jesus not have used symbolical language like this from the Old Testament to describe events at the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.?" (Matt 24 Fulfilled, page 176).

And virtually all of the preterists commit the same offense. To put this issue into proper focus, let me re-iterate. Because the preterists do not believe in the literal catastrophic intervention of the Lord in the Old Testament accounts, they seek to use that assumption as a precedent for allegorizing similar prophecies in the New Testament. Once again, to put this into the framework of the statements in II Peter, a paraphrased preterist may be heard to say 'if God didn't literally (and personally) drown the whole earth in the time of Noah, why should we believe he will literally burn up the whole earth in the modern era?'

This is precisely what Peter is addressing when he says "in the last days scoffers" will seek to deny the truth of God's intervention in the affairs of men — instead seeking to claim that the accounts recorded for us speak of some inner truth that cannot be taken as evidence that the end of the world will ever arrive.

The truth is, Peter prophesied that God will indeed intervene, and thus condemn those that wrest the scriptures "unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). He concludes his defense of the inevitability of these prophesied things when he cautions the remnant believers that "seeing ye know these things before, [again showing the futuricity of the last days and the arrival of the scoffers] beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness" (II Peter 3:17). 

© 2002 CHRISTIAN MEDIA RESEARCH, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - "We are happy to have our material posted on other sites as long as attribution and complete contact info is included. Thanks, James"

james <james@christianmedianetwork.com

 

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Date:
18 Dec 2002
Time:
15:08:31

Comments

You mean the LAST DAYS that they were already in are still future? =)

Hebrews 1: 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.


Date:
19 Dec 2002
Time:
06:20:15

Comments

Hmmmm... Does the author not have a copy of Jude in his Bible? Jude 1: 17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19 These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. Could it be that one of the apostles Jude speaks of here is Peter?? Jude makes it pretty clear that the scoffers were alive in his day.


Date:
19 Dec 2002
Time:
06:36:15

Comments

A verse out of context can be made to say anything you want it to. In context, verse 3 cannot be read without all of chapter 2 and verses 1 & 2 of chapter 3. The "scoffers" Peter is warning about are the same false teachers he just affirmed were present then. He reminds them that they should not be surprised by these false teachers because the prophets had foretold of the scoffers/false teachers that were persecuting them in the last days.


