kingdomready.org

Interview with an Atheist

January 30th, 2008 by Sean

Below is a 4 minute video clip that has a shocking twist at the end. Other than the obvious, erroneous heaven and hell language I thought this short clip was powerful.

thoughts anyone?

44 Responses to “Interview with an Atheist”

on 30 Jan 2008 at 11:42 am1 John Paul

I have come across many people that would throw out everything he said because of the last 15 sec or so of that video. yet if it were edited out, there would be no case.
on 30 Jan 2008 at 12:10 pm2 Wolfgang

Hi Sean, and all

well … here we are told the atheist’s picture of what he thinks Christians should be and/or do … it seems like the gentlemen is happy because he certainly doesn’t want to be all those “negative” things ….

By the way, there is not only a heaven - hell language that is sort of erroneous … it reminds of the fellow who argues that marriage and/or solid relationships with a single spouse are just terrible “because - -after all — why would one give up the wonderful freedom to have multiple sex partners and swing it joyfully?” …

In short, this provides an example of how someone basically ignorant of a matter is displaying how much he/she really does not know concerning the matter about which he is talking

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 30 Jan 2008 at 1:37 pm3 Sean

I hear what you two are saying, but I would like to side step the obvious inaccuracies and erroneous understandings this atheist has and focus instead on the clarity with which he reasons. If we were to write it out it might go something like this:

1. everyone is on death row
2. Christians believe they have the message that if believed results in pardon
3. non-Christians think that Christians are silly because they don’t believe either they don’t believe in the Pardoner or they don’t believe that the pardon is valid
4. Christians should not be intimidated, embarrassed, or afraid of what non-Christians think
5. Christians should look at speaking the gospel as a great privilege and responsibility
on 30 Jan 2008 at 2:46 pm4 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

I am not so sure that these points are accurately reflecting the atheist’s position … context is important. From listening to his comments, it seems to me that he mentions the various points in an almost sarcastic and hypothetical manner by an atheist, and one should not hear them as if they were spoken by a non-atheist rather than being.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 30 Jan 2008 at 3:16 pm5 Frank D

The video brings up the questions “Are Christians actually preaching the gospel?” Are they out there saving people from ‘hell’? As Sean said, without dissecting this argument, the crux of the question is valid. Jesus commissioned the disciples (and by corporate thought, the Body of Christ):

Mark 16:15-16
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now, how can we prove that the true gospel is being preached? This is the question I have struggled with lately. I really want to understand the gospel message to make sure what I am preaching is the same message Jesus commanded me to preach. I believe Jesus’ gospel was the “Kingdom of God”:

Mark 1:14
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Luke 8:1
And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

I am trying to understand as much as I can on the “Kingdom of God” so when it is preached the results Jesus promises can bring glory to God Almighty:

Mark 16:17-18
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luke 9:1-2
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Luke 10 1, 9
After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. 9And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but if the true gospel is preached then the miracles should be evident. If the miracles are evident then people like this young man would see God’s love and power in action. Then there would be no doubt, no arguing, and no excuses. That is what and how Jesus preached and commands us to preach. The evidence of the gospel message should be obvious and then people can decide if Jesus was the Messiah, repent and gain life in the age to come.
on 30 Jan 2008 at 5:44 pm6 Ron S.

I think the video is interesting and highlights a lot of things I’ve experienced among atheists. (Now I’ll preface all this by saying that atheists are just like theists in that they all have their own varying opinions on various subjects and one should never generalize all of them as being exactly the same.) That said I have noticed some similarites among many atheists I’ve encountered.

1. Most appear to be very intelligent if not well educated - often in various philosophies and science.
2. Many are more knowledgeable about the tenets of various theistic faiths than acutal individual members of those faiths.
3. Many if not most seem to have come out of a theistic faith system that could not adequately answer their logical questions and doubts about that faith.
4. Most project an attitude of anger, indignation, and superiority towards theists.

I’ve been thinking about these four observations and atheists in general here recently and can’t help but believe that these four are interconnected for a variety of reasons.

First I believe that #4 stems from being disappointed about #3 and their wanting to believe in God. I think all human beings have an innate feeling at their core that there is a God in the universe. I’ve often thought that perhaps somewhere there in the “code” of our DNA there is a copyright statement in there that says “Made by God”.

