not necessarily Preterism

[marks]

Sometimes it is honestly thought that I'm a Preterist for believing in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

I thought that's what "preterist" meant, that some prophecies have already been fulfilled. I don't see it as name calling, just labeling.

You believe that the Olivette Discourse has been historically fulfilled, that is preterism, I believe it has future fulfillment, that's futurism.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I've given up on labels. Happy Easter Randy!

I've wondered how you were doing, and worried that when I commented on your great videos that I left a negative impression? I really liked them, and commenting on them only indicated that they did a good job of provoking thought and real interest. I hope you and yours enjoy Easter as well!

 

[Truth7t7]

No, you're a living example of what I'm talking about. But I already explained the differences. I don't know whether you're just rebellious or you just don't get it?

I'm not a Partial Preterist because I don't believe the book of Revelation, Antichrist, or the Salvation of Israel were already fulfilled. And I'm a Premillennial. Partial Preterists believe these things were fulfilled in the past and are not Premillennialists.

As I've already pointed out, those who view much of the Olivet Discourse in an historical way were *not* Preterists before Louis of Alcazar came along (1554–1613). The Church Fathers, who held to this view, were *not* Preterists, though they and you may want to read that school back into the past, where it did not yet exist.

Preterism is gaged in the events of the Olivet Discourse seen in Matthew chapter 24, do you believe Daniel's AOD Matt 24:15 or the Great Tribulation Matthew 24:21 has taken place already?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Preterism is gaged in the events of the Olivet Discourse seen in Matthew chapter 24, do you believe Daniel's AOD Matt 24:15 or the Great Tribulation Matthew 24:21 has taken place already?

I can't make you understand.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I thought that's what "preterist" meant, that some prophecies have already been fulfilled. I don't see it as name calling, just labeling.

You believe that the Olivette Discourse has been historically fulfilled, that is preterism, I believe it has future fulfillment, that's futurism.

Much love!

Yes, Truth doesn't get it either, apparently. I'm trying not to judge. But I know you normally mean well, so I'll try to explain again.

Preterism isn't defined simply by believing some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past. Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecy at the cross? Of course you do. Does that make you a Preterist? No, of course not.

You see, Preterism is a system of interpretation introduced by Louis of Alcazar (in the modern era), and it involved much more than just seeing prophecies fulfilled in the past. It was more than seeing the Olivet Discourse fulfilled in 70 AD. Instead, it was an entire system of prophetic interpretation in which most *everything* is viewed as fulfilled in the time right after the earthly ministry of Christ.

Obviously, those who believe that prophecy is still being fulfilled today are not Preterists. Preterism is *not* just those who believe the AoD was the Roman Army. Preterism is not just those who believe that the "beginning signs" of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in Jesus' generation.

Much more, Preterism sees the book of Revelation, as well as the Antichrist, as fulfilled in the time of the ancient Roman Empire and the Early Church. It is a system of prophetic interpretation in which it views most all of prophecy fulfilled in that time period, whether the Antichrist or Israel's Salvation.

The view that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled historically in 70 AD is therefore *not* owned by Preterism, which is a school of prophetic interpretation which came centuries after the Early Church Fathers who largely believed in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

It's sad that there are so many misinformed about this, and so it needs to be carefully and patiently explained. Many do not give it 2 thoughts because they don't hold to anything but Futurism regardless.

I consider myself a Futurist interpreter, except that I agree with the Church Fathers that the AoD was the Roman Army, just as Dan 9.26-27 appears to suggest. I also hold to *future* interpretations of biblical prophecy, including the Antichrist, the Salvation of Israel, and the Millennium. I hope you get it?

 

[Truth7t7]

I can't make you understand.

Your a (Partial Preterist) get over it, we have been posting for years I know your doctrine

You will closely note you didn't answer the questions in post #23

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Randy Kluth]

Your a (Partial Preterist) get over it, we have been posting for years I know your doctrine

You will closely note you didn't answer the questions in post #23

Jesus Is The Lord

No, you still don't get it. You don't respond to any of the points I made. I've answered all of your questions.

If you know my doctrines, you already know my answers. Yes, I believe the AoD is the Roman Army, which is something I've said many times.

So I will ask you a question: Did you know that most of the Church Fathers also believed that the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD or thereabouts? If so, do you identify them as Preterists because of this?

If you identify the Church Fathers as Preterists for believing the AoD is the Roman Army or something in that time period I have good reason to ignore you. Preterism did not exist at that time.

 

[covenantee]

Preterism is gaged in the events of the Olivet Discourse seen in Matthew chapter 24, do you believe Daniel's AOD Matt 24:15 or the Great Tribulation Matthew 24:21 has taken place already?

Alcazar's Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi was a commentary on Revelation which attempted to identify The Antichrist as other than the apostate papacy.

His commentary did not deal with Matthew 24.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Alcazar's Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi was a commentary on Revelation which attempted to identify The Antichrist as other than the apostate papacy.

His commentary did not deal with Matthew 24.