Date:
19 Dec 2002
Time:
14:52:28

Comments

Writing like this infuriates me! I love the way this man questions the soul of Mr. Bray and other preterists. In no way was Bray or other preterists stating that God can't or didn't act in history. They are saying that God didn't act 'physically' in history. In other words, God did not take on physical form to deal with people. For instance, God told Abraham and Sarah, 'At the appointed time I will return to you, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son' (Gen.18.14). Now, God did not 'physically' return to Abraham and Sarah. In Zephania 1, a prophecy against Israel and which was fulfilled by Babylon in 587 BC, God stated that 'He' would destroy 'all flesh'; that 'He' would pour out their blood like dust; the 'earth will be devoured by the fire of HIS jealousy'; etc. In other words, God Himself would do this to Israel. Yet, as I noted, this was physically done by the nation of Babylon. The point here is that God sometimes 'natural' means to accomplish his acts. What Bray and other preterists are doing is stating that since the OT judgments of God use this type of language and He did not take on physical form to perform these judgments, why should they expect that Jesus, who was more than a prophet, have a different meaning when using the same language? Where is the biblical support of a change in the way God did things? Bray and other preterists are stating that there is a consistant pattern in Scripture. It is the futurist that seems to overlook much of the OT judgments of God in their 'wooden literal' sense of things. The writer of the above article fails to notice something. God spoke as if the 'world' would be destroyed when He brought judgments upon Egypt, Assyria, Israel, Babylon, etc. Yet, not one futurist would insist that this took place. Why? Because there is no record of a 'recreation' of the 'world'. There is no scientific data that proves this. Yet, we all would agree that if the earth (i.e., our modern day understanding of the term) was 'devoured in the fire of His jealousy' it would be utterly and completely destroyed. What Bray and other preterists are stating is the fact: God used language that described the end of the NATIONS 'world'. Instead of interjecting OUR understanding of those terms, they are stating that we must look at things from the perspective of the original people. This brings me to my next point. Furthermore, as someone else has already pointed out, the context of the passage under question, shows, without doubt that Peter anticipated those events to take place WITHIN HIS GENERATION. It seems funny to me that for futurists to insist on a 'literal' interpretation, they completely 'spiritualize' certain terms and statements. For example, if one were to read the opening passages of Ezekiel and the latest dispensational book on prophecy (whether it be fiction or 'non-fiction') one would see that the 'flaming arrors' of those on horses are 'literally' nucleur missles. How is this interperted 'literally'? It isn't. Next, whenever God interveined in the OT and he gave a specific time statement as to when His judgment would take place, He FULFILLED THEM WHEN HE SAID HE WOULD. Take the 'passover' passage the author mentioned. God stated, 'About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt, and all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the first-born of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the first-born of the cattle as well' (Ex. 11.4-5). And when did He fulfill this judgment? Exodus 12.29 tells us: 'Now it came to about AT MIDNIGHT that the Lord struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt...' Another example, look at the Babylonian captivity. God stated that it would be for 'seventy years' (Jer. 25.11; 29.10; 2Chro. 36.20-21). How are we to understand that time statment? Daniel, THE PROPHET, seemed to understand it plainly: 'n the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the lineage of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, UNDERSTOOD by the books THE NUMBER OF THE YEARS SPECIFIED BY THE WORD OF THE LORD through Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish SEVENTY YEARS in the desolations of Jerusalem' (Dan. 9.1-2). It seems to me that the 'literal' interpretation of futurists goes right out the window when discussing the timing of the coming of Christ. Lastly, this idea of God not keeping His promises WHEN He states He would is blasphemous to state the least. Futurists are bringing into question the whole nature of God when the state that God doesn't communicate time to man in a way that he can understand it. That God has a different type of measure of time for Himself. That is, when He states that something is 'far off' it COULD BE happening 'any moment'. Or that something that wont happen for 'seventy years' MIGHT happen in an instant. This makes a mockery of God and His ability to communicate to people. What is the point of giving any type of timestatement at all? Why tell people that Jesus is 'about to' come back when, in fact, He may not? Is this anyones idea of 'Truth'? Jesus stated that He not only taught truth but that He WAS Truth. How truthfull is He when He really didn't mean that His generation would experience His return? How truthfull is the Holy Spirit when He really didn't mean that there was 'about to be a rising again of both the just and the unjust' (Acts 24.15 Young's Literal Translation). These men were not conveying what MIGHT happen. They stated emphatically what was 'about to' happen. The 'literal' interpretation of futurism completely ignores or changes the meaning WITHOUT BIBLICAL WARRANT of these 'time statements'. Maybe unknownst to themselves, but they bring into question the very Deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Word of God, and the integrity of the Christian faith, when the deny that Jesus did NOT fulfill His words when He stated He would.


Date:
20 Dec 2002
Time:
04:42:28

Comments

James, When I read your article "Scoffers: Preterists and II Peter 3," I especially noticed the following: While the preterists love to quote verses that seem to show the New Testament writers taught that they were in the last days at that time, they almost universally avoid verse 3 of chapter 3 in II Peter. The reason is obvious, for the tense "there shall come" plainly demonstrates that Peter projects this 'scoffing' to occur in the future—at a time he bluntly states will be "the last days." Of course Peter is dealing with future scoffers. Jesus told His disciples: "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mt. 24:34). As time for "this generation" seemed to be running out, skeptics in Peter's day were asking, in light of the nearly forty-year prediction, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:4). A person has a right to scoff if 2000 years have passed when events were to take place within forty years. A person does not have a right to scoff if forty years have not yet passed when events were to transpire within their own forty-year generation. The scoffers were proved wrong when the promised destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem took place just like Jesus predicted. Since Peter wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, his comments make perfect sense. Jude says something similar, intimating that the scoffers were alive and well in his day (Jude 17-19). Peter's use of "last days" is consistent with the way the phrase is used elsewhere in Scripture: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, IN THESE LAST DAYS has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). The writer to the Hebrews is quite clear--contrary to your assertion--"they were in the last days at that time." What else does "in these last days mean"? Paul had told the Corinthians: "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, UPON WHOM THE ENDS OF THE AGES HAVE COME" (1 Cor. 10:11). Your article leaves the impression that these issues have not been discussed by preterists. This simply is not true. In the third edition of my book Last Days Madness, I included an appendix by David Chilton that specifically deals with 2 Peter 3: "Looking for New Heavens and a New Earth" (485-495). I also deal with the issue of "new heavens and new earth" in the fourth edition of LDM (189-201). Don Preston has written II Peter 3: The Late Great Kingdom, a 126 page book on the subject. If you study any of these previously published works, you will note that John Owen's "Providential Changes, An Argument for Universal Holiness" is quoted, a work which includes an extensive study of 2 Peter 3. This is included in volume 9 of his 16 volumes of work first published in the seventeenth century and still in print today (Banner of Truth). His seven-volume commentary on Hebrews is an unequaled masterpiece. His interpretive skills cannot be questioned. Neither can those of John Brown who wrote commentaries on Hebrews and 1 Peter. There's also his Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, a three-volume work published in 1852 where the issue of "new heavens and new earth" is discussed. Brown also deals with 2 Peter 3 in his 1 Peter commentary on his exposition of 1 Peter 4:7--"the end of all things is at hand." Brown's argument is rehearsed in Roderick Campbell's Israel and the New Covenant (1954). Of course, much more could be written, but as I have noted, it's been discussed before. Best regards, Gary DeMar


