civic
Active Member
Projecting again
7 Reasons the church does not go through the great tribulation
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
The English phrase “caught up” translates the Greek word harpazõ, which means “to seize upon with force” or “to snatch up.” This is the Greek word from which the English word “harpoon” is derived. The Latin translators of the Bible used the word rapere, the root of the English term rapture. At the Pre-Trib Rapture living believers will be “caught up” in the air, translated into the clouds, in a moment of time.
The pre-trib rapture of the church fulfills a biblical need to not only see a distinction between the translation of Church Age saints at the rapture, before the second coming, but it also handles without difficulty the necessity of a time-gap which harmonizes a number of future biblical events.
The pre-trib rapture of the church fulfills a biblical need to not only see a distinction between the translation of Church Age saints at the rapture, before the second coming, but it also handles without difficulty the necessity of a time-gap which harmonizes a number of future biblical events.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@Red Baker..... What???????????????? You think @civic is a preterist.
I have been on here just as long as you have and I have been in threads where he was and you were not and I never once.............
Tell you what. If you can get @civic to say he is a preterist.... and I have known many... I have known the best, as you and I both know them.... and you would heve to agree.
So if @civic is a closet preterist and you get him to confess that
I will be on my way to your town tomorrow and you can immerse me in my bathtub in my hotel room.
I never heard the likes of such a charge....
DavidTree
Active Member
GOSPEL and 1 Thess & 2nd Thess, Hebrews 9:28 , OT Prophets
Christ 2nd Coming has everything to do with:
A.) CHRIST leaving Heaven
b.) Saints leaving Heaven with Christ for their RESURRECTION
c.) AFTER the Resurrection, on earth the remaining living Saints/Elect are raptured
c.) Angels
d.) Wrath
@FreeInChrist
Go back and look again, I was quoting what @dwight92070 had said, even if I tagged it to civic. I know what civic is a very confused person in the Premillennialism camp. The camp I once was part of when I first came to Christ, but it took me less than two to three years to see through that mess. I was taught by the very best of those in that camp, so I know their teaching inside and out, maybe better than many of them.@Red Baker..... What???????????????? You think @civic is a preterist.
So, I guess you will not be coming down. Well, come on down I'll give you some reading classes.
civic
Active Member
You are very confused with eschatology and theology ( Calvinism ) .
civic
Active Member
A preterist, I detest that heresy
dwight92070
Active Member
I am a partial preterist. That's a big difference from a full preterist. I believe much of Revelation has already happened. Obviously the 2nd Coming of Christ has not happened - if it had, we wouldn't be here. We would be with Him and this old world would have already been burned up.
The heresy is dispensationalism, not partial preterism.
civic
Active Member
Partial is a heresy
Thunderous "Pops!" #3 & #4 are hammers, you've got me, I'm going all 7!
Never thought of "double jeopardy" defense you propose, compelling...for sure.
dwight92070
Active Member
A heresy has to do with denying essential doctrines. Partial preterism denies no essential doctrines. 1. Dispensationalism teaches that the teaching of Jesus is NOT for the church today, but it's for the Jews during the Millennium. That's heresy. 2. They teach that the Jews will build another temple and will return to offering animal sacrifices and that Jesus, sitting on His throne in Jerusalem, will actually endorse these sacrifices, even though His sacrifice of His body and blood is sufficient for all mankind and for all time. That's heresy. 3. They teach that the Jews and the Church will be separated for all eternity - the Jews will be God's eternal earthly people and the Church will be God's eternal heavenly people. That's heresy, since Jesus tore down the dividing wall between believing Jews and believing Gentiles. 4. They also teach that each of the seven dispensations has a different requirement for salvation. That's heresy. Men have always been saved by grace through faith.
Now it's your turn, please show all of us which partial preterist teaching is heresy - just as I have shown everyone what is heretical in dispensationalism. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then your claim that partial preterism is heresy is false.
Next fallacy.
