In Reply to: something else I feel is very important... posted by George on November 16, 2002 at 08:09:26:
Having studied those books, I do agree that the Preterist position offers the most hope in a constructive way,for the reasons you describe. Intstead of Christians isolating themselves from the world and great, necessary causes, they would be more involved. Too many Christians feel that "nothing will make things better anyway," and the world is getting worse and worse and DESERVES to be destroyed in a nuclear destruction or be wiped out by AIDs. So bring on the bad stuff, Lord! Bring on the nuclear war! Bring on the earthquakes and so what if millions die! I wanna see one third of the world's population perish like Revelation says, because ...
The sooner things get worse, the sooner you come back and the sooner things get better. You gotta admit, it's a pretty macabre worldview. I'm glad not all Christians think like that, but tht they have entered the working world, rolled up their sleeves and been responsible for major social improvements you described.
But tho I agree that MUCH of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, I remain unconvinced that it all happened then, or that we face no end time. THe feeling I came away from the book with was that the author of "Last Days Madness" had some good points about things being fulfilled back in 70 AD and had good points that he went beyond what worked and felt he had to stuff the rest of the verses into his interpretation also.
For example, tho his argument was weak in places, he did a decent job of explaining how verses 4 - 22 were fulfilled by AD 70. But because verse 34 said "ALL these things" had be be fulfilled in "this generation" he then went on to apply (in my opinion, at least) unfeasible explantions and interpretations to verses 23 - 31.
He made broad statements such as "the gospel WAS preached to the entire Roman empire as far as Britian" by 65 AD, but all he could offer was "maybe" and "possibly" to back up his claim. And I felt that his interpretation of verses 30-31 was particularly weak, that he was stretching the verses almost to the breaking point to get them to fit, darn ya, fit, into his interpretation.
What I found particularly unbelieveable is that Jesus is the "Prince of the Covenant" in Daniel 9:27 who "confirms a covenant with many for one week." That far into the verse sounds OK, you can see Jesus DID bring a New Covenant. But then how can you explain that Jesus would "set up the abomination that maketh desolate" in the temple? I saw the author wrestling that verse like a pig in the mud, but I don't think he ever got it down and hog-tied to my satisfaction. They're still out there squealing in the mud, and I still don't think Jesus is the one who confirms the covenant.
Nevertheless, I have a lot more respect and understanding for your position now and feel it would certainly add a large positive note to the Christian world if people dispensed with thinking that the Endtime was still coming, and could then roll up their sleeves and be a force for good in the world. But I am not convinced that that is the way things will be.
Much of Mat. 24 does fit into a Preterist position, but other things don't. I've just aobut come to the conclusion that any attempt to fit ALL prophetic verses into one system of interpretation, be it Preterist or Pre-Millennial, is not sufficient. I think we're down here on the earth looking at the underbelly of a complex math equation and can't understand it or put it neatly into any box.
I was interested to learn that the very earliest documents of the Early Church backed a post-Trib, pre-Millennial position, but for me this knowledge comes at a time when I'm not very "into" Endtime Bible prophecy any more. I certainly look forward to the return of Jesus, but I'm a lot sadder but wiser about the foibles of insisting on certain prophetic views, such as we had in the Family.
I agree that the Pre-Millennial, pre-Great Tribulation view causes Christians sometimes wish the world would get worse and worse, and that's not healthy. But you know something funny? I read thorugh "The Last Days are Here Again" and by the time I got to the end I was shaking my head sadly at the folly of Christians setting dates and pushing Endtime interpretations for the last 2,000 years. But because the author is honest and objective, he then presented the facts how the secular scientists ALSO predict a serious world catastrophet (literally the end of the world) and that things are so bad and so advanced that many of them have little hope the brakes could go on or the damage to our planet be reversed even if we stopped all the pollution right now.
That was a wake up call to me. I guess instead of cheering on the destruction of the planet and throwing our garbage in the streets of this world that "deserves hell" we ought to take better care of our planet.
I think we agree that "pre-Trib, pre-Millennial" doctrine has the potential to be destructive, but on the other hand, I don't feel the evidence was sufficient to convince me that all the bad stuff was fulfilled back in 70 AD and that it's now basically getting better and better. Even secular scientists don't beleive that.
Thanks for all your comments, George.