Date:
20 Dec 2002
Time:
16:20:47

Comments

It seems to me to be the reverse of what this aticle states. Preterist seem to be the only ones who say that God did what he said he was going to do when he said he was going to do it. Anything less would mean that Christ was a fraud. "if a prophet speaks in the nam of God and what he says does not happen you have nothing to fear from him." (Moeses paraphrased)


Date:
21 Dec 2002
Time:
01:27:39

Comments

Dear Brother: I once tenaciously held your convict- ions, but exegesis and common reasoning dictated a major paradigm change. Could I write to you and tell you that you would not be able to take my mes- sage to all the cities of Vermont before I came to see you, and you put my statements in a time frame many years in the future? N. B. Robert G.Williams usmc1div@earthlink.net


Date:
26 Dec 2002
Time:
06:04:19

Comments

Hes totally off


Date:
29 Dec 2002
Time:
05:19:25

Comments

Is there such a thing as infinity + 1? That's how many times a verse is taken out of context, partially ignored, etc... and Mr. Lloyd is no exception. Notice the verse is talking of scoffers who say "why hasn't He (Jesus) returned?" I think it hard to apply such a verse to the discussion of preterism. Through to verse 9 (another abused verse) Peter uses the 1,000 years and a day analogy to emphasize that God's judgement is NEAR, not far away - that He will not let His promises linger on unfulfilled. Mr. Lloyd, you are looking at the right verses. Just a little work on the reading comprehension and you'll have it. Hang in there and keep studying and praying for understanding from the Lord.


Date:
18 Jan 2003
Time:
15:16:21

Comments

test


Date:
20 Jan 2003
Time:
19:23:26

Comments

MY initial reaction to this shallow writer who makes gross assumptions of hersey against the preterist position reminds me of the Roman Catholic rantings against the Reformers. He takes verses out of context, uses poor grammatical translations, and puts all arguments on a universal basis while quoting only one preterist writer(Bray). Let us read Holy Scripture for our individual growth through the leading of the Holy Spirit.


Date:
04 Feb 2003
Time:
12:47:06

Comments

Isaiah 24:19-23 "The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly. The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously." Isaiah 34:2-8"For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion." Isaiah 24:3-6 "The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word. The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left." Ezekiel 22:18-22 "Son of man, the house of Israel is to me become dross: all they are brass, and tin, and iron, and lead, in the midst of the furnace; they are even the dross of silver. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you."


Date:
15 Mar 2003
Time:
13:26:25

Comments

interresting information.I`m wondering though, how are we to understand Jude 1 18 It appears here that the warning given by peter in 2 Peter 3 3 is in the process of beeing fullfilled.It appears to me that Jude is saying that the corrupt christians of his day are the ones (scoffers) Peter foretold about.


Date:
29 Mar 2003
Time:
18:50:55

Comments

"How long ye simple ones will ye love simplicity" Admonition that all who would make the fine edge of the sword of scripture a blunt bat useful only for beating others, and not for the dividing work of spiritual truth. Is it not a characteristic of swine that they turn again and rend? This article serves only to heap curses on people who merely understand things differently, it is rare, though I grant possible, to find either a preterist, an amillenialist, an historic premillenialist who would present the notion that their is salvation in any other but the Lord Jesus, the Christ. Why therefore does this author make so bold as to judge another man's servant,is it not love which covers a multitude of sins and the accuser who delights to ferret out whatsoever there is whereby he might accuse?


