|
|
Post by mellontes on Sept 26, 2008 11:46:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 26, 2008 12:08:41 GMT -5
Thanks Ted, You are a resource king. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Sept 26, 2008 13:12:52 GMT -5
Thanks Ted, You are a resource king. Hah!!! If you only knew who the real resource king was... Blessings, Ted |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 26, 2008 15:14:05 GMT -5
Thanks Ted, You are a resource king. Hah!!! If you only knew who the real resource king was... Blessings, Ted I think I know Him personally. Actually I am certain I know Him personally. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Sept 26, 2008 18:21:54 GMT -5
Hi Ted,
Thanks for posting the Preston/Schwertley debate. Schwertley let himself down badly at the final summation I thought. Calling Preston a heretic and stating that the hand of fellowship should not be extended to him, IMO cheapened his whole presentation. Personally I find it distressing to hear such things.
Although the debate was over two hours long, it felt as though not much material was covered. A lot of things were repeated over and over again. But I thought Preston did the better job of the two. However, one thing I find frustrating about Don, and I've read a good few of his books, and greatly enjoy his work.....is that because he thinks a counter argument is so strong, he doesn't actually deal with the specifics of the question.
For example, Schwertly asked Preston what them being caught up in the clouds actually meant. In reply Don focused on Schwertly's handling of Matthew 24...and touched a little on the meaning of "aer". But he didn't really give us a run down of his understanding of 1Thess 4:17. I found this particularly frustrating as in a prior debate (maybe with Gregg Strawbridge), again, Don failed to answer this question outright (though to be fair to him, it was more to do with time restraints on that occasion).
Perhaps he'll get it out one day....lol.
Shame this wasn't available in mp3 format. I'd have liked to download it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 26, 2008 18:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Sept 26, 2008 19:24:31 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Thanks for the links. On first listen there were a few bits I'd probably like to listen to again to get a better grasp of the issues. I can whack these on my iPod now.
Thanks again.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Sept 26, 2008 19:51:24 GMT -5
Hi Ted, Thanks for posting the Preston/Schwertley debate. Schwertley let himself down badly at the final summation I thought. Calling Preston a heretic and stating that the hand of fellowship should not be extended to him, IMO cheapened his whole presentation. Personally I find it distressing to hear such things. Although the debate was over two hours long, it felt as though not much material was covered. A lot of things were repeated over and over again. But I thought Preston did the better job of the two. However, one thing I find frustrating about Don, and I've read a good few of his books, and greatly enjoy his work.....is that because he thinks a counter argument is so strong, he doesn't actually deal with the specifics of the question. For example, Schwertly asked Preston what them being caught up in the clouds actually meant. In reply Don focused on Schwertly's handling of Matthew 24...and touched a little on the meaning of "aer". But he didn't really give us a run down of his understanding of 1Thess 4:17. I found this particularly frustrating as in a prior debate (maybe with Gregg Strawbridge), again, Don failed to answer this question outright (though to be fair to him, it was more to do with time restraints on that occasion). I was quite unimpressed by the fact that Brian would ask Don 10-12 questions of stuff all over the map and Don gets a whole five minutes to respond. Brian never had to answer one single question of Don's. It was a rapid-fire series of questions wrapped in innuendo and Don was allowed 30 seconds for each. Don't these people undedrstand that it would take 10 minutes just to eastablish the basic framework for some of their questions? How shallow some people's theologies are. I think I could teach the entire scheme of dispensationalism in 45 minutes yet it would take me 3 hours to go through just the timing of the 2nd coming in preterism... But we are in luck! Don is writing a book only on 1 Thessalonians chapter 4!!! Blessings, Ted |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Sept 26, 2008 20:01:04 GMT -5
Wow! And you say I have good sources...  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Sept 26, 2008 20:41:36 GMT -5
Hi Ted, Thanks for posting the Preston/Schwertley debate. Schwertley let himself down badly at the final summation I thought. Calling Preston a heretic and stating that the hand of fellowship should not be extended to him, IMO cheapened his whole presentation. Personally I find it distressing to hear such things. Although the debate was over two hours long, it felt as though not much material was covered. A lot of things were repeated over and over again. But I thought Preston did the better job of the two. However, one thing I find frustrating about Don, and I've read a good few of his books, and greatly enjoy his work.....is that because he thinks a counter argument is so strong, he doesn't actually deal with the specifics of the question. For example, Schwertly asked Preston what them being caught up in the clouds actually meant. In reply Don focused on Schwertly's handling of Matthew 24...and touched a little on the meaning of "aer". But he didn't really give us a run down of his understanding of 1Thess 4:17. I found this particularly frustrating as in a prior debate (maybe with Gregg Strawbridge), again, Don failed to answer this question outright (though to be fair to him, it was more to do with time restraints on that occasion). I was quite unimpressed by the fact that Brian would ask Don 10-12 questions of stuff all over the map and Don gets a whole five minutes to respond. Brian never had to answer one single question of Don's. It was a rapid-fire series of questions wrapped in innuendo and Don was allowed 30 seconds for each. Don't these people undedrstand that it would take 10 minutes just to eastablish the basic framework for some of their questions? How shallow some people's theologies are. I think I could teach the entire scheme of dispensationalism in 45 minutes yet it would take me 3 hours to go through just the timing of the 2nd coming in preterism... But we are in luck! Don is writing a book only on 1 Thessalonians chapter 4!!! Blessings, Ted I found the debate to be a typical debate where it left me frustrated for just the reasons Ted and Paul have mentioned. I was thoroughly disgusted over the last minutes of Brians summary. He turned nasty during the first half and got worse as time went on. Don was good but I'll bet he felt as though he was not getting his responses through to Brian. Brian obviously needed notes to get him through and then at one point he blamed his poor wife for not copying the whole text for him. I could tel he was flustered as the debate went on. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Sept 26, 2008 22:06:20 GMT -5