Last edited:
Victoria
Active Member
The Jesuit Roots of Preterism
Confronting Preterism’s Roots:
A Jesuit Counter-Reformation
Strategy in Modern Protestant Garb
Introduction
Modern Christian eschatology is a landscape of divergent systems, with futurism, historicism, idealism, and preterism each vying for scriptural credibility. Among these, preterism—the belief that most or all biblical prophecies, particularly in Revelation and the Olivet Discourse, were fulfilled in the first century—has gained increasing traction among certain conservative Protestants, especially within the Reformed tradition. Advocates like R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, and Gary DeMar have helped popularize a form of “partial preterism” which teaches that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fulfillment of much of Jesus’ prophetic discourse, and possibly Revelation itself.
However, what is often left unacknowledged is the origin of preterism in the Counter-Reformation, developed not as a neutral theological system, but as an intentional apologetic maneuver by a Jesuit priest— Luis de Alcázar—to shield the Roman Catholic Church from the charge of being the Antichrist. Recognizing this historical context should give modern non-Catholic preterists pause. Can a theological system born as a defense of the Papacy now serve as a reliable lens for interpreting prophecy within Protestantism?
Luis de Alcázar and the Birth of Preterism
Luis de Alcázar (1554–1613), a Spanish Jesuit and theologian, lived and worked during the height of the Catholic Counter-Reformation—the Church’s organized response to the Protestant Reformation. During this period, the Papacy faced relentless accusations from Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Knox, all of whom identified the Pope as the Antichrist and the Roman Church as the Babylon of Revelation. This interpretation was central to the historicist framework adopted by Protestants, which saw prophecy as unfolding throughout church history, with the Roman Catholic Church playing a prominent role in opposition to Christ.
In this context, Alcázar composed his magnum opus, Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi (published posthumously in 1614), a massive commentary on the book of Revelation. His key thesis was that Revelation does not concern the distant future, nor the corruptions of the medieval church, but rather was fulfilled almost entirely in the early centuries of Christianity. He argued that the prophecies referred to:
- The persecution of Christians under pagan Rome,
- The fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,
- The triumph of the Church over her early enemies.
This radical reinterpretation had a clear purpose: to exonerate the Roman Church from the accusations of the Reformers by recasting Revelation as a closed book, already fulfilled and thus irrelevant to the contemporary church. Alcázar’s preterism was not developed in theological isolation or dispassionate study—it was deeply political, crafted to neutralize Protestant polemics and defend the authority of the Papacy.
The Jesuit Context and Counter-
Reformation Strategy
To understand Alcázar’s motivations, one must understand the role of the Jesuits in the Counter-Reformation. Founded in 1540 by Ignatius of Loyola, the Society of Jesus was tasked with confronting Protestantism intellectually, politically, and spiritually. Jesuits became the vanguard of Rome’s theological offensive, producing scholars who would reinterpret Scripture in ways that advanced Catholic interests.
In this environment, Alcázar’s approach offered a powerful tool: reinterpret the prophecies not as future threats to ecclesiastical power, but as past events that vindicated the Church’s origins and historical mission. This strategy allowed Catholic theologians to answer Protestant charges with academic sophistication while redirecting the focus of Revelation away from Rome’s abuses and onto the Roman Empire of antiquity.
Matthew 16:28 — A Test Case in
Interpretive Divergence
One key verse that reveals the contrast between Alcázar’s approach and traditional or premillennial views is Matthew 16:28, where Jesus declares:
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (KJV)
Alcázar and modern preterists interpret this verse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, asserting that this event was the “coming of the Son of Man in judgment.” They argue that Christ came spiritually and symbolically to end the old covenant order.
However, early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus, and many modern premillennialists, interpret this as referring to either:
- The Transfiguration (a foretaste of kingdom glory witnessed by Peter, James, and John),
- Or a reference to the Second Coming, with “some” possibly referring to John living long enough to receive the vision of Christ in Revelation.
Premillennialists reject the idea that A.D. 70 fulfilled Christ’s return, since the actual return is bodily, visible, and cosmic, as described in Acts 1:11 and Revelation 19. They hold that the kingdom’s full manifestation is still future, involving Christ’s reign on earth. In this way, Alcázar’s interpretation significantly redefines the nature and timing of Christ’s return, spiritualizing what the early church and historic premillennialists took literally and future.
