the mood of fallen man concerning his own salvation is well expressed in the countless
tens of thousands who perished in the Flood. these cared for nothing in the preaching of
Noah and did not turn away from sin and get into the Ark, which is a type of Christ.
fallen man doesn't care any more about Limited Atonement than he does about any doctrine
which gives God all of the glory for being the first cause of redemption... he will scoff
at redemption ( 1 Cor. 1:18 ) until he sees he is left behind when he'll be weeping and
gnashing his teeth at God.

Limited Atonement, and it's companion term Particular Redemption, as a doctrine, is found
throughout Holy Scripture. Limited Atonement counters the idea that the Bible teaches
Universal Atonement...

if Christ died for everyone, everyone is saved, none shall perish,

less we admit Christ failed at Calvary; God has no justification in judging sinner's
since Christ paid the penalty for all of their sins; the wrath of God should not have
fallen on the people who perished in the Flood, nor who have been perishing all along.

so says Universal Atonement.

Particular Atonement is in view when God records that Noah and his family were the only of
mankind to be saved by the Ark, a type of Christ. hence we read... " in Adam all die, so
also in Christ all will be made alive. " the stumbling block of such words as ' all,
many, everyone ' etc, when found in the context of salvation verses is the fuel driving
the Universalists to conclude everyone without exception is saved, and when those who
perished in the Flood are brought into the conversation, the Universalists fall back on
their idea that those who perished had free will and didn't desire to be saved... this
makes Christ a Savior who can not save and Noah built the Ark for nothing.

however, they are at a loss to understand that unbelief is a sin for which Christ also
paid the penalty.

that being the case, that Christ died for ' everyone, ' there should be no " weeping and
gnashing of teeth " in the Day of Judgement. man should then be quite satisfied to burn
to death in the Day of Judgement because it was far better a free will choice than to
subject oneself to the authority of Christ.

the Bible is replete in speaking of an elect remnant chosen by grace for Life through the
redemption which is in Christ while also speaking of those not so chosen. the starting
point is that as God viewed all of mankind as having fallen with Adam, some out of the all
of these He chose to redeem, bypassing the other's. Noah and his family verses the rest
of mankind. " one will be taken and one will be left ."

that " one will be taken and one will be left " speaks to Limited Atonement for not all
shall be saved...

and since man in his fallen state has no desire to be saved (Jn. 6:66)
it should not be a horror to the elect that these will meet their doom for such speaks to
the righteousness of our just and righteous God. that He must punish sin is seen in His
laying on Christ the inequity of us all... the ' all ' is understood in the context of the
whole Bible and here in Isa. 53:6 " all " means all of the elect ( vs.11,12 )

This is what happens when one starts with a doctrine and then seeks to

Christ Himself witnesses this in that by His own words saying so twice, He lays down His
life for the sheep. ( Jn. 10:11,15 ) He does not pray in Jn. 17 that those passed by have
any redemption, but only the elect. only those who's names are written in His Book of
Life are the objects of His love, mercy and salvation grace.

again, if Christ died for everyone then everyone is saved and God

is wrong to condemn
anyone since there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. ( Ro. 8:1a ) this
is not the case at all as the rest of the passage indicates. we read " He chose us " in
the first chapter of Eph. and never do we read " He chose them, " the reprobate non-elect.

these will not give glory to God willing as He display's His righteous judgement against
sin... in man's wrath will he give glory to God ( Ps. 76:10 ) by their display of weeping
and gnashing their teeth... only the elect give glory to God. ( Lk. 17:11-19 ) the lofty
self-righteousness of fallen man finds the Bible teaching a way to salvation only by some
co-redeeming action they themselves have taken. the elect find the Bible teaching
redemption is solely of the Lord ( Ps. 3:8 ) having mercy on whom He wills and hardening
whom He wills ( Ro. 9:18 ) and the two are not taken but one is left. Mt.24:40

while the phrase ' Limited Atonement ' is not found in Holy Scripture, just as the word
' Trinity ' and ' Rapture ' are not found, the term correctly expresses the words of Jesus
who insists " I lay down My life for the sheep. " the preaching of " all the counsel of
God " brings with it rebuke from those finding they can continue in sin since " Peace and
Safety " is in Universal Atonement.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:00:24 -0500, Randy ® <pulpitfire at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, 10/16/09, at 3:32:52PM,
..Matt.. <trdell1234 at (no spam) gmail.comnospam> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:03:28 -0500, Randy ®<pulpitfire at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, 10/16/09, at 2:52:46PM,
..Matt..<trdell1234 at (no spam) gmail.comnospam> wrote:

The value of the atonement is unlimited. Christ's death paid for
everyone's sins. The application of the atonement is limited.
Only the elect benefit from it.
I knew you were a Calvinist.

Well these NGs aren't Geneva and calvin was a tyrant.


Matt, go buy a clue before you make statements like this. Calvin
held that Christ died _only_ for the elect, and that the benefit
of His atonement is applied only to the elect. I argue strongly
against the idea that Christ died only for the elect, since He
died for "all men", tasted death for "every man", and even bought
false teachers who deny Him (Peter), but acknowledge the benefit
is only applied to the elect (Romans 9), as it's obvious not
everyone is saved.


Go look into the history of Geneva, think you will like it.

Already familiar with it.

I thought as much. You want to bring it to the NGs.

That tells more about Calvin than his claimed doctrine.

As does your history compared to the occasional lip-service you
do in posting a verse of Scripture here and there.

Calvin was a tyrant and nut case. He would have liked hitler though
they had much in common in many ways. Different doctrine same life
view. Muck like you Randy

Pastor Dave said...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:05 +0300,
G spake thusly:

Limited atonement is a false doctrine that is in
direct opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

That depends on what is meant by it.

If you read the original post with the explanation
of Limited Atonement (which is the hyper-Calvinist
position), and then read my response in its entirety,
it should be clear. I made a clear distinction between
unlimited atonement (that Christ died for all, His death
being sufficient for the sins of all) and the false doctrine
of universalism (that all will be saved).

Old Man Joe's original post took the position
that Christ only died for the elect, which is
unbiblical. He died for all. But the redemption
that results from His death only applies to the
elect (i.e. those who place their faith in Him).

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:42:56 +0300, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:


Pastor Dave said...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:05 +0300,
G spake thusly:

Limited atonement is a false doctrine that is in
direct opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

That depends on what is meant by it.

If you read the original post with the explanation
of Limited Atonement (which is the hyper-Calvinist
position), and then read my response in its entirety,
it should be clear. I made a clear distinction between
unlimited atonement (that Christ died for all, His death
being sufficient for the sins of all) and the false doctrine
of universalism (that all will be saved).

I don't really read tons of posts in a thread to see
what people are trying to get at. I admit that. :)

As for "hyper", frankly, I am really sick and tired
of hearing that term. It is nothing more than
a way for people to take a position that what
they believe is actually what the person/movement
states/stated and that anything more than that is
"hyper", which has become an insult; a bad word.

I rarely use the prefix "hyper". But in the case of Calvinism, it has

Now is that proper debate style? No. That is indeed
nothing more than hand waving away an argument
and trying to win by default (before starting) and
that to me, is cowardice, not doctrinal integrity.
It is dishonest, not Godly.

