The Preterist and Futurist Views - A Sermon on the Doctrine of Eschatology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- www.mljtrust.o...
Is the book of Revelation a mere record of what happened in time-past or is it an account of events which will one day take place? In this sermon titled “The Preterist and Futurist Views,” Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones examines two views of Revelation. First, he briefly examines what is called the “preterist view” which understands Revelation as referring to events that happened in the past. Spending the bulk of his attention on the “futurist view,” he explains that both of these should be rejected. According to the futurist view, the reader is to understand most of Revelation’s application as that which applies to a future generation. According to this view, little of the book’s meaning applies to the lives of the vast majority of Christians who have lived. Dr. Lloyd-Jones first gives the futurist view and then critiques it by showing textual and theological problems. The author of Revelation doesn’t seem to believe that only a portion of the book’s material is about current realities, while other things will only happen in two thousand years. On the contrary, the book is united, complete, and whole. It’s relevant for every age of the church and God’s people have always found strength in these words. Listen and discover the transcendent hope of the book of Revelation.
Long time since I heard "thee" and "thou" in prayer !
"The preterist view is entirely untenable"
But he then goes on to prove it with his arguments on the things that are shortly to take place and not to seal up the book
This is certainly something to compare with one's own view.
Once you learn that all has been fulfilled eschatology there is no turning back.
the 1st beast of Rev is the 4th beast of Daniel? the Roman Empire would be resurrected? it still existed when the book was written.
preterist, futurist historicist
Idealist
MLJ misrepresents the preterist position by saying that it includes history up to the 4th century.
That is not what the position holds.
He's completely wrong.
I love MLJ but he should have known that a full-preterist position is the entirely untenable position. I am not amillennial and/or idealist when it comes to my approach to Revelation. Modern amil/idealists like Voddie Baucham will distinguish between partial and full preterism because amils are partial preterists. MLJ argues like a partial preterist when he points out "things to shortly take place" and "not to seal up the book." Partial preterists don't believe that the final resurrection and judgement, the second coming of Christ, the new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem have already happened.
@royal priest I agree with you but only to a point because a necessary distinction must be made and maintained.
The church is a type of New Jerusalem but not yet a complete fulfillment because as John says in Revelation 21.9-11 "the bride, the wife of the Lamb, the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God" must have the glory of God.
We are only partially glorified right now. After the last day when we receive glorified resurrection bodies then we will be fully glorified and fully be the New, heavenly Jerusalem.
We can't separate the city from the people who make up the city. But neither can we claim to completely be the city when we lack complete glorification presently.
That distinction has to be maintained because the full preterists claim that we are already presently glorified and fulfill the New Jerusalem. They believe that all prophecy and eschatological events were fulfilled in 70AD.
That is the distinction I was trying to draw because MLJ was conflating partial and full preterists in his arguments.
Thank you for your comment. It was edifying.
For those reasons you've listed, the partial position is wrong.
@@royalpriest2696
... nowhere found in Scripture
@@JohnO318 my friend when you say things like "nowhere found in Scriptures" you are making an assertion which is begging the question.
The question being begged (assuming your conclusion) is "What position are we articulating?" And "What Scriptures do we use to support our position?" Another question could be "Can you even explain to us our position?" Because I assure you all the postmil and amil interpreters and teachers I listen to and read use copious amounts of Scripture in context to support our positions.
If you want to go to specific passages of Scripture to argue interpretation you would do much better than saying our positions are "nowhere found in Scripture."
@theologynerd1689
I'm specifically referring to the "now and not yet" concept.
There are no double-fulfillment teachings in the Bible.