Modern Protestant Adoption of Preterism
Ironically, the seeds planted by Alcázar have sprouted in modern conservative Protestant circles, particularly among Reformed theologians seeking to make sense of eschatology in a post Enlightenment age. Frustrated by sensationalist dispensationalism and attracted to covenantal themes, many have turned to preterism— especially partial preterism—as a more scholarly and historically grounded alternative.
They argue that:
- Jesus’ prophecies in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 were fulfilled in A.D. 70.
- The tribulation and judgment referred to the end of the Jewish age, not a future global apocalypse.
- Revelation (or most of it) describes first-century events like Nero’s persecution, the fall of Jerusalem, and the vindication of the Church.
While this system may appeal to the Reformed mind due to its textual nuance and historical grounding, it must be acknowledged that it shares a theological DNA with Counter-Reformation Romanism, designed to protect the very institution the Reformers protested.
A Call for Discernment
Modern Protestants who adopt preterism—especially those who claim to be faithful to the Reformation—must wrestle with this uncomfortable reality. Can one claim to be historically aligned with Luther, Calvin, or Knox while employing an interpretive method crafted to refute them? Should a system invented to defend the Papacy now guide the Church in understanding prophecy?
Furthermore, preterism’s implications can be troubling:
- It diminishes the relevance of Christ’s return as a future, bodily hope.
- It often blurs the lines between Israel and the Church, leading to replacement theology.
- It can lead to theological complacency, as prophecy is viewed as “already fulfilled” and no longer an urgent motivator for mission, warning, or vigilance.
Conclusion
Preterism did not arise from the fertile soil of Protestant exegesis or early Christian consensus—it was born in the crucible of religious warfare, forged by a Jesuit hand to shield the Roman Church from condemnation. While today’s preterists may approach the system with sincere intentions and theological rigor, they cannot escape the historical origins of the method they use.
To remain faithful to the principles of sola Scriptura and the historic Protestant testimony, the Church must examine not only what a system teaches, but also why it was developed and who first wielded it. In the case of preterism, that path leads not to Geneva, Wittenberg, or the early church—but to Seville, to Jesuit scholars, and to the defenders of Rome.
Selah
Active Member
civic
Active Member
Excellent
Victoria
Active Member
dwight92070, please understand first & foremost why an Ambassador for Christ believes what they believe.
The word "dispensation" is mentioned four times in the Bible (i.e. 1 Co 9:17; Eph 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25).
Where is the word "preterism" mentioned? I did a word search, & came up w/ nothing.
Attacking Dispensationalism is attacking God b/c He's the One dispensing the revelation of the mystery to the apostle Paul.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/mid-acts-dispensationalism.799/#post-200583
Last edited:
@civic
I have address some of the main points of disagreements, and today I want to look at "This generation"~ with the emphasis on "This" generation. The preterist put a lot of emphasis on this generation, so let us start a separate post on it.
You continue making such remarks without even attempting to go head to head with me on Eschatology. I understand eschatology very well since i have written many pages on this subject debating men form all four schools of thought on this subject. I picked up on @dwight92070 being a preterist with one scripture he quoted from Luke 21. He still very close being a full blown Pertersoit if he thinks for one minute that Revelation is mostly fulfilled. He very close to what @three resurrection is if he still post here
I have address some of the main points of disagreements, and today I want to look at "This generation"~ with the emphasis on "This" generation. The preterist put a lot of emphasis on this generation, so let us start a separate post on it.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
Nope.... not yet.
I read just fine and I understand what I read.
It is why I am no longer in your camp of the predestined... but now on the side of the foreknowledge aware.
But if you could just embrace what Calvin said on baptism
And before you protest too much.. for I know you would never.... just consider....
Calvin states that baptism can be performed through immersion or sprinkling, and he emphasizes that the method should be left free, allowing for both practices within the church. He also insists that the worthiness of the minister does not affect the validity of the baptism.
Even God, Himself, said
Ezekiel 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
So if you would just come around... then I could drive past your house and you could come to the car and sprinkle me and
all would be accomplished.
