This is not a debate forum on theology and I am not an expert on theology. Dr Geisler is known as a expert on theology and that is why his defense against preterism is quoted here. Besides, Steve Gregg is a professional debater. I am not. What I do is maintain a Bible Prophecy website that contains a blog on world trends and Bible prophecy. This defense by Dr. Norman was brought up because preterism is a growing argument in the Church due to book’s like Hank’s and others.

People can decide for themselves if Steve and Hank satisfactory rebutted Dr. Geisler’s arguments against Preterism. I for one think the arguments of Preterist Theology are built on faulty premises and I know most Christians agree with me. I have also argued against this theology long enough to know that you are not going to bring up new arguments that I have not already heard. I also know that you are not going to convince me to believe in this fringe heretical theology.

It is not that I don’t have interest in anyone Else’s thoughts. I have to limit the thoughts that people want to post on my blog or they just keep bringing up the same tired theological arguments over and over again. I cannot allow all the Theological arguments on every theological subject on all the topics that I post on, to be posted in the comments section of this Blog. I do not have the time, staff, or resources to make this blog a debate forum on every theology that people want to bring up. Now, if you or your friends want to give me a million dollars or so to support the costs of a theology debate forum I might consider starting such a forum where people can endlessly regurgitate theological arguments. Until then I suggest that you do it.

There is not going to be a long discussion on my article that was written against Amillennial Theology. This Blog topic is about Dr. Norman Geisler response to Preterism. This is not a debate forum, it is a topical blog on world and church trends and Bible prophecy where people can make on topic comments to what I post.

I was doubting that I should even post such an off topic post as yours but since your prior comments led to my article on Amillennial Theology I allowed it. I will make only some brief comments on what you just said.

Perterists would say that most of the prophecy were fulfilled by 70 AD but my article against amillennial theology is talking about Amillennial Theology not Preterist Theology.

Amillennial’s do look to the scriptures for some symbolic or allegorical or spiritual interpretation as you said, but that is because their “God is done with physical Israel theology” does not allow them to take the words of the prophets literally. However, the detail of the events given by the prophets alone should make anyone understand that most of what the prophets said can only make sense if it is taken as literal future events on the earth. When the Bible uses figurative speech one should assume that this will be made clear to the reader just like when people use figurative speech today. Otherwise the author would never get the true meaning of his message across to the reader.

To say premillennial futurists get their interpretation of Revelation from newspapers and current events is just plain absurd.

We know that a thousand years is a thousand years because God says it five times in just one chapter. Why would God say a thousand years five times if he meant some undisclosed period of time? God does not have a communication problem but some have a understanding problem. Also, God tells us who the Dragon is in the very same passage of Revelation and also elsewhere in the Bible but nowhere in the Bible does God describe a thousand years as an undisclosed period of time.

You say Revelation chapter twenty says nothing about the land of Israel but why should it? Revelation twenty does not talk about a whole lot of things. It does say that people will rule and reign with Christ for a thousand years and from other passages in the Bible we find out where Jesus will be ruling from, so just put two and two together. Just read Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48 and explain to yourself how this prophecy could have happened in the past or could be talking about the Holy City in heaven. It cannot. So obviously from this passage and many others like it, we know that their is a literal kingdom reign on earth from Israel and Jerusalem.

Actually, it is you that miss the whole point in Romans chapter 9 through 11. Paul was not saying that true Israel is the remnant plus the Gentiles like you said. When Paul said that not all Israel are of Israel he was talking about his own people that were descended from Jacob. Not all Israel ever believed God and were saved just like not all that identify with the Church today believe God and will be saved. There were tares among the wheat in Israel as there is in the Church today. This one statement make it all quite clear.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

An argument can be made that Israel and the Church are of Abraham and therefore have the same eternal heavenly promises and eternal destiny but you have to rip out the literal reading of almost twenty percent of the Bible to make the Church a continuation of Israel and a fulfillment of the earthly promises to the nation of Israel the descendants of Jacob. Gentiles can be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel by marriage to the King but a commonwealth just means that we will have the same King not that we have become Israel or the continuation of Israel.

Since this whole thing is really off topic for this post. I really doubt if anything further will be posted here on amillennial versus premillennial theology.