Now that may not be _your_intent, but that's how
I see it and maybe a number of people _think_
they're making these high sounded doctrinal
arguments, but when an argument is spent saying
how someone else is pretty much a raving lunatic
about something, that isn't intelligence, it's table
pounding and lacks any true substance.

I understand your point. I'll try to be more careful with my choice of

There is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinism".
One is either a Calvinist, or one is not. And
anyone who falls short of all that Calvin taught,
is not a Calvinist and to label those who hold to
all that he taught as "hyper", is disingenuous,
as is labeling those who go beyond what he
taught. They are simply not Calvinists.

Now you might say that they claim to be, but you
are the one who is fooled by such an argument
when it's made and have allowed them to try
to make a false argument valid. They are not
Calvinist, period, if they stray from what he
taught and claim that it's true and that they're
Calvinists, amen? So let's stop letting them
bring us down to their level and let's instead
simply flat out deny that they are what they
claim they are.

Take me for example. I agree with the five basic points
of Calvinism, but not all that he taught. Therefore, I do
not label myself a Calvinist.

I would not label myself as a Calvinist particularly because this

And take the fact that while I don't label myself,
my belief system does generally hold with Preterism.

So what do people do, once I prove to them that
it is the valid belief system? Because they want to
somehow hang onto the idea that will return in the
sky, visibly and physically, they label me as what's
called a "Hyper-Preterist", as if I've somehow taken
it too far. But that's impossible. The word "preter"
comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means,
"in the past". Therefore, by definition, anyone
that says that any prophecy remains to be fulfilled
in the future, is not a Preterist.

I've never heard the term "Hyper-Preterist" before. In that case, I'd

Now do they get honest and admit this? No.
They stay dishonest and keep making the same
exact claim, even though they knew that it was
dishonest from go. Usenet is a place where 90%
or more of the participants are egomaniacs.

So again, I do not give any credence to the term. :)


Old Man Joe's original post took the position
that Christ only died for the elect, which is
unbiblical. He died for all. But the redemption
that results from His death only applies to the
elect (i.e. those who place their faith in Him).

Okay and I would agree with that. I would
also state though, that the question is whether
or not that's what Calvin taught. And if it is not,
then you don't argue with Joe on what type of
Calvinist he is, but rather, you tell Joe that he
is not a Calvinist.

I can't really remember whether Joe even used the term "Calvinism". But

Furthermore, you state to Joe that it doesn't matter
what any man taught. Why would we hold a man
up as if we must meet his criteria of what we must
believe? That sounds a bit too "Roman Catholic"
to me. I'm sure you agree with these basic points.

I don't think Joe stated where he got his information.

The only thing that matters, is what the Bible says,
as I'm sure you would agree and I think folks have
simply gotten too far off track of what's what and
what the arguments actually are.

I do agree. And that's why I made my arguments against his position

As I said, I agree with what you're saying and I do
apologize for not having read more of it, but my
response was not meant as my statement that
I was disagreeing with you personally, but just
discussion in general and I have explained my
position in this message, just so that you better
understand where I'm coming from, when you
happen to read one of my posts.

In article <8qdmd5hu3fmktqegpavpp5gvm8jpvebf7a at (no spam) 4ax.com>, ananias917
_ at (no spam) _gmail.com says...

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:42:56 +0300, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:


Pastor Dave said...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:05 +0300,
G spake thusly:

Limited atonement is a false doctrine that is in
direct opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

That depends on what is meant by it.

If you read the original post with the explanation
of Limited Atonement (which is the hyper-Calvinist
position), and then read my response in its entirety,
it should be clear. I made a clear distinction between
unlimited atonement (that Christ died for all, His death
being sufficient for the sins of all) and the false doctrine
of universalism (that all will be saved).

I don't really read tons of posts in a thread to see
what people are trying to get at. I admit that. :)

As for "hyper", frankly, I am really sick and tired
of hearing that term. It is nothing more than
a way for people to take a position that what
they believe is actually what the person/movement
states/stated and that anything more than that is
"hyper", which has become an insult; a bad word.

I rarely use the prefix "hyper". But in the case of Calvinism, it has
become somewhat common to use the term "hyper-Calvinism". I don't mean
to use "hyper" as an insult, but in it's traditional, dictionary sense
of "over" or "beyond".

Now is that proper debate style? No. That is indeed
nothing more than hand waving away an argument
and trying to win by default (before starting) and
that to me, is cowardice, not doctrinal integrity.
It is dishonest, not Godly.

Now that may not be _your_intent, but that's how
I see it and maybe a number of people _think_
they're making these high sounded doctrinal
arguments, but when an argument is spent saying
how someone else is pretty much a raving lunatic
about something, that isn't intelligence, it's table
pounding and lacks any true substance.

I understand your point. I'll try to be more careful with my choice of
words.

There is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinism".
One is either a Calvinist, or one is not. And
anyone who falls short of all that Calvin taught,
is not a Calvinist and to label those who hold to
all that he taught as "hyper", is disingenuous,
as is labeling those who go beyond what he
taught. They are simply not Calvinists.

I would contend that it is possible to adhere strictly to a particular
doctrine, but take that doctrine too far in one's actions. In this
example of Calvinism, one could consider those who are doctrinally
"five-point Calvinists" but stand outside Billy Graham crusades trying
to convince people not to go inside because they have no choice in their
salvation.

That's just one example. I suspect that it might be possible to take
most doctrines too far in one way or another.

Now you might say that they claim to be, but you
are the one who is fooled by such an argument
when it's made and have allowed them to try
to make a false argument valid. They are not
Calvinist, period, if they stray from what he
taught and claim that it's true and that they're
Calvinists, amen? So let's stop letting them
bring us down to their level and let's instead
simply flat out deny that they are what they
claim they are.

Take me for example. I agree with the five basic points
of Calvinism, but not all that he taught. Therefore, I do
not label myself a Calvinist.

I would not label myself as a Calvinist particularly because this
specific doctrine of Limited Atonement (that Christ died only for the
elect, or that Christ did not die for all) is contrary to the
scriptures.

At the same time, I am not an Arminian either.

And take the fact that while I don't label myself,
my belief system does generally hold with Preterism.

So what do people do, once I prove to them that
it is the valid belief system? Because they want to
somehow hang onto the idea that will return in the
sky, visibly and physically, they label me as what's
called a "Hyper-Preterist", as if I've somehow taken
it too far. But that's impossible. The word "preter"
comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means,
"in the past". Therefore, by definition, anyone
that says that any prophecy remains to be fulfilled
in the future, is not a Preterist.

I've never heard the term "Hyper-Preterist" before. In that case, I'd
say the person using that term doesn't completely understand what
Preterism define.

Now do they get honest and admit this? No.
They stay dishonest and keep making the same
exact claim, even though they knew that it was
dishonest from go. Usenet is a place where 90%
or more of the participants are egomaniacs.

So again, I do not give any credence to the term. :)


Old Man Joe's original post took the position
that Christ only died for the elect, which is
unbiblical. He died for all. But the redemption
that results from His death only applies to the
elect (i.e. those who place their faith in Him).

Okay and I would agree with that. I would
also state though, that the question is whether
or not that's what Calvin taught. And if it is not,
then you don't argue with Joe on what type of
Calvinist he is, but rather, you tell Joe that he
is not a Calvinist.

I can't really remember whether Joe even used the term "Calvinism". But
through his series of posts it is clear that that's where he was coming
from. My argument was strictly against his doctrinal explanation of the
Limited Atonement.

