Date:   2/14/2017 1:34:25 PM ( 7 y ago)
Hits:   1,285
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=2354659

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

I've substantially edited an earlier post (should have been a new post really), so I've copy/pasted the main edit below so it can be re-read by those following this thread:

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 questions 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? 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.00 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2354659