I listened to the podcast this morning and was glad I had already read Preston's article on the Resurrection because it made his arguments easier to follow than if I had not. You could tell that Don was convinced of his position because scripture had convinced him, whereas Brian tended to give the creedal position pretty much rotely. If I didn't know better, I would have thought Brian was Dispensationalist the way he opposed Don. And yes, I thought his closing statements trying to demonize Don were uncalled for and in poor taste. But that was also his take in his opening remarks. Don seemed to have done his homework better than Brian to me.
But because of the article I read, I do see some weaknesses in Don's argument, which perhaps Brian perceived but was not prepared to refute. I found myself wanting to help Don make these things more clear. I felt he did a bit of the old Amil spiritualizing when comparing the new birth and the resurrection from the scripture (more from the article than the debate). What he kept calling physical as opposed to spiritual makes me think that he does not consider that the spiritual is literal as well. But I digress.
His strong suit though is in showing that it was Israel's prophecied judgment and her promises that moved all these events into place. Especially, because this is the very thing that nobody apparently believes!
All in all it was one of the better debates I have heard. It is unfortunate that Brian couldn't give a better defence from his own research as well as Don did from his.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Sept 27, 2008 4:08:51 GMT -5
If I didn't know better, I would have thought Brian was Dispensationalist the way he opposed Don. Hi Robin, Yeah, good points. He did come off as sounding a little like a Dispensationalist. You'd think that, what with Schwertly being a Partial Preterist, he'd at least be sympathetic to Full Preterism. Condemning it in the way that he did, seemed like an own goal somehow. It seems (to me at least), that those that hold to a minority view are by and large the more respectful of those with other religious views. Once you've believed in something for a long while, and then discover the error of it, it's amazing how understanding of others you become. Unfortunately however, when you're bound by creeds, and have had it drummed into you time and time again that everyone outside of those creeds is a heretic, it can become an unwanted distraction during a debate. As Don said, demonizing a person is often the last resort of someone with a duff argument (I paraphrase naturally). Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Sept 27, 2008 4:20:52 GMT -5
But we are in luck! Don is writing a book only on 1 Thessalonians chapter 4!!! Hi Ted, Nice heads up. Thanks for that. I think I may give that one a read when it comes out. I do recall hearing Preston's views on "the rapture" scriptures elsewhere, so I know generally what he believes, but I'm more than interested in seeing his view fleshed out somewhat. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Sept 27, 2008 4:30:21 GMT -5
I found the debate to be a typical debate where it left me frustrated for just the reasons Ted and Paul have mentioned. I was thoroughly disgusted over the last minutes of Brians summary. He turned nasty during the first half and got worse as time went on. Don was good but I'll bet he felt as though he was not getting his responses through to Brian. Brian obviously needed notes to get him through and then at one point he blamed his poor wife for not copying the whole text for him. I could tel he was flustered as the debate went on. Hi Allyn, I think this is clearly the problem with the structured debate. Specific questions get missed. As you say, Brian asked Don dozens of questions, and there was no hope at all of him answering them all in five minutes. He did try. But when his time was up, Brian just bombarded him with more. That's why I prefer a Q & A, cross examination type section at the end of a debate. The weakness of the other persons position has usually been exposed by this point, and direct questions, one at a time, with specific answers being given, usually takes away the frustration of the other party fudging the issues, or trying to answer a question with a question. Shame we didn't get that. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by john14and9 on Oct 1, 2008 21:31:47 GMT -5
I listened to the debate..I thought it was good and to me Don proved his position better..though I really wished He would have explained 1 Thess 4:16..rather than try to defend why you want to tie it in and just aggravate Brian even more..JUST ANSWER his questions..geez...other than that..I like Don Preston..lol |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 14, 2008 8:52:27 GMT -5
I wonder if we have truly nailed down the real truth concerning the resurrection of the saints? Because of time I can't say much more than this, but later today I would like to wrestle with this question in more detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 14, 2008 21:31:38 GMT -5
I think the key lies in the day of atonement. It was a day in which a man was to humble himself (afflict = repent) else face judgment. The fulfillment of that day is seen first in Jesus atoning for our sins at the cross and then the saints bringing themselves into this place of submission to Christ during that 40 years before judgment came. The period is similar to the Exodus - which we know the fathers did not make it to the promised land because of their unbelief. Which is why we see the apostles encouraging the saints to remain in the faith until the end - when their union with Christ would be secured. That was related to the OT and NT saints who had already died (firstfruits were first), rising from the dead at which point salvation would be secured for all the saints whether dead or living. The patience of the saints was to wait until the sin of the apostates reached its fullness so judgment could be meted out to them, and also to complete the gathering of the firstfruits to faith in Christ.
