Boanerges said: Could you clarify that just a tad Henry? Do you mean ALL preterism is wrong (hyper & orthodox) or just hyper?
I was trying to be a bit funny. No, I'm not a preterist, and I think that even "Partial" preterism makes hamburger of the Olivet Discourse. Is there exegetical reasons to interpret the whole thing one way, and then just change things when we get to Jesus coming back? Mind you, I don't think dispensational futurism does things any better. My view on these issues is a little eclectic: I'm an already-but-not-yet-ist. Everybody recognizes the already-but-not-yet principal, but I think it's place in these sorts of issues- like interpreting the Olivet discourse- is greatly unappreciated. Fred Zaspel has said similar things. I think we need to take a deeper look at these issues instead of seeing what pre-existing "mold" (preterism, futurism, etc.) we fit in to.
Robin, I appreciate your comments, but I'll just respond to this:
Almost without exception, charismatics and Pentecostals are Dispensational premillennialists. Much of their theology depends on am almost completely non-preterist eschatology.
Your first sentence may be true. Your second sentence is a logical fallacy. It's like saying "All cars have wheels. Therfore, anything with wheels is a car." Stating a
correlation between charismatic pneumatology and the eschatology they happen to hold does not prove a
dependance. If all X is Y, Y is not by necessity X.
...that forced me to confront the true Biblical nature of the sign gifts.
From what I can hear, preterism didn't tell you about the signs gifts, it just forced you to examine what the Bible said all along about the signs gifts. Would I be right in this?
I'm glad you're out of the Charismatic movement, I just hope you keep and open mind to these issues, and realize that for a lot of us, we stand with you when weighing on the Charismatics, but it has nothing to do with our eschatology.