The opening statement you have made to help describe the A-mil position does not fit my position so I will do my best to make it known how I understand the passages we will be discussing. You stated that A-mills teach all unfulfilled prophecy must be spiritualized or allegorized to pertain to the church. I would say that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled, if I see it this way after seeing the meaning spiritually that is fine as long as I have good reason to do so, one such reason would be if the NT interprets it this way. As far as allegorization goes I do not think I use it often in my hermeneutics though Paul uses it and so there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself only if it is used to explain away passages or fit into some system would I see a problem with it. For example your interpretation of the feasts is allegorical and I think it is an interesting idea for sure but doubt you can use scripture to prove it.
I will not make any rebuttal about the early church fathers as they are not the final word and they do not seem capable of settling disputes. For example all of the fathers believed in free-will but I have yet to meet a Calvinists who changed their position based on that information.

The claim that Amillennialism teaches that most things should be allegorized is misleading and not true. Amillennialists would just try to understand each passage in the way the writer intended and look to scripture to interpret it. For example most of the book of Revelation is a rehashing of OT symbols; A-mills would look back to those symbols to try to find the true meaning rather than newspapers and current events.

“This view teaches that after Jesus’ second coming He will literally rule on the earth for a thousand-years”
If you are going to take thousand literally then to keep the same hermeneutic you would need to take the chain, the dragon, the bottomless pit on earth, and the key all literally as well. Rev 20 makes no statement about the land of Israel, Jerusalem or the throne of David, which your camp seems to insert into the chapter.

Someday the descendants of Israel will acknowledge their offense and receive their King and the new covenant promises. At that time all scripture promised to the natural descendants of Israel will be literally fulfilled.
This is not taught in Romans 9-11. It says nothing about natural Israel being dealt with later. You miss the whole point of his argument mainly that Gods promises had not failed because not all are Israel who are called Israel. Paul is clearly teaching that true Israel is the remnant plus the gentiles. Amillinalist do not teach a “replacement theology” but as Paul is teaching here the church/body is a fulfillment and continuation of Israel, we being grafted in to the one olive tree are now children of the promise. Rom 11:26 states And so all Israel will be saved. Meaning and so or in this way. What way? The way he just described in the last 3 chapters by the remnant being joined with the gentiles. This is and always has been Gods plan.

Seems to me that you disagree with many about many things but that in itself does not make your theology acceptable to anyone else.

I think your position is heretical and like I told Mike I think the early church would believe that as well so I am in good company. I think you are heretical if you twist the words of the prophets to mean something they did not say and deny that God talked about a physical restoration of Israel.

The fact that the early Church was Jewish does not mean there is no future promise to natural Israel, on the contrary, it shows that all of the promises are to true Israel. Even the grafting in of the Gentiles into the commonwealth of Israel. The grafted in branches do not replace God’s purpose for the tree.

You say you want scriptures on future land promises?
From my article on ammillenial theology is in error.

Issiah 35:1-2 Zech 14:4 14:8-11 have never taken place. Unless God is to go back on His word, or unless He reinterprets the meaning of this (which amounts to the same thing) in the New Testament, this must be fulfilled.

Some amillennial theology says all this is not to be taken as literal. The claim is that because of Israel’s hardness of heart, the Church has replaced Israel, and the land promised by the Abrahamic Covenant is a reference to heaven. They support this by referring to Heb. 11:16 where it is said that Abraham looked for a heavenly city. However, this heavenly city cannot be equated with the land promise for that would mean that heaven had been occupied at one time by those pagan tribes, which is absurd. Also, the specific boundary descriptions imply an earthly real estate. This means that since this promise has not been fulfilled, its fulfillment is yet future, and a return of national, ethnic, regenerated Israel, to the land, must be anticipated.”

No one denies that there were conditions put on Israel. That is why they have been out of the land a couple of times but that does not nullify all the passages that says that God will bring them back and the passages that talk about a restoration on earth.

As for the land promises 2 Cor 1:20 For ALL the promises of God find their Yes in him.

DEUT 30:16-17 “BUT IF your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them,
“I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall NOT LIVE LONG in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess.
The promises were conditional to Israel.
Another point would be that the vast majority of the first Jewish believers in Jesus Christ were the true remnant and they formed the church of which we are a continuation of. ( what is heretical about that)
If those are not satisfactory for you please show me why and some passages that come to your mind that lead you to believe there are future land promises in the end times as I would love to see your point of view.
In Christ mike