I try to stick to arguing doctrines, not labels. Some people don't have
any idea what the label means. Others think they do, but really don't.
The only reason I brought up the term "hyper-Calvinism" is that it was a
direct response to you, and I assumed you would know what I meant by it.

Furthermore, you state to Joe that it doesn't matter
what any man taught. Why would we hold a man
up as if we must meet his criteria of what we must
believe? That sounds a bit too "Roman Catholic"
to me. I'm sure you agree with these basic points.

I don't think Joe stated where he got his information.

The only thing that matters, is what the Bible says,
as I'm sure you would agree and I think folks have
simply gotten too far off track of what's what and
what the arguments actually are.

I do agree. And that's why I made my arguments against his position
based on specific teachings in the Bible.

As I said, I agree with what you're saying and I do
apologize for not having read more of it, but my
response was not meant as my statement that
I was disagreeing with you personally, but just
discussion in general and I have explained my
position in this message, just so that you better
understand where I'm coming from, when you
happen to read one of my posts. :)

I appreciate your detailed post. For the record, if I were to label
myself, it would be pre-millenial, pre-tribulation. However, I also
recognize that ANY position regarding the millenium and the tribulation
requires interpretation (rather than just clear and obvious readings of
the scriptures), so to reject anyone on the basis of their position on
those issues would be foolish and divisive.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:42:56 +0300, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:

Pastor Dave said...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:05 +0300,
G spake thusly:

Limited atonement is a false doctrine that is in
direct opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

That depends on what is meant by it.

If you read the original post with the explanation
of Limited Atonement (which is the hyper-Calvinist
position), and then read my response in its entirety,
it should be clear. I made a clear distinction between
unlimited atonement (that Christ died for all, His death
being sufficient for the sins of all) and the false doctrine
of universalism (that all will be saved).

I don't really read tons of posts in a thread to see
what people are trying to get at. I admit that. :)

As for "hyper", frankly, I am really sick and tired
of hearing that term. It is nothing more than
a way for people to take a position that what
they believe is actually what the person/movement
states/stated and that anything more than that is
"hyper", which has become an insult; a bad word.

I rarely use the prefix "hyper". But in the case of Calvinism,
it has become somewhat common to use the term
"hyper-Calvinism". I don't mean to use "hyper" as an insult,
but in it's traditional, dictionary sense of "over" or "beyond".

Now is that proper debate style? No. That is indeed
nothing more than hand waving away an argument
and trying to win by default (before starting) and
that to me, is cowardice, not doctrinal integrity.
It is dishonest, not Godly.

Now that may not be _your_intent, but that's how
I see it and maybe a number of people _think_
they're making these high sounded doctrinal
arguments, but when an argument is spent saying
how someone else is pretty much a raving lunatic
about something, that isn't intelligence, it's table
pounding and lacks any true substance.

I understand your point. I'll try to be more careful
with my choice of words.

There is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinism".
One is either a Calvinist, or one is not. And
anyone who falls short of all that Calvin taught,
is not a Calvinist and to label those who hold to
all that he taught as "hyper", is disingenuous,
as is labeling those who go beyond what he
taught. They are simply not Calvinists.

I would contend that it is possible to adhere strictly
to a particular doctrine, but take that doctrine too
far in one's actions. In this example of Calvinism,
one could consider those who are doctrinally
"five-point Calvinists" but stand outside Billy Graham
crusades trying to convince people not to go inside
because they have no choice in their salvation.

That's just one example. I suspect that it might be
possible to take most doctrines too far in one way
or another.

Now you might say that they claim to be, but you
are the one who is fooled by such an argument
when it's made and have allowed them to try
to make a false argument valid. They are not
Calvinist, period, if they stray from what he
taught and claim that it's true and that they're
Calvinists, amen? So let's stop letting them
bring us down to their level and let's instead
simply flat out deny that they are what they
claim they are.

Take me for example. I agree with the five basic points
of Calvinism, but not all that he taught. Therefore, I do
not label myself a Calvinist.

I would not label myself as a Calvinist particularly
because this specific doctrine of Limited Atonement
(that Christ died only for the elect, or that Christ
did not die for all) is contrary to the scriptures.

At the same time, I am not an Arminian either.

And take the fact that while I don't label myself,
my belief system does generally hold with Preterism.

So what do people do, once I prove to them that
it is the valid belief system? Because they want to
somehow hang onto the idea that will return in the
sky, visibly and physically, they label me as what's
called a "Hyper-Preterist", as if I've somehow taken
it too far. But that's impossible. The word "preter"
comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means,
"in the past". Therefore, by definition, anyone
that says that any prophecy remains to be fulfilled
in the future, is not a Preterist.

Now do they get honest and admit this? No.
They stay dishonest and keep making the same
exact claim, even though they knew that it was
dishonest from go. Usenet is a place where 90%
or more of the participants are egomaniacs.

So again, I do not give any credence to the term. :)

I've never heard the term "Hyper-Preterist" before.
In that case, I'd say the person using that term
doesn't completely understand what Preterism define.

Old Man Joe's original post took the position
that Christ only died for the elect, which is
unbiblical. He died for all. But the redemption
that results from His death only applies to the
elect (i.e. those who place their faith in Him).

Okay and I would agree with that. I would
also state though, that the question is whether
or not that's what Calvin taught. And if it is not,
then you don't argue with Joe on what type of
Calvinist he is, but rather, you tell Joe that he
is not a Calvinist.

I can't really remember whether Joe even used
the term "Calvinism". But through his series of
posts it is clear that that's where he was coming
from. My argument was strictly against his doctrinal
explanation of the Limited Atonement.

The only thing that matters, is what the Bible says,
as I'm sure you would agree and I think folks have
simply gotten too far off track of what's what and
what the arguments actually are.

I do agree. And that's why I made my arguments
against his position based on specific teachings in
the Bible.

As I said, I agree with what you're saying and I do
apologize for not having read more of it, but my
response was not meant as my statement that
I was disagreeing with you personally, but just
discussion in general and I have explained my
position in this message, just so that you better
understand where I'm coming from, when you
happen to read one of my posts. :)

I appreciate your detailed post. For the record,
if I were to label myself, it would be pre-millenial,
pre-tribulation.

However, I also recognize that ANY position regarding
the millenium and the tribulation requires interpretation
(rather than just clear and obvious readings of the
scriptures), so to reject anyone on the basis of their
position on those issues would be foolish and divisive.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:31:52 +0300, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:


On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:42:56 +0300, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:

Pastor Dave said...

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:12:05 +0300,
G spake thusly:

Limited atonement is a false doctrine that is in
direct opposition to the teaching of Scripture.

That depends on what is meant by it.

If you read the original post with the explanation
of Limited Atonement (which is the hyper-Calvinist
position), and then read my response in its entirety,
it should be clear. I made a clear distinction between
unlimited atonement (that Christ died for all, His death
being sufficient for the sins of all) and the false doctrine
of universalism (that all will be saved).

I don't really read tons of posts in a thread to see
what people are trying to get at. I admit that. :)

As for "hyper", frankly, I am really sick and tired
of hearing that term. It is nothing more than
a way for people to take a position that what
they believe is actually what the person/movement
states/stated and that anything more than that is
"hyper", which has become an insult; a bad word.