When Did Sprinkling For Baptism Begin – Christian.net
Discover the history and significance of sprinkling for baptism in theology and spirituality. Learn about the origins and evolution of this practice.
christian.net
The Emergence of Sprinkling as a Baptism Method
- Influence of Historical Context: The emergence of sprinkling as a baptism method can be attributed to various historical and practical factors within the Christian tradition. During the early centuries of Christianity, as the church expanded and encountered diverse cultural and geographical contexts, the logistical challenges of conducting full-immersion baptisms in certain regions became apparent. In areas where access to natural bodies of water was limited or climatic conditions posed obstacles to immersion, the practice of sprinkling gradually gained traction as a pragmatic alternative for administering the sacrament.
- Theological and Liturgical Considerations: Alongside practical considerations, theological and liturgical developments also contributed to the emergence of sprinkling as a baptism method. As the church grappled with theological debates and doctrinal interpretations, discussions arose regarding the essential elements of baptism and the permissible variations in its administration. While the symbolism of immersion remained deeply rooted in Christian tradition, theological perspectives on the sacramental efficacy of sprinkling began to surface, paving the way for its acceptance as a valid mode of baptism.
- Shifts in Ecclesiastical Practice: The shift from immersion to sprinkling as a baptism method also reflected broader changes in ecclesiastical practice and pastoral considerations. As the church adapted to evolving social and cultural dynamics, the need for flexibility in baptismal practices became increasingly evident. The recognition of sprinkling as a legitimate form of baptism allowed for greater inclusivity and accessibility, enabling individuals, including the elderly, infirm, and infants, to receive the sacrament without the physical demands associated with full immersion.
- Liturgical Adaptations and Symbolic Meaning: The adaptation of sprinkling as a baptismal method prompted corresponding liturgical developments and symbolic interpretations within Christian worship. The ritual of sprinkling water, often accompanied by the recitation of baptismal formulas, came to embody the cleansing and regenerative aspects of baptism, albeit through a different mode of application. This adaptation underscored the theological understanding of baptism as a sacrament of grace, irrespective of the specific method employed, while emphasizing the enduring spiritual significance of the rite.
- Integration into Christian Tradition: Over time, the integration of sprinkling as a baptism method into various Christian traditions and denominations solidified its status as a recognized and practiced form of administering the sacrament. While immersion remained prevalent in certain branches of Christianity, the acceptance of sprinkling as a valid and meaningful mode of baptism reflected the adaptive nature of the church and its responsiveness to the diverse needs and contexts of believers worldwide.
- Continued Diversity and Theological Reflection: The emergence of sprinkling as a baptism method exemplifies the dynamic interplay between historical, theological, and practical factors in shaping the development of Christian sacramental practices. The ongoing diversity in baptismal methods, including immersion, affusion, and sprinkling, continues to invite theological reflection and pastoral discernment within the church, highlighting the enduring significance of baptism as a central sacrament of the Christian faith.
ACTS 2:41
At times, those who accept sprinkling appeal to Acts 2 in an attempt to justify their position. Some suggest that the twelve apostles could not have immersed as many as 3,000 people in one day (Acts 2:41 records that “about three thousand souls” were baptized on Pentecost), so the apostles must have sprinkled water on the 3,000. However, if each baptism took approximately a minute, the apostles could have done the job in just over four hours (Jackson, 2002b, p. 32). Also, nothing in the New Testament demands that the apostles had to do all the baptizing themselves.And even Ai ~Sprinkling baptism, also known as aspersion, has its roots in early Christian practices and Jewish rituals of purification. It became more widely accepted as a valid form of baptism in the Western church around the 10th century, particularly for situations where immersion was impractical
So times they are a changing... for the better is debatable... But if I am ever in your neck of the woods... I promise you we shall see.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
@dwight92070 ,
Good morning....
One question to you.
You know that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. WE all do.
Are you among the believers that feel Jesus did come back then.... not walking on earth but was back in the clouds?
Good morning....
One question to you.
You know that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. WE all do.
Are you among the believers that feel Jesus did come back then.... not walking on earth but was back in the clouds?