Again I would say that not all atheists look for God, some just don’t want anyone or anything out there to be greater than them or “tell them what to do or how to be”. But I think that a great number would really like to know that there is a God - hence #2 and #1. They search and search. But because of the brainwashing that goes on in the school systems and society in general today that “evolution” is a FACT and that it can’t be disputed, we have generations now that have bought it hook, line and sinker and feel that anyone who believes otherwise is either insane or a fool.

Which brings me to say that there is a need for us to fight through #4 with patience and understanding and try and correct #3 by answering those questions. Illogical absurdities like The Trinity and the slanderous lie of a torturous Hell have driven more people to become atheists than anything. And we must be able to know Scripture in order to counteract #2 and openly discuss how more and more scientific discoveries are pointing all the more towards God instead of away from Him in order to combat #1.

But the kid in the video is right, we shouldn’t be afraid to stand up for what we believe and we should be able to proclaim it to anyone when the opportunity arises. Remember 2 Timothy 4:2 that says “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” Of course the catch there is to “be ready”. In order to be ready, we have to viligantly study and prepare. And that honestly is my fear. Of not being able to be as ready in my knowledge in order to offer a proper defense.

Thoughts?
on 30 Jan 2008 at 6:34 pm7 JohnO

Ron,

I definitely agree that everyone wants to make sense of the world. It is definitely why they search. Even Nietzsche needed to believe in the ubermensch (loosely, super-man). All the philosophers after him accused him of merely substituting this ubermensch for God. We could say the same about radical/social Darwinists. They’ve exchanged their own ideals in the place of God, modern-day idolatry.
on 31 Jan 2008 at 1:14 am8 Wolfgang

Frank D.,

you mention and apply scriptures to all Christians which were specific to the apostles and certain disciples Jesus had chosen … At the time Jesus commissioned the apostles, his commission did not apply to all of his disciples, not all were called to go and preach and work miracles, etc

Paul in one of his epistles speaks of such signs and wonders as what marked out true apostles …. are all Chrisitans apostles?

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 31 Jan 2008 at 1:24 am9 Wolfgang

Hi Ron S.,

seems to me that the young gentlemen in the movie knows certain things about Christianity as in the No 2 of the 4 points you mentioned ….
I would caution and say that what he knows is not necessarily true, and he then applies it as excuse for what he would not really want to do.

Thus, I would not say that he is right in what he says … it’s a typical “make Christians feel bad” since they most likely are not doing what he says they supposedly should or would be doing ….

Some of the points he ascribes to Christians are erroneous …. and some others are taken by many Christians as if they were true, but are in actuality a misapplication of certainscriptures pertaining to specific folks in the body of Christ and not to al … you mention 2Tim 4 … to whom were these things said? to whom did they apply? Once this is understood correctly, one can begin to evaluate in what manner they might apply to others in other situations … but I don’t think one should just take those words as if they had been written yesterday as a command to all of us here or to all Christians in general, do you? Even then, Paul wrote those words to one individual, and made no indication that they were meant for everybody else in Timothy’s company …

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 31 Jan 2008 at 7:33 am10 Sean

Wolfgang,

Are you saying that you, since you are not one of the original 12 disciples, never need to share the gospel?

What about other sayings that were spoken to them, like forgive 70×7?

just curious what exactly you are advocating here
on 31 Jan 2008 at 9:06 am11 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

no, I am not saying that I never need to share the gospel …

BUT I do say that I am not one of the original apostles and that I am not given commissions which they were given … and therefore I do not feel bad in the least for not doing what I read in those commissions since what they were commanded to do did not apply to others then and does not apply to me now

Concerning any saying to anyone we can read in the Scriptures, we need to realize that NONE were written “just yesterday and directly to us” … and then we need to recognize and determine if and how they apply to all either then or now

I am advocating that it is important to correctly read and understand what the Scriptures actually say … so as to not be trapped by such talk as is seen done by this young atheist gentleman (or others, even Christians, who may perhaps command believers or demand of believers that they do things which don’t apply in the first place )

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 31 Jan 2008 at 9:13 am12 Sean

Wolfgang,

So would you say that you do have a responsibility to share the gospel with non-Christians?
on 31 Jan 2008 at 10:37 am13 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

as I meet people and as our paths cross and conversations arise … or as I encounter people for such specific purpose if and when God instructs to do so.

