Re: Loquat...

Hmm........well, if I ever knew, 'fraid to say I've completely forgotten. And if I didn't know, I'd never have guessed. You also come across to me as more than capable, even if you're not familiar with all the jargon. There are Christians who reach the end of their earthly existence without even knowing that such a debate exists, so I wouldn't worry too much about keeping up, etc. 

It's possible you are also labouring under the misapprehension that my only or main source of truth is my books. Nothing could be further from the truth. At best, they simply give me pointers to investigate further by going back to the source - God's Word. Only then do I decide if the authors' ideas are justified. I do not simply take their word for it because they say so, quite apart from the fact that most of my books are from the opposing camp, and therefore much closer to your beliefs. On that basis, I should be a futurist if books were the only determining factor in my beliefs. Don't forget, I also have a mind of my own, and it's far from being an empty tank waiting to be filled with someone else's gas.

So ok, since I've already drafted it, I'll post my last re. CI, and I might follow up with a brief statement of my 'aces' that I never got round to doing, again mainly for the benefit of those who want to know the Scriptural basis for ECT. That's another horrible label, but I guess it's accurate enough for our purposes. Vekky can look the other way if she wants - no need for her to 'torture' herself, is there? I can't say when that will be, but rest assured it will come eventually, along with all the millenniual stuff. 

As for the 'deflation' you feel is caused by Finalism, I believe I have an answer for that too. But for now, I hope we can agree that our personal moods/feelings are not the most reliable guides to revealed truth. If they were, there would be no ECT. Speaking for myself, I can think of few things more exciting than what a Finalist future might bring, or even what a Finalist interpretation of the Bible reveals. It is such a simple and elegant view of the Bible that I am amazed I ever entertained any other views or ideas. Compared to all the complications and questionns unnecessarily raised by futurism, it is a breath of fresh air that positively bristles with excitement and possibilities. But best of all, it's real strength lies in the fact that it sees Jesus on nearly every page of the OT. And not only that, but it also puts the focal point of redemptive history where it truly belongs - ie in the first advent, when God first breaks into human history in a direct and sustained way. 

The second advent, important though it is, simply seals the history set in motion by the first advent. As Carver puts it, it's 'The Great Consummation'. In that sense, it is fundamentally 'Preterist' in concept, even if not the 'full' version that goes awry when it comes to the second advent. Which only goes to prove that you should never have two divisions within the same school. 'Full' and 'Partial' sound too much like baked & half-baked to me, which is not exactly flattering to either.

Henceforth, may I suggest that Full Preterist should instead be referred to as 'Realized Eschatology', and Preterist reserved exclusively for the Finalist view, so that the two become (in effect) interchangeable? I think that's a much better nomenclature, and pre-empts all those daft questions about whether one is baked or half-baked, full or partial. What say you?