I rarely use the prefix "hyper". But in the case of Calvinism,
it has become somewhat common to use the term
"hyper-Calvinism". I don't mean to use "hyper" as an insult,
but in it's traditional, dictionary sense of "over" or "beyond".

Yes, but that is the insult, don't you see?

How is it "over or beyond" to believe everything he wrote?

That isn't what I said. I think my example of those who stand outside

How is it "over and beyond" for me personally to believe
that all of the prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled,
when the word "praeter" (which is what the word preterism
comes from) means "in the past"?

As I said before, I have never heard "hyper-preterist" before, so I have

The truth is, that it is people who want to hijack and dilute
a doctrine to make it into what they want to believe that
are the ones who make the claims of "hyper" against those
who are merely believing what the doctrine actually says.

Like when Futurists who were forced into admitting to
various time statements in the NT still refuse to confess
that it also means that Christ's return happened and
just wasn't what they claimed it is supposed to be and
want to hang on to their "future" belief and so, they
try to hijack what Preterism is and call anyone who does
actually believe in what it actually is, "hyper". It is pure
dishonesty and a complete lack of integrity! (:

I use the above as an example, but the same is true
for Calvinism and any other doctrine. When one believes
a doctrine as what it is, then one is that label. And for
someone to label someone who does as "hyper", because
that person doing the labeling doesn't like a certain part
of the doctrine and wants to dilute it and then claim to
be that, is completely dishonest and that is what has
been happening, even if it was not the original thought
of those who first started using that "hyper" label.

Now, people just twist any doctrine any way they want
and shoot out the label of "hyper" at anyone who says
more than that, for the sole purpose of trying to make
the person sound dishonest, so that they can hand wave
away their argument.

I actually rarely use or hear the term in doctrinal discussions. In

Now is that proper debate style? No. That is indeed
nothing more than hand waving away an argument
and trying to win by default (before starting) and
that to me, is cowardice, not doctrinal integrity.
It is dishonest, not Godly.

Now that may not be _your_intent, but that's how
I see it and maybe a number of people _think_
they're making these high sounded doctrinal
arguments, but when an argument is spent saying
how someone else is pretty much a raving lunatic
about something, that isn't intelligence, it's table
pounding and lacks any true substance.

I understand your point. I'll try to be more careful
with my choice of words.

Thank you and again, I'm not saying it was your intent.
And I think a lot of people get swept up into this "hyper"
nonsense (although it isn't always nonsense, but is in
the way that many use it now).


There is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinism".
One is either a Calvinist, or one is not. And
anyone who falls short of all that Calvin taught,
is not a Calvinist and to label those who hold to
all that he taught as "hyper", is disingenuous,
as is labeling those who go beyond what he
taught. They are simply not Calvinists.

I would contend that it is possible to adhere strictly
to a particular doctrine, but take that doctrine too
far in one's actions. In this example of Calvinism,
one could consider those who are doctrinally
"five-point Calvinists" but stand outside Billy Graham
crusades trying to convince people not to go inside
because they have no choice in their salvation.

That's just one example. I suspect that it might be
possible to take most doctrines too far in one way
or another.

But you see, that isn't "hyper-Calvinism". That's just
a hyper person. :)

The "hyper" prefix must only be applied to the doctrine
belief itself and not what people do.

In other words, while the person' actions may be
overboard, but their doctrinal belief may be exactly
what Calvin taught and therefore, they cannot be
"hyper-Calvinists", you see?

No offense intended at all, but people should take
the time to understand what something is, before
throwing around a word. Just because people
use it that way, that doesn't mean that's what it is
and this is why our language is suffering so badly
now. Dictionaries no longer tell us what a word
means, but rather, now take whatever people
twist it into and add it as a definition. (:

Gay used to mean happy. Now it means homosexual.
Why did we let homos hijack that word?! Now in order
to be "happy", one must be homosexual?! And yes,
of course that was the intent in hijacking that word!


Now you might say that they claim to be, but you
are the one who is fooled by such an argument
when it's made and have allowed them to try
to make a false argument valid. They are not
Calvinist, period, if they stray from what he
taught and claim that it's true and that they're
Calvinists, amen? So let's stop letting them
bring us down to their level and let's instead
simply flat out deny that they are what they
claim they are.

Take me for example. I agree with the five basic points
of Calvinism, but not all that he taught. Therefore, I do
not label myself a Calvinist.

I would not label myself as a Calvinist particularly
because this specific doctrine of Limited Atonement
(that Christ died only for the elect, or that Christ
did not die for all) is contrary to the scriptures.

At the same time, I am not an Arminian either.

That is how you are defining atonement though.
If one defines it as someone actually being "atoned",
then it is limited, as not all experience this.

The view of atonement is only one aspect of Arminianism (as is also the

It gets tricky, I admit. :)


And take the fact that while I don't label myself,
my belief system does generally hold with Preterism.

So what do people do, once I prove to them that
it is the valid belief system? Because they want to
somehow hang onto the idea that will return in the
sky, visibly and physically, they label me as what's
called a "Hyper-Preterist", as if I've somehow taken
it too far. But that's impossible. The word "preter"
comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means,
"in the past". Therefore, by definition, anyone
that says that any prophecy remains to be fulfilled
in the future, is not a Preterist.

Now do they get honest and admit this? No.
They stay dishonest and keep making the same
exact claim, even though they knew that it was
dishonest from go. Usenet is a place where 90%
or more of the participants are egomaniacs.

So again, I do not give any credence to the term. :)

I've never heard the term "Hyper-Preterist" before.
In that case, I'd say the person using that term
doesn't completely understand what Preterism define.

Ah, but even when they do, they still won't admit it.

The truth is, I have proved my case to them and now
rather than admit that, they want to pretend that they
are the true Preterists and I am the outcast. Ego and
pride are what we see most here in usenet. (:


Old Man Joe's original post took the position
that Christ only died for the elect, which is
unbiblical. He died for all. But the redemption
that results from His death only applies to the
elect (i.e. those who place their faith in Him).

Okay and I would agree with that. I would
also state though, that the question is whether
or not that's what Calvin taught. And if it is not,
then you don't argue with Joe on what type of
Calvinist he is, but rather, you tell Joe that he
is not a Calvinist.

I can't really remember whether Joe even used
the term "Calvinism". But through his series of
posts it is clear that that's where he was coming
from. My argument was strictly against his doctrinal
explanation of the Limited Atonement.

I see. Okay. :)


The only thing that matters, is what the Bible says,
as I'm sure you would agree and I think folks have
simply gotten too far off track of what's what and
what the arguments actually are.

I do agree. And that's why I made my arguments
against his position based on specific teachings in
the Bible.

Yes, your actual argument was something that
you were seeking to make from the Scriptures.


As I said, I agree with what you're saying and I do
apologize for not having read more of it, but my
response was not meant as my statement that
I was disagreeing with you personally, but just
discussion in general and I have explained my
position in this message, just so that you better
understand where I'm coming from, when you
happen to read one of my posts. :)

I appreciate your detailed post. For the record,
if I were to label myself, it would be pre-millenial,
pre-tribulation.

Ah, my favorite to argue against! Hahaha! :)


However, I also recognize that ANY position regarding
the millenium and the tribulation requires interpretation
(rather than just clear and obvious readings of the
scriptures), so to reject anyone on the basis of their
position on those issues would be foolish and divisive.