I see no command to me to “go ye into all the world and make disciples of all nations” … if there were, I should not be living at my home town but be on the move somewhere on this globe …

I see more of a responsibility of sharing the word of Christ with other believers in light of the instruction I can read to members of the church at Colossae …cp. Vol 3:16 (”teaching and admonishing one another” )

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 31 Jan 2008 at 10:58 am14 JohnO

Sounds like dispensationalism to me. Where we only listen to the pastoral epistles because that was the only thing written to me. We need to stop treating the Bible like a law book. It is a narrative, a story, and like the early Christians we can find meaning and direction in all places along the story. That is exactly what the book of Hebrews is. It finds current meaning for believers in Christ based on the history and Scripture of old.
on 31 Jan 2008 at 11:59 am15 Sean

Wolfgang,

I am encouraged by your response. Would you agree with the following logic?

.:. in the end everyone will stand before God’s tribunal for judgment
.:. the gospel message is powerful in that those who accept it and repent accordingly are forgiven of their sins which effectively translates into a pardon on judgment day so long as they persevere
.:. if I care about someone who has a terminal illness (sin) I will wish for them to have a cure (the gospel)
.:. if I have the cure (the gospel) I will want to give it to them out of compassion and love
.:. if I withhold the gospel because of my own fear of rejection, discomfort, etc. then I am not loving this person (please note, I understand we can still be nice to non-christians without giving them the gospel, but how nice is it really when we knowingly withhold the cure for their disease?)

in other words, even if we say that we do not accept the words of Jesus in the Great Commission as applicable to us, it still follows logically that we would want to speak the gospel to all people.

what do you think?
on 31 Jan 2008 at 1:25 pm16 Wolfgang

Hi John O.,

could it be that you see “dispensationalism” in almost everything you don’t like? “… we only listen to the pastoral epistles because that was the only thing written to me …” ???
Your comment is sort of confusing …

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 31 Jan 2008 at 2:13 pm17 JohnO

“we only listen to the pastoral epistles because that was the only thing written to me” - is a caricature of your stance that Jesus’ words to the twelve are not applicable to anyone else but the twelve. This is the logical starting point from which dispensationalism flows. Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel - not the Church. Therefore Jesus creates the church, but has nothing to say to the Church. This could be nothing further from the truth.

You keep making the same comments and questions over and over. But you never produce any evidence beyond your opinion. And you keep, at least in my case, accusing me of bias and youthful errors. But, I re-iterate, I’ve not seen any evidence, just comments and half-jokes.
on 31 Jan 2008 at 4:06 pm18 Frank D

According to 1 Peter 3:23, in order to be born again, there has to be a preaching of the word of God.

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

It goes on to say in verse 25 that the word that was preached was the gospel.

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

So, if there are people still being born again today, then it must still be the ministry of the believers to preach to gospel message.
on 31 Jan 2008 at 5:15 pm19 Sean

also the “ministry of reconciliation” passage from Corinthians comes to mind:

2 Corinthians 5:17-20
17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 1:24 am20 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,
you concluded above

in other words, even if we say that we do not accept the words of Jesus in the Great Commission as applicable to us, it still follows logically that we would want to speak the gospel to all people.
what do you think?

I do think so as well …
The problem is that I’ve quite often seen or heard preachers sort of “command” folks in the church with the “great commandment” as if they were Jesus and the assembed believers were the apostles … And, I’ve known people who have become very frustrated and who have condemned themselves for not doing what they thought (due to their understanding of “the Word says so”) all believers were to do … when in truth, they could have joyfully been sharing their faith with others IF they had been taught correctly

Cheers
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 1:34 am21 Wolfgang

Hi Frank D.,

So, if there are people still being born again today, then it must still be the ministry of the believers to preach to gospel message.

nobody said that there should not be any preaching or sharing of the good news of God’s Word today.
I would recommend, however, to not wrongly interpret and then wrongly apply what we can read as instruction for us in the Scriptures.