Thankyou. I've never studied Preterism, so I appreciate the deeper knowledge.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I've wondered how you were doing, and worried that when I commented on your great videos that I left a negative impression? I really liked them, and commenting on them only indicated that they did a good job of provoking thought and real interest. I hope you and yours enjoy Easter as well!

Thank you Randy. I've been discouraged of late and haven't produced any videos. I appreciate your kind words. I've been thinking about producing more videos. I'll let you know.

 

[Ritajanice]

Thank you Randy. I've been discouraged of late and haven't produced any videos. I appreciate your kind words. I've been thinking about producing more videos. I'll let you know.

Imo, you have been discouraged because the enemy hates Gods truth,...stand on God’s word and post those videos that you believe he has placed on your heart to post.

If I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, apologies....I love reading your posts and I’ve learnt a lot from them,as in , the Lord has spoken to me through them...keep posting the word of God...he is number one and only LISTEN to HIM!...

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thank you Randy. I've been discouraged of late and haven't produced any videos. I appreciate your kind words. I've been thinking about producing more videos. I'll let you know.

Thanks brother. About the only good thing I can say about times that are negative is that we tend to become more real and learn deeper truths. Looking forward to seeing more from you, the Lord willing.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, you still don't get it. You don't respond to any of the points I made. I've answered all of your questions.

If you know my doctrines, you already know my answers. Yes, I believe the AoD is the Roman Army, which is something I've said many times.

So I will ask you a question: Did you know that most of the Church Fathers also believed that the AoD was fulfilled in the Roman judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD or thereabouts? If so, do you identify them as Preterists because of this?

If you identify the Church Fathers as Preterists for believing the AoD is the Roman Army or something in that time period I have good reason to ignore you. Preterism did not exist at that time.

Yes you believe Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 took place in 70AD "Fulfilled" and you believe in a future second coming of Jesus Christ

You're (Partial Preterist) in your belief of Daniel's AOD alone, you can claim otherwise all you want (Partial Preterist)

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

 

[Truth7t7]

Alcazar's Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi was a commentary on Revelation which attempted to identify The Antichrist as other than the apostate papacy.

His commentary did not deal with Matthew 24.

I fully agree, and his work is outside the definition of what is seen in a preterist today

The Olivet Discourse in the "3 questions" below determines a person's eschatology beliefs, it's that simple

Randy and yourself are (Partial Preterist) my belief is (Futurist) Its that simple, my feelings aren't hurt are yours?

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

 

[Truth7t7]

I thought that's what "preterist" meant, that some prophecies have already been fulfilled. I don't see it as name calling, just labeling.

You believe that the Olivette Discourse has been historically fulfilled, that is preterism, I believe it has future fulfillment, that's futurism.

Much love!

Well stated!

Yes it's that simple, Randy believes Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 was fulfilled in 70AD (Partial Preterist) and we believe it's future, we are (Futurist) simple as sliced bread

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

 

[covenantee]

I fully agree, and his work is outside the definition of what is seen in a preterist today

Not completely true. Alcazar sought to identify The Antichrist as Nero. So does Preterism today.

Randy and yourself are (Partial Preterist)

I'm historicist.

The eschatology of the Reformation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes you believe Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 took place in 70AD "Fulfilled" and you believe in a future second coming of Jesus Christ

You're (Partial Preterist) in your belief of Daniel's AOD alone, you can claim otherwise all you want (Partial Preterist)

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

I hold *some* beliefs in common with Mormons and JWs, but that does not make me one of them. I have friends in many more orthodox denominations, but that does not make me a member of them. To belong to a particular school of eschatology, there are certain things you must believe--not just hold some beliefs in common. You don't understand this. Sorry!

Perhaps the lines between the schools, Futurist, Historicist, and Preterist are not that clear to you? You seem to have a very limited view of Preterism, and a very limited view of Futurism.

I do not agree that Preterism is defined strictly by the historical view of the Olivet Discourse. I do not agree that Futurism excludes the historical view of the Olivet Discourse. We will continue to disagree on these matters, though I will admit that there is the tendency to lump these groups together in the way you look at them. Have a nice Easter!

 

[Truth7t7]

Not completely true. Alcazar sought to identify The Antichrist as Nero. So does Preterism today.

I'm historicist.

The eschatology of the Reformation.

Reformed theology "Historicism" is "Preterist"

You believe 70AD in Roman armies destruction fulfilled Daniel's AOD?

 

[Truth7t7]

Have a nice Easter!

I don't celebrate "Easterly" it's of pagan origin in spring fertility rites and has nothing to do with biblical instruction, same applies to Christmas in the pagan winter solstice and rebirth of the sun

 

[CadyandZoe]

Imo, you have been discouraged because the enemy hates Gods truth,...stand on God’s word and post those videos that you believe he has placed on your heart to post.

If I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, apologies....I love reading your posts and I’ve learnt a lot from them,as in , the Lord has spoken to me through them...keep posting the word of God...he is number one and only LISTEN to HIM!...

Thank you for your words of encouragement.