Ed Fernandez

in

N. T. Wright

2 months ago — Edited

Maybe burned at the stake, but not for being a heretic--more for being a believer (joking...I hope). Ed, I have now had a chance to watch all the way through the video you referenced. I found it highly engaging and thought provoking. Thank you for passing that on. While there is much in there that I can agree with, there were a few points that I am not ready to fully embrace. I didn't take notes, so I'm doing this from recall. First, the idea that there is no prophecy in which there is a partial first fulfillment and a later fuller fulfillment, this is problematic for me. Isa 7:14 comes to mind: Isaiah prophecized a child being born to a "virgin". Not bringing up the debates over the understanding of "virgin", this prophecy was certainly fulfilled in Isaiah's day. But Matthew tells us of a fulfillment with Mary and Jesus. Second, the views presented take little or no account of the "already, but not yet" understanding of many ideas in the New Testament. The idea that the kingdom is already here is clearly understood, but it also clear that it is not here in its complete fullness. So while agree with the presentation that those who see the kingdom as future misunderstand the Scriptural references, so do those who limit the kingdom to a spiritual-only kingdom. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." Third, the idea that Revelation was written before AD 70 is difficult to sustain for the reasons I have stated before. I really do recommend finding a copy of Mark Hitchcock's dissertation--available through an Internet search and download. The witness of those close to the author John does not bear out an early date of writing. There is one point that was raised that I have thought about before and not come to a resolution yet. There are a large number of reference to the coming of Christ that are sourced in Daniel 7--the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. It is popularly applied--including in this video--to Jesus coming to earth, whether as a future return or as in the video, a past return in judgment. However, reading Daniel 7 it is very clear that the coming of the Son of Man was not a coming to earth, but to the throne of God. I have not put together a good understanding of to where we should take all of the references to the "coming". Matthew 26:64 is one such reference: "Jesus said to him, 'You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" To where is he "coming"? Why do we presume it is to earth? This is the current leg of my journey in understanding prophetic Scripture. Ed, I welcome you to this journey of understanding. My word of advice as one who has spent 50 years walking through the maze is to not be hesitant to open new doors, explore new paths, and always hold what you "know" with a mind open to the Spirit's leading. I mentioned before that my former pastor is semi-preterist. It was interesting to me that during the 10 years I sat under his teaching that my eschatology greatly changed--not because he persuaded my about preterism, but because in examining his position my understanding of prophecy was exposed to different ways of understanding Scripture. Blessings.

Oh no, Ed, I've put my sticks and matches away long ago! ;) I'd echo Raymond, as I've been exposed to other perspectives of eschatology, it has softened me in my own perspective, not that I've changed, I just wouldn't be as dogmatic. I think reading other perspectives does make you more sensitive to see that other believers, just as well-meaning and Jesus-loving as you are, have seen the exact same Scriptures in a very different way than you have seen them. It reminds me that my lens is definitely not perfect or even potentially accurate. So, I'm no one's judge on this - there's only one judge. I'm thrilled when any believer is driven to study the word and understand it to the best of their ability, even if their conclusions are very different than mine. For what it's worth, I do think N.T. Wright (though I doubt he would identify himself as one) would fit the partial preterism camp. I do not think he would be full on preterist. Again, I don't know that he would use those labels, but his writings do lend to that view and have been used by those in that camp to bolster their arguments. Anyway, the interactions have been enjoyable. Raymond, thanks so much for all you've added. Ed, thanks for engaging and starting the discussion. It's been enjoyable. Hope you both have a blessed day! grace, dave

I really am not a fanatic of siding with one view and discarding the rest, My retired pastor is also a semi preterist, he follows Luther on HeavenBook...LOL he does believe there will be a third coming... I do understand that Matthew 24 referred to time and audience relevant information that Jesus talked about to the 1st generation Jews... The time is at hand... this generation will not pass away till all these things... and others. RC Sproul is also a partial preterist... Thank you Raymond and David... for reaching out and exchanging points of views.... Blessings!