I’ve seen how wrong interpretation and application can result in folks “acting” all kinds of things they think they are supposed to be doing, when much of such “game playing” would be avoided if the instruction were correct.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 1:44 am22 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

you mention 2Co 5,17-20 above and emphasize by underlining Paul’s statement “we are ambassadors for Christ” ….

If you note the pronouns used in this passage and throughout the epistle, you should be able to recognize that the “we” are Paul and other apostles, whereas the believers of the church are the “ye”. Were all believers then “ambassadors for Christ”? No. Not all believers in the church at that time were “ambassadors [envoys with a particular mission] for Christ”, why would now all believers in the church be ambassadors?

Again, please don’t wrongly conclude that I advocate that believers should not or need not share their faith and the good news converning Christ …. obviously, I do believe that believers should share their faith (else, why would I have a website advocating the Bible message, seeing that I am not an apostle ?)

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 9:13 am23 JohnO

Wolfgang,

“We”, “Us”, and “You”, need more careful attention than what you’ve just suggested. Again, the context determines who is being spoken about. And you can’t presuppose a position and then read that audience into the text. Sometimes the “We”/”You” dialouge is Jew/Gentile dialouge.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 9:27 am24 Sean

If I say “we” in talking to you, I mean me and you. So if Paul says “we are ambassadors for Christ,” i.e. we represent Christ, are sent by him to preach the same message, etc. then Paul is probably talking about himself and the Corinthians reading the letter.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 10:34 am25 Wolfgang

Hi John O.,

yes .. the context … exactly. Now, I thought that I had made reference to the context and mentioned that the context was providing the correct understanding of “we” and “you”

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 10:42 am26 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

please read the context … Paul distinguishes throughout the passage between him and his fellow apostles (”we”) and the Corinthian believers (”you, ye”).

Sure, if it is you talking to me, and you or I would use “we”, we would be referring to the two of us …. BUT, if you and others in a certain group, certain location, etc are writing to me and folks at my end of the world, you would be speaking of “we” as your group and of “you, ye” as my group, etc. Throughout Corinthians, you will find the latter situation …

Considering the context, it is obvious that the Corinthians were NOT the ambassadors with a ministry who would have then preached to themselves and reconciled themselves, had they?

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 10:44 am27 JohnO

Wolfgang,

We all understand that you are asserting this:

“Paul distinguishes throughout the passage between him and his fellow apostles (”we”) and the Corinthian believers (”you, ye”).”

But, asserting something is far from proving it.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 12:49 pm28 Wolfgang

Hi John O.,

hmn … who are the “we” who all understand that “you” (I) are/am asserting this …?? You just gave a good illustration for how context determines the meaning of “we” …

In addition, may I call your attention to a part of the context in 2Co 5 …. I do think it is rather plain and clear who Paul has in mind with the “we” and the “you”

2Co 5:11-13 (KJV)
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

Were the Corinthians part of the “we” or were they the “you”?

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 01 Feb 2008 at 1:08 pm29 Frank D

Wolfgang, Thank you for your patience here. I would like to fully understand what you see as our “instructions” in sharing the gospel message.

I think you are saying that we (all Christians today) are not commanded to execute the ‘great commission’ because we are not Jesus’ original apostles (the 12 , Paul, and the 70). Great signs and miracles were the evidence of the original apostles:

2COR12: 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Therefore, sharing the gospel message (the Kingdom of God) is compulsory not mandatory. By it being compulsory, there is no condemnation if believers today don’t experience ‘bringing people to Christ’ or experiencing the miracles God accomplished through the apostles. I admit the premise of my original post needs further study.

But we must be sent, we must go out and preach the gospel. God would still have all men to be saved and come unto a knowledge of the truth.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Now, getting back to the issue the atheist brings up and I believe is very evident to us here. The ‘churchs’ today (term used loosely) are not all preaching the same ‘gospel of peace’. I believe that is why people, like this young man, don’t want anything to do with Christianity. If the ‘churches’ can’t get the story straight, who should believe it.
on 01 Feb 2008 at 4:42 pm30 Sean

I don’t think Wolfgang is advocating that we should not speak the gospel. He is just pointing out that certain verses that are used to show that this is our mission are taken out of context. I definitely see his point on 1 Cor. 5 but I’m not convinced on the great commission texts. Either way, we all agree to the following facts.