This to me is the spiritual understanding of what the sign given regarding Christ's INVISIBLE coming as a thief "in the clouds" was all about. The sign itself does not reveal the whole story, but the revelation of God thru His word does. It was not that the living would see the dead rise, but that they would know it by the specific sign Jesus gave about the imminent destruction of Jerusalem.
I am not surprised that unbelief regarding this event is so prevalent in the churches today. What surprises me though is that nobody wants to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Oct 16, 2008 10:20:41 GMT -5
I am not surprised that unbelief regarding this event is so prevalent in the churches today. What surprises me though is that nobody wants to hear it. No kidding! What is needed are ears to hear. Tradition has made the Word of God of none effect! More and more am I reminded of the Pharisaical attitude of believers. These unbelieving Jews stood face to face with Christ and still preferred their traditions over God! Absolutely amazing. We face the same thing today only it is face to face with the Word of God. Moses under inspiration foretold of a coming day when a prophet would be raised like unto himself. At that time He is to be heeded in what He says and they are to hearken unto His words. This prophet was none other than the Lord Jesus. Deuteronomy 18:15 - The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; Deuteronomy 18:17-19 - And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Does this sound like a postponement? No, not a chance. They were to obey Him but they chose not to and were judged for it. It is all about the Word of God and our adherence to it. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 16, 2008 12:56:57 GMT -5
I wonder if we have truly nailed down the real truth concerning the resurrection of the saints? Because of time I can't say much more than this, but later today I would like to wrestle with this question in more detail. Allyn, Being that you once held the Amil position, where do they get the idea we become disembodied souls upon death? That one really bugs me... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 16, 2008 15:49:31 GMT -5
Hi Robin, Are you asking me how do the Amil people come up with the idea that we become disembodied souls? If the Amils believe this then it must be in reference to those who went to Sheol and Hades. Prior to Jesus' messianic work, no one went to Heaven (John 3:13). So if, prior to Jesus' messianic work, no one went to Heaven-- where did people go when they died? They went to a holding place of the dead and waited for the atoning work of Christ and the resurrection from the dead.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for where they were prior to the resurrection is Sheol. In the New Testament the Greek word is Hades. What this place amounted to was a waiting area for disembodied spirits. The Old Testament uses the word "Sheol" to refer to a place in the depths of the earth. It is translated as "grave", "pit", and "hell". All people were believed to go to Sheol when they die (Psalms 89:48, Daniel 12:2,13).
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Oct 18, 2008 12:38:07 GMT -5
Great answer, Allyn!
Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits in prison (i.e. sheol/hades), between his crucifixion and resurrection (1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6).
