I'm going to move more: I'm trying to understand your mindest.
Are you premil?
I do not fit neatly into any prescribed eschatological position. I would describe my views as a hybrid of amil/postmil/idealist but not in the traditional sense of any of those viewpoints. I, for example, do believe the gospel will continue to overcome all competing worldviews in accordance with the dominion mandate and/or great commission, but I am not a dominionist in the sense I believe Christians must create a Christian state in order to usher in the return of Christ. I find that premise completely unscriptural and irrational. What I KNOW is that all premillennialisms - both Historic
and Dispensational - are incorrect. I know this because scripture
states this in fairly unequivocated ways in multiple places. Psalm 110, for example,
explicitly states Jesus will remain enthroned in heaven until his Father defeats all his enemies. That verse is used at least a half-dozen times in the NT. The New Testament writers use it as a prooftext! Premillennialism ignores it (or mangles it to mean something other than what is
stated. The simple fact is the book of Revelation never actually states Jesus leaves heaven until chapters 21 and 22 and those two chapters occur AFTER the thousand year reign. Revelation is a series of
visions, not a modern newscast, and John repeated
states what he observes is occurring in heaven. EVERYTHING that happens in heaven and on the earth is stated to have been commanded from heaven.
Jesus is not on earth until after the millennium.
Therefore, ALL premillennialisms are incorrect.
And YOU could get out your Bible today and read through the book of Revelation today consciously and conscientiously looking for
explicit mentions of Jesus on earth and...... verify for yourself what I just posted.
The question will then be "
Will I adjust my eschatological views to reconcile with what scripture actually states, or will I continue to preach what modern futurists teachers say?"
Every eschatology makes inferences. Inferences are not, in and of themselves a bad thing. The question is whether or not the inferences are exegetic or eisegetic, a function of pre-existing doctrinal bias, or an unbiased reading of scripture as written and exegetically understood. It's no okay to
infer Jesus comes to earth in chapter 20 of Revelation
if EVERYTHING leading up to that chapter states he's in heaven and Revelation doesn't have him leaving heaven until chapter 21. That should be obvious to the discerning, thinking reader, the conscientious, critically thinking Christian.
And I say this,
@Paul, having been a Dispensational Premillennialist for more than 20 years AND arguing vigorously for that point of view.
When is/was this to be fulfilled? Future Past?
When scripture stated it was fulfilled (or will be fulfilled).
Trying to measure scripture by the record of history is problematic for two reasons. First, it is a post hoc argument. Second, it subjugates scripture to history, not the other way around. If, for example, scripture
explicitly states X will happen when Y occurs then that is when X will happen. It does not matter whether or not we understand Y or know when Y happened. If Y happened as scripture
stated it did then so too did X and we bow to scripture, not history. One obvious example of this would be the "engys" or "at hand" or "near" of Revelation 1:3. The text
explicitly states the events described in Revelation will happen quickly because the time was then near. That statement is qualified by God Himself when John is told to write down what he's seen, the things that are, and the things that will be. It does not matter whether or not we can match a later verse with some historical event because scripture has explicitly states some of Revelation happened prior to John's vision (such as the woman giving birth to the Son), some of it was happening at the time when John was writing (such as the events described in the seven letters - -even many Dispensationalists like John MacArthur and Gary Hamrick teach the seven letters addressed first century contemporary matters), and some if it was in John's future. So not only is it a mistake to say the "near" can mean "two thousand or more years later," but it's also a huge mistake to think ALL of Revelation is about far distant in the future events. Loosely speaking, only about a third of the book describes events that will be. That is what the text
explicitly states. If you are as critical of your own sources as you are of my posts then you will begin to see there are a lot of futurist teacher taking extreme liberties with God's word AND if you ask them to explain their "interpretation," they will condescend to you, repeat what they said and tell you just do not yet understand.
Do not believe your own eyes.
If you also do a word study of the word "
engys" or "
near," in the New Testament, you will discover God never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near in time or near in space. And right now you're probably thinking of
2 Peter 3:8. It happens to me a lot. The problem is that verse does not contain the word "near." The appeal to 2 Peter 3:8 is a move of the goal posts, and attempt to ignore the fact God never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near. Exegetically speaking, words should always be read in a manner consistent with their use in the whole of scripture. We do not get to say, "
The word 'near' means near in 28 places but this one single usage it means something completely different." Yet that is exactly what A LOT of theologians try to do. Even Amils and other non-premils do it. They try to fit the "near" into their already existing eschatology rather than adjust the eschatology to reconcile with scripture.
In the Old Testament, the use of "near" and the other temporal markers or "time stamps, are
conditional. They are predicated on a future event. "
When you see X happen, then you now that the time for why is near." Just this morning I had a troll try to tell me Isaiah 63 is all about the second coming but when the chapter is read all of the markers occurred during the incarnation. Jesus is said to be alone (not with an army as futurism teaches). Jesus is the Savior. Jesus was Savior in the first century. When he returns he'll be Judge. He was abandoned. He saved himself from the grave. He was denied by his own people. These are the markers continued within Isaiah 63. I went through that chapter almost line by line.
Did it make any difference?
No!
It did not make any difference because that guy's allegiance is to his eschatology and the way that doctrine teaches him to read scripture, not God's word.
“From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
Yep. The verse does NOT actually state another temple will be built in our future. The word "
temple" doesn't occur anywhere in that text at all. Neither does the word "
build." There are, nonetheless, people who will take liberties with that verse and say, "
Well, it may not actually state another temple will be built BUT that is the implication of the verse." What they really means is, "....
that is the implication of the verse according to my pre-existing eschatological bias and what my teachers tell me the verse means."
Well, how about we let the scripture speak for itself wherever possible and not rely on post-biblical doctrines?
Do you believe in a future beast/AC or man of lawless that has a reign of 42 months that will be destroyed at the 2nd coming of the Lord?
This op is about the temple. This discussion is not about any antichrist or MoL or AoD. It is common practice for futurists to attempt a change of topic and when they meet someone like me (who knows how to stay on topic and not get baited into any digression) the typical response is ad hominem and strawman. Let's not do that.
Stick to the topic of the third temple and I will attempt to answer any question. Try to change the topic and I'll ask you to get back on topic.
There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states another temple will be built in our future.
There was a temple of stone standing when 2 Thessalonians was standing.
There was also a God-made temple standing, the body of Christ, when 2 Thessalonians was written.
Those are the facts of scripture, and I do not need to appeal to any eschatological doctrine to acknowledge those facts. I cannot and will not discuss the temple with those who either ignore the facts of scripture or openly deny them. There may or may not be
other facts to examine, but inferences are never facts and facts are never inferences. Sound exegesis begins with what is stated, not what is inferred.
I hope this helps you and everyone else understand from whence I come. I come from scripture, not an already existing doctrinal position.
.
