<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Preterism and Reformed Theology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/</link>
	<description>Helping to correct some of the common misunderstandings of a fulfilled view of Bible prophecy known as preterism.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:06:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael J Loomis</title>
		<link>http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael J Loomis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullpreterism.com/?p=235#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Unsavory associations...I like that. 8) Funny thing is they are so close that they can&#039;t even see that reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unsavory associations&#8230;I like that. <img src='http://fullpreterism.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif' alt='8)' class='wp-smiley' /> Funny thing is they are so close that they can&#8217;t even see that reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullpreterism.com/?p=235#comment-24</guid>
		<description>Good point Michael. Look what&#039;s happened on the futurist&#039;s watch, especially over the past 150 years. It&#039;s sheer folly to point out the spec in the preterist&#039;s eye while the major cults were conceived through a futurist paradigm. It they want to play the guilt by association game, it shouldn&#039;t escape anyone&#039;s notice that they have some rather unsavory associations...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point Michael. Look what&#8217;s happened on the futurist&#8217;s watch, especially over the past 150 years. It&#8217;s sheer folly to point out the spec in the preterist&#8217;s eye while the major cults were conceived through a futurist paradigm. It they want to play the guilt by association game, it shouldn&#8217;t escape anyone&#8217;s notice that they have some rather unsavory associations&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J Loomis</title>
		<link>http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael J Loomis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:59:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullpreterism.com/?p=235#comment-23</guid>
		<description>Amen to that Chuck. I actually forced myself yesterday to listen to a &lt;a href=&quot;http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2009/09/25/the-different-gospel-of-full-preterism/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;podcast&lt;/a&gt; from Phil Naessens.

He kept harping on why if we believed what we do that we aren&#039;t out proselytizing like Mormons and JW&#039;s. 

Well Phil...If you&#039;re reading this. It is because we are not presenting something new as the two afore mentioned cults did. We are simply doing the work of Priscilla and Aquila. Correcting the error that has made itself manifest. 

I always thought it kind of odd that no one in the futurist camp consider it strange that the two afore mentioned cults are both futurist oriented.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen to that Chuck. I actually forced myself yesterday to listen to a <a href="http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2009/09/25/the-different-gospel-of-full-preterism/" rel="nofollow">podcast</a> from Phil Naessens.</p>
<p>He kept harping on why if we believed what we do that we aren&#8217;t out proselytizing like Mormons and JW&#8217;s. </p>
<p>Well Phil&#8230;If you&#8217;re reading this. It is because we are not presenting something new as the two afore mentioned cults did. We are simply doing the work of Priscilla and Aquila. Correcting the error that has made itself manifest. </p>
<p>I always thought it kind of odd that no one in the futurist camp consider it strange that the two afore mentioned cults are both futurist oriented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck</title>
		<link>http://fullpreterism.com/davidgreen/preterism-and-reformed-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullpreterism.com/?p=235#comment-22</guid>
		<description>Excellent Dave! Never noticed the &quot;mello&quot; in Rom 4:24.  

You wrote: &quot;Therefore preterism is what makes Reformed theology, at its heart, consistently Scriptural.&quot;

Hear, hear!  This is what makes the charges of Talbot &amp; Gentry so egregious and unwittingly false. Instead of preterism proclaiming &quot;another Gospel&quot; as has been the constant Scripturally unsupported charge, it is the perfect complement to reformed theology. In my view, had Calvin come to preterist conclusions, it would have significantly bolstered his arguments. 

Rom 8:18: &quot;For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;&quot;

How can we as a body of Christ continue to miss the fact that the glory was &quot;about to be&quot; revealed? 

Rom 8:22: &quot;for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.&quot;

Are we still groaning in this laborious pain?  Is the ktisis still languishing in the pain of expectation with no end in sight...a millennium that may persist another 38,000 years?

Rom 8:38-39: &quot;for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor messengers, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,  39nor things about to be, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, that is in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot;

NOTHING can separate us from the Love of Christ.  Not reformed futurists who attempt to anathematize us for recognizing the &quot;about to be&quot; first century consummation; nor church councils; nor creeds nor any other thing. 

Try as they may to strike fear into those who are yet to or already have considered the seriousness of their Berean call, they will not prevail. The truth of God&#039;s Word will always rule in the hearts of His people. The accusation of &quot;SOLO Scriptura&quot; was as telling as it was demeaning and degrading to the battle cry of the reformers.  &quot;Don&#039;t try this (understanding Scripture) at home.  You need US to mediate it for you.&quot;  Re-chain the Bible to the lectern! 

Dave, I have no problem with my futurist friends who don&#039;t yet see things the way I do. They&#039;re my brothers in Christ for goodness sakes. But for a small band of theological zealots to accuse me of changing all the terminology much like the Mormons or a JWs, well, I find that particularly offensive. 

My obligation?  Be vocal in opposition but charitable in spirit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent Dave! Never noticed the &#8220;mello&#8221; in Rom 4:24.  </p>
<p>You wrote: &#8220;Therefore preterism is what makes Reformed theology, at its heart, consistently Scriptural.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hear, hear!  This is what makes the charges of Talbot &amp; Gentry so egregious and unwittingly false. Instead of preterism proclaiming &#8220;another Gospel&#8221; as has been the constant Scripturally unsupported charge, it is the perfect complement to reformed theology. In my view, had Calvin come to preterist conclusions, it would have significantly bolstered his arguments. </p>
<p>Rom 8:18: &#8220;For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;&#8221;</p>
<p>How can we as a body of Christ continue to miss the fact that the glory was &#8220;about to be&#8221; revealed? </p>
<p>Rom 8:22: &#8220;for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.&#8221;</p>
<p>Are we still groaning in this laborious pain?  Is the ktisis still languishing in the pain of expectation with no end in sight&#8230;a millennium that may persist another 38,000 years?</p>
<p>Rom 8:38-39: &#8220;for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor messengers, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present,  39nor things about to be, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, that is in Christ Jesus our Lord&#8221;</p>
<p>NOTHING can separate us from the Love of Christ.  Not reformed futurists who attempt to anathematize us for recognizing the &#8220;about to be&#8221; first century consummation; nor church councils; nor creeds nor any other thing. </p>
<p>Try as they may to strike fear into those who are yet to or already have considered the seriousness of their Berean call, they will not prevail. The truth of God&#8217;s Word will always rule in the hearts of His people. The accusation of &#8220;SOLO Scriptura&#8221; was as telling as it was demeaning and degrading to the battle cry of the reformers.  &#8220;Don&#8217;t try this (understanding Scripture) at home.  You need US to mediate it for you.&#8221;  Re-chain the Bible to the lectern! </p>
<p>Dave, I have no problem with my futurist friends who don&#8217;t yet see things the way I do. They&#8217;re my brothers in Christ for goodness sakes. But for a small band of theological zealots to accuse me of changing all the terminology much like the Mormons or a JWs, well, I find that particularly offensive. </p>
<p>My obligation?  Be vocal in opposition but charitable in spirit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