Lady Sower~
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Oct 18, 2008 14:14:00 GMT -5
Great answer, Allyn! Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits in prison (i.e. sheol/hades), between his crucifixion and resurrection (1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6). Lady Sower~ As much as I realize these passages to be difficult, I don't think Jesus preached the gospel to those in sheol/hades. I think "good news" was given to them concerning the short time remaining for the resurrection - something long awaited for. If 1 Peter 4:6 applies to this time (and I don't think it does) we must somehow explain just how these folks in sheol/hades " might be judged according to men in the flesh" as the verse indicates. Not a biggy though... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 18, 2008 18:05:46 GMT -5
Great answer, Allyn! Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits in prison (i.e. sheol/hades), between his crucifixion and resurrection (1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6). Lady Sower~ As much as I realize these passages to be difficult, I don't think Jesus preached the gospel to those in sheol/hades. I think "good news" was given to them concerning the short time remaining for the resurrection - something long awaited for. If 1 Peter 4:6 applies to this time (and I don't think it does) we must somehow explain just how these folks in sheol/hades " might be judged according to men in the flesh" as the verse indicates. Not a biggy though... Ultimately, I do think it was the Gospel that was preached - not for their salvation but for justification. What I think is that Jesus made Himself known to the dead that in fact He was and is the Savior of the world and His appearance to all the dead was necessary so that all righteousness was made known and that in no way could the excuse be given "I did not know". |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 18, 2008 20:41:56 GMT -5
1 Pet 4:6 seems to be saying that Noah was also preaching the gospel in his day by the Spirit, so that men yet living would be warned of the judgment coming upon them so that they might live unto God in spirit. The Spirit who quickened Jesus is the same Spirit by which Noah spoke to those men since dead - dead by that judgment that came upon them. At least that is my take on this passage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Oct 19, 2008 9:24:42 GMT -5
1 Pet 4:6 seems to be saying that Noah was also preaching the gospel in his day by the Spirit, so that men yet living would be warned of the judgment coming upon them so that they might live unto God in spirit. The Spirit who quickened Jesus is the same Spirit by which Noah spoke to those men since dead - dead by that judgment that came upon them. At least that is my take on this passage. Interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 19, 2008 9:48:20 GMT -5
1 Pet 4:6 seems to be saying that Noah was also preaching the gospel in his day by the Spirit, so that men yet living would be warned of the judgment coming upon them so that they might live unto God in spirit. The Spirit who quickened Jesus is the same Spirit by which Noah spoke to those men since dead - dead by that judgment that came upon them. At least that is my take on this passage. Hi Robin, Is there some other wording you can add that may help me to understand better what you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Oct 21, 2008 16:27:16 GMT -5
Great answer, Allyn! Jesus went and preached the gospel to the spirits in prison (i.e. sheol/hades), between his crucifixion and resurrection (1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6). Lady Sower~ As much as I realize these passages to be difficult, I don't think Jesus preached the gospel to those in sheol/hades. The scripture (1 Peter 3:18,19; 1 Peter 4:6), say he did!  That's not what the scripture said. They were judged "as" men alive in the flesh. I think it is! Lady Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 21, 2008 22:19:10 GMT -5
Allyn,
I know this passage seems to infer that the OT dead were actually "awake" as disembodied spirits, but that is not easily nor clearly supported anywhere else. What is clearly said many times is that the OT dead were dead, dead and knew nothing. And the rich man and Lazarus story if you read it in context, is speaking about after the resurrection - when the rich man "lifted up his eyes" - so that isn't exactly a clear passage to use either. The other one would be Samuel's spirit being raised up to speak to king Saul. But that sounds like an exception, not a proof text.
Even so the Greek is difficult in this passage and Peter does seem prone to speak a bit cryptically or exuberantly in the way he describes some things. The man was passionate for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Oct 22, 2008 6:34:56 GMT -5
Lady Sower,
In 1 Peter 3:18 "gospel" is missing from the text. And while there is no doubt that Jesus Proclaimed "something" to those in "prison" (which could be those in sheol/hades), can we agree that once a person had died physically his time for being saved (or whatever you wish to call it) has expired. We don't get a second chance after we shed this shell and I can't believe it would be any different for them - that would mix up the "requirements," if you will, of salvation.
There is a possibility that sheol/hades is not involved in the text at all. "Prison" is a very liberal term and to say that it must mean sheol/hades may be somewhat forced . Adam Clarke has some interesting things to say regarding this verse. I think we have introduced a sort of "Dantes Inferno" interpretation into the text.
As for 1 Peter 4:6, I don't think it has anything to do with Noah's day or those in sheol/hades. The context seems to have shifted to the Gentiles. Here the gospel is definitely being preached to those who are dead (not physically dead, but spiritually dead). Part B of the verse seems to indicate physical life after salvation.
|
|
mikew
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by mikew on Oct 27, 2008 14:08:06 GMT -5
The thing that stuck out wrong or overly emphasized was Don's idea on the resurrection of Israel.
I don't know if such is a strong view among full prets but it was something I hadn't heard, at least not in such force and repetition.
At least the debate was about resurretion. And maybe I will be able to check into some details about what Preston is proposing here. There may be some passages in the NT about the resurrection of Israel, but I can't see Paul talking much about the resurrection of Israel to his Gentile audiences.
|
|
