 |
|
|
I got to tell you this quickly, just before we go. I had a word of prophecy from Ruth Heflin. You know who Ruth Heflin is? Ruth prophesied over me back in the '70s and everything she said has happened. She's just sent me a word through my wife and said, the Lord spoke to her audibly and said that He is going to appear physically in one of our crusades in the next few months. Yeah. She - I'm telling you! - she said, the Lord spoke to her audibly and said "Tell Benny I'm going to appear physically on the platform in his meeting.
-- Benny Hinn, is Your Day, March 29, 2000
|
|
| |
Dispensationalism: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching
Posted on Tuesday, September 14 @ 21:19:35 PDT by Virgil |
|
Endtime.com magazine interview concludes: The teaching of preterism destroys this stated plan of God for the times in which we now live by teaching that the Bible’s prophecies have nothing to do with us today. Consequently, preterism runs counter to God’s expressed intention for endtime revival. Therefore, it should not be believed or taught.
Click here to read the entire interview
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
 by SuperSoulFighter on Tuesday, September 14 @ 22:48:18 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | That's quite the logical (and Scriptural) fallacy, eh? Full Preterism must be rejected because it "runs counter to God’s expressed intention for endtime revival".
That's just tragic. The abuse of the Scriptures necessary to conjure up Biblical support for such a view is appalling. The author baldly states that God's "expressed intention" is for "endtime revival" and, without any Scriptural substantiation, leaves it at that. Having read the whole article, I have come to understand that Mr. Baxter has a very unclear understanding of Full Preterism's tenets and the Biblical, historical and rational basis for them. I have just emailed him to that effect, inviting him to join us here for some interaction and mutual edification.
It is grossly insufficient to reject Preterism out-of-hand because it "runs counter to God's expressed intention for endtime revival". In actual fact, FUTURISM is in direct opposition to the revealed Mind and Will of God in relation to His eternal Kingdom are concerned.
JM |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
by leslie on Wednesday, September 15 @ 06:22:53 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | This person has a vested interest in saying what he is saying.He must say it or his Mag. would turn to a Rag. We have all heard what he has said before and many of us have used the same points in refuting Preterism... But to no avale. It is harder to unlearn what we have learned all of our life and to really study and learn the truth. Preterism will not be held bad. It is bursting out. Not as fast as we all would hope, but it is moving to the forefront. SuperSoulFighter, How is the "debate" with Hack? In Christs Love Leslie |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Wednesday, September 15 @ 15:37:25 PDT
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
by leslie on Wednesday, September 15 @ 06:25:11 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Should have said "held BACK" not held bad. Leslie |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, September 15 @ 06:35:25 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | This article attempts to defend dispensationalism by attachking preterism. It thereby illustrates what I shall call--reflecting current events--"the CBS approach." You offer a claim and support it by attacking the other guy's position while avoiding presenting evidence in support of your own position. In making his case, however, Baxter completely ignores the preterist literature dealing with the very issues he raises and pretends that preterists have not dealt with them. SuperSoulFighter is quite right. This article is tragic, and if it is a fair representation of the depth of dispensationaist thinking, those folks are in big, big trouble.
When Baxter does make an effort to defend dispenationalism, the results are pathetic. Especially unbelievable is that he unhesitatingly puts Daniel 11:30-31 into the future. He's actually right that it does not refer to the Messiah, but that's because it applies to the time of Antiochus IV and can be pinpointed to 168-167 BC!
I could go on, but what's the point. I hope Baxter has ample retirement funds stashed away. He's going to need them soon.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by blackpreterist on Wednesday, September 15 @ 07:11:12 PDT
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
by Writerx on Wednesday, September 15 @ 07:07:28 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Can anyone explain why these dispensationalists can't read the first paragraph in Revelation dealing with these things being show in "SIGNS?" OOh my goodness this is getting old fast. It's giving me a headache. "When did we ever get the mark implanted on or foreheads? I skipped first John, but where is the anti-Christ, silly preterist? Where is his kingdom? And what about the seven golden bowls being poured out and the stars falling on the earth?"
Enough is enough. Poor theology just needs to be stopped. Period.
-A.J. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by blackpreterist on Wednesday, September 15 @ 07:23:27 PDT
Re: Climbing the unstable doctrine of Preterism: Examining a False Teaching (Score: 1)
by NB9M (brad@nb9m.com) on Friday, September 17 @ 13:20:13 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I took a look at the article in the endtime.com site - I'm a new Preterist but had no problem quickly brushing away the introductory "why preterism is false" issues except for the pesky Rev. 20. What's more interesting is the "nail in the preterist coffin" statement made:
Daniel 11:30-31 tells us in no uncertain terms that it is the Antichrist (the king of the north) and his followers who take away the daily sacrifice and place the abomination of desolation.
This one is so weird and outlandish that I just had to bring it up: how can Baxter connect an Anti-Christ (which is not a man, and appears only in 1st and 2nd John) to the OT book of Daniel so readily? I read - and reread- the same passage; every time I reach an opposite conclusion about Who takes away the final sacrifices. I read it as Christ bringing Judgement against Jerusalem. The "prince" would be whomever did the deed (I'd think Titus.) In fact, Josephus records that the Romans attempted an agreement, but the Jewish leaders wouldn't capitulate. But Baxter says:
So we can see clearly that it is the Antichrist, not the Messiah, who takes away the daily sacrifice and places the abomination of desolation. ... This one core issue totally destroys the foundation of the preterist position.
Mr. Baxter, I don't clearly see it! You just succeeded in strengthening my preterist leanings. Now back to that pesky "Satan will be bound for 1000 years" in Rev 20... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by SuperSoulFighter on Friday, September 17 @ 16:59:34 PDT
- by NB9M on Sunday, September 19 @ 15:39:48 PDT
- by Ed on Saturday, September 18 @ 15:26:18 PDT
- by SuperSoulFighter on Saturday, September 18 @ 23:04:50 PDT
| 
|
