What are your thoughts?
Everybody needs to watch it…
It’s the basis for ‘covenant eschatology’ and my position of ‘pantelism’.
I owned “The Cross and the Parousia of Christ”, by Tim’s father, Max King. What King wrote in defense of ET bothered me so much I literally burned the book one night. But later, I found out that Max King became a universalist. I wish he would write a book from his new preterist universalist perspective.
Max King would be more an inclusionist than a ‘universalist prêterist’ as you say.
Max doesn’t believe everyone will be saved?
Inclusive prêterism accepts God’s grace covers all, period — but doesn’t accept many of the tenets of universalism; big difference.
qaz, I agree with most of what Tim King has to say. However, I still hold to the view that such things are cyclic; that is we rise and fall and rise again. To me, there has only ever been one everlasting covenant of God. If we obey it, we prosper and if not, destruction occurs. You can see these things happening over and over again as you read the Bible. For example, Deut. 32:9-13 says this: “For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land and in the wasteland, a howling wilderness; he encircled him, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye…So the Lord alone led him and there was no foreign god with him. He made him ride the heights of the earth…”
Obviously, these people were “living in the Spirit” at the time. Then later on, they are but slaves in the land of Egypt. Again, they are set free and they walk in the wilderness for forty years. Their shoes didn’t wear out and they never went hungry because they were following the Law of reciprocity which Jesus also demonstrated in the feeding of the five thousand. Yes, I believe there will be an “end of days” because we don’t always obey God. But there will a time of renewal as well.
LLC are you a preterist?
I apologize for LaHaye’s fear-mongering money machine, and his promotion of an escapist mentality. Nevertheless,
Salvation is from the Jews. God has further plans for them. Great and glorious plans.
Some Jews have recognized and accepted Jesus as Messiah, but most have not. When Jesus returns, the Jews will repent en masse:
For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.”
All Israel will be saved: This all Israel is not “spiritual Israel.” It isn’t “spiritual Israel” in Romans 11:25, because that Israel is spiritually blind. Therefore, we shouldn’t regard it as spiritual Israel in Romans 11:26. (David Guzik)
This repentance of Israel will be at the Second Coming of Christ, as foretold in Zechariah 12:
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”
Mankind is in rebellion against God. In Babylon, mankind united to build a tower, and God confused their language.
That was a temporary fix. We are warned that Babylon will rise again (e.g., “Come out of her, my people,” Rev. 18:4), and then finally the great harvest will occur:
Matthew 13:30, 39
'Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.” ’
The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
I think the dismissing of the “now, not yet” emphasis on things apocalyptic/eschatalogical , as was done in the vid, is premature. Can I prove that by citing a verse or two? No; that ‘what time is it now?’ issue is a big subject - and important, it seems to me, to the extent that ‘timing’ dogma influences/obscures/distorts or actually bolsters the true understanding of the Gospel.
Actually, the verbiage is ‘already but not yet,’ and you could well look back on what davo has proposed and he is right. ‘From my view’ the pantelism version and the ‘presence’ understanding is definitely rolling down the same path.
To say it is premature would really facilitate you showing how the position is wrong, and I would be looking forward to your pointing out what is proper.
Geez Chad, it’s been pointed over the past year on the forum over and over and over. I don’t care that you believe differently - viva la difference!! - but I’m comfortable with where I stand. I read everything davo has written on this forum, and everything on his blog, and some others of like mind; I’ve done my due diligence; and I don’t agree with your stand. That’s it. No biggie. I look forward to the same courtesy from you. As usual.
It is a shame you burned the book, no book should be burned. You may have in another reading realized a different view.
Good luck qaz.
Ok, so just for clarification…
Dave… IF your perception (as a futurist) is that this video dismisses the ‘already / not yet’ then you have NOT grasped and heard clearly the presentation given (check again the segment ‘too much tension’ 7min 20sec+). According to ‘covenant eschatology’ the ‘already / not yet’ WAS the 40yr intertestamental timeframe AD30-70; a period of trial and testing replicating Israel’s 40yr exodus from bondage (old covenant) to freedom (new covenant).
It was this 40yr overlapping of the ages, i.e., Paul’s this age (OC) with that of the age to come (NC) where the glory of the old covenant that was diminishing was progressively being outshone by the then burgeoning and more glorious new covenant as it came into its fullness — what Peter later described in terms of the new creation wherein righteousness dwells.
This overlapping to the ages is seen in Jesus’ parable where the wheat and tares grow together (AD30+) and are only then separated right at the end, at the harvest (AD70). Again this is seen in Paul’s own analogy where the two brothers, i.e., recipients of two covenants, dwelt together for a time, where the one persecuted the other (Gal 4:21-31) — note in particular verse 29… “even so it is now”. THEY ALONE, not us, nor anyone else since were living in that biblical ‘already / not yet’ scenario.
The problem that most thinking futurists have with the fulfilled view is that although they don’t agree with it, which is fine, they realise it is annoyingly rational and makes logical sense… it just come too far out of left field threatening their theological comfort levels — such reactions make sense; which is why I tend to take the drip-feed approach, i.e., bit by bit chisel away, because I know for some someday they will finally have an a-ha moment and grasp it.
Not the problem here as of this moment.
Well, I did use the qualifier… “thinking”
Well, of course I too am not among “most”(?) ‘thinking’ futurists who believe that a non-futurist interpretation actually makes the most “logical sense” of the texts
You DID use that qualifier…well played…
qaz, No I’m not a preterist.
Davo, I disagree. The Jewish/ Levitical law was a departure from the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Laws and ways of the God they believed in. There were many who came before and after Jesus that lived under the rule of tyrants. The persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church were just as bad if not worse than those of the Levitical law. As Luke 11:24-26 says “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places , seeking rest; and finding none, he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of the man is worse than the first.”