#1 people are dying without hearing the gospel
#2 the gospel if believed and applied to one’s life results in salvation
#3 we know the gospel
———————————————————-
conclusion: if we care about people we will speak, out of compassion not just duty
on 01 Feb 2008 at 4:59 pm31 Sean

What do you all think about this video
on 01 Feb 2008 at 5:26 pm32 Karen

Great music. I presume, given the little snippet of conversation at the end, that there’s more to this?
on 02 Feb 2008 at 3:02 am33 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

as for the video … it mentions some weighty verses concerning what was prophesied would happen to Israel and what in fact did happen almost 2000 years ago

Again, a few questions to ask in order to arrive at a proper understanding: To whom and about whom did Isaiah prophesy? should one understand what he said in light of to whom and about whom he spoke? or can one now go about and say he spoke concerning the church and the end of the church age? to what tree was the axe already laid at the time of John the baptist and Jesus? who were thos who rejected God and stirred the fierce anger of the Lord to bring utterly sever judgement on them?

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 02 Feb 2008 at 3:21 am34 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

you are correct in that I certainly do NOT advocate that we should not speak the gospel and share our faith with others …

You are also correct in that I do advocate to pay more close attention to what the Scriptures actually say and mean and then to be more careful in what and how we apply those truths to us today.

Furthermore, I do believe that wrong practice or lack of practice of what does apply to us today is due to lack of a correct understanding of the Biblical truths which in turn is often due to lack of accurate teaching.

The influence of creeds and churchianity over centuries, as well as the often confusing influence of more modern “millenial/ dispensational/ charismatic/ pentecostal/ etc.” movements is at times rather difficult to see through …

Much of the “church world” has been doctrinally permeated by certain famous theological schools, such as the ones found in Chicago or Dallas and some other places … and hardly anyone dares to question what those seminary graduates take into the churches.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 02 Feb 2008 at 3:08 pm35 JohnO

As a side-note, last time I checked Moody and Dallas Theological might be “popular” on a common level, but they are by no means considered “good” by nearly any other theological school.
on 02 Feb 2008 at 11:08 pm36 Sean

Yet, Wolfgang was saying that the “church world” was permeated by them. In this he is correct. The disconnect between churches and scholarship is several centuries old now. Most theologians are much more concerned about writing for other scholars. They could care less what the “church world” believes. Of course there are exceptions. (On the liberal side we have Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, et al. and on the conservative side we have NT Wright, and the Emergent people.) Nonetheless, even now most churches are either heavily influenced by Calvinism or Dispensationalism in their approach to the big theological questions (then of course their are the Catholics).

Even so, we are the people who have already found out that our champion philosophy (dispensationalism) was in error and have changed our beliefs. This has given many of us a new found freedom to take the Berean exercise seriously (Acts 17.11). We have shed the dogmas of post biblical church councils in favor of a more primitive (untainted) form of Christianity. We are on a pursuit for truth and we can seriously ask questions about evangelism, preterism, and what not and not just dismiss them out of hand.

I do believe that evangelism is a big concern though, because it is rarely taken seriously, yet the New Testament gives us the image of an early church which saw it’s purpose to get the gospel out to the whole word.
on 03 Feb 2008 at 2:20 pm37 Ian

Wolfgang,

Jesus says that, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened… then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.”

Paul says as well that, “The lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction.”

Both of these quotations were taking directly from the video Sean posted located here.

You then posted a comment concerning the video stating that, “as for the video … it mentions some weighty verses concerning what was prophesied would happen to Israel and what in fact did happen almost 2000 years ago”

Please excuse my bolding of the last part, but that’s what I would like to focus on.

You lead me to understand that you believe that the prophesies contained in the Bible are not ones that are today left unfulfilled. And if I do understand you correctly, I am quite curious as to how you came to that conclusion. To my knowlege, unless I am missing some vital parts of world history, a man has not appeared in the clouds with a host of angels accompanied by flaming fire at any time “almost 2000 years ago”.

How do you understand these prophecies to have already been fulfilled, without the events within them to have taken place?

Ian
on 04 Feb 2008 at 9:56 am38 Wolfgang

Dear Ian,

I have come to understand those particular matters as having already been fulfilled by closely observing to whom things were said, what time related factors were attached to those prophecies, and by recognizing the apocalyptic and figurative nature of the language used to describe what was to happen.

