 |
|
|
I just picked up my Bible and I held it and I pointed it at one of the edges of the spine and I said Spirit, in the Name of Jesus Christ, my Bible says this is a sword and I command that you be run through with this sword and tormented until you obey me, and I just took the Bible and the edge of the spine and shoved it right at the chest of this man and the demon screamed, Why did you stab me with that thing?! Get it out of me! Take it away! All right, I'll do what you want me to do!
-- Bob Larson Live, March 26, 1996
|
|
| |
Preterism: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura?
Posted on Sunday, January 14 @ 13:58:30 PST by Virgil |
|
jl submitted: "For those who don't know, Tim and I are writing a book on Preterism and a local Genesis Flood. A substantial part of the text was sent out to various reviewers. One of these reviewers is a preterist with Reformation leanings who took issue with our argument for a local Flood. This reviewer said that we should argue it from "Scripture Only."
This begs an interesting question. Does anyone argue preterism from Scripture only? That is, if the Temple was still standing, would anyone here still argue for preterism?
JL"
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
 by daveedwards (dave@REMOVEMEtcfonts.com) on Sunday, January 14 @ 17:02:45 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Interesting question - if the Temple still stood then I would say that then prophesies would have been fulfilled in a different manner (i.e. spiritual vs. physical). I read all the verses about "soon", so I believe the return was in the 1st century. However, like the people of that time when the Savior didn't appear as they thought he would or should (Suffering Servant vs Conquering King), they said it didn't happen. Modern Christians say the same thing - since they see no current or historical evidence of how they thought the return should be - it hasn't happened. A Preterist interpretation without the fall of Jersulem and the Temple would have to do the same thing.
David William Edwards |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
by Parker on Sunday, January 14 @ 17:18:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Preterism (any form) wouldn't exist if people followed Sola Scriptura. Every preterist that has made a contribution to the view was deeply persuaded by Josephus.
Without the history of AD 70 documented by Josephus, Christians would spiritualize the time statements of scripture without a second thought (as most futurists do). The *extrabiblical history* is what causes interpreters to consider as plausible a strict, literal view of time statements. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by mazuur on Sunday, January 14 @ 18:26:24 PST
- by Parker on Sunday, January 14 @ 20:04:50 PST
- by mazuur on Monday, January 15 @ 06:22:45 PST
- by Parker on Monday, January 15 @ 12:03:50 PST
- by mazuur on Monday, January 15 @ 13:47:06 PST
- by Parker on Monday, January 15 @ 15:21:28 PST
- by Virgil on Sunday, January 14 @ 19:18:26 PST
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
 by Mick on Sunday, January 14 @ 18:24:45 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I believe the preterist position can be argued successfully without any external sources. Seeing how Hebraic images are used in the OT and applying the meaning of those images to the NT prophecy you get a preterist understanding.
The way we know how to interpret the OT prophecies that were fulled prior to the parousia is we have inspired text revealing and confirming the truth of the fulfillment of these OT prophecies.
The problem arises when we want to confirm our theory that the NT prophecies were fulfilled at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. We have no inspired text to tell us that this was the fulfillment of the prophecies in hindsight. In fact the OT and NT point to the fact that inspiration and revelation would end at the time of the parousia. As a result we have the extra-biblical sources to confirm what we perceive to be true from the scriptures |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
by demario on Sunday, January 14 @ 18:56:13 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | If the authors are speaking of me (Gary DeMar), then they know that I did not say the flood issue should be argued from Scripture ALONE, and neither did I take issue with their argument of a local flood as long as they make an exegetical case for it. I know very well the extra-biblical arguments. Bu before we look at historical, logical, and inferential arguments, we must first determine what the text actually says. We do this with Matthew 24. What's the primary audience? What is the meaning of "this generation"? What do parallel passages tell us about the meaning of "Son of Man," "sun, moon, and stars," and oikoumene. If we don't do this, we will find ourselves coming back to these arguments again and again. Prior to the destruction of the temple, could people who heard or read the Olivet Discourse be sure that the temple would be destroyed within a generation? Consider that futurists and preterists agree that the temple was destroyed in AD 70, but futurists claim there will be a rebuilt temple. The FACT of the AD-70 destruction of the temple doesn't phase a futurist. How can this be countered? First, and primarily, by an appeal to the text, and we know it works. What if the temple is rebuilt, which it may be? Will this nullify preterism? Not at all, since the Olivet Discourse makes no provision for a rebuilt temple based on the timing factor of 24:34 and the audience--"when YOU see all THESE things" (24:33)--and other textual factors. If Jeff and Tim are going to affect a paradigm shift, then they better keep their facts straight. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Sunday, January 14 @ 19:03:12 PST
- by Jhedges on Monday, January 15 @ 14:47:32 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, January 15 @ 15:05:15 PST
- by Jhedges on Monday, January 15 @ 15:17:32 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, January 15 @ 15:35:10 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, January 15 @ 16:25:17 PST
- by Paige on Monday, January 15 @ 16:34:18 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, January 15 @ 19:38:37 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, January 15 @ 20:17:18 PST
- by Waidmann on Tuesday, January 16 @ 11:26:03 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, January 16 @ 11:48:46 PST
- by davo on Tuesday, January 16 @ 13:45:22 PST
- by Starlight on Sunday, January 14 @ 20:58:24 PST
Historical Writing and Predictive Prophecy Comparison? (Score: 1)
by valensname on Sunday, January 14 @ 21:07:19 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | JL,
In answer to your question, yes.