Date:
18 Jun 2003
Time:
15:40:09

Comments

This was a pretty well written document. Just a few inquiries though. Could you e-mail me some more hard information about this: "Yet I am aware of a mountain in the Middle East called Jabal Al-Laws that archaeologists say is the mountain where Moses received the Ten Commandments, and that mountain is completely (and inexplicably) burned — just as the text says it was." I am not doubting what you're saying, I just think you ought to document things of that nature a little more thoroughly. Also, nice cheap shot at amillenialism. You can be an amillenialist and still believe that God will destroy this world (as we know it)and create the New Heavens and New Earth. I would assume from the crack shots at the amil camp you are a premill who bases his whole eschatalogical position concerning the millenium on ONE passage Revelation 20. Don't be so dogmatic about your postition. I don't know what I am for sure, but it grates me when someone knocks on one eschatological position (I'm not speaking of full preterism, because I don't agree with that either), without explaining his own. Overall it was a good article. You know Jesus did say, "this generation" in the Matt. 24 passage and the other Synoptics. And that word DOES not mean race. So it seems we are left with something to decide..... In Christ Scott Piland scottpiland@hotmail.com


Date:
26 Jun 2003
Time:
02:59:27

Comments

There is no love in this article whatsoever 1st corinthians 13 talks about that and tells us that knowledge without love is nothing. When you are passionate about a viewpoint are passoniate like Christ, or have you made yourself judge and jury? By the way John L. Bray has been studying a very long time and what I know always treats people with the love of Christ. When I was hungry you fed me, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, Lord when did I feed you and when did I give you drink? When you did it for the least of these you did it for me. Where is Jesus' love in this writing. I don't know who Gary DeMar is but reading his statement he seems to have the love of Jesus. God bless him


Date:
18 Sep 2003
Time:
10:49:06

Comments

Although I am not a preterist, I do know that they do not specifically avoid II Peter 3:3. This verse is totally in line with what they do believe. "...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works therein shall be burned up." — II Peter 3:3, 4, 10 They believe that this has occurred in the destruction of the temple that this was "the day of the Lord. Accordingly, at that time, the heavens (separation between God's kingdom and the earthly kingdom)did occur. They maintain that there were scoffers who did say those things which scripture predicted they would say prior to the destruction of the temple. Also, I don't believe that our views concerning Revelation should divide us as Christians. Our "end time" views don't make us apostate. Rather, that is something which "we see throught a glass darkly" and we won't know the complete truth while in this life on earth. Although it is important to study Revelation and other scriptures relating to it (indeed all scripture is profitable...) we shouldn't use these scriptures to divide the body of Christ. God calls us to unity and peace. This doesn't mean we can't differ on the scriptures which are unclear, but we shouldn't use those to divide us. If we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour who died for our sins, rose on the third day, and lives today AND we have recognized our sins before God and repented of them, then we are NOT apostate. Rather, we are His children.


Date:
02 Nov 2003
Time:
05:38:14

Comments

In Isaiah 65:17, it says that people will die on the new earth. In Revelation 21:4, it says that there will be no death. Which of these is to be taken "literally"? And how is it "literal" to separate the last week of the seventy from the others in Daniel 9 or to make the Olivet Discourse a prophecy of anything but the destruction of the temple standing in the days of the apostles (Mark 13:1-4)? KPerkins


Date:
02 Nov 2003
Time:
06:41:12

Comments

Paul said the basis for God's full revelation to mankind (1 Cor. 15:46) was "first the natural" (things of the OT) and "then the spiritual" (things of the NT). The author of this article says poor old Paul was wrong and that he should have said "first the natural" (things of the OT) and "then again the natural" (things of the NT). In other words, in this author's view there is nothing spiritual about Christianity.