I personally don't see any of the Futurist positions
in the Bible. And I personally think that people
do not believe them because it's what they see,
but rather, because they are exposed to a doctrine
that is read into the Scriptures and then that's all
they know to see. No offense.

I rarely use the prefix "hyper". But in the case
of Calvinism, it has become somewhat common
to use the term "hyper-Calvinism". I don't mean
to use "hyper" as an insult, but in it's traditional,
dictionary sense of "over" or "beyond".

Yes, but that is the insult, don't you see?

How is it "over or beyond" to believe everything
he wrote?

That isn't what I said. I think my example of those
who stand outside crusades trying to keep people
from entering because they have not choice is clear
enough. I meant taking it beyond what the doctrine
was meant to declare. Another example would be
those who take the doctrine of grace as an excuse
to do whatever sinful thing they want. They are
taking the doctrine beyond its intent (making it
unbiblical in the process).

How is it "over and beyond" for me personally
to believe that all of the prophecies of the Bible
have been fulfilled, when the word "praeter"
(which is what the word preterism comes from)
means "in the past"?

As I said before, I have never heard "hyper-preterist"
before, so I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.

The truth is, that it is people who want to hijack
and dilute a doctrine to make it into what they
want to believe that are the ones who make the
claims of "hyper" against those who are merely
believing what the doctrine actually says.

Not necessarily. I have already stated that I am
not a Calvinist, so I am clearly not trying to hijack
Calvinism to fit my beliefs.

Calvinism states unequivocally that Christ did NOT die
for all. The Bible clearly states that He DID die for all.
That was my original point.

I personally don't see any of the Futurist positions
in the Bible. And I personally think that people
do not believe them because it's what they see,
but rather, because they are exposed to a doctrine
that is read into the Scriptures and then that's all
they know to see. No offense. :)

None taken. I'd be willing to bet that you could
find many people with the same opinion, but on
the opposite side.

In general, people tend to be convinced that their
own position is correct and can't understand how
others don't see what is so obvious.

I don't enjoy arguing non-essential doctrines,
so I've come to my own conclusions and leave
it at that. I'll leave the endless debate to the
theologians and apologists.

And btw, what you're doing is using the "reply as you read"
method and that always leads to problems and it makes
people repeat themselves. :)

Actually, I didn't.

No offense. I'm not trying to attack you. Think about it
though. Look what I stated further down, as I knew that
it was not your personal intent as I said two messages ago
and again in my last message, which went as follows:

PD: "I'm not saying it was your intent."

That was further down. I snipped it from below now
in this response, as it isn't necessary text anymore,
but what I would humbly suggest to you, is that you
read all of a message and THEN respond. It is more
courteous and respectful and keeps people from
having constant misunderstandings.

Actually, I did. But when a thread grows to hundreds of lines, it is

As almost all Christians here, I never even knew that
there was another view and was brought to believe
that Futurism (which I had never heard labeled up
to that point and didn't even know there were any
doctrinal options, or even such a thing as a "doctrine".
And of course, by the time I did, I was indoctrinated;
it was already too late (just like is true of everyone else).

When you say it that way, you make it sound like the only way to come to

And so I was lead to believe that Futurism (not yet
knowing labels) is Christianity and so, that to leave
that view would mean to abandon the Christian
faith and Christ and to reject both altogether.

I did not realize that the whole "Futurism = Christianity"
argument is not true and that one can leave that view
without leaving Christ. :)

I just had not yet gotten to a point in which I realized
that studying a doctrine and then reading the Bible
with those glasses on (without realizing it and while
thinking I was doing the opposite, just like the rest)
is not the same as studying the Bible. :)

It never sat quite right with me and we all remember
the first time we read Matt 24:34 and the question
we asked about it. But then we were taught how
to add words, or change a meaning of a word and
give it whichever one we needed to at the moment,
because the doctrine was what was important and
not the Scriptures, while we claimed the opposite
and yet even now, Futurists do not see the dishonesty
of this approach and think they're being "Biblical".

Personally, I just stayed away from it, but when I went
through a crisis of faith (in a big way influenced by this
whole Futurist view thing), I told God that if the Bible
were true, that He would have to prove it to me, because
this self-contradictory Futurism (and it always does) is
just messing with peoples' minds. :)

Well, He did prove it to me! The very next day God
popped something into my possession and thus began
the journey! And now my faith has no more of those
pesky contradictions to deal with and I don't have to
try to change meanings of words to suit whatever one
might be saying to me at the moment. :)

What did He pop into your possession?

I don't enjoy arguing non-essential doctrines,
so I've come to my own conclusions and leave
it at that. I'll leave the endless debate to the
theologians and apologists.

First let me say that a "debate" is not a bad thing.
A debate done right is nothing more than two people
disagreeing and trying to reason something out
together, with one possibly swaying the other. :)

I agree, but that rarely happens on usenet. That's why I said I don't

As for your comment about it being "non-essential",
I don't see it as non-essential. No offense (really),
but that's what Futurists say when they cannot defend
their positions.

Not that we're having a debate here.
I'm just saying, that's all. So while I'm not saying it
is your intent to be, logically, yours is a disingenuous
position to take. :)

Futurism itself or that it is a non-essential doctrine? Either way, I'm

The fact is, that the return of Christ is the second most
important and second most talked about thing in the NT
(after initial salvation) and so, no, it is not some, "minor,
non-essential point to leave to the theologians" and the
"end times prophecies" books are not the best sellers in
Christian book stores (after the Bible) for nothing. :)

I didn't say it was minor. And I didn't say the doctrine should be left

The reality is, that it comes down to whether or not we
can trust the Bible, period. Why? Simple! :)

It is clear that both Jesus and the Apostles did teach
His return within that same generation and did so
repeatedly throughout the NT.

And when shown
this, the first instinct of the Futurist is to talk about
how this or that hasn't happened yet. However:

a) It is really THEIR INTERPRETATION of what those
events were to be like, that they are stating.

And...

b) It is a deflection to avoid dealing with the "when"
that the NT states. In other words, they shoot out
their "how" to the other person who brought the
"when" to their attention and it is that "when" that
no Futurist I have run across will deal with. But
the fact is, that the "when" is part of the prophecy
and is what is clearly and plainly stated and what
they are doing, is interpreting the clear and simple
by the fantastic sounding statements, when proper
interpretation requires the opposite and the fact is,
that we all must face the fact that whatever the
"how" was to be, it had to happen within the
time frame stated, or both Jesus and the Apostles
were false prophets, period, end of story.

So the bottom line is, that either one of two things are true:

1) The Apostles were right and it is the Futurist view
(doctrinal interpretation) about both the "how"
and the "what" of the events that is incorrect.

2) Both Jesus and the Apostles were wrong and that
means that we need to toss our Bibles out, as they
cannot be trusted, period, end of story.

You left one out:

It is not doctrinally honest to say that it's okay for them
to be wrong about the second most important thing in
the NT and we can still trust the NT, just to hang onto
a doctrine.

It is a contradiction and it is to firmly place
a doctrine before the Scriptures, while hypocritically
claiming to do the exact opposite.

That might be your view of what's going on. But the futurist position

You see, that is what I had to do and is how I ended up
where I am now. Just letting it speak for itself, erasing
my mind of any doctrine at all and then reading.

