How do Preterists & Pantelists who are URists address alleged anti UR “proof texts” such as the following:
Yes you are right to point this out. The pantelist position is that said saving was to be from the trials and tribulations of the prophesied forthcoming turmoil associated with the winding up of the old covenant world or age. This was occurring to those, or as you have it… “Jesus specified a certain group” of that historic 40yr period AD30-70 — a biblical generation, i.e., Jesus’… “this generation.”
Those who stood firm in their faith would survive into the coming (new) age of righteousness with all vestiges, i.e., “elements” of the old covenant age having been brought to nought — starting at the cross and consummating in the parousia. What was visual, that is… “every eye shall see” was the demonstrable destruction of everything associated with that old covenant world or age, i.e., the Temple, the Priesthood, the Sacrifices, the Law, all being thoroughly wiped out via the Roman rout of AD66-70 — the prophetic 3½yrs or 42mths — or as Daniel has it described to him…
Dan 12:7 Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.
Do Pantelists say the same regarding:
(39) But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved.
“As for Hebrews 10:37, Gregg offers only his “opinion” without reasons that it is about A. D. 70, when it is clearly about Christ’s Second Coming as both the language and context indicate. For it speaks about our “reward” and “heaven” (vv. 34-35).”
Yes… in the face of persecution, reversion to Judaism was a real issue the apostles contended with, cf. Heb 6:4-6; 10:29; 2Pet 2:20-22; Gal 2:18 + multiple verses from Acts + Rev.
As for Norman Geisler and his gripe against some Hank Hanegraaff’s partial prêterism… I wouldn’t venture too much of an opinion myself other than to say in some respects Geisler is correct, i.e., partial prêterism is inconsistent; it is, in fact, partial futurism and so as far as I’m concerned… dead in the water. IF only Geisler had eyes to see he’d realise that AD70 WAS the Parousia, i.e., they were, in fact, both one and the same event.
The Old Testament prophets used cosmic language to describe transformative historical events.
The story of judgment and vindication which Jesus told is very much like the story told by the prophet Jeremiah, invoking the categories of cosmic disaster in order to invest the coming socio-political disaster with its full theological significance.
N. T. Wright ‘* Jesus and the Victory of God *’ p. 323
Biblical prophecy is figurative or symbolic language describing and uncovering the spiritual significance and meaning of temporal events (AD70) and as such being meaningful to their original hearers — “let him who has ears” etc.
Christ’s coming was imminent in their lifetimes… which means that it must be long-fulfilled by ours. What would happen if we began to walk in the empowerment of these promises kept?
Prov 13:12 Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life. C.f. Acts 26:6-8; 24:15; 23:6
Futurism has deferred the NT hope… no wonder the church has been sick ever since!
Davo, are you in agreement with Adam Clarke’s commentary on Heb.10:39:
I think Clarke gives a reasonable reading. In this vein you may find this interesting as well…