However, I don't think your argument regarding if the Temple was still standing for 2000 years is a valid comparison to your views on Genesis. The events of Genesis were historical from when they were written down, regarding the temple's destruction, that was predictive prophecy. I don't see your comparison as valid. Genesis is historical language, regarding the first century temple, that was prophecy. A different hermeneutic for each to be used.
It sounds like someone is saying the same thing I have asked of you and Tim - stay within the context and do exegetical work the same as Max or Don has regarding your views on Genesis.
Virgil asked above about a rebuilt temple...It doesn't matter if some type of temple is ever rebuilt in that place on the planet, the OC can never come back. Spiritually it is not possible, God fulfilled it and it was done away. Physically, no one knows what tribe one is from, there can be no priests from the tribe of Levi ever again.
Oh, and Tim asked for my home address to send me some text of your book to review, I gave it to him but never heard back. If he did send a manuscript it never arrived.
Glenn |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by chrisliv on Sunday, January 14 @ 22:53:57 PST
- by Mick on Monday, January 15 @ 06:47:10 PST
- by chrisliv on Monday, January 15 @ 11:59:34 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, January 15 @ 09:28:59 PST
- by valensname on Monday, January 15 @ 20:17:00 PST
Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
 by KingNeb on Monday, January 15 @ 06:41:02 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | - "Does anyone argue preterism from Scripture only?"
Yes. www.thereignofchrist.com
- "That is, if the Temple was still standing, would anyone here still argue for preterism?"
But the Temple isn't still standing and the reason it is not is obvious from the text.
God doesn't need Josephus to validate His Word. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
by Sam on Monday, January 15 @ 08:44:26 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Sola Scriptura does not mean Scriptura nuda. It is not Scripture "only". It means Scripture is the final court of appeal, not the only court of appeal. The Westminster Confession is quite plain on this fact. Everything else is regarded as "helps". This means that a good, biblical exegesis will utilize whatever tool or "help" he can find that offers support to his task. Herodotus, Josephus, Suetonius and the Epic of Gilgamiesh, then, become interesting items of support and help. However, these "helps" cannot be the final appeal. Josephus, as great as a help he is, is not Scripture. And, we do not need to know from him that the Temple is no longer there. But, the fact of the matter (speculation aside) is that we have Josephus (and the other historians of that time).
As for the case of a "local" Genesis flood, can Jeff and Tim explain to me where the Grand Canyon came from? Are they swallowing empiricism so as to make the Bible more "compatible" with the know-it-all scientist? What's the point?
Sam |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Starlight on Monday, January 15 @ 09:05:30 PST
- by Ransom on Monday, January 15 @ 10:17:45 PST
- by Sam on Tuesday, January 16 @ 11:00:24 PST
- by Ransom on Tuesday, January 16 @ 13:46:45 PST
- by Virgil on Monday, January 15 @ 10:40:43 PST
- by Starlight on Monday, January 15 @ 11:16:47 PST
- by Kyle Peterson on Wednesday, January 17 @ 07:51:14 PST
- by large-hammer on Monday, January 15 @ 13:29:08 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, January 15 @ 13:57:41 PST
- by Sam on Monday, January 15 @ 23:11:00 PST
- by Jhedges on Wednesday, January 17 @ 09:50:38 PST
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
by DavidF on Monday, January 15 @ 10:02:38 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | JL: Your question is confusing because key to this is, the temple is not standing, but it is still interesting.
The Scriptures (Christ, Apostles and prophets) told Christians to look at and act on the confirmation of historical events. “MT 24:15 "So when you see…”; v.42 "Therefore keep watch…”; LK 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies…flee to the mountains.”
In A.D. 68 or 69, any Christian who had his head buried exclusively in the Scriptures, refusing to observe events (since “Sola Scriptura”) was mistaken! It is equally flawed to ignore past (and present) events post A.D. 70. “Scriptura” even now bids us abide by the evidence of events!
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, January 15 @ 10:26:41 PST
- by Sam on Monday, January 15 @ 23:12:17 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, January 16 @ 08:14:08 PST
- by KingNeb on Tuesday, January 16 @ 09:00:38 PST
- by DavidF on Tuesday, January 16 @ 11:41:09 PST
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
 by Windpressor (Giddi_one) on Tuesday, January 16 @ 02:53:39 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | *************
Appeal to an historical event by observation, reason and the witness of Scripture is not without precedent.
Consider that the record of Acts is about the earliest disciples relating the real events concerning Christ, as yet unrecorded, with the Scripture of that day(OT). ==
Acts 8:35 - "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus."
Acts 17:2 - "... on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, ..."
Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Acts 17:17 - "So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there."
Acts 18:4 - "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks."
Acts 18:5 - "... Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus."
Acts 18:19 - "... went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews."
Acts 18:28 - "... for he[Apollos] powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
[Note: The context of vs 24-28 is about the competence and qualifications of Apollos. -- No pope, apostle, priest, or clergy required.]
Acts 19:8 - "And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God."
Acts 19:9 - "But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus."
Acts 24:25 - "And as he reasoned about righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment, Felix was alarmed ..."
===========
Keywords search ESV *reason Scripture* at BibleGateway
If the Berean model is followed as the "noble standard", it comes by observation, reason, and Scriptural testimony that dismisses the deviant usurpations of hierarchies and also discredits disruptive rebellion; whereby it receives"... the word with all eagerness ...".
That just doesn't look like Sola Scriptura to me.
G1
................
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
What is Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
 by davo on Tuesday, January 16 @ 17:00:06 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Maybe a consistent prêteristic application of the so-called 'Sola Scriptura' should be applied to the Old Testament only?
It is possible "I think" to propose an argument where that everywhere the NT mentions "the Scripture/s" it is referring to the OT writings exclusively, i.e., the Scriptures being – the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets.
Mt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Lk 24:44-45 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
Act 26:22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come—
Jn 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
The weight of NT evidence is that "the Scripture/s" refers to the OT. Even Peter's use of "the other" or "the rest of the Scriptures" needs to be seen in light of Paul – seeing as this is the context for what Peter says. So where there is any uncertainty one must go with the weight of the evidence available. Could it be that the NT is in fact a type of midrash on the OT??
2Tim 3:15-16 …and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures [ιερα γραμματα = sacred Writings or Letters i.e., the OT], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture [γραφη = Scripture] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…
2Pet 3:15-16 …and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles [επιστολαις = injunctions or instructions], speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures. [λοιπας γραφας = other Scriptures]
The Greek words γραμματα, γραφη and γραφας are all cognates or derivations of γραφω [grapho] and relate to the OT writings i.e., "the Scriptures". Paul's epistles [επιστολαις] however are his teachings on these OT scriptures – they are the "these things" that Peter refers to – Paul's teachings. So Peter's "other Scriptures" are not Paul's writings – his epistles, or any of the NT that may have been extent at the time, but the Old Testament Scriptures that Paul's epistles are about. Therefore Peter's "these things" are to be understood in the same vein as "the word" that Paul brought, i.e., Paul's teachings ON the Scriptures to the those of Thessalonica, upon which with gleeful acceptance they then "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." Act 17:11b.
None of this is to in anyway undermine the credibility of the NT; it does however IMO show that NT references to "the Scriptures" can be seen as referring to the OT only – thus giving u
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ransom on Tuesday, January 16 @ 17:51:01 PST
- by davo on Tuesday, January 16 @ 19:06:06 PST
- by Virgil on Tuesday, January 16 @ 19:19:51 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, January 16 @ 20:16:46 PST
- by chrisliv on Tuesday, January 16 @ 21:43:12 PST
- by chrisliv on Tuesday, January 16 @ 18:32:39 PST
- by davo on Tuesday, January 16 @ 19:10:46 PST
- by Starlight on Tuesday, January 16 @ 21:02:27 PST
- by davo on Tuesday, January 16 @ 21:32:29 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Wednesday, January 17 @ 05:34:20 PST
Re: Do Any Preterists Believe in Sola Scriptura? (Score: 1)
by zealot66 on Wednesday, January 17 @ 08:54:38 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | sola scriptura is a limited method to me. For instance, Acts ends before paul is on trial. Yet we know something happened after. Likely an acquital from nero only to be re arrested and martyred.
We should thank God that Josephus existed and preserved the history of the Post NT writings. The NT is a snapshot of the first century really only dealing with christianity. If anything, Josephus should be considered a confirmation of the prophecies of jesus as Eusebius did and pointed out very directly. The bible should be illuminated by the world and history.
I feel frustrated at times that the NT is so brief and really inadequate to dig deeper into christianity. Its enough for a lifetime of study but when it comes to certain subjects we should look other places to shed light on scripture. Sola Scriptura is the reason we have over 30k protestant denominations. Doesnt sound like a brilliant MO. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by KingNeb on Wednesday, January 17 @ 12:27:51 PST
- by MiddleKnowledge on Wednesday, January 17 @ 13:14:07 PST
- by KingNeb on Wednesday, January 17 @ 14:08:27 PST
- by zealot66 on Wednesday, January 17 @ 14:32:28 PST
- by zealot66 on Wednesday, January 17 @ 14:34:45 PST
- by KingNeb on Thursday, January 18 @ 09:48:27 PST
- by zealot66 on Thursday, January 18 @ 09:57:06 PST
- by KingNeb on Thursday, January 18 @ 10:50:25 PST
- by zealot66 on Thursday, January 18 @ 17:11:13 PST
- by KingNeb on Thursday, January 18 @ 17:17:28 PST
| 
|
