House Church Talk - Re: Was baptisms Now dispensations/ Preterism

Bruce Woodford bwood4d at
Tue Feb 10 03:20:05 EST 2004

Hi David,

You wrote:
>Bruce, I have read that Irenaeus is the ONLY source for the late dating
>of Revelation. Other "sources" just quote him. John, in Rev, speaks of
>Nero Caesar as still on the throne. He died in June 68. This, according
>to a commentary by David Chilton. Another book lists several pages of
>scholarly works preferring the early dates.

I'm not at all sure of the sources or authority for these dates nor have I 
seen material that suggests earlier dates. But I'm puzzled about John's 
supposed speaking of Nero Caesar in the Revelation!  I can't find any such 
reference to "Nero", "Caesar", "King" etc that could possibly be him in The 
revelation!  Can you tell me where such a reference is?

>I'll look into this further - I thought I once read a compelling case
>that the "coming of the Lord" could mean (in Scripture) coming in
>judgment via secondary means, that is, not in person.

What then of Acts 1:9-11. "This same Jesus which is taken up from you into 
heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven."  He 
went up bodily, visibly, last seen in the clouds after ascending from the 
Mt. of Olives so he must come back bodily, visibly, being first seen in the 
clouds and coming to stand on the Mount of Olives which will then split 
under his feet. Zech.14:1-5.

What of all the prophecies that he shall be seen, every eye shall see him 
etc. Rev.1:7; Matt.24:30; 26:64???

What of Him speaking personally with those He judges, and they answering 
Him?  Matt.25:31-46

What of I Thess. 4:16 and 17, "The Lord Himself shall descend...then we 
which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the 
clouds to meet the Lord in the air..."???

>Just found this book review on
>In The Glory of the Father
>by Don K. Preston
>In the Glory of the Father is an in-depth study of the nature and timing
>of the Judgment Coming of Jesus. Simply stated, Jesus said he was going
>to come in the glory of his Father. That meant he was going to come as
>the Father had come, and the Father had come many times in the past. Yet,
>the Father had never come visibly, bodily, physically. he had always
>manifest Himself in history by using one nation to judge another nation.
>In the Glory of the Father not only proves beyond doubt that Jesus'
>Second Coming was at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it
>interacts with and refutes the popular futurism of Tim LaHaye, and John
>McArthur, as well as Thomas Ice and Grant Jeffrey. In fact, Glory
>responds, point by point, to John MacArthur's new book, The Second
>Coming, and as one reviewer has said, "swept the ground" of MacArthur's
>arguments. One noted evangelist said that the refutation of MacArthur's
>work alone is worth the price of Glory.

What scriptures does the author cite about the Father coming "many times in 
the past"?? What scriptural statements does he cite that indicate that 
"coming in the glory of the Father" means a coming which is not visble, not 
bodily, and not physical?? I'm really not interested in how Don Preston 
refutes the dispensational ideas of LaHaye and MacArthur, but how he 
reconciles his theory with clear statements of scripture? Was the sun 
darkened? Did the moon turn to blood? Did the stars fall from heaven? Were 
the powers of the heavens shaken in A.D. 70? Were all the elect gathered 
together from earth and heaven in A.D. 70?  Did the last trump sound? Were 
all the saved dead raised? Did all the living saints rise to meet the Lord 
in the air to be forever with Him in A.D. 70?  had the two witnesses 
prophesied in Jerusalem for 1260 days prior to A.D. 70? Had they been slain? 
Did their dead bodies lie in the street of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 days? Were 
they resurrected and stand on thier feet and were they caught up into heaven 
before the eyes of their enemies? Was there a great earthquake in the very 
same hour as the two witnesses were caught up to heaven in A.D. 70?

These are just a few of the many scriptural statements that do not seem to 
lend themselves at all to the supposed invisible, impersonal and non-bodily 
"return" that preterists suggest!!

Are there any preterists here? How do you reconcile all of these statements 
of scripture with the theory that Christ came but nobody saw him??

Your brother in Christ,

Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.

House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.