For example, would you be surprised to know that while
you learned that the new Jerusalem is a physical city
that will someday come down from the sky, that Rev 21
actually states that it isn't a physical, literal city at all and
that it does specifically tell you what it actually is?

Sound crazy? It's true though. And it is only through
a bare reading that people see this, because what is now
happening, is that people are indoctrinated into Futurism
and then read the Bible with those glasses on. And the
proof of this is seen when I begin to show them things
that the Bible says and they're very, very surprised and
realize that they never even saw that word before in that
there verse! :)

There is one thing that every person who has ever gone
over to Preterism states and that is the following:

"Now when I read my Bible, I see things that I never saw
before! I can't believe how much I missed in reading it
before with the Futurist view!"

That's not surprising. Whatever "glasses" one reads the Scriptures

Ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com said...

And btw, what you're doing is using
the "reply as you read" method and
that always leads to problems and it
makes people repeat themselves. :)

Actually, I didn't.

but what I would humbly suggest to you,
is that you read all of a message and THEN
respond. It is more courteous and respectful
and keeps people from having constant
misunderstandings.

Actually, I did. But when a thread grows to
hundreds of lines, it is difficult to retain the
entire thing in one's mind. Most people
don't have "steel trap" minds.

As almost all Christians here, I never even
knew that there was another view and was
brought to believe that Futurism (which I
had never heard labeled up to that point
and didn't even know there were any
doctrinal options, or even such a thing as
a "doctrine". And of course, by the time
I did, I was indoctrinated; it was already
too late (just like is true of everyone else).

When you say it that way, you make it sound like
the only way to come to the futurist position is by
being indoctrinated.

Well, He did prove it to me! The very next day God
popped something into my possession and thus began
the journey! And now my faith has no more of those
pesky contradictions to deal with and I don't have to
try to change meanings of words to suit whatever one
might be saying to me at the moment. :)

What did He pop into your possession?

As for your comment about it being "non-essential",
I don't see it as non-essential. No offense (really),
but that's what Futurists say when they cannot defend
their positions.

Not really. It's the most commonly used term
for doctrines that are not essential in order to
define someone as a Christian.

The fact is, that the return of Christ is
the second most important and second
most talked about thing in the NT (after
initial salvation) and so, no, it is not some,
"minor, non-essential point to leave to the
theologians" and the "end times prophecies"
books are not the best sellers in Christian
book stores (after the Bible) for nothing. :)

I didn't say it was minor.

And I didn't say the doctrine should be left to
the theologians. I said I prefer to leave the
ENDLESS DEBATE about it to the theologians
and apologists.

The fact is that in my experience, those debates
usually do far more to divide the body of Christ
than they do to build it up. From what you've
said about the debates you've had here about
the issue, it sounds like it has often been divisive
in your experience as well. I don't have any
interest in sowing seeds of division in the body
of Christ.

The reality is, that it comes down to whether or not
we can trust the Bible, period. Why? Simple! :)

It is clear that both Jesus and the Apostles did teach
His return within that same generation and did so
repeatedly throughout the NT.

According to your interpretation.

And when shown
this, the first instinct of the Futurist is to talk about
how this or that hasn't happened yet. However:

a) It is really THEIR INTERPRETATION of what those
events were to be like, that they are stating.

And...

b) It is a deflection to avoid dealing with the "when"
that the NT states. In other words, they shoot out
their "how" to the other person who brought the
"when" to their attention and it is that "when" that
no Futurist I have run across will deal with. But
the fact is, that the "when" is part of the prophecy
and is what is clearly and plainly stated and what
they are doing, is interpreting the clear and simple
by the fantastic sounding statements, when proper
interpretation requires the opposite and the fact is,
that we all must face the fact that whatever the
"how" was to be, it had to happen within the
time frame stated, or both Jesus and the Apostles
were false prophets, period, end of story.

So the bottom line is, that either one of two things are true:

1) The Apostles were right and it is the Futurist view
(doctrinal interpretation) about both the "how"
and the "what" of the events that is incorrect.

2) Both Jesus and the Apostles were wrong and that
means that we need to toss our Bibles out, as they
cannot be trusted, period, end of story.

You left one out:

3) The futurist interpretation is correct. Jesus and
the apostles were correct. But your interpretation
of what they said is wrong.

It is not doctrinally honest to say that it's okay for them
to be wrong about the second most important thing in
the NT and we can still trust the NT, just to hang onto
a doctrine.

I have NEVER heard a single futurist take that position.

It is a contradiction and it is to firmly place
a doctrine before the Scriptures, while
hypocritically claiming to do the exact opposite.

That might be your view of what's going on.
But the futurist position does NOT require
putting a doctrine before the Scriptures.

You see, that is what I had to do and is how I ended up
where I am now. Just letting it speak for itself, erasing
my mind of any doctrine at all and then reading.

For example, would you be surprised to know that while
you learned that the new Jerusalem is a physical city
that will someday come down from the sky, that Rev 21
actually states that it isn't a physical, literal city at all and
that it does specifically tell you what it actually is?

Sound crazy? It's true though. And it is only through
a bare reading that people see this, because what is now
happening, is that people are indoctrinated into Futurism
and then read the Bible with those glasses on. And the
proof of this is seen when I begin to show them things
that the Bible says and they're very, very surprised and
realize that they never even saw that word before in that
there verse! :)

There is one thing that every person who has ever gone
over to Preterism states and that is the following:

"Now when I read my Bible, I see things that I never saw
before! I can't believe how much I missed in reading it
before with the Futurist view!"

That's not surprising. Whatever "glasses" one reads
the Scriptures through, whether it be preterism,
futurism, amillenialism, etc., it will change the way
they understand many Scriptures.

In article <rknie5lot6qigs7c8th9dh9ntbdvr1856b at (no spam) 4ax.com>, ananias917
_ at (no spam) _gmail.com says...

And btw, what you're doing is using the "reply as you read"
method and that always leads to problems and it makes
people repeat themselves. :)

Actually, I didn't.

No offense. I'm not trying to attack you. Think about it
though. Look what I stated further down, as I knew that
it was not your personal intent as I said two messages ago
and again in my last message, which went as follows:

PD: "I'm not saying it was your intent."

That was further down. I snipped it from below now
in this response, as it isn't necessary text anymore,
but what I would humbly suggest to you, is that you
read all of a message and THEN respond. It is more
courteous and respectful and keeps people from
having constant misunderstandings.

Actually, I did. But when a thread grows to hundreds of lines, it is
difficult to retain the entire thing in one's mind. Most people don't
have "steel trap" minds.

As almost all Christians here, I never even knew that
there was another view and was brought to believe
that Futurism (which I had never heard labeled up
to that point and didn't even know there were any
doctrinal options, or even such a thing as a "doctrine".
And of course, by the time I did, I was indoctrinated;
it was already too late (just like is true of everyone else).

When you say it that way, you make it sound like the only way to come to
the futurist position is by being indoctrinated.

And so I was lead to believe that Futurism (not yet
knowing labels) is Christianity and so, that to leave
that view would mean to abandon the Christian
faith and Christ and to reject both altogether.