Date:
03 Nov 2003
Time:
05:34:27

Comments

This article goes in the wrong direction from the very beginning. In attempting to show that the author's "literal" exegesis has support in the form of Martin Luther, he fails to understand that when Luther called for a literal interpretation of Scripture, he was not implying that it should be a rigid, physical understanding of every word. Luther's "literal" was meant as interpretation according to literary style. That aside, the difference here really has nothing to do with whether or not you view prophecy "literally". Rather, it is how much symbolism or figurative interpretation you employ when interpreting? Even the author sees some figurative language in prophecy when he calls a "week" a "week of years". Like it or not, this makes "week" figurative. He does the same with "beast" and "time, times, and half a time". So, when Mr. Reinhold argues that he is "literal" and other interpretations are "figurative" he is simply incorrect.


Date:
03 Nov 2003
Time:
09:26:55

Comments

Perhaps the problem that you don't understand Isaiah 65. Isaiah is not about high lifespan of mankind. If it would be in target, there would be totally unnecessary to mention infants. It is about peaceful life, where infants are not killed by foreign soldiers and where old men can die with natural death. Please read reference to Zak. 4.8. It is the old picture of ever growing New Jerusalem, as Paul said: 2Co. 6.16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Date:
03 Nov 2003
Time:
13:34:26

Comments

Isaiah 65 is not about human's increased lifespan, Isaiah 65 is about peaceful living in New Jerusalem. If the author had lifespan in his mind, why did he mention infants? If all old men fulfills their lifespan why would necessary to mention the few days of intants? The picture is against killing of infants and old men by sword which is sadly fulfilled in AD 70. See the reference Zech. 8.4-5. See also paralells Is. 65.23-Phil.2.15 and Is. 65.24 and Mt. 6.8. Isaiah made a picture about ever growing New Jerusalem, not about the inhabits of a physical city. - cheers, Gabor


Date:
04 Nov 2003
Time:
20:03:16

Comments

Dispensationalists are like preterists. Neither group understands that through the miracle of spiritual regeneration 1) the new, spiritual and eternal Israel appeared in the moment of Christ's resurrection in the spring of AD 30 and 2) the new, spiritual and eternal world of Rev. 21 and 22 appeared in the moment of the resurrection of those that were Christ's at his parousia at the end of the true first century. The natural judgment of the world by the flood at the end of Noah's last 100 pre-flood years (the 100 years described as "this generation" in Gen. 7:1) typified the spiritual judgment of the world at Christ's parousia at the end of the first century, as corrected for the four-year error in our calendar (the 100 years described as "this generation" in Mt. 24:34).


Date:
07 Nov 2003
Time:
09:29:43

Comments

"And Isaiah 65 was not fulfilled where people's lifespans increased so much, that a youth would die at the age of one hundred years. Only a foolish person would believe or teach that 70 AD fulfilled all the prophecies." In Romans 15:12, Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 as being fulfilled in his own day. The fascinating thing about Isaiah 11 is it uses identical language in describing the coming of the Messiah that Isaiah 65-66 uses in describing the new creation. There is no Scriptural reason to believe that Isaiah 11 is fulfilled and Isaiah 65 is not. The only reason I can think of is that our presupposed interpretation of "wolf and lamb" and other prophetic language simply doesn't fit with what we see in the world around us. Or maybe I'm just a fool who wants to believe Scripture regardless of whether or not it contradicts my presuppositions.


Date:
25 Jun 2004
Time:
20:42:18

Comments

Take your dog out of the fight and try again


Date:
18 Oct 2004
Time:
21:41:06

Comments

JAMES LLOYD is a "jew" veiling himself as a christian!. His doctrine is NOt anti-preterist, or anti-dispensation etc., HIS DOCTRINE IS "JUDAISM"!!!. Its incredible what the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN can do, just incredible. Here, in this article, this CHILD OF THE DEVIL rambles hundereds of words on ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Why absolute nonsense? DIDNT YOU READ THE VERSE BY PETER?? The verse by Peter is talking about........"THE PROMISE"...........NOT......about "HIS COMEING"!!!. Its refering to THE PROMISE that....."CAME"....with Christ comeing 2000 years ago!. Absolutely incredible how "WOLVES" like this vermin are adhered to!.


Date:
19 Dec 2004
Time:
22:54:36

Comments

so if "the last days" took place in ad 70 could someone explain the last 2000 years?


Date: 17 Apr 2006
Time: 12:32:37

Comments:

Sir, you need to compare Isaiah 34 with Rev 6:13-14.In Isaiah Babylon was used by God "literally" to move Edom. In the same sense Rome was used by the Lord "literally" to destroy the covenant breakers of Israel in the 1st century! Please use scripture to understand scripture brother.

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com