Jesus did return, in the clouds, as He said He would. The problem with Futurism, as I see it, is that those who follow it are ignorant of the OT Scriptures. And as I'm sure that you probably agree, one cannot possibly understand the NT properly, without a very strong working knowledge of both the OT and the peoples/times involved (their way of life).
For example, I'm sure you would agree that it would be hypocrisy to agree that the most important rule in Scriptural interpretation is that "Scripture interprets Scripture" and then hand wave away multiple Scriptural examples of fulfilled prophecies in which God "came in the clouds", insisting that they do not have anything to do with the NT example that Christ prophesied. By what criteria do we dismiss them all? Because they disagree wth a doctrine? But if the doctrine is excluding this most important rule of all, then isn't it the doctrine that should be questioned, instead of dismissing the other Scriptures as irrelevant? And certainly one cannot claim that they are not dismissing them and then not apply them.
As one example, the fulfilled prophecy about the time that God used Assyria to judge Egypt (God always used nations to judge nations, including Israel/Judea), which was fulfilled back in the 6th century BC.
"The Lord rides a swift cloud into Egypt." - Isaiah 19:1 (in part)
Did anyone PHYSICALLY SEE God riding on a PHYSICAL CLOUD? No, of course not!
And of course, all the other examples of His "coming down". How many are found in the Psalms alone?!
But my feeling is that these will be dismissed by the Futurists, because they don't fit into the doctrine. I personally think that they are filtering Scripture through their doctrine, instead of the other way around. I feel that otherwise, they would not dismiss these Scriptures as irrelevant to this subject, especially since even the wording is the same!
As I have said about the typical Futurist, they are ignorant of the Scriptures as a whole, meaning fitting everything, Old & New together and especially the OT. Nor do they realize how often the destruction of the temple being the return of Jesus and "the end" is mentioned, nor how often "the end" is associated with the end of the Mosaic economy.
Furthermore, what really shocks them in debates that I have had, both formal and semi-formal, is when they quote what they think are going to be "the bomb" verses, which they believe are going to totally destroy my belief system and then, instead of going to other verses, I use the very verses that they quoted to me, proving that they actually say the opposite of what they stated. I do not go to other Scriptures in response to Scripture quotes, as a Futurist typically does, because that would be pitting Scripture against itself. In other words, in a debate, you're responding to the other person, to demonstrate to them that their claim(s) about a passage, or passages is incorrect. So if you respond by avoiding the passage(s) that they posted and post others in response, to tell them that they're wrong, then it is the same thing as saying; "Well, that Scripture can't be true, because look at what this one says!". After all, what you'd be responding to, is their claim, as seems to be typical here anyway, is that the Bible says what they're saying and they take the position here, that to disagree with them, is to disagree with God's word. Therefore, as I said, to paste in a different Scripture in response, is to do as I said, because of that attitude. So if they do the same, then that would also be what they are doing, amen?
New Christians tend to get taught the popular doctrines, mostly Futurism (it wasn't always that way) and then they read the NT through the lens of that doctrine and then read parts of the OT; certain prophecies, reading first what someone says they mean and of course, when they read them, it appears that they say that. But that is not the way to study Scripture! Each and every step is backwards! And I cannot count how many times someone has posted a prophecy from the OT to me and claimed it was about our time, today and I showed them that indeed, it was not and proceeded to show them when, where and how it was fulfilled, many centuries ago. And it truly is sad, that so many are so ignorant of what the Scriptures as a whole say and how it would have been read at that time.
And no, that was not meant as an attack on anyone. Ignorant does not mean stupid. It just means uninformed about something. For example, I am ignorant about how to rebuild the engine in my car. That doesn't mean that I am stupid and cannot learn and do it.
In fact, I don't think that at first, it is their fault. They figure they're doing the right thing. But they have the ability to know better now. And it is this approach that I'm talking about, not whether or not they ever change to believe what I do. I simply do not agree with the approach being used that says that the Bible says whatever they say it does and to disagree with them, is to disagree with God and if you disagree with them, then you're not a Christian. By saying that, they are making themselves the judge of the state of your eternal soul! And this, even after you have stated clearly that you are a born again believer in Christ! How can anyone expect to have a reasonable discussion with someone else when they start out that way???
Anyway, thank you for your post and I'm sure that we can have some interesting discussions.
http://forum.bible-discussion.com/showthread.php?20730-Preterism-True-or-False/page3 Pastor Dave, post #23
