Originally Posted By: Pilgrim
Originally Posted By: Hitch
No. But I have heard that some people who like broccoli ask these questions too. If it makes you feel any better my questions are based on and reflect the positions of that wild and crazy 'hyper-preterist', Loraine Boettner, The Millennium chapter IX specifically.

1. Your 'tone' appears to be rather combative at this point. Why?

2. Your response above also appears to be rather cryptic, i.e., I am still unsure if you are considering or perhaps have already embraced hyper-Preterism???
Well Pilgrim 'No'' is hardly cryptic.
Quote:


3. Lorraine Boettner was hardly a hyper-Preterist. He was a solid Postmillennialist.
That was my point. I was kidding when I said Boettner was hyper -preterist, I wansnt kidding when I said my view is based directly on his work and I gave you the relevant chapter.
Quote:


Originally Posted By: Hitch
In this view just as in common DF outlooks the time references are rendered irrelevant, explained away because they dont fit with added requirements.

1. I am not familiar with the reference to "DF"???
DF I thought I'd used that here before , anyway, Dispensational Futurist .
Quote:


2. I'm definitely not nor even trying, as you accuse me, of rendering away the time references. I simply explained how I and the majority of others are to be understood.

Originally Posted By: Hitch
That sounds more like J Vernon McGee that what I expected from you.

J. Vernon McGee was a classic Dispensationalist. There is nothing in common between his eschatological views and my own, which are historic Amillennialism. [p/quote] On the contrary Pilgrim your treatment of the time references ,especially regarding the Apocalypse are identical in form and purpose. [quote]

Originally Posted By: Hitch
For the most part Pilgrim I have a lot of respect for what you have to say but you are not free to alter the Scripture to fit your needs any more than McGee or Walvoord. These terms were written to real live believers and they had the audacity to believe what the Apostle wrote, but according to Pilgrim and McGee they were completely wrong. Not slightly mistaken or misunderstood but off by thousands of years, that is rejected out of hand.

1. Again, I have nothing in common with McGee nor Walvoord nor any other Dispensationalist.

2. Yes, the prophecies were written to 'real live believers' no less than the OT prophecies were written to 'real live believers'. Are you going to suggest that all the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled in the lifetime of those to whom the prophecies came?
Im 'suggesting' they were fulfilled within the time frames given, is such instances where that occurred. Im 'suggesting' that when John says 'A' is about to happen ,he was right '
Quote:


Originally Posted By: Hitch
A more general question but one that is directly related; Why would Jesus have much to say about an event thousands of years future to the men who were yet witness the cross and resurrection?

See above re: OT prophecy.

And just in case you are or have embraced the hyper-Preterism of Ward Fenley, Tommy Ice, et al, here's what Kenneth Gentry, a solid Postmillennialist has to say about it: A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism. Jim West also wrote a succinct refutation of hyper-Preterism, who btw is no Dispensationalist either, here: The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of ‘Dispensable Eschatology’
I believe Gentry dedicated one of his books to Boettner and since you brought him up I'll offer you a challenge that is directly related to the discussion. My view ,as previously stated,is taken directly from Boettner and matches very closely if not exactly regrading the passages under discussion, and by extension Gentry's as well. The challege is that you will not find anything I've written or any position I've held that is not supported by Boettner/Gentry.


Tommy Ice; Ice is DF hyper-pre-trib-rapturist if anything ,I dont know Fenley




Edited by Hitch (Friday, January 13, 2012 12:46 PM)
_________________________
Marxism is the opiate of the academy.