I did not realize that the whole "Futurism = Christianity"
argument is not true and that one can leave that view
without leaving Christ. :)

I just had not yet gotten to a point in which I realized
that studying a doctrine and then reading the Bible
with those glasses on (without realizing it and while
thinking I was doing the opposite, just like the rest)
is not the same as studying the Bible. :)

It never sat quite right with me and we all remember
the first time we read Matt 24:34 and the question
we asked about it. But then we were taught how
to add words, or change a meaning of a word and
give it whichever one we needed to at the moment,
because the doctrine was what was important and
not the Scriptures, while we claimed the opposite
and yet even now, Futurists do not see the dishonesty
of this approach and think they're being "Biblical".

Personally, I just stayed away from it, but when I went
through a crisis of faith (in a big way influenced by this
whole Futurist view thing), I told God that if the Bible
were true, that He would have to prove it to me, because
this self-contradictory Futurism (and it always does) is
just messing with peoples' minds. :)

Well, He did prove it to me! The very next day God
popped something into my possession and thus began
the journey! And now my faith has no more of those
pesky contradictions to deal with and I don't have to
try to change meanings of words to suit whatever one
might be saying to me at the moment. :)

What did He pop into your possession?

I don't enjoy arguing non-essential doctrines,
so I've come to my own conclusions and leave
it at that. I'll leave the endless debate to the
theologians and apologists.

First let me say that a "debate" is not a bad thing.
A debate done right is nothing more than two people
disagreeing and trying to reason something out
together, with one possibly swaying the other. :)

I agree, but that rarely happens on usenet. That's why I said I don't
like "arguing" non-essential doctrines.

As for your comment about it being "non-essential",
I don't see it as non-essential. No offense (really),
but that's what Futurists say when they cannot defend
their positions.

Not really. It's the most commonly used term for doctrines that are not
essential in order to define someone as a Christian. Things like
salvation by grace through faith, the deity of Christ, etc., would be
the "essential" doctrines. But one can be a futurist OR a preterist and
still be saved... a person can be pre-trib or post-trib and still be
saved, etc.

Are you unfamiliar with that terminology? I get the impression that when
I say "non-essential", you think I mean "unimportant". That isn't what I
meant to imply at all.

Not that we're having a debate here.
I'm just saying, that's all. So while I'm not saying it
is your intent to be, logically, yours is a disingenuous
position to take. :)

Futurism itself or that it is a non-essential doctrine? Either way, I'm
not being disingenuous at all.

The fact is, that the return of Christ is the second most
important and second most talked about thing in the NT
(after initial salvation) and so, no, it is not some, "minor,
non-essential point to leave to the theologians" and the
"end times prophecies" books are not the best sellers in
Christian book stores (after the Bible) for nothing. :)

I didn't say it was minor. And I didn't say the doctrine should be left
to the theologians. I said I prefer to leave the ENDLESS DEBATE about it
to the theologians and apologists.

The fact is that in my experience, those debates usually do far more to
divide the body of Christ than they do to build it up. From what you've
said about the debates you've had here about the issue, it sounds like
it has often been divisive in your experience as well. I don't have any
interest in sowing seeds of division in the body of Christ.

The reality is, that it comes down to whether or not we
can trust the Bible, period. Why? Simple! :)

It is clear that both Jesus and the Apostles did teach
His return within that same generation and did so
repeatedly throughout the NT.

According to your interpretation.

And when shown
this, the first instinct of the Futurist is to talk about
how this or that hasn't happened yet. However:

a) It is really THEIR INTERPRETATION of what those
events were to be like, that they are stating.

And...

b) It is a deflection to avoid dealing with the "when"
that the NT states. In other words, they shoot out
their "how" to the other person who brought the
"when" to their attention and it is that "when" that
no Futurist I have run across will deal with. But
the fact is, that the "when" is part of the prophecy
and is what is clearly and plainly stated and what
they are doing, is interpreting the clear and simple
by the fantastic sounding statements, when proper
interpretation requires the opposite and the fact is,
that we all must face the fact that whatever the
"how" was to be, it had to happen within the
time frame stated, or both Jesus and the Apostles
were false prophets, period, end of story.

So the bottom line is, that either one of two things are true:

1) The Apostles were right and it is the Futurist view
(doctrinal interpretation) about both the "how"
and the "what" of the events that is incorrect.

2) Both Jesus and the Apostles were wrong and that
means that we need to toss our Bibles out, as they
cannot be trusted, period, end of story.

You left one out:
3) The futurist interpretation is correct. Jesus and the apostles were
correct. But your interpretation of what they said is wrong.

It is not doctrinally honest to say that it's okay for them
to be wrong about the second most important thing in
the NT and we can still trust the NT, just to hang onto
a doctrine.

I have NEVER heard a single futurist take that position.

It is a contradiction and it is to firmly place
a doctrine before the Scriptures, while hypocritically
claiming to do the exact opposite.

That might be your view of what's going on. But the futurist position
does NOT require putting a doctrine before the Scriptures.

You see, that is what I had to do and is how I ended up
where I am now. Just letting it speak for itself, erasing
my mind of any doctrine at all and then reading.

For example, would you be surprised to know that while
you learned that the new Jerusalem is a physical city
that will someday come down from the sky, that Rev 21
actually states that it isn't a physical, literal city at all and
that it does specifically tell you what it actually is?

Sound crazy? It's true though. And it is only through
a bare reading that people see this, because what is now
happening, is that people are indoctrinated into Futurism
and then read the Bible with those glasses on. And the
proof of this is seen when I begin to show them things
that the Bible says and they're very, very surprised and
realize that they never even saw that word before in that
there verse! :)

There is one thing that every person who has ever gone
over to Preterism states and that is the following:

"Now when I read my Bible, I see things that I never saw
before! I can't believe how much I missed in reading it
before with the Futurist view!"

That's not surprising. Whatever "glasses" one reads the Scriptures
through, whether it be preterism, futurism, amillenialism, etc., it will
change the way they understand many Scriptures.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:46:35 +0200, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:


Now that we are in a proper thread for what
we are discussing, may I please know which
group you are posting from, so that I am not
cross-posting into many groups?


Ananias917_ at (no spam) _gmail.com said...

I apologize.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:46:35 +0200, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:



The subject has changed, so I changed the subject line to:

"What Does the Bible Actualy Say about When?"

Please see my response there and thank you.

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:46:35 +0200, G
geoffstempbox-usenet at (no spam) yahoo.com> spake thusly:


Now that we are in a proper thread for what
we are discussing, may I please know which
group you are posting from, so that I am not
cross-posting into many groups?

The only ones on my usenet list are alt.christnet.religion,

Actually, I did. But when a thread grows to
hundreds of lines, it is difficult to retain the
entire thing in one's mind. Most people
don't have "steel trap" minds.

Well then, I suggest you get an upgrade! :)

This body doesn't have an option for brain upgrades. But I've got a

As almost all Christians here, I never even
knew that there was another view and was
brought to believe that Futurism (which I
had never heard labeled up to that point
and didn't even know there were any
doctrinal options, or even such a thing as
a "doctrine". And of course, by the time
I did, I was indoctrinated; it was already
too late (just like is true of everyone else).

When you say it that way, you make it sound like
the only way to come to the futurist position is by
being indoctrinated.

It is. I don't mean that as an insult.

That isn't true. At the very least, the first person who systematized it

Well, He did prove it to me! The very next day God
popped something into my possession and thus began
the journey! And now my faith has no more of those
pesky contradictions to deal with and I don't have to
try to change meanings of words to suit whatever one
might be saying to me at the moment. :)

What did He pop into your possession?