I have published a few articles of things I’ve been learning over the last few years at my website at http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/studies.php#cat09 (the titles are listed under the category of “Eschatology”

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 06 Feb 2008 at 8:35 pm39 Ron S.

Wolfgang,

After reading some of the Eschatology articles on your website I initially thought that you appeared to be a “Preterist”. Then my initial opinion was confirmed when I read the last note on your first “personal introduction” link there in the Eschatology category.

So what school of Preterism do you subscribe to? Full or Partial?

And what do you believe about the Resurrection of the Dead? Isn’t that suppose to occur when Jesus returns? If Jesus returned in AD 70, where did all those raised to immortality go? I’m confused as to how you would view that.

Thanks.
on 07 Feb 2008 at 1:39 am40 Wolfgang

Dear Ron S.,

I do not subscribe to any “school of preterism” … seeing that I am not even familiar with their various schools and what exactly they do believe concerning some matters or where and how they differ (when I briefly looked at some of the websites on Preterism, I did notice that there seem to be quite some differences) I do mention that some of what is found in Preterism theology may be similar to or the same as I have written in my findings … but did not intend to declare that I am of a particular “school of preterism”.

As for the resurrection of the dead, I believe that the resurrection of the dead is connected / linked with the coming of the Lord. I also do believe that some of the ideas about the resurrection (or two or three resurrections, etc) proposed nowadays by popular Christian theology are incorrect and are the result of incorrect understandings of dispensational and other concepts that are said to have an “earthly” nature

I used to hold to a concept of great tribulation prior (pre-) to the return of Christ to earth and an earthly political millenial reign of Christ together with all believers, etc …. until I noticed that such ideas really flat out contradicted Jesus’ own teaching concerning the timing of his coming and kingdom, etc …. and then I decided to re-evaluate my then current beliefs which has led me to think that my previous beliefs were incorrect.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
on 08 Feb 2008 at 12:46 am41 Ron S.

Wolfgang,

I wasn’t using the word “school” in any real literal sense. I was just asking if you were more of what is known as a “full” or “partial” preterist in your eschatology. If those terms are unfamiliar to you, please check out this Wikipedia link on preterism that explains each one in a bit more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Though it seems to me that from your comment that the Resurrection of the Dead is still to come in the future, that would make your views more on the “partial” side of Preterism.

I did want to ask what you meant by: “I also do believe that some of the ideas about the resurrection (or two or three resurrections, etc) proposed nowadays by popular Christian theology are incorrect and are the result of incorrect understandings of dispensational and other concepts that are said to have an “earthly” nature”? Can you explain what you mean here in a little more detail?

Thanks!
on 08 Feb 2008 at 12:04 pm42 Wolfgang

Hi Ron S.,

to clarify …. I was writing that the resurrection of the dead is linked to the coming of the Lord. I did not write that such as still to come in the future. I do think that the coming of the Lord, the coming of the Son of man (as Jesus referred to it various times) did happen in the events of the last days and last day of that age, when Israel as a nation and Jerusalem with the OT system of temple worship came to its end in the prophesied judgment.

My point is this:
The idea propagated in many Christian circles about the dead being now alive and living in heaven is wrong because they regard the dead to be somehow alive before the resurrection has happened (which they regard to be still in the future). I do believe that the resurrection of the dead is now a reality and has been ever since the coming of the Lord at the end of that age … at that time all believers who had died prior were resurrected to life eternal, all other dead to judgment. and those believers who were alive at that time and those who have lived since do not go to hades anymore when their physical life on earth comes to its end, but they are changed in the twinkling of an eye and are received up in glory to live evermore in God’s presence.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
on 08 Feb 2008 at 1:58 pm43 Sean

I believe that would make you a full preterist.
on 08 Feb 2008 at 3:37 pm44 Wolfgang

Hi Sean,

a “full preterist” ….

I suppose, I should read up on this a bit … so at least I know what the different views are.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

promoting the gospel of the kingdom and the creed of Jesus

Interview with an Atheist

44 Responses to “Interview with an Atheist”

Leave a Reply

Resources

Pages

Tags