Well, it was weird! Weird, because my mission
was to avoid reading anyone's opinion and to
just study the Bible itself, a lexicon and history,
to avoid any biases. I though maybe later that
I would read one book from each camp, but later.

But the very next day a book landed in my lap
and so I read it. I read a lot and so, read books
that might be interesting to me in between the
study sessions of whatever I'm studying at that
particular time. So it's not uncommon for me
to be involved in a dozen books at the same time,
most of which will somehow be related to my main
pursuit of study.

In other words, you didn't come up with it by just studying the Bible.

So I was careful not to just buy into something
and be lead around by the nose. And I read
no other books, except being fair enough to pick
one from each view, by the "big man" in that
doctrinal position. I figured I'd give each
a chance to defend their positions and that
this was only fair. The four positions are:

1) Futurism
2) Historism
3) Preterism
4) Idealism

Who were the "big men"?

But I also looked at it as being possible that none
of them were right. Again, I didn't want to get
stuck looking at it through someone's doctrine. :)

Understood. But the seeds from the previous studies were still there.

And there is one thing that I learned that cannot
be disputed and that is that one simply cannot
understand the Scriptures, if one does not look
at them through ancient Jewish eyes. It is simply
impossible! And that includes the New Testament!

The Scriptures look very different when viewed
through Jewish eyes, let me tell you!

I agree, although I would say one can't FULLY understand the Scriptures,

As for your comment about it being "non-essential",
I don't see it as non-essential. No offense (really),
but that's what Futurists say when they cannot defend
their positions.

Not really. It's the most commonly used term
for doctrines that are not essential in order to
define someone as a Christian.

But it is your view that it is such. In my view,
one way calls Jesus a liar and says that it is
okay that He was wrong, while hypocritically
claiming that being God, He was never wrong.

Well, if you're calling it an essential doctrine, then what that means

The fact is, that the return of Christ is
the second most important and second
most talked about thing in the NT (after
initial salvation) and so, no, it is not some,
"minor, non-essential point to leave to the
theologians" and the "end times prophecies"
books are not the best sellers in Christian
book stores (after the Bible) for nothing. :)

I didn't say it was minor.

I understand where you are trying to go with it.
But when something is non-essential to the faith,
that tends to make it relatively "minor".

Maybe I should have inserted the word "relatively".
My bad. I apologize. :)

Relatively minor in the sense that it is not worth bringing division

And I didn't say the doctrine should be left to
the theologians. I said I prefer to leave the
ENDLESS DEBATE about it to the theologians
and apologists.

Yes, but lets not play word games here. How is that
any different from hand waving the subject away?
I didn't say anything about "endless debate" at all.

On usenet, "endless debate" is pretty much implied.

The fact is that in my experience, those debates
usually do far more to divide the body of Christ
than they do to build it up. From what you've
said about the debates you've had here about
the issue, it sounds like it has often been divisive
in your experience as well. I don't have any
interest in sowing seeds of division in the body
of Christ.

So if someone calls themselves a Christian and says
that there is no Trinity, is that okay? Or would you
then speak up?

That's absolutely NOT ok. I would speak up. The trinity is an essential

If you would speak up, then it is because you consider
it to be an essential doctrine. But what if you also
come to realize that so is this end times stuff? I don't
mean all of the details, but the general views. What
then? That changes things, doesn't it? Or would you
still not wish to discuss it?

The difference is that a person can be saved and be wrong in his

Truth be told, I find that this is the one area in which
people are not even willing to examine it. And I think
that is because to do so opens the possibility that it
means that it isn't all about us today and people simply
don't want to hear that and to me, that is due to vanity
and the ultimate belief that if it isn't all about us today,
then what good is the Bible?

I think it's more likely just laziness. Most people these days aren't

The reality is, that it comes down to whether or not
we can trust the Bible, period. Why? Simple! :)

It is clear that both Jesus and the Apostles did teach
His return within that same generation and did so
repeatedly throughout the NT.

According to your interpretation.

No, according to what they said. Futurists throw that
word around a lot, when they don't want to deal with
something. The fact is, I didn't even quote a passage,
so for you to say that I interpreted something, does
not make sense. Maybe they did teach that. If you
had responded by saying, "Show me.", that would
have been more logical, because if I then could not
show you something, then you could indeed logically
say that I interpreted the passage.

It makes sense if I'm already familiar with the biblical passages having

But bear in mind, that means that you don't get to
look at the words stated plainly and then say that
they really mean this or that and then claim that
you're showing me what the Bible really says and
that I'm the one interpreting, when the opposite
would be true. :)

If a passage has any significant words that can be translated in more

1) What Jesus really meant was...

What this response really says, is that you are able to
zip back in time, read Jesus' mind and then zip back
and tell us what He "really meant" to say, which also
implies that Jesus was incapable of speaking properly
and needs you to help Him speak.

This one's a little vague. In one sense, it could be a way of trying to

2) Well, that word could mean...

What this response really says, is that even though
you know what the word does mean and even though
you do use it that way in every other passage (easily
proved), you're just not going to do that this time and
you're going to try to use some obscure definition for it,
being inconsistent, because the actual definition doesn't
work for your doctrine. And now, when I start piling up
the passages that show this same thing, we will see you
changing from what you used in more and more of them.

If the word can be properly translated another way (even if that

3) Well, he/they may have believed that, but...

What this response really says, is that you're right and
Jesus and the Apostles were wrong. It also implies that
it's okay for them to be wrong and yet says that we can
trust Scripture. Of course, that would be hypocrisy.

I've never heard this one, and I would reject it.

You left one out:

3) The futurist interpretation is correct. Jesus and
the apostles were correct. But your interpretation
of what they said is wrong.

No, I didn't leave that out, because it doesn't fit.
It is a fact that they taught this, not a guess. :)

I'm sorry, but you can't simply declare as fact that Jesus and the

It is not doctrinally honest to say that it's okay for them
to be wrong about the second most important thing in
the NT and we can still trust the NT, just to hang onto
a doctrine.

I have NEVER heard a single futurist take that position.

You will. And maybe you would do the same thing.
Do you really believe that these people said this as
their opening remarks? No, it's what they end up
promoting when it gets to the point where I have
proved to them that Jesus and the Apostles did teach
this and they (the Futurists) have nowhere left to go.

If the person you're debating can come to the conclusion that Jesus was

It is a contradiction and it is to firmly place
a doctrine before the Scriptures, while
hypocritically claiming to do the exact opposite.

That might be your view of what's going on.
But the futurist position does NOT require
putting a doctrine before the Scriptures.

Yes, it does. And I think you're now worried that maybe,
just maybe, I can prove that. I'll show you what I mean
further down. :)

I'm not worried about it at all. As I mentioned above, at the very

But let me give you an example, as I promised to above...

Did you notice that you skipped right by my Scripture
comment about the new Jerusalem? Now in my view,
if someone was really seeking information and not
worried about what someone might show them and
is only interested in what Scripture actually says,
even if it means the end of their doctrine for them,
they would say, "Oh, really? Okay, show me where
it shows that it's not a literal city.". But you didn't
do that. You skipped right by it, while claiming it's
all just my interpretation earlier in this message.
But how can you know that? :)

You're